29 June 2026

Photo: Nicolas Réméné

Preserving endangered manuscripts is a core aim of many of the CSMC’s cultural heritage initiatives, for example in the ‘Timbuktu Manuscript Training Project’.

Political factors, environmental risks, storage conditions — numerous factors can complicate work with written artefacts and may turn it into a crisis situation. But what does ‘crisis’ mean in this context, and how can such crises be addressed? At the CSMC, Dmitry Bondarev leads a new CMU on this topic.

Dmitry Bondarev, this series introduces the new Concepts and Methods Units (CMUs) of the CSMC, and my opening question is often how the idea for the CMU came about. In this case, I’m particularly interested: during the first funding phase of the Cluster, was there a specific critical moment in which you thought, ‘We need a group that is explicitly devoted to studying crises’?

The roots of our CMU go back even further into the past. The story does not begin with the launch of the cluster in 2019, but with the many cultural heritage initiatives at the CSMC, some of which date back to 2012. In these projects, colleagues in different countries and under very different conditions have been, and continue to be, working to preserve written artefacts: in Mali, in Tunisia, in Nepal, to name just a few. The difficulties they face sometimes concern the political framework, sometimes the storage of the manuscripts, and sometimes access to them. But all these situations share a moment of crisis that challenges the researchers to respond.

In this sense, the answer to your question is: no, there was not that one single crisis moment in which we realised that this CMU was needed. It is rather an idea that has matured over the years and draws on experience from various projects. It became clear to us that a systematic framework is needed to draw the right conclusions from these experiences. The idea behind the CMU is therefore not simply to react to single emergencies, but to create a hub for reflecting on crisis as a recurring condition in the field of written artefacts.

What exactly is your CMU trying to understand?

We’re addressing a basic but far-reaching question: what does it mean for written artefacts to be ‘in crisis’? Crisis studies, disaster studies, and cultural heritage protection all use the term differently. Our CMU therefore began by comparing typologies of crisis and asking which of their aspects are useful and whether there are important issues they leave out. Existing models often focus on causes, predictability, and response strategies, but do not fully account for written artefacts, the communities around them, or the ethical and institutional realities of research. Our CMU is now working toward a more systemic model that keeps the artefact in view, but also includes the wider environments in which it is embedded.

Sometimes a situation is framed as catastrophic from the outside while local communities understand it differently.

At first glance, that sounds like a rather academic approach to a field that is very much rooted in practice. Why is the terminological question so important to you?

This is not only a theoretical exercise. Terminology is a necessary condition for meaningful exchange with other disciplines and for developing practical tools later on. The term ‘crisis’ is widely used, but often defined from perspectives that are not fully compatible to the specific problems that arise when dealing with written artefacts. This as a challenge of finding a shared language that can connect our work to broader crisis management and critical heritage studies while still reflecting the specificity of the material and the communities involved. In that sense, our conceptual work is also a form of groundwork for future collaboration and communication. 

You have already mentioned that this CMU brings together researchers who have been working in very different regions under varying conditions. What role do case studies play for your conceptual work?

Recent discussions in our group have brought together case studies from Iraq, Egypt, Bosnia, South India, Türkiye, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Timbuktu, among others. These examples show how different kinds of crisis can affect written artefacts: armed conflict, fire, bombing, natural disaster, political instrumentalisation, long-term material decay, or blocked access. Just as importantly, the case studies reveal that crisis is not always straightforward. Sometimes damage is exaggerated for political ends; sometimes a situation is framed as catastrophic from the outside while local communities understand it differently; sometimes what looks like a single event is in fact part of a longer ‘residual’ crisis of preservation and copying. For the CMU, these examples are essential because they help test whether our tentative model can really capture the diversity of crisis situations.

What practical outcomes are envisioned?

We haven’t yet defined a single fixed output because we first want to clarify our own position between existing works in crisis studies and cultural heritage projects. At this stage, the most immediate practical outcome may be a conceptual map that links the many terms, actors, and risk factors discussed in our meetings. Over time, this could help inform more specific guidance for researchers and other stakeholders working with endangered written artefacts.

Speaking of other stakeholders: Who is your CMU primarily speaking to? Researchers, conservators, the communities holding the written artefacts, or yet another group?

For now, we see our first audience primarily within the Cluster itself. At the same time, our reflections should also be meaningful for researchers and practitioners beyond it, especially those working in crisis management, heritage protection, and related fields. The aim is not to issue instructions from above, but to share experiences and conceptual insights that may resonate with others facing similar situations. We are also thinking about future publication venues, knowledge exchange formats, and public events that could make our work accessible for audiences beyond the research community.

Looking seven years ahead, what do you want to have achieved by then? What does it take for ‘Navigating Crises’ to be a success?

There are two main goals here. First, written artefacts should gain formal recognition and be included in the disciplines that deal with crisis management and prevention. Second, the experience and knowledge of scholars working with these artefacts, as well as the perspectives of the people who care for or are affected by them, should become part of broader conceptual discussions about crisis. In that sense, the ideal outcome would be that written artefacts are recognised as an important and established component in crisis management strategies and critical heritage theory.