We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
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.
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
