Political, Social and Religious Aspects of Georgian-Persian Diplomacy

Дослідження проводилося за фінансової підтримки Грузинського національного наукового фонду імені Шота Руставелі. У межах проекту (Ф No17_554) «Документальні джерела (грамоти, епіграфічні пам'ятки, колофони рукописів) про царів Картлі і Кахеті першої половини XVII століття (1600–1662) (публікація і дослідження джерел)». Для ретельного вивчення грузино-перських відносин XVI–XVII ст. особливий інтерес представляє дослідження історичних документів цього періоду. Ці історичні документи містять важливу інформацію про грузинсьі соціальні, адміністративні і державні інститути. Грузино-перські історичні документи в динаміці відображають ті політичні, соціальні та релігійні процеси, які мали місце в XVI–XVII ст. у Східній Грузії при втручанні Сефевідської Ірану. Вивчення окремих сегментів дипломатичних пам’ятників – взаємозв’язок грузинських і перських текстів наочно представляє грузинські реалії та особливості політичних, соціальних і релігійних відносин Ірану і Грузії. Дослідження грузино-перських двомовних документів дозволяє нам побачити спробу Ірану втрутитися в систему землеволодіння в Грузії і замінити її ірано-мусульманською. Інвокаціі грузинських царів і наявні легенди на їх перських печатках ясно вказують на ті політичні та релігійні впливи, які вони відчували внаслідок цензури Сефевидів. У світлі всього сказаного, ми можемо уявити собі специфіку роботи царської канцелярії (самдіванмсігнобро) рузіі, рух документа УДК: 94(479.22) DOI: 10.15421/172079

ГРАНІ Том 23 № 8 2020 ПОЛІТОЛОГІЯ S tudying of relations between Iran and Georgia in 16th -17th centuries is of particular interest. Research of Georgian-Persian historical documents of the above period allows thorough studying of diverse relationships between Eastern Georgia and Safavid Iran. These historical documents provide information about social, administrative and state institutes. Georgian diplomatic monuments describe domestic and international situation of the country.
Goal of our research is studying of social, political, religious and legal aspects of Georgian-Persian diplomatic monuments of 16th -17th centuries: relation of Persian texts of the documents with Georgian national system -characteristics of substance of "Georgian Tiul", categories of Tiuldar and their rights and obligations, specific characteristics of the secretariat-chancellery, movement of the document before its entry into legal force and term of effectiveness of the documents; clarification and analysis of the specific nature of Georgian-Iranian political and social relationships against the background of observation and study of the diplomatic clauses in Persian texts of bilingual Georgian-Persian documents.
Research of bilingual documents is based on formulary, textological, comparative and critical analysis methods.
Numerous researches of bilingual Georgian-Persian documents were conducted to elucidate sociopolitical, diplomatic and linguistic issues (Puturidze, 1955;Dundua, 1984;Abashidze, 1973;Petrushevski, 1949) and their main purpose was clarification of the social function of these documents -open or implied information in the source and their comparison with the historical reality.
Since early 16th century Iran had been making attempts of liquidation of the kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti as independent political units and their transformation into the ordinary provinces of Iran (Baindurashvili, 2019 a). By the end of 16th century Safavid Iran achieved the position where it approved the representatives of Bagrationi dynasty as kings of Kartli and Kakheti provided that they adopted Islam. In 1578, Svimon I, released from Alamut prison had to adopt Shiite Tradition (Guchua, and Svanidze, 1974). Shah of Iran, Mohammad Khodabanda (1578-1587) granted to Svimon the title of "Brother" and returned him back to Kartli. Iran desired him to drive out the Ottomans, excessively active in Caucasus (Puturidze, 1969).
Subordination of Svimon I to Safavid Iran impacted operation of the royal council -from 80s of 16th century, in Kartli commenced introduction of Qizilbash style paperwork and clear example of this is appearing of Georgian-Persian historical deeds, implying approaching of Georgian paperwork with Iranian standards.
Up to 40s of 17th century Georgian and Persian parts of bilingual deeds were written on different pages. Persian text maintained some kind of independence of contents and it looked like absolutely complete legal document (Abashidze, 1974). Nevertheless, both texts of the deed comprised single diplomatic item. In 40s of 17th century the bilingual deeds have changed, with respect of both, contents and form. Persian part now was the summary of Georgian part and it was placed above Georgian text (Abashidze, 1974;Abuladze, and Giunashvili, 2011).
