Interactive and Chronological Museum Practices: The Case of the Igor Savitsky State Museum of Arts of Karakalpakstan

Öz

In recent years, considerable global attention has been devoted to the development and implementation of innovative methods for exhibiting museum collections. A particularly prominent issue is the integration of advanced technologies and the use of interactive display techniques. At the same time, in the academic study of historical and ethnographic collections, comparative and chronological analysis plays a crucial role. This approach synthesizes available materials within a temporal framework, enabling researchers to trace the complex processes of urbanization among different peoples. The Igor Savitsky State Museum of Art in the Republic of Karakalpakstan exemplifies this methodology. Through its practical approaches, the author aims to highlight one of the key aspects of shaping modern museums—namely, the synthesis of archaeological and ethnographic artifacts within a cohesive curatorial narrative.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Museum
• archaeology
• ethnography
• exhibition
• synthesis of artifacts
• Turkic peoples.

Interactive and Chronological Museum Practices: The Case of the Igor Savitsky State Museum of Arts of Karakalpakstan

Öz

The article explores the developmentof the Karakalpak ethnocultural tradition as a complex, multi-layered process shaped by socio-economic transformations and long-term interaction with the cultural systems of the Eurasian steppe. Using a comparative analysis of archaeological and ethnographic sources, the study identifies stable symbolic structures that have persisted in Karakalpak material culture over centuries. Special attention is given to zoomorphic and cosmological motifs—particularly fish, horns, and the S-shaped sign—whose transformations reflect changes in lifestyle, economic practices, and artistic traditions. From the sixteenth century onward, the Karakalpaks gradually adopted a semi-sedentary lifestylethat combined livestock breeding, fishing, and agriculture. Within this context, fish symbolism maintained a distinct mythopoetic significance closely connected to the environmental conditions of the lower Syr Darya and Amu Darya deltas, where fishing played a central role in cultural identity. Comparative analysis of Karakalpak ornamental complexes alongside those of other ethnogenetic layers—such as Saka-Massagetae, Alano-Sarmatian, Oghuz, Ancient Nogai, and Ural-Yembi—reveals shared symbolic forms. However, Karakalpaks are distinguished by a strong concentration of aquatic motifs integrated into a coherent cosmological system. Artefacts, including metal mirrors, ceramics, and fishing tools, demonstrate the continuity of magical and protective symbolism, while horned and cross-shaped motifs acquire shamanic and ritual meanings. The S-shaped sign functions as a universal symbol linking ancient cosmological models with contemporary decorative traditions, highlighting the continuity of cultural memory and identity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karakalpakstan
• art museum
• archeology
• ethnography
• right-bank Khorezm

Kaynakça

1. Bogoslovskaya, I. (2019). Karakalpak Ornament: Image and Meaning. Almaty, 222 pp.,
2. Esbergenov, H.E. & Khoshniyazov, Zh. (1988). Ethnographic Motifs in Karakalpak Folklore. Tashkent, p. 97.
3. Fedorov-Davydov, G.A. (1966). New Saray Based on the 1963–1964 Excavations. Soviet Archaeology, No. 2, pp. 233–248.
4. Gul, E.F. (2005). Dialogue of Cultures in the Art of Uzbekistan (Antiquity and the Middle Ages). Tashkent, 208 pp.
5. Gul, E.F. (2016). Uzbekistan Carpets: History, Aesthetics, Semantics [Monograph]. Tashkent, p. 55.
6. Koi-Krylgan-Kala. (1967). A Monument of Ancient Khorezmian Culture from the 4th Century BCE to the 4th Century CE. Proceedings of the Khorezm Archaeological-Ethnographic Expedition, Vol. V. Moscow, 348 pp.
7. Margulan, A.H. (1986). Kazakh Folk Applied Arts, Vols. 1–3. Almaty.
8. Rempel, L.I. (1965). On the Study of Karakalpak Folk Art. In I.V. Savitsky, Karakalpak Folk Applied Arts: Wood Carving. Tashkent, pp. 15–16.

9. Sudavar, A. (2009). Lexicon and Syntax of Iconography in Sasanian Iran. Iranica Antiqua, 44, 417–460.
10. Tolstov, S.P. (1951). Ancient Khorezm. In In the Footsteps of Ancient Cultures. Moscow, 272 pp.
11. URL 1. (2025). https://karakalpakstan.travel/media-and-resources/media-and-resources-31/
12. Yagodin, V.N. (1968). On the Topography and Chronology of Ancient Mizdahkan. In History, Archaeology, and Ethnography of Central Asia. Moscow, p. 266.
13. Zhdanko, T.A. (1950). Essays on the Historical Geography of the Karakalpaks (Clan Structure in the 19th – Early 20th Century). Moscow–Leningrad, 179 pp.