Chapter XXXV

TREATING OF THE GREAT PROVINCE OF ABASH WHICH IS MIDDLE INDIA,
AND IS ON THE MAINLAND.

Abash is a very great Province, and you must know that it constitutes the MIDDLE INDIA; and it is on the mainland. There are in it six great Kings with six great Kingdoms; and of these six Kings there are three that are Christians and three that are Saracens; but the greatest of all the six is a Christian, and all the others are subject to him.{1}

The Christians in this country bear three marks on the face;{2} one from the forehead to the middle of the nose, and one on either cheek. These marks are made with a hot iron, and form part of their baptism; for after that they have been baptised with water, these three marks are made, partly as a token of gentility, and partly as the completion of their baptism. There are also Jews in the country, and these bear two marks, one on either cheek; and the Saracens have but one, to wit, on the forehead extending halfway down the nose.

The Great King lives in the middle of the country, the Saracens towards Aden. St. Thomas the Apostle preached in this region, and after he had converted the people he went away to the province of Maabar, where he died; and there his body lies, as I have told you in a former place.

The people here are excellent soldiers, and they go on horseback, for they have horses in plenty. Well they may; for they are in daily war with the Soldan of ADEN, and with the Nubians, and a variety of other nations.{3} I will tell you a famous story of what befel in the year of Christ, 1288.

You must know that this Christian King, who is the Lord of the Province of Abash, declared his intention to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem to adore the Holy Sepulchre of Our Lord God Jesus Christ the Saviour. But his Barons said that for him to go in person would be to run too great a risk; and they recommended him to send some bishop or prelate in his stead. So the King assented to the counsel which his Barons gave, and despatched a certain Bishop of his, a man of very holy life. The Bishop then departed and travelled by land and by sea till he arrived at the Holy Sepulchre, and there he paid it such honour as Christian man is bound to do, and presented a great offering on the part of his King who had sent him in his own stead.

And when he had done all that behoved him, he set out again and travelled day by day till he got to Aden. Now that is a Kingdom wherein Christians are held in great detestation, for the people are all Saracens, and their enemies unto the death. So when the Soldan of Aden heard that this man was a Christian and a Bishop, and an envoy of the Great King of Abash, he had him seized and demanded of him if he were a Christian? To this the Bishop replied that he was a Christian indeed. The Soldan then told him that unless he would turn to the Law of Mahommet he should work him great shame and dishonour. The Bishop answered that they might kill him ere he would deny his Creator.

When the Soldan heard that he waxed wroth, and ordered that the Bishop should be circumcised. So they took and circumcised him after the manner of the Saracens. And then the Soldan told him that he had been thus put to shame in despite to the King his master. And so they let him go.

The Bishop was sorely cut to the heart for the shame that had been wrought him, but he took comfort because it had befallen him in holding fast by the Law of Our Lord Jesus Christ; and the Lord God would recompense his soul in the world to come.

So when he was healed he set out and travelled by land and by sea till he reached the King his Lord in the Kingdom of Abash. And when the King beheld him, he welcomed him with great joy and gladness. And he asked him all about the Holy Sepulchre; and the Bishop related all about it truly, the King listening the while as to a most holy matter in all faith. But when the Bishop had told all about Jerusalem, he then related the outrage done on him by the Soldan of Aden in the King’s despite. Great was the King’s wrath and grief when he heard that; and it so disturbed him that he was like to die of vexation. And at length his words waxed so loud that all those round about could hear what he was saying. He vowed that he would never wear crown or hold kingdom if he took not such condign vengeance on the Soldan of Aden that all the world should ring therewithal, even until the insult had been well and thoroughly redressed.

