THE PORTS OF

EDITED BY ABDULRAHMAN AL SALIMI AND ERIC STAPLES Julfar and the Ports of Northern Oman

Timothy Power

Introduction the Iranian foreland and Omani hinterland, and moreover possessed the greatest share of natural resources, includ- Historic Oman corresponds to the Hajar Mountains and ing cultiable land, fshing waters, pearl beds, stone quar- opposing outwash plains looking out onto the Indian ries, and copper mines. However, the precise confgura- Ocean and Arabian Gulf. The Hajars curve west and then tion and relatie importance of these factors changed over north from Ras al-Hadd to Musandam, the coastal plains time. There is no evdence, for instance, that the pearl- all the while retreating to the mountains, so as to project ing industry of Julfar was important prior to the twelfth “like a spur into the vtals of Persia.” 1 The plains meet the century CE.2 (Unless otherwise indicated, all dates in mountains at Fujairah on the shores of the this chapter are Common Era [CE].) To understand the and Ras al-Khaimah on the coast of the Arabian Gulf; development of Julfar, one must adopt a diachronic in- at the tip of the peninsula lies , watered by the terpretatie model, for natural resources only become strategic . The precipitous terrain and economically, and thus politically, signifcant through tribal history have gien rise to a tortured cartography of human agency, which responds to shifting market forces myriad enclaves, owned by the Emirates of , Umm and the broader geopolitical situation. For example, the al-Qaiwain, Sharjah, Ras al-Khaimah, and Fujairah, to- full agricultural potential of the hinterland of Julfar was gether with the Sultanate of Oman. The historic port of only realized after the fourteenth century, in response , for example, is presently split between Sharjah, to rising demand for foodstufs on the Iranian foreland. Fujairah, and Oman. A number of major wadis linked One should be wary of reductie or essentialist statements the two coasts and gave access to the interior. Dibba is about some seventeen centuries of human occupation. linked to the interior by a wadi which emerges at Khatt Nor should it be assumed that the primary role of Ju- and another which runs through Masaf, from where it lfar was at all times as a port of commerce. The pecu- is possible to reach Mleiha. Ras al-Khaimah is fortui- liar position of Julfar at the head of a plain between the tously situated between the mountains and the sea, at mountains and the sea meant that, unlike most other the head of a well-watered route south along the out- ports of northern Oman, it was relatiely well endowed wash plains leading to Khatt and Mleiha and so on to with groundwater and cultiable land. Christian Velde, Buraimi, which gave access to both the Zahira and Bati- the resident archaeologist at the Department of Archae- nah. Coastal communications were usually easier in the ology and Museums in Ras al-Khaimah, conceptualizes premodern period. The fastest means of transport from Julfar as pre-eminently an “oasis settlement,” a dispersed Ras al-Khaimah to Dubai or Abu Dhabi was by ship, settlement of mud-brick and palm-frond houses scattered and in the case of Khasab, isolated in a rocky cove, mari- among an extensie spread of palm groves.3 This is to say time communications were fundamental to its exstence. that Julfar had an internal terrestrial dynamic independ- The northern tip of Oman, the , ent of the external maritime dynamics more usually as- was therefore difcult to access and consequently remote sociated with ports of commerce. However, the internal from the main political centers of the great Omani dy- dynamics of Julfar are difcult to assess: there are no nastic states, while its proxmity to and the relatie local historical sources by which we might gain insights ease of maritime transport meant that it was more often into the agency of the inhabitants. Yet, gien the fact that than not drawn into the orbit of Iranian polities. Julfar was for the majority of its history incorporated into Undoubtedly, the most consistently signifcant port of a succession of Iranian polities, and was only briefy and northern Oman was Julfar, just north of modern Ras al- less assuredly absorbed into Omani states under the Nab- Khaimah town. Yet the reasons for its importance are not hanids and Yaʿrubids, the external maritime aspect seems necessarily consistent. Julfar was ideally situated between to have been overwhelmingly more signifcant.

219 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

Indeed, Julfar appears at times to have been almost as it did along the contested frontier of Iran and Oman. better organize the fow of natural resources. Yet trade At the Frontiers of Iran, c. 300–700 cut of from the terrestrial hinterland. Duarte Barbosa The strategic importance of Julfar comes very sharply was not the only means of obtaining commodities from (f. 1500–17), for example, describes a series of coastal for- into focus in certain centuries. the sea. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Following the demise of Iron Age ciilization in the Om- tresses, “which the King of maintains there for At no time does Julfar appear to have been a center of Julfar—or, more properly by this time, Ras al-Khaim- ani peninsula, new settlements were established at Mlei- the defence of his lands, inasmuch as behind all these the Gulf pearl trade or an emporium of the Indian Ocean ah—became a center of piracy in the Gulf. The causes of ha, Ed-Dur, Dibba, and , which peaked in the frst Moors [of the coast] dwell many Moors of the nature of trade. For much of its history, it was not even a signif- attacks at sea perpetrated by mariners under Qasimi au- two centuries CE. It is striking that most of these sites wild Arabs who … from time to time come down upon cant emporium of the Lower Gulf. The major popula- thority has been the subject of much debate, but Frauke were situated on the coast and all were well-integrated these vllages and make war on them.” 4 The Arabian tion centers of interior Oman were better served by the Heard-Bey, a leading expert on the history of the United into Indian Ocean trade networks.11 Moreover, all of coastline constituted a natural boundary, which might ports of the Batinah, while the population of northern Arab Emirates, understands piracy to be essentially a these sites were abandoned at broadly the same time, be- inform a political border between two or more polities, Oman was never sufciently large to constitute an im- resource procurement strategy.5 Undoubtedly, maritime tween the mid-third to early fourth centuries, which has and could assume the character of a military frontier. portant market, so that the economic hinterland of Julfar trade was important to Julfar, in some periods more than variously been linked to the collapse of the Roman “India Coastal settlement at Julfar was on more than one oc- did not recommend its long-term commercial vability. others, but it seems to have been limited to local net- trade,” a southern shift in the Intertropical Convergence casion predicated on political and military factors rather When there is greater evdence for maritime trade—in works dominated by Iran. Zone, or volent destruction attributed to Sasanian inva- than maritime trade. In fact, settlement seems to have the fourteenth and ffteenth centuries, for example—Ju- The historic pre-eminence of Julfar among the ports sions or Arab migrations.12 Historical sources state that been begun around the fourth century when the Sasan- lfar appears as a contingent entity economically orientat- of northern Oman has resulted in it being the subject the Sasanian emperor Ardashir (r. 226–42) campaigned ians established a forward base on the Arabian frontier. ed towards Iran. For the most part, Julfar exported raw of archaeological investigation. Indeed, the political dif- in Oman, and an inscription of Shapur I (r. 309–79) lists The Nabhanids may have built a defensie fortress at Ju- materials (pearls, horses) and bulk goods (dates, cereals) fculties presented by digging in Iran and the funding Oman as a provnce of the empire.13 A new phase of re- lfar in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries, during which in return for manufactured commodities (guns, textiles, challenges faced by excavators in Oman have naturally gional settlement begins sometime in the fourth to ffth time settlement was at an all-time low, implying that the metalwork, pottery) and prestige goods (silk, porcelain) focused attention on the politically open and oil-rich century, with the establishment of isolated settlements at area had become a depopulated military frontier. Such obtained va the great emporium of Hormuz. This trade UAE. The net result is that the archaeology of historic Kush, Khatt, and Jazirat al-Ghanam in the very northern regional geopolitical confgurations as created frontiers is characteristic of asymmetrical economic relations be- Julfar has not only become the best-documented of the Oman.14 These sites have therefore been interpreted as could further gie rise to marcher states or bufer states, tween the developed and developing world. Indeed, the ports of northern Oman, but—together with Siraf—the evdence for a Sasanian colonial presence in Oman. of which that of the Qawasim in the eighteenth and relationship seems likely to have been colonial, with set- most excavated Islamic-period site in the Gulf region. The site of Kush constitutes an anthropogenic mound nineteenth centuries is the best-documented, emerging tlers from Hormuz establishing themselves in Julfar to A number of archaeological sites may be associated with rising around 6.5 m above the surrounding plain, into historic Julfar. Archaeological work in Ras al-Khaimah which Kennet sank a 10 m x 26 m trench (Trench A), begins with the pioneering 1968 survey of Beatrice de allowing him to reach the lowest levels of the mound Cardi, which followed local tradition by identifying the and continue down another c. 1.5 m. However, the exca- modern localities of al-Nudud and al-Mataf with Julfar.6 vations did not determine the full depth of the occupa- Further areas of mounding have since been noted run- tional sequence.15 The vertical limits of excavation were ning along the coast between al-Maʿirid and Rams.7 Since dated to the fourth or ffth century, just after the fnal the ceramic evdence from these sites was unambiguously occupation of Ed-Dur in the late third to early fourth Middle to Late Islamic, it was generally believed that the centuries.16 The site of Khatt consists of c. 3.5 m of stra- remains of Early Islamic Julfar had been lost to coastal tigraphy contemporary with Period I at Kush, located in erosion.8 However, Derek Kennet’s survey of Jazirat al- a fertile plain running from the foothills of the Northern Hulayla, located about 6.5 km north of al-Mataf, pro- Hajars, and understood by Kennet to be part of the agri- duced quantities of Early Islamic ceramics, leading him cultural hinterland of Kush.17 Jazirat al-Ghanam consists to identify al-Hulayla as the site of Early Islamic Jul- of a scatter of surface sherds contemporary with Period I far.9 This identifcation was later overturned in favor of at Kush, found on an island just north of Khasab.18 These another site, Kush, 2 km southeast of al-Mataf, which archaeological sites are thus broadly contemporary with Kennet excavated between 1994 and 2000.10 Most archae- the historically attested Sasanian occupation of Oman. ologists now believe that Julfar should not perhaps be Be that as it may, the identity of the occupants and func- identifed with a particular site but rather with a broader tion of the sites remain difcult to identify with any de- region, stressing the ambiguity of the sources and mean- gree of confdence. dering focus of settlement. Archaeological work at these In an earlier article on Kush, Kennet strongly suspected key sites allowed them to be pulled together into a vrtu- that the Period I buildings had a military function and ally unbroken occupational sequence stretching from the considered the possibility that it began as a Sasanian col- Late Antique to Late Islamic periods, something which ony, while de Cardi believed that Jazirat al-Ghanam was cannot be said for Siraf or the other ports of northern a Sasanian military outpost guarding the Strait of Hor- Oman, further underscoring the tremendous importance muz.19 However, Jazirat al-Ghanam was never excavated of Julfar for the archaeology of the Gulf region. and Period I Kush was never fully excavated, meaning that these interpretations are difcult to critically assess. Figure 1: Map of archaeological sites associated with Julfar. Image courtesy of Christian Velde. Period I Kush sufers from its early stratigraphic position,