Architectonics of Persian parts of bilingual deeds corresponds to the traditions of Safavid paperwork requirements. Appearance of the deed, structure of each segment, calligraphy and terminology fully corresponds to Iranian diplomatics (Abashidze, 1974) Its architectonics is represented as follows: Invocatio (reference to God), mentioning of the forefathers, introductory formula, legal aspects of the dealdocument issuer and addressee; key issue of the document -purpose of issuance, legal contents of the deal, issue of the object, protection of the legal relationships expressed by the key issue (Abuladze, and Giunashvili, 2011).
Georgian-Persian historical deeds have diverse contents: these include deeds of granting of the serfs and properties, granting of Tarkhan's privileges, various offices and other documents. The deeds of granting of serfs and estates are of particular interest. They clearly depict political relationships between Georgia and Iran (Puturidze, 1955).
For Georgian and Iranian-Qizilbash ruling stratum the basis for granting of estate was faithful service of the specific person (or persons) to Georgian king and shah of Iran. And for this, the subjects received the land as "deserved award" from their suzerains (Gabashvili, 1958).

POLITOLOGY GRANI 23 (8) 2020
Persian parts of Georgian-Persian historical deeds were mostly the deeds of granting, implying granting of the land (estate) -main object of feudal property.
Calligraphic hands of the Persian parts of Georgian-Persian deeds is Shekasteh, Nastaliq and Shekasteh-Nastaliq. Shekasteh was used most frequently.
Persian texts of Georgian-Persian historical deeds have two types of dating -in Dispositio, under the influence of Safavid office traditions, to denote the year, routinely they used Mongol astronomic calendar and the date in the end of document was located after Sanctio and it was according to Hegira calendar (Dundua, 1984).
Persian part of the deeds issued in the period of reign of Svimon I differs, to some extent, from the structure of the bilingual deeds of the later period. The deed commenced with the word "now"-‫ﯾﻨﻮﻗﺖ‬ ‫,در‬ rarely -‫ﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﯽ‬ ‫اﻣﺮ‬ high order was issued and ‫ھﭽﻨﺎورپ‬ -order. This means that the document is of ‫ﻋﺎﻟﯿﺸﺎن‬ ‫ﻧﺸﺎن‬ category -"high mark", (Puturidze, 1955) protocol, order, ordinance is not specified in the beginning of the text and it is mentioned in the text end. Further, in late 80s, the document category regularly appears in the beginning of the text, such as "Amre Ali" -‫ﻋﺎﻟﯽ‬ ‫اﻣﺮ‬ -High Order, "Parvanche" -‫ﭘﺮواﻧﭽﮫ‬ (Puturidze, 1955) only deed issued in 1591 by Alexander II, King of Kakheti begins with the formula-‫ﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻟﯽ‬ ‫ﺣﮑﻢ‬ -High order is issued (Puturidze, 1955).
Persian invocatios of Georgian kings are of particular interest. Invocatio is the document preamble, composed of religious-political elements mentioned the source of power -god and full name and legal status of the bearer of this power -issuer of the deed and this status was granted to him by shah of Iran. In the deeds of Svimon I, torga written with singur contains invocation (Puturidze, 1955) and its full formulation is -‫ﻣﯿﺮزا[‬ ‫ﺧﺎن[‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮد‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎن‬ ‫-ﺳﻮزم‬ He [is] God praised in all his deeds. Abul Mansut Sultan Mahmud-Khan Mirza. My word" (Puturidze, 1955). Invocatio closely reflects historical reality and underlines the double standard existing in Georgian-Iranian political relationships. Svimon I, mentioed in Georgian reality as Georgian king, in one of significant segments of Persian text of the deeds issued by him (Invocatio) has to recognize official status granted by Safavids and mention himself not as king but as prince -Mirza. Invocatio also cotains full Moslem name of Svimon I -Abul Mansur Sultan Mahmud-Khan.
