The emergence of “Muslim heritage” in China. Reflections on the Dynamics of an Unformulated Category. Appendix: “Lists of Muslim Heritage in China at the National Level” (1961-2019)

Pascale Bugnon

1. Introduction

The People’s Republic of China has been involved in the institutional and legal production of cultural heritage since 1961, when it enacted the first legislative text on the protection of historical monuments, accompanied by a list of sites of cultural heritage value. If this first inventory was mainly concerned with sites related to the Communist revolution and archaeology, this model has gradually been expanded to include historical and cultural sites that have a local and “ethnic” [民族] component. This new paradigm has led to a sharp increase in cultural investment, revaluing not only the elements of the various imperial pasts, but also what are officially called “ethnic minorities” [少 数民族]. In this unprecedented context, a number of monuments attract attention: those belonging to the “Muslim heritage” [伊斯兰文化遗产]. Without being institutionally recognised under this name[1], this heritage raises many questions, especially about the underlying political, economic and social issues. In this article, I propose some lines of thought on the establishment of these cultural policies, which have led to the emergence of an unformulated category.

2. The Emergence and Expansion of the Notion of “Heritage”

Heritage is a mobile object of study with fleeting semantic lines (Desvallées, 1995; Andrieux, 1997; Harvey, 2001; Paveau, 2009; Heinich, 2009, among others), a sign of both the complexity of the notion (in its meaning and uses) and its rapid changes. At present, “there are no buildings, monuments, objects, practices or others that have intrinsic qualities (e.g. historical, cultural) such that they should automatically be qualified as heritage. On the contrary, heritage is a social construction: heritage is what a historical society designates as such at a given time. It is then the subject of questions, of struggles for definition” (Söderstrôm, 1992, quoted by Felli, 2005: 276). Indeed, the notion of heritage as it is currently accepted is the product of a long history that is particularly revealing of the relationship maintained with the past. Today, there is a widespread recognition and undeniable consensus regarding the imperative to preserve, maintain, and transmit cultural heritage. While this has led to the preservation of an increasing number of human or natural works and creations, this phenomenon has also had the effect of making the concept more “blurred” (Bondaz et al., 2014: 24).

The great plasticity of the term has since led it to be associated with various qualifiers, as Jean-Yves Andrieux points out: “This beautiful and very old word was originally linked to the family, economic and legal structures of a stable society, rooted in space and time. Requalified by various adjectives (genetic, natural, historical…), which made it a “nomadic” concept, it is today pursuing a different and resounding career” (Andrieux, 1997: 18). The evolution of heritage takes the form of a continuous expansion of its scope (Choay, 1996: 9; Guillaume, 1980: 11), allowing it to include works of all kinds, both material and immaterial, from all periods, and to refer to a constantly renewed symbolism (Heinich, 2009: 17-21): In recent years, this expansion has also been reflected in the academic field, where a variety of studies have flourished, linking the notion of heritage to the development of human rights (Silvermann & Ruggles, 2007), ecology (Brabec & Chilton, 2015), sustainability (UNESCO, 2015), or renewing it analytically through the movement of critical heritage studies (Smith, 2006 Harrison, 2013).

However, this categorical “nomadisation” remains no less controversial and the subject of lively debate: its backward-looking nature, the extension of which is “threatened by obesity” (Guillaume, 2000: 2), raises concerns. As Dominique Poulot notes, “some see in this phenomenon the success of a new attitude towards the past […] that would make the bed for a postmodernism that refocuses social values on the concepts of identity, memory and territory”. Others are concerned about the possible excesses of a “heritage proliferation sanctioned by successive ministries of culture” (Poulot, 1993: 1608). Added to these controversies, which fuel a large literature (e.g. Bromberger, 2014), are the “profane patrimonialisations” (Roberston, 2012), the intrusion of private and non-institutional actors (Bondaz et al., 2014: 9-10 ) and the emergence of new professions (Hottin and Voisenat, 2016), leading to major changes in the understanding of this phenomenon.

Far from being alleviated, these questions have been exacerbated by the internationalisation of the concept through the body of UNESCO. Since its promulgation, the 1972 Convention has been perceived as ethnocentric (Winter, 2014), mainly sensitive to the material aspects of heritage and concerned with distinguishing works of “outstanding universal value” (UNESCO, 1972) and “authentic” (ICOMOS, 1964) by their intrinsic quality and their impact. This narrow conception of heritage, and the many criticisms it has provoked, led to a series of reflections and programmes aimed at taking better account of the different notions of “cultural diversity”, particularly those related to the nebulous notion of “authenticity”. The “Nara Document” (UNESCO, 1994) partially responded to these criticisms by recognising the plurality of cultural traditions and calling for more flexible criteria for the use of the term “authenticity”. However, it was not until the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention (2003) that these problematic values were replaced by “representative” cultural examples (Hafstein, 2009: 101-102), a supposedly more egalitarian approach that would recognise the value of all cultural practices. Despite this terminological resemantization (or shift in meaning), the problems of a conceptual approach to the implementation of “heritage” persists in a protean “ambiguity” (Bromberger, 2014).

