Page 208 - PERSIAN 3 1883_1890

•W
40 ADMINISTRATION REPORT OP THE PERSIAN GULF POIJTICAL

conjecture, which will not be finally cleared up probably until the archives at Lisbon have been
made to disclose their secrets.
The only two contemporary authors I know of who mention a dale are the Editor of
Ilajji Khalifa's Geography and theWazeer of Sanaa. The former, in his edition of the H Jehan
Kama/' says:—
“The Portuguese had long been in possession of this fortress, Muscat, but towards the year 1070 (1650), m
fakeor with his followers took it from them and nude slaves of all tho Portuguese in it, and possessed himself
of their ships. Since then tho prince of Muscat has been always at war with the Portuguese.”
The Wazeer io his Diary says.—
"In the year 1052 (1612) a number of merchants set out on a venture to ITasa, Bahrein, and Basra, ud
when they had passed tLo sea of Fare and Lad reached Bunder Muscat, which was then in the hands of the
Franks, they were plundered by the latter. Fcoplo becaino afraid therefore to pass that way. Tho Ocean also
became dosed to seafarers and remained so cntil the Omrfnis possessed themselves of Muscat, as will be recorded
presently. "When the Modems occupied Muscat, trade was re-opened to merchants and they obtained security
against those wretches. And in ih« year 1054 (16-44) tho rulers of Omrfn, tho Kharejites, tho lbadhis, became
possessed of Muscat, which is on the ccofc of their country, and had been up to that time in tho hands of the
Franks. They had no idea they would be at lo to take it, but they ordered every one in it to bo slaughtered
with knives which tbej Lad concealed for th e purpose. All that were in tbo forts wero accordingly killed."
It will be seen there is a difference of fifteen years between the dates given iu these accounts.
In 1672, the French traveller, Dellon, visited Muscat, and remarks that the Portuguese bad
lost Muscat by the avarice of a Governor who sold provisions to the Arabs at an exorbitant
price, but he mentions no date. Hamilton,- who visited Muscat towards the close of the
seventeenth century, says in his new account of the East Indies that Muscat was captured in
1650, and he gives a very circumstantial accouut of the siege and surrender of the town and
forts, which he states he received from the mouth of one of the survivors, a very old man.
Niebuhr, in his travels, merely observes that Muscat was taken by the Portuguese iu 1508 aod
held for 150 years, while the Abbe Raynal states that the Portuguese lost it in 1648. Dr.
Badger, author, tells a romantic stc ry about the stratagem of a traitorous banian whose
daughter the Portuguese Governor wished to espouse. One of several objections to this story
is that the banians liave never brought their wives to Arabia, much less their unmarried
daughters. Another local tradition, naentioued by Ross in his annals of Oman, is that the
Arabs entered Muscat in the guise cf peasants, with their arms concealed in bundles of firewood,
and that they took the opportunity of the garrisou being at chapel to attack and massacre them.
This account seems to coincide with that given by the Wazecr of Sanaa. It is impossible to
reconcile these conflicting statements or to decide between so many authorities, but I am dis­
posed myself to accept the versiou cf Hamilton and to agree with Dr. Badger in fixing the
date at 1651.
The few Portuguese that escaped the massacre that ensned on the capture of the town
and forts took refuge on board the vessels in the harbour. Two of these, however, were
captured by the Arabs, and the rest retired to Kalhnh, the guns in the forts of Capitao and
St. John, which were now turned against them, preventing their 6tay in Muscat cove.
Kalbuh, being of no use except as a p-fint from which to annoy the Arabs, was 60on after aban­
doned, and with their retirement from this village closed the eventful career of the successors
of the gTeat Albuquerque in the Persian Gulf.
No expedition to recover Muscat seems ever to have been despatched from Goa or Lisbon,
aod its loss after the greater disaster at Hormuz was no doubt viewed with resignation as an
inevitable consequence. For many years afterwards vessels continued to be sent occasionally
from Goa to war with the Arabs and destroy their trade; but these efforts were quite desultory
and had no effect in restoring the prestige of the Portuguese. Towns and villages on the
Oman coast were burnt and sacked, and many were the engagements at sea between the two.
Tue Arabs, indeed, had been taught by experience to increase the 6ize of their ships, and that
they profited by the lessons they had received in the art of war is shown by their repeated
and successful expeditions to the coast of India and their sack of Din, Damaun, Bombay,
Mangalore, and other cities.

1