And what shall I say of it? He straightway caused the array of his horse and foot to be mustered, and great numbers of elephants with castles to be prepared to accompany them;{4} and when all was ready he set out with his army and advanced till he entered the Kingdom of Aden in great force. The Kings of this province of Aden were well aware of the King’s advance against them, and went to encounter him at the strongest pass on their frontier, with a great force of armed men, in order to bar the enemy from entering their territory. When the King arrived at this strong pass where the Saracens had taken post, a battle began, fierce and fell on both sides, for they were very bitter against each other. But it came to pass, as it pleased our Lord God Jesus Christ, that the Kings of the Saracens, who were three in number, could not stand against the Christians, for they are not such good soldiers as the Christians are. So the Saracens were defeated, and a marvellous number of them slain, and the King of Abash entered the Kingdom of Aden with all his host. The Saracens made various sallies on them in the narrow defiles, but it availed nothing; they were always beaten and slain. And when the King had greatly wasted and destroyed the kingdom of his enemy, and had remained in it more than a month with all his host, continually slaying the Saracens, and ravaging their lands (so that great numbers of them perished), he thought it time to return to his own kingdom, which he could now do with great honour. Indeed he could tarry no longer, nor could he, as he was aware, do more injury to the enemy; for he would have had to force a way by still stronger passes, where, in the narrow defiles, a handful of men might cause him heavy loss. So he quitted the enemy’s Kingdom of Aden and began to retire. And he with his host got back to their own country of Abash in great triumph and rejoicing; for he had well avenged the shame cast on him and on his Bishop for his sake. For they had slain so many Saracens, and so wasted and harried the land, that ’twas something to be astonished at. And in sooth ’twas a deed well done! For it is not to be borne that the dogs of Saracens should lord it over good Christian people! Now you have heard the story.{5}

I have still some particulars to tell you of the same province. It abounds greatly in all kinds of victual; and the people live on flesh and rice and milk and sesame. They have plenty of elephants, not that they are bred in the country, but they are brought from the Islands of the other India. They have however many giraffes, which are produced in the country; besides bears, leopards, lions in abundance, and many other passing strange beasts. They have also numerous wild asses; and cocks and hens the most beautiful that exist, and many other kind of birds. For instance, they have ostriches that are nearly as big as asses; and plenty of beautiful parrots, with apes of sundry kinds, and baboons and other monkeys that have countenances all but human.{6}

There are numerous cities and villages in this province of Abash, and many merchants; for there is much trade to be done there. The people also manufacture very fine buckrams and other cloths of cotton.

There is no more to say on the subject; so now let us go forward and tell you of the province of Aden.

NOTE 1.—_Abash_ (Abasce) is a close enough representation of the
Arabic _Ḥabsh_ or _Ḥabash_, _i.e._ Abyssinia. He gives as an
alternative title _Middle_ India. I am not aware that the term
India is applied to Abyssinia by any Oriental (Arabic or Persian)
writer, and one feels curious to know where our Traveller got the
appellation. We find nearly the same application of the term in
Benjamin of Tudela:

“Eight days from thence is Middle India, which is Aden, and in
Scripture Eden in Thelasar. This country is very mountainous, and
contains many independent Jews who are not subject to the power
of the Gentiles, but possess cities and fortresses on the summits
of the mountains, from whence they descend into the country of
Maatum, with which they are at war. Maatum, called also Nubia, is
a Christian kingdom and the inhabitants are called Nubians,” etc.
(p. 117). Here the Rabbi seems to transfer Aden to the west of the
Red Sea (as Polo also seems to do in this chapter); for the Jews
warring against Nubian Christians must be sought in the Falasha
strongholds among the mountains of Abyssinia. His Middle India is
therefore the same as Polo’s or nearly so. In Jordanus, as already
mentioned, we have _India Tertia_, which combines some characters
of Abyssinia and Zanjibar, but is distinguished from the Ethiopia
of Prester John, which adjoins it.

