1 Savory, R. M., Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge, 1980), 3Google Scholar. For a survey of the recording of this “official” genealogy in the chronicles of the Safavid period, see Sarwar, G., History of Shāh Ismāᶜīl Ṣafawī (Aligarh, 1939), 17Google Scholar, n. 1; Quinn, S. A., Historical Writing during the Reign of Shāh ᶜAbbās (Salt Lake City, 2000), 83–86Google Scholar. This “official” genealogy is presented in section 3 of this study.

2 Kasravī, A., Shaykh Ṣafī va tabār-ash (Tehran, 1944Google Scholar, repr. Tehran, 1977). The study was first published in three parts in Āyandih, 2 (1926–28): 357–365, 489–497, 801–812. For treatments of the Safavids' descent in earlier studies, see, e.g. Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia, vol. 4 (repr. version; Bethesda, MD, 1997), 32–33Google Scholar; and Hinz, W., Irans Aufstieg zum Nationalstaat im fünfzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin and Leipzig, 1936), 12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For examples of the disputes by Safavids' cotemporary enemies, see Glassen, E., Die frühen Safawiden nach Qāżī Aḥmad Qumī (Freiburg, 1970), 23Google Scholar, n. 1; and Roemer, H. R., Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit (Stuttgart, 1989), 232Google Scholar, n. 29.

3 He used several manuscripts in addition, whose texts, it appears, were not significantly different from the lithograph edition as far as the section dealing with Safī's descent is concerned.

4 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 25–35. The episodes can now be found in Ibn Bazzāz Ardabīlī, Ṣafvat al-ṣafā, ed. by G. Ṭabāṭabāᵓī-Majd (Tabriz, 1994), 71–72.

5 The exact meanings of these two terms are not immediately transparent. For present purposes, I follow Kasravī, who said that in Azerbaijan in his own time the term sharīf was used to denote “a person who is a sayyid from mother's side” (Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 25).

6 For the date of the original compilation of Safvat, see Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 8; Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 17 (“Muqaddamih-i muṣaḥḥiḥ”). The date 759/1358 is the terminus ante quem of a long process of the book's original compilation.

7 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 30–31.

8 He conceded that what he had actually found in the contemporary documents was “al-Sadrī al-Safawī,” not “al-Mūsawī al-Safawī.” But, he pointed to “al-ᶜAlawī al-Sadrī al-Safawī” used for ᶜAlī's son Jaᶜfar, and claimed that the use of an ism witnessed there might have occurred with ᶜAlī, too. Kasravī would have liked to refer to “al-ᶜAlawī al-Mūsawī” used for Ibrāhīm, another son of Khvājih ᶜAlī's, found in al-Karbalāᵓī, Ibn, Rawżāt al-jinān va jannāt al-janān, ed. by Sulṭān al-Qurrāᵓī, J., vol. 1 (Tehran, 1965–66), 225Google Scholar.

9 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 29–31, 33–34. This view was later criticized by J. Aubin as being contradictory to the alleged interpolations made to Safvat (“Etudes safavides. I: Šāh Ismāᶜīl et les notables de l'Iraq persan,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2, no. 1 [1959]: 45Google Scholar, n. 1). To be more precise, Junayd and Haydar (until the late 870s/early 1470s) were shaykhs of one of the two rival factions within the Safavid order (see section 3 below).

10 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 36–37.

11 Ibid., 39–40.

12 Ibid., 44–45. He also claimed, though not as an evidence, that Shāh Ismāᶜīl, contrary to his son Shāh Tahmāsp (r. 930/1524–984/1576), was indifferent to making the claim to sayyid status (ibid., 41–42). This is obviously an invalid claim (see, e.g., Aubin, “Etudes,” 44, n. 4).

13 “Al-Subhānī” in the manuscript Kasravī consulted. Kasravī himself proposed to read it in this way.

14 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 46–48. Kasravī noted that Sinjar was also called Sinjan.

