Page 269 - Journal of Asian History_Neat

(

Jnumnl nf lhf Awernan Oriental Socict;/, !)0.3 (l!)?0)
:ay>
iho garden complexes the pro- Lahsa had boon recognized by the promotion of
lu addition to
vinrial territory included the administration of it.s district officer to the rank of governor gen­
nomadic tribes that had traditional interests eral.By this time also at least two other dis­
lh*'
in the gardens. This extended the geographic trict officers had been appointed in the new and
boundaries of administrative responsibility. Stra­ now separate LafysA province: those of ,U>'\lnu,
tegic fortifications also were built and garrisoned, and Badiye, “the Desert’’.150 Whether or not the
extending the boundaries, as for example in the other districts had been established by this time
case of the fort at ’Ufcayr.114 I cannot determine on the basis of the documents'
Ml of these towns, villages, garrison settle­ at my disposal. The district of Tuhaymiyah is
ments and nomadic groups were administered mentioned as early as in 157S,121 Cebrln in 1578,m ’
through the usual Ottoman provincial structure.114 and Ci^e and Mubarraz in 1573.125
During the first few years of the occupation It will be seen that the districts in one or two •
Lab** was administered as a district of the cases conform to the areas nowadays ad minis- •
province of Basra.11* Katlf at this time also is tered by the emirs, or ’umad, of al-IIa^L and al-l
referred to in the documents as a district (Hvd), centered on the larger villages of the garden
but was apparently subordinate to the district complexes.l2< The districts may have conformed to
officer of Lahsa.117 By 1560, the precedence of the concentrations of population as they were in*
the sixteenth century. At the same time, the^
u« There is no indication as to when the fortresses at strategic value for the defense of the region of the :
La^isi and Ka^If were built. That of LahsA. presumably locations of ’Uyiln, Mubarraz and Ci$$e on the”*'
predates the Ottoman period. The earliest mention of three points of the Lalis£L triangle may have been ■
either in the documents is 1560 (M 3:1128, 21 Ss’bAn
967/17 May 1560). The fort at 'Ufcayr, however, was more significant than demography in the choice i
built in 1560 or 1561. The reasons given for it were that of these villages as administrative centers. :
merchant ships coming to ports in the area were being The administrative rationale of the desert’
molested by bedouins and for this reason the ports were districts can be clearly seen in the following
gradually being abandoned. Previous to construction summary of an order sent to the governor general
word was given out that the materials were being
gathered to repair the fort at Fat If, 30 that "the Emir of Bagdad in 1575. First, this order gives a
of Hormuz" would not learn of the fort at ’Ufcayr until precis of that governor general’s report to Istan­
it was finished (M3:1129, 21 Sa'b&n 067/17 May 1560; bul on the subject. Ibn liumeyd (Humeyd OglQ)
M 27:451, written early in $ewal 983/early January every year settles with his tribe (’ayiref) at Lahsfi,
1576).
1,4 For a summary of the system see II. A. R. Gibb
and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, vol. I on 12 Muharrem 961/19 December 1553; confirmed and
pt. I. Oxford, 1950, pp. 45-56, 137-60. copied 30 CA 961/2 June 1554). See also the last example j
*** In addition to the fact that during this period given in footnote 116 above.
orders were directed to the "LahsA sancak be&i" and the l» M 3:1127, 21 $a’bAa 967/17 May 1560.
"Basra befclerbe&i" (Ko&u$ SS8:ll5a, 112b, 102a, 7-14 RE 119 Ibid.; M 3:1128, same date.
959/March 4-11 1552), it should be noted that an annual lMM 3:1146. 23 $a’bin 067/19 May 1560. Here the!
payment to the Basra treasury was expected of the reference is to the ’Al Humeyd sancak befx. The dis­
sancak bc$i of LahsA (Kofcu? SSS:113a, 19 RE 959/March tinction by clan name was useful, since perhaps
19, 1552). This authority over LahsA of Basra at least in another division of the BanI Qilid, the ’Al Maa’anx
imperial financial matters is also reflected in fief affairs. (?), also had its sancak be$i (M 35:692, 2nd half 986/lat^
In 961/1553-54 the sancak be$i of Lahs& requested of 1573, early 1579). J
Istanbul that the Ad.jf of the iancaJk betfi of Kajlf be in­ m M 39:297. 15 Safer 987/13 April 1579.
creased. Istanbul’s reply in the affirmative was sent to Ibid.
the beQlerbefi of Basra for implementation (Maliye'den u* M Zcyli 3:p. 170. Gibb and Bowen very properly
17642, p. 718, sent 23 CA 961/May 26, 1554). had some reservations on propter-hoc arguments froni
111 The sancak befri of LahsA issued tezkireler on the Evliya Cclebi’s statements regarding Lahs& (Gibb and
eve of ZK 960/eve of July 1553 for the granting of Bowen, vol. I, pt. I, p. 147, footnote 7).
zcamcllcr in the sancak of Ka^f (Maliye’den 17642, m See F. S. Vidal, The Oasis of al-Hasa, A RAM CO
pp. 714, 719, confirmed in Istanbul and copied as such Dhahran, 1955, pp. 42-73.

•*
:•**
• •J*.