Illegal markets and the formation of a central Asian borderland: The Turkestan–Xinjiang opium trade (1881–1917) (Record no. 517349)

000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02029nam a22001457a 4500
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 210710b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Pianciola, Niccolo
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Illegal markets and the formation of a central Asian borderland: The Turkestan–Xinjiang opium trade (1881–1917)
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT)
Place of publication, distribution, etc Modern Asian Studies
300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Extent 54(6), Nov, 2020: p.1828-1875
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc This article utilizes material from archives in Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan as well as published Chinese sources to explore the opium trade between Tsarist Turkestan and Xinjiang from the early 1880s to 1917. It focuses on two different levels: the borderlands economy and society, and state policies towards illegal (or ‘grey’) markets. The main groups active in the trade were Hui/Dungan and Taranchi migrants from China, who had fled Qing territory after the repression of the great anti-Qing Muslim revolts during the 1860s and 1870s. After settling in Tsarist territory, they grew poppies and exported opium back across the border to China. This article shows how the borderland economy was influenced by the late-Qing anti-opium campaign, and especially by the First World War. During the war, the Tsarist government tried to create a state opium monopoly over the borderland economy, but this attempt was botched first by the great Central Asian revolt of 1916, and later by the 1917 revolution. Departing from the prevailing historiography on borderlands, this article shows how the international border, far from being an obstacle to the trade, was instead the main factor that made borderland opium production and trade possible. It also shows how the borderland population made a strategic use of the border-as-institution, and how local imperial administrators—in different periods and for different reasons—adapted to, fostered, or repressed this most profitable borderland economic activity. - Reproduced
773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY
Main entry heading Modern Asian Studies
906 ## - LOCAL DATA ELEMENT F, LDF (RLIN)
Subject DIP INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Item type Articles
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Permanent location Current location Date acquired Serial Enumeration / chronology Barcode Date last seen Koha item type
          Indian Institute of Public Administration Indian Institute of Public Administration 2021-07-10 54(6), Nov, 2020: p.1828-1875 AR124690 2021-07-10 Articles

Powered by Koha