No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 May 2011
The issue of the purchase of land in one country, in this case Iran, by other countries, in this case Britain and Russia, is one of great significance because of light it may throw on the strength or weakness of national sovereignty, and the ways and degree to which it may be undermined. It can also show the strategies deployed by the country challenged to protect its territorial integrity, as here in the case of Iran. The intricacies of foreign landownership patterns thus have implications for international relations, on which they can provide telling detail in terms of contemporary power politics. The details of land purchase also demonstrate considerable differences as between the two outside powers involved in terms of their objectives in Iran, and thus challenge a tendency in the literature to see them as similar.
1 The authors would like to thank the British Council for the funding they provided for the collaboration between Royal Holloway Department of History and Isfahan University Department of History. This article emerged from that collaboration.
2 Issawi, C., The Economic History of Iran (Chicago, 1971), p. 210Google Scholar.
3 Eastwick, E.B., Journal of a Diplomat's Three Years’ Residence in Persia (London, 1864), II, p. 22Google Scholar. See also Kazembeyki, M.A., Society, Politics and Economics in Mazandaran, Iran, 1848 to 1914 (London, 2003), p. 54Google Scholar. E-mail: [email protected]
4 For the text of the Treaty see Hurewitz, J., Diplomacy in the near and Middle East 1535–1914 (Princeton, 1956), I. pp. 100–102Google Scholar. The original French version is given on pp. 319–321 in FO 60/482.
5 For the immensely complicated subject of who owned land and on what basis, see: Lambton, A.K.S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia (Oxford, 1951)Google Scholar. In theory the main landholder was the shah.
6 See for an example Shiraz to Bushehr, 17 Feb. 1904, FO 248/817.
7 For the correspondence on this see Sheil to Aberdeen No. 70, 25 June 1845, FO 60/114.
8 No. 9, 20 April 1868, FO 248/247.
9 Alison, 12 March 1867 (original not found) quoted verbatim in No. 3841, 31 Dec. 1867, FO 248/247. The problem in this case was compounded by the more acquisitive attitude of the Government of India, which was involved in the telegraph project. As with the previous case, it was unclear to whom the desired property belonged.
10 No. 5, 5 Feb. 1868, FO 248/247.
11 From Tabriz, No. 17, 28 July 1873, FO 248/289.
12 No. 40, 13 Oct. 1875, FO 248/311.
13 H. Kavosi Araqi, Fihrist-i asnad-i mukammil-i Qajariyya, 2, (6–14), (Tehran, 1380), pp. 424, 425, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 437, 439, 440, 441.
14 No. 13, 23 Aug. 1886, FO 60/482.
15 No. 39, 9 March 1882, FO 60/444.
16 No. 53, 20 March 1882, FO 60/444.
17 There was a twist to the British view, as Thomson tried to argue that an agreement forced on Mohammad Shah by the Russians in 1843 relating to fraudulent bankruptcies, that property (including villages) mortgaged to a foreigner by an Iranian subject, and not redeemed by the appointed time, would be forfeited to that foreigner (see No. 150, 24 Aug. 1882, FO 60/446). This agreement, ratified by a Farman of the Shah in 1844, did not hold good in southern Iran, where it was never mentioned. Nor has any evidence been found of it making an impact on the north, though the Iranian Ministry of Foreign archives catalogue records four purchases of land by Russian subjects between 1844–5. Araqi, M.H. Kavosi, Fihrist-i asnad-i mukammal-i Qajariyya, (Tehran, 1380), 2, (6–14), file 13Google Scholar.
18 British Agent in Shiraz 15 Feb. 1885 in N. 10, 2 Dec. 1885, FO 248/424.
19 Ministry of Foreign Affairs to British Minister received 28 June 1890, FO 248/509.
20 29 Ramadan 1305, 1304.19. 22 No. 8, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
21 Ministry of Foreign Affairs to British Minister received 28 June 1890, FO 248/509.
22 No. 74, 17 Dec. in No. 113, 24 Dec. 1892, FO 248/544.
23 Mohammareh diary 31 July to 6 Aug. 1896 in No. 54, 14 Aug. 1891, FO 248/631.
24 See also No. 46, 16 July 1896 and No. 52A 6 August 1896, FO 248/631, enclosing letter from the karguzar dated 3 Safar 1314, and received 12 July 1896.