One of the key signs of entry into legal force of the document is the seal affixed by the issuer on it (Javakhishvili, 1926). Clear example of political dependence of Svimon I on shah of Iran is the legend of his Persian seal affixed on the document of 1588. Large round Persian seal of Georgian king bears lettering: ‫نیز‬ ‫دوب‬ ‫هللا‬ ‫یاناد‬ ‫نوچیب‬ ‫هک‬ ‫تسه‬ ‫زا‬ ‫ناج‬ ‫مالغ‬ ‫هاش‬ ‫نویمس‬ -"Knows incomparable god that Svimon, with his soul, is the ghulam of shah". Regarding that the Persian chancellery seals of the period of Svimon's reign are illegible due to high degree of damage, names of the chancellery officers present in that period at Georgian royal court by the order of Shah of Iran are unknown to us.
Following Moslem king of Kartli appointed by Shah Abbas I was Bagrat VII -Bagrat-Khan (1616-1619), mentioned by Georgians with hatred and mocking the master of Sabaratiano and they did not obey to him (Kaukhchishvili, 1973). bilingual deeds issued by him have not survived or they are unknown to the scientists until now.
There were somewhat different rules of approval of Georgian-Persian deeds in early 17th century. In 1608-1625, in the period of reign of King Luarsab and Simon-Khan there were issued Georgian deeds that, after signature of the king, bore Persian seal and Persian registration seal of the same king (some of them bear one and some -two seals) (Kartvelishvili et al., 2019). Absence of Persian texts in Georgian deeds makes us offer that at Georgian royal court there was no servant who had competence of translation of Georgian text and was granted authority of its approval by shah of Iran.
Legend of the seal of Svimon II can be read on Georgian deed of granting of 1624 (NCM, Hd 3056). In the end of the text there is affixed Simon's small octagonal Persian seal with lettering: -"Simon, slave of king of the truth" On the verso of deed (survived after restoration) at the registration postscript: "This order shall end this way" (Kartvelishvili et al., 2019) -there is affixed pear-shaped Persian registration seal with the legend -‫مالغ‬ ‫هاش‬ ‫ورسخیک‬ -"Shah's slave Kaikhosro".
Only a copy of the copy Georgian-Persian deed of Svimon II maintained has survived. It is dated with 1626. In the end of its Persian text there is a Persian postscript: ‫لحم`‬ ‫رهم‬ ‫هاش‬ ‫~سابع‬ -"Place of seal of Shah Abbas" -there is a mistake made when it was rewritten later as shahs of Iran did not affix their seals on Georgian-Persian bilingual deeds.
Persian seal and Persian registration seal are affixed on Georgian-Persian deed of Svimon II of 1627. There can be read the lettering of the other Persian seal of King Svimon: ‫مالغ‬ ‫هاش‬ ‫سابع‬ ‫نویمس‬ -Svimon, ghulam of shah. There is also affixed hexagonal Persian registration seal with the legend ‫مالغ-‬ ‫هاش‬ ‫سابع‬ ‫یلقیلع‬ -Alikuli ghulam of Shah Abbas, The same seal is affixed below Georgian registration postscript -"This Order shall end in this way" (Kartvelishvili et al., 2019). In this period (1608-1625) the deeds had no registration postscripts and Georgian registration postscript was attested by king's Persian seal.
The above mentioned Kaikhosro (supposedly this was royal steward Kaikhosro Baratashvili) (Kldiashvili et al., 1991) and, very likely, Alikuli were Georgian persons authorized representatives of shah of Iran, who were good in Persian, as they were entitled to translate and attest the documents issued by Georgian kings. We can suppose that they had the position of mustoufi as well. Both chancellery servants and King of Kartli, Svimon II (and Svimon I as well) had the status of ghulam, this means that they were among the ghulams (personal guards) of shah.
It is interesting, what has caused stopping of translation of Georgian documents into Persian in period 1608-1625. This could be explained by domestic and foreign political situation of Safavid Iran. Since 1590 Shah Abbas I conducted reforms in the country and since 1603, in different periods, Iran fought with Ottomans, Portugal and Eastern Georgia (Katsitadze, 2009). It is likely that in this situation Iran did not pay much attention to the paperwork and rules of attesting Georgian deeds were restricted to Persian seals of Georgian kings and chancellery servants.
Georgian-Persian deeds show that since reign of Svimon I event Persian text was subject to control of Georgian king and this is evidenced by the seal of Georgian king affixed to Persian text (Gabashvili, 1958).
Supposedly, Persian seals of Georgian kings were produced in Iran and the legend thereon was confirmed and permitted by shah (Baindurashvili, 2019 b).
