'(Manuscript of Notes to accompany Map of Persia (published by R.G.S) and the introduction to Haji Baba written by G.N.C. for Macmillan in 1895)' [‎14r] (27/144)

'3
external frontiers, I have, after much consideration, adopted a fourfold
system of delineation, answering to the four classes of border which I
shall show to exist either in Persia or in the adjacent countries that also
appear on this map. They are as follows:—
( 1 ) . — . — This indicates a boundary that has been for
mally defined and demarcated: i. e. a boundary which exists in treaty
stipulations, and is as a rule marked by pillars. Of such a character
are (a) the Perso-Russian frontier in the north-west, to Astara on the
Caspian; (b) the Perso-Russian frontier as regulated by the Akhal-
Khorasan treaty of 1881, from Hasan Kuli Bay in the Caspian to Lutfa-
bad, on the Transcaspian Railway; (c) the Perso-Afghan or Seistan
frontier, fixed by Sir F. Goldsmid in 1872, from the Hamuns to the
Kuh Malek-i-Siah; (d) the Perso-Beluch or Mekran frontier, as fixed
by the same officer and demarcated by the late Sir 0. St. John, at the
same time, from south of Kuhak to the sea at Gwetter; (e) outside
p ers i a —the Russo-Afghan frontier, from Zulfikar on the Heri Rud to
Bosaga on the Oxus, fixed by the Anglo-Russian Commission in
1885-7.
( 2 ) . . . — . . — . Boundaries nominally defined but not
uniformly demarcated. The solitary instance of this is the long frontier
line of 700 miles between Persia and Turkey, from Mount Ararat to the
Shat-el-Arab, which was roughly determined by an Anglo-Russian
Commission, after labours that were spread over a period of more than
twenty years (1843-65), as existing somewhere within a strip of territory
varying from 20 to 40 miles in width, the actual line to be determined
by the two Governments implicated either by agreement or by force as
they pleased. In some cases one, in others the other agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. has been
employed; with the result of frequent squabbles and general lack of
precision.
( 3 ) Hypothetical boundaries, i.e. boundaries which more
or less exist, and are more or less recognised, either by custom or
because of physical conditions, but the acceptance of which has either
never been made, or is not publicly known to have been made, the
subject of diplomatic agreement between the powers concerned. Jo
this class belong : (a) the Perso-Russian frontier in North-east Khorasan
from Lutfabad to Sarakhs, and up the Tejend to Zulfikar, which is
alleged to have been determined by secret treaty, but appears more
probably to have been left open, so as to justify future Russian en
croachments; (6) the Perso-Afghan frontier from Zulfikar to the Seistan
Hamuns; (c) the Perso-Beluch frontier from Jalk to Kuhak—nominally
fixed by Goldsmid and St. John, but never demarcated and constantly
fluctuating; (d) outside Persia—the Afghan-Beluch frontier from the
Kuh Malek-i-Siah to the neighbourhood of Beluchistan—a boundary
which is doubtfully observed and can only be approximately ascer
tained ; (e) the frontier of British India running from the neighbour
hood of Nushki via Chaman, to the Gomul Valley on the east fringe of my
map—a frontier which is as yet only tentatively defined, but which
indicates, with sufficient accuracy, the tribes and districts at present
brought under British sway.
(4) My fourth class of boundary, if a bull may be permitted, is a
blank. By no other means can I express the impalpable and non
existent border line between the extreme points of Goldsmid’s Seistan
and Mekran delimitations. Most cartographers solve the difficulty by
drawing and colouring a straight line from the Kuh Malek-i-Siah to
Jalk; but this is absurd, and the Beluch nomads who wander over this
region, and profess either an alternating allegiance or none at all, would
scoff at the suggestion, and probably kidnap the innocent cartographer
who went out to ratify his theories on the spot.
In the first, second, and third of the above classes, where the
boundary follows the course of a river, it is not separately indicated,
bnt must be identified with the river channel.
Finally I come to the vexed question of Orthography. Here,
broadly speaking, I have observed the rules laid down by this Society ;
i. e., I have retained the conventional spelling of such names (even if