"مذكرة بشأن الحدود بين المحمرة وتركيا". [و‎‎٨] (٨٢/١٥)

11
than any other document of the time—the
following passage occurs :—
Major Rawlinson's The rule of appropriation from the time of authentic
Memorandum of history appears then to have been simply this ; that
January 6, 1844, j t
on Mohamraerah. " le lands deriving water from the 1 igris and Euphrates
belonged to Irak-el-Arab (Turkey), while the country
along the banks of the Karun Avas within the limits of
Khuzistan (Persia). Nothing, perhaps, could be more
simple in principle than this distribution, but nothing
could be more fluctuating and perplexed than it has
proved in practice, owing to the numerous changes in
the courses of the rivers.
[Incidentally, it may he observed that the
justice of Major Rawlinson's conclusion has
been further confirmed since he wrote: For
the Bamishere Channel, which was then a
regular means of access to Mohammerah from
the sea, is now only navigable for half its length
by boats of small draught, thus rendering the
Shatt-el-Arab the sole means of water transport
between the sea and not only Mohammerah, but
likewise Ahwaz on the Karun.]
Tribal Apart from the general rule of geographical
appropriation, rendered uncertain as has been
Major Rawlinson's , i ,i n j ,• n i.i •
Memorandum of shown by the fluctuating course ot the rivers,
January 6, 1844, questions, more or less interwoven, appeared
on Mohammerah. x > it . it n. T
to be involved m the dispute between lurkey and
Persia respecting Mohammerah, the one the
dependency of the tribe of Chaab, the other the
right of territory to certain lands upon which
portions of the tribe had settled.
At the time under discussion (1843), the delta
formed at the mouth of the two rivers, Karun
and Shatt-el-Arab, together with a large portion
of territory to the east of it, the town of
Mohammerah, and the northern bank of the
Ilaffar Canal, were inhabited by the tribe of
Chaab or Kiab, whose chief settlement was at
Fellahieh, an inland town some 30 miles to the
east of Mohammerah.*
* This memorandum does not deal especially with British
relations with the Chaab tribe: but it may be mentioned that
both Colonel Sheil and Captain (afterwards General Sir Arnold)
Keiuball reported in 1843 that, in the inrercourse which had
continually taken place between the Chaab and the East India
Company, the tribe had either been treated as independent or
regarded as subjects of the Shah (see Sir Stratford Canning,
No. 70, April 27, 1844). A full account of British-Indian
relations with the Chaab will be found in the precis, dated
March 1911, by Lieutenant Wilson on "Relations of the
British Government with the Tribes and Sheikhs of
Arabistan."