Preamble of the deeds -divine and political will "Shah of Iran has only formally appropriated Georgian feudal lands." (Apakidze et al., 1956) Georgian historical deeds of early 17th century show that Safavid Iran intervenes into management of Georgian landholding system. Shah Abbas I issues orders to Georgian king and on the basis of this order king of Kartli is obliged to approve or resume ownership of the properties for one or another Georgian nobleman close to shah (GNA, 1450-19/98).
Divine and political will expressed in the preamble of deeds precisely reflect political situation between Eastern Georgia and Safavid Iran. In Georgian deeds issued by Bagrat-Khan and Svimon-Khan there are diplomatic formulas ("With the will and help of god and khans of Shah Abbas", (GNA, 1448-252) "by the grace of god and order of Shah Abbas", (NCM, Ad-973) "by god's order and grace of Shah Abbas" (GNA, 1448-1261), where the existing political relationships are described with some kind of synthesis of divine and political will. Irrespective of Moslem religion of Georgian kings, the divine will is expressed from Christian position and the main figurant of the political will is Shah Abbas I of Iran. He is also named as guarantor of legality of the deed.
In the sanctio of Georgian historical deed there is also merged Christian and Moslem formula, according to which, who violates the clauses of the deed -"…Wrath of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all saints and blissful Shah Abbas" (GNA, 1450-37/190).
This one segment of Georgian diplomatics of early 17th century clearly shows the process of how Georgian noblemen attempted to present shah of Iran as their patron, "guarantor" of their property and "superior protector". And all these underline POLITOLOGY GRANI 23 (8) 2020 reduction of the powers of Georgian king and decentralization process. In addition, in the curse part of Georgian deed of 1629, the propagator of Islam is mentioned in a very negative context and violator of the deed conditions is declared as his equal, doomed to end up in hell … Let him become the ally of Mahmad from Sanana and sink to the bottom of hell (Kartvelishvili et al., 2019).
Tiul Persian texts of Georgian-Persian historical deeds are interesting and notable for their social contents. From the end of 16th century, issuance of bilingual deeds under the Safavid political influence in Georgian paperwork was associated with the fight for Georgian lands from the side of Iran (Gabashvili, 1958). Strained political relationships between Georgians and Safavids resulted in introduction into Georgian diplomatics such social terms as "Tiul", "Tiuldar", "Soiurghal", "Raiat" (meaning peasant). These terms were strange and unacceptable for Georgian landholding system.
According to Moslem law, the supreme owner of the land is the state (Gabashvili, 1958). In 17-18th centuries, in Iran, there were two types of tiul: first -tiul was transferred to a person as compensation for certain office and he was entitled to take advantage of it for the period when he held such office. The other type of tiul was granted to a person as deserved award for the service to the state. (Petrushevski, 1949) According to Iranian tradition, tiul implied the right to collect the rents and taxes, in full or in part, from certain area, rather than the right to rule the land, people living there and irrigation network (Petrushevski, 1949;Gabashvili, 1958).
Due to dramatic content difference between tiul and estate it was necessary to add to "tiul" the signs characteristic for Georgian landholding, such as fiscal, administrative and judicial impermeability and right to bequeath (Abashidze, 1974;Petrushevski, 1949).
According to Persian texts of deeds issued by Svimon I, heirloom was transferred to the feudal lord as tiul (Pitiridze, 1955) In 20-30s of 17th century tiul was mentioned without any definition (Abashidze, 1974) Hereditary estate mentioned in Georgian text of the deed issued by Svimon II is translated in Persian text as "tiul and hereditary estate" -‫لویت‬ ‫و‬ ‫کالما‬ ‫یثوروم‬ (Puturidze, 1955). "Heritage" mentioned in Georgian text of the deed issue by Rostom-Khan in 1635 was translated into Persian as "estate and tiul" ‫یکلم(‬ ‫و‬ ‫)یلویت‬ (Puturidze, 1955). Hence, the logical conclusion is that the "estate" was given to Georgian feudal lords as the remuneration for their office. I.e. there was the trend of replacing estate with tiul.
Term mulk (estate) was not used in Persian text, in our opinion, absolutely intentionally (or it is used very rarely). It is interesting, why term "estate" was not calqued instead like in case of noblemen. This means that those who wrote Persian text intentionally avoided use of the term showing hereditary nature of the land. With time, possibly, such attributives as "permanent", "inheritable" could be removed and as a result, there would be oriental -Moslem "tiul".
