The Legacy of the Great Steppe in the politics of historical memory of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan

Research Article

Abstract

The steppe civilization has played a fundamental role in shaping the cultural and political space of Central Asia. The nomadic mode of life and its underlying worldview ‒ dynamism, cosmocentrism, commitment to spirituality, and heroism ‒ have formed durable identity models that continue to be actively employed within the historical memory politics of contemporary states in the region. This research examines how the legacy of the Great Steppe is reflected in the historical memory of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan ‒ countries linked by common origins yet pursuing different strategies of national heritage representation. In Kyrgyzstan, the central symbol of steppe identity is the Manas epic, functioning as a historical and cultural code that ensures generational continuity and constructs the image of a unifying national hero. Its interaction with figures such as Kurmanjan Datka, Ormon Khan, and other nineteenth-century leaders demonstrates the state’s deliberate policy of strengthening patriotism and legitimizing power through references to a heroic past. Uzbekistan’s historical memory combines nomadic roots with the legacy of powerful sedentary urban centers ‒ Bukhara and Samarkand. The Alpamysh epic and the figure of Amir Timur symbolize the synthesis of steppe mobility and urban might, reflecting the region’s capacity to influence the development of world science and culture. Uzbekistan actively institutionalizes this heritage through cultural diplomacy and international cooperation, reinforcing its role as a custodian of ancient civilizations. Turkmenistan, by contrast, relies on the mythologized figure of Oghuz Khan to advance an autochthonous narrative of origin, linking the modern state to ancient steppe tribes. The strict control of state ideology over historical interpretation results in selective memory practices focused on glorification and the exclusion of the colonial period. The comparative analysis shows that despite the shared steppe legacy, each country deploys its past differently ‒ from an open public dialogue (Kyrgyzstan) to a tightly ideologized and closed model (Turkmenistan). These strategies reflect broader political contexts, in which historical memory becomes a tool of state identity, external positioning, and internal legitimacy.