But for the occurrence of the name in R. Benjamin I should have
supposed the use of it to have been of European origin and
current at most among Oriental Christians and Frank merchants. The
_European_ confusion of India and Ethiopia comes down from Virgil’s
time, who brings the Nile from India. And Servius (4th century)
commenting on a more ambiguous passage—

——“_Sola India nigrum
Fert ebenum_,”

says explicitly “_Indiam omnem plagam Æthiopiæ accipimus_.”
Procopius brings the Nile into Egypt ἐξ Ἰνδῶν; and the
Ecclesiastical Historians Sozomen and Socrates (I take these
citations, like the last, from Ludolf), in relating the conversion
of the Abyssinians by Frumentius, speak of them only as of the
Ἰνδῶν τῶν ἐνδοτέρω, “Interior Indians,” a phrase intended to imply
_remoter_, but which might perhaps give rise to the term _Middle
India_. Thus Cosmas says of China: “ἧς ἐνδοτέρω, there is no other
country”; and Nicolo Conti calls the Chinese _Interiores Indi_,
which Mr. Winter Jones misrenders “natives of Central India.”[1]
St. Epiphanius (end of 4th century) says _India_ was formerly
divided into nine kingdoms, viz., those of the (1) _Alabastri_,
(2) _Homeritae_, (3) _Azumiti_, and _Dulites_, (4) _Bugaei_, (5)
_Taiani_, (6) _Isabeni_, and so on, several of which are manifestly
provinces subject to Abyssinia.[2] Roger Bacon speaks of the
“Ethiopes de Nubiâ et ultimi illi _qui vocantur Indi, propter
approximationem ad Indiam_.” The term _India Minor_ is applied to
some Ethiopic region in a letter which Matthew Paris gives under
1237. And this confusion which prevailed more or less till the 16th
century was at the bottom of that other confusion, whatever be its
exact history, between Prester John in remote Asia, and Prester
John in Abyssinia. In fact the narrative by Damian de Goës of the
Embassy from the King of Abyssinia to Portugal in 1513, which
was printed at Antwerp in 1532, bears the title “_Legatio Magni_
Indorum _Imperatoris_,” etc. (_Ludolf, Comment._ p. 2 and 75–76;
_Epiph. de Gemmis_, etc., p. 15; _R. Bacon, Opus Majus_, p. 148;
_Matt. Paris_, p. 372.)

Wadding gives a letter from the Pope (Alex. II.) under date 3rd
Sept. 1329, addressed to the _Emperor of Ethiopia_, to inform him
of the appointment of a Bishop of Diagorgan. As this place is
the capital of a district near Tabriz (Dehi-Khorkhán); the papal
geography looks a little hazy.

NOTE 2.—The allegation against the Abyssinian Christians, sometimes
extended to the whole Jacobite Church, that they accompanied the
rite of Baptism by branding with a hot iron on the face, is pretty
old and persistent.

The letter quoted from Matt. Paris in the preceding note relates
of the Jacobite Christians “who occupy the kingdoms between Nubia
and India,” that some of them brand the foreheads of their children
before Baptism with a hot iron (p. 302). A quaint Low-German
account of the East, in a MS. of the 14th century, tells of the
Christians of India that when a Bishop ordains a priest he fires
him with a sharp and hot iron from the forehead down the nose,
and the scar of this wound abides till the day of his death. And
this they do for a token that the Holy Ghost came on the Apostles
with fire. Frescobaldi says those called the Christians of the
Girdle were the sect which baptized by branding on the head and
temples. Clavijo says there is such a sect among the Christians
of India, but they are despised by the rest. Barbosa, speaking
of the Abyssinians, has this passage: “According to what is
said, their baptism is threefold, viz., by blood, by fire, and
by water. For they use circumcision like the Jews, they brand on
the forehead with a hot iron, and they baptize with water like
Catholic Christians.” The respectable Pierre Belon speaks of the
Christians of Prester John, called Abyssinians, as baptized with
fire and branded in three places, _i.e._ between the eyes and on
either cheek. Linschoten repeats the like, and one of his plates
is entitled _Habitus Abissinorum quibus loco Baptismatis frons
inuritur_. Ariosto, referring to the Emperor of Ethiopia, has:—

“_Gli è, s’io non piglio errore, in questo loco
Ove al battesimo loro usano il fuoco._”

As late as 1819 the traveller Dupré published the same statement
about the Jacobites generally. And so sober and learned a man as
Assemani, himself an Oriental, says: “Æthiopes vero, seu Abissini,
praeter circumcisionem adhibent etiam ferrum candens, quo pueris
notam inurunt.”

