45-47.)
Masa'ud's seeking help from Kerman to reinstate him is not the first case
of the same kind that occurs in Teixeira's chronicle, so there may have
been some kind of colour for Marco's representation of the Prince of
Hormuz as the vassal of the Atabeg of Kerman ("l'homme de cest roy de
Creman;" see Prologue, ch. xiv. note 2). M. Khanikoff denies the
possibility of the existence of any royal dynasty at Hormuz at this
period. That there was a dynasty of Maliks of Hormuz, however, at this
period we must believe on the concurring testimony of Marco, of Wassaf,
and of Thuran Shah. There was also, it would seem, another
quasi-independent principality in the Island of Kais. (Hammer's Ilch.
II. 50, 51; Teixeira, Relacion de los Reyes de Hormuz; Khan. Notice,
p. 34.)
The ravages of the Tartars which drove the people of Hormuz from their
city may have begun with the incursions of the Nigudaris and Karaunahs,
but they probably came to a climax in the great raid in 1299 of the
Chaghataian Prince Kotlogh Shah, son of Dua Khan, a part of whose bands
besieged the city itself, though they are said to have been repulsed by
Bahauddin Ayas.
[The Dynasty of Hormuz was founded about 1060 by a Yemen chief Mohammed
Dirhem Ko, and remained subject to Kerman till 1249, when Rokn ed-din
Mahmud III. Kalhati (1242-1277) made himself independent. The immediate
successors of Rokn ed-din were Saif ed-din Nazrat (1277-1290), Masa'ud
(1290-1293), Bahad ed-din Ayaz Sayfin (1293-1311). Hormuz was captured by
the Portuguese in 1510 and by the Persians in 1622.
