Intangible Ethnocultural Heritage: Depository and Registry Models of Documentation

The research landscape in the field of intangible cultural heritage has been rapidly transforming in recent years. Phenomena traditionally addressed within philosophy, ethnography, and cultural studies are now attracting significant attention from the realms of law and conflict resolution. This profound evolution indicates a transition away from purely theoretical approaches toward analyzing legal conflicts, property regimes, and socio-legal tensions related to the preservation and use of folklore forms. This realignment signals a pivot from ontological and axiological questions to regulatory and tort aspects. Increased attention to this subject matter was directly reflected in the specialized Federal Law No. 402 “On the Intangible Ethnocultural Heritage of the Russian Federation,” adopted in 2022, which establishes legal mechanisms and criteria for regulating ethnocultural assets. This legislation introduces core concepts of intangible ethnocultural heritage, delineating the roles of ethnic communities, bearers, and custodians. The main thesis of this article is that libraries (alongside their folklore departments), folklore archives, and museum archives act as institutions for the objectification of intangible heritage (folklore), thereby meeting the criteria of a custodian subject. They perform a function similar to that of registers of intangible ethnocultural heritage — namely, recording, systematizing, and legitimizing folklore materials. However, classifying an intangible ethnocultural heritage object as part of the recorded folklore material does not imply its removal from multi-purpose use. In turn, fixation creates a foundation for subsequent interpretation, adaptation, and commodification of that heritage. For example, the trademark registration of Tatar mythological characters by the “National Toys” company illustrates how the institution of intellectual property overlaps with folklore, resulting in both intersections and collisions of archival, ethical, and commercial functions. Ultimately, the archival objectification and commercialization of intangible cultural heritage coexist within the same legal framework, though not always without conflict.