220 221 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN for the necessity to step trenches to prevent their sections ables can be alternatiely resolved so as to place the tower … (until) he reached Hajr, where there were nomads from this policy failed, launched upon the invasion of Yem- collapsing means that the area open in plan shrinks as in the Late Antique or Early Islamic periods. In his ear- the tribes of Tamim, Bakr b. Waʾil and ʿAbd al-Qays. He en in 570.39 It is noteworthy that, in the account of Ibn the trench gets deeper, in turn reducing the number of lier articles, he gies a seventh-century date (“very late spread much slaughter among them and shed so much of their Hisham, the initial expeditionary force was comprised datable fnds and limiting the interpretatie context for Sasanian or very early Islamic”),27 but in his later articles blood that it fowed like a torrent swollen by a rainstorm … . of irregular troops. He states that Khusrau ordered that features. Kennet accordingly notes that “the exposed re- Kennet suggests a late-sith-century date (“late Sasan- After this he turned aside to the lands of ʿAbd al-Qays and eight-hundred prisoners, who had been condemned to mains of Period I architecture are somewhat limited in ian”).28 Elsewhere, Kennet posits that Oman was recon- destroyed all the people there except for those who fed into the death, be released and carried on eight boats to Aden, extent. They consist of a complex of mud-brick struc- quered by Khusrau I Anushirvan during or shortly be- desert sands. He passed into Yamama where he made general of which just si arried safely under the command of a tures, some of which were preserved to almost two metres fore the Sasanian conquest of Yemen in 570,29 implying slaughter like that of the previous occasion … . 31 Sasanian aristocrat named Wahriz, whereupon they were in height.” 20 He understands these remains to represent that the Period I tower at Kush was built as part of that joined by the Himyarite insurgents led by Sayf b. Dhi “a fairly densely-occupied and perhaps centrally-organized campaign. His interpretation of the tower is interesting, Such major expeditions were exceptional, however. The Yazan and roundly beat the Ethiopians. Wahriz returned site.” 21 Nevertheless, “it is not clear if the site was defended gien the role the Sasanians allotted Arab auxliaries like day-to-day policing of the frontier was delegated to a to Khusrau bearing booty, and Sayf was made a client in Period I, but a large number of trilobate, tanged iron the Lakhmids or Iranian irregulars like the Daylamites co-opted Arab tribal confederation (phylarchate), the king of Yemen, whereupon he embarked on the ethnic arrowheads have been found in these layers which sug- along the Arabian frontier: Lakhmids of al-Hira in southern Iraq, who were one of cleansing of the Ethiopian community, until at length gest a military function.” 22 Period I Kush could indeed three Arab dynasties important enough to be recognized he was assassinated by his bodyguard of Ethiopian slaves. be interpreted as a Sasanian military outpost, perhaps a By the time the Period II tower was built in the seventh as kings in the later historical tradition.32 Some This junta briefy assumed control of the country in local garrison of occupation, or else a forward station on century the size of the settlement had declined. The links to indication of their ability to project their power in the another round of bloody reprisals, prompting Khusrau the Arabian frontier. Yet the interpretation could equally international trends in military technology and elite archi- is glimpsed in an inscription from to despatch Wahriz at the head of four thousand Per- well be turned around, and a case made that it was built tecture that are demonstrated by the [Hellenistic / Parthian Murayghan, which demonstrates that they controlled the sians who at last subdued Yemen.40 The nisbas of their by the Azd to defend their borders from Persian inva- period] Ed-Dur and Mleiha forts had also disappeared. distant southern Hiaz in the later sith century.33 There descendants, as recorded in later Islamic biographies, sion, precisely in response to the grand razzias of Ardashir The tower is architecturally simple and on a much smaller is some suggestion in the sources that the Lakhmids suggest that these troops were from Daylam, an auton- and Shapur I. Alternatiely, Period I Kush may have had scale. Its size, design and location point to the existence of were at least intermittently involved in Oman. The Om- omous mountain region within the Sasanian sphere of nothing to do with either the Sasanians or the Azd, and a small and parochial community. Whether it was built in ani peninsula had been settled by the Arab tribe of Azd, infuence, whose tribes were employed as mercenaries by may simply have been the fortifed homestead of a high- the last years of Sasanian rule or frst years of Islamic rule, led out of Yemen by Malik b. Fahm, who continued on the shahs.41 This suggests that the Sasanian conquest of status (and not necessarily Arab) family group liing in the architecture shows that those who built it were not heavily through al-Bahrayn and up along the Euphrates Valley, Yemen was not undertaken by the regular feld army but a militarized society; one thinks of the old photographs infuenced by Sasanian practice.30 and from whose family were descended the Tanukh and by irregular troops. Such auxliary troops were very likely showing mud-brick tower houses and cross-bandoliered ultimately the Lakhmids.34 No doubt this lineage, like responsible for the construction and garrisoning of Kush tribesmen in early twentieth-century Oman. Such are the Like all great territorial empires, that of the Sasanians most Arab tribal lineages, was constructed towards po- Period I, although their exact identity remains a matter vagaries of archaeological evdence. was faced with the problem of maintaining frontiers. Its litical ends, although how it maps onto the politics of of speculation. Period I at Kush is associated with a large mud-brick wars with the Byzantines in the west gave rise to a se- Late Antique is unclear. Nevertheless, It might be thought that the material culture might tower.23 The tower measures 14 m x 7 m with walls 2 m ries of border fortresses and fortifed cities around which the funerary inscription of the second Lakhmid king, throw some light on the issue. The vast majority of ce- thick, and since no door or occupational actiity was the struggle for the world of Late Antiquity was fought. Imruʾ al-Qays b. ʿAmr (d. 328), records that he “sent his ramics from Periods I and I at Kush were imported from found on the ground foor, Kennet interprets this as a The consolidation of expansionist Turkish empires of troops to Thaj [in al-Bahrayn] and ruled both sections the Sasanian-controlled territories of Iraq and Iran.42 multistory defensie structure. It further seems that the the steppe away to the east required a similarly impres- of al-Azd and Nizar,” 35 implying that his authority was The only other ceramic imports were from India, rep- tower may originally have possessed a defensie ditch. sie line of defences. Along the Euphrates and Arabian perhaps acknowledged in Oman. According to al-Tabari, resenting about 0.97 % of the Period I assemblage, rising According to Kennet, Period I constitutes “a defning Gulf, meanwhile, the Sasanians had to defend against the Sasanian emperor Kawad (r. 488–531) appointed the to 1.21 % in Period I.43 Strikingly absent are signifcant moment in the site’s development … Its construction, the Arabs. The tribal character of Arab society meant Lakhmid king al-Mundhir I b. Maʾ al-Samaʾ (r. 505– quantities of locally produced classes. Very small quanti- and the deliberate destruction of the pre-exsting struc- that for much of the time the Arabs were pitted against 54) over the Arabs of the Persian frontier, and Khusrau ties of early Julfar Ware (JULFAR.5) were found, three tures, mark a signifcant change in the organization and each other, and in fact the most famous tribal war of I Anushirvan (r. 531–579) confrmed him as vceroy of sherds or 0.09 % in Period I and four sherds or 0.11 % in layout of the site.” 24 The date of the Period I tower is, the Jahiliya, the so-called War of Bessus, was fought in Yamama, al-Bahrayn, and Oman.36 This is broadly borne Period I, related to Proto Julfar Ware (PROTO) col- moreover, signifcant. The upper limits of Period I are northeastern Arabia. At times, however, a tribal confed- out by the contemporary Greek historian Procopius, who lected from the surface during survey.44 Kennet, moreo- associated with a carbon-14 date of 645 to 710.25 This date eration emerged which posed a threat to the Sasanian observes that “Mundhir, holding the position of king, ver, draws attention to the absence of cooking pots in the comes from the rake-out of a hearth in the latest occu- frontier, as when the Tanukh moved out of al-Bahrayn ruled alone over all the Saracens in Persia.” 37 Such state- Kush assemblage, noting that carved stone bowls were pational deposit abutting the exterior of the tower, sealed and into the Euphrates Valley to enter into an alliance ments suggest that the Lakhmids were in some way in- instead used for cooking.45 Even smaller quantities of by architectural tumble associated with Period I, and with the Romans. Since border fortresses were of little volved with the Omani frontier, although the details are Black-Fired Earthenware (BEARTH) were found—just therefore provdes a terminus ante quem for the tower’s use against desert nomads, the Sasanians adopted a for- hard to pin down. one sherd, or 0.03 %, in Period I—which Kennet sug- construction and primary occupation. While Kennet ward strategy, periodically striking deep into Arabia to The Sasanians, moreover, had regular recourse to aux- gests may be a continuation of the céramique noir épaisse notes that the “the tower had been in use for some time smash rising tribal confederations. Collectie memories iliary troops drawn from their multicultural empire. In found at Mleiha and ed-Dur.46 No coins were found in before the ash layer containing the C14 date was depos- of such expeditions, for example that of Shapur I in 325, fact, the occupation of Yemen provdes a pertinent case Period I or I contexts, but a single dirham of Kavad I ited,” 26 he does not gie an indication of the depth or were set down by al-Tabari fve centuries later: study in Sasanian warfare in the Arabian theater.38 The- issued c. 507–19 was found out of sequence in a Period I density of stratigraphy accumulated against the exterior ophylact Simocatta records that the Sasanians frst at- context. The fnds overwhelmingly point towards strong of the tower, making it difcult to gauge the time elapsed He crossed the sea at the head of his troops and reached Khatt. tempted to incite the Himyarites to revolt against the contacts with Iraq and Iran. This could be taken to mean between its construction and abandonment. These vari- He marched through the land of Bahrayn, killing its people Byzantine-backed Ethiopian occupation, and only when that Period I and I Kush was being provsioned from the

222 223 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN facing shores of the Gulf, in keeping with its interpre- “Buraimi Cooking Pots” constitute the single most com- trade would have been funnelled through Dibba. This launched a sustained naval assault on Fars provnce in tation as a Sasanian military outpost. Alternatiely, the mon unglazed class, implying they were locally produced. goes some way to explaining the otherwise roundabout 639, with a series of raids launched from Julfar lasting inhabitants of Kush simply obtained whatever was avail- The exact dating of the “Buraimi Cooking Pot” ho- route by which commerce reached Tuʾam: it makes sense until 650, during which time towns on the coast and hin- able at the market, which, gien the relatie ease of mari- rizon remains to be established, but it seems likely that only if the more direct routes from Julfar and Sohar were terland were seized. It appears as if the very threat the time communication and proxmity to major production there is some overlap with Kush Period I and I. It is blocked or otherwise uneconomical. Sasanians had guarded against had at last come to pass. centers, naturally gave rise to an assemblage dominated therefore striking that there is very little correspondence In an important survey article dealing with Late An- by Iraqi and Iranian imports. In and of itself, the fnds between the two assemblages. Only a limited number tique settlement patterns, Kennet put forward a critical assemblage of Late Antique Kush proves frustratingly of possible “Buraimi Cooking Pots” were found at Kush index of third- to seventh-century sites in eastern Arabia, On the Road to Oman, c. 700–1000 opaque. When compared to other assemblages, however, (JULFAR.5 / PROTO), while several sherds of Black based on the presence of imported Sasanian material.53 He regional settlement patterns emerge which increase the Burnished Ware (SBBW) were found at Qattara and concludes that “the archaeological evdence shows that The Sasanian territories of Iraq and Iran which faced likelihood that Kush belongs to the Sasanian occupation. Buraimi. This general lack of contact between coast and the region underwent a marked and sustained decline af- Kush and northern Oman were opened up to Arab set- Recent excavations in al-Ain and the Buraimi Oasis by interior suggested by the ceramics fnds parallels with ter a peak of development in Hellenistic / Parthian times, tlement following the Muslim conquests of the mid-sev- the present author and Peter Sheehan, in collaboration the situation described by the Omani historical tradition, reaching its nadir in the later Sasanian period.” 54 The enth century CE.58 This did not, however, unite the Ara- with Nasser al-Jahwari, have produced a contemporary whereby “the Persians abode on the sea coast, and the el- problem with this approach is the reliance on Sasanian bian Gulf under a single political authority. Oman split or near contemporary ceramic assemblage. At the Bayt Azd ruled in the interior plains and hills and districts of imports. Eighteen sites from the Omani peninsula are from the Caliphate just two decades after the start of the Bin ʿAti excavations in the Qattara Oasis (al-Ain, UAE), Oman, the direction of afairs being entirely with them listed, to which should now be added Fulayj near Sahm, conquests; indeed, one of the characteristics of Omani a fve-meter stratigraphic sequence was revealed, diided … . So it continued until God caused el-Islam to be mani- bringing the total up to nineteen.55 Yet it is striking that history is that it is perhaps the only Arab nation never into eleven occupational horizons stretching from the fested.” 48 The tradition holds that the Sasanians estab- almost all of the sites on the index were situated on the to have been part of the Caliphate. The result was that Iron Age to the Late Islamic period. Horizon 7 included lished an administratie capital near Sohar and conclud- coast and in northern Oman, with only four situated in Julfar continued be a frontier. Iraq had emerged as the Late Pre-Islamic sherds, including a complete green- ed a treaty with the Azd, as reported by al-ʿAwtabi, upon the interior and just two located in the south, suggesting main focus of Arab settlement after the conquests and glazed bowl identifed by Michel Mouton as PIR.D, with which basis J. C. Wilkinson claimed “the Arabs enoyed a distribution drop-of correlating to distance from pro- consequently became the political and economic focus of the overlying Horizon 8 palm-frond settlement asso- full autonomy in the desert borderlands and in much of duction.56 In efect, the vsibility of Late Antique sites in the Arabian Gulf. Although the Umayyads are generally ciated with Samarraʾ Horizon sherds of the ninth and northern Oman where their capital was at Tuʾam [Burai- northern Oman appears to be linked with their degree of thought of as a Syrian dynasty, it should be noted that tenth centuries.47 Both occupational horizons produced mi] and their main trading port was at Diba.” 49 Although integration into trade networks emanating from Iran. Yet Kufa and Basra were the greatest Arab cities of the age numerous sherds of cooking pots, with a variety of fab- no Sasanian occupation at Sohar has yet been identifed, the exstence of Late Antique “Buraimi Cooking Pots” and the governor of Iraq was second only to the Caliph. rics and forms, some of which may be related to Kennet’s the situation described by the Omani historical tradition demonstrates that sites in the interior little connected to It is possible that among the reasons that the ʿAbbasids JULFAR.5 / PROTO class. Gien that these cooking pots is borne out by the comparison of pottery from the coast this trade were making and using their own types of pot- chose to settle in Iraq in 750 was its economic impor- appear to have been produced and exchanged in the Late and interior, in which the Kush assemblage is made up of tery. As locally made pottery becomes better understood, tance, an inheritance of the Sasanian and Umayyad pe- Pre-Islamic and the Early Islamic period, it is most likely Persian imports and the Buraimi assemblage consists of it may be possible to identify additional Late Antique riods. Throughout this early period, a series of invasions they were also available in the Late Antique period, al- locally made cooking pots. sites in northern Oman, therefore provding an impor- were launched from Iraq aiming to bring Oman into the though Qattara does not seem to have been occupied in This has ramifcations for our understanding of Dibba. tant correctie to the reliance on Sasanian imports and fold of the Caliphate, in which Julfar, situated at the head this period. At the nearby Hamasa dune-feld excavations The Arab tradition relates that in the days before Islam, resulting in a more nuanced understanding of regional of a well-watered route to Buraimi, was repeatedly used (Buraimi, Oman), a two-and-a-half-meter occupational “the markets of the Arabs were ten … [including] Sohar, settlement patterns. The Late Antique period in north- as a bridgehead. sequence was unearthed; the bottom of the sequence has taking place in Rajab, on its frst day, and not requiring ern Oman may yet prove to be less bleak than Kennet It was during this transitional period that the Period not yet been established and the stratigraphy has been any protection. Then the Arabs would travel from Sohar has proposed. I tower at Kush was abandoned and allowed to fall into diided into three provsional phases. Phase C is com- to Daba [Dibba], at which Julanda and his tribe [i.e., the To conclude, Period I Kush was likely established by ruin. No archaeological evdence for the volent destruc- prised of the uppermost layers associated with a well- Azd] would collect the tithe.” 50 It is further said to have the Sasanians—perhaps even by their Lakhmid allies— tion of the tower was found, suggesting that it was sim- preserved mud-brick vllage, which produced Samarraʾ been a capital of Oman and the base of the false prophet as a forward base against Omani maritime raids, with the ply no longer maintained once its strategic role was obso- Horizon sherds of the ninth and tenth centuries. The Laqit b. Malik al-Azdi during the Ridda.51 Dibba, there- Period I fort probably built during the reign of Khus- lete. Possible causes may be identifed by comparing the underlying Phase B occupation included hearths associ- fore, seems to have been both economically and politi- rau I Anushirvan, either as part of his reorganization of 645–710 C14 terminus post quem for abandonment of the ated with turquoise alkaline glazed sherds, one with a cally important in the Late Antique period. However, no the imperial frontiers or in the course of his invasion of Period I tower at Kush with the historical sources for carinated bowl profle typical of the second half of the archaeological evdence from this period has yet emerged. Yemen. It is, therefore, striking that the frst mention of Julfar. Three particular episodes stand out. eighth century. The earliest occupation, Phase A, is as- Archaeological excavations at Dibba al-Hisn (Sharjah) un- Julfar in the Arabic sources is in the context of an Omani sociated with more hearths and is distinguished by the earthed tombs containing quantities of Parthian, Kusha- maritime attack on Fars.57 This can be understood as First, the Sasanian dissolution of the Lakhmid phylar- absence of glazed ceramics; its stratigraphic position im- na, and Roman imports, so that Dibba may be identifed the continuation of the Late Antique situation, but on a chate and abandonment of the Arabian frontier in mediately under the eighth-century Phase B suggests as an entrepôt servng the major regional center of Mleiha much larger scale, taking advantage of the recent defeat 602. It was earlier suggested that Kush may have that it belongs to the Late Antique period. All three in the interior.52 The later Arabic sources imply that this inficted on the Sasanians in Iraq in 636. In the same been established and garrisoned by the Lakhmids. phases produced quantities of cooking pot sherds similar role continued from the Late Pre-Islamic into the Late year, the Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khattab appointed ʿUthman For reasons that are obscure, Khusrau I Parvz (r. to Qattara, suggesting their production spans the Late Antique period, though this is presently impossible to b. Abi al-ʿAs al-Thaqaf over al-Bahrayn and Oman, 590–628) withdrew support from the Lakhmids and Antique and Early Islamic periods. A full typological verify archaeologically. Certainly, the broader geopoliti- which, as the same territory Khusrau I had awarded to removed them from power. The Arabian frontier quantifcation of this material is currently under way, cal situation circumstantially bears out the sources, for if the Lakhmid king al-Mundhir I, again implies a con- was brought under direct Sasanian control with but preliminary qualitatie observation suggests that the Julfar and Sohar were controlled by the Sasanians, Arab tinuation of the Sasanian frontier. ʿUthman b. Abi al-ʿAs a Persian governor supported by auxliaries from