15 See Togan, Z. V., “Sur l'origine des Safavides,” in Mélanges Louis Massignon, vol. 3 (Damascus, 1957), 347–348Google Scholar; Allouche, A., The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Ṣafavid Conflict (906–962/1550–1555) (Berlin, 1983), 163Google Scholar (seven lines from l. 6).

16 Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 33.

17 In a postscript, Togan stated that he had not known Kasravī's study until after he had sent his manuscript to the print house. Kasravī's study was also not known to I. P. Petrushevskiı˘, who suggested that the “legend” about Safī's origin that he was twenty-one generations away from Mūsā al-Kāzim had probably been formed already around the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, i.e. during Khvājih ᶜAlī's era (“Gosudarstva Azerbaı˘dzhana v XV veke,” Izvestiya Azerbaı˘dzhanskogo filiala [Akademiya nauk SSSR], 1944, nos. 2–3, 7: no. 7, 97; Ocherki po istorii feodal'nykh otnosheniı˘ v Azerbaı˘dzhane i Armenii v XVI-nachale XIX vv. [Leningrad, 1949], 68). Petrushevskiı˘'s opinion is based merely on his understanding that both Sadr al-Dīn and Khvājih ᶜAlī had a tendency toward Shiᶜism.

18 Allouche noted that the catalogue number of this manuscript was 465, not 2639 (The Origins, 161, n. 22).

19 This manuscript also fails to record the second and third of the above-mentioned three episodes.

20 Togan noted that Barqūq was not ruling in that year (Togan, “Sur l'origine,” 352).

21 Ibid., 347–348.

22 Ibid., 347. He had Mīr Abū al-Fath al-Husaynī's famous “correction” of Safvat, commissioned by Shāh Tahmāsp, in mind when he mentioned the previous understanding. On Mīr Abū al-Fath's “correction,” see Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 18–20; Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 20–25 (“Muqaddamih-i muṣaḥḥiḥ”).

23 The latter term was read “al-Sanjānī” by Togan. I will continue using “al-Sinjānī” for convenience's sake.

24 Unfortunately, Togan consulted an idiosyncratic manuscript in this regard. Most Safavid and post-Safavid manuscripts have “nisbat-i Pīrūz rā dar dhikr-i nasab raft” here (Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 72).

25 Togan, “L'origine,” 346.

26 Ibid., 356.

27 He actually made a casual remark that amounted to considering Sadr al-Dīn's invention of the Musavid genealogy to be possibly a fact. But, he did not discuss the issue further (ibid., 353). That this remark did not fit Togan's overall argument was noted also by Roemer (Persien, 233, n. 33).

28 Togan, “Sur l'origine,” 352. Cf. V. Minorsky's remark that “the fact that the claim to an ᶜAlid descent on the part of Shaykh Ṣafī was registered already in the Ṣafvat al-ṣafā is suggestive in itself” (Minorsky, V., “Book Review: W. Hinz, Irans Aufstieg,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 9 [1937–39]: 240Google Scholar).

29 The genealogy from Fīrūz-shāh (Bihrūz or Fīrūs in the original text) presented in MS. Ayasofya 2123 is, according to Togan: Fīrūz b. Mahdī b. ᶜAlī b. Husayn b. Ahmad b. Abū al-Qāsim b. al-Nābit b. Husayn b. Ahmad b. Dāwūd b. ᶜAlī b. Mūsā al-Thānī b. Ibrāhīm b. Mūsā al-Kāzim (Togan, “Sur l'origine,” 348; “Nābit” should rather be read “Thābit”). For Vahīd's recording, see Muḥammad Ṭāhir b. Ḥusayn Qazvīnī, Vaḥīd, Tārīkh-i jahān-ārā-yi ᶜAbbāsī, ed. Muḥammad-Ṣādiq, S. Mīr (Tehran, 2005), 21Google Scholar (previously mentioned by Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 23; Sarwar, History, 17, n. 1; M. Muḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāᵓī, “Az takht-i pūst-i darvīshī tā takht-i shahryārī [pt. 2],” Vaḥīd, 9 [1966]: 721). Muhīt reported that the genealogy of the Kawākibī family in Aleppo, descendants of Muhyī al-Dīn Abū Yahyā b. Shaykh Ibrāhīm, was also identifiable with this genealogy (ibid., pt. 2: 721).

