Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO: 26 January 2010 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Kennet, D. (2002) 'The development of Northern Ras al-Khaimah and the 14th-century Hormuzi economic boom in the lower Gulf.', Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian studies., 32 . pp. 151-164. Further information on publisher's website: http://www.arabianseminar.org.uk/psas32.html
Publisher's copyright statement:
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk hocftdi"BJ o!tMs-.i"ar!or ArabilUr Stwlia 32 (2002): 1SI-I64
The development ofnorthem Ra's al-Khaimah and the 14th-century Hormuzi economic boom in the lower Gulf
DEREK KENNET
Introduction (Dostal 1972). In these fields, crops were cultivated whilst The aim of this paper is to examine the archaeological goats were grazed in the surrounding mountains. Most of evidence for the development of human occupation and the villages were unable to support year-round occupation exploitation of the ~ir and Jiri plains which are the due principally to a lack of water. Large sections of the agricultural core ofnorthem Rrs a1-Khaimah inthe United population therefore moved down to the coast during the Arab Emirates (Fig. I). The paper is principally concerned summer and worked on the date harvest and at fishing with the last two millennia, although some information (Dostal 1972: 3-4; Lorimer 1908: 1439). relates to earlier periods. I Once the recent anthropological fieldwork in northern According to Lorimer, 8t the beginning of the 20th Ra), al-Khaimah by W. and F. Lancasler is published.. it century, settlement on the Sir and liri plains consisted of is to be hoped lhat the basic information provided by eleven small villages with alotal ofabout 600 houses and Lorimer and Dostal wlll be supplemented by a more an estimated sedentary population ofabout 3, I00 people detailed understanding of the complex pre-oi) economy (Lorimer 1908: articles 'Sir', 'Jiri'). The principal villages ofthe area (Lancaster & Lancaster 1999).' were ShimAI and Khan. On the coast. Lorimer lists the In considering Lorimer's description, a question lhal towns of Ra)s al-Khaimah, JazIrat al-I:Iamrt? and Rams presents itselfis the antiquity oCthe situation he describes. with a combined population ofabout 9,500 people, 5,000 In the absence ofevidence to the contrary. we ue tempted of whom were in Ra)s al-Khaimab and the: rest divided to imagine that this was the way things had always been. between Rams and Jaztrat al-l:Iamr.).' The urban The historical evidence related to this question is very population therefore considerably outnumbered the rural limited; what evidence is available has been srudied by population, but some seasonal movement took place J.C. Wilkinson (1977) who concluded that Oman's between the two. For example large sections ofthe Ulb agricultural potential reached its fullest development tribe moved from Jazinlt aI-l;lamrt) to their dale palms at during the Sasanian period, and that Iinle bas changed Khan ea<:h year (Lorimer 1908: article '}azilal aJ-l:Iamrl1"). since that lime: The rural economy at that lime seems to have been The mise en valeur ofthe natural RSOUfCCS...was based principally on date cultivation, supplemented by a in large measure completed in pre-Islamic times; mixture of wheat, barley, sorghum, and vegetables since then, it is only in the context ofmaritime trade irrigated from wells. In addition, livestock.. principally and overseas expansion that importanl shifts in the goats. sheep, poulb'y, cattle, and camels were kept Fishing economic structure have tended to occur (before and pearl diving were important - pearls provided the the advent of the oil era). The general plnern of only notable export from !he ",gion (Lorimer 1908: 1439). human occupancy in Oman has, then, been flXed Rice, pulses, cloth, coffee, and sugar were imported, since a remote period.. .' (Will:insoo }e 19n: 239) mainly from Iran and India (Lorimer 1908: 1440). Seasonal movement was an important factor for some This seems to be a very bold assumption. and it is not groups such as the Si~nI;1 and l:IabQs whose traditional certain that the evidence lhat Wilkinson used can really panern was to move up to mountain villages during the support it A re-cvaluation of his conclusion in the light winter, residing in stone-built villages clustered around ofarchaeological evidence is therefore one ofthe central terraced fields created to catch run-ofT water and silt questions that this paper will try to address. 152 Derek KCMct
Juim al-HuJaylah
oJ-
Ras al-Khaimah SIR
~ al-Fulayya =Jazinrot ai-Hamra
SAND DUNE FIELD
- -- FIGURE J. The Sir and Jiri plains ofnor/hem Ras al·Khaimah. The development ofnorthern Ra's al-Khaimah and the /4th-century Hormuzj economic boom 153
