The discourse of “borders” and decolonisation in the context of Central Asia has been a path unexplored until this moment, therefore a “startup” approach is logical. This “border” is a phenomenon that continuously shapes and transforms itself, therefore giving new light to the understanding of history and culture of Central Asia. This guiding principle influences the relationships that are built between close and distant neighbors on the planet. The other side opposite of this the notion is that of a modern state, that does not tolerate the lack of an identity; it requires one to cement a belonging to a certain geographical unit. The history of “modern and national” is articulated through the juxtaposition of “I” and “Other” (“outside of the border”).
Khorasanian thinkers believed that, the discovery of their origins and the "Other”, is not a single whole act, but rather a procedural, almost stage-by-stage like capacity to understand the world. Evidence suggests that in order to survive (or just grow), one must move from their initial sphere of life/sci- ence to the next. Such mobility was in uenced heavily by the tradition of constant crossing of boundaries and countries, formalizing commercial/scienti c exibility of the entire culture of the region.
The following article should not be dismissed as yet another attempt to construct a renewed round of revisionism in history. On the contrary, it aims to explore the possibility of scaling down the dominant Eurocentric epistemology that served as a basis for a stereotypical frame of knowledge about Central Asia. The majority of researchers of the region do not deem the need to review the scale of contradictory clashes created by the notion of Eurocentrism. The latter is re ected in numerous articles about the frozen (and sadly deadlock) dilemma on why and how were the lands of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Kazakhs divided.
Тhe residents of Samarkand and Bukhara, throughout history aimed to accumulate traditions of challenging the established (often elitist) limits of local culture, economics and history. The cities communities were under constant pressure of the dichotomy between the notions of nomadism and sedentism, Turkic and Persian speakers. Many community-based units of Samarkand had their own commercial, socio-cultural and educational networks that preserved alternativeness within the life cycle, which balanced between universality and particularism.