30 Muhīt suggested that the issue of the Safavid descent might not have been as important to other people as it was for Shāh Tahmāsp or Kasravī (ibid., pt. 2: 722).

31 The Turkic translation dated February 1457, used by Sohrweide, H. in her “Der Sieg der Ṣafaviden und seine Rückwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens im 16. Jahrhundert,” Der Islam, 41 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see esp. 117, n. 152), might yield a productive addition.

32 For previous surveys of relevant studies, see Rochan Zamir-Dahncke, M., “The Problem of the Descent of the Safavids,” Nashriyih-i Dānishkadih-i Adabīyāt va ᶜUlūm-i Insānī, Dānishgāh-i Iṣfahān, 8, no. 9 (1974): 15–19Google Scholar; Rustamī, ᶜĀdil, “Siyādat va tashayyuᶜ-i Ṣafaviyān dar dawrih-i pīsh az salṭanat,” Tārīkh dar āyinih-i pazhūhish, 4, no. 2 (2007)Google Scholar (on-line version: http://www.qabas.org/nashrie/tarikh/tarikh14/index.htm, accessed 15 January 2009). The latter deals only with publications in Persian language (both original works and translations). Gronke's, M. treatment of the question can also be read as one such survey (Derwische im Vorhof der Macht [Stuttgart, 1993], 244–245)Google Scholar.

33 Aubin, “Etudes,” 43–45.

34 [pt. 1] Vaḥīd, 7 (1966): 544–551, [pt. 2] Vaḥīd, 9 (1966): 720–727, [pt. 3] Vaḥīd, 10 (1966): 876–882. Muhīt mentioned Kasravī's name in one place, however (“Az takht-i pūst [pt. 2],” 722). As for his sources, it is certain that he consulted “the oldest manuscripts of Safvat al-safā kept in Ayasofya Library” (ibid., pt. 1: 548). But, did he also use another manuscript that contained a text similar to that of MS. Ayasofya 2123? He transcribed from Safvat a Musavid genealogy comparable to, but significantly different from, the one found in that manuscript (ibid., pt. 2: 720), but the difference might have resulted from his sloppy transcription.

35 Ibid., pt. 2: 720.

36 Ibid., pt. 1: 551, pt. 2: 722.

37 Ibid., pt. 1: 547–551. He counted the Kurdish origin of the Safavids, which he believed to be true, as a pride of the Kurds (ibid., pt. 1: 548).

38 Ibid., pt. 2: 722. Cf. Rochan Zamir-Dahncke's remark in which she held that the term “al-Kurdī” could not prove the Kurdish descent because the Arabs living in Iran also used Persian “laqab's (sic)” (Rochan Zamir-Dahncke, “The Problem,” 15).

39 Muḥīṭ, “Az takht-i pūst [pt. 2],” 720. The date of death is taken from ibid., pt. 2: 723.

40 Ibid., pt. 2: 724–727.

41 We do not know what the grounds for the note about Muhyī al-Dīn was. Muhīt's locution makes me suspect that the use of “Sayyidī ᶜAlī” in Kunūz al-dhahab was perhaps its only basis. It depends on what sense Muhīt used the phrase “shajarih-i nasab” (see ibid., pt. 2: 720, 723, 724, 727). As for that first phrase, i.e. “Sayyidī ᶜAlī” in Kunūz, it is of course necessary to prove that the term “sayyidī,” i.e. “my master,” really denoted sayyid status in late fifteenth century Aleppo. It must also be explained why no title to signify sayyid status was added to the other names appearing in the same genealogy (“al-Saykh Junayd b. [sic] Sayyidī ᶜAlī b. Sadr al-Dīn al-Ardabīlī”).