Archaeological Evidence Further north along the coastline, Jazirat al-f:lulaylah was surveyed by the presentauthor in 1991 (Kennet 1994). Archaeological evidence, specifically evidence from The survey revealed evidence of settlement dating to archaeological survey, is well suited to the investigation between the fifth century and the early 20th century, ofpanems ofrural occupation and exploitation. However, although there is very little indication ofoccupation during in order to make valid comparisons between different the 11th, 12th, or 13th centuries. At the time ofthe survey periods. the survey needs to be conducted according to a it was not possible to make a reliable distinction between methodology that is not statistically biased (Cherry & the al-Ma{lfand post-al-Matafassemblages, but it is now Shennan 1978). clear that material from both periods was found. The The first archaeological surveys of Ra's al-Khaimah survey demonstrated that the occupied area ofthe island were carried out in 1968 and 1977 by de Cardi (de Cardi increased considerably from 42.9 ha in the SasanianlEarly & Doe 1971; de Cardi 1975; de Cardi 1985). They were Islamic period to 78.7 ha during the Abbasid period, and conducted with the specific aim oflocating and protecting 218.2 ha in the 14th to 19th century (Kennet 1994: 171 sites of archaeological importance, an aim which they 175). These figures suggest a very large settlement, but achieved with notable success. However, the methodology this is probably deceptive because repeated seasonal employed makes quantification ofthe results problematic. settlement in temporary huts can give the impression of Bearing this in mind, the erode tabulation of de Cardi's larger occupation than actually existed in anyone year. A results in Fig. 2 suggests a dramatic increase in the number tabulation ofthe results ofIbis survey is given in Fig. 3. ofsites between the Early and the Late Islamic periods.4 Twenty·five kilometres to the south, the inland oasis 1n 1987 and 1988 Vogt carried out an archaeological of Khatt was first explored by de Cardi during her 1968 survey of the Ra)s al-Khaimah coastline, concentrating and 1977 surveys (de Cardi & Doe 1971: 252-254; de on two areas: the area around the town ofRa's al-Khaimah Cardi 1985: 182-t 85). In 1992 a more detailed survey of and the area to the south ofJazlrat al-ijamra) (Vogt 1988; the oasis was conducted, which revealed evidence of 1994). The sites he located all consist of deflated shell continued occupation from the late pre-Islamic period to middens on sand dunes. Although he does not deal with the present day, with the exception of the 11th to 14th the laler material in detail, the resuils indicate a limited centuries, which are hardly represented (de Cardi, Kennet occupation of this part of the coast during the Abbasid & Stocks 1994: 53-63). period, and much wider occupation in the more recent Of particular interest were two mounds, initially past, possibly between the 17th and 20th centuries. thought to be clearance mounds but later shown to be small archaeological tells (de Cardi, Kennet & Stocks Period Datt (AD) Number or 1994: areas 3 and 4; Kennet 1998). These mounds sites have yielded evidence of occupation from the late SasanianlEarly Islamic 400 - 800 ? Iron Age through to the founh or fifth centuries AD Samarran Abbasid 800 - 1000 2 - 5? (Kennel 1998). Another mound (85) and a flat area 11th-13th century 1000 - 1300 2 to the south-east of the oasis yielded evidence of 1300 - 1600 9 AI-Ma\3f Abbasid ponery in an area where Early Islamic Post al·Mataf 1600-1900 11 ponery had also been noted by de Cardi in 1977 (de nCURE 2. A reassessment ofde Cardl's sues (from de Cardl & Cardi 1985: sites 45a and b). Doe J97J and de Cardi J985). Fig. 4 summarizes the results ofthe 1992 survey. There is almost no evidence of occupation in the 11th-13th centwies, but there appears to have been Period Date (AD) Number-of sites a significant increase in the post-al-Matlfperiod. Sasanian/Earlv Islamic 400 - 800 9 At the back ofthe aJluvial plain behind KQsh and Samarran Abbasid 800 - 1000 15 a1-MatAflies the Wa.di I:faqil where Stocks conducted II th-13th century 1000·1300 4 a survey in 1992 (Slocks 1996)_ Only the ed8es of AI-Malaf 1300·1600 18 the broad wadi were surveyed but 169 sites were found and listed, together with their periods of 1600 - 1900 16 Post al-Mataf occupation (Stocks 1996: fig. 2). The site count per FlCURE 3. A reasseSSment ofthe Jazrral al·Jfulay/ah survey period from the survey is summarized in Fig. 5. (fram Kenner J994). 154 Derek Kennel