However, if these questions conceal an undeniable interest, it is to place them in a process of interpretation, with meanings generated by those who are able to claim a heritage: “Any human achievement of the past, whatever it may be, remains only a vestige without value, even without weight, as long as a process of collective and institutional recognition of heritage has not taken place” (Cousseau, 2015: 19). Indeed, heritage involves a legal framework and is not isolated from the political field: its recognition and management remain marked by the action of public authorities, in particular by its inclusion in heritage lists. Its valorisation then « mobilises institutions, laws and decrees(a whole legal apparatus), discourses (in particular a proliferating rhetoric of political power), knowledge and practices” (Guillaume, 1980: 13), linked to the construction of the modern state.This choice of analysing the role of cultural policies is only one facet and does not exhaust the ways in which heritage can be studied (Bendix et al. 2012, for example).

2.1 Beyond consensus: Accommodation and negotiation

While it is important to pay attention to the sources of the “authorised discourse” (Smith, 2006) applied to heritage, this should not make us lose sight of the fact that it is not the only way to understand this concept. Although popular discussion and many studies insist on the hegemonic character of heritage discourses (Bendix et al., 2013), special attention must be paid to the analysis proposed in order to go beyond this dualistic reading of heritage-making, with subjugated populations on the one hand and oppressive institutional actors on the other. This restrictive attitude does not allow us to take into account the dynamics of appropriation, in which constant negotiations take place (Bayart, 1985): “It is because the requalification of heritage meets a space for living, working, transmitting values, a daily environment for individuals of different social status, that it arouses new resources for the expression of identity, economic or political expectations, and generates institutional dynamics” (Bondaz et al., 2012: 14). Moreover, there can be agreements and strategies between these two poles that need to be taken into account in order to better understand the specific logics of the different actors involved in this mechanism. Indeed, the creation of heritage creates new social spaces for negotiation, conflict, accommodation and collective expression between groups in constant redefinition (Adell & Pourcher, 2011: 10; Bondaz et al., 2012: 14). As Daniel Fabre points out, it is a matter of “dealing concretely, on the ground, with the relationship between the different versions and the different levels of monumentalisation” (Fabre, 2000: 28). The confrontation between these different protagonists will make it possible to understand how history and alternative processes of explaining and practising heritage can be activated today.

3. The Logic of Heritage-making in China

For a hundred years, there has been no shortage of laws, regulations, institutions and best practice to protect China’s cultural heritage. Under the Republic of China (1912-1949), the Chinese Nationalist government (or Kuomintang) promulgated the first regulations on cultural artefacts and the conservation of historical and tourist sites[2]. From then on, recommendations for heritage protection multiplied, accompanied by inventories and systematic surveys of the entire territory (Fresnais, 2001: 80). However, this process fluctuated greatly according to the events that marked the 20th century in China, between the iconoclastic destruction associated with the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and the preservation of historical monuments.

Formally, it was not until the 1960s that the young People’s Republic of China (PRC) issued the first “Provisional Regulations on the Administration of Historical Monuments” [文物保护管理暂行条例], accompanied by a list of 180 heritage sites called “national safeguard units” [重点文物保护单位]. Initially, this first list mainly included sites associated with the Communist revolution and archaeology – especially ancient and dynastic China – to support the mobilisation of nationalist sentiment: “Works of art and old buildings are […] materials of the greatest importance for teaching patriotism to our great people”[3]. This political dimension of heritage promotion partly explains its uneven distribution among the various provinces, where the regions with national minorities seem to be less represented in the first decades of Chinese heritage (see table above). These considerations were redefined by the legislative institutionalisation of heritage with the promulgation of the first Cultural Heritage Law in 1982[4], following the administrative redefinitions that were part of the country’s liberalisation movement at the end of the 1970s.

Distribution of National Tangible Cultural Heritage by Province and Municipality (1961-2013)

In fact, the accession of Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 (1904-1997) to the post of Prime Minister in July 1977 permanently changed the place given to cultural heritage, where revolutionary ideology and class struggle were gradually replaced by a nationalist perspective (Shepherd & Yu, 2013: 25; Svensson, 2016: 35; Svensson & Maags, 2018: 18), and significant socio-economic changes emerge.

