Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Beatrice Penati
(University of Liverpool)
Jeanine Dagyeli (University of Vienna and Austrian Academy of Sciences)
Alisher Khaliyarov (American University of Sharjah)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Panel
- Theme:
- History
- Location:
- Room 109
- Sessions:
- Saturday 25 June, -
Time zone: Asia/Tashkent
Short Abstract:
New empirical evidence and a less dogmatic attitude toward Marxist categories invite a reappraisal of the extent, genesis, and agency of capitalist practices in Tsarist Turkestan and the protectorates.
Long Abstract:
For a long time, the debate on the economy of Tsarist Turkestan and the protectorates has been framed as an opposition between capitalism or feudalism, with these two categories articulated in Marxist terms. Much of the historiography focuses on the search for class distinctions and exploitative practices in credit, labour, and agrarian relations. We contend that these older discussions are due an overhaul, on the basis of a fresh look at the empirical evidence and of a less normative and all-encompassing definition of capitalism. This is also important in order to verify for Central Asia the claims advanced by the New History of Capitalism, and explore analogies between Central Asian development and the labour-intensive industrialisation observed elsewhere in Asia. The panel proposes to examine aspects of monetary history, foreign investment, and the regulatory framework for the establishment of industry in Turkestan and in Khiva. This is a stepping stone toward further discussion of the extent of capitalist practices in the region before 1917, of the origin of such practices and the surrounding controversies, and of the agency that underpinned them.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Saturday 25 June, 2022, -Beatrice Penati (University of Liverpool)
Paper short abstract:
It is commonly assumed that, under Tsarist rule, regulations prevented the establishment of textile factories to process Turkestani cotton on place. By studying in detail the case of a proposed spinning plant in Samarkand, this paper debunks this idea and points at gaps in the extant historiography.
Paper long abstract:
A commonplace statement in historiography and scholarly discourse is that the Russian imperial State prevented industrial development in Turkestan, allegedly by prohibiting the establishment of cotton textile (spinning and weaving) factories. This essay debunks this idea and makes the case for a reappraisal of economic development in pre-revolutionary Central Asia. Through an unbiased approach to a corpus of archival sources in Tashkent and Saint Petersburg, I reconstruct the story of the Bukharan Jewish entrepreneur, Pinkhas Abramov, who wanted to set up the first cotton spindling and weaving factory in Samarkand. I show that he failed to do so because of the advent of World War I and, later, the Bolshevik revolution, not because of any law that condemned Turkestan to the role of purveyor of raw or ginned cotton. I also can also show how this ‘myth’ is ultimately premised on a ‘selective’ reading of a single archival file, who contributed to its success, and what obstacles exist toward a more balanced interpretation of events. Finally, I use this paper as a case study to point at peculiarities of capitalism in Turkestan, as well as a point of departure to consider how our knowledge of it can grow, taking into account recent restrictions to access to the Russian archives.
Jeanine Dagyeli (University of Vienna and Austrian Academy of Sciences)
Paper short abstract:
This presentation puts Turkestan’s translocal history forward by focusing on foreign investment and involvement in the burgeoning capitalist economy of the region that linked rural places in the Ferghana Valley and the Bukharan steppe via Tashkent to Europe, China, Northern America and South Africa.
Paper long abstract:
When discussing the beginnings of capitalism and industrialisation, colonial Central Asia is not a region that comes to mind easily. If anything, it is taken to epitomise a monoculture colony whose single export good worth mentioning seems to be cotton. Much of the existing literature on foreign investment or economic involvement in post-conquest Central Asia stresses legal restrictions for foreigners or ethno-religious minorities. By exploring lesser known commodities that originated in Russian Turkestan and the Bukharan protectorate, I aim to present an economic history that was much more vibrant and diverse than usually acknowledged, both with regard to its product range and geographical scope. I also want to put Turkestan’s translocal history forward by focusing on foreign investment and involvement in the burgeoning capitalist economy of the region, that ultimately linked rural places in the Ferghana Valley and the Bukharan steppe via Tashkent to Europe, Qing China, Northern America and South Africa. By using the example of the G.V. Diurshmidt and his commodity empire in Central Asia, this presentation will trace early capitalist developments in Central Asia and situate them in the global networks of infrastructure and trade that connected the region to Europe, Asia and beyond.
Alisher Khaliyarov (American University of Sharjah)
Paper short abstract:
This paper investigates the nineteenth-century Khivan capital market through the activities of state patronized mercantile networks and their role in the moneylending industry.
Paper long abstract:
This paper investigates the lives and activities of moneylenders in the Khivan Khanate during the nineteenth century. To date, the history of moneylending in Khiva has received little scholarly attention beyond some Soviet scholarship constrained by a preoccupation with “feudalism.” A reappraisal of this field is therefore long overdue and this paper attempt to spark a new discussion exploring the complexities of Khivan monetary history. Based on preliminary inquiries, this paper argues that the rise of moneylending was a result of the commercialization of agriculture and the subsequent proliferation of collateral-based loans in Central Asia. The Qungrat rulers of Khiva (1770-1920) who oversaw the expansions of non-subsistence and commercial agriculture, also patronized merchants by extending state resources via loans. Drawing on documents of loan endorsement and loan registers, this paper investigates the diverse profiles of moneylenders and their activities in the Khivan capital market. This paper particularly investigates the moneylending registers of members of the Qungrat royal family revealing their connections to Khivan mercantile networks. The paper thus argues that the state patronized moneylending redistributing the surplus capital through lower interest loans in support of the commercialization of agriculture and trade. It additionally argues that this redistribution of capital might have resulted in the comparatively low interest rates observed in Khivan primary sources in this period. The paper also comparatively analyses the moneylending activities from different social groups including merchants, handicrafts and religious institutions. The preliminary results reveal that moneylending activity was not limited to a “feudal” class, as Soviet scholarship had incorrectly claimed, but that it included everyone who had access to liquid capital or collateral property.