Despite inconsistencies in survey methodology and such as small, isolated. rural settlements. The results cannot ponery classification, the published archaeological surveys therefore be taken as being fully representative. In order of northern Ra's al-Khaimah all point towards a broadly to address this problem a survey was undertaken in 1994 similar panern ofdevelopment which can be summarized with the specific aim ofgathering data that were properly thus: representative ofrural occupation and activity on the $ir 1. There is little reliable evidence for occupation in the and liri plains. Sasanian and Early Jslamic period, possibly because the ponery ofthis period was not recognized. The 1994 Survey' 2. Most of the surveys located more evidence for The established techniques of 'field walking' that were occupation in the Abbasid period than in the Sasanian developed in the ploughed fields oftemperate Europe and and Early Islamic period. the Mediterranean do not work in the cultivated areas of 3. There is very little evidence for occupation or activity the Gulf. This is because ofthe ground disturbance caused between the II th and 13th centuries from any of the by date-palm agriculture. Construction of irrigated date surveys. palm groves necessitates the ground surface being scraped 4. Some aftbe surveys suggest an increase in the number up into bunds that have eroded and been re-built many ofsites in the al.Mat1fperiod (although the WAdi J:laqil times. The archaeological material in the soil has been and the Khan surveys do nol show this, possibly constantly moved and has lost any connection with its because of imprecise dating ofthe pottery in the case original location. Discreet scatters of pottery that once ofthc WAdi f:laqil survey). represented human occupation have been turned into a 5. Some afthe surveys indicate an increase in sites in the continuous background noise of low-density ponery post-al-MalAf period. scatter. The same problem was encountered by the al~J:IasA, The consistency of the general picture presented by SIr:lfand the $ublr surveys (Adams et 01. 1977; Costa & these surveys is compelling, bUI caution is necessary Wilkinson TJ 1987: 79-86; Wbitcomb 1978: 96; because the data are not entirely reliable. Some of the Wilkinson TJ 1974: 129). surveys listed above dealt with specifically selected areas In order 10 overcome this problem an adaption ofthe that may be atypical of the general picture in nonhern methodology established by the SirAf and the Sublr Ra's al-Khaimah. Some of the surveys concentrated on surveys was employed (Costa & Wilkinson TJ 1987: 79 particular types ofsites, ignoring or failing to locate others 86; Wilkinson TJ 1974: 129). The 1994 survey methodology involved the definition of surface pottery- Period Dalr (AD) Number or collection 'Areas'. For convenience, these were based siles on the existing or fossil field system where such existed, SasanianfEarlv Islamic 400 - 800 12 or, where it did not, arbitrary areas were deflJ'tCd. A large Sarnarran Abbasid 800 - 1000 15 selection ofponery was collected from each oflbe AJeas II th-I 3th centun! 1000 - 1300 1 and ubiquity analysis was then used to compare the AI-Ma~f 1300 - 1600 12 relative occurrence of pottery from different periods. Post al-Malaf 1600 - 1900 23 To give an hypothetical example ofthe results, it might be possible to say that Sasanian pottery was present in FlGlIRE 4. A reassessment ofthe Kha/t survey (de Cardi, 10 out of 100 Areas, whilst Lale Islamic pottery was Kennet & Stocks /994'fig 9) present in 40 out of tOO Areas. This would be taken as Period Datr (AD) Number or an indication that rural activity was more intense in the sites Late Islamic period than it was in the Sasanian period. SasanianlEarlv Islamic 400 - 800 ? Although crude and imperfect, this method gives a basis Samarran Abbasid 800 - 1000 26 for comparing the density ofrural activity where it would II th-13th cen'U;:V 1000-1300 0 otherwise be impossible. AI-Maraf 1300·1600 17 The pottery collection Areas were organized into Post al-MalAf 1600-1800 31 three transects spaced at roughly equal distances across northern Ra)s al-Khaimah between Shimal and Khatt Post al-Ma~af 1800-1900 109 (Fig. 6). Each transect was posilioned so that it crosses F1GURE S. Site countfrom the WadI ljaqll survey (from the plain from the coast or sand dunes in the west, to the Stocks /996:fig. 2). foot ofthe mountains in the east The Areas were then The development ofnOr1hern Ra's al-Khajmah and the 14th-ee",lI'Y HOnrtuzi economic boom 155
JozUat al-Hullylah
01-'" .~ , .~ ~"" Ras al_Kb.ajmah Shimal Tnmsect -4:.-- al-Fulayya Transect
SAND DUNE FIELD Ih.... Khatt TttlllSCC,--"'L
N
