Coll 17/4 'Iraq-Syria & Syria-Transjordan frontier: delimitation' [‎15r] (34/788)

As regards this part of the bounth™
Ith-w^Tn °a ^ 1 :=^ t ° WdttSSIhe 4 Ti
westwards. The map does not shoTbftJe^ntteTieri^ 11 then ^adually°tons
village, river, or trigonometrical mark ^- bv Jhlrh tf ^ R ^ melan Keui any landmark ~
In this case also, the answers of witnesses did not ih HS Sector of t . lle frontier could be defined
th lwn* 161 ^ 01 ^ that the terms of the Convention can^tTVim? 1 ? i Ilght ° n tlle question. We
W. e greatest mathematical accuracy possible, the boundary indiStaTmap. 810 ""' 1 '
map “ Svrien und Mesopotlmfen™ of Kern (“keui” means in Turkish a village). The
tional sign (a small circle), at latitude g6° N SonmT 3 d'^T^'rJ’ 5 ' means of the conven -
the terminal point of a track coming froniDemirKan^ t 41 ? 8 E ' a villa S e ' Rnmelankoi,
west. This map does not, however, fhow^Tounfe "°- tr - ^rther
the sIt B ^gellTsrkiS^^ map, places
of the vilayets. The name is spelt “Humeian Keni ” ” i Tth of . the former boundary
continues south-eastwards. Ku melan Keui , and the track coming from Demir Kapu
which 1 is t att 2 hed h to n this h r e eport y “Ihows'RSmda^Keih b b , the .f, urv «y Directorate ^ Baghdad,
a village. The name is written right acr^l ^^rmerlHrundary M t the U vUayets >1 ar^ 1 is 0 the temiinal
of a track coming from the south-east. ^ y ’ ana 18 me ter minal
Finally, the most recent maps of French origin — namely the I'Sooooo mao 2 and thp
both 0 * 00 map ’ 8 P", b . lished , by the Geographical Bureau of the French Troops in tluf Levant A geographical area corresponding to the region around the eastern Mediterranean Sea. -
both show rmns at this spot bearing the name “ Roumelane Keui ”. The new British maps, how
ever, give different information: one, on the scale of r: 126,720 (edition of February 1927), makes
no mention of Humeian Keui, whereas the other, on a scale of 1:200,000 (edition of April 1032)
shows a village marked as “Rumailan Koi”. r ^ '
In view of these differences in the maps and of the great importance of Humeian Keui for
the objective interpretation of the 1920 Convention, we conducted very full enquiries on the spot,
the results of which are as follows:
There is now neither an inhabited village nor a ruined village in this region. The oldest
nomads who frequent those parts do not remember ever having seen or heard tell of a village
called Humeian Keui. On the other hand, we discovered, about four kilometres north-west of
the Tell Humeian Kebir (i.e., at the exact spot at which, according to the French 1:200,000 map, 3
the ruins of “Roumelane Keui” are situated), indisputable traces of old permanent dwellings
(worked stone, potsherds) and numerous recent traces of tent encampments. The tell in question,
though not very high, covers a fairly large area, around which winds a wadi A seasonal or intermittent watercourse, or the valley in which it flows. , flowing into the
Wadi A seasonal or intermittent watercourse, or the valley in which it flows. Humeian. It is, in fact, just such a site as would be chosen in this country for establishing
permanent or temporary dwellings. It would therefore seem legitimate to suppose that this
is the actual site of the former village of Humeian Keui. There is nothing extraordinary in the
fact that the name should have outlived the village; moreover, in this part of the country the
word “village” seems also to be used to denote places at which nomads are accustomed to pitch
their tents at various seasons. We therefore believe that this is actually the Humeian Keui referred
to in the Convention.
It should further be noted that another Humeian Keui, situated, according to the British
1:126,720 map, about five kilometres west of Mustapha Uieh, cannot possibly have been the
village intended in the Convention of 1920. This latter place, which is not shown m any o e
other maps, would be more than ten kilometres north of the boundary of the vilayets, an canno
therefore be considered.
(c) SectoY fYOYH Rumelan Keui to the Euphyutes.
“ . . . thence (from Rumelan Keui) a line leaving in the territory under the
entire basin of the Western Kabur and passing in a straight line owar P
which it crosses at Abu Kemal. ”
It is to be regretted that a section of the frontier about 300 iUe^nd incomplete
accorded only so imprecise a description in the Convention. Admi e Y’ ? expressing their
1:1,000,000 map 3 was not an instrument calculated to help t e nego reason for making
thoughts; but it seems to us that that might have been regarded as a further reason tor ma »
the meaning as clear as possible.
The 1920 Convention refers on the one hand to the entire basm Ka , ^ point
other to a straight line to the Euphrates at Albu Kema . oes , ’p ne towards Albu
at which the frontier should leave the Kabur Basin to proceed m a straight line
Kemal.
1 See Annex No. 1.
2 See Annex^No. 2.