3.1 Expansion of the heritage area

The beginning of the Reform and Opening-up period (1978), promoted by Deng Xiaoping, brought about a significant change in the way the party and the state viewed the past. The supremacy of the pragmatic current (Fresnais, 2001: 115; Billeter, 2007: 356) consecrates the emergence of cultural nationalism, which has led to a sharp increase in cultural investment, revaluing not only the elements of the various imperial pasts, but also what is officially called the “traditional cultures of ethnic minorities” [少数民族传统文化]. Indeed, on the threshold of the 1980s, the state recognised the existence of so-called “national” (i.e. ethnic) particularisms and the influential place of religion. Thus, at the Third Plenum of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1978, the Central Committee endorsed the conclusions concerning the decline of the class struggle, which led to a progressive acceptance of a greater diversity of social and economic practices, including in the religious sphere. From a pejorative appreciation to a constitutive element of “Chinese culture”[5], the status of religion then underwent an important paradigmatic shift, embodied in two major texts: “Document 19” (1982), which reconsidered the mistakes made during the Cultural Revolution, held that the elimination of religion was no longer the ultimate goal of the religious policy of the CCP (Qu, 2011: 436). On the contrary, the text stipulated respect for the protection of religious freedom and provided the main guidelines for the interaction between the state and religion. In the same year, the principle of freedom of belief was again amended in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China[6], recognising that cultural and religious diversity is not incompatible with political loyalty to the Party. This recognition of the religious fact was accentuated under the presidency of Jiang Zemin, who, from the early 1990s, issued directives and made several notable interventions regarding the “positive” place of religion in China, considering it as a stabilising force of society, mobilised for national development. This orientation was further consolidated under the presidency of Hu Jintao (2003-2013), during which the national legislative stance identified religion as a constitutive element of the public interest (Laliberté, 2015; 2017), making it possible to create a “harmonious society” [和谐社会] (Boutonnet, 2009; Qu, 2011: 436-37).

This growing legitimisation of religion was completed in 2003, when UNESCO extended its heritage agenda to intangible cultural forms and expressions, encouraging the listing and protection of “living traditions”, in the name of which religious practices and various aspects of “ethnic identity” figure (Saxer, 2014: 188). Indeed, based on the categorical increase of “cultural heritage” by UNESCO and through the contagion effect, a greater variety of “heritage” has been recognised, expanding the scope of national cultural preservation (Yan, 2018 Zhu & Maags, 2020: 12). The broad dimension of heritage also coincides with the rise of a specific economic sector, that of so-called “cultural” tourism (Oakes & Sutton, 2010). During the period 1978-1996, local authorities became aware of the financial gains that could be made from developing sites and the economic impact of tourism development (Sofield & Li Fung Mei, 1998; Fresnais, 2001: 154). However, tourism is also seen as a tool to “modernise” peripheral Chinese areas in order to lift them out of poverty (Oakes, 2013). Indeed, the consideration of heritage as a tourism lever has led to significant growth by attracting domestic and foreign tourists to these sites (Nyiri, 2006).

This new paradigm has therefore been accompanied by a spectacular boom in cultural heritage, which is fully manifested in the promulgation of seven other lists of cultural heritage – in 1982, 1988, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2013 and 2019[7] – where we see that the heritage issue is becoming an element heavily invested in by the government, with a total of 5,053 sites listed at the national level today (2019) and the creation of new heritage categories in China (“Picturesque Sites”, “Historical and Cultural Cities”, “National Parks”, “Tourist Attractive Zones”, etc.).

Tangible Cultural Heritage Sites Registered at the National Level (1961-2019)

If the selection criteria follow the various texts promulgated on national cultural heritage, the nomination of one site to the detriment of another is not made visible by any public procedure (Svensson, 2011; 2016: 39; Bodolec, 2013: 260). This opaque management, sponsored by the “National Bureau of Cultural Heritage” (State Administration of Cultural Heritage – SACH; 国家文物局), is based on censuses carried out by local administrations and committees of various experts, whose decisions have fluctuated over time according to ideological, institutional and legislative changes (Svensson, 2011; Silvermann & Blumenfield, 2013).

Indeed, while the early days of national heritage were marked by an almost exclusive focus on the country’s revolutionary past, attention gradually shifted in the 1980s to China’s imperial and nationalist past, giving way in the 1990s to the celebration of an “ethnic” and vernacular heritage. But above all, and perhaps more significantly, the official discourse on heritage has evolved as a result of international cooperation and contacts since the 1980s. Following China’s accession to UNESCO in 1985, to the ICOMOS[8] Charter in 2000, and finally, as already mentioned, to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003, many collaborations took place between these international bodies and the various Chinese heritage offices (China ICOMOS, 2000, for example).This not only demonstrates the adoption of these international management criteria in China (Svensson, 2016: 37), but also occupies an increasingly dominant position within the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

Over the years, China has expanded its influence by submitting an increasing number of nominations, by intensifying its heritage diplomacy efforts (numerous delegations to UNESCO meetings, organisation of an intangible heritage festival, etc. ) (Svensson & Maags, 2018: 16-17) or by multiplying its cooperation with other BRICS countries[9] (Meskell et al., 2015). However, this process of heritage expansion takes place within a strict framework, where the distinctive character of ethnic and/or religious “minorities” must not undermine national unity or these modernisation goals (Silvermann & Blumenfield, 2013 : 8; Shepherd & Yu, 2013: 28).