• pouay- defined and located using aerial photographs. The transects are immediately clear. Between the Wadi Suq period and were located at ShimaI in the nonh; at Khan in the south. the 13th century there is evidence for a low, fluctuating 22 Ian. from al-Ma!JIf; and at al-Fulayyah, roughly midway level of activity on the plains. During some periods, between Shimal and Khan, II Jun. from al-Ma~f. Ofthe notably the Late Bronze Age, the SasanianlEarly Islamic 88 Areas that were defined, 30 are in the Shimal transect, period, and the 11th-13th centuries, almost a quaner of 41 at al-fulayyah. and 17 at Khatt. Areas have yielded some evidence ofactivity. During other periods, notably the Umm an-Nar and the Preislamique Pottery Ind Olting Recent [PIR], there is almost no evidence of activity. However, the most obvious and dramatic development is The chronology of the survey is based entirely on the the explosion ofac[ivity mat began in the al-MalAfperiod ponery (Fig. 7). For Ihe period between 2000 BC and 400 and continued into the post-al-Ma~f period. More than AD the pottery sequence from lhis pan of Arabia is well 75% of Areas have yielded evidence of activity during established.' For the period afctT 400 AD, recent these periods. excavations at Kush and al-Ma~a.r have clarified the In considering these data, account needs to be taken sequence up to the time of the abandonment of al-Matlf ofburial by alluviation and rates ofsurvival, both ofwhich in about 1575 AD.' The period after 1575 AD until recent can be expected to have biased the counts towards the times (the post-al-Ma13fperiod) is more difficult to define later periods. The statistical reliability of the data from as no sequence has yet been excavated through this period. this survey is not good enough to allow us to draw major For the purposes afthis survey, any type or class ofpottery conclusions about activity in the pre-al-MaJif periods which was found frequently on the survey and which did where numbers are quite small and are therefore more not occur in the Knsh or al-Ma~fsequenceswas assigned likely to be influenced by chance and error. There can be to the post-ai-Malar period. The Kush and al-Mafaf no doubt, however, about the increase in activity in the assemblages are large (32,006 and 46,377 sherds al·Ma~f period. a development which was also hinted at respectively) and the absence from them ofa conunonly by some ofthe earlier surveys discussed above. occuning type or class ofpottery is conclusive evidence In addition to a simple tabulation, comparison oftbe Area that the type or class was not in circulation during the COWlts between the three transects can give further insights life-span of the two sites. There is no space for a more into the development of the Sir and Jiri plains. As the detailed description ofthis assemblage here but the most transects each contain a different number of Areas it is common forms of'Julfar ware' are shown in Fig. 8,1 necessary [0 usc percentages in order to compare them. The comparison is shown in Figs 11 and 12. Analysis Although the general pattern of growth and decline Figs 9 and 10 show the numberofAreas containing pottery observed above in Fig. 10 is still evident, the comparative from the ten chronological periods.'The long-term trends analysis indicates local differences on the Sir and Jiri Period Pottery Sasanian/Early Classes which predominate in the early phases at Kush, e.g. incised Islamic S!ora~e vessels, Honevcomb, Clinkv (Kennel 1994: ware 17,36). Samarran Abbasid Classes ofthe so-called 'Samarra horizon': tin glazed wares, splash wares, earlv s21allialos (Kennet 1994: ware 18,23,24). II th-13lh century Hatched sgaffiatos (Kennel 1994: ware 18g), monochrome sgrafliatos, and coarse wares associated at Kush. AI-Matar Pottery common at AI-Ma~f such as Longquan celadon, Persian blue-soeckled ware, ')ulfar ware' types (Kennet 1994: ware 2, 7). Post al-Mataf Classes which do not occur al AI-MalAf or KOsh or in the published pre-Sasanian assemblages from the area, mostly coarse ware types • (Fi~. 8), Willow-Panern, enamelled DOrcelain•. FIGURE 7. Pottery classes and types used 10 define the chronological periods. The development ojnonhern Ra's al-Khoimoh and Ihe 141h-cenlury Hormuzi economic boom 157 , ~ CN.l ) CP4.2 I CP4.3 I \ CPS.l BS.l ~ I ) 'tUl 7 B6.l ~ \ ) B7.l • Oak Brown Painl • RcdPainl FIGURE 8. 'Ju/for wore' types used 10 define lhe posl·al·Mo!lijperiod. IS8 Derek Kennel plains, even over the relatively short distance between Shima) The prt-Sasanian period and Khan. These trends will be further discussed below. The survey evidence suggests a limited amount ofrural activity across the plains in the Wadi Suq period and Discussion Late Bronze Age. Although there are very few known As stated earlier, this paper has as its main aim an analysis of settlements of this period in the area, a considerable the development of the Sir and Jiri plains over the past two number ofmonumental collective tombs are known.11 millennia. Nonetheless, information relating to more ancient It is therefore possible that the tombs were constructed periods was retrieved and will therefore briefly be discussed and used by a population living in dispersed rural here." settlements across the plains. More research needs to be done 10 investigate this rather tentative hypothesis. g '" otal o S 19 8 18 6 17 66 71 FIGURE 9. Tabu/alian by period oflhe Area counlsfrom Ihe /994 survey. 