Omaleki or Armaleki? An Analysis of Scribal Errors and Alterations in the Edited Version of Tarikh-e Gozideh by Abdolhossein Nava’i

Introduction

The Tarikh-e Gozideh (Selected History) by Hamdollah Mostowfi is one of the most significant historical sources in Persian historiography. Over time, several editions of this text have been produced, including the critical edition by Abdolhossein Nava'i. However, despite its widespread use, some textual distortions have remained unnoticed in this edition. One such instance is the transcription of the tribal name “Omaleki” as “Armaleki”, which has caused ambiguity in identifying the Abdolmaleki tribe. This study seeks to investigate why and how this name was altered and to establish the correct form based on comparative textual analysis.
The primary research question is: Why was the name “Abdolmaleki” transcribed as “Armaleki” in Nava'i’s edition, and what justifies the correction to “Omaleki”? By exploring this textual alteration, the study aims to shed light on broader linguistic changes and scribal errors in Persian historiography. The research also delves into the implications of such errors, considering their potential impact on our understanding of historical tribal affiliations and identity in medieval Persian sources. This is especially significant, as many Persian historiographical sources suffer from similar scribal misinterpretations, affecting broader historical narratives.
 

Literature Review

Several critical editions of Tarikh-e Gozideh have been produced over time. The first scholarly edition was prepared by Barbier de Meynard in 1857, followed by translations and analyses by scholars such as Edward Browne and Jean Aubin. The most widely cited Persian edition was published by Abdolhossein Nava'i in 1960. Later, Mohammad Roshan provided a revised edition in 2015. Despite these efforts, textual inconsistencies, particularly in tribal names, have persisted.
Errors in transcriptions of tribal names have been previously noted in Persian historiography. Similar distortions have been observed in works such as Shahnameh and Sharafnameh, where phonetic similarities between certain Persian letters led to misinterpretations by scribes. For instance, phonetic misinterpretations have led to distortions in proper nouns and place names, altering the way historical accounts are understood. This study builds upon such findings to analyze the specific case of “Omaleki” and its misrepresentation. Additionally, historical linguists have documented how scribal traditions and regional dialectal influences may have contributed to such errors over time, warranting further investigation into historical manuscripts.
 

Methodology

This research uses the approach of comparative text analysis. In this regard, various versions of Tarikh-e Gozideh, including the Nava’i and Roshani editions, and old facsimile versions, were gathered and compared with each other. Then, a linguistic and phonetic analysis of the name “Omaleki” was conducted in comparison with other tribal names in Persian historical texts to identify possible patterns of changes. To confirm the findings, consultations with experts in history and linguistics were held to verify the accuracy of the phonetic and orthographic patterns. Additionally, a statistical analysis was carried out on the frequency and consistency of the recording of this name across different versions. Moreover, other historical sources mentioning the Abdul-Malaki tribe were studied and compared to determine the extent of changes in the spelling and pronunciation of the name over time. Finally, a broader comparison was made with the historiographical traditions of Persian, Arabic, and Ottoman histories to investigate whether such misreadings also occurred in other regional texts.
 

Discussion

The study’s findings indicate that the transcription of “Omaleki” as “Armaleki” resulted from scribal errors influenced by phonetic similarities in Persian script. Specifically:

In several manuscripts, the letter “و” (vav) appears to have been misread as “ر” (re), leading to the erroneous rendering of “Omaleki” as “Armaleki”.
Comparative analysis of manuscript copies shows that the correct form, “Omaleki”, is consistently found in older and more reliable sources, including the “R” and “M” manuscripts.
Historical sources on the Abdolmaleki tribe support the validity of “Omaleki”, reinforcing its proper transcription.
The misrepresentation of this name could impact the understanding of tribal movements and historical lineage in Iranian historiography.

The study also discusses the broader implications of such errors, emphasizing the necessity for meticulous manuscript comparison in historical textual studies. The role of scribal habits, phonetic shifts, and dialectal influences are highlighted as key factors in the evolution of textual distortions. Furthermore, this section explores how textual inaccuracies can lead to misinterpretations in modern historiographical analysis, reinforcing the importance of proper paleographic studies in Persian manuscripts. The research also identifies other tribal names in Tarikh-e Gozideh that may have undergone similar distortions, suggesting the need for further critical revision of the text.
 

Conclusion

The research confirms that the correct transcription of the tribal name in Tarikh-e Gozideh should be “Omaleki”, rather than “Armaleki”. This correction is crucial for ensuring historical accuracy and preventing misinterpretations of tribal identities. The study underscores the importance of applying comparative manuscript analysis and linguistic expertise in future critical editions of Persian historical texts.
The findings advocate for a reassessment of other potentially misrepresented names in Persian historiography and suggest that more rigorous editorial standards should be applied in future textual studies. Additionally, the study recommends the use of digital manuscript analysis tools to minimize human errors in transcription and enhance the accuracy of historical editions. The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in manuscript studies is also highlighted, advocating for stronger engagement between historians, linguists, and textual scholars to produce more reliable critical editions of Persian historical texts.
Finally, this study contributes to the broader discourse on textual transmission and historiographical accuracy in Persian studies, reinforcing the significance of manuscript preservation and philological accuracy. By refining the transcription of historical sources, we not only preserve linguistic heritage but also enhance the reliability of historical narratives for future generations.