دانشگاه اصفهان پژوهش های تاریخی 2008-6253 18 2 2026 06 22 Imārat-e Yuluq in the Late Khwarazmshah Period and the Qara-Khitais of Kerman: Sudden Emergence, Qara-Khitai Origin, and Institutional Transformation امارت یولوق در اواخر دورۀ خوارزمشاهیان و قراختاییان کرمان: پیدایی ناگهانی، تبار قراختایی و دگردیسی نهادی 71 86 30468 10.22108/jhr.2026.148730.2935 FA یزدان فرخی دانشیار گروه تاریخ، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران 0000-0002-0874-4253 Journal Article 2026 04 25 Abstract In the Khwarazmshah period, "Imārat-e Yuluq" and the "Yuluq" court have often been identified with the ancient "Maẓālim" court and have sometimes even been equated with "Yārghu." Although, at least during the Seljuk and Khwarazmshah periods (at least until the time of Muhammad Khwarazmshah), the term "Maẓālim" was common, the new term "Yuluq" for the court and its associated offices suddenly appeared in the late Khwarazmshah period. The question that arises is: what historical factor caused this lexical transformation, and was it merely a change at the level of terminology, or did it reflect deeper transformations in the structure of power and administrative tradition? The research hypothesis considers this linguistic change to be a late, sudden, and episodic phenomenon that emerged during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Khwarazmshah in connection with the arrival of Qara-Khitai amirs. This study, using a historical method and a descriptive-analytical approach, examines administrative and historiographical texts from the 6th to 8th centuries AH, extracting, categorizing, and analyzing references to "Yuluq." The findings show that the earliest reference to "Imārat-e Yuluq" in Simṭ al-ʿUlā goes back to the appointment of Baraq Ḥājib, whereas in earlier texts (such as Atabat al-katabah, al-Tawassul ilā al-Tarassul, etc.) there is no trace of it. Equating these three institutions—Islamic, Qara-Khitai, and Mongol (Maẓālim, Yuluq, and Yārghu)—by Nasawī and Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī falls into the category of "explanation for the unfamiliar reader," and disregarding the substantive differences among the three institutions is controversial. Their equation, according to some researchers, requires reconsideration. Furthermore, an examination of historical instances shows that Yuluq cases fell into three main categories (political accusations, embezzlement of state property, and complaints by subjects against officials), and their basis was customary (non-Sharia), although toward the end of the period, it gradually underwent a process of Islamization. Keywords: Yūlūq, Maẓālim, Baraq Ḥājib, Khwārazmshāhian, Qara-Khitais of Kerman. Introduction In the administrative system of the Khwarazmshahs (ca. 470–628 AH), a supreme judicial court known as Yuluq Aʿzam existed, headed by an official called Imārat-e Yuluq. Scholars have generally accepted that this court was essentially the same as the earlier Maẓālim court, which had been prevalent during the Great Seljuk period. However, while their judicial function appears similar, it remains unclear why the Arabic-Persian term Maẓālim was replaced by the Turkic term Yuluq under the Khwarazmshahs, who were themselves Turkic Muslims. Understanding the reason for this lexical transformation is a difficult historical problem. Although many researchers have confidently equated the Seljuk Maẓālim with the Khwarazmshah Yuluq, the necessity and timing of this change remain obscure. This study argues that the transformation likely occurred during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Khwarazmshah and is closely linked to the appointment of Baraq Ḥājib, a Qara-Khitai commander, as the first holder of the Yuluq office. Apart from a few instances under Sultan Jalāl al-Dīn, the office of Yuluq appears mainly in the Qara-Khitai domain of Kerman, passed down among Baraq Ḥājib’s descendants. This suggests the influence of Qara-Khitai administrative traditions. Early research by Russian-German orientalists, such as Radloff, traced the etymology of Yuluq to the Old Turkic verb yol- (to free) and the noun yulu (ransom/tribute). Horst systematically analyzed Yuluq as a secular court comparable to the Maẓālim and noted that the term appears only in late Khwarazmshah documents. Doerfer confirmed its Turkic root and added the meaning of "special court" or "court of appeal." Later Persian lexicons, including Dehkhodā’s, sometimes misinterpreted the term as "messenger" or "courier." Despite these valuable contributions, none of the previous studies have adequately explained why the term Yuluq suddenly emerged in the late Khwarazmshah period. Most scholars have treated it merely as a synonym for Maẓālim or as an intermediate stage in the evolution of secular courts, without linking it to the political context of Qara-Khitai elites entering Khwarazmshah service. The present study distinguishes itself by arguing that Yuluq was not an internal, organic development but rather an exogenous phenomenon resulting from the employment of Qara-Khitai administrators. Materials and Methods This is a historical study employing a descriptive-analytical method. Data were collected from primary sources, including administrative manuals (Atabat al-katabah, al-Tawassul, Munshaʾāt), court chronicles (Sumṭ al-ʿAlī, Sīrat Jalāl