42 Bina-Motlagh, Scheich Safi, 130–137.

43 Roemer, and then Rochan Zamir-Dahncke, later suggested that a story recorded in Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī's Rawzāt al-jinān, in which Safī is made to say, out of humility, that he dare not claim his sayyid status, could be referred to in this context (Roemer, H. R., “Sheich Ṣafī von Ardabīl,” in Festgabe deutscher Iranisten zur 2500 Jahrfeier Irans, ed. by Eilers, W. [Stuttgart, 1971], 114Google Scholar, n. 38; Rochan Zamir-Dahncke, “The Problem,” 17). Bina-Motlagh translated the story in question in Sheich Safi, 198, but in a different context.

44 Glassen, E., Die frühen Safawiden (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1970), 22–23Google Scholar. Glassen did not have direct access to Kasravī's work.

45 Roemer, “Sheich Ṣafī,” 110–114 (the article runs 106–116).

46 al-Karbalāᵓī, Ibn, Rawżāt, 1: 223–225Google Scholar.

47 Roemer apparently took the idea of Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī's anti-Safavid stance caused by his forced emigration out of Persia from Bina-Motlagh, Sheich Safi, 138–139, to which he gave reference in a different context. He might have also found it favorable to his conjecture that Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī presented Safī as a Sunnite, a fact also pointed out by Bina-Motlagh. But, this last point cannot be of any significance, because Kasravī, who failed to consult pre-Safavid manuscripts, could also cite an episode depicting Safī as a Sunnite from “some old manuscripts” (Kasravī, Shaykh Ṣafī, 10; the episode was later modified so that Safī would appear a Shiᶜite). Cf. Rochan Zamir-Dahncke's comment on Roemer's conjecture, “this thesis can only be proved if such a copy, written before 1501, containing the full genealogy would appear” (“The Problem,” 16).

48 Rochan Zamir-Dahncke later agreed with Roemer, and suggested further that “these text alterations are due to the fact that the copyists, from the 16th century onwards, for whom the Safavids were Sayyid's [sic], could not reconcile this with Kurdish ancestry and therefore tried to read this passage in another way, supposing that there was a clerical error, or just omitted the ‘laqab’ for the same reason” (ibid., 17).

49 Roemer, Persien, 231–233.

50 Cf. Rochan Zamir-Dahncke's remark that the episode might have recorded Safī's wishful thinking only (“The Problem,” 16).

51 Dirakhshānī, M., “Pīrāmūn,” Majallih-i Dānishkadih-i Adabīyāt va ᶜUlūm-i Insānī, Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 21, no. 4 (1974–75): 153–162Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., 155. The bayt is: Fāyiz az nūr-i rasūl-ast bih sū-yi ummat / tabᶜ-i fayyāz-i tu dar gawhar-i bahr-ᵓl-ansāb. The bayt is now found in Dīvān-i ashᶜār-i Nāṣir Bukhārāᵓī, ed. by M. Dirakhshānī (Tehran, 1974), 19.

53 Dirakhshānī, “Pīrāmūn,” 156–161.

54 In a way, it is Kasravī's incautious assertion which should be blamed for causing this unproductive refutation.

55 Allouche, The Origins, 157–166 (“Appendix B The Genealogy of the Ṣafawids”).

56 Ibid., 165.

57 Zarrīnkūb, ᶜA., Dunbālih (Tehran, 1983–84), 59Google Scholar.

58 In Raḥīmlū, Y. et al., eds., Yādnāmih-i Mīrzā Jaᶜfar Sulṭān al-Qurrāyī (Tabriz, 1991), 217–232Google Scholar. Rahīmlū discussed the Safavid descent at 219–222.

59 Rahīmlū also critically discussed an article by Muhīt Tabātabāᵓī.

60 For my understanding of sayyids, see my “Toward the Formation of Sayyido-Sharifology: Questioning Accepted Fact,” The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, 22 (2004): 87–103Google Scholar (available online at: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110004497103/en/).

61 The thesis of Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī's forced exodus caused by his Sunnism also appears to be questionable. A contemporary source written by Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī's friend in Damascus presents Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī's fondness for that city as the reason for the migration (Ibn al-Karbalāᵓī, Rawżāt, 1: 19 [“Muqaddamih-ᵓi muṣaḥḥiḥ”]).

