Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:49:32.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State of Masqaṭ in the Gulf and East Africa, 1785–1829

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Calvin H. Allen Jr
Calvin H. Allen Jr
Affiliation:
The School of the Ozarks Point Lookout, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The traditional view of ʿUmāni history during the past two centuries is that the country was unified under the Āl Bū Saʿīd dynasty, which was based first in Rustāq and later, with the assumption of power by Ḥamad b. Saʿīd in 1785, in Masqaṭ. The supposed shift of the capital to Masqaṭ, the country's major port, was interpreted by Lorimer as a disruptive influence in ʿUmāni politics, whereas J. B. Kelly has depicted the move as representing a change in the basis of ruling power in ʿUmān from the land to the sea. This study takes exception to these two interpretations as well as to the general assumption that Masqaṭ was the capital of a unified ʿUmān. In 1785 Ḥamad b. SaḤīd Āl Bū Saʿīdī established an independent state in Masqaṭ in a move that enabled him to profit from trade with the interior of ʿUmān, which was dependent on Masqaṭ for imported foodstuffs, textiles, metals and other raw materials, while freeing him of the tribal opposition that has traditionally plagued any ruler in ʿUmān trying to control both the interior and entrepôt. Once established in Masquaṭ, Ḥ and his successors adopted an aggressive military and political policy in the Arabian Gulf (1785–1820) and then East Africa (1820–1829) which was designed to create a commercial empire centered on Masqaṭ. A fundamental principle of this policy was the avoidance of any unnecessay involvement in the affairs of ʿUmān, which was divided among various tribal leaders.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 1982 , pp. 117 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 The standard works on ʿUmān include the introduction to Badger, G. P., History of the Imams and Seyyids of ʿOmān by Salil ibn Razik from AD. 661–1856 (London, 1871),Google Scholar which is a translation of Ḥumaid b. Muḥammad b. Ruzaiq, al-Fatḥ al-Mubīn fī Sīrat al-Sāda Āl Bū Saʿīdīyīn; Kelly, J. B., Britain and the Persian Gulf 1795–1880 (Oxford, 1968);Google ScholarRobert, G. Landen, Oman since 1856 (Princeton, 1967);Google ScholarLorimer, J. G., Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf ʿOman and Central Arabia, Vol. 1 (Calcutta, 1915);Google ScholarMiles, S. B., The Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf, 2d ed. (London, 1966);Google ScholarJohn, Peterson, Oman in the Twentieth Century (London, 1978);Google Scholar and John, Townsend, Oman (London, 1977). All accept the view that ʿUmān was ruled by the Āl Bū Saʿīd with their capital at Masqaṭ.Google Scholar

2 Lorimer. I. 419.

3 Kelly, J. B., “A Prevalence of Furies: Tribes, Politics and Religion in Oman and Trucial Oman,” in Derek, Hopwood, ed., The Arabian Peninsula (London, 1972), p. 108.Google Scholar

4 Bathurst, R. D., “Maritime Trade and Imamate Government: Two Principal Themes in the History of Oman to 1728,” in Hopwood, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar

5 Sirḥān, b. Saʿīd al-Azkawī, Kashf al-Ghummah al-Jamaʿ Li-Akhbār al-Ummah, ʿAbd, al-Majīd Hasīb al-Qaisī, ed. (Beirut, 1976), pp. 155–156;Google ScholarḤumaid, b. ʿAbd Allah al-Sālimī, Tuḥfāt al-ʿAyān Bi-Sīrat Ahl ʿUmān, 5th ed. (Kuwait, 1974), II, 176;Google ScholarHumaid, b. Muhammad b. Ruzaiq, al-Fatḥ al-Mubīn fī Sīrar al-Sāda Āl Bū Saʿīdīyīn (Masqaṭ, 1977), p. 401;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 201.Google Scholar

6 The account of lbn Ruzaiq confuses this matter. This mid-nineteenth century Āl Bū Saʿīd court historian begins by proclaiming that Ḥamad was Imām, which we know to be incorrect. He then relates accounts of Ḥamad's activities against Nakhl and Bahlā (Ibn, Ruzaiq, pp. 402–408;Google ScholarBadger, , pp. 201–207).Google ScholarAl-Azkawī, , pp. 155–156,Google Scholar the earliest of the three ʿUmāni sources and perhaps a contemporary of these events, says nothing of Ḥamad being involved at all in ʿUmāni affairs. Al-Sālimī, , pp. 175–181, the late nineteenth century historian, does not mention the Nakhl campaign but attributes the Bahlā attack to Saʿīd b. Aḥmad. Hamad's actions in Nakhl could represent a description of his role in the revolt against Saʿīd b. Aḥmad in 1784, or the attack of Nakhl could be the exception that proves the rule that Ḥamad did not involve himself in ʿUmāni affairs.Google Scholar

7 Used here to mean “lord” or “sir” rather than the technical meaning of descendant of the Prophet Muḥammad. Aḥmad b. Saʿid adopted this title to distinguish members of the ruling family from other members of the large Āl Bū Saʿīd clan. It was used by the rulers of Masqaṭ into the twentieth century, although in 1856 the British conferred the title sulṭān upon them.