al-Dīn, Jahāngushāy), and biographical dictionaries. The collected data were analyzed qualitatively, focusing on the context of each mention of “Yūlūq”, the profile of its holder, and the functions described. Comparative analysis was used to distinguish Yūlūq from Maẓālim and Yārghū. Research Findings A systematic examination of administrative texts from the period before Sultan Muhammad Khwarazmshah—including Atabat al-katabah, al-Tawassul ilā al-Tarassul, and the epistles of Rashid al-Din Vatvat—reveals no mention of the word "Yuluq" or the office of "Imārat-e Yuluq." The earliest evidence appears in Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī's Simṭ al-ʿUlā, which records the appointment of Baraq Ḥājib, a former courtier of the Qara-Khitai Gurkhān, to the position of "Imārat-e Yuluq" by Sultan Muhammad Khwarazmshah. Thus, it can be concluded with relative certainty that this term and its associated institution were a late and sudden phenomenon (emerging at least after ca. 607 AH/1210 CE), rather than a gradual development within the Khwarazmshah administrative tradition. Historical sources attempted to explain "Yuluq" to their audiences using familiar terms: Nasawī called it "the Maẓālim court in the language of the Turks," while Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī equated it with both "Maẓālim" and "Great Yārghu." However, a functional examination shows that Yuluq operated in three main areas: investigating political accusations against officials, prosecuting embezzlement of state funds, and hearing subjects' complaints against government agents. Its basis was customary and non-Sharia, which led Nasawī to compare it to Maẓālim and Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī to liken it to Yārghu. Nevertheless, the gradual appointment of religious scholars to this position demonstrates a process of Islamization, resulting from the Qara-Khitai rulers of Kerman's need for legitimacy in Muslim society. Discussion of Results and Conclusions After the death of Sultan Muhammad Khwarazmshah, two distinct trajectories for "Imārat-e Yuluq" can be identified. In the realm of Jalāl al-Dīn Khwarazmshah, at least two high-ranking military amirs were appointed to this office during the years 621–628 AH. In the Qara-Khitai territory of Kerman, Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī reports the continuation of "Yuluq justice" during the reign of Qutlugh Turkan Khatun (655–682 AH) and the appointment of a religious figure, indicating a gradual transformation of the office from a military-amiral position to a judicial-religious one. Based on this evidence, it can be argued that "Yuluq" emerged not from the internal evolution of the Islamic-Persian administrative tradition but as a result of Qara-Khitai elites entering Khwarazmshah service. The recurring pattern of appointing Qara-Khitai amirs to this position supports this hypothesis. However, three limitations must be acknowledged: first, the earliest detailed report (Simṭ al-ʿUlā) was written nearly a century after the events; second, Nāṣir al-Dīn Munshī, as a bureaucrat affiliated with the Qara-Khitai of Kerman, may have exaggerated Baraq Ḥājib's role; third, definitive judgments about Yuluq's judicial nature require the discovery or reexamination of unknown manuscripts from the Khwarazmshah period. In short, the short-lived rise and fall of "Imārat-e Yuluq" reflects not merely a lexical change but the broader transition of power from the Seljuk and early Khwarazmshah administrative tradition to the emerging Mongol-Ilkhanate order, mediated by the brief but significant experience of Qara-Khitai governance within the Khwarazmshah realm. در دورة خوارزمشاهیان، «امارت یولوق» و محکمة «یولوق» اغلب همان محکمة کهن «مظالم» دانسته شده و گاه حتی با «یارغو» یکی گرفته شده است. باآنکه در دورۀ سلجوقیان و خوارزمشاهیان -دست‌کم تا روزگار محمد خوارزمشاه- محکمۀ «مظالم» اصطلاحی متداول بود، در اواخر این دوره به‌یکباره اصطلاح تازۀ «یولوق» برای محکمه و مناصب وابسته به آن پدید آمد. ناگزیر پرسشی که مطرح می‌شود آن است که این دگرگونی واژگانی براثر چه عامل تاریخی روی نمود و آیا فقط تغییر در سطح واژه بوده یا بازتاب دگرگونی‌های عمیق‌تر در ساختار قدرت و سنت اداری بوده است؟ فرضیۀ پژوهش آن را فراتر از تغییر واژگانی و پدیده‌ای متأخر، ناگهانی و مقطعی می‌داند که در روزگار سلطان محمد خوارزمشاه و در پیوند با ورود امیران قراختایی پدیدار شده است. این پژوهش با استفاده از روش تاریخی و رویکرد توصیفی‌تحلیلی، به متون دیوانی و تاریخ‌نگاری سده‌های ششم تا هشتم قمری مراجعه و اشاره‌های موجود به «یولوق» را استخراج، دسته‌بندی و تحلیل کرده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که کهن‌ترین اشاره به «امارت یولوق» در سمط العلی به انتصاب بَراق حاجب بازمی‌گردد، حال‌آنکه در متون پیشین (چون عتبۀ الکتبه، التوسل الی الترسل و...) نشانی از آن در دست نیست و یکسان دانستن آن سه نهادِ اسلامی، قراختایی و مغول (مظالم، یولوق و یارغو) ازسوی نسوی و ناصرالدین منشی، از گونۀ «توضیح برای خوانندۀ ناآشنا» بوده و نادیده گرفتن تفاوت‌های ماهوی سه نهادِ اسلامی، قراختایی و مغولی مناقشه‌انگیز و گزارۀ یکسانی آن‌ها، میان شماری از پژوهشگران نیازمند بازنگری است. همچنین، بررسی مصادیق تاریخی نشان می‌دهد که یولوق در سه دستۀ اصلی (اتهامات سیاسی، اختلاس اموال حکومتی و شکایت رعایا از مأموران) تشکیل می‌شد و مبنای آن عرفی-غیرشرعی بود، هرچند در پایان دوره به‌تدریج سوی شرعی‌سازی رفت.

https://jhr.ui.ac.ir/article_30468_dc0f54ea8373414d59047ffecf19be26.pdf