Commerce and Captivity: The Role of Trust in the Redemption of Captives Across Religous and Political Boundaries

Kidnapping a person for ransom or taking a hostage for political reasons is not a new practice. Between the 12th and 16th centuries, Muslims and Christians living in the Mediterranean region frequently captured each other during religious conflicts. Because so many people were held captive, administrative procedures and laws were instituted to govern captive exchanges, and a network of agents was formed to negotiate for the release of captives.

Kathryn Miller of Stanford University is interested in learning how and why trust develops between hostile social groups – why a Muslim would trust a Christian agent and vice versa. In an effort to outline mechanisms that might account for why people did not often renege on captive redemption contracts, Miller will search Spanish and Moroccan archives for records of these prisoner exchanges, such as contracts for prisoner exchange, account books of ransom prices, court records, and financial statements. The first possibility is that the agents were trustworthy because it was in their self-interest: gains from cheating in one instance were likely to be small in comparison to the money one could earn as a trusted agent. Secondly, captive exchanges were monitored by neutral third parties who were able to impose fines for violations. Furthermore, sometimes third parties on one side or the other got involved who did not want the exchange to sour because it could lead to heightened tensions and violence in their community. And finally, some agents might be trustworthy simply to conform to their personal concept of morality and spirituality. Miller will examine the level of trust involved in these negotiations by examining the riskiness of each exchange, and will then document the success of each negotiation.