4. The Case of “Muslim Heritage”

As part of this expansion of the Chinese heritage sector, there has also been an evolution in relation to religious buildings. The state officially recognises religious activity in duly registered places of worship, including those classified as cultural heritage (Fresnais, 2001: 240), but this recognition is only possible if they are registered in an “ordinary”, i.e. institutional, religious practice. However, if religion can be seen as a positive factor and a moral force supporting the state’s development strategy, it still remains a potentially subversive support for the mobilisation of civil society under the banner of religion (Potter, 2003; Chen, 2003). Any activities seen as undermining the state by supporting bases of sedition and divisive tendencies, or seen as promoting the interests of other countries, are viewed with suspicion. Since the events of 11 September 2001, the issue of “terrorism” has been an official factor, justifying a wide range of military and police operations aimed at combating what are referred to as the “three forces” [三股势力] of “separatism”, “terrorism” and “religious extremism” (Dillon, 2001; Castets, 2006). The CCP has therefore firmly taken the process of “reinventing heritage” into its own hands, by sanctioning what are considered to be “feudal superstitions” [封建迷信] or “illegal religious activities” [非法宗教活动] and by promoting “traditions” [传统] and local “folk customs” [民俗]. This process, underpinned by a play of political loyalties, generates a continuous adaptation of ritual practices and a constant (re)definition of orthopraxy, circumscribed in a distinctive rhetorical mode, that of an “Islamic culture with Chinese characteristics” [中国 特色的伊斯兰教文化] (Huang, 1999). As a result, some mausoleums become tourist attractions, allowing the government to illustrate its discourse on the richness of “national traditions”, while others, such as the mausoleum of Ordam Padishah in Xinjiang (Zarcone, 2001), are simply closed. If the boundaries between these two poles are difficult to define, the control and distribution of symbolic and/or material resources is more than ever aimed at making them “civilised” practices, suitable for integration into the “new image of the nation” (Billeter, 2007: 394).

Consequently, Islam is approached as a “cultural trait” of national minorities rather than as a universal religion (Doyon, 2014: 183), which partly explains the late consideration of “Muslim heritage”. Although the Qingjing Mosque [清净寺] in the city of Quanzhou was included in the first list of national heritage sites in 1961, it was not until the third list in 1988 that new sites (seven in all) appeared.

Evolution of Muslim Sites Listed as National Heritage (1961-2019)

This heritage really began to take on importance in the 2000s, with six sites inscribed in 2001, thirteen in 2006, twenty-four in 2013 and three in 2019, making a total of 55 for the period 1961-2019.

Distribution of Muslim Heritage by Province and Municipality

Slowly, and following the geographical distribution of “Muslim minorities” in China, “Muslim heritage” began to be perceived by the government as part of China’s “culture” and “national identity”. This recent consideration by the political authorities testifies to the evolution of the role of heritage, its interpretation in a society under construction (Choay, 1996) and its economic avatar. It also highlights the role of monuments in maintaining and constructing the identity of peoples or social groups. However, it would be wrong to consider the recognition of this heritage as coming exclusively from the state and centralised authorities.

The “heritage turn in China” (Ludwig, Walton & Wang, 2020) paved the way for new actors to be involved in heritage processes (Svensson & Maags, 2018: 21; Ludwig et al., 2020).Thus, some worship practices were recognised as beneficial by many scholars, who favoured their inscription as “national cultural heritage”, while taking care to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is, they promoted only those “traditions” that had a beneficial social impact (Xiao, 2012: 193; Gao, 2014). These scholars were gradually supported by officials and some Muslims themselves, who began to take an interest in this heritage process and ask for its protection, rebelling against “arbitrary” demolitions that destroyed irreplaceable historical data (Zhang & Ma, 2015; Anonymous, 2018). The importance of the “Muslim heritage” in China thus makes it possible, according to these scholars, to “show the intrinsic diversity of Chinese culture” and to recognise the specificity of Chinese Islam, which is subject to a continuous process of sinicisation. In this context, local Islam is not seen as a simple derivative of Arab Islam, but as a sophisticated combination of cultural exchanges with the “traditional Confucian culture”, capable of absorbing and integrating the customs and cultures of each ethnic group. For scholars such as Zhang and Ma (2015), this exchange is particularly evident in the construction of pagoda-shaped mosques, which combine traditional Chinese architecture with Muslim architecture and must be preserved for future generations. Instead of destroying these old mosques to build new ones in the Arab style, it is essential – always according to these scholars – to protect them in order to build an ‘advanced socialist culture’ based on ‘traditional Chinese culture’, thus contributing to the realisation of the ‘Chinese Dream’ [中国梦] (Zhang & Ma, 2015). Thus, in place of secularisation or desacralisation, the communist government seeks to change the sacred content, to modify its object through a process of sacred secularisation (Demerath, 2007: 66; Meyer and De Witte, 2015: 277). To do this, the leaders do not so much seek to eradicate cults as to adapt them to exploit their social function in a process of “social engineering” (Yan & Gao, 2017).

Thus, heritage is used as a tool to promote the image of a renewed and glorious Chinese past in an ongoing process of nation-building, an image reflected in the presidential slogan of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” [中华民族伟大 复兴] (Svensson & Maags, 2018: 19; Zhu & Maags, 2020: 12). In this context, religious heritage, especially “Muslim heritage”, is smugly used for political and economic purposes without being formally categorised under this term (Bugnon, 2022). However, this unformulated category is not the hegemonic prerogative of Chinese officials: it is also promoted by religious leaders and certain scholars in order to preserve their institutions. These scholars, officials and/or religious leaders are certainly limited in what they can publicly defend. However, the labelling and protection of “Muslim heritage” responds to the contingency of two forces, state and civil, meeting at the right time and place. As we have seen in these few pages, the heritagisation of Muslim sites is a recent process with different temporal regimes, responding to the contingencies of particular local politics. As a result, this process is part of a dialogue that becomes a tool for both sides, promoting the interests of a wide range of social actors.


