Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:26:18.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1904 epidemic of cholera in Persia: some aspects of qājār society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

R. M. Burrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the diseases which afflicted mankind in the nineteenth century cholera has a good claim to the unenviable title of being the most dreaded. It was certainly the one which prompted the first sustained efforts to devise and implement international sanitary conventions. The reasons why cholera was so feared are many. Until the second decade of the century it was confined to the Indian subcontinent—where it had probably existed since ancient times—and medical knowledge of it elsewhere was practically nil. In 1817, however, maritime trade carried the infection to other lands and thus began the first period of diffusion which lasted for some six years. By the early years of the twentieth century a further five massive epidemics had occurred, almost every country in the world had been affected and the cumulative death toll was measured in millions. Persia, being so close to the original source of infection, suffered in every one of those epidemics and also from several other more limited and localized outbreaks.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 258 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pollitzer, R. et al. , Cholera (Geneva, World Health Organization Monograph Series No. 43, 1959), 51–2.Google ScholarPubMedI would like to thank Professor Lambton, A. K. S., who supervised the research on which this article is based, for her continuing help with my studies. Dr. Barbara Anderson, of the University of London Central Institutions Health Service, who worked in Calcutta during the 1971 cholera epidemic, kindly read and commented on an earlier draft of this paper. I am indebted to her for all the time and trouble she took in explaining medical matters to a layman. In this article personal names have been transliterated, place names have not.Google Scholar

2 For a discussion of those outbreaks down to 1881 see Dr. James E., Baker, ‘A few remarks on the most prevalent diseases and the climate of northern Persia’, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1886, vol. LXVII, C. 4781.Google ScholarFor a more detailed account of the global diffusion see MacNamara, N. C., A history of Asiatic Cholera (London, 1876), and Pollitzer, op. cit., 17–42.Google ScholarThe impact of cholera on a major European city during the nineteenth century is discussed in fascinating detail by Richard J., Evans, Death in Hamburg: society and politics in the cholera years 1830–1910 (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar

3 William H., McNeill, Plagues and peoples (Harmondsworth, 1979), 240–1.Google Scholar

4 Norman, Howard-Jones, ‘Cholera therapy in the nineteenth century’, Journal of the History of Medicine, 27, 1972, 373.Google Scholar

5 Pollitzer, op. cit., 20.Google Scholar

6 ibid., 846–57.

7 ibid., 922–34.

8 ibid., 857–8. In suitable conditions vibrios can live in the soil and on the leaves of green vegetables for up to three weeks (ibid., 178–9).

9 Tholozan later wrote several books on epidemics of bubonic plague in the Middle East.Google Scholar

10 On the establishment and work of the Sanitary Council see Elgood, C., A medical history of Persia and the Eastern Caliphate from the earliest times until the year A.D. 1932 (Cambridge, 1951), ch. xviii.Google ScholarThe effects of the epidemic are discussed by Gad G., Gilbar, ‘Demographic developments in late Qājār Persia, 1870–1906’, Asian and African Studies, XI, 2, 1976 1977, 137–8.Google Scholar

11 see Lorimer, J. G., ‘Epidemics and sanitary organization in the Persian Gulf region’, Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf Oman and Central Arabia, Calcutta, 1915, vol. 1, part 2, 2517–55.Google Scholar

12 FO 60: 608, Durand to Salisbury, No. 66, 23 June 1899. Transcripts of unpublished Crown Copyright material in the Public Record Office appear by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar

13 FO 60: 609, Durand to Salisbury, No. 91, 16 September 1899, with several enclosed despatches.Google Scholar

14 FO 60: 609, Durand to Salisbury, No. 125, 20 December 1899.Google Scholar

15 The Belgians took charge in June 1900. Two months later the house of the senior official was attacked by a mob. FO 60: 618, Spring Rice to Salisbury, No. 87, 23 August 1900.Google Scholar

16 FO 248: 788, Kemball to Hardinge, No. 17, 17 August 1903 and Kemball to Hardinge No. 107, 3 October 1903. In the previous months there had been violent anti-Babi demonstrations at Isfahan and Yazd.Google Scholar

17 FO 248: 803, Rabino (Kermanshah) to Grant Duff, 23 December 1903. A quarantine cordon had already been established at Karbala.Google Scholar

18 Rabino, H. L., ‘Report on the trade of Kermanshah 1902–1903’, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1903, vol. LXXVIII, CD 1386–3043Google Scholar and ‘Report on the Trade of Kerman- shah’, 1903–1904Google Scholar, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1904, vol. c, CD 1766–3189.Google Scholar

19 FO 60: 681, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 17, Confidential 27 January 1904. It would appear that the task may have been allotted to the Belgians only after Russian attempts to secure control of the new quarantine post had failed. In the past the Russian government had insisted that if Britain was to be in charge of preventative measures on the Persian Gulf Coast then all inland posts should be manned by Russian officials. See FO 60: 698, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 18, 31 January 1905.Google Scholar

20 FO 60: 681, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 17, Confidential 27 January 1904.Google Scholar

21 ibid.