80 70 60 50 40 ------ 30 20 10 0 ,~ • ••, ~ ,1:- 'li • ~ g- o • ;; -; e E· ~.!I "D• ~ '"'<; • D .. g 08 o E 8 ~ ;:• :i!~ - 0 « " ... ~ o!! • ~ ;; ~ .- 0 0- • • 0- 0 • -i; '. '" E0 - '" - FIGURE 10. Graph by period ofthe Area counlSfrom the /994 survey. The development ofnonhern Ro's al-Khaimah and the J4th-century HOm/lIZi economic boom 159 Total trans«t Areas Shimal 2 2 5 10 4 7 24 24 ulavva 3 II o o 5 2 8 34 32 Khan o 6 3 o 3 o 2 8 IS -J. or trans«t Areas Shimal (30) 6.67 6.67 16.67 3.33 33.33 \l.33 23.l3 80.00 80.00 ulawa 141l 7.32 26.83 0.00 0.00 12.20 4.88 19.51 82.93 78.05 Khan (17) 0.00 35.29 17.65 0.00 17.65 0.00 11.76 47.06 88.24 FIGURE 11. Comparison 0/Area counts byperiod between lhe lhree Iransecls (by Area count and percentage o/transect Areas). 100.0 90.0 80.0 .Shimal • Fulayya 70.0 I 9 Khatt 60.0 50.0 -40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 G G ~ ~ :l1 ! a G .. ~ V> ~ < fO- • - • c E C .0• C ,. ~ " " 'ii • .Ii e -!~ 'H.~ :.! 8 There is considerably more evidence for activity during The rarity ofcenth..century ponery at KOsh suggests.a the Late Bronze Age than in the Wadi Suq period. Given decline or abandonment ofthe site at that time.lf Ponery the small number of Areas involved, it is possible that ofthis period is found atl;lulaylah but its distribution across this is simply an accident ofthe data, but it might also be the island suggests that the .settlement had moved north, an indication of important changes in the panern ofnUll away from the earlier Sasanian/Early Islamic site. occupation between the~ two periods. and requires further Occupation seems to have consisted ofpalm-frond hUlS, investigation. The comparison presented in Fig. 12 shell middens and heanhs, with associated fish bones and suggests lIlat the relatively high level of activity in the a higb percentage of imported Mesopotamian glazed potlel)l (Sasaki 1995: S-14: Kennel 1994: fig. 6). At Khan, Late Bronze Age appears 10 have been predominantly in the Sasanian/Early Islamic mounds have yielded no the Khan and al·Fu)ayyah transects, with Shima) being evidence of occupation in the ninth century, but high hardly afTected. quality Mesopol8.mian ponery has been found in the flat In contrast to other parts ofthe Oman Peninsula, there area to the southwest (de Cardi, Kennet & Stocks 1994: is a notable lack of evidence for settlement in northern 59--61). Evidence ofsenlement similar to Ihat at ijulaylah Ra's al-Khaimah in the Iron Age and fIR periods. The has also come to light along the coast at Jazirat al-ijamrt' 1994 survey has done little to increase our knowledge of and in a transecl Area behind al-Ma~f where scatters of these periods, but it does demonstrate that there was some high-qualily ponery have been found on the coastal sand rural activity in the area during the Iron Age. dunes. There is no evidence for the existence ofa settJemenl Tb~ SauoianlEarly Islamic p~riod hierarchy in this period: no sites stand out as being larger The survey has revealed only Iimitcd evidence for rural or more visible than others as they had in the Sasanianl activity during this period. There appears to have been Early Islamic period. Instead occupation seems to have more activity in the Shimal transect close to the coastlhan been dispersed in small, possibly seasonal encampments. in the inland transect" (Fig. 12). Many ofthese were located along the coast which seems Three sites are known from which there is evidence of 10 have become an important focus for settJement. more substantial occupation: l:Iulaylah (Sasaki 1995; 1996; It is possible that scnled communities declined whilst 1998), Kilsh (Kennel 1997) and areas 3 and 4 al Khalt (de nomadic, or semi-nomadic groups began to predominate Cardi, Kennel & Stocks 1994: areas 3 & 5; Kennet 1998). during this period. Nonetheless. the high proportion of It is quite likely that there was at least one more such site glazed Iraqi ceramics in coastal assemblages demonstrates at a place called Salihiya (SlliIJiyah) where de Cardi that trade with Mesopotamia continued, whatever the recorded a tell in 1968 that has since been destroyed (de nature ofthe local economy. Cardi&Doe 1971:251). It is possible that these three or four sites were small Tbe 11tb-13tb centuries villages. However unimpressive they may be, they This period has normally been regarded as an economic represent the top ofthe local senlement hierarchy and may 'dark age' in the Gulf, and almost no occupation is known have been the only pennanent settlements that existed from the Arabian littoral. during this period. In this respect Ra's al-Khaimah is unusual in having Occupation at this time seems, therefore, to have two sites where