8 For a contemporary description of the economic situation in the Arabian Gulf see Samuel, Manesty and Hartford, Jones, “Report on the Commerce of Arabia and Persia by Samuel Manesty and Hartford Jones, 1790,” Bussora, 15th 08 1790.Google Scholar

9 Ibid.

10 Carsten, Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East (Edinburgh, 1792), II, 116.Google Scholar

11 On the development of Indian commercial interests in Masqaṭ see Calvin, H. Allen Jr. “The Indian Merchant Community of Masqaṭ,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XLIV, 1 (1981), 39–53.Google Scholar

12 Manesty and Jones discuss the rise of these groups in their report. See also Aḥmad, Mustafa Abu Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia, 1795–1800 (Beirut, 1965).Google Scholar

13 Miles, , p. 284.Google Scholar

14 Al-Azkawī, , p. 156;Google ScholarIbn, Ruzaiq, p. 403;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 204.Google Scholar

15 Manesty and Jones, passim.

16 See Ibn, Ruzaiq, pp. 409–412;Google ScholarBadger, , pp. 210–213.Google Scholar

17 The details of this civil war are contained in al-Azkawī, , pp. 156–157.Google Scholar The Arabic sources do not mention the Pact of Birkah. The source for this is Miles, , p. 286Google Scholar and Lorimer, , I, 421.Google Scholar

18 Thomas, R. H., Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, Historical and Other Information, Connected with the Province of Oman, Muscat, and other Places in the Persian Gulf, n. s., xxiv (Bombay, 1856), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

19 Kelly, (1968), p. 107.Google Scholar

20 Miles, , p. 287;Google ScholarLorimer, , I, 421.Google Scholar

21 James, B. Fraser, Narrative of a Journey into Khorasan in the Years 1821 and 1822, London, 1825, p. 13. Fraser stated that a duty of .05 percent was imposed on all ships. Bathurst (p. 100) also discusses this license, which probably began with the Portuguese.Google Scholar

22 There are various explanations of piracy in the Gulf. Kelly, (1968 [pp. 99–138])Google Scholar takes a traditional view in attributing it to the excesses of the Wahhābi movement. Landen (p. 8) is closer to the mark when he typifies piracy as the struggle between the “haves” (Masqaṭ and India) and the “have nots” (the Qawāsim). My favorite description of piracy, however, comes from the former ruler of Masqaṭ, Saʿīd b. Taimūr, who stated, “The epithet pirate tended a century and a half ago to be indiscriminately applied to Christian and Muslim seafarers alike to disparage successful and competitive non-coreligionists” (Eilts, H. F., “Sayyid Muhammad b. ʿAqil: Malevolent or Maligned?” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 109, 3 [1973], p. 181).Google Scholar

23 Saldanha, J. A., Précis of the Correspondence Regarding the Affairs of the Persian Gulf 1801–35 (Calcutta, 1906), pp. 30–32.Google Scholar

24 Thomas, , p. 124.Google Scholar

25 Miles, , p. 292.Google Scholar

26 Thomas, , p. 173.Google Scholar

27 Text in Aitchison, C. V., A Collection of Treaties. Engagements, and Sanads Relating to India and Neighboring Countries (Calcutta, 1933), Xl, 287–288.Google Scholar

28 Saldanha, , p. 25.Google Scholar

29 Ibn, Ruzaiq, pp. 430–431;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 229.Google Scholar

30 ʿUthmān, b. ʿAbd Allah b. Bishr, ʿUnwān al-Majd fī Tārīkh Najd (Riyaḍ, 1976), 1, 161.Google Scholar There is some confusion over the chronology of events in this campaign as per Kelly, (1968), p. 104, n. 1. Ibn Bishr's account makes it clear that the major action occurred in 1801–02.Google Scholar

31 Ibn, Ruzaiq, p. 433;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 232. Ibn Ruzaiq's date of A.H. 1218 is one year too late as the Saʿūdīs had occupied Mecca by then.Google Scholar