22 Cesari's task was made a little easier by the fact that the restrictions were imposed in January—the month when snow and bad weather conditions usually reduced the flow of traffic to a minimum. Another reason why relatively few people were crossing the border into Persia at this time was that the price of transport had just risen sharply. This was because the Ottoman authorities in Baghdad were commandeering as many camels as possible for use in military operations then being conducted against ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Sa‘xud in northern Arabia. The result was a general shortage of pack animals throughout southern Iraq. FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 86, 19 May 1904. While the number of those in quarantine was relatively small Cesari was able to provide them with free food.Google Scholar

23 FO 60: 665, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 94, Confidential 23 June 1903.

24 ibid. The contents of the letters were widely known, despite the attempts of the Ṣadr-i A‘ẓam to have them suppressed, and they were circulated in a series of clandestine broadsheets.

25 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 126, 17 July 1904.

26 FO 60: 681, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 42, 2 March 1904.

27 FO 60: 681, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 71, 23 April 1904.

28 Here the word ‘carrying’ is being used in the general sense and not as a technical medical term; for with the variety of cholera which was then present in Persia there is no latent ‘carrier’ status as such. Individuals may be ‘contact carriers’ in that they have been affected by the disease but show no symptoms. Their faeces will, however, contain infected vibrios.Google Scholar

29 Various reports from Scott to Hardinge are included in FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 86, 19 May 1904

30 Virtually all European travellers who were in Persia during an outbreak of cholera report this reaction. In the first epidemic in 1821 Fraser, J. B. described the exit of population from Shiraz, Narrative of a journey into Khorasan (London, 1825), chs. iv v.Google ScholarThe last major outbreak before 1904 was in 1892 and Gertrude, Bell observed the exodus of population from Tehran, see Safar Nameh: Persian pictures (London, 1894), ch. vi.Google Scholar

31 Rabino, H. L., ‘Report on the trade of Kermanshah 1903–1904’, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1904, vol. c, CD 1766–3189, p. 38.Google Scholar

32 FO 60: 682, Scott to Hardinge, 9 May 1904. Scott remained in Kermanshah until July.

33 FO 60: 682, Enclosure in Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 86, 19 May 1904.

34 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 95, 25 May 1904 and FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 119, 21 June 1904.

35 See the reports by Rabino, H. L. cited in footnote 18 and ‘Report on the trade of Kermanshah 1904–1905’, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1905, vol. xci, CD 2236–3420.Google Scholar

36 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 119, 21 June 1904. In the 1892 epidemic quarantine camps had often been established too late see Speer, R. G., The foreign doctor (New York, 1917), 165.Google Scholar

37 FO 60: 685, Hardinge to Lansdowne, Telegrams No. 65, 7 June 1904, 70, 15 June 1904 and 72, 29 June 19*.

38 Similar circumstances had prevailed at Qulhak in 1892Google Scholarsee Rosen, F., Oriental memoirs of a German diplomatist (London, 1931), 171 and Bell, G., op. cit., 81.Google Scholar

39 FO 60:682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 86,19 May 1904.Google ScholarThe origins of the road concession are discussed in Jones, G., Banking and empire in Iran: the history of the British Bank of the Middle East, I (Cambridge, 1986), 60–3.Google Scholar

40 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 86, 19 May 1904.

41 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 126,17 July 1904. One of the first victims in Tehran was Dr. Vaume who had tried, unsuccessfully, to establish the quarantine camp at Kangavar.

42 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 126, 17 July 1904.

43 ibid.

44 The rest and seclusion did, however, produce an improvement in the general state of the Shāh’s health. FO 60: 683, Grant Duff to Lansdowne, Confidential, II October 1904.Google Scholar

45 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 134, 20 July 1904.

46 A new Sanitary Council was set up in July to deal with the epidemic in Tehran and Naus was put in charge FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 126, 17 July 1904.

47 See Wishard, J. G., Twenty years in Persia (New York, 1908), 219–20.Google ScholarSimilar pamphlets had been issued in earlier epidemics of plague see Elgood, C. op. cit., 520.Google Scholar

48 Wishard op. cit., 220.

49 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 126, 17 July 1904.

50 See Adams, I., Persia by a Persian (Grand Rapids, 1900).Google ScholarSimilar reactions to cholera and European medical advice are noted in the useful study by Nancy, Elizabeth Gallagher, Medicine and power in Tunisia 1780–1900 (Cambridge, 1983), chs. ii and iii.Google Scholar

51 FO 60: 683, Grant Duff to Lansdowne, No. 201, Confidential, 9 November 1904 and FO 60: 698, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 7, 5 January 1905.Google ScholarSee also Wratislaw, A. C., A consul in the East (Edinburgh, 1924), 200–1.Google Scholar

52 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 124, 4 July 1904Google Scholarand FO 60: 688, Meshed Confidential Diary, No. 75, week ending 18 June 1904.Google Scholar

53 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 146, 15 August 1904Google Scholarand ‘Report on the trade of Khorassan, 1904–1905’, Accounts and Papers (Parliamentary Sessional Papers), 1906, vol. CXXVII, CD 2682-249, p. 6.Google Scholar