Yet Ludolf’s Abyssinian friend, Abba Gregory, denied that there
was any such practice among them. Ludolf says it is the custom of
various African tribes, both Pagan and Mussulman, to cauterize
their children in the veins of the temples, in order to inure them
against colds, and that this, being practised by some Abyssinians,
was taken for a religious rite. In spite of the terms “Pagan and
Mussulman,” I suspect that Herodotus was the authority for this
practice. He states that many of the nomad Libyans, when their
children reached the age of four, used to burn the veins at the top
of the head with a flock of wool; others burned the veins about
the temples. And this they did, he says, to prevent their being
troubled with rheum in after life.

Indeed Andrea Corsali denies that the branding had aught to do
with baptism, “but only to observe Solomon’s custom of marking
his slaves, the King of Ethiopia claiming to be descended from
him.” And it is remarkable that Salt mentions that most of the
people of Dixan had a cross marked (_i.e._ branded) on the breast,
right arm, or forehead. This he elsewhere explains as a mark of
their attachment to the ancient metropolitan church of Axum, and
he supposes that such a practice may have originated the stories
of fire-baptism. And we find it stated in Marino Sanudo that
“some of the Jacobites and Syrians _who had crosses branded on
them_ said this was done for the destruction of the Pagans, and
out of reverence to the Holy Rood.” Matthew Paris, commenting on
the letter quoted above, says that many of the Jacobites _before
baptism_ brand their children on the forehead with a hot iron,
whilst others brand a cross upon the cheeks or temples. He had seen
such marks also on the arms of both Jacobites and Syrians who dwelt
among the Saracens. It is clear, from Salt, that such branding
_was_ practised by many Abyssinians, and that to a recent date,
though it may have been entirely detached from baptism. A similar
practice is followed at Dwárika and Koteswar (on the old Indus
mouth, now called Lakpat River), where the Hindu pilgrims to these
sacred sites are branded with the mark of the god.

(_Orient und Occident_, Göttingen, 1862, I. 453; _Frescob._ 114;
_Clavijo_, 163; _Ramus._ I. f. 290, v., f. 184; _Marin. Sanud._
185, and Bk. iii. pt. viii. ch. iv.; _Clusius, Exotica_, pt. ii.
p. 142; _Orland. Fur._ XXXIII. st. 102; _Voyage en Perse, dans les
Années_ 1807–1809; _Assemani_, II. c.; _Ludolf_, iii. 6, § 41;
_Salt_, in _Valentia’s Trav._ II. p. 505, and his _Second Journey_,
French Tr., II. 219; _M. Paris_, p. 373; _J. R. A. S._ I. 42.)

NOTE 3.—It is pretty clear from what follows (as Marsden and others
have noted) that the narrative requires us to conceive of the
Sultan of Aden as dominant over the territory between Abyssinia and
the sea, or what was in former days called ADEL, between which and
_Aden_ confusion seems to have been made. I have noticed in Note 1
the appearance of this confusion in R. Benjamin; and I may add that
also in the Map of Marino Sanudo Aden is represented on the western
shore of the Red Sea. But is it not possible that in the origin of
the Mahomedan States of Adel the Sultan of Aden had some power over
them? For we find in the account of the correspondence between the
King of Abyssinia and Sultan Bibars, quoted in the next Note but
one, that the Abyssinian letters and presents for Egypt were sent
to the Sultan of Yemen or Aden to be forwarded.

NOTE 4.—This passage is not authoritative enough to justify us
in believing that the mediæval Abyssinians or Nubians did use
elephants in war, for Marco has already erred in ascribing that
practice to the Blacks of Zanjibar.

There can indeed be no doubt that elephants from the countries
on the west of the Red Sea were caught and tamed and used for
war, systematically and on a great scale, by the second and third
Ptolemies, and the latter (Euergetes) has commemorated this, and
his own use of _Troglodytic_ and _Ethiopic_ elephants, and the
fact of their encountering the elephants of India, in the Adulitic
Inscription recorded by Cosmas.