62 al-Karbalāᵓī, Ibn, Rawżāt, 1: 223Google Scholar (both “that master… ” and the reason for including Safī's biography). The account of Safī's life is at 223–273.

63 Mazzaoui transcribed the account and noted the year of compilation (Mazzaoui, M., The Origins of the Ṣafavids: Šīᶜism, Ṣūfism, and the żulāt [Wiesbaden, 1972], 54Google Scholar). He does not appear to have noticed the importance of this account as evidence for a pre-dynastic claim, however. On another note, this famous study by Mazzaoui just summarized the views of Kasravī and Togan, and offered no original research on the question of the Safavids' claim to sayyid status (ibid., 46–48).

64 Muᵓayyad Thābitī, ᶜA., Asnād va nāmih-hā-yi tārīkhī (Tehran, 1967), 375–376Google Scholar.

65 Bik, Farīdūn, Majmūᶜih-i munshaᵓāt al-salāṭīn, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1858–59), 1Google Scholar: 310.

66 Şeyh Cüneyd Şeyh ᶜAbdü'l-latīfᵓe suᵓāl itdi, “Ataya ashāb mı evlādur, yohsa evlād mı evlādur,” didi. ᶜĀşıkpaşazāde, , ᶜĀşıkpaşazāde tārīhi, ed. by Bey, ᶜĀlī (Istanbul, 1913–14), 265Google Scholar. Allouche's transcription lacks “ataya.”

67 ᶜAbd al-Latīf's answer, in the story, is that the companions are worthier because they are mentioned in the Qurᵓan as “muhājirīn waᵓl-ansār” and the four madhhabs originate from the companions, not from the descendants. Junayd then poses a provocative question whether ᶜAbd al-Latīf was present in person when the Qurᵓanic verses in question were revealed. Thereupon, ᶜAbd al-Latīf declares Junayd and his adherents unbelievers (kāfir).

68 I must thank Professor Osman Gazi Özgüdenli for clarifying the meaning of this passage to me.

69 Namely, , Osmanoğulları'nın tarihi, ed. by Yavuz, Kemal and Yekta Saraç, M. A. (Istanbul, 2003)Google Scholar; Vom Hirtenzelt zur Hohen Pforte: Frühzeit und Aufstieg des Osmanenreiches nach der Chronik “Denkwürdigkeiten und Zeitläufe des Hauses ᶜOsman” vom Derwisch Ahmed, genannt ᶜAşık-Paşa-Sohn, trans. by R. F. Kreutel (Graz et al., 1959) (based on the Berlin MS., generally considered to be the most authentic); Die altosmanische Chronik des ᶜĀšıḳpašazāde, ed. by F. Giese (Wiesbaden, 1929, repr., Osnabrück, 1972); Âşıkpaşaoğlu tarihi, ed. by A. Nihal Atsız (Ankara, [1985]). It was Professor Jun Akiba who brought it to my attention that the whole account of Shaykh Junayd's activities in Anatolia was lacking in the Yavuz et al. edition and suggested that I examine other editions and translations.

70 Morimoto, K., “The Notebook of a Sayyid/Sharīf Genealogist: MS. British Library Or. 1406,” in Scritti in onore di Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, vol. 3, ed. by Bredi, D. et al. (Rome, 2008), 823–836Google Scholar. I pointed out the significance of this genealogical chart, transcribed the genealogy down to Safī, and announced my intention to publish a facsimile of the whole chart in n. 12 of this earlier article.

