"ملف رقم ١٣٥٦ لسنة ١٩١٢ الجزء ١ "الحدود التركية-الفارسية:- مفاوضات في القسطنطينية." [و‎‎٤‎٩] (٨٨٥/١٠٧)

Enclosure 2 in No. 1 .
Notes on Mr. Alwyn Parker’s Memorandum on the Frontier between Mohammerah
and Turkey.
A BSTRACT.
1 . Destruction of Fort at Failiyeh.— Points out that danger to navigation of
Bussorah, which was motive of commissioners in fixing the boundary and causing
destruction of fort, no longer exists.
2 . Haffar Canal. —Throws doubt on belief generally accepted in our records as to
the identity and origin of the Haffar Canal.
3. The Ka’ab. —Questions accuracy of Major Rawlinson’s theories regarding their
origin and nationality.
4. Tamar Lands, &c. —Discusses nationality of lands between locally-recognised
boundary and Mohammerah, and adduces fresh arguments in support of Persian
claims.
5. Ownership of Islands in Shatt-cl-Arab. —Adduces further arguments in favour
of observance of mid-channel line.
6 . Mid-Channel Line. —Discusses legal’ objections raised in Foreign Office memo
randum and adduces further arguments in favour of India Office view.
7. Status of Sheikh and his Tribesmen. —Discusses.
8 . Hawizeh District. —Adduces arguments disposing of Turkish claims and showing
permanent occupation by Persia for over 300 years.
9. Purchases of Land by Sheikh. —Points out that no territorial aggrandisement
is involved.
10 . Survey of India Map. —Points out that it is obsolete.
Note 1.
Page 4 : Fort at Failiyeh destroyed by order of the Commissioners in order
to secure Freedom of Navigation for Turkey.
It may be observed that the boundary as locally recognised leaves the main channel
of the Shatt-el-Arab a few hundred yards above the sheikh’s palace at Failiyeh (which is
in no sense a fort) and passes behind wooded islands, which completely shut off Persian
territory from the view of the navigable channel. Thus its adoption would not give
Persia control of the left bank beyond Failiyeh. As regards Failiyeh itself, and,
indeed, as regards the whole of his frontier, the sheikh has rigorously observed the
undertaking to build no fortifications which was given by the Persian envoy in 1848
(see foot of p. 48).
Note 2.
Page 10 : The Haffar Canal.
(See also reference to it by Layard at pp. 52 and 53.)
The exposition here given of the geographical position of Mohammerah and the
rough sketch map given in illustration are both based upon the assumption that the
section of the waterway on which Mohammerah stands is an artificial cut, and that the
latter is the “ Haffar ” properly so called.
I submit that this assumption is erroneous. The testimony of ancient maps and
documents which, owing to my absence from books and records, I am unable to quote
in extenso, is that the position was originally as shown in the accompanying very rough
sketch. That is to say, that the Karun flowed via Marid and the old settlement of
Kubban to the Khor Musa, whilst the Shatt-el-Arab bifurcated at the present site of
Mohammerah and divided its waters from thence to the sea between its present channel
and the Bahmanshir branch.
The term “Haffar” is applied locally invariably to the reach of the Karun above
Mohammerah between Marid and the head of the Bahmanshir, and in no case to the
waterway on which Mohammerah stands, which, on the contrary, is often called
Bahmanshir (see “ Gazetteer,” p. 598, and Lieutenant Wilson’s 1 m. = 1 inch maps
of Mohammerah and the Shatt-el-Arab for further explanations as to the position of the
Haffar reach).
2506 m —1]
C