This author however, who wrote about A.D. 545, and had been at the
Court of Axum, then in its greatest prosperity, says distinctly:
“The Ethiopians do not understand the art of taming elephants;
but if their King should want one or two for show they catch them
young, and bring them up in captivity.” Hence, when we find a few
years later (A.D. 570) that there was one great elephant, and some
say _thirteen_ elephants,[3] employed in the army which Abraha, the
Abyssinian Ruler of Yemen led against Mecca, an expedition famous
in Arabian history as the War of the Elephant, we are disposed to
believe that these must have been elephants imported from India.
There is indeed a notable statement quoted by Ritter, which if
trustworthy would lead to another conclusion: “Already in the 20th
year of the Hijra (A.D. 641) had the _Nubas_ and _Bejas_ hastened
to the help of the Greek Christians of Oxyrhynchus (_Bahnasa_ of
the Arabs) ... against the first invasion of the Mahommedans,
and according to the exaggerated representations of the Arabian
Annalists, the army which they brought consisted of 50,000 men and
1300 _war-elephants_.”[4] The Nubians certainly must have tamed
elephants _on some scale_ down to a late period in the Middle Ages,
for elephants,—in one case three annually,—formed a frequent part
of the tribute paid by Nubia to the Mahomedan sovereigns of Egypt
at least to the end of the 13th century; but the passage quoted
is too isolated to be accepted without corroboration. The only
approach to such a corroboration that I know of is a statement by
Poggio in the matter appended to his account of Conti’s Travels. He
there repeats some information derived from the Abyssinian envoys
who visited Pope Eugenius IV. about 1440, and one of his notes
is: “They have elephants very large and in great numbers; some
kept for ostentation or pleasure, some as useful in war. They are
hunted; the old ones killed, the young ones taken and tamed.” But
the facts on which this was founded probably amounted to no more
than what Cosmas had stated. I believe no trustworthy authority
since the Portuguese discoveries confirms the use of the elephant
in Abyssinia;[5] and Ludolf, whose information was excellent,
distinctly says that the Abyssinians did not tame them. (_Cathay_,
p. clxxxi.; _Quat., Mém. sur l’Égypte_, II. 98, 113; _India in
XVth Century_, 37; _Ludolf_, I. 10, 32; _Armandi, H. Militaire des
Éléphants_, p. 548.)

NOTE 5.—To the 10th century at least the whole coast country of the
Red Sea, from near Berbera probably to Suákin, was still subject
to Abyssinia. At this time we hear only of “Musalman families”
residing in Zaila’ and the other ports, and tributary to the
Christians (see _Mas’udi_, III. 34).

According to Bruce’s abstract of the Abyssinian chronicles, the
royal line was superseded in the 10th century by Falasha Jews,
then by other Christian families, and three centuries of weakness
and disorder succeeded. In 1268, according to Bruce’s chronology,
Icon Amlac of the House of Solomon, which had continued to rule in
Shoa, regained the empire, and was followed by seven other princes
whose reigns come down to 1312. The history of this period is very
obscure, but Bruce gathers that it was marked by civil wars, during
which the Mahomedan communities that had by this time grown up
in the coast-country became powerful and expelled the Abyssinians
from the sea-ports. Inland provinces of the low country also, such
as Ifat and Dawaro, had fallen under Mahomedan governors, whose
allegiance to the Negush, if not renounced, had become nominal.

One of the principal Mahomedan communities was called _Adel_, the
name, according to modern explanation, of the tribes now called
Danákíl. The capital of the Sultan of Adel was, according to Bruce
at Aussa, some distance inland from the port of Zaila’, which also
belonged to Adel.

