Skip to item: of 636
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

File 4880/1913 Pt 2 'Turco-Persian Frontier Commission: protocol of 1913' [‎79v] (26/499)

This item is part of

The record is made up of 1 item (248 folios). It was created in 1913. It was written in English and French. The original is part of the British Library: India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Records and Private Papers.

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

1. The Turkish commissioners consider that, instead of laying down that the
water system of Yarym Kaya should be left to Persia, it would be better to les
the Commission decide the line of frontier in this direction according to the
status quo.
Behdjet Bey explained that the protocol line is vague, and that the Ottoman
Government does not understand whether certain villages existing in the locality will
be given to Turkey or Persia. He added that if a locality called Sarnitch (not marked
on our maps and consisting of a reservoir and pasturage) he awarded to Persia, the
Turks will he cut off from their homage No. 37.
2. Kizil Kaya, or Belassour, is by the protocol to be given to Turkey or Persia,
according as its position is found on the western or eastern slope. If given to
Persia it will, according to Behdjet Bey, cut off the only carriage road between the
Turkish towns of Van and Bayazid, which passes through the village in question.
M. Minorsky, on behalf of his Government, declined to entertain either of these
objections. The protocol line represented, he said, the status quo line of 1848, and
indicated the maximum which could be conceded to Turkey. Sarnitch was not marked
on the identic map, and the sketch map shown by Behdjet Bey could not be accepted
as authoritative.
3. The Turks consider that the valley of the Abi Seri Gadyr (headwaters of the
Biver Gadzr belonging to the Ushnon water system) should belong to Turkey as
well as the valley of the Tchoumi Gueli, the basin of a river feeding the Lavene
(Lahidjan).
Both these localities should certainly be given to Persia, on the principle followed
as far as possible throughout, viz., that the eastern watersheds go to Persia and the
western to Turkey. It is further to be observed that in the case of the Tchoumi
Gueli the Turkish contention contravenes a point they have already conceded, viz., that
in that district the crest of the Kandil range is to be taken as the frontier. The fact,
alleged by the Turks, that certain Turkish tribes at some seasons descend the eastern
slope for pasturage does not, in our opinion, afford proof of Turkish possession.
4. With regard to Khan Guermela and the “ sixteen other villages ” of the Persian
district of Nowsoud (Avroman) the Turks expressed fear lest some may have disappeared
since the time of the first Commission, and that if the terms of the protocol stand the
Commission may find itself obliged to hand over other innocent villages to Persia to
make up the tale.
To obviate this danger, if it exists, we undertook to recommend that the protocol
should be modified as follows :—
“. . . . laissant du cote persan le village de Khan Guermela et les seize autres
villages qui du temps de la visite de la Commission de 1849-52 se trouvaient dans la
possession persane.”
5. Both Turks and Persians, though for different reasons, drew attention to the
vagueness of the frontier indicated by the protocol in the Zohab district south of the
Elvend. ^ M. Minorsky and I agreed that the passage beginning “ elle coupe la riviere
Elvend a un point,” and ending “ laissant a la Turquie le Nepthe Mukataassi,” requires
amplification, and we propose to redraft it. Immediately preceding this passage there
is also an omission, no mention being made of the frontier descending to the Turkish
post of Kanobez.
6. The lurkish commissioners expressed a wish that the protocol should safeguard
the proprietary rights of persons transferred from one sovereignty to the other. I see
no objection to this.
7 -Fh e y a l so drew 7 our attention to the omission in the protocol of a provision
(contained in the last paragraph of the memorandum of the Pussian Ambassador
(Enclosure 2 in Sir G. Lowther’s despatch No. 352 of the 26th April, 1913) ), by which
the Frontier Commission was to make an arrangement for the division of the water of
the Ganguir Piver in Soumar between the Kelhour tribe and the inhabitants of
Mendeli. This is presumably an accidental omission, and we promised to rectify it.
The above Turkish objections are in the main the same as those raised already in
the Porte’s identic note of the 23rd September, 1913.
1^ informed the other commissioners that His Majesty’s Government desired the
insertion at the end of article 1 of the whole of the Anglo-Turkish Agreement of the
29th July, 1913, to which no one objected. As the Persian commissioners did not
possess a copy, I gave them one.
We all found the reduced identic map inconvenient to use owing to the omission of

About this item

Content

Correspondence, reports and maps relating to the 1913 Turco-Persian Frontier Commission, and the production of the Protocole relative à la Délimitation turco-persane, signé à Constantinople le 4 (17) Novembre, 1913 .