25 See for example No. 91, 20 Sept. 1905, FO 248/849, and No. 31, 4 April 1906, FO 248/875.
26 Nurshivani, V.F., ‘The Beginnings of Commercialised Agriculture in Iran’, in Udovitch, A.L., ed., The Islamic Middle East 700–1900 (Princeton, 1981), p. 561Google Scholar.
27 Ibid., p. 578.
28 Hurewitz, Diplomacy, I, pp. 100–101.
29 Though, as might be expected, not always. See Talbot to Kennedy, 24 June 1891, FO 248/523, where the local governor did not favour additions to buildings or purchases of additional land by the British Residency in Bushehr.
30 No. 117, 31 Aug. 1883, FO 248/402.
31 See karguzar of Bushehr to MFA 8 Muharram 1314, 1314. 29.9. No. 56, and 22 Muharram 1314.29.9. No. 53.
32 No. 128, 27 Aug. 1904, FO 248/818.
33 Shiraz news 22–28 Nov. 1906, FO 248/882.
34 Persain Gulf diary week ending 26 March 1905, FO 248/842.
35 No. 1, 14 Jan. 1873, FO 248/289.
36 No. 6, 2 April 1876, FO 248/319.
37 No. 96, 13 Nov. 1891, FO 248/543.
38 The same can be said for land used for the telegraph. Thus in 1904 the Iranians purchased land and built a qanat for the telegraph office in Kerman. Kerman diary to 31 Aug. 1904, FO 248/820, and to end March 1905, FO 248/846.
39 No. 139, 23 Dec. 1903, FO 248/787.
40 No. 3, 6 Jan 1904, FO 248/817.
41 No. 45, 28 April 1905, FO 248/842.
42 No. 667, 29 May 1874, FO 248/300.
43 No. 191, 13 Dec. 1900, FO 248/719.
44 No. 10, 17 Feb. 1904, FO 248/817.
45 See No. 10, 17 Feb. 1904, FO 248/817 for an example. See also No. 13, 23 Aug. 1886, FO 60/482 for an early sign of this policy.
46 See Nouraei, M. and Martin, V.A., ‘The Role of the Karguzar in the Foreign Relations of State and Society of Iran from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1921. Part III: The Karguzar and Disputes over Foreign Trade’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 16, 2 (2006), p. 161Google Scholar.
47 No. 8, 13 April 1882, FO 248/391.
48 No. 11, 8 May, and No. 12, 17 May 1882, FO 248/391.
49 No. 57, 30 Sept. and No. 58, 4 Oct. 1893, FO 248/572.
50 The incident is discussed in detail in Walcher, H., In the Shadow of the King. Zill al-Sultan and Isfahan under the Qajar (London, 2008), pp. 212–221Google Scholar.
51 No. 13, 23 Aug. 1886, FO 60/482.
52 No. 45, 28 April 1905, FO 248/842.
53 Litten, W., Persien – Von der „pénétration pacifique“ zum Protektorat. Urkunden und Tatsachen zur Geschichte der europaeischen „pénétration pacifique“ in Persien, 1860–1919 (Berlin & Leipzig 1920)Google Scholar translated into Persian as “Iran az nufuz-i musalamat amiz tahtulhimayigi 1860–1919” by M. Mir Ahmadi, Tehran 1367, pp. 94–98.
54 No. 613, 22 June 1876, FO 248/318.
55 No. 71, 11 July 1891, FO 248/524.
56 Taylor of Lynch Bros. to Ross, 14 March 1891, FO 248/523.
57 Signed 26 Feb. 1894, FO 248/694.
58 Litten, Iran az nufuz, pp. 116–117.
59 SAMI, file No: 240005619, 1927–1929/1909–1911, 71 pages.
60 Sazman-i Asnad-i Milli-yi Iran (henceforth SAMI), file No. 240005616, 1327–1329/1909–11, 71 pages; see also E. Safaei Vussuq al-Daula 1254–1329, (Tehran, 1374/1956) announcement on p. 64.
61 Ibid.
62 SAMI, file No. 240002889, 1333/1913, pp. 33.
63 No. 182, 11 Nov. 1903, FO 416/15.
64 No. 58, 30 March 1904, FO 416/17.
65 No. 134, 20 July 1904, FO 416/19.
66 No. 173, 11 Sept. 1904, FO 416/20.
67 No. 27, 25 Feb. 1910, FO 416/43.
68 SAMI, file No. 240004426, 1332/1913, 16 pages.
69 SAMI, file No. 240020132, 1331/1912, pp. 1–17.