Much of the literature on the Ancient Silk Road has examined its operation through the prism of empires and East-West connections. Yet in the last few decades several scholars have sought to re-examine this framework, with a number suggesting that the roots of the Silk Road exchange network should be sought instead in the many polities which lay along its routes. This article similarly seeks to challenge the traditional ‘Silk Road of Empires’ concept by applying approaches from global history and examining both archaeological and written sources from the third- and fourth-century kingdom of Kroraina in the south-eastern Tarim Basin in Xinjiang, Western China. The first goal of this article is to consider Kroraina’s inclusion in the wider Silk Roads network and how this network influenced local elite consumption. The second is to examine Kroraina’s role in the Silk Road network. It is argued that polities like Kroraina played a crucial role in facilitating and maintaining trans-Eurasian trade in Late Antiquity.

This article examines the impact of the Ottoman Empire's battle against legal imperialism on the status of Central Asians in its domains, specifically after the promulgation of a nationality law in 1869 that classified them as foreigners. It traces how the threat of Muslim colonial subjects attaining European consular protections led to the emergence of a “Central Asian protection question”: whether Afghans, Bukharans, and Chinese Muslims had legitimate claims to European legal nationality and, by extension, capitulatory privileges. Through a number of case studies, the article shows how the Ottoman Foreign Ministry fused international legal norms and pan-Islamic claims to arrive at the position that Central Asians from informally colonized lands were not “real” subjects of European empires, and that they were under the exclusive protection of the caliphate. This strategy, I argue, undermined the creation of an Ottoman citizenship boundary and opened up a complex field of inter- and intraimperial contestation about who was a foreigner. In contrast to positive associations with legal pluralism in this period, Central Asian migrants and pilgrims who were protected by the caliph but not recognized as Ottomans or European subjects found that they could not benefit from practices such as forum shopping and affiliation switching. And while the notion of foreignness remained subject to multiple and conflicting interpretations across the empire, I argue that nationality as a legal category was incontrovertibly becoming a defining feature of these foreign Muslims' rights and status in the sultan's domains.