File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎375v] (760/885)

the extracts from the “ Jehan Numa” and “ Tarikh-i-Naimeh ” respectively. The late
Sir H. Rawlinson, in his detailed examination of these two extracts, while remarking
on their great similarity, points out that “a strange discrepancy, nevertheless, is found
in the general tenor of the frontier demarcation,” and finds that this discrepancy
arises from the “ omission by the author of the ‘ Jehan Numa ’ of one or two lines of the^
original treaty, the second and third territorial clauses being blended into one, and aC v
totally different limitation of territory from that which was _ intended being thus
assigned to the two Empires.” The one or two lines of the original treaty, referred
to by Sir H. Rawlinson as having been omitted by the author of the “ Jehan Numa,”
and which are found in the “ Tarikh-i-Naimeh,” are :—
“No interference, moreover, to be admitted on the part of Persia with any of
the fortresses, or villages, or lands, or districts, or mountains, or coasts lying within
the several acknowledged territories of Akheshkeh, Kars, Van, Shahrizal (Shahrizor),
Bagdad and Bussorah.”
These lines, it is to be noted, follow immediately after the first clause, concluding in
both versions with the words “ as well as the fort of Kizildjeh and its dependencies, &c.”
The “ Jehan Numa,” on the other hand, immediately after this first clause, and
omitting all reference to the words “No interference, moreover, to be admitted, &c.,”
goes on to say : “ Moreover, with regard to Akheshkeh, Kars, and Rawan (Van), the
dependencies of Shahrizor, Derah, and Zarudi or Zardiya (Zardeh), &c. These to be
given up to Persia, &c.” This, if correct, would of course give Akheshkeh, Kars, Van,
and the dependencies of Shahrizor to the latter country,| and would amply justify
Sir H. Rawlinson’s comment. At the present day, however, the point seems to me to
have lost much if not all of its importance, as Akheshkeh and Kars have been otherwise
disposed of, no pretension, as far as I know, having been put forward by Persia to Van
since the Erzeroum Treaty of 1848, while as to Shahrizor, both versions in the
immediately preceding first clause assign the districts of that place to Turkey. The
author of “Jehan Numa” is thus, as regards Shahrizor, apparently in contradiction
with himself, and this point is not without importance in estimating the trust
worthiness of the respective versions. But if the “ Tarikh-i-Naimeh ” thus disposes
of the pretensions to Akheshkeh, &c., of Persia it gives to the latter country “the
fortresses lying between Mendallijin (Mendalli) and Dartang.” If this is correct—and
the “ Tarikh-i-Naimeh,” it must be remembered, was the version produced by the
Turkish plenipotentiaries—it is clear that the plains of Ghilan Derah and Kileh Shahin,
which are between Mendalli and Dartang, would remain to Persia, and this is the
opinion of Sir H. Rawlinson, who states (Memorandum, p. 4) that he is “inclined to
consider this expression vague, though, as it certainly is to apply to the respective
positions of Ghilan, Derah, and Kileh Shahin,” and, further (p. 5), after remarking,
however, that “ if the grand geographical distinction between the mountains and the
plains be attended to, Ghilan, Derah, and Kileh Shahin will belong to Turkey, and the
frontier will be the great range immediately to the east of them, but that if, on
the other hand, it is our object to disturb as little as possible the principles of distribu
tion thereto obtained at present, the districts in question may be judicially allowed to
follow the rule of dependency that must be determined in regard to Zohab.”
My own impression was that it was intended in the treaty to assign these lands to
Persia, but that they remained, nevertheless, in the occupation of the Turks until
within the last fifty years. On the other hand, neither the Vienna copy nor the
Turkish version (No. 5) make any mention of the fortresses in question, while the
“Jehan Numah ” j contains an acknowledgment of the right of Turkey to the plains
between Mendalli and Dartang, as do the Vienna copy and the Turkish version (No. o).§
This apparent contradiction, i.e. } the attribution, on the one hand, to Turkey of the
“ plains between Mendalli and Dartang," and, on the other, to Persia of the fortresses
between the same places, would seem to be an obscure point in the treaty, nor does the
subsequent treaty of 1822, or that of 1848, help to clear it up. In the sketch map,
however, to illustrate the ancient and modern frontiers of Zohab and Suleimanieh * * * §
* Produced by the Persian plenipotentiary, vide supra.
f Bussorah is not mentioned in the k - Jehan Numa.”
t The “Jehan Numa” was produced by the Persian plenipotentiaries.
§ The “ Tarikh-i-Naimeh” has no mention of the “ plains between Mendalli and Dartang,” the reference
in this connection being “ Darneh and Dartang, extending as far as the place called Ser Mil and to all the
territory lying in and between these districts.” The Persian version (No. 4) “ Mendalli, Derne, Dertent
(Dartang), up to Bermail (Sermeel), with the countries therein contained, the plains situated between these
two last towns.”