On the Fate of Lost Property in the Medieval Turkic-Mongol States

2023

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.15826/izv2.2023.25.2.023
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article analyses the state policy of the medieval Turkic-Mongol khanates towards lost property. The authors introduce the first Russian translation of a yarligh on the appointment of bularguchi, an official who oversaw the search, storage, and return of lost property. The yarligh comes from the Dastur al-Katib Fi Ta’yin al-Maratib, a Persian-language treaty written in 1360s by Muhammad b. Hindushah Nakhchivani, an official at the service of the rulers of Mongol Iran. A complex interdisciplinary analysis of this document helps characterize the legal status of the bularguchi and the evolution of the state policy towards the lost property in the Turkic-Mongol states from the Mongol and Yuan Empires to the Crimean Khanate. The authors attempt to clarify the differences between the property which was lost and that which was recognized escheat after the death of its owner abroad. The authors establish that the rulers of the Turkic-Mongol states took measures to provide the rights of the owners of the lost property, but at the same time, officials abused their power to pass such property to the state treasury as it was a substantial part of the state revenue. The source base of the research includes legal acts, notes of contemporaries, and diplomatic correspondence. The authors also consider works of specialists who dealt with the bularguchi institution as well as questions on the fate of the lost property in the medieval Turkic-Mongol states.