As reasonably mentioned V. Puturidze, use of term "tiul" to denote estate and "raiat" -to denote peasant, demonstrated the attempt of changing Georgian landholding order with Moslem-Qizilbash one by Iran (Puturidze, 1955). Studying of the deeds showed that Iran made attempts to transform "estate" to tiul.
Tiuldar categories: According to Georgian-Persian grant deeds, there were two categories of tiuldars: first category had authority to consider and make decision for "any judicial case" within the area subordinated to him -tiul (Puturidze, 1955) (both, civil and criminal cases are implied). The other category had no authority to consider the criminal cases. The deeds particularly emphasize that tiuldar considers all cases with the exclusion of criminal ones (Puturidze, 1955).
With respect of distinguishing legal relations between the parties, accurate specifications of the obligations characteristic for the Persian texts of deeds is of particular significance and interest. Law specifies the obligations of tiuldar to the state (law) and peasants.
Issuer of the deed in the disposition section of each grant deed strictly specified the primary obligations of tiuldar, such as fairness and care about entrusted people. Documents clearly show that the central government tended to protect population from tiuldar's arbitrariness. Grantee was entitled to collect the taxes set by the state in the tiul territory.
Disposition component of the deed obligated the peasants to obey tiuldar. This requirement was also applicable to local administrative officials -meliks and qedkhods (Puturidze, 1955).
Entry of the deed into legal force was attested by the royal seal. This rule is presented by the following diplomatic formula: " ‫نوچ‬ ‫ناشن‬ ‫]یل[اع‬ ‫رهمب‬ ‫و‬ ‫طخ‬ ‫کرابم‬ ‫نیزم‬ ‫و‬ ‫حشوم‬ ‫ددرک‬ ‫دامتعا‬ ‫:دنیامن‬ "when the high sign is equipped and decorated with the blessed seal and writing -obey it." (Puturidze, 1955) Diplomatically, "writing" means the official endorsement depicting "movement" of the deed before its entry into legal force, ‫ات‬ ‫ناشن‬ ‫یلاعرهمب‬ ‫نیزم‬ ‫ددرکن‬ ‫دامتعا‬ ‫دنیامنن‬ -"until [this] sign is not equipped with the high seal, do not accept it" (Puturidze, 1955). "High seal" and "blessed seal" means the seal of Georgian king.
Term of effectiveness of the deed: Each deed was renewed each time when a new king was enthroned. (Berdzenishvili, 1937;Gabashvili, 1958) The king re-approved legality of the grant deed issued by his predecessor in the period of his reign as well. Though, Georgian-Persian diplomatic materials show that there was a legal norm according to which the government was entitled to demand annual renovation of the deed. In the sanction of Persian text in Georgian-Persian deeds there was the formula stated for mustoufi "not to demand new order and sign every year," (Puturidze, 1955) and this guaranteed "many-year" nature of the property registries.
In Georgian paperwork mustoufi was particularly significant. Deeds made special emphasis on his duties and strictly required fulfillment of them. All deeds state that mustoufi's obligation was to register the documents in the special royal registration log and not to allow any changes of the text, (Puturidze, 1955).
"On the basis of written in Georgian" Irrespective of attempts from the side of Safavids to intervene into Georgian domestic relationships and for this purpose, initially introduce terminological changes in the diplomatic monuments, the main segment of Georgian-Persian deeds was still was Georgian text, detailing terms and conditions of granting. Persian parts of bilingual deeds were totally built on and depended on "written in Georgian" and Georgian legislation (Dasturmalali of Georgia) and this was reflected in the disposition component of Persian part. (Puturidze, 1955;Gabashvili, 1958;Abashidze, 1974) King Rostom In 1632, Shah of Iran, Safi I granted to Rostom-Khan, representative of Bagrationi dynasty the title of vali and assigned him to rule Kartli (1632-1658) (Berdzenishvili et al., 1948;Surguladze, 1952;Apakidze et al., 1956;Abashidze, 2017;Berdzenishvili et al., 1958).
Attitude of Georgian narrative sources towards Rostom is mostly negative. In the period of his reign Persian-Moslem lifestyle was spread in frudal society of Kartli. (Kaukhchishvili, 1959). Rostom's reign in Kartli was characterized with popularization of Shiite tradition (Baindurashvili, 2005) though officially Christianity was not prohibited (Berdzenishvili et al., 1950). Negative attitude to Rostom can be seen in the document of Teimuraz I where he called his rival "Khosro Saracen" (Kartvelishvili et al., 2019).