Adell Nicolas et Pourcher Yves, 2011, « Introduction. De quoi le patrimoine est-il le nom ? », in : Nicolas Adell et Yves Pourcher (dir.), Transmettre, quel(s) patrimoine(s) ? Autour du Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel, Paris, Editions Houdiard, pp. 7-23.

Allès Elisabeth, 2013, L’islam de Chine. Un islam en situation minoritaire, Paris, Karthala.

Andrieux Jean-Yves, 1997, Patrimoine et histoire, Paris, Belin.

Anonymous, 2018, “The urgent need to protect China’s Islamic cultural heritage” [保护中国伊斯兰文化遗产迫在眉睫], in : Muslims online, September 21, 2018, URL:, accessed September 29, 2019.

Badazan Alain, 2001, « Les usages sociaux du patrimoine », in : Ethnologie comparée [online], n° 2, URL :, accessed May 8, 2014.

Bao Jigang, Chen Ganghua, and Ma Ling, 2014, “Tourism Research in China : Insights from Insiders”, in : Annals of Tourism Research, 45, pp. 167-181.

Bayart Jean-François, 1985, « L’énonciation du politique », in : Revue française de science politique, 35e année, n° 3, pp. 343-373.

Bendix Regina, Eggert Aditya et Peselmann Arnik, 2012, “Introduction : Heritage Regimes and the State”, in : Bendix R. F., Eggert A., and Peselmann A. (eds.), Heritage Regimes and the State, Göttingen, Universistätverlag Göttingen, pp. 11-20.

Berliner David et Bortolotto Chiara, 2013, « Le monde de l’UNESCO », in : Gradhiva, n° 18, Paris, Musée du quai Branly, pp. 4-21.

Billeter Térence, 2007, L’Empereur jaune. Une tradition politique chinoise, Paris, Les Indes savantes.

Blake Janet, 2015, International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bodolec Caroline, 2013, “The Chinese Paper-Cut : From Local Inventories to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity”, in : Bendix R., Eggert A. & Peselmann A. (eds.), Heritage Regime and the State, Göttingen, Universitätverlag Göttingen, pp. 250-264.

Bondaz Julien, Graezer Bideau Florence, Isnart Cyril & Leblon Anaïs, 2014, « Relocaliser les discours sur le « patrimoine », in : Bondaz J., Graezer Bideau F., Isnat C. & Leblon A. (eds.), Les vocabulaires locaux du « patrimoine ». Traductions, négociations et transformations, Zurich, Berlin, Lit Verlag, pp. 9-29.

Bondaz Julien, Isnart Cyril & Leblon Anaïs, 2012, « Au-delà du consensus patrimonial. Résistances et usages contestataires du patrimoine », in : Civilisations, vol. 61, n° 1, pp. 9-21.

Bonnard Yves & Felli Romain, 2008, « Patrimoine et tourisme urbain. La valorisation de l’authenticité à Lyon et Pékin », in : Articulo – Journal of Urban Research [online], 4, URL :, accessed September 15, 2016.

Bortolotto Chiara, 2011, « Introduction. Le trouble du patrimoine culturel immatériel », in : Bortolotto C. (dir.), Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie, Paris, Editions de la Maison des sciences, pp. 21-43.

Bortolotto Chiara, 2012, « Nouveaux acteurs du patrimoine, nouvelles postures anthropologiques. A propos de Ethnologues et passeurs de mémoires », in : Civilisations [online], 61, 1, URL :, accessed February 5, 2016.

Boutonnet Thomas, 2009a, « Traitement moral de la question sociale dans la “société harmonieuse” de Hu Jintao », in : Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 5, URL :, accessed September 15, 2020.

Boutonnet Thomas, 2009b, Vers une “société harmonieuse” de consommation ? Discours et spectacle de l’harmonie sociale dans la construction d’une Chine “civilisée” (1978-2008), PhD Thesis, Université de Lyon.

Bovingdon Gardner, 2010, The Uyghurs: Stangers in their own land, New-York, Columbia University Press.

Brabec Elizabeth & Chilton Elizabeth, 2015, “Toward an Ecology of Cultural Heritage”, in : Change Over Time 5, n° 2, pp. 266-285.

Bromberger Christian, 2014, « “Le patrimoine immatériel” entre ambiguïté et overdose », in : L’Homme, n° 209, pp. 143-151.

Byrne D., 1991, “Western Hegemony in Archaelogical Heritage Management”, in : History and Anthropology, n° 5, pp. 269-276.

Castets Rémi, 2006, « L’islam en Chine et l’après 11 septembre », in : Note de recherche pour l’Asia Centre, URL :, pp. 1- 18.

Chen Nancy N., 2003, “Healing Sects and Anti-Cult Campaigns”, in : The China Quarterly, vol. 14, pp. 505-520.

China ICOMOS, 2000, Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China, The Getty Conservation Institute, URL :

Choay Francoise, 1996, L’allégorie du patrimoine, Paris, Seuil.

