English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Historians of the Khanate of Khiva have long disagreed about the legal and fiscal status of certain categories of land ownership known as  atā’ī mulk  and  yārlīqlī mulk . In the present article, I try to offer a new reading of these categories. In so doing, I challenge the influential arguments of Russian scholars such as  O. Škapskij, V. Giršfel’d, A. Galkin , whose conceptualisations of  yārlīqlī mulk  reflect a number of interpretative errors and confusions between various different legal and fiscal practices. By analysing in detail the edicts of khans’  yārlīqs  and tax registries, I attempt to demonstrate that the lands identified by Russian authors as  yārlīqlī mulk  enjoyed complete fiscal immunity, and that they were commonly referred to in vernacular usage as  mulk-i hālis  (or  mulk-i hālisī ).

Atā’ī-Mulk and Yārlīqlī-Mulk : Features of Land Tenure in Khiva