The primary correspondents are: HM Consul-General at Teheran (Sir Walter Beaupre Townley); HM Consul-General at Constantinople; HM Vice-Consul at Kashr-i Shirin (E B Soane); the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Political Department; the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs (Said Halim); the Russian Consul-General in Baghdad (M Orlof); the Russian Ambassador to the UK (Count Von Benckendorff); HM Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Edward Grey); and Albert Charles Wratislaw, head of the British section of the Commission.

The file opens with correspondence regarding reported Turkish military build-up in Kasr-i Shirin [Qaṣr-e Shīrīn], disturbances on the Baghdad-Kermaāshāh route, local raids by Persian and Turkish tribesmen, possible concessions to Turkey in the Zohab [Zohāb] district, and the difficulty of reaching an agreement which would be acceptable to Sunni and Shia tribes in the Zohab region. A map of the Zohab region is included at folio 305.

The bulk of the file concerns arrangements for the Frontier Commission, discussing: the push for a settlement; the composition of the British, Russian, Turkish and Persian commissions; the need to use surveying and triangulation to improve on pre-existing, inaccurate maps; the wording of the internal rules [ Règlement Intérieur ] to govern the Commission; arrangements over work to be conducted by the northern and southern sections of the Commission; and arrangements to preserve the rights of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in regions to be transferred to Turkey.

Key items:

Folios 224-29 Declaration regarding the frontier, signed by Sir Edward Grey and I Hakky Pasha, with four accompanying maps:

  • Map No 1, Sketch Map showing Turco-Persian Frontier West and South of Hawizeh [Howeyzeh];
  • Map No 2, Sketch Map of Muhammareh [Khorramshar] to indicate the Turco-Persian Boundary;
  • Map No 3, Sheet No I, Map of Shatt-Al-'Arab & Bahmanshir [Rūdkhāneh-ye Bahmanshīr] including Muhammareh [Khorramshar] & 'Abbádán I [Ābādān];
  • Map No 4, Sheet No II, Map of Shatt-Al-'Arab & Bahmanshir, including Muhammareh & 'Abbádán I.

Folios 68-87 Copy of the Protocole relative à la Délimitation turco-persane, signé à Constantinople le 4 (17) Novembre, 1913, plus: additional copies of the four maps detailed above; Annex (A), Règlement intérieur de la Commission de Délimitation de la Frontière turco-persane ; Annex (B) Statement by the Ottoman Government pledging to maintain, within the territories granted by Persia to Turkey, the rights and obligations granted to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company Ltd by the Persian Imperial Government under the Convention of 28 May, 1901; also included are notes on the meetings of the frontier delegates at Constantinople, 4-9 November, written by the British Commissioner, Albert Charles Wratislaw.

Folio 67 is a collection header sheet, giving the subject heading and a list of correspondence references found within the part, listed by year.

Extent and format
1 item (248 folios)
Arrangement

The papers are arranged in rough chronological order from the rear to the front of the section

Written in
English and French in Latin script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

File 4880/1913 Pt 2 'Turco-Persian Frontier Commission: protocol of 1913' [‎79v] (26/499), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/10/430/2, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100040878369.0x0000a4> [accessed 21 October 2019]

Link to this item
Embed this item

Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.

<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100040878369.0x0000a4">File 4880/1913 Pt 2 'Turco-Persian Frontier Commission: protocol of 1913' [&lrm;79v] (26/499)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100040878369.0x0000a4">
	<img src="https://images.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000419.0x000145/IOR_L_PS_10_430_0171.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000000419.0x000145/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image