224 225 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

the Arab tribe of Taghlib, who took over some sent to al-Hajjaj in Basra. Gien that this was the distribution could be mapped chronologically to sketch jor confagration was found at Kush or Hulayla further of the frontier-policing duties of the Lakhmids. third Umayyad invasion, one wonders if it had earli- out the settlement history of the site.67 Period I occupa- calls into question Ibn Raziq’s identifcation, though it Sometime between 604 and 611 at the Battle of er been established as an Umayyad bridgehead. The tion at Hulayla clustered in the southern tip of the island is possible that the focus of historic Julfar lay elsewhere, Dhu Qar near Kufa, an Arab tribal confederation Umayyads thereafter appointed a series of gover- and appears to be broadly contemporary with Periods I and it is perhaps unwise to read the sources too literally. defeated a combined Sasanian-Taghlib army, sug- nors over Oman who ruled until the coming of the and I at Kush. Period I occupation was much larger The ʿAbbasids removed the Muhallabids and returned gesting that the removal of the Lakhmids was ill- ʿAbbasids in 750. This period appears to have been than Period I, and despite havng a low-density popu- the Al Julanda to power in Oman. This was the same advsed. As C. E. Bosworth notes, “the fortunes of quite peaceful. For instance, on the relationship be- lation, the area of settlement covers almost 88 ha. It is dynasty that had ruled the interior of Oman in the Late the Lakhmids and Sasanians were so intertwined tween the people of Oman and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd Allah broadly contemporary with Periods I and I at Kush. Antique period. The Ibadi sources remember the later that within just over thirty years of the ending of al-Ansari, the Kashf al-Ghumma states he “treated However, Period I Hulayla seems to have been occupied Al Julanda as “tyrants who misgoverned the country and Lakhmid independence in 602, Sasanian dominance them well and remained Governor over Oman, hon- through the ninth and tenth centuries, as a full sequence oppressed the inhabitants,” 72 which therefore justifed the over Iraq crumbled totally under Arabs from Najd, ored by the inhabitants, and receiing their contri- of Samarraʾ Horizon ceramics was present. Kennet pro- establishment of the Second Ibadi Imamate in 793. The impelled by the new faith of Islam.” 59 Kush may butions voluntarily.” 62 This governor later abdicated poses a tripartite chronology for the progression of the ʿAbbasids responded by despatching another expedition- have been abandoned following the removal of the in favor of the Muhallabids, an Omani family from Samarraʾ Horizon: ( cobalt decoration, after 803 and be- ary force to Oman late in the reign of Harun al-Rashid Lakhmids in 602 or perhaps following the defeat of whom the later Umayyad governors of Basra and fore 836; (i) plain white and splashed decoration, after (r. 786–808), possibly in the year 807, if we follow Rawas’ the Taghlib c. 604–11. However, this may be a lit- Oman were drawn, and whose rule was generally 835 and before 861; (i) lustre and early sgrafato, after chronology.73 The sources agree that this was a marine tle early for the 645–710 C14 terminus post quem for well-regarded by the populace. In such circumstanc- 885 to 895.68 As such, Period I Hulayla emerges as one expedition but do not explicitly state the landing point, abandonment. es, the frontier was no longer protected and a fort of the larger Early Islamic sites in the Arabian Gulf, and for which reason King does not treat this episode in his was no longer required. Kennet compares it to the 110 ha. of contemporary Siraf articles on the history of Julfar. However, Rawas notes Second, the Arab conquest of Iran, completed in 651. If while noting a much lower population density, inform- that the Kashf al-Ghumma states the key battle of this it is accepted that the tower was built in the reign The establishment of Baghdad in 762 and Samarraʾ in ing his earlier identifcation of Hulayla with historic Jul- campaign was fought in Hatta, implying that the ʿAbbasid of Khusrau I Anushirvan (r. 531–579) to consolidate 836 very likely represents the economic peak of Iraq, dur- far.69 Since his excavations at Kush, however, Kennet has army had disembarked at Julfar and marched south.74 In the Lakhmid or Sasanian occupation of Oman, then ing which time ʿAbbasid Indian Ocean trade leapt for- preferred to identify Kush and not Hulayla with Julfar. any case, the forces of the Warith b. Kaʿb (r. 795– its purpose was rendered obsolete by the fall of the ward and the Arabian Gulf became its main conduit. This is rather curious gien the lack of signifcant Early 807) were vctorious, and the independence of Oman was Sasanian Empire. How long Sasanian forces held Most of this trade seems to have passed along the Ira- Islamic settlement at Kush. Since it is clear that the main secured for the greater part of the ninth century. out in Oman is unclear, but Julfar must have sur- nian littoral, in particular the port of Siraf, so that Julfar focus of settlement has continuously moved around the Sohar became increasingly important as a consequence rendered to the Muslims before 636, the year the and northern Oman were largely bypassed. Period I at archipelago of Ras al-Khaimah and its immediate hinter- of its involvement in the Indian Ocean trade, and as Iraq Azd used Julfar as a base to capture the island of Kush is made up on thick layers of architectural tumble land, and since Hulayla appears to have been the largest declined after the mid-ninth century, renewed eforts were Qishm.60 This is the frst mention of Julfar in the and windblown sand.63 Intermittent squatter occupations known settlement of the ninth to eleventh centuries, the made by the ʿAbbasids to bring Oman under their control. historical sources. It would make sense that the Azd were associated with turquoise glazed ceramics with cari- earlier identifcation of Hulayla with Julfar still has much In the later ninth century, a dispute over the succession of and Muslims appreciated the strategic value of a fort nated profles dating to the eighth century.64 Towards to commend it. the Imamate degenerated into factional warfare, in which guarding the northern frontier of Oman during the the end of Period I, a right-angled mud-brick wall as- Historical references to eighth- and ninth-century one faction sought out an alliance with the ʿAbbasids, re- conquest period. Yet with the defnitie collapse of sociated with postholes was built, which may be dated to Julfar prove to be quite evasie when examined closely. sulting in a third invasion of Oman.75 The ʿAbbasid gover- the Sasanian threat following the death of Yazdigird the early ninth century by the presence of early Samarraʾ Julfar again appears in the secondary literature as the nor of al-Hasaʾ, b. Nur, proceeded to capture I in 651, the strategic signifcance of that frontier horizon ceramics. Period I was disturbed by later pit- bridgehead for repeated ʿAbbasid invasions of Oman. The Julfar before turning south to take Tuʾam and then was rendered obsolete, so that the Period I fort at ting, but enough survved for Kennet to note external frst of these was alleged to have occurred during the in 893. Since all of the sources agree on this, there is no Kush may have been abandoned. surfaces, fragmentary walls, and small structures repre- wider imposition of ʿAbbasid authority following their reason to doubt their testimony. It seems reasonable to senting a limited reoccupation of the mound. He dates volent overthrow of the Umayyads in 750. The Ibadis, suggest that Muhammad b. Nur wanted to establish Ju- Third, the Umayyad invasion of Oman, undertaken this period from the ninth to eleventh centuries, though under the rule of the Imam Julanda b. Masʿud, had seized lfar as a port of provsion and so secure his supply lines sometime between 694 and 705.61 Oman seems to he observes that the later Samarraʾ Horizon types are not this chaotic episode to establish an independent state in before embarking on the conquest of Inner Oman. The have slipped away from the Caliphate between the well-represented, and suggests that Kush was abandoned Oman. This was crushed by the ʿAbbasid general Khazim route of conquest is notable—establishing a bridgehead at First and Second Fitnas, roughly from 656 to 692, between the mid-ninth and tenth centuries.65 It seems b. Khuzayma in 752.70 The sources broadly agree about Julfar, then marching inland to Tuʾam—as it is the frst and was not brought back into the fold until ʿAbd that Kush was therefore not signifcantly occupied be- the details of the decisie battle, but only Ibn Raziq ex- time in history the use of this “backdoor” into Oman can al-Malik b. Marwan had frmly established his rule. tween the eighth to early eleventh centuries and did not plicitly identifes Julfar as its location, and this has gener- be unambiguously documented. This caliph, together with his powerful governor play a major role in ʿAbbasid Indian Ocean trade. ally been followed in the secondary literature. However, There is no archaeological evdence for the occupation of Iraq, al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf al-Thaqaf (r. 694–714), is Occupation of the island of Hulayla, about eight kilo- this identifcation takes the form of a discrete sentence— of Kush or Hulayla in the tenth century.76 Kennet won- credited with the foundation of an enduring Islamic meters north of Kush, seems to have been more signif- “this battle took place at Julfar” 71—tacked at the end of ders if this may be more apparent than real, pointing to state. Clearly, Oman could not be allowed to persist cant in this period. In 1991, Kennet undertook a survey of his passage on the Imamate of Julanda b. Masʿud. It reads the abandonment of Samarraʾ and decline of production in its independence. At least three amphibious ex- the island and noted abundant evdence for occupation, as if it had been inserted by an earlier copyist or an edi- centers in Iraq, and our reliance on readily recognizable peditions were despatched. During the last of these, including “pottery scatters, small shell middens, traces tor of Ibn Raziq’s source, or perhaps even inserted by Ibn imports to identify sites in the UAE.77 Yet the historical led by Mujjaʿa b. Shiʿwa al-Muzani, the Umayyad of stone buildings, and cemeteries.” 66 Most of the oc- Raziq himself. Moreover, al-Tabari’s source notes that sources for this period are curiously silent about Julfar. It expeditionary force was defeated and fell back on cupation was probably of ʿarish (palm-frond) houses. The the houses were made of wood and were put to the torch is notable that al-Masʿudi (wr. 947), who was intimately Julfar, from where a request for reinforcements was survey focused on the collection of surface sherds, whose by the ʿAbbasid army. The fact that no evdence for a ma- familiar with the Indian Ocean world, fails to mention