72 According to Hinz, Haydar was born in April 1460, one month after his father's death (Irans Aufstieg, 48–49). See also Woods, J. E., The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, revised and expanded ed. (Salt Lake City, 1999), 142Google Scholar, where it is stated that Haydar was Junayd's “posthumous son.” Whether or not he was truly a posthumous son (I find the question worth reexamining because of the ambiguity of the passage in Tārīkh-i ᶜĀlam-ārānasab-yi Amīnī [see below] and the doubtful authenticity of the account in ᶜAşıkpaşazade's history [see n. 69 above], the two sources upon which this understanding is based), it is certain that Haydar was at the primary stage of his life when Junayd was killed (Fażl Allāh Rūzbihān Khunjī Iṣfahānī, Tārīkh-i ᶜālam-ārā-yi Amīnī, ed. by Muḥammad-Akbar ᶜAshīq [Tehran, 2003], 264: “[when Junayd was killed,] the sparks of the existence of his child Haydar were beginning to blaze up in Amid (sharar-i vujūd-i valad-ash Shaykh Haydar dar Āmid afrūkhtan giriftih būd)”; the reference to ᶜĀlam-ārā-yi Amīnī given both by Hinz and Woods appears to pertain to this passage, too). Zāhidī's statement that Haydar was twenty years old when he was killed in 893/1488 is obviously wrong (Zāhidī, Silsilih al-nasab-i Ṣafavī [Berlin, 1924], 50).

73 Aubin, “Etudes,” 46–47; Hinz, Irans Aufstieg, 23–24, 46–47, 59, 72; Woods, The Aqquyunlu, 98, 107.

74 The leadership of the Safavid order had invaluably been handed down from a father to a son until Jaᶜfar succeeded to Ibrāhīm.

71 My examination of the first feature was a little crude in my previous article (“The Notebook,” 827), and the significance of the second feature dawned on me after the publication of that article.

76 I thank Hujjat al-Islām va ᵓl-Muslimīn Sayyid Muhammad-Rizā Jalālī for proposing this second line of speculation to me.

75 The line found in the bottom, beginning with “ᶜAn Rasūl Allāh,” have no relation with this chart.

77 It does not appear that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī was specially connected to the Safavids. Although there are some signs of his inclination to Sufism in general, there is no sign whatsoever of his affiliation with the Safavid order in Or. 1406 (Morimoto, “The Notebook”). In addition, al-Mūsawī al-Najafī was most probably Twelver Shiᶜite, not necessarily in accord with the religious orientations of the two factions of the Safavid order at the same time.

78 Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 70.

79 To try yet one more comparison: the genealogy found in Khvāndamīr, , Ḥabīb al-siyar, ed. by Dabīr-siyāqī, M., 2nd ed., vol. 4 (Tehran, 1974–75), 409–410Google Scholar, is different from our genealogical chart only in that it has “Husayn” instead of “Hasan.” The “inconsistencies and variations” in the “official” genealogy which Savory addressed appears to be of a similar nature (Savory, Iran under the Safavids, 3). Quinn ascribed the “small differences” she found in the genealogies recorded in chronicles to “variations in manuscript recensions” (Quinn, Historical Writing, 85).

80 For example, K. Babayan's thesis in which she connects Ismāᶜīl's supposed adoption of the “official” Musavid genealogy to the adoption of “a rationalist version of Imamism” by the same sovereign would require some modification in light of this finding (Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran [Cambridge, MA et al., 2002], 143–145).

81 Khvāndamīr, , Ḥabīb, 4: 426Google Scholar; Mazzaoui, The Origins, 78; Woods, , The Aqquyunlu, 150, 209Google Scholar.

82 Mazzaoui, The Origins, 54; Allouche, The Origins, 164–165; Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 1239.

83 For ᶜAbd al-Rahmān and “Shaykh Shāh,” see Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafvat, 1239 (in the postscript Mīr Abū al-Fath added to Safvat in order to give an account of the pre-dynastic history of the Safavids); Zāhidī, Silsilih, 49–50, 65.

84 For Imām-qulī's birthdate, see Monshi, Eskandar Beg, The History of Shah ᶜAbbas the Great (Tārīḳ-e ᶜĀlamārā-ye ᶜAbbāsī), vol. 1, trans. by Savory, R. M. (Boulder, CO, 1978), 217Google Scholar.

85 R. M. Savory, s.v. “Ṭahmāsp,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed. 10: 110 lists the names of thirteen princes. Monshi, Eskandar Beg, The History, 1: 206–218Google Scholar presents only nine princes, but mentions the order of their births.