|
MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIALIZED EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
SAMARKAND STATE INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF TRANSLATION THEORY AND PRACTICE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSLATION THEORY AND PRACTICE
SUBJECT: NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE OF UZBEKISTAN
COURSE PAPER
THEME: CULTURAL HERITAGE OF UZBEKISTAN - THE FOUNDATION OF THE THIRD RENEISSANCE
Scientific supervisor: Yusupov A.
Head of the chair: Odilov B.
Perfomed by: Urunova U.S.
Group № 321
Samarkand-2022
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER I. ABOUT THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF UZBEKISTAN
1.1. Cultural heritage of Uzbekistan…………………………….…….6
1.2. Benefits of cultural heritage to the state and national economy……………………………………………………………………..12
CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER I………………………………...…16
CHAPTER II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF UZBEKISTAN
2.1. Uzbekistan's cultural heritage is the foundation of the Third Renaissance …………………………………………………………………17
2.2. Preservation of cultural heritage …………………………….....21
CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER II………………………………….24
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..25
REFERENCES……………………………………………………..26
INTRODUCTION
Cultural heritage includes places, objects, and practices that are old, important, and worth preserving by society. It is now gaining popular and scientific attention around the world, and its conceptual scope is expanding. Most social scientists emphasize its functions of supporting ethnic, national, and elite interests, while others point to its creative and counter-gegemonic aspects. The article discusses the relationship of heritage to tourism and nostalgia, dissonant / negative heritage, heritage and religion, rural and urban heritage, heritage institutions, in particular the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and its conventions. People’s personal attitudes to heritage deserve more in-depth study.
Cultural heritage institutions play an important role in preserving and providing access to cultural heritage materials, and digitizing these collections has become an essential task in fulfilling this function. Information professionals must engage the tools and practices of digitization in order to capture, preserve, and disseminate visual culture for posterity. This chapter analyzes the issues information professionals should be familiar with so they can form effective strategies to design, fund, and manage digitization projects. Decisions on in-house or outsourced digitization, costs, staffing, collaboration, benchmarking, quality assessment, and content management systems must be determined, based on what is most cost-effective and beneficial for the host institution. With this in mind, this chapter explores the fundamentals of a digitization project, focusing on practical considerations and presenting an overview of the managerial, technical, and financial issues associated with digitizing cultural heritage materials.
Cultural heritage is the legacy that we receive from the past, experience in the present, and transmit to future generations. Etymologically, the terms ‘heritage’ and ‘patrimony’, used in Romance languages, are linked to patrimonium. They foreground ‘inheritance from the fathers or ancestors’ and are a reference to monuments inherited from previous generations. The English language prefers the word ‘heritage’ to typify inherited monuments. The economic and legal definitions of the word refers to the concept of ‘cultural property’, which the Italians properly call beni culturali (literally, ‘cultural assets’). Cultural heritage and traditional lands are defining elements of Aboriginal ethos and worldview. As a result, the care of ancestral sites has figured prominently in both the origins of and goals of Indigenous archaeology. By the mid-1960s, the preservation of archaeological sites was increasingly a focus of attention of CRM and heritage legislation in North America and elsewhere (National Historic Preservation Act, US (1966); Australian Heritage Commission Act (1975)). Such legislation was aimed at broad public values, but did not specifically address the concerns or desires of the Indigenous minority whose ancestors created the vast majority of archaeological sites in formerly colonized countries, and who lacked the authority to make decisions about the preservation and management of their own heritage. While ‘consultation’ with members of descendant communities has now become a frequent, and sometimes required component of heritage management, it too often has remained only nominal with little true power sharing. In addition, many Aboriginal communities lack funds and personnel to devote to archaeologists' requests for information and externally imposed timelines. However, Indigenous organizations in southern Africa, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere increasingly require research, media, and travel permits for archaeological and ethnographic work conducted there.
Although federal and state or provincial legislation has protected the material heritage of Indigenous peoples, two aspects have been especially problematic. The first is the concept of ‘significance’ and its application in evaluating the value of heritage sites, as required by specific legislation. Within most archaeological projects, scientific values have been given primacy, although historical, religious, and community values are also considered, as in Botswana. Such a priority often runs counter to non-Western perspectives that do not require ‘significant’ places, ancestral sites, or entire landscapes to possess material evidence of what happened there (or even to have been culturally modified at all). However, concerns about oral history and intangible heritage have been addressed by policies or legislation in South Africa, Canada, and elsewhere, and, more generally, by UNESCO. The second issue concerns the notion of ‘stewardship’ and the role of archaeologists and their professional organizations as stewards of the archaeological record on behalf of (or in the interest of) descendant communities, especially those who may not be able (or willing) to care for it ‘properly’. Indigenous and non-Indigenous critics have charged that stewardship has generally been a unilateral, paternalistic process, with archaeologists assuming control over the process and imposing a different value system on the past.
Indigenous peoples have gradually achieved greater and more meaningful control over tangible and intangible cultural heritage through various avenues over the past 30 years, although there have been regular setbacks when legislation is changed or legal precedents overturned. New or broadened legislation has ensured greater direct Aboriginal involvement, such as the requirement for First Nations in British Columbia to review archaeological permit applications (Heritage Conservation Act (1996), Canada), and offered new levels of protection (e.g., Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act (1989), Australia, and UNESCO's Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003)). In the United States, a 1992 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act allowed tribes to establish their own Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, enabling direct involvement in heritage preservation on tribal lands. Successful negotiations for Aboriginal management or co-management of tribal lands and heritage sites also occurred with more frequency (such as Uluru and Kakadu National Parks in Australia), albeit with some federally imposed limits.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