Amda Zion, who succeeded to the Abyssinian throne, according to
Bruce’s chronology, in 1312, two or three years later, provoked
by the Governor of Ifat, who had robbed and murdered one of his
Mahomedan agents in the Lowlands, descended on Ifat, inflicted
severe chastisement on the offenders, and removed the governor. A
confederacy was then formed against the Abyssinian King by several
of the Mahomedan States or chieftainships, among which Adel is
conspicuous. Bruce gives a long and detailed account of Amda Zion’s
resolute and successful campaigns against this confederacy. It
bears a strong general resemblance to Marco’s narrative, always
excepting the story of the Bishop, of which Bruce has no trace, and
always admitting that our traveller has confounded Aden with Adel.

But the chronology is obviously in the way of identification of
the histories. Marco could not have related in 1298 events that
did not occur till 1315–16. Mr. Salt however, in his version of
the chronology, not only puts the accession of Amda Zion eleven
years earlier than Bruce, but even then has so little confidence in
its accuracy, and is so much disposed to identify the histories,
that he suggests that the Abyssinian dates should be carried back
further still by some 20 years, on the authority of the narrative
in our text. M. Pauthier takes a like view.

I was for some time much disposed to do likewise, but after
examining the subject more minutely, I am obliged to reject this
view, and to abide by Bruce’s Chronology. To elucidate this I must
exhibit the whole list of the Abyssinian Kings from the restoration
of the line of Solomon to the middle of the 16th century, at which
period Bruce finds a check to the chronology in the record of a
solar eclipse. The chronologies have been extracted independently
by Bruce, Rüppell, and Salt; the latter using a different version
of the Annals from the other two. I set down all three.

-------------------------------+--------+------------------------------
BRUCE. | RÜPPEL.| SALT.
------------+--------+---------|--------|-----------+--------+---------
Reigns. |Duration| Dates. |Duration| Reigns. |Duration| Dates.
| of | | of | | of |
| reign. | | reign. | | reign. |
------------|--------|---------|--------|-----------|--------|---------
| Years. | | Years. | | Years. |
Icon Amlac | 15 |1268–1283| 15 | .. .. | 14 |1255–1269
Igba Zion | 9 |1283–1292| 9 |Woudem Arad| 15 |1269–1284
Bahar Segued|} | | |Kudma Asgud| |
Tzenaff „ |} | | |Asfa „ | 3 |1284–1287
Jan „ |} 5 |1292–1297| 5 |Sinfa „ | |
Hazeb Araad |} | | |Bar „ | 5 |1287–1292
Kedem Segued|} | | |Igba Zion | 9 |1292–1301
Wedem Arad | 15 |1297–1312| 15 | .. .. | .. | ..
Amda Zion | 30 |1312–1342| 30 | .. .. | 30 |1301–1331
Saif Arad | 28 |1342–1370| 28 | .. .. | 28 |1331–1359
Wedem Asferi| 10 |1370–1380| 10 | .. .. | 10 |1359–1369
David II | 29 |1380–1409| 29 | .. .. | 32 |1369–1401
Theodorus | 3 |1409–1412| 3 | .. .. | 1 |1401–1402
Isaac | 17 |1412–1429| 15 | .. .. | 15 |1402–1417
Andreas | 0⁷⁄₁₂| 1429 | 0⁷⁄₁₂| .. .. | 7 |1417–1424
Haseb Nanya | 4 |1429–1433| 4 | .. .. | 5 |1424–1429
Sarwe Yasus |} 1¹⁄₁₂|1433–1434| 1 | .. .. | 5 |1429–1434
Ameda Yasus |} | | | | |
Zara Jacob | 34 |1434–1468| 34⅙ | .. .. | 34 |1434–1468
Beda Mariam | 10 |1468–1478| 10 | .. .. | 10 |1468–1478
Iskander |} 17 |1478–1495| 17⁷⁄₁₂| .. .. | 16 |1478–1494
Ameda Zion |} | | | | |
Naod | 13 |1495–1508| 13 | .. .. | 13 |1494–1507
David III | 32 |1508–1540| 32 | .. .. | 32 |1507–1536
Claudius | .. | 1540 | .. | .. .. | .. | ..
------------+--------+---------+--------+-----------+--------+---------

Bruce checks his chronology by an eclipse which took place in
1553, and which the Abyssinian chronicle assigns to the 13th year
of Claudius. This alone would be scarcely satisfactory as a basis
for the retrospective control of reigns extending through nearly
three centuries; but we find some other checks.