Cousseau Vincent, 2015, « La construction du patrimoine au prisme de l’histoire », in : Edwige Garnier et Frédéric Serre, Patrimoine, Identité et Développement territoriale [en ligne], URL :, accessed January 25, 2016.

Del Marmol Camila, Siniscalchi Valeria et Estrada Ferran, 2016, “Reflecting on heritage and power : Dynamics, strategies and appropriations in the Catalan Pyrenees and the French Alps”, in : International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22 : 5, pp. 341-354.

Demerath N. J. III. 2007, “Secularization and Sacralization Deconstructed and Reconstructed”. The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, eds. James A. Beckford and N. J. Demerath III, London: Sage: 57-80.

Denton Kirk A., 2005, “Museums, Memorial Sites and Exhibitionary Culture in the People’s Republic of China”, in : China Quarterly, n° 183, pp. 565-586.

Denton Kirk A., 2014, Exhibiting the Past : Historical Memory and the Politics of Museums in Postcolonial China, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press.

Desvallées André, 1995, « Emergence et cheminements du mot patrimoine », in : Musées et Collections publiques de France, 208, September 1995, pp. 6-29.

Dillon Michael, 2001, “Religious Minorities and China”, in : Minority Rights Group International Report, 22p.

Doyon Jérôme, 2014, Négocier la place de l’islam chinois. Les associations islamiques de Nankin à l’ère des réformes, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Du Cros Hilary & Yok-shui F. Lee, 2011, Cultural Heritage Management in China, London, Routledge.

Fabre Daniel, 2000, « L’ethnologie devant le monument historique », in : Daniel Fabre (dir.), Domestiquer l’histoire. Ethnologie des monuments historiques, Paris, Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, pp. 1-29.

Felli Romain, 2005, « Le patrimoine à Pékin, entre destruction et détournement. Les effets d’une gouvernance urbaine entrepreneuriale », in : Geographica Helvetia, 60/4, pp. 275-283.

Fresnais Jocelyne, 2001, La protection du patrimoine en République populaire de Chine (1949-1999), Paris, Editions du C.T.H.S. 

Gao Bingzhong, 2014, “How Does Superstition become Intangible Cultural Heritage in Postsocialist China”, in : Positions (Asia Critique), 22 (3), pp. 551-572.

Goossaert Vincent, 2004, « Le concept de religion en Chine et l’Occident », in : Diogène, 1, n° 250, p. 16.

Gros Stéphane, 2012, « L’injonction à la fête. Enjeux locaux patrimoniaux d’une fête en voie de disparition », in : Gradhiva, n° 16, pp. 25-43.

Gruber Stefan, 2007, “Protecting China’s Cultural Heritage Sites in Times of Rapid Change : Current Developments, Practice and Law”, in : Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental [en ligne], 253 (10), pp. 253-301, URL :, accessed March 12, 2016.

Guillaume Marc, 1980, La politique du patrimoine, Paris, Galilée.

Guillaume Marc, 2000, « La politique du patrimoine…vingt ans après », in : Labyrinthe [online], n° 7, Entretien, URL :, accessed December 10, 2015.

Hafstein Valdimar, 2009, “Intangible heritage as a list : From masterpieces to representation”, in : Smith L. and Akagawa N. (eds.), Intangible heritage, London / New York, Routledge, pp. 93-111.

Harrison Rodney, 2013, Heritage : Critical approaches, New York – Abingdon, Routledge.

Harvey David C., 2001, “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Present : Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies”, in : International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7 (4), pp. 319-338.

Heinich Nathalie, 2009, La fabrique du patrimoine. « De la cathédrale à la petite cuillère », Paris, Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Herzfeld M., 1991, A Place in History : Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Hottin Christian & Voisenat Claudie (dir.), 2016, Le tournant patrimonial. Mutations contemporaines des métiers du patrimoine, Paris, Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Huang Weimin 黄维民, 1999, “Islamic culture with Chinese characteristics” [中国特色的伊斯兰教文化], in : Xi’an jiaoyu xueyuan xuebao, n° 2, pp. 3-7.

ICOMOS, 1964, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), URL :

Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 1997, Freedom of Religious Belief in China, Beijing.

Islamic Association of China伊斯兰教协会, 2015, “ National Directory of Islamic Cultural Relics Protection Units at All Levels” [全国各级伊斯兰文物保护单位名录], in : Association Islamique de Chine [online], URL :, accessed June 18, 2019.

Laliberté André, 2015, “The Politicization of Religion by the CCP : A Selective Retrieval”, in : Asiatische Studien – Etudes Asiatiques, 69 (1), pp. 185-211.

Laliberté André, 2017, “Religion, Resistance, and Contentious Politics in China”, in : Review of Religion and Chinese Society, 4, pp. 151-166.

Lambert Tony, 2001, “The Present Religious Policy of the Chinese Communist Party”, in: Religion, State & Society, 29 : 2, pp. 121-129.

Lams Lutgard, 2016, “Chapter 13. Salience and Representation of Islam and Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese Communist Party Press”, in : Mertens Stefan & de Smaele Hedwig (eds.), Representations of Islam in the News: A Cross-Cultural Analysis, Maryland, Lexington Books, pp. 205-223.