226 227 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

Julfar in his account of the Gulf pearl fsheries.78 The So, too, with the Buyids and Siraf. In his conclusion to only contemporary source to mention Julfar is al-Muqad- the hinterland survey, Donald Whitcomb observes that dasi (wr. 985), who lists Jullafar (sic) among the towns of “the port of Siraf … was a precocious, almost ‘colonial’ Oman, though comments that “most of the towns of this venture, supported by cities in the interior, in this case [Arabian] Peninsula are small yet have the full reputa- Firuzabad (Gur) and Shiraz.” 84 Early Islamic commercial tion of towns.” 79 Gien that no material evdence for oc- networks in Iraq and Iran therefore integrated the coast cupation has been found and the written sources largely and interior in a single political and economic system. ignore it, tenth-century Julfar must have been a sparsely However, in the wake of the earthquake which destroyed inhabited spot of no signifcance. Siraf and the Saluq Turks, who overthrew the Buyids, Moreover, Julfar does not seem to have been important new commercial networks emerged based on political- to the Buyids during their conquest of Oman.80 In 962, ly independent mercantile island emporia. The frst of the Buyid ruler of Baghdad, Muʿizz al-Dawla (r. 945–67), these was the emirate of Kish (Qays), apparently estab- despatched an expeditionary force which ended in failure lished by Arab freebooters in the eleventh century, which following the premature death of its commander. Another dominated Gulf trade into the early thirteenth century.85 expedition in 964 succeeded in taking the country but The island location meant that the rulers of Kish were was thereafter expelled in a general uprising. Only in 967, safeguarded from attack by restless Saluq atabegs, but with the help of the Buyid emir of Shiraz, ʿAdud al-Dawla also meant that the agricultural resource base was neces- (r. 949–83), was Oman fnally subdued. Yet the country sarily limited. Although Kish was celebrated for its palm was almost lost during factional infghting among the gardens, these do not seem to have met the needs of the Buyids in 984, prompting the ruler of Shiraz, Sharaf al- growing population, so that the emirate looked to the Dawla (r. 983–89), to despatch a fnal army of invasion. oases of Arabia to secure an independent supply of food. Henceforth, Oman was to be ruled from Fars. So far as It is no doubt signifcant that the frst descriptions of it is possible to tell, these expeditions were all launched Julfar occur in precisely this context. against Sohar, the principal rial of the Indian Ocean port We are fortunate that one of the great geographers of Siraf, and Buyid ambitions in Oman appear to have of the age was personally familiar with the trade of the been informed by commercial considerations.81 While it Arabian Gulf. Yaqut al-Rumi al-Hamawi (d. 1229) began is generally thought that Siraf under the Buyids enoyed his career as a Greek slave in the servce of a Syrian mer- a kind of Indian summer, al-Muqaddasi’s (wr. 985) testi- chant, on whose behalf he made several business trips to Figure 2: The Wadi Sur wall. Image courtesy of Derek Kennet. mony suggests that it had been overtaken by Sohar as the the island of Kish in the 1190s.86 He describes ‘Jurrafar’ principal Gulf port, for he writes of Siraf “in the period as “a fertile town (madīna mukhaṣab) in the direction of of its prosperity, it was superior to Basra … . Siraf and not Oman (bi-nāḥīya ʿUmān), and I have heard many name it There is clear material evdence for this economic glazed ceramics averages 4.99 % between the seventh and Oman was the transit port of China and the entrepôt of Julfar, with a lām.” 87 Clearly, he must have heard reports stimulation at Period V Kush. The majority of the seven twelfth centuries. Period V, moreover, witnesses the start Persia.” 82 The Buyids do not therefore seem to have con- of Julfar during his vsits to Kish, though the precise occupational periods Kennet identifed at Kush were as- of Chinese ceramic imports at 0.31 %.94 This probably cerned themselves with the direct administration of the meaning of his Arabic is opaque. Geofrey King trans- sociated with fragmentary walls, postholes, and hearths, refects the increased production and export under the Zahira and ignored Julfar on account of its commercial lates the phrase madīna mukhaṣab as “productie town,” which do not constitute signifcant occupational actiity. Sung dynasty, and so the increased availability of Chinese insignifcance. Nor did they need to trouble themselves to which is valid, though khiṣb more usually means “fertil- It is therefore striking that only signifcant post-Sasanian ceramics in the Indian Ocean networks, rather than the maintain a fortress at Julfar, as their control of Makran ity.” 88 Yet towns are not usually described as being fertile, occupation comes from Period V, dated to the late elev- commercial growth of Julfar.95 Indeed, the lack of coin gave them direct access to the Batinah. unless some sort of ”garden city” is imagined, taking us enth and early twelfth centuries on the basis of sgraf- fnds from Period V suggests that the economy was not back to Velde’s “oasis settlement.” In another entry, spelt fatos and fritwares,90 making it broadly contemporary monetized and that commerce was not signifcant. An Julfar this time, Yaqut states that it is “an extensiely with the rise of Kish. Period V is associated with the re- argument can therefore be made that while the rise of New Patterns of Trade, c. 1000–1300 farmed country in Oman. Liestock, cheese and ghee are mains of “a large and well-preserved mudbrick structure Kish stimulated the economy of Kush, it did not efect a brought from it to the neighbouring territories.” 89 He … . Soundings elsewhere on the mound suggest this was commercial transformation. The destruction of Siraf in 977 and fall of the Buyids in writes balad bi-ʿUman ʿāmir kathīr, which could alterna- not an isolated structure.” 91 Unfortunately, these struc- Archaeological survey data similarly implies that de- 1055 fundamentally changed the operation of maritime tiely be translated as “a densely populated country” or tures have not yet been published, and Period V remains mand from the island emporia of the Iranian littoral was trade in the Gulf. Hitherto, states based in the major “a very prosperous country,” but I prefer to read “an ex- one of the least well-documented occupational episodes not yet sufcient to signifcantly impact upon the land- population centers of the interior had supported coastal tensiely farmed country” since he goes on to deal with at Kush. The pottery, moreover, suggests a marked in- scape of Julfar. The survey relies on the collection of sur- emporia and maintained communication lines with the agricultural produce. Very likely the trade in agricultural crease in actiity, with a total of 2,789 sherds retrieved face sherds, of which the most ubiquitous glazed ceramics littoral. Clearly this was the case with the ʿAbbasid In- products observed by Yaqut began in the second half of from Period I, compared to 4,211 sherds from Period of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries are sgrafatos.96 dian Ocean trade, neatly epitomized by al-Yaʿqubi, who the eleventh century, when Kish and Hormuz emerged V.92 At the same time, the proportion of imported glazed The sgrafato style of surface decoration involves incis- famously has al-Mansur say of the foundation of Bagh- out of the collapse of the Buyid emirates, so that the ceramics rose from 4.20 % in the tenth century to 5.44 % ing linear designs through a white slip before glazing. dad: “This is the Tigris; there is no obstacle between us reconfguration of Gulf commerce seems to have stimu- in the thirteenth century.93 However, this does not rep- Production appears to have begun in early tenth-century and China; everything on the sea can come to us on it.” 83 lated the economy of Julfar. resent a signifcant increase, since the proportion of Iraq, but does not become common until the eleventh to

228 229 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

Period Dates de Cardi Hulayla ‘91 Khaṭṭ ‘92 Ḥaqīl ShimAl Fulayya Khaṭṭ ‘94 Total Tot. %

Sasanian / Early Islamic 400–800 ? 9 12 ? 10 5 3 39 730 %

Samarran ʿAbbasid 800–1000 2–5? 15 15 26 4 2 0 64 199 %

11th–13th Century 1000–1300 2 4 1 0 7 8 2 24 449 %

al-Mataf Period 1300–1600 9 18 12 17 24 34 32 146 2734 %

Post-al-Mataf Period 1600–1900 11 16 23 140 24 32 15 261 4888 %

Total 534 100 %

Table 2: Major occupational periods of Julfar and its hinterland (after Kennet, 2002) thirteenth centuries, when incised monochrome glazes of Bih. The defences consist of a 3.5 m wide x 2.5 m deep between the two has not been frmly established, other be made for Nabhanid agency in the construction of the Iranian manufacture dominated. The end of production ditch with a rampart surmounted by a mud-brick wall, than the fact that both features utilized the same rocky hill-fortress today known as Sheba’s Palace. is plausibly associated with the disturbances of the Mon- together forming a barrier an estimated 4 to 5 m high, outcrop, and the date of Sheba’s Palace is also open to Sheba’s Palace consists of a stone-built redoubt con- gol onslaught between 1219 and 1258.97 Other ceramic further fortifed with abutting semi-circular towers at speculation. Gien that the survey data suggests that this structed on a rocky spur overlooking the lagoon of Kush. classes, such as fritware, introduced in the twelfth cen- about 150 m intervals.100 Very few fnds were retrieved period represents the historic nadir of occupational ac- The fortress was investigated by Franke-Vogt and pub- tury, and celadon, introduced in the thirteenth century, from excavations by Ute Franke-Vogt and “one sherd of tiity, a circumstantial argument can be made against lished as a two-page summary, with some site plans later allow the chronology of the “sgrafato horizon” to be an early Julfar-type bowl (ffteenth century)” 101 provding an intensiely developed oasis hinterland, or indeed an published by Velde, so that much still remains uncertain refned, but they are less commonly found. the only dating evdence. Velde suggests in a recent paper eleventh-century wall protecting the oasis. about the site.106 The plan consists of an irregular lower For this reason the eleventh to thirteenth centuries that it is likely to be contemporary with the adjacent hill- Julfar does not appear to have possessed any strategic enclosure surmounted by a rectangular keep with three appeared as a discrete chronological block in archaeologi- top fortress known as Sheba’s Palace, which he places in value in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, during which projecting corner towers and a well-constructed cistern. cal survey data, as marshalled by Kennet (Table 2), and the eleventh century, and that the two features belonged time Oman was occupied by the Saluqs.103 It seems that Franke-Vogt did not interpret the site to any extent, but the period thereafter became established in the litera- to a single defensie system.102 However, the relationship shortly before 1048 the Saluq warlord Qara Arslan Qa- he refers to “the so-called palace … and the hilltop for- ture.98 The hinterland survey revealed that the eleventh vurd b. Chagri Beg established a semi-independent prin- tress,” 107 which implies he thought the site was essentially to thirteenth centuries account for just 4.49 % of all doc- cipality in Bardasir, bringing Kirman almost a century defensie. Velde acknowledges the obvous defensie func- umented sites between the Late Antique and Late Islam- and a half of peace and stability, and further stimulat- tion, but believes it was “the palace where the ruler of ic periods. If this is interpreted as consistent occupational ing the “India trade” of the Arabian Gulf.104 Qavurd is Julfar must have stayed.” 108 There is no good evdence for actiity over the full three centuries, then the total popu- reported to have chartered ships from the local ruler of this, however, and the site may have had a purely defen- lation was at an all-time low and the settlement density Hormuz and in 1063 undertook the conquest of Oman.105 sie function. The keep was excavated but did not pro- must also have been low. This may be reconciled quite Julfar does not seem to have been directly involved in the duce clear evdence for the date of construction: “As the neatly with Yaqut’s description of the exports of Julfar, Saluq conquest, which, like the Buyid conquest a cen- building was continuously reused and cleared of debris, which are all notably products of dairy farming or even tury before, focused on the Batinah. Nor do the sources all stratifed deposits relate to the later two occupations pastoralism, subsistence strategies that do not support indicate that Julfar was subsequently garrisoned or had (I, I). A couple of stray fnds, however, which probably large populations. So far as is possible to tell from the a governor appointed. Again, this rather speaks against have to be connected with the most elaborate structure, available evdence, the land behind Kush does not seem the importance of Julfar in the eleventh century. Oman date to the 10th and 13th centuries AD (I / I).” 109 As with to have been intensiely cultiated between the eleventh remained under Saluq rule until 1141, when the “Great the Wadi Sur wall, the date of construction is open to an and thirteenth centuries. Saluq” Sultan Sanar was defeated by the Qara-Khitai, af- uncomfortably wide degree of interpretatie latitude. It has nevertheless been suggested by Velde that Pe- fording the Al Nahban an opportunity to expel the Turks Perhaps the best architectural parallels for Sheba’s Pal- riod V Kush possessed a large oasis hinterland demarked and establish an Omani state based on . Whether ace are to be found at the fortress of Hawrat Bargha, by a defensie wall.99 The Wadi Sur wall runs for about or not the Nabhanids incorporated Julfar into their king- located at the head of the Wadi al-Jizzi behind Sohar.110 7 km from the mountains to the lagoon, enclosing an dom is unclear, largely because the historical records for Both are situated on rocky outcrops with an irregular area of about 16–17 sq km, which he believes included their period of rule were repressed by the Yaʿrubids who lower enclosure surmounted by a keep with projecting 85 % of the palm-groves along the gravel fan of the Wadi Figure 3: Celadon from Kush. Image courtesy of Christian Velde. succeeded them. However, a circumstantial argument can corner towers and a well-constructed cistern. Monique