Thus in Quatremère’s Makrizi we find a correspondence between
Sultan Bibars and the King of Habasha, or of Amhara, _Maḥar_ AMLÁK,
which occurred in A.H. 672 or 673, _i.e._ A.D. 1273–1274. This
would fall within the reign of Icon AMLAK according to Bruce’s
chronology, but not according to Salt’s, and _à fortiori_ not
according to any chronology throwing the reigns further back still.

In Quatremère’s _Égypte_ we find another notice of a letter which
came to the Sultan of Egypt from the King of Abyssinia, IAKBA SIUN,
in Ramadhan 689, _i.e._ in the end of A.D. 1289.

Again, this is perfectly consistent with Bruce’s order and dates,
but not with Salt’s.

The same work contains a notice of an inroad on the Mussulman
territory of Assuan by David (II.), the son of Saif Arad, in the
year 783 (A.D. 1381–1382).

In Rink’s translation of a work of Makrizi’s it is stated that
this same King David died in A.H. 812, _i.e._ A.D. 1409; that he
was succeeded by Theodorus, whose reign was very brief, and he
again by Isaac, who died in Dhulkada 833, _i.e._ July–August 1430.
These dates are in close or substantial agreement with Bruce’s
chronology, but not at all with Salt’s or any chronology throwing
the reigns further back. Makrizi goes on to say that Isaac was
succeeded by Andreas, who reigned only four months, and then by
Hazbana, who died in Ramadhan 834, _i.e._ May–June 1431. This last
date does not agree, but we are now justified in suspecting an
error in the Hijra date,[6] whilst the 4 _months’_ reign ascribed
to Andreas shows that Salt again is wrong in extending it to 7
_years_, and Bruce presumably right in making it 7 _months_.

These coincidences seem to me sufficient to maintain the
substantial accuracy of Bruce’s chronology, and to be fatal to the
identification of Marco’s story with that of the wars of Amda Zion.
The general identity in the duration of reigns as given by Rüppell
shows that Bruce did not tamper with these. It is remarkable that
in Makrizi’s report of the letter of Igba Zion in 1289 (the very
year when according to the text this anti-Mahomedan war was going
on), that Prince tells the Sultan that he is a protector of the
Mahomedans in Abyssinia, acting in that respect _quite differently
from his Father who had been so hostile to them_.

I suspect therefore that _Icon Amlak_ must have been the true hero
of Marco’s story, and that the date must be thrown back, probably
to 1278.

Rüppell is at a loss to understand where Bruce got the long story
of Amda Zion’s heroic deeds, which enters into extraordinary
detail, embracing speeches after the manner of the Roman historians
and the like, and occupies some 60 pages in the French edition of
Bruce which I have been using. The German traveller could find
no trace of this story in any of the versions of the Abyssinian
chronicle which he consulted, nor was it known to a learned
Abyssinian whom he names. Bruce himself says that the story,
which he has “a little abridged and accommodated to our manner of
writing, was derived from a work written in very pure Gheez, in
Shoa, under the reign of Zara Jacob”; and though it is possible
that his amplifications outweigh his abridgments, we cannot doubt
that he had an original groundwork for his narrative.

The work of Makrizi already quoted speaks of seven kingdoms in
Zaila’ (here used for the Mahomedan low country) originally
tributary to the Hati (or Negush) of Amhara, viz., _Aufat_,[7]
_Dawaro_, Arababni, _Hadiah_, Shirha, Bali, Darah. Of these Ifat,
Dawaro, and Hadiah repeatedly occur in Bruce’s story of the war.
Bruce also tells us that Amda Zion, when he removed _Hakeddin_,
the Governor of Ifat, who had murdered his agent, replaced him by
his brother _Sabreddin_. Now we find in Makrizi that _about_ A.H.
700, the reigning governor of Aufat under the