Leung Beatrice, 2005, “China’s Religious Freedom Policy : The Art of Managing Religious Activity”, in : The China Quarterly, n° 184, pp. 894-913.

Ludwig Carol, Walton Linda & Wang Yi-Wen (eds.), 2020, The Heritage Turn in China. The Reinvention, Dissemination and Consumption of Heritage, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Univerity Press.

Madsen Richard, 2014, “From Socialist Ideology to Cultural Heritage : The Changing Basis of Legitimay in the People’s Republic of China”, in : Anthropology & Medecine, 21 (1), pp. 58-70.

McCarthy S.K., 2009, Communist Multiculturalism : Ethnic Revival in Southwest China, Seattle, University of Washington Press.

Meskell L., Luizza C., Bertacchini E. & Saccone D., 2015, “Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage : Decision-making, State Parties and Political Processes”, in : International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21 (5), pp. 423-440.

Meyer Brigit and Marleen de Witte, 2015, “Heritage and the Sacred: Introduction”, in: Material Religion, 9(3): 274-81.

Murphy David J., 1994, “An Annotated Chronological Index of People’s Republic of China Statutory and other Materials Relating to Cultural Property”, in : International Journal of Cultural Property, 3 (01), pp. 159-168.

Murphy David J., 1995, Plunder and Preservation. Cultural Property Law and Practice in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.

Nyiri Pal, 2006, Scenic Spot : Chinese Tourism, the State, and Cultural Authority, Seattle, University of Washington Press 

Oakes Tim, 2013, “Heritage as Improvement : Cultural Display and Contested Governance in Rural China”, in : Modern China, 39 (4), pp. 380-407.

Oakes Tim & Sutton Donald S., 2010, “Introduction”, in : Oakes T. & Sutton D.S. (eds.), Faiths on Display : Religion, Tourism, and the Chinese State, Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-25.

Paveau Marie-Christine, 2009, « La notion de patrimoine : lignées culturelles et fixations sémiotiques », in : Les Fictions patrimoniales sur grand et petit écrian [online], URL :, accessed January 27, 2016.

Poirrier Philippe, 2007, « Introduction », in : Culture & Musées, n° 9, pp. 13-21.

Poncet Patrick, 2004, « Du patrimoine national à la “société de conservation” », in : Pouvoirs locaux, n° 63, pp. 60-62.

Potter Pitman B., 2003, “Belief in Control : Regulation of Religion in China”, in : The China Quarterly, n° 174, pp. 317-337.

Poulot Dominique, 1993, « Le sens du patrimoine : hier et aujourd’hui (note critique) », in : Annales. Economie, Sociétés, Civilisations, 48e année, n° 6, pp. 1601-1613.

Qu Hong, 2011, “Religious Policy in the People’s Republic of China : an alternative perspective”, in : Journal of Contemporary China, 20 : 70, pp. 433- 448.

Robertson Iain J. M. (ed.), 2012, Heritage from Below, Farnham, Ashgate.

Ryan Chris & Gu Huimin, 2009, Tourism in China : Destinations, Cultures and Communities, New York & London, Routledge

Saxer Martin, 2014, “Re-fusing Ethnicity and Religion: An Experiment on Tibetan Grounds”, in : Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 43, 2, pp. 181-204.

Shen Chen & Chen Hong, 2014, “Cultural Heritage Management in China. Current Practices and Problems”, in : Phyllis Mauch Messenger & George S. Smith, Cultural Heritage Management : a global Perspective, Gainesville, University Press of Florida, pp. 70-81.

Shepherd Robert J. & Yu Larry, 2013, Heritage Management, Tourism, and Governance in China. Managing the Past to Serve the Present, New-York-London, Springer.

Silvermann Helaine & Blumenfield Tami, 2013, “Chapter 1. Cultural Heritage Politics in China : An Introduction”, in : T. Blumenfield & H. Silvermann (eds.), Cultural Heritage Politics in China, New-York, Springer, pp. 3-22. 

Silvermann Helaine & Ruggles Fairchild D. (eds.), 2007, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, New York, Springer.

Siniscalchi Valeria, 2008, « Economie et pouvoir au sein du parc national des Ecrins. Penser la nature, définir l’espace », in : Techniques et Culture, 50, pp. 40-59.

Skounti Ahmed, 2009, “The Authentic illusion : Humanity’s intangible cultural heritage, the Moroccan experience”, in : Smith L. & Akagawa N. (eds.), Intangible heritage, London / New York, Routledge, pp. 74-92.

Smith Laurajane, 2006, Uses of Heritage, Londres et New-York, Routledge.

Sofield Trevor H. B. & Li Fung Mei Sarah, 1998, “Tourism development and cultural policies in China”, in : Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, n° 2, pp. 362-392.

Svensson Marina, 2011, “Cultural Heritage Protection in the People’s Republic of China : Preservation Policies, Institutions, Laws and Enforcement in Zhejiang”, in : Burell M. and Svensson M. (eds), Making Law Work : Chinese Laws in Context, New York, Cornell University Press, pp. 225-266.

