Chapter 3: , page 89 (6)

From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the
Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

_A. Hirtius,
The Alexandrian War._

ALSO IN
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 20._

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 18._

_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 12._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
Destruction of the Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
Massacre by Caracalla.

"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon
the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
sufferers."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 6.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
Tumults of the Third Century.

"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
solitude."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
everafter."

_J. B. L. Crevier,
History of the Roman Emperors,
book 27._

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
Siege by Diocletian.

A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
Great Earthquake.

See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
Destruction of the Serapeum.

"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of
Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The
votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
"The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
prejudice."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
annotator, Dr. Smith.

See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of
the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
guilty."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in
great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious
partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
rent her limb from limb."

_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapter 3._

ALSO IN
_C. Kingsley,
Hypatia._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
Taken by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
The Moslem Conquest.

The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused
in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped
destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
were pernicious.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
Battle of French and English.
Restoration to the Turks.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
Surrendered to the English.
The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
Bombardment by the English.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
Massacre of Europeans.
Destruction.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, The Burning of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA., A. D. 1861 (May).
Occupation by Union troops.
Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO
ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
A. D. 739-757.

Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
side of which was separated from the land."

_M. Russell,
History of the Barbary States,
page 314._

For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.

ALLEGHANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,—1645.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._

ALMA, Battle of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. …
With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the
Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
attempt to remember."

_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5._

ALSO IN
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4_

See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALMORAVIDES, The.

During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith
of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
"The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
own" [the Almohades].

_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5._

ALSO IN
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 2 and 4_.

See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD. ALODIAL.

"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
exists between the words odal and alod, but their
signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in
full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
land."

_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36._

{43}

"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

_H. Hallam,
Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 1, note._

ALSO IN
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxon in England,
book 1, chapter 11._

See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.

ALPHONSO.

See ALFONSO.

ALSACE. ALSATIA: The Name.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
Joined to the Empire.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
Revolt of the Peasants.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete Absorption in France.
Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
Seizure of Strasburg.
Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
Invasion by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
Ceded to the German Empire by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALSACE: 1871-1879.
Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------ALSACE: End----------

ALTA CALIFORNIA.
Upper California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

ALTHING, The.

See THING;

Also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

ALTIS, The.

See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
Burned by the Swedes.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.

AMAHUACA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites,
Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close
kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
(Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or
Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The
Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

_A. H. Sayce,
Races of the Old Testament,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 1, section 4._

See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some
exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
only age when she possessed any at all."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 9, part 1, with note._

{44}

"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the
mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when
Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
communities were second in importance to no naval power of
Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic
had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

_J. A. Symonds,
Sketches and Studies in Italy,
pages 2-4._

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
the gods.

AMAZIGH, The.

See LIBYANS.

AMAZONS.

"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
… A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general
type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded
facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to
conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
the Amazons. … The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
invading Attica … and penetrated even into Athens itself:
where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart
of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
exact position of the two contending armies. … No portion of
the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
defeat of the Amazons. … Their proper territory was asserted
to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
and geographers. … Some authors placed them in Libya or
Ethiopia."

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 11._

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. …
After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
accident rather than design that led him to it. After …
Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
country ten days' journey beyond—a country of gold, and with
plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
and stronger vessel. … On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
they know what direction they should take.' Following the
coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

_H. H. Smith,
Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast,
chapter 1._

In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
both early and recent, concerning it.—Mr. Southey had so much
respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
map, and in all his references to the great river he
denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
… Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
waters.' … The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. … Mr. Wallace, I think,
shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. … I
am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
early voyagers."

_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
Brazil and the Brazilians,
chapter 27._

ALSO IN
_A. R. Wallace,
Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
chapter 17._

_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._

AMAZULUS, ZULUS. The Zulu War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.

AMBACTI.

"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] … developed the system of
retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
themselves with a number of hired mounted servants—the
ambacti as they were called—and thereby to form a state
within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. … This
remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
Po. … It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
historical importance to ascertain whether the word—and
therefore the thing—came to the Celts from the Germans or to
the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
Celts. … It is … probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note._

AMBARRI, The.

A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBIANI, The.

See BELGÆ.

AMBITUS.

Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 9._

AMBIVARETI, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)

See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).

See KORKYRA.

AMBRONES, The.

See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AMBROSIAN CHURCH. AMBROSIAN CHANT.

See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

AMEIXAL, OR ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]

{46}

AMERICA, The Name.

See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
were produced before modification by European culture, have
been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
Indians. … That some of these mounds were built and used in
modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
copper ornaments. … So it chances that to-day unskilled
archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. …
The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
build communal houses. … Some of the very large mounds were
sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
There is still a third class … constructed as places for
public assembly. … But to explain the mounds and their uses
would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
only at great heights. … The tribes lived in the plains and
valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
they had large communal houses, even larger than the
structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
Isthmus. … No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
villages ever established within the territory of the United
States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
Indian tribes. … Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
the good queen sold her jewels."

_Major J. W. Powell,
Prehistoric Man in America;
in "The Forum," January, 1890._

"The writer believes … that the majority of American
archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

_H. W. Haynes,
Prehistoric Archæology of North America
(volume 1, chapter 6, of
"Narrative and Critical History of America")._

{47}

"It may be premised … that the Spanish adventurers who
thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
physical characteristics, they were the same people in
different stages of advancement. … There was neither a
political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
one race of Indians, the Red Race."

_L. H. Morgan,
Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines:
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 5.),
chapter 10_.

"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
to the Homeric age of Greece."

_F. W. Putnam,
Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
1886._

ALSO IN
_L. Carr,
The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_.

_C. Thomas,
Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1883-84_.

_Marquis de Nadaillac,
Prehistoric America_.

_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 1._

See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.