Send message to Author

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.