In his review of my translation of the Memoirs of Shah Tahmasp I, Kioumars Ghereghlou draws attention to what he claims are misreadings of proper names in the text.Footnote ¹ Ghereghlou is correct that the manuscript tradition of this important Safavid text is highly problematic, and it is not always easy to establish the correct reading of personal names, especially those of Qizilbash commanders, which were often distorted by copyists ignorant of Turkish. Ghereghlou proposes some radically different readings, which would affect not just my translation but also the form of these names in other editions and scholarship on the reign of Tahmasp. The forms I use appear both in other primary sources of the period, such as the chronicles by Qummi, Qazvini, and Khurshah, to name a few, and in the secondary literature, such as the comprehensive modern biography of Shah Tahmasp by Parsadust and the work on Qizilbash names by Faruk Sümer, whereas the reader who looks for the versions proposed by Ghereghlou will find them nowhere.Footnote ²

Qizilbash names certainly, at first glance, appear outlandish in their meaning. Ghereghlou’s emendations are based on his idea (not explicitly articulated in his review) that the names as represented in the Safavid chronicle tradition are:

This is, however, a hypothesis with regard to the Safavids, not a fact. One might wonder how or why Safavid chroniclers would adopt distortions introduced by Ottoman historians when discussing individuals who played a crucial role in the emergence of the Safavid state, especially in the absence of much evidence of the circulation of Ottoman chronicles in Iran in the period. Moreover, we have a contemporary witness, the Venetian Michele Membré, who visited the court of Tahmasp and recorded, on the basis of oral information, names such as Naranji Sultan (“Orange”), Köpek-Qiran (“Dog-slayer”), and Kechel (“Scabby-head”). There is no question of any distortion in the written tradition here. In fact, almost all of the names are entirely explicable according to the principles of Turkish onomastics, as set out in Onomasticum Turcicum by Rásonyi and Baski.Footnote ⁴ Unpleasant-sounding names, for example, may be given to mislead the evil eye. Let us consider Ghereghlou’s suggestions.

Ghereghlou suggests that Badinjan Sultan (بادنجان) is an error for Battal Khan (بطال خان). Badinjan (“Aubergine”) is widely attested in other chronicles, and we can compare his name to that of other prominent and well-attested Qizilbash amirs, such as Merjümek (“Lentil”) or Nukhud (“Chickpea”). Such names relate to the Turkish custom of naming children after a fruit or plant seen or mentioned immediately after the birth; Rásonyi gives other examples such as Qabaq (“Pumpkin”).Footnote ⁵

Ghereghlou suggests reading Damri (دمری) as Dumru, presumably for Dumrı, meaning “tambourine.”Footnote ⁶ The interpretation offered by Sümer is Demiri, which I rejected as it is not a plausible Turkish word.Footnote ⁷ According to Sümer, however, the word also appears as دمیری, which, if correct, makes Dumrı impossible. In this instance, no reading suggested to date is satisfactory. I opted for the reading Damri on the basis that this is already established in the English-language historiography in works by Minorsky and Dickson.Footnote ⁸ Thus Ghereghlou’s suggestion is possible, but far from certain, and probably implausible. No such name is attested by Rásonyi.

Ghereghlou suggests that Narin (نارین) should be read Bars (بارس). Narin is attested as a Turkish name in several examples by Rásonyi and Sümer.Footnote ⁹ There is no reason to emend it, and no Bars is known to other chronicles.

Ghereghlou states that the first element of Niqta Beg Temeshlu (ٮيقٮا بیگ تمشلو) should be read Qaya. However, the initial two letters of the ductus cannot simply be dismissed. Sümer reads the name as Taqi on the basis of the Sharafnama, which is also unsatisfactory.Footnote ¹⁰ The correct reading is uncertain, but Ghereghlou’s Qaya is wrong; this is a different individual who appears elsewhere in the text.

Ghereghlou would emend Qaraja (قراجه) to Qarinja (“Ant”). However, Qaraja is a very common Turkish name, and Qaraja Sultan Tekellu is attested in all the main Safavid chronicles of the period, as well as in Parsadust’s study.Footnote ¹¹

Gherghlou states that Arzbar (ارزبار) should be emended to “Arasbar,” understanding it as referring to the Arasbar Valley in Azerbaijan. However, this is a personal name, almost certainly of Georgian origin, not a toponym, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Arasbar Valley.Footnote ¹² Due to the lack of an agreed form, I have opted to stay as close as possible to the oldest version of the text, MS Dorn 302.

Ghereghlou comments that Aḥmad Sultan Afshar and Aḥmad Sultan Sufioghlu Ustajlu are “the same individual. However, the English version mistakenly treats them as two distinct figures.” In fact, it is the Persian text that treats these as two separate individuals, alongside numerous other Persian texts of the period and Parsadust’s modern study of the reign of Tahmasp. The two Ahmad Sultans are also discussed by Dickson, who notes that they are sometimes confused but are clearly two different individuals, as suggested by the Afzal al-Tawarikh’s account of the Battle of Jam in which both participated.Footnote ¹³

Ghereghlou states that the Garden of Halfan (حلفان، خلفان) is Bāgh-i Āl Īvān (“The Crimson Palace Garden”). Not only is it highly implausible that the word غلقان in the manuscripts could be corrupted into Āl Īvān, but no garden of this name appears in the early Safavid chronicles of Qummi, Qazvini, ‘Abdi Beg, or Khurshah, to name a few, and no such garden is mentioned in the recent comprehensive study of Safavid Tabriz’s topography by L. Yıldız, which lists twenty-four Tabriz gardens.Footnote ¹⁴ In contrast, a Garden of Halfan or Khalfan existed by the late fifteenth century, as it is mentioned in the Qaraqoyunlu-era waqfiyya of Masjid-i Kabutar, where it is described as a large garden in the vicinity of the Taq gate of Tabriz.Footnote ¹⁵ Ghereghlou’s emendation should be rejected.

Finally, Ghereghlou remarks of Kharzavil (خرزویل): “The historical plain of Harzavil in Gilan is also misrepresented as Kharzavil, based on faulty readings across several manuscript versions.” The form Kharzavil, however, is commonly found in other Safavid chronicles, as well as in earlier sources dating back to Nasir-i Khusraw in the eleventh century.Footnote ¹⁶ The form Kharzavil also appears in official documents issued by the Safavid chancery.Footnote ¹⁷ Harzavil is an alternative, modern form.

A small number of Ghereghlou’s suggestions are correct, and I hope to incorporate them into a future edition. The most important are: p. 57, for “Burun Sultan, grandson of ‘Ali Khan Beg Tekellu” read ‘‘Ali Khan Beg Tekellu, grandson of Burun Sultan”; p. 58, for “Mari Sultan” read “Damri Sultan”; p. 59, for dawlatkhāna read dīwānkhāna; and p. 54, for “Qaraja Beg Ustajlu” read “Qaranja Beg Ustajlu.”