54 There had been many anti-Russian demonstrations in Mashhad during the previous months. The outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War had brought trade between Persia and Russia to a standstill and this had led to a sharp increase in the price of imported sugar and paraffin (FO 60: 688, Consular Diary, Turbat-i Haidari, week ending 6 May 1904). A series of drunken parties at a newly-opened Russian club had caused a scandal (FO 60: 688, Meshed Confidential Diary, No. 74, week ending 11 June 1904). The Russian Bank had recently opened an office in a building which had previously been used for housing poor pilgrims. Mamaghani condemned this and also the establishment of a Russian cemetery on land immediately adjoining a Muslim one (FO 60: 688, Meshed Confidential Diary, No. 75, week ending 18 June 1904).Google Scholar

55 FO 60: 688, Meshed Confidential Diary, No. 78, week ending 18 June 1904.

56 FO 60: 685, Meshed Confidential Diary, No. 84, week ending 20 August 1904.

57 FO 60: 683, Grant Duff to Lansdowne, No. 201, Confidential, 9 November 1904.

58 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 146, 15 August 1904.

59 FO 60: 683, Grant Duff to Lansdowne, No. 189, 12 October 1904.

60 FO 248: 820, Kerman Consulate Daily Diary, 25 July 1904.

61 FO 248: 820, Kerman Consulate Daily Diary, 16 September 1904.

62 FO 248: 820, Kerman Consulate Daily Diary, 30 October and 1 November 1904.

63 FO 248: 820, Kerman Consulate Daily Diary, 4 November 1904.

64 FO 248: 820, Kerman Consulate Daily Diary, 22 November and 27 November 1904.

65 FO 248: 820, Preece to Hardinge, No. 30, 12 July 1904.

66 FO 248: 820, Preece to Hardinge, No. 38, 24 August 1904.

67 FO 248: 820, Preece to Hardinge, No. 41, 7 September 1904. Āqā Najafī reverted to this theme the following year when he said that if cholera did return to Isfahan those parents would be the first to die of that disease. FO 248: 845, Preece to Hardinge, No. 13, 25 February 1905.

68 FO 248: 820, Preece to Hardinge, No. 54, 3 December 1904.

69 FO 248: 818, Persian Gulf Residency Diary, 23 June 1904.

70 FO 60: 686, Grahame to Hardinge, No. 11, 19 July 1904.

71 FO 248: 818, Shiraz News Diary, 1–8 June 1904.

72 FO 248: 818, Shiraz News Diary, 9–29 June 1904.

73 FO 248: 818, Grahame to Hardinge, No. 30, 29 June 1904.

74 FO 248: 849, Shiraz News Diary, 2 January 1905.

75 FO 60: 686, Grahame to Hardinge, No. 11, 19 July 1904.

76 FO 248: 818, Shiraz News Diary, 30 June-31 July, 1904.

77 FO 60: 682, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 146, 15 August 1904.

78 FO 248: 818, Shiraz News Diary, 30 June-31 July 1904.

79 FO 248: 818, Shiraz News Diary, 1–31 August 1904.

80 FO 248: 849, Shiraz News Diary, 2 January 1905.

81 FO 60: 683, Grant Duff to Lansdowne, No. 189, 12 October 1904.

82 FO 248: 818, Persian Gulf Residency Diary, 17 June 1904.

83 FO 60: 685, Ahwaz Diary, 9 July 1904.

84 FO 60: 686, McDougall to Hardinge, No. 6, Commercial, 4 August 1904.

85 FO 60: 688, Ahwaz Diary, 30 August 1904.

86 For details of this road concession see McLean, D., Britain and her buffer state: the collapse of the Persian Empire 1890–1914 (London, 1979), 64–6.Google Scholar

87 FO 60: 688, Ahwaz Diary, 30 August 1904.

88 FO 248: 820, Preece to Hardinge, No. 54, 3 December 1904.

89 FO 248: 818, Persian Gulf Residency Diary, 30 July 1904.

90 ibid.

91 See WO 33: 3333, ‘Military report on Persia’ compiled by the General Staff at the War Office 1905 and Lorini, E., La Persia economica contemporanea e la sue questione monetaria (Rome, 1900) 383.Google ScholarThese two sources are also used for the estimates of the population of Tehran which are given in the next but one paragraph.Google Scholar

92 Copy in FO 60: 685. The report is dated 12 December 1904.

93 Customs receipts at Kermanshah declined by approximately 10% compared with 1903/4. See the Trade Reports cited in footnotes 18 and 35. See also FO 60: 698, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 4, Confidential, 4 January 1905 which notes the disappointment felt by Naus at the decline in customs receipts.Google Scholar

94 FO 60: 698, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 18, 31 January 1905.

95 FO 60: 698, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 7, 5 January 1905.

96 FO 60; 683, Hardinge to Lansdowne, No. 173, 11 September 1904.

97 FO 248: 845, Preece to Hardinge, No. 16, Confidential, 15 March 1905.