Svensson Marina, 2016, “Evolving and contested cultural heritage in China : the rural heritagescape”, in : Matsuda A. and Mengoni L.E. (eds), Reconsidering Cultural Heritage in East Asia, London, Ubiquity Press, pp. 31-46.

Svensson Marina & Maags Christina, 2018, “Mapping the Chinese Heritage Regime. Ruptures, Governmentality, and Agency”, in : Maags C. & Svensson M. (eds), Chinese Heritage in the Making : Experiences, Negotiations and Contestations, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 11-38.

Tardy Cécile, 2003, « L’entremise du récit du chercheur : une manière d’aborder le rôle des discours et des médias dans la patrimonialisation », in : Culture & Musées, n° 1, pp. 109-133.

Trémon Anne-Christine, 2012, « Introduction : L’Etat au musée. Politiques muséales et patrimoniales dans le monde chinois contemporain », in : Gradhiva, n° 16, pp. 5-21.

USC University of Southern California, 1984, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, 1982”, in : USC US-China Institute [online], URL:, accessed March 15, 2021.

UNESCO, 1972, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, URL :

UNESCO, 1994, Document de Nara sur l’authenticité, URL :

UNESCO, 2015, “Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention”, in : UNESCO [online], URL :, accessed July 21, 2021.

UNESCO World Bank, 2000, « China-Cultural Heritage Management and Urban Development: Challenge and Opportunity », July 5-7, 2000, UNESCO, Beijing.

Verdini Giulio, Frassoldati Francesca & Nolf Christian, 2017, “Reframing China’s Heritage Conservation Discourse. Learning by Testing Civic Engagement Tools in a Historic Rural Village”, in : International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23 (4), pp. 317-334.

Wang Gungwu, 2013, Renewal : The Chinese state and the new global history, Hong Kong, The Chinese University Press.

Wijesuriya Gamini & Sweet Jonathan, 2014, “Introduction”, in : Wijesuriya G. & Sweet J., Revisiting authenticity in the Asian Context, ICCROM, pp. 11-16.

Winter Tim, 2014, “Heritage studies and the privileging of theory”, in: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20 (5), pp. 556-572.

Xiao Fang 萧放, 2012, “Folk beliefs from the perspective of cultural heritage” [文化遗产视野下的民间信仰], Editorial Board of the Social Issues Research Series (eds.), Popular beliefs, forms and phenomena of religious groups [民间信仰,教派形态与现象], Beijing, pp. 191-196.

Yan Haiming, 2018, World heritage craze in China : Universal discourse, national culture, and local memory, Oxford, Berghahn.

Zarcone Thierry, 2001, « Le culte de saints au Xinjiang de 1949 à nos jours », in : Journal of the History of Sufism, n° 3, pp. 133-172.

Zhang Guanglin张广林 et Ma Dan 马丹, 2015, “Attaching importance to the protection of China’s Islamic cultural heritage” [重视保护中国伊斯兰文化遗产],in:State Administration of Religious Affairs,URL :, accessed September 13, 2018.

Zhang Liang, 2003, La naissance du concept de patrimoine en Chine. XIXe-XXe siècle, Dijon, Editions recherches.

Zhu Yujie & Maags Christina, 2020, Heritage Politics in China : The Power of the Past, London / New York, Routledge.

[1] Although present in some documents such as the article Anonyme, 2018; Zhang & Ma, 2015 and on the website of the Islamic Association of China, 2015.

[2] Between 1928 and 1939, several laws were enacted before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war, including for instance the “Law on the Preservation of Ancient Object” (1930): see Murphy, 1994.

[3] « Qieshi zuohao wenwu baohu guanli gongzuo » (Heritage administration and protection work is well underway), RMRB, April 2, 1961, p. 2, quoted by Fresnais, 2001: 75.

[4] The “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics” (1982) [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo wenwu baohu fa 中华人民共和国文物保护法], which has been revised several times since then. In addition to this law, there are numerous legal instruments, including implementing regulations, sometimes developed in cooperation with foreign institutions, such as the “Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China”, formulated in cooperation with the Getty Conservation Institute and the former Australian Heritage Commission.

[5] “In the course of the country’s long history, the various religions in China have become part of the traditional Chinese thinking and culture. It is traditional for Chinese religious believers to love their country and religions. The Chinese government supports and encourages the religious circles to unite the religious believers to actively participate in the construction of the country” (Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 1997 : 3).

[6] “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination” (Article 36 of the Constitution): see University of Southern California, 1984,  

[7] The various lists can be consulted on the website of the State Council of the PRC : (1961); (1982); (1988); (1996); (2001); (2006); (2013); (2019).

[8] The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) isa non-governmental international organisation dedicated to the conservation of the world’s monuments and sites.

[9] Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

This contribution has been reviewed by Florence Graezer Bideau

Pascale Bugnon « The emergence of “Muslim heritage” in China. Reflections on the Dynamics of an Unformulated Category. Appendix: “Lists of Muslim Heritage in China at the National Level” (1961-2019) ». In Blog Scientifique de l’Institut Confucius, Université de Genève. Lien permanent:, consulté le 04/13/2024.