We find in Teixeira that the ruler who succeeded in 1290 was Amir Masa’ud, who obtained the Government by the murder of his brother Saifuddin Nazrat.  Masa’ud was cruel and oppressive; most of the influential people withdrew to Bahauddin Ayaz, whom Saifuddin had made Wazir of Kalhat on the Arabian coast.  This Wazir assembled a force and drove out Masa’ud after he had reigned three years.  He fled to Kerman and died there some years afterwards.

Bahauddin, who had originally been a slave of Saifuddin Nazrat’s, succeeded in establishing his authority.  But about 1300 great bodies of Turks (i.e.  Tartars) issuing from Turkestan ravaged many provinces of Persia, including Kerman and Hormuz.  The people, unable to bear the frequency of such visitations, retired first to the island of Kishm, and then to that of Jerun, on which last was built the city of New Hormuz, afterwards so famous.  This is Teixeira’s account from Thuran Shah, so far as we are concerned with it.  As regards the transfer of the city it agrees substantially with Abulfeda’s, which we have already quoted (supra, note 1).

Hammer’s account from Wassaf is frightfully confused, chiefly I should suppose from Hammer’s own fault; for among other things he assumes that Hormuz was always on an island, and he distinguishes between the Island of Hormuz and the Island of Jerun!  We gather, however, that Hormuz before the Mongol time formed a government subordinate to the Salghur Atabegs of Fars (see note 1, ch. xv.), and when the power of that Dynasty was falling, the governor Mahmud Kalhati, established himself as Prince of Hormuz, and became the founder of a petty dynasty, being evidently identical with Teixeira’s Ruknuddin Mahmud above-named, who is represented as reigning from 1246 to 1277.  In Wassaf we find, as in Teixeira, Mahmud’s son Masa’ud killing his brother Nazrat, and Bahauddin expelling Masa’ud.  It is true that Hammer’s surprising muddle makes Nazrat kill Masa’ud; however, as a few lines lower we find Masa’ud alive and Nazrat dead, we may safely venture on this correction.  But we find also that Masa’ud appears as Ruknuddin Masa’ud, and that Bahauddin does not assume the princely authority himself, but proclaims that of Fakhruddin Ahmed Ben Ibrahim At-Thaibi, a personage who does not appear in Teixeira at all.  A MS. history, quoted by Ouseley, does mention Fakhruddin, and ascribes to him the transfer to Jerun.  Wassaf seems to allude to Bahauddin as a sort of Sea Rover, occupying the islands of Larek and Jerun, whilst Fakhruddin reigned at Hormuz.  It is difficult to understand the relation between the two.

It is possible that Polo’s memory made some confusion between the names of RUKNUDDIN Masa’ud and Fakhruddin AHMED, but I incline to think the latter is his RUOMEDAN AHMED. For Teixeira tells us that Masa’ud took refuge at the court of Kerman, and Wassaf represents him as supported in his claims by the Atabeg of that province, whilst we see that Polo seems to represent Ruomedan Acomat as in hostility with that prince.  To add to the imbroglio I find in a passage of Wassaf Malik Fakhruddin Ahmed at-Thaibi sent by Ghazan Khan in 1297 as ambassador to Khanbalig, staying there some years, and dying off the Coromandel coast on his return in 1305. (Elliot, iii. pp. 45-47.)