evidence for such occupation has been consisted of 8 few relatively small sites, perhaps small found. The sites are KOsh (Kennet 1997) and 'Sheba's villages, which were widely spaced across the plain. In palace', a defended hilltop site overlooking the ShimAI between these sites the survey has shown thai there is plain three kilometres nonh ofKQsh (Fnmke-VOg! 1996). evidence of limiled activity, perhaps resulting from It is also possible that Salihiya, the site mentioned above, cultivation or smaller temporary settlement. was occupied at this time. Evidence for activity on the plain is slightly more Tb~ SamarnD-Abballd period common than it was in the Samarran-Abbasid period, but The early ninth century appears 10 have wilncssed some there is no evidence for the Samarran-Abbasid coastal important developments. Occupation al the sites of sand-dune sites that were noled above. l:Iulaylah, KOsh, and Khan seems to have ended oraltered significantly and evidence for activity on the plains in lhe Th. al-Ma~fp.riod al-Fulayyah and ShimAI transects is less frequent than in This period might be described as something of an the previous period. economic boom. We have already noted the very The development o/northern Ra's al-Khajmah and the 14th-century Hormuzj ecorrom;c boom 161 substantial increase ofevidence for activity on the plains. 12; Piacentini 1992: 172-173). The stimulus for this increase in activity may have come The history of the Gulf during the 14th and 15th .from the coast. as it initially affected the Shimll and al centuries is very much the history ofHormuz(Williamson Fulayyah transects much mart than itdid the inland Khatt 1973: 57; Aubin 1953; Piacentini 1975). Hormuz was the transect - a conclusion that was also suggested by the link between India and the markets of Central Asia hn Khan survey (Fig. 4). (Bouchan & Lombard 1987: 57). Trade routes ran from It was at the beginning of this period that Kush was , Hormuz through cities such as Kirman, Yazd. Sultiniyah. finally abandoned and the site of al-MaJ,af was founded ShIraz, KAsh3.n, and Tabriz; cities that easily surpassed three kilometres away on the coasl. Excavations by the biggest cities in contemporary Europe in size and Professor Sasaki have chaned the very rapid development wealth (AshlDr 1976: 264-267; Petrushevsky 1968: 506 of al-Matif from a small fisherman's camp to a large, 508). Trade along these routes reached a peak in the late wealthy town in the space of less than a century (Sasaki 15th century, both in variety and volume (Ferrier 1986: & Sasaki 1992). It seems unlikely to have been a 423). The renewed trade and economic prosperity of the coincidence that the development ofthis large urban centre Gulfthat was funnelled through Hormuz was therefore a occurred at the same time as unprecedented levels ofrural direct result of the development of inter-regional trade activity: the two phenomena must be related. through the enormously wealthy cities of central Iran It seems possible that the high levels of rural activity (Williamson 1973: 54). were stimulated by the development of the coastal town, At the peak of its power Hormuzi influence extended whose urban population would have provided a large from Bahrain to Qalhat, and al-Ma!llf was amongst market for the agricultural produce ofthe plain. Hormuzi possessions on the Arabian side of the Gulf (Piacentini 1992: 175. Wilkinson JC 1973: map 2), AI The post-.I-M.,U period Mat!f was known fOr its pearls, but it probably also By this time al-Mataf had declined and been abandoned provided horses, food, and water to Hormuz which entirely whilst other coastal towns, such as Rals al·Khaimah, had lacks natural resources and has only brackish water developed into leading centres. The level ofrural activity (Bakhtiari 1979; Duane Barbosa 1918-1921: 73-74; Ibn remained very high throughout this period. The level of Batrtlta 1958-1971, ii: 400; Piacentini 1992: 174; Stein activity within lhe Khan transect appears to have caught 1937: 192). Williamson has discussed the arehaeological up with, or perhaps even ovenaken, that within the evidence for a resumption of trade and prosperity in the transects closer to lhe coast suggesting, perhaps, some Gulfduring the Honnuzi period between the 14th and 15th changes in the orientation of the economy. centuries (Williamson 1973). His an:haeological survey ofthe Iranian linoral suggests an increase: in occupied sites Conclusion: the Hormuzi economic boom and he writes of 'a time of dense senlement around the The most imponant point to emerge from this analysis is Gulf (Williamson 1973: 57, map 3). without doubt the dramatic increase in the level of rural The whole picture therefore fits together fairly well. activity in the al-Ma~fperiod, Gulftrade boomed in the 14th century in response to the It has been suggested above