In Georgian-Persian deeds in the period of King Rostom's reign there can be clearly seen Moslem-Shiite formulas introduced in Georgian paperwork and this very interesting for describing of his religious policies. In this respect, particularly interesting is Rostom-Khan's Georgian domed seal. Its legend, in 1633-1637 was as follows: "I, dust under the feet of Khan, King Rostom approve", and since 1637, in the arch, empty before, above kantsili there appeared word -‫-هللا‬ Allah and to the legend of the seal there was added: ‫هللا"‬ (Allah) I, dust under the feet of Khan, King Rostom approve" (Puturidze, 1955). (While deeds of Simon I were written "by grace of God", deeds of convert Moslems Bagrat and Simon Khan were POLITOLOGY GRANI 23 (8) 2020 written "by grace of Shah Abbas", and Rostom is "the dust under the feet of Khan").This fact shows that since 1637, Rostom found himself more safe and stable in Kartli and only after this added to his Georgian seal, above Christ's monogram the word "Allah" thus underlining his religious policies. (Baindurashvili, 2019 (b) (Puturidze, 1955). In this case as well, Georgian king follows the Iranian standards and calls himself Mirza, i.e. prince.
Invocation of the deed of estate granting issued by Rostom in 1633 is of interest _ ‫هللاال‬ ‫و‬ ‫دمحم‬ ‫لوسر‬ ‫و‬ ‫یلاع‬ -"Allah and prophet Mohammad and Ali" (Puturidze, 1955). It should be noted that Shiite invocatio of such type presented as triad is the only one among the bilingual documents that have survived up to present and it is the symbol of Shiite ideology of Safavids (Baindurashvili, 2019b).
It should be emphasized that in the Persian part of King Rostom's deeds the divine will is expressed very simply. Mostly it is represented in single word _ ‫وه‬ _ "He (God)" and very rarely _ ‫وه‬ ‫ینغلا‬ ‫یلاعلا‬ _ He (God) is the richest and superior. (Puturidze, 1955).
In 1649 a new registration seal appeared with the legend: ‫زا‬ ‫بسح‬ ‫رما‬ ‫هلل‬ ‫هولجعس‬ _ "According to the presented order," with the subscribe under it: ‫رظنب‬ ‫دیسر‬ -"Considered"; the deeds of 1650-1652 bear the same seal (Puturidze, 1955). From 1943, in the upper left corner there appear new endorsement stating that the text of Georgian deed was translated into Persian -"He (God). Order [written] in Moslem alphabet" (Puturidze, 1955).
Personal seals: Legend of the seal affixed to the deed of 1633 (Puturidze, 1955) ‫مالغ‬ ‫متسر‬ ‫ناخ‬ ‫رهچونم‬ -Rostom-Khan's Gholam Manuchar" describes relation of Manuchar to Rostom. In this case Rostom is his suzerain, though soon, since 1634, legend of Manuchar's seal was replaced with purely Shiite formulation. On the Persian quadrangular seal appeared lettering: ‫کاخ‬ ‫مدق‬ ‫یلع‬ ‫رهچونم‬ -"Dust under Ali's feet, Manuchar". Supposedly, this change was caused by the influence of Iranian censorship. Under Manuchar's seal there is endorsement: ‫رظنب‬ ‫دیسر‬ -"Considered." This endorsement shows that Manuchar is a significant figure at royal chancellery. He considered the documents and after this the documents were attested. Manuchar attests all Rostom's documents.
In the middle of Georgian text of the deed issued by Rostom (NCM. Ad-597) there is oval Persian seal of average size affixed upside down, with the lettering: ‫کاخ‬ ‫یاپ‬ ‫یلع‬ ‫رهچونم‬ _ "Manuchar, dust under Ali's feet". The text is written above the seal and we can propose that at first the seal was affixed on the paper and further there was written the text of the deed.
In document (copy) of 1634, in the end, the rewriter has placed in the squares: 1. "Place of seal of Rostom-Khan" (in the left square) and 2. "Place of Mustoufi's seal". (Puturidze, 1955), showing that mustoufi's seal was affixed alongside with the king's seal.