230 231 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

Kervran excavated the site and dated it to the thirteenth Princes of the Arabian Gulf, c. 1300–1600 century on the basis of pottery from stratigraphically ex- cavated contexts.111 She points to two destructie attacks After Kush was abandoned in the late thirteenth century, in the second half of the thirteenth century to provde the focus of settlement moved to the sites of al-Mataf and a context for the construction of Hawrat Bargha.112 In al-Nudud. These have been excavated by eight projects at 1261, the Hormuzi king Rukn al-Din (r. 1249–86) seized diferent times using diferent methodologies, and have and plundered Dhofar, adding them to his ex- been published to a variety of standards of competence panding domains, which grew to include much of the and completion in fve languages, making the archaeo- Gulf and Makran.113 Another attack in 1279 by “the people logical record difcult to access and interpret. For ex- of Shiraz,” which had by this time passed to the Ilkha- ample, between 1988 and 1993, the site of al-Mataf was nids, reached Nizwa and Bahla; “the people of ‘Omán,” excavated by separate teams from Britain, France, Ger- al-Izkawī tells us, “endured extreme sufering from these many, and Japan, of which only the British and Japanese invaders.” 114 Kervran argues that the Nabhanid rulers published interim reports.120 None of the teams have yet of Oman, the brothers ʿUmar b. Nabhan and Kahlan published fnal reports. The best synthesis of the archae- b. Nabhan, undertook to build a series of fortresses ology of al-Mataf is Kennet’s 2003 paper, “Julfar and the guarding key wadis linking the vulnerable coastal plain Urbanization of Southeast Arabia,” 121 which presents a with the interior, including those of the Wadi Andam chronological concordance of the British and Japanese and Wadi Qant, together with Hawrat Bargha in the excavations. However, Robert Carter’s subsequent exca- Wadi al-Jizzi.115 Gien the proxmity of Hormuz to Julfar, vations at al-Nudud have opened up new perspecties on it is hard to imagine the Nabhanids would have omitted the development of Julfar.122 Prevously thought to be a to defend the backdoor to Oman, and it is therefore emi- suburb of al-Mataf, it now seems more likely that the nently possible that Sheba’s Palace should be attributed two sites represent a joint foundation. Carter has worked to their agency. This has important ramifcations for the together with Velde to re-examine Kennet’s concordance relationship of Julfar to Oman, for it implies that Julfar of al-Mataf in the light of the al-Nudud sequence, and was in the thirteenth century—and perhaps for the frst although a work in progress, an alternatie chronology time—an integral part of the Omani kingdom. for the development of the site may be put forward. Ar- Kush was abandoned in the late thirteenth century. chaeological research at Julfar remains liely and we can No evdence of volent destruction was found, and in- look forward to new discoveries and theories in the com- Figure 4: General view of the site of al-Mataf. Image courtesy of Derek Kennet. stead Kennet perceied a steady decline in the quality ing years. of the buildings. The large mud-brick structure associ- ated with Period V was overlain during Periods V and from 1.14 % to 1.96 %,124 testifying to a signifcant growth to the island of Jarun in 1296—maybe gained from a de- V by occupational actiity characterized by “numer- Al-Mataf Period I: Rise in maritime trade. Velde similarly observes that “the new scription of the reign of Qutb al-Din (d. 1346): ous postholes, damaged surfaces, hearth and fragmen- commercial center was built during a period of unprece- tary walls.” 116 These last two periods were dated to the Late Antique Kush had originally been situated next to a dented economic prosperity,” 125 but stops short of making After having secured his country on land and sea and among twelfth and thirteenth centuries, respectiely. The pro- sheltered lagoon connected by navgable channels to the a causatie link. The strategic location of the new set- Arabs and non-Arabs against his opponents, Sultan Qutb al- portion of imported glazed ceramics rose from 4.98 % open sea. It has generally been supposed that the lagoon tlement implies that the local rulers repositioned them- Din formed good relations with the sultan of sultans of Gu- in the twelfth century to 8.11 % in the thirteenth cen- gradually silted up and in the fourteenth century forced a selves to better exploit the growing volume of trade pass- jarat, lands of the kings of India, Sind, Basra, Kufa, Oman, tury,117 while the proportion of Chinese ceramics rose relocation of settlement.123 However, the geomorphology ing through the Arabian Gulf in the fourteenth century. Kirman, Shiraz and so on until he stabilized his rule and from 0.51 % in Period V to 1.28 % in Period V.118 This remains imperfectly understood so that the chronology The increase in maritime trade discernible in the ce- dominance and spread his justice. He prepared ships and sent most likely represents a growth in the production and of the silting process is unclear, and this must remain a ramic assemblage of al-Mataf is undoubtedly to be attrib- them everywhere. From all seaports such as Mecca, Jidda, exchange of trade ceramics in the Indian Ocean net- hypothesis pending further investigation. The new focus uted to the emergence of Hormuz as a major emporium Aden, Sofala, Yemen, China, Europe, Calicut and Bengal works, rather than a growth in the maritime commerce of settlement was situated on a sand bank through which of Indian Ocean trade.126 It is generally thought that a they came by sea and brought superior merchandise from of Julfar. Indeed, during this period the total number passed a channel linking the sea and lagoon, with the group of Omani Arabs established their rule in the re- everywhere to there and brought valuable goods from the cit- of pottery sherds declined, from 4,211 in Period V to sites of al-Mataf and al-Nudud facing each other across gion of on the coast of Iran in the second half ies of Fars, Iraq and Khurasan to that place. From whatever 2,914 in Period V and 2,504 in Period V, probably the channel. The location of settlement efectiely con- of the eleventh century. The Mongol invasions of the that came by sea they took one tenth, and from whatever was indicating a general decline in occupational actiity at trolled access to sheltered moorings in the lagoon and thirteenth century transformed the situation of Hormuz, brought to Khurasan from (surrounding areas), they took Kush.119 Reasons for the decline of Kush are, of course, would have allowed local authorities to better levy cus- frst allowing an opportunity for territorial expansion half of one tenth, and it remained the same way and order open to speculation. It is perhaps possible that with the toms duty. This might suggest an alternatie reason for through the humbling of its erstwhile overlords on the until now and in this year (747 / 1346) after ruling honour- emergence of the Nabhanids in the twelfth century and the relocation of settlement. Kennet dates Period I al- Iranian plateau, and then integrating the Gulf hinter- ably for twenty-two years, his soul ascended to holy land.128 the Horumzi-Ilkhanid condominium in the thirteenth Mataf to the fourteenth century and observes that im- land into the Pax Mongolica to provde a huge market for century, Julfar and northern Oman became a relatiely ported glazed ceramics rose from 6.16 % to 8.36 % of the Indian Ocean trade.127 An impression of the commercial Whether or not Julfar had by the mid-fourteenth century depopulated militarized frontier zone. total assemblage while Far Eastern imports increased vtality of Hormuz—which relocated from Minab plain been incorporated into the growing Kingdom of Hormuz

232 233 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN is unclear. The Gulf ports of Kish, Bahrayn, and , Al-Mataf Period I: Peak began as a palm-frond suburb of historic Julfar.132 Clearly to mention Julfar in this context, with only a passing ref- together with the Omani ports of Qalhat and Dhofar, had this was a very large settlement by the standards of the erence in al-Idrisi.137 In fact, the pearl beds were located at been conquered by this time, as has been shown above, Period I witnesses the rapid urbanization of al-Mataf Arabian littoral—Kennet suggests that it compares in some distance removed from Julfar, in the waters of pre- and the secondary literature has generally added Julfar to and al-Nudud beginning in the late fourteenth century.130 size and density to tenth-century Sohar—and its urbani- sent-day and Abu Dhabi. Julfar was not, therefore, the list of conquests.129 Yet there is no explicit historical The earlier settlement was replaced by a dense network zation in the broader ffteenth century marks the high- well situated to take advantage of the pearl beds, and its evdence to support this and the archaeological evdence of coral-stone and mud-brick houses and streets, which point of premodern settlement. trade in pearls can be understood as a secondary develop- is opaque. Settlement at Period I al-Mataf begins as a Kennet takes to be a deliberate planned development as Actiity in the hinterland also peaked during this ment, growing out of the rise to prominence of the town scatter of ʿarish (palm-frond) houses surrounding a small opposed to natural urban growth, so that the character period. Almost one-third (27.34 %) of all Late Antique in the fourteenth and ffteenth centuries. Duarte Barbosa mud-brick mosque (Mosque Phase I). In the second half of settlement assumes that of a full-fedged town. This to Late Islamic sites identifed by the hinterland survey gies a good impression of the importance of this trade: of the century, the mosque was enlarged (Mosque Phase town was provded with large public buildings, including belong to the al-Mataf period (c. 1300–1600) (Table 2). I) and the houses around the mosque began to be rebuilt a rebuilt and enlarged mosque (Mosque Phase I), now Kennet notes high levels of rural actiity in the plains of Passing above this place Profam [], we come in mud-brick, forming a presumably more afuent and approxmately 30 sq m, and a possible coral-stone fort Shimal and Fulayya, which constitute the land behind to another called Julfar, where dwell persons of worth, great socially important core zone, while the majority of the with cisterns c. 60 sq m, while the urban core of al-Mataf Julfar, and understands this to be a response to demand navigators and wholesale dealers. Here is a very great fshery surrounding settlement continued to consist of palm- was surrounded by a c. 1.5 m thick wall on three sides.131 fueled by the rising urban population.133 Velde briefy as well of seed-pearls as of large pearls, and the Moors of frond houses. The general character of Period I al-Mataf Suburbs of palm-frond houses extended for c. 1.5 km mentions elsewhere that “many old and dilapidated bunds Ormus come hither to buy them and carry them to India appears to be in keeping with a modest autochthonic set- along the coast to the north and south of al-Mataf and (garden walls) can still be seen today. They reach beyond and many other lands. The trade of this place brings in a tlement developing independently as a response to the al-Nudud. Local tradition suggests that Julfar stretched the plain towards the gravel in front of the mountains, great revenue to the King of Ormus … Beyond these Profam growing volume of maritime trade. There is as yet no from Rams to Ras al-Khaimah at the peak of settlement, although the retrieval of water was much more difcult villages are others along the coast, one of which is a large good evdence for direct Hormuzi control. and it is generally thought that modern Ras al-Khaimah here than in the coastal area.” 134 The implication is that place called Reçoyma [Ras al-Khaimah].138 demand was sufciently high to outweigh the greater ef- fort and costs incurred in cultiating less naturally pro- Another possible export of Julfar was people. The armies ductie land. As already discussed, the date of the Wadi of the Kingdom of Hormuz were multiethnic and drawn Sur wall is unclear; in his most recent publication, Velde from surrounding regions. Piacentini argues that Sayf al- places it in the eleventh century.135 However, in his initial Din (c. 1417–36) favored the Turks, Laris, and Tarumis publication of the wall, he understood it to it be contem- of the Iranian Plateau, while Fakhr al-Din Turanshah I porary with the peak of historic settlement in the four- (r. 1436–70) favored the Bedouin of the Arabian Penin- teenth and ffteenth centuries. Since Velde believes that sula.139 She points to Barbosa’s description of the interior, the enclosed land was gien over to the date-palm groves where “dwell many Moors of the nature of wild Arabs of an “oasis settlement,” while Yaqut described dairy who are under the rule of Xeques [shaykhs],” 140 and notes exports implying that animal fodder was a key cultiar the prominence of Julfar during the Hormuzi ciil war in the late twelfth century, it is perhaps possible that a of the late ffteenth century, arguing that a ready sup- fourteenth- to ffteenth-century Wadi Sur wall indicates ply of Bedouin troops could be found at Julfar. It is in a change in land use and an intensifcation of farming. many ways a most plausible supposition. While no doubt However, the archaeological characterization of land use other Arabian ports of the Kingdom, including al-Qatif and chronology of landscape features remains opaque, so and Qalhat, could similarly have supplied Arab troops that it would be unwise to carry this speculation too far. to Hormuz, Julfar would likely have been more impor- Such an intensifcation of agricultural actiity was not tant gien its proxmity to Hormuz. However, so far as I drien solely by local demand. Already in the late twelfth am aware, there are no explicit references in the primary century, Yaqut attests to the export of agricultural pro- sources to Bedouin being recruited at Julfar. duce from Julfar to the island of Kish, and this trade seems to have been redirected to the island of Hormuz in the fourteenth and ffteenth centuries. Indeed, it seems Al-Mataf Period I-I: Decline that demand was such that other ports of northern Oman were involved in the provsion of Hormuz. Duarte Bar- Period I is associated with the onset of decline at al- bosa (f. 1500–17) writes of the land behind Khor Fakkan, Mataf and al-Nudud, which Kennet dates to the early “[there are] gardens and farms in plenty, which Moors siteenth century.141 The abandonment of houses in the of high standing [from Hormuz] hold on this mainland, Japanese area of excavations and adjacent to the mosque whither they go to take their pleasure, and to gather in in the British area suggests a falling population. Similar- the fruits and increase of their land.” 136 ly, the drop in imported glazed ceramics from 8.25 % to The involvement of Julfar in the pearl industry fur- 4.82 % of the total assemblage, together with the fall of ther grew during this period. Earlier accounts referring East Asian ceramic imports from 1.92 % to 1.14 %, more- Figure 5: The mosque at al-Mataf. Image courtesy of Derek Kennet. to pearling in the Gulf, such as al-Masʿudi and Yaqut, fail over, shows that maritime trade was retreating. Decline,

234 235 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN while pervasie, was not precipitous: most houses contin- a notable navgator and cartographer from Julfar, who hundred from Barhen, ffty from Julfar, ffty from Nih- ah, unlike Buraimi, where at least two walis are named, ued to be occupied and the street plan was maintained. wrote perhaps the best-known treatise on oceanography helu [an Arab settlement on the Iranian coast]. They implying that the Yaʿrubids were content with suzerainty. Indeed, the mosque was actually expanded early in this in the Islamic world.146 The Estado da Índia, as the Por- commonly go to fsh at Katar.” 152 Julfar therefore enoyed When the Imam Sultan b. Sayf died in 1718, he was period (Mosque Phase I), which Kennet interprets as tuguese empire in the East was known, was thereafter a quarter share of the Gulf pearl industry. Indeed, so sig- succeeded by his son, whose election according to Ibadi a symbolic statement rather than pragmatic develop- established by to pursue “war nifcant was the connection between Julfar and pearls, he law was contested on the grounds of his still being in his ment. It was rebuilt again towards the end of the period with the Moors and trade with the heathen.” 147 He took believed, that it gave rise to the etymology of the Por- minority, giing rise to another claimant to the Imam- (Mosque Phase V), this time with a smaller footprint, in 1510, in 1511, and Hormuz in 1515, with tuguese word for pearl, “because seed-pearls are chiefy ate, one Muhammad b. Nasir al-Ghafri, elected in 1724. which constitutes the frst contraction in its history. The Colombo established in 1518 shortly after his death. By fshed on the coast of Julfar, a port in Arabia in the same This was immediately opposed by Khalf b. Mubarak al- impression is that the population was shrinking. How- 1570, it is reckoned that the Portuguese had established Arabian Gulf, they came to be called Al Julfar—that is, Hinawi, who simultaneously declared himself to be the ever, Carter alternatiely posits that the abandonment some forty forts between Sofala and Nagasaki,148 with ‘of Julfar’—and we corrupt this a little into alofar.” 153 rightfully elected Imam, and plunged Oman into two of al-Nudud was complete by the late ffteenth century, the Viceroy ruling a great swathe of the Indian Ocean This comparatiely buoyant picture of the pearling in- decades of bitter ciil war. It was most likely the collapse and further redates the abandonment of houses in the from the Swahili Coast of Africa to the Islands dustry again fnds parallels in Kennet’s original dating of Yaʿrubid authority during the ciil war which allowed Japanese excavation area at al-Mataf to this period.142 He of Indonesia. His capital city at Goa quickly grew to be of Period I to the second half of the siteenth century, a group of Hawala known as the Qawasim to establish suggests that only the mosque area, revealed by the Brit- one of the most populous and prosperous cities in all when he notes relatiely intense occupational actiity themselves in Sur. The exact origins of the Qawasim ish excavations at al-Mataf, continued in use after the Asia. It was thus no idle boast that the ruler of Lisbon and rise in ceramic imports associated with Period I. are lost to history, but the frst of their rulers to rise abandonment of much of the rest of the city. adopted the title “King of and of the Algarves However, Carter and Velde understand later Portuguese to prominence was Shaykh Rashid b. Maṭar al-Qasimi Carter’s new chronology is signifcant because it places on this side and beyond the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea references to Julfar to indicate the emerging town of Ras in the mid-eighteenth century, whose grandfather was the abandonment of Julfar prior to the arrial of the Por- and Lord of the Conquest, Navgation and Commerce of al-Khaimah, and not the settlement associated with the the eponymous Qasim from whom the tribe took their tuguese. Carter and Velde believe that a much-dimin- Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and India.” 149 archaeological sites of al-Mataf and al-Nudud. name.155 Sayf b. Sultan, the son of the old Imam Sultan ished rump settlement survved in the mosque area at al- The century of Portuguese rule in Julfar, from 1515 to The fnal abandonment of Julfar may be dated ar- b. Sayf, had meanwhile attained to manhood and, de- Mataf, while the vast majority of the population of Julfar 1633, broadly corresponds to Kennet’s Period I and I. chaeologically to the late siteenth century. A terminus sirous of the Imamate, had recourse to Nadir Shah (r. had by the late ffteenth century decamped to nearby Ras Period I is characterized by a reversion to palm-frond post quem for the abandonment of the mosque area at al- 1736–47) in Iran. In 1737, a Persian expeditionary force al-Khaimah. This shift may have occurred as a conse- architecture, which Kennet originally thought began Mataf is provded by a coin dated 1555, while the absence landed in al-Sir, and marched inland to take the Buraimi quence of the Hormuzi ciil war that erupted upon the across the site in the mid-siteenth century.150 Carter is of Kraak porcelains, introduced to the Gulf c. 1575 and oasis by force. They then pushed on to the Batinah and death of Fakhr al-Din Turanshah I in 1470. The Battle happy with this date only for the mosque area, but argues common after c.1590, supplied a terminus ante quem.154 occupied until 1744. The Persian occupation was of Julfar, in 1475, secured the rise of Salghur Shah (r. that the palm-frond horizon begins in the early siteenth Historical sources, however, testify to assaults on Julfar brought to an end by Ahmad b. Saʿid Al Bu Saʿid, the 1475–1515) to the throne of Hormuz.143 Piacentini argues century across the rest of the site. The Period I–I street by the Portuguese in 1621 and the Yaʿrubids in 1633. Ken- powerful wali of Sohar, who was elected Imam in 1749. that under the rule of Salghur Shah, the Kingdom of grid of mud-brick and coral-stone buildings was defni- net resolves this apparent discrepancy by suggesting that He set about re-establishing central authority over the Hormuz was reoriented towards its Arabian components tiely abandoned with the efect that the urban character either the neighboring settlement of Ras al-Khaimah lost provnces of Oman. This seems to have included an at the expense of its Persian constituents.144 Although of settlement came to an end: Kennet describes Period was, in its emergent stage, referred to as Julfar, or else attempt to retake Ras al-Khaimah from the Qawasim, there is nothing explicit in the sources, such a pro-Ara- I as “post urban.” At around this time, the mosque was that the still unexcavated fort at al-Mataf continued to for in a description of the Arabian Gulf written in 1756 bian policy would provde a reasonable context for a new abandoned (Mosque Phase V), which as the oldest con- be occupied and this garrison constituted Julfar in its by Jacob Mossel of the Dutch East Indian Company, we foundation at Ras al-Khaimah, particularly if Julfar had tinuously occupied building at al-Mataf, around which terminal stage. read of failed campaigns which do not appear in the Ibadi been damaged during the war. However, as we have seen, the town had formed, is perhaps indicatie of the demise histories: Duarte Barbosa clearly distinguishes between Julfar and of communal identity. Kennet, nevertheless, notes the Ras al-Khaimah, and it is in the former that he places the density of postholes in each area of excavations, suggest- Indian Ocean Empires, c. 1600–1950 Sur [= Ras al-Khaimah adjacent to historic Julfar] is a “persons of worth, great navgators and wholesale deal- ing that occupational actiity continued to be reasonably rather well constructed town, in the native fashion, and ers,” 145 suggesting that Julfar remained the more impor- intense. He, moreover, points to a resurgence of ceramic The Ibadi chroniclers state that Nasir b. Murshid al- it has some pieces of canon. It is inhabited by [a group of tant settlement into the early siteenth century. Much imports, testifying to a brief commercial revval, which Yaʿrubi occupied Julfar in 1633 but do not subsequently people] whom the Houlas call the Guassum [al-Qawasim]. research remains to be done on the demise of Julfar and he considers indicatie of a reconfguration of maritime mention the place, suggesting that it was too remote to It has been dependent on the Imam of Mascatte in former rise of Ras al-Khaimah, but it seems reasonable to con- trade networks, a possible reference to the impact of the have much bearing on the vcissitudes of Omani poli- times, but it does not acknowledge him anymore. The few clude this was a process which spanned generations, and . tics. By this time, al-Mataf and Nudud had ceased to campaigns mounted by the said Imam [Ahmad b. Saʿid] to may not have been obvous or inevtable to contemporary The fate of the pearling industry of Julfar under Por- be intensiely occupied, and settlement had gravtated subjugate the town again have all been in vain. He cannot do observers. tuguese rule is somewhat ambiguous. In the frst half of towards neighboring Ras al-Khaimah, which the con- anything against the Sjeek [shaykh] of the Guassum, called The arrial of the Portuguese undoubtedly seems the century, the documentary evdence available for the temporary sources often refer to by the alternatie ap- Tschaid or Rachma Eben Matter, who is supported by sev- to have hastened this process. In 1498, Vasco da Gama years 1515 and 1541–3 shows a dramatic fall in tax yields pellations of Sur or Sir, the latter particularly being used eral casts of Bedouins or Arabs from the desert.156 rounded the Cape of Good Hope and gained access to for the pearl fshery of Julfar.151 This could be understood to refer to the Gulf coast of the northern Emirates. How the Indian Ocean. His voyage took him up the East Af- as a parallel to the archaeologically attested Period I long Yaʿrubid authority was acknowledged is unclear, but In 1758, the Imam Ahmad b. Saʿid Al Bu Saʿid undertook rican coast to Mombasa and , where he picked decline, which Kennet originally dated to the frst half it is likely that the Oman ciil war c. 1724–44 marks the to assert central authority over the ports of northern up an Arab pilot to take him to Calicut in Malabar, be- of the siteenth century. In the second half of the cen- cutof point, which is to allocate a little under a century Oman. He frst marched to Khasab and receied the sub- fore returning to Lisbon to great acclaim. Legend has tury, Pedro Teieira (f. 1586–1605) reported that “a feet to Yaʿrubid rule over Ras al-Khaimah. The sources do not mission of Shaykh Hasan b. ʿAbd Allah al-Shihi, where- it that this pilot was none other than Ahmad b. Majid, is formed of about two hundred terradas, more or less—a mention any Yaʿrubid governors of Julfar / Ras al-Khaim- upon he was forced to return south to deal with a Yaʿrubid

236 237 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN revolt, entrusting his deputy Khalfan b. Muhammad abortie Omani expedition against Bushire in 1776, with Qasimi presence in Lingeh and Sharjah meant that much zon ceramics are not well represented at Kush. While the with the subjugation of Ras al-Khaimah.157 This does a brief peace reached in 1777 following the retirement of the feet went undamaged, and indeed attacks on Gulf secondary literature has tended to follow J. C. Wilkinson not appear to have produced the desired result, for upon of Shaykh Rashid. His son and successor, Shaykh Saqr shipping continued through the next decade. The Brit- in ascribing considerable commercial importance to Early his return to Khasab he replaced Khalfan b. Muhammad b. Rashid al-Qasimi, who had earlier met with the Imam ish moved to end Wahhabi control of Ras al-Khaimah in Islamic Julfar,169 there is really very little written or ma- with Sayyid ʿAli b. Sayf, giing him four European-type Ahmad in Rustaq, subsequently recommenced attacks on 1819, occupying the town for three months and reinstat- terial evdence to support such claims. Throughout the ships and ten Arab-type boats with which to blockade Omani shipping. This prompted the Imam to despatch ing Shaykh Sultan, who signed the General Treaty of “long” Late Antiquity, then, Julfar remained economi- al-Sir. This squadron successfully interrupted the pearl a large feet of twelve European-type ships and one hun- 1820, bringing to an end Qasimi attacks on Omani and cally underdeveloped as a consequence of its situation on season and intercepted trade to the efect that the ports dred Arab-type boats against Ras al-Khaimah, which ar- British shipping.165 Over the course of the century, Ras a contested frontier. of al-Sir acknowledged Al Bu Saʿid authority, with the ried in November 1778. However, the Omani feet had al-Khaimah became increasingly overshadowed by Abu The economy of the Arabian Gulf underwent a signif- notable exception of Ras al-Khaimah. In 1762, the block- trouble navgating the shallow waters of Ras al-Khaimah Dhabi. A British count of pearling boats taken in 1905 cant reconfguration in the eleventh century as new com- ade was ended and a settlement reached, wherein Shaykh and could not bring their guns into range of the town. In shows that Ras al-Khaimah had just 33 boats, while Abu mercial networks emerged, based on politically independ- Saqr b. Rashid al-Qasimi traveled to Rustaq in order to December that year, Shaykh Saqr assembled a large army Dhabi had 410, dramatically showing the reconfguration ent mercantile island emporia along the Iranian littoral, meet with Imam Ahmad b. Saʿid Al Bu Saʿid, and won with the intention of raiding the Batinah and attacking of money and power in the Lower Gulf.166 of which Kish was the frst to emerge followed then by for Ras al-Khaimah formal independence from Oman. It Rustaq, but for reasons that are unclear the army never Hormuz. It can be no accident that it is precisely in the was shortly after the conclusion of this agreement that marched.159 Karim Khan Zand appears to have recognized middle of this period, in the twelfth century, that the in- Carsten Niebuhr arried in Muscat from Bombay, and in the need for a strong bufer state against Omani expan- Conclusion volvement of Julfar in the acquisition of pearls and supply 1764 set down his description of the Qasimi “Principality sion in the Gulf, and for that reason encouraged Qasimi of agricultural produce to the island emporia is frst at- of Seer,” based on reports he receied there: settlement on the Iranian littoral, culminating in 1779 The historic port of Julfar and its early modern succes- tested. Clearly, Julfar was responding to emerging market with the award of Bandar Lingeh to the Qawasim.160 To sor, Ras al-Khaimah, have now been occupied for some forces. Kennet has argued for a “Hormuzi boom” in the This petty sovereignty extends from Cape Mussendom this they added the islands of Abu Musa, the Tunbs, seventeen centuries. The geopolitical situation and mar- fourteenth and ffteenth centuries, wherein the economy along the Persian Gulph. The Persians call it the country and Sirri. At the same time, they began to expand across ket forces informing the developmental dynamics of set- of Julfar was stimulated by soaring demand for its ex- of Dsjulfar, another cape near Mussendom. The Europe- northern Oman and established their rule in Khawr tlement have continuously changed over this very long ports in Hormuz.170 His hypothesis is undoubtedly valid, ans also have thus learned to call these people the Arabs of Fakkan and Dibba, defeating an Omani attempt to oust period of time. Three major phases can be put forward although he treats the “Hormuzi boom” as an ex nihilo Dsjulfar. The other Arabs call it Seer, from the town of the them from the Batinah in 1804.161 Ras al-Khaimah under separated by major regional reconfgurations. phenomenon, when in fact it represents the intensifca- same name, which has a good harbour, and is the seat of the the Qawasim therefore emerged as a bufer state between There has been a tendency among some historians to tion of exsting bulk goods networks established under Schiech. He formerly possessed, and indeed still retains, the the Zands of Iran and Al Bu Saʿid of Oman during the subsume the Late Antique and Early Islamic periods into the hegemony of Kish in the eleventh and twelfth cen- isle of Scharedsje, with some considerable places upon the op- second half of the eighteenth century, during which time a “long” Late Antiquity, beginning with the foundation turies. The earlier politico-military dynamic of the fron- posite side of the Gulph, among which are Kunk and Lund- they constituted the leading power in northern Oman of the Sasanian Empire in the late third century and end- tier did not completely fall into abeyance, however. The sje. This country not long since acknowledged the sovereign and a major presence in the Lower Gulf. ing with the fragmentation of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate in arrial of the Mongols and expansion of Hormuz in the authority of the Imam; but it has withdrawn itself from this The expansion of the Wahhabis out of the Najd and the mid-ninth century.167 This fts the situation at Julfar thirteenth century put the Nabhanids on the defensie, condition of dependence; and the Schiech often goes to war the British out of India had, by the start of the nine- and the ports of northern Oman quite well. Julfar was and it is perhaps in this period that Sheba’s Palace should with his old masters. Yet he is not strong enough to defend teenth century, placed the Qawasim, and Ras al-Khaim- apparently established in the fourth century as a Sasan- be placed, built at a time when rising geopolitical tensions himself without assistance; and therefore takes care to live in ah in particular, at the center of a strategic crossroads. ian forward position on the Arabian frontier, and was transformed Julfar into a depopulated militarized fron- a good understanding with the other independent Schiechs, The British East India Company and Al Bu Saʿid con- probably garrisoned by irregular troops, of whom the tier. Similarly, the city wall of Julfar should perhaps be and especially with the Schiech of Dsjau [al-Jaww, meaning cluded a peace treaty in 1798, which gien the war at sea Lakhmids are the most likely candidates. The Iranian placed in the fourteenth and ffteenth centuries, when the Buraimi], whose dominions lie westward from Oman. The between the Qawasim and Omanis, placed British ship- and Iraqi ceramics found at Kush may be interpreted as growing wealth of the emerging city attracted the preda- Prince of Seer makes some fgure among the maritime pow- ping in the line of fre.162 This helped push the Qawasim supplies for the garrison, while the limited quantities of tory attentions of Bedouin from the interior, of whom the ers in these parts. His navy is one of the most considerable in towards a counteralliance with the Wahhabis. Already Indian ceramics do not suggest a signifcant involvement Banu Jabr of al-Hasaʾ were the most serious threat. Yet the Persian Gulph. His subjects are much employed in navi- in the late eighteenth century, Shaykh Saqr had entered with Indian Ocean trade, especially when compared to the general trend of the eleventh to ffteenth centuries is gation, and carry a pretty extensive trade.158 into an alliance with the Al Saʿud and had been award- the Late Pre-Islamic emporia. Kush conforms to Ken- of growing prosperity, interrupted by a signifcant dip in ed by them the honorifc title “Emir ʿUman.” 163 When net’s general understanding of an economically under- the thirteenth century before then climbing steeply in the One of the reasons for the success of the Qawasim was his son and successor, Shaykh Sultan b. Saqr al-Qasimi, developed Late Antique Oman.168 The frontier character fourteenth century, during which time Julfar became for their ability to play of the Iranians and Omanis against won a battle over the Omanis, one-ffth of the booty was of Julfar survved the rise of Islam, as Omani nation- the frst time in its history a true city. each other. Hostilities opened in 1769 when Karim sent to the Wahhabis in the Najd, tacitly acknowledg- alism crystallized around Islamic sectarianism and lo- In the siteenth century and again in the nineteenth Khan Zand (r. 1751–79) demanded restitution for a large ing the authority of the Emir Saʿud b. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Al cal polities resisted invasions by the caliphal dynasties century, the arrial of expansionist Indian Ocean empires, ship the Imam Ahmad b. Saʿid had acquired from the Saʿud. He was nevertheless deposed by the Emir Saʿud, of the Fertile Crescent. Indeed, the unstable situation of frst the Portuguese and then the British, signifcantly governor of Hormuz. The Qawasim at frst supported who appointed his own governor, Hasan b. Raḥma, thus the eighth and ninth centuries, wherein Julfar occupied impacted on the economic and political situation in the the Omanis, and in 1772 Shaykh Rashid attacked Per- establishing direct Wahhabi rule over Ras al-Khaimah.164 a contested frontier or no man’s land, was very likely to wider Gulf region. Julfar declined and was ultimately sian ships on behalf of the Imam Ahmad, followed by This seems to have led to an increase in attacks on Gulf the detriment of the local economy. It is striking that abandoned under Portuguese occupation, to be replaced the despatch of an Omani feet to Basra and attack on shipping, which prompted the British to sack Wahhabi- Julfar does not appear among the ʿAjaʾib al-Hind w’al- by Ras al-Khaimah, which was twice sacked by the Brit- Bushire in 1775. Shaykh Rashid thereupon switched sides controlled Ras al-Khaimah in 1809. Although the Brit- Sin—a genre of fantastical literature grown up around ish, so that the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are and attacked Omani shipping in the Gulf, prompting an ish burned what ships they could fnd in the harbor, the the far-famed Indian Ocean trade—and Samarraʾ Hori- parenthesized by two destructie episodes. In the inter-