that the boom in rurall economic 'pull' ofthe greatcities ofli-Khlnid and Timurid activity was stimulated by the close proximity ofal-Matif, ( Iran, and the trade between Europe, the Far East and which was rapidly developing into a wealthy trading Central Asia. Hormuz was the centre of this trade in the emporium on the coast. But what stimulated the sudden Gulfand became extremely wealthy, as did its possessions development ofai-MatiI'? During the 13th century the two on the Arabian side of the Gulf which provided it with cities of KOsh and Old Honnuz rivalled each other for food and water, as well as pearls, and possibly horses. control of the Gulf trade, a contest that was evenrually One of those possessions was al-Matlf, which rapidly won by Honnuz under the rulership ofMa!)mOd Qalh1tl grew into a wealthy town. The growth of al-Matlf at the beginning of the 14th century (Aubin 1953: 102; stimulated the development of a nourishing agricultural Piacentini J992: 171-173). It was around the same time economy in its own hinterland, and activity increased that Hormuz moved from the site of Old Hormuz in the dramatically on the .$ir and liri plains, where it seems likely MInAb delta to the island of181On, and thus established a that food was grown to feed the populations both of aI degree of autonomy from the politics of the Iranian Ma~f and of HOrTnuz. mainland (Morgan 1991: 71-78; Piacentini 1975: chapter 162 Derek Kennet Notes , For the Wadi Suq period and Late Bronze Age see Velde 1992; for the Iron Age see Magee 1995; for the This paper is an adaption of sections of the author's PreisJamique Recent (PIR) see Mouton 1992. PhD dissertation (Kennel 2000). 1 See Kennet 2000 chapters 3. 4 and Appendix. This is based on an estimate of five people to one I See Kennet 2000: 92-98 for a full discussion of the house. dating ofthe survey ponery. , For an analysis of the agricultural economy of the •A full tabulation ofthe ponery can be found in Kennet plains in J966 see Bowen-Jones el al. 1967: 73-133. 2000: table 27. • The periodization used in this paper is based on the II The author is grateful to Christian Velde who identified ceramic sequence from the el(caviltions of Kash and the Wadi Suq. Late Bronze Age. and Iron Age ponery al-MaJJf, both ofwhich are currently in the process of from the survey. publication. II e.g. de Cardi & Doe J971: 242-258; de Cardi. Kennet The survey was kindly funded by the Gerald Averay • & Stocks 1994: 66-70. More Wadi Suq tombs have Wainwright Fund for Near Eastern Archaeology and recently come to light on the plains: these will be the the Department of Antiquites and Museums of Ra's subjoct ofa fonhcoming paper by Christian Velde and al-Khaimah. whose Direttor, HH Shaykh SultAn bin the present author. ~aqr al-QasimI, is owed special thanks. The survey n Personal observation based on study of lhe KOsh team were Kate Bonner, David Connolly. and Katelyn assemblage. Flavin. References Adams R.M.• Parr PJ., IbrahIm M. & AI-Mughannum A.S. 1977. Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance - 1976. Preliminary report on the first phase ofthe Comprehensive Survey Program. Atlal I: 21-40. Ashtar E. 1976. A Social and Economic History ofthe Near East in the Middle Ages. London. Aubin J. 1953. Les princes d'Onnuz du Xnle au XVe siecle. Journal kiatique: 77-137. Bakhtiari H. 1979. Hormuz Island. Iran 17: 150-152. Bowen·Jones H., Fisher W.B.• Stevens J., Smith K.• Scan LA. & Stimpson J.O. 1967. Survey ofSoils and Agricultural Potential in the Trudal States. December 1966/January 1967. The TruciaJ States Council. Sir William Halcrow & Partners. Department ofGeography, University of Durham. Bouchan G. & Lombard D. 1987. The Indian Ocean in the 15th Century. Pages 46-70 in A. DasGupta & M.N. Pearson (cds). India and the Indian Ocean 1500-1800. Calcutta. de Cardi B. 1975. Archaeological survey in Northern Oman, 1972. East and West 25: 9-75. 1985. Funher archaeological survey in Ras al-Khaimah. U.A.E.• 1977. Oriens Antiquw 24: 164 240. de Cardi B. & Doe D.B. 1971. Archaeological survey in the Northern TruciaJ States. East and West 21: 225-289. de Cardi B., Kennet D. & Stocks R. 1994. Five thousand years ofsettlement at Khan. UAE. Proceedings ofthe Seminar for Arabian Studies 24: 35-95. Cheny J.F. & Shennan S. 1978. Sampling cultural systems: some pen,pcctives on the application of probabilistic regional survey in Britain. Pages 17-48 in J.F. Cherry, C. Gamble & S. Shennan (cds), Sampling in Contemporary Brilish Archaeology. (British Archaeological Reports. British Series, SO). Oxford: BAR Costa P.M. & Wilkinson T.J. 1987. The Hinterland ofSohar. Journal ofOman Studies 9. The developmenl ofnorthern Rtrs a/·Khaimah and Ihe J4tn-century Honnuzi economic boom 163 Dostal W. 1972. The Shihuh ofNorthem Oman: a conb"ibution to cultural ecology. The Geographical JOIJ17IiJ1 138: 1-7. Duarte BarbosalM. Longworth Dames (ed. and transl.). 