The Geographical Journal (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society): Volume X, No. 6 [‎113v] (79/186)

618
ANCIENT TRADING CENTRES OF THE PERSIAN GULF The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
In 1640, the garrison of Maskat, which had been much reduced, repulsed an
attack on the place by the Imam’s * forces. In 1648 Maskat was again besieged r
and the Portuguese had to accept humiliating terms, being confined to Maskat,.
and giving up their other possessions in the country. Finally, in 1650* afte?
another siege, Maskat also was surrendered, and the Portuguese finally expelled
from Oman.
In the account given by Dr. Badger’s author (already quoted), a detailed account
is given, showing that the loss of the place was due, in part at least, to treachery
on the part of a Hindu trader, “a worshipper of the cow,” f whose daughter had
attracted the attention of the Portuguese commandant. In a note to Colonel Ross’A
book (op. dt.), he says, “ One story current is that the Arabs entered Maskat in
the guise of peaceful peasants, hiding their arms in bundles of firewood, and that
they took the opportunity of the Portuguese garrison being assembled without
arms at chapel to attack and massacre them.”
Captain Hamilton,f in his ‘New Account,’ gives a long and circumstantial
account of the final scene, which he had “ from a very old renegade who was at the
tragedy, being then a soldier, who reckoned himself about a hundred years old, and
by his aspect could not be much less.” This story gives as the cause of the final
hostilities a gratuitous insult offered by the commandant to the “king of that
province.” He says only those of the garrison were spared at the final surrender
who “consented to embrace” Mohammedanism.§
During the reign of Nadir Shah, between 1736 and 1741, the Persians occupied
Oman,|| having, in the first-named year, gained a footing under the pretence of
assisting one of two rival claimants to the Imamate, but they appear to have been
finally driven out in the latter year.
The subsequent history of the country is not of sufficient general interest to
relate at length. The fortunes of the country culminated under the great ruler
Seyyid Said-bin-Sultan, 1804-56,since whose death it has rapidly declined, owing
to intestine wars and the loss of the African dominions (Zanzibar, etc.), which fell to-
another son, and has since remained a separate state.
About 1800 the French attempted to gain over the Imam in furtherance of
their designs on India, but this was frustrated by the British. Seyyid Said continued
throughout his reign our loyal ally, and co-operated with our forces in the expe
dition against the independent piratical ports in 1819, and in the disastrous Benu-
bu-’Ali affair in 1820. * * * §
* Nassir bin Murshid, who appears also to have recovered Karj at, and all Oman
except Maskat and Matrah, and was one of the strongest rulers Oman ever had.
f Colonel Miles (pp. cit.) says that one of the several objections to this romantic
story is that the Banians have never brought their wives to Arabia, much less their
unmarried daughters.
X ‘ Pinkerton’s Voyages,’ vol. viii.
§ V ellsted gives the date of the final capture of Maskat as 1658, which is incorrect.
He was not an accurate observer. The date has been the subject of controversy, but
is now fixed by Mr. Danvers from Portuguese records (‘ The Portuguese in India,’ by
F. C. Danvers. 1894).
|| As well as Bahrain aud other islands in the gulf.
Tf Dr. Badger’s author. Colonel Hamerton says 1807, and is more likely to be correct
0 Bombay Government Records,’ No. 24, New Series, 1856).