238 239 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN vening years, Julfar / Ras al-Khaimah reverted to a con- Notes tested frontier characterized by considerable instability. So far as can be determined, Yaʿrubid involvement was aimed squarely at securing the “back door to Oman” from 1 G. M. Lees, “The Physical Geography of South-Eastern Beatrice de Cardi, ed. C. S. Phillips, D. T. Potts, and S. Searight Arabia,” The Geographical Journal 71.5 (1928): 441–70. Quoted by (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 105–16. Portuguese or Iranian invasion; it does not appear to have J. C. Wilkinson, “The Oman Question: The Background to the 18 B. de Cardi, “A Sasanian Outpost in Northern Oman,” Antiquity 46 played any role in Omani maritime expeditions against Political Geography of South-East Arabia,” The Geographical Journal (1972): 308. and Iran, nor was it sufciently signifcant to 137.3 (1971): 363. 19 Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam,” 116; de Cardi, “Sasanian Outpost,” have an appointed governor. The sudden collapse of the 2 R. A. Carter, Sea of Pearls: Arabia, Persia and the Industry that Shaped 308. the Gulf (London: Arabian Publishing, 2012), 45. Cf. al-Idrisi, Kitab 20 Kennet, “Sasanian Pottery,” 154. Afsharid dynasty and steady emergence of the Al Bu Saʿid Nuzhat al-Mustaq f Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, in P. A. Jaubert, trans., La 21 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 14. transformed the Iranian-Omani frontier into a no man’s Géographie d’Édrisi (Paris: Chez Arthus Bertrand, 1846): 157. 22 Kennet, “Sasanian Pottery,” 154. Cf. Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam”, land, provding an opportunity for the Qawasim to settle 3 C. Velde, “The Geographical History of Julfar,” in 50 Years 109. in numbers and establish a bufer state based on Ras al- of Emirates Archaeology: Proceedings of the Second International 23 Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam”, 109–11, fgs. 3 and 4, 110. Refer to Conference on the Archaeology of the , Trench B, Phase G in D. Kennet, “Kush: A Sasanian and Islamic- Khaimah. That the Qawasim were to involve themselves ed. D. T. Potts and P. Hellyer (Abu Dhabi and Dubai: Motiate Period Archaeological Tell in Ras al-Khaimah (UAE),” Arabian primarily in piracy rather than commerce speaks volumes Publishing, 2012), 215, 217. Archaeology and Epigraphy 8 (1997): 287. as to the unsettled conditions in which the “Principality 4 Barbosa, Livro de Duarte Barbosa, trans. M.L. Dames, The Book of 24 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 14. Duarte Barbosa: An Account of the Countries Bordering on the Indian 25 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 14, Table 2, 15. of Seer” emerged. Political stability and economic revval Ocean and of their Inhabitants (London: Hakluyt Society, 1918–21), 74. 26 D. Kennet, “Transformations in late Sasanian and Early Islamic gained pace under the British, when treaty agreements 5 F. Heard-Bey, From Trucial States to United Arab Emirates: A Society Eastern Arabia: the evdence from Kush,” in L’Arabie à la veille secured territorial borders and fshing rights, leading to in Transition (London: Longman, 1982), 283. de l’Islam: bilan clinique, ed. J. Schiettecatte and C. Robin (Paris, a spectacular growth in the pearl industry. Nevertheless, 6 B. de Cardi and D. B. Doe, “Archaeological Survey in the Northern 2009), 149. Trucial States,” East and West 2 (1971): 249. 27 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 14, Table 2, 15; Kennet, “On the lion’s share of the pearl wealth fell to Abu Dhabi, and 7 D. Kennet, “Julfār and the Urbanisation of Southeast Arabia,” the Eve of Islam”, 116. Ras al-Khaimah, depried of the revenues aforded by pi- Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14 (2003): 103. 28 D. Kennet, “Transformations in late Sasanian and Early Islamic racy and without recourse to Wahhabi assistance, entered 8 J. Hansman, Julfar, An Arabian Port. Its Settlement and Far Eastern Eastern Arabia: the evdence from Kush,” 158; Cf. Kennet, “Decline th th a steady period of decline. The Qawasim continued to Ceramic Trade from the 14 to the 18 Centuries (London: Royal of Eastern Arabia,” 88. Asiatic Society, 1985), 21. 29 Kennet, “Decline of Eastern Arabia,” 88. Cf. S. B. Miles, The dominate northern Oman, but the pre-eminence of Ras 9 D. Kennet, “Jazirat al-Hulayla—Early Julfar,” Journal of the Royal Countries and Tribes of the (London: Harrison and Sons, al-Khaimah had been eclipsed by Sharjah, which joined Asiatic Society 4.2 (1994): 175–77. The site was partially excavated by 1919), 424; Potts, Arabian Gulf, 335–36. the United Arab Emirates in 1971 as arguably the most John Hansman in 1977 but never published. Cf. Hansman, Julfar, 33, 30 Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam,” 116. 49, Fig. 1. 31 al-Tabari, Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: developed of the founder states. 10 D. Kennet, “Kush: A Sasanian and Islamic-Period Archaeological E.J. Brill, 1879), 1: 839. Quoted and translated by R. G. Hoyland, Tell in Ras al-Khaimah (UAE),” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam 8 (1997): 284–302. The site was discovered by Beatrice de Cardi in (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 28. Acknowledgements 1977. Cf. B. de Cardi, “Further Archaeological Survey in Ras al- 32 Cf. G. Fisher, Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Khaimah, UAE, 1977,” Oriens Antiquus 24 (1985): 177. Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 2011). Strictly speaking, 11 See further R. Tomber, Indo-Roman Trade: From Pots to Pepper the ruling family were the Banu Nasr. I would like to thank Christian Velde, Derek Kennet, (London: Duckworth, 2008); S.E. Sidebotham, Berenike and the 33 S. Smith, “Events in Arabia in the Sith Century AD,” Bulletin of and Robert Carter for taking the time to read draft ver- Ancient Maritime Spice Route (Berkeley: Uniersity of California the School of Oriental and African Studies 16 (1954): 435–41. sions of this chapter and for their many useful comments Press, 2011). 34 Sirhan b. Sa‘id, Kashf al-Ghumma, in E.C. Ross, trans., Annals 12 D. Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam: Archaeological Evdence from of Oman (Calcutta: G. H. Rouse, 1874), 9; al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, and suggestions. The fnal draft is much stronger for Eastern Arabia,” Antiquity 79 (2005): 114–16; D. Kennet, “The 1:747–49. Cf. C. E. Bosworth, “Iran and the Arabs before Islam,” their contributions. I am particularly grateful to Rob and Decline of Eastern Arabia in the Sasanian Period,” Arabian in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3.1. The Seleucid, Parthian Christian for allowing me to see their unpublished paper Archaeology and Epigraphy 18 (2007): 108–11; M. Mouton and and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. Yarshater (Cambridge: Cambridge J. Cuny, “The Oman Peninsula at the Beginning of the Sasanian Uniersity Press, 1983), 597; Hoyland, Arabia, 235. on al-Nudud, and to Derek and Christian for kindly sup- Period,” in 50 Years of Emirates Archaeology: Proceedings of the 35 A. F. L. Beeston, “Nemara and Faw,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental plying images. Any errors or mistakes in summarizing Second International Conference on the Archaeology of the United Arab and African Studies 42 (1979): 6. Cf. Hoyland, Arabia, 79; Fisher, and presenting their work as part of my discussion of the Emirates, ed. D. T. Potts and P. Hellyer (Abu Dhabi and Dubai: Between Empires, 77–78. evdence are of course my own. Motiate Publishing, 2012), 184–85. 36 al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, I:958. Cf. Bosworth, “Iran and the Arabs,” 600. 13 D.T. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity 37 Procopius, The History of the Wars, trans. H.B. Dewing (London: Press, 1990), 329. Heinemann, 1914), 1.17. Cf. Hoyland, Arabia, 81. 14 Mouton and Cuny, Oman Peninsula, 183. 38 T. C. Power, The Red Sea from Byzantium to the Caliphate, AD 15 D. Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras al-Khaimah. 500–1000 (Cairo: The American Uniersity in Cairo Press, 2012), Classifcation, Chronology and Analysis of Trade in the Western Indian 76–89. Ocean (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004), 14. Plans of Period I appear in 39 Theophylact Simocatta, The History of Theophylact Simocatta, trans. Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam,” Fig. 2, 109. M. and M. Whitby (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 1986), 3:9.6. 16 D. Kennet, “Sasanian Pottery in Southern Iran and Eastern Arabia,” 40 Ibn Hisham, Kitab Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume, The Life of Iran 40 (2002): 160; Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 2, Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 1955), 33. 14–15; Kennet, “On the Eve of Islam,” 109; Mouton and Cuny, Oman 41 M. G. Morony, “The Late Sasanian Economic Impact on the Peninsula, 180, 183. Arabian Peninsula,” Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān / The International 17 D. Kennet, “Evdence for 4th / 5th-Century Sasanian Occupation Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 1 (2001–2002): 34; H. Kennedy, at Khatt, Ras al-Khaimah,” in Arabia and her Neighbours. Essays The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (Harlow: Pearson Educated on Prehistorical and Historical Developments Presented in Honour of Limited, 2004), 210–11.