1918-1921. The Book ofDuane Barbosa. (2 volumes). (Publications ofthe Hakluyt Society, 2nd series, 39). London: Cambridge University Press. Ferrier R. 1986. Trade from the mid-14th century to the end of the Safavid period. Pages 412-490 in P. Jackson (00.), The Cambridge History of Iran. vi. The Timurid and Safavid periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Franke·Vogt U. 1996. German mission to Julfar and Sheba's palace (Ras al·Khaimah, UAE). Proceedings ofthe Seminarfor Arabian Studies 26: 165-166, Ibn BanOta/H.A.R. Gibb (cd. and transl.). 1958-1971. The Travels ofIbn BalfiJla A.D. 1325-1354. (3 volumes). (Publications ofthe Halluyt Society, 2nd series, liD, 117, 141). London: Cambridge University Press. Kennet D. 1994. Jazirat al-J:lulaylah - early Julflr. Journal ofthe Royal Asialic Society 4: 163-212. 1997. Kush: a Sasanian and Islamic-period archaeological tell in Ras al·Khaimah (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 8: 284-302. t998. Evidence for 4th/5th-century Sasanian occupation at Khatt, Ras al-Khaimah. Pages 105 116 in C.S. Phillips, D.T. Potts and S. Searight (cds), Arabia andher Neighbours. Essays on prehiston'calandhistoricaldevelopments presentedin honouro[Beatrice de Cardi. (ABIEL, 2). Tumhout Brepols. 2000. An Archaeological Study oflhe Sasanian and Islamic Periods in Nonhern Ras al-Khaimah (UA.E.). PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. [Unpublished]. Lancaster W. & Lancaster F. 1999. Identities and economics: mountain and coastal Ras AJ-Khaimah. Proceedings oJlheSeminar for Arabian Studies 29: 89-94. Lorimer lG. 1908. Gozelleer oJlhe Persian Gulf, Oman and Central Arabia. ii. Geographical and Statistical. Calcutta. Magee P. 1995. Cultural change, variability and settlement in Southeastern Arabia. PhD thesis, University of Sydney. [Unpublished]. Morgan P. 1991. New thoughts on Old Honnuz: Chinese ceramics in the Honnuz region in the thineenth and fourteenth centuries. Iran 29: 67-83, Mouton M. 1992. La Peninsule d'Oman de laftn de tage duferau debut de la periode Sassanide (250 avo 350 ap. JC), These de Doctorat, Universite de Paris I (Pantheon-Sorbonne). [Unpublished]. Petrushevsky I.P.1968. The Socio-economic condition of Iran under the ii-KhAns. Pages 483-537 in J.A. Boyle (cd.), The Cambrige History of Iran. v. The SaljlJq and Mongol Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piacentini V.F. 1975. L 'Emporio ell if Regno di Hormuz. (Memorie dell' Istituto Lombardo- Accademia di Scienze e Lettere, 35/1). Milan. 1992. Merchants - merchandise and military power in the Persian Gulf (SOriylnjlShahriyAj SImf). Memorie deJ/'Accademia dei Lince; 9th series, 3/2: 105-189. Sasaki T. 1995. 1994 Excavations at Jazirat al·Hulayla, Ras aJ-Khaimah. Bul/etin ofArchaeology. The University ojKanozawa 22: 1-74. 1996. 1995 Excavations at Jazirat al-HulayJa, Ras al·K.haimah. Oul/etin ofArchaeology. The University o[Kanozawa 23: 37-178. 1998. 1997 Excavations at Jazirat aI-Hulayla, Ras aJ·Khaimah, U.A.E.. Bul/elin ofArchaeology. The University ofKanozawa 24: 99-196. Sasaki T. & Sasaki H. 1992. Japanese excavations at Julfar - 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 seasons. Procudings oflhe Seminarfor Arabian Studies 22: 10S-120. 164 Derd< Kennet Stein M.A. 1937. Archaeological Reconnaissances;n North We.Sle," India andSouth EastU'lt Iran. London. Stocks R. 1996. The Wadi Haqil survey. Pr-oceedings o/Ihe Se",iMrfor Arabion Studie!l26: 14S-163. VeJdeC. 1992. Die spdtbronzr:zeillicltL undjriiheueffZeitliclte Sial/WIg wuJ llere Keramik ill SJrimoJlRas 01 KJuJimah (Yeninigte Arabische E",iraJe). M.A. Dissertation, University of GOningen. [Unpublished]. Vogt B. 1988. SWrw')' in lire Jazira/ ai-Hamra Area. National Museum ofRas aJ-Khaimah. {Unpublished report). 1994. In search for coastal sites in pre-historic Millan: mid-Holocene 'shell-eatm' in the coastal desert of Ras al-Khaimah, V.A.E. Pages 113-128 in J.M. Kenoyer (cd.), From Sumer to Meluhha: contributions 10 Ille ArchaeologyojSouth and West Asia in Memory ofG~rgeF. Dales. Jr. (Wisconsin Archaeological Reports, 3). Wisconsin. Whitcomb D.S. 1978. The archaeology ofal-Hasa oasis in the Islamic period. Atla/2: 95-113. Wilkinson le. 1973. Arab-Persian land relationships in late Sasanid Oman. Proc~dings oflheSeminlJrforArQbian Stwdies 3: 4~S I. 1977. Waltr and Iribal sell/emenl in soulh-easl Arabia. a study oflhe aflaj ofOman. Oxford. Wilkinson TJ. 1974. Agricultural decline in the Sirafregion. Paleorienl2l1: 123-132. WilliamsonA. 1973. Honnuz and the trade of the Gulf in the 14th and 15th Centuries A.D. Procudings ofIlle Seminarfor Arabian Shldin 3: 52-68. Author's address Dr Derek Kennel, Deparnnent ofArchaeology, University orDurham, Durham DH I 3LE, UK. e-mail den:[email protected]