32 Miles, , p. 298.Google Scholar

33 Ibn, Ruzaiq, p. 438;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 238. The subsidy was paid in appreciation for assistance Aḥmad b. Saʿīd had extended to the Ottomans during a Persian attack on Baṣrah.Google Scholar

34 Munīr, al-ʿAjlānī, Tārīkh al-Bilād al-ʿArabīyat al-Saʿūdīyah: al-Dawlat al-Saʿūdiyat al-Ulā (Beirut, n.d.), IV, 74–75.Google Scholar

35 Al-Salimi, , p. 193;Google ScholarIbn, Ruzaiq, pp. 470, 474–475;Google ScholarBadger, , pp. 269, 274–275;Google ScholarSaldanha, , p. 38.Google Scholar

36 A letter from Saʿid to Badr quoted in Ibn, Ruzaiq, p. 488;Google ScholarBadger, , pp. 289–290, seems to express Saʿīd's concern for Badr's preoccupation with the interior of ʿUmān to the detriment of Masqaṭi interests.Google Scholar

37 Al-Ajlānī, , p. 75.Google Scholar

38 Saldanha, , pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

39 Ibn, Ruzaiq, pp. 517–518;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 321.Google Scholar

40 Lorimer, , I, 183.Google Scholar

41 KelIy, , 1968, p. 126.Google Scholar

42 Ibn, Bishr, I, 205.Google Scholar

43 lbn, Ruzaiq, p. 521;Google ScholarBadger, , p. 325.Google Scholar

44 Lorimer, , I, 446.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., p. 197. The British apparently intended to turn control of Rās al-Khaimah over to Muḥammad ʿAlī.

46 Text in Aitchison, , XI, 245–249.Google Scholar

47 Kelly, (1968), p. 165.Google Scholar

48 Fraser, , p. 15.Google Scholar

49 I have discussed the implications of British involvement in the Gulf in my “The Disruptive Influence of Great Britain's Trucial Policy,” Journal of Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Studies (Kuwait), 3, 11 (1977), 67–84.Google Scholar

50 Niebuhr, , p. 116. The figure given is Rs 100,000 with the rupee equal to .5 MTdollar.Google Scholar

51 Lorimer, , I, 469.Google Scholar

52 Buckingham, J. S., Travels in Assyria, Media and Persia, 2d ed. (London, 1830), II, 400.Google Scholar

53 The standard works on this period in East African trade and politics are Reginald, Coupland, East Africa and Its Invaders (Oxford, 1938),Google Scholar and Nicholls, C. S., The Swahili Coast (London, 1971).Google Scholar

54 Lorimer, , I, 463.Google Scholar

55 There is a large body of literature on the Banī Bū ʿAlī expedition with all major works listed above discussing the campaign.

56 “The History of Pate,” in Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P., ed., The East African Coast: Select Documents, 2d ed. (London, 1975), pp. 281–284;Google ScholarNicholls, , p. 133.Google Scholar

57 On the Mazārīʿ see Sālim, b. Hamūd al-Siyābī, Is ʿāf al-A ʿyān fī Ansāb Ahl ʿUmān (Beirut, 1965), pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

58 “Anonymous: History of Mombasa c. 1824,” in Freeman-Grenville, , p. 217.Google Scholar

59 John, Gray, The British in Mombasa: 1824–1826 (London, 1957), p. 33.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., p. 34.

61 Nicholls, , pp. 139–140.Google Scholar

62 Lorimer, , I, 449–450, 1320, 1913–1915.Google Scholar

63 The slave trade in Masqaṭ during the reign of Saʿīd b. Sultān is described in William, Huede, A Voyage Up the Persian Gulf and a Journey Overland from India to England in 1817 (London, 1819), pp. 24–25,Google Scholar and Wellsted, J. R., Travels in Arabia (London, 1838), I, 387–391.Google Scholar

64 Kelly, (1968), pp. 427–429;Google ScholarNicholls, , p. 226.Google Scholar

65 Gray, , p. 177.Google Scholar

66 Lorimer, , I, 852–856.Google Scholar

67 “Log of the Brig ‘Virginia,’ 1828–29,” in Norman, R. Bennett and George, E. Brooks Jr, New England Merchants in Africa: A History through Documents 1802 to 1865 (Boston, 1965), pp. 153–154;Google ScholarNicholls, , p. 306.Google Scholar

68 See Frederick, Cooper, Plantation Slavery on the East Coast of Africa (London and New Haven), 1977 for the development of Saʿīd's African empire.Google Scholar