240 241 TIMOTHY POWER JULFAR AND THE PORTS OF NORTHERN OMAN

42 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 107–08. (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 1994), 23–34. Cf. Kennet, “Jazirat Cambridge Uniersity Press, 1982), 281–89; J. Guy, Oriental Trade 122 R. Carter, Z. Bing, K. Lane, and C. Velde, “The Rise and Ruin 43 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 94. al-Hulayla,” 170; Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 18, 38. Ceramics in South-East Asia, Ninth to Sixteenth Centuries (Oxford: of a Medieval Port Town: A Reconsideration of the Development 44 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 70–71, 82. PROTO collected 69 Kennet, “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” 173, 175–77. Oxford Uniersity Press, 1990), 23; A. Wink, al-Hind: The Making of of Julfar, According to 2010 Excavations at Julfar Al-Nudud.” from Areas 2, 37 and 93. Note that JULFAR.5 does not appear in 70 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 12–13; Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. 1: Early Medieval India and the Expansion My thanks to the authors for letting me see an unpublished Periods I and I as shown in Table 3, p. 17, but is present in Table 41, 7–8. Cf. Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 172–76; King in Kennet, of Islam, 7th–11th Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 57. draft of their paper. See also M. Morley, R. Carter, and C. Velde, p. 108. “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” 207; G. R. D King, “An Islamic Trading City in 96 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 42–47. “Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Site of Julfār (al-Nudūd and 45 Kennet, pers. comm. the Arabian Gulf. The Port of Julfār, Raʾs al-Khaima, United Arab 97 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 101–03. al-Maṭāf), Raʾs al-Khaymah, UAE: Preliminary Results from the 46 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 78. Cf. M. G. Mouton, La Emirates,” in Emirates Heritage. Vol. 2. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual 98 D. Kennet, “The Development of Northern Raʾs al Khaimah and Auger-Hole Survey,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41 Peninsule d’Oman de la fn de l’âge du fer au début de la période Sassanide Symposium on Recent Archaeological Discoveries in the Emirates and the the 14th-Century Hormuzi Economic Boom in the Lower Gulf,” (2011): 223–32. (250 av.—350 ap. JC) (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008), 103, 147. Symposium on the History of the Emirates, al-ʿAin, 2004, ed. P. Hellyer Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32 (2002): 151–64. Cf. 123 Morley et al., “Geoarchaeological Investigations,” 223; Velde, 47 T. C. Power and P. D. Sheehan, “The Origin and Development of and M. Ziolkowski (al-Ain, 2008), 83–84. Velde, “Geographical History,” 216–17. “Geographical History,” 217–18. the Oasis Landscape of al-‘Ain (UAE),” Proceedings of the Seminar 71 Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, 8. 99 C. Velde, “Wadi Sur in Ra’s al-Khaimah, One of the Largest 124 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 118–19. for Arabian Studies 42 (2012): 1–18; T. C. Power, N. al-Jahwari, 72 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 13; Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, 9. Cf. Fortifcations in South-East Arabia,” in Emirates Heritage. Vol. 2. 125 Velde, “Geographical History,” 218. P. D. Sheehan, and K. D. Strutt, “First Preliminary Report on Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 201. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Recent Archaeological 126 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 121–22; Velde, “Geographical History,” the Buraimi Oasis Landscape Archaeology Project (BOLAP),” 73 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 14–15; Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, 11. Discoveries in the Emirates and the Symposium on the History of the 218. Cf. J. Aubin, “Les princes d’Ormuz du XIe siècle,” Journal Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44 (2015). Cf. Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 218–26. Emirates, al-ʿAin, 2004, ed. P. Hellyer and M. Ziolkowski (al-Ain, Asiatique 241 (1953): 77–138; A. Williamson, “Hormuz and the Trade 48 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 9. 74 Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 221–22. 2008), 111. of the Gulf in the 14th and 15th Centuries,” Proceedings of the Seminar 49 J. C. Wilkinson, “The Julanda of Oman,” Journal of Oman Studies 1 75 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 21–23; Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, 100 Velde, “Geographical History,” 216–17. for Arabian Studies 3 (1973): 52–68; V. F. Piacentini, “Hormuz and the (1975), 98. 22–25. Cf. Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 299–306; King in Kennet, 101 U. Franke-Vogt, “German Mission to Julfar and Sheba’s Palace (Ras ‘Umani and Arabian World (Fifteenth Century),” Proceedings of the 50 al-Yaʿqubi, Kitab al-Buldan (Beirut, 1960), 1: 270–71. Cf. Hoyland, “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” 207; King, “Islamic Trading City,” 84. al-Khaimah, UAE),” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 26 Seminar for Arabian Studies 30 (2000): 177–88; W. Floor, “Hormuz. Arabia, 109–10. 76 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 15, 39. (1996): 166. i. Islamic Period,” Encyclopaedia Iranica (2004); P. B. Rowland, 51 J. C. Wilkinson, “A Sketch of the Historical Geography of the 77 Kennet, pers. comm. 102 Velde, “Geographical History,” 217. Essays on Hormuz (2006), http://www.dataxnfo.com/hormuz/es- Trucial Oman down to the Beginning of the Siteenth Century,” 78 al-Masʿudi, Muruj al-Dhahab wa-Maʿadin al-Jawhar, in B. de 103 Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Taʾrikh-i Saluqiyan-i Kirman, says/list.htm; Vosoughi, “Kings of Hormuz.” The Geographical Journal 130.3 (1964): 33. Meynard and P. de Courtvlle, eds. and trans., Les Prairies d’Or ed. M.T. Houtsma (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1886), 8–10. 127 Cf. J. L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System 52 S. A. Jasim, “Trade Centres and Commercial Routes in the Arabian (Paris: l’Imprimerie Impériale, 1861–77): 239. Cf. King, “Islamic 104 C. E. Bosworth, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian AD 1250–1350 (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 1989), 153–84. Gulf: Post-Hellenistic Discoveries at Dibba, Sharjah, United Arab Trading City,” 85. World (AD 1000–1217),” in The Cambridge Histroy of Iran. Vol. 5: The 128 Unpublished manuscript of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Nimdihi, quoted by Emirates,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17 (2006): 214–37. 79 Shams al-Din Abu ʿAbd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmadal-Muqaddasi, Saluq and Mongol Periods, ed. J. A. Boyle (Cambridge: Cambridge Vosoughi, “Kings of Hormuz,” 93. 53 Kennet, “Decline of Eastern Arabia,” Table 1, 90. Ahsan al-Taqasim f Maʿrifat al-Aqalim, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: Uniersity Press, 1968), 59, 86. 129 V. F. Piacentini, “Merchants, Merchandise and Military Power in 54 Kennet, “Decline of Eastern Arabia,” 108. E. J. Brill, 1906) and trans. B. A. Collins, The Best Divisions for 105 Bosworth, “Iranian World,” 88. the Persian Gulf,” Memoire dell’Academia dei Lincei 9th Series 3.2 55 Recent excavations at Saḥm by Derek Kennet and Nasser al-Jahwari Knowledge of the Regions (Reading: Garnet, 2001), 70–71. 106 Franke-Vogt, “Sheba’s Palace;” C. Velde, A. Hilal, and I. Moellering, (1992): 175; Kennet, “Hormuzi Boom,” 161. have since located a fort dating to the Sasanian or Early Islamic 80 A. M. Abu Ezzah, “Banū Mukram in Oman,” Proceedings of the “Ras al-Khaimah: Latest News and Research,” The BFSA Bulletin 20 130 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” ‘Period I,’ 119. period. Full publication is forthcoming. Seminar for Arabian Studies 16 (1986): 37–43; V. F. Piacentini, (2015): 41–43. 131 M. Jansen, “Erste Grabungsergebnisse das Forschungsprojekt 56 ʿArja, though inland, is connected va the Wadi al-Jizzi to Sohar. “Sohar and the Daylamī interlude (356–443 / 967–1051),” Proceedings 107 Franke-Vogt, “Sheba’s Palace,” 165. ‘Julfar’ in den Vereinigten Emiraten,” Berichte aus der Rheinisch- Similarly, al-Rustaq is closely tied to the Batinah. Mleiha and Jabal of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 35 (2005): 202; A. R. al-Salimi, 108 Velde, “Geographical History,” 217. Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen 2 (1991): 36–38. Cf. al-Emialeh are northern interior sites. Only Samad and Sinaw are “Makramid Rule in Oman,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian 109 Franke-Vogt, “Sheba’s Palace,” 165. The pottery was identifed and Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 111. The fort and wall were identifed but southern interior sites. Studies 35 (2005): 247–53. dated by Kennet. not excavated by the German team. 57 M. Hinds, “The First Arab Conquests in Fars,” Iran 22 (1984): 41. 81 T. C. Power, “The ʿAbbāsid Indian Ocean Trade,” in The World in 110 M. Kervran, “La citadelle de Hawrat Bargha dans le sultanat 132 Velde, “Geographical History,” 219; Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 117. 58 There is some ambiguous historical evdence to suggest a pre- the Viking Age, ed. S. M. Sindbæk and A. Trakadas (Roskilde: The d’Oman,” Arts asiatiques 42 (1987): 5–18. 133 Kennet, “Hormuzi Boom,” 161. Islamic Arab presence on the Iranian littoral. Cf. T. Daryaee, “The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, 2014), 49; Kennedy, Age of the 111 Kervran, “Hawrat Bargha,” 12–13, Figs. 21–23. 134 Velde, “Wadi Sur,” 110. Persian Gulf in Late Antiquity: The Sasanian Era (200–700 CE),” Caliphates, 232. 112 Kervran, “Hawrat Bargha,” 13–14. 135 Velde, “Geographical History,” 216–17. in The Persian Gulf in History, ed. L. G. Potter (New York: Palgrave 82 Quoted in A. Sherif, Dhow Cultures of the Indian Ocean: 113 M. B. Vosoughi, “The Kings of Hormuz: From the Beginning 136 Barbosa, Livro, 72–73. MacMillan, 2010), 59. Cosmopolitanism, Commerce and Islam (London: C. Hurst & until the Arrial of the Portuguese,” in The Persian Gulf in History, 137 Carter, Sea of Pearls, 45. Cf. al-Idrisi, Nuzhat al-Mushtaq, 157. 59 Bosworth, “Iran and the Arabs,” 596. Company, 2010), 158. ed. L. G. Potter (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 92. 138 Barbosa, Livro, 73–74. 60 al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, 1: 2698. Cf. I. A. A. Rawas, Early Islamic 83 al-Yaʿqubi, Buldan, 237; al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, 1: 272. Cf. G. F. Hourani, 114 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 31. Cf. Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin, 37. 139 Piacentini, “Arabian World,” 183–84. Oman (ca. 622 / 280–893): A Political History (PhD diss., Durham Arab Seafaring, expanded edition with J. Carswell (Princeton: 115 Kervran, “Hawrat Bargha,” 14. 140 Barbosa, Livro, 74. Uniersity, 1990), 52; King in Kennet, “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” Princeton Uniersity Press, 1995), 64. 116 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 15. 141 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 119–20. 206; D. T. Potts, “,” Encyclopaedia Iranica (2004); 84 D. S. Whitcomb, “Chp. 5—The High Valleys,” in D. Whitehouse, 117 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 31, 97. 142 Carter, “Rise and Ruin.” V. F. Piacentini, “Arab expeditions overseas in the seventh century Siraf: History, Topography and Environment (Oxford: Oxbow, 2009): 118 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 32, 98. 143 V. Piacentini and C. Velde, “The Battle of Julfar (880 / 1475),” AD—working hypotheses on the dissolution of the Sasanian state 96. 119 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 3, 17. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39 (2009): 321–36. apparatus along the eastern seaboard of the Arabian Peninsula,” 85 D. Whitehouse, “Kīsh,” Iran 14 (1976): 146. 120 G. R. D. King, “Excavations by the British Team at Julfar, Ras- 144 Piacentini, “Arabian World,” 185. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32 (2002): 165–73. 86 C. Gilliot, “Yāḳūt al-Rūmī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates: Interim Report on the First 145 Barbosa, Livro, 73–74. 61 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 10–11; Ibn Raziq, al-Fath al-Mubin f 2002), 264. Season (1989),” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 20 (1990): 146 Ibn Majid, Kitab al-Fawa’id f Usul ‘Ilm al-Bahr wa’l-Qawa’id, trans. Sirat al-Sadah Al Bu Saʿidin, in G. P. Badger, trans., History of the 87 Yaqut, Muʿjam al-Buldan (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1977), 128. 79–93; G. R. D. King, “Excavations by the British Team at Julfar, G.R. Tibbets, Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean before the Coming and Seyyids of Oman (London: Hakluyt Society, 1871), 2–5. 88 King, “Islamic Trading City,” 86. Ras-al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates: Interim Report on the of the Portuguese (London: The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Cf. Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 82, 84–90. 89 Yaqut, Muʿjam, 154. Second Season (1990),” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Britain and Ireland, 1971). 62 al-Izkawi, Kashf al-Ghumma, 12. Cf. Rawas, Early Islamic Oman, 90 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 15, 42–44, 47–48. 21 (1991): 123–34; G. R. D. King, “Excavations by the British Team at 147 M. Newitt, A History of Portuguese Overseas Expansion 1400–1668 88–89. 91 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 15. Cf.; Kennet, “Kush: A Julfar, Ras-al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates: Interim Report on (London: Routledge, 2005), 72. 63 D. Kennet, “Transformations in late Sasanian and Early Islamic Sasanian and Islamic-Period Archaeological Tell in Ras al-Khaimah the Third Season,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22 148 A. J. R. Russell-Wood, The Portuguese Empire, 1415–1808: A World on Eastern Arabia: the evdence from Kush,” 149. (UAE),” 286, Trench B, Phase D. (1992): 47–54; T. Sasaki, “Excavations at Julfar in the 1992 Season,” the Move (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uniersity Press, 1998), 22. 64 R. A. Carter, “Christianity in the Gulf During the First Centuries 92 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 3, 17. Bulletin of Archaeology, The University of Kanazawa 20 (1993): 1–49; 149 M. Newitt, A History of Portuguese Overseas Expansion, 73. of Islam,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19 (2008): Fig. 10, 81–82. 93 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 31, 97. T. Sasaki, “1993 Excavations at Julfar,” Bulletin of Archaeology, The 150 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 120. 65 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 15, 39. 94 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, Table 32, 98. University of Kanazawa 21 (1994): 1–106; T. Sasaki and H. Sasaki, 151 Carter, “Rise and Ruin.” He cites J. Aubin, “Documents européens: 66 Kennet, “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” 167, Figs. 3 and 4, 166. 95 Kennet, Sasanian and Islamic Pottery, 101. Cf. E. H. Schefer, The “Japanese Excavations at Julfar—1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 Seasons,” 1 bis. Revenus du royaume d’Ormuz et dépenses du roi en 1515,” Mare 67 Kennet, “Jazirat al-Hulayla,” 167–75. Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang Exotics (Berkeley and Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22 (1992): 105–20. Luso-Indicum 2 (1973): 233–34; J. Aubin, “Documents européens: 1. 68 A. Northedge and D. Kennet, “The Samarra Horizon,” in Cobalt Los Angeles: Uniersity of California Press, 1963), 11–113; J. Gernet, 121 D. Kennet, “Julfār and the Urbanisation of Southeast Arabia,” Titolo das remdas que remde a ylha d’Oromuz,” Mare Luso-Indicum and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery, ed. E.J. Grube A History of Chinese Civilisation, trans. J. R. Foster (Cambridge: Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14 (2003): 118–20. 2 (1973): 217.

242 243 TIMOTHY POWER

152 Teieira, The Travels of Pedro Teixeira, trans. W. F. Sinclair (London: Hakluyt Society, 1902), 176. 153 Teieira, Travels, 217. 154 Kennet, “Urbanisation,” 114–18. 155 G. Rentz, “al-Ḳawāsim,” Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1978): 777. 156 W. Floor, The Persian Gulf: The Rise of the Gulf Arabs. The Politics of Trade on the Persian Littoral, 1747–1792 (Washington DC: Mage Publishers, 2007), 36. 157 Miles, Persian Gulf, 269. 158 Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung von Arabien, trans. R. Heron, Travels through Arabia (Edinburgh: R. Morison and Son, 1792), 123–24. 159 Miles, Persian Gulf, 275. 160 Nadjmabadi, 2009: 133–34. They held the city until 1887. 161 Miles, Persian Gulf, 311. 162 P. Risso, “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth Century,” Journal of World History 12.2 (2001): 310–11; Heard-Bey, Trucial States, 283. 163 Rentz, “al-Ḳawāsim,” 778. 164 Risso, “Piracy,” 311–12. 165 Heard-Bey, Trucial States, 283–88. 166 Carter, 2012: Fig. 6.3 based on Lorimer’s Gazetteer. 167 For example, A. Cameron, “The Long Late Antiquity,” in Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. T.P. Wiseman (Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 2002), 165–91. 168 Kennet, “Decline of Eastern Arabia.” 169 Wilkinson, “Historical Geography,” 345. 170 Kennet, “Urbanisation.”

244