This,
however, is out of the question, for the death of Ruknuddin is assigned to
A.H. 675 (A.D. 1277), whilst there can, I think, be no doubt that Marco's
account refers to the period of his return from China, viz.
1293 or
thereabouts.
We find in Teixeira that the ruler who succeeded in 1290 was Amir
Masa'ud, who obtained the Government by the murder of his brother
Saifuddin Nazrat. Masa'ud was cruel and oppressive; most of the
influential people withdrew to Bahauddin Ayaz, whom Saifuddin had made
Wazir of Kalhat on the Arabian coast. This Wazir assembled a force and
drove out Masa'ud after he had reigned three years. He fled to Kerman and
died there some years afterwards.
Bahauddin, who had originally been a slave of Saifuddin Nazrat's,
succeeded in establishing his authority. But about 1300 great bodies of
Turks (i.e. Tartars) issuing from Turkestan ravaged many provinces of
Persia, including Kerman and Hormuz. The people, unable to bear the
frequency of such visitations, retired first to the island of Kishm, and
then to that of Jerun, on which last was built the city of New Hormuz,
afterwards so famous. This is Teixeira's account from Thuran Shah, so far
as we are concerned with it. As regards the transfer of the city it agrees
substantially with Abulfeda's, which we have already quoted (supra,
note 1).
Hammer's account from Wassaf is frightfully confused, chiefly I should
suppose from Hammer's own fault; for among other things he assumes that
Hormuz was always on an island, and he distinguishes between the Island of
Hormuz and the Island of Jerun! We gather, however, that Hormuz before the
Mongol time formed a government subordinate to the Salghur Atabegs of Fars
(see note 1, ch. xv.), and when the power of that Dynasty was falling, the
governor Mahmud Kalhati, established himself as Prince of Hormuz, and
became the founder of a petty dynasty, being evidently identical with
Teixeira's Ruknuddin Mahmud above-named, who is represented as reigning
from 1246 to 1277. In Wassaf we find, as in Teixeira, Mahmud's son Masa'ud
killing his brother Nazrat, and Bahauddin expelling Masa'ud. It is true
that Hammer's surprising muddle makes Nazrat kill Masa'ud; however, as a
few lines lower we find Masa'ud alive and Nazrat dead, we may safely
venture on this correction. But we find also that Masa'ud appears as
Ruknuddin Masa'ud, and that Bahauddin does not assume the princely
authority himself, but proclaims that of Fakhruddin Ahmed Ben Ibrahim
At-Thaibi, a personage who does not appear in Teixeira at all. A MS.
history, quoted by Ouseley, does mention Fakhruddin, and ascribes to him
the transfer to Jerun. Wassaf seems to allude to Bahauddin as a sort of
Sea Rover, occupying the islands of Larek and Jerun, whilst Fakhruddin
reigned at Hormuz. It is difficult to understand the relation between the
two.
It is possible that Polo's memory made some confusion between the names
of RUKNUDDIN Masa'ud and Fakhruddin AHMED, but I incline to think the
latter is his RUOMEDAN AHMED. For Teixeira tells us that Masa'ud took
refuge at the court of Kerman, and Wassaf represents him as supported in
his claims by the Atabeg of that province, whilst we see that Polo seems
to represent Ruomedan Acomat as in hostility with that prince. To add to
the imbroglio I find in a passage of Wassaf Malik Fakhruddin Ahmed
at-Thaibi sent by Ghazan Khan in 1297 as ambassador to Khanbalig, staying
there some years, and dying off the Coromandel coast on his return in
1305. (Elliot, iii. pp. 45-47.)
Masa'ud's seeking help from Kerman to reinstate him is not the first case
of the same kind that occurs in Teixeira's chronicle, so there may have
been some kind of colour for Marco's representation of the Prince of
Hormuz as the vassal of the Atabeg of Kerman ("l'homme de cest roy de
Creman;" see Prologue, ch. xiv. note 2). M. Khanikoff denies the
possibility of the existence of any royal dynasty at Hormuz at this
period. That there was a dynasty of Maliks of Hormuz, however, at this
period we must believe on the concurring testimony of Marco, of Wassaf,
and of Thuran Shah. There was also, it would seem, another
quasi-independent principality in the Island of Kais. (Hammer's Ilch.
II. 50, 51; Teixeira, Relacion de los Reyes de Hormuz; Khan. Notice,
p. 34.)
The ravages of the Tartars which drove the people of Hormuz from their
city may have begun with the incursions of the Nigudaris and Karaunahs,
but they probably came to a climax in the great raid in 1299 of the
Chaghataian Prince Kotlogh Shah, son of Dua Khan, a part of whose bands
besieged the city itself, though they are said to have been repulsed by
Bahauddin Ayas.
[The Dynasty of Hormuz was founded about 1060 by a Yemen chief Mohammed
Dirhem Ko, and remained subject to Kerman till 1249, when Rokn ed-din
Mahmud III. Kalhati (1242-1277) made himself independent. The immediate
successors of Rokn ed-din were Saif ed-din Nazrat (1277-1290), Masa'ud
(1290-1293), Bahad ed-din Ayaz Sayfin (1293-1311). Hormuz was captured by
the Portuguese in 1510 and by the Persians in 1622. - H. C.]
NOTE 7. - The indications of this alternative route to Kerman are very
vague, but it may probably have been that through Finn, Tarum, and the
Sirjan district, passing out of the plain of Hormuz by the eastern flank
of the Ginao mountain. This road would pass near the hot springs at the
base of the said mountain, Sarga, Khurkhu, and Ginao, which are described
by Kaempfer. Being more or less sulphureous they are likely to be useful in
skin-diseases: indeed, Hamilton speaks of their efficacy in these. (I.
95.) The salt-streams are numerous on this line, and dates are abundant.
The bitterness of the bread was, however, more probably due to another
cause, as Major Smith has kindly pointed out to me:
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 160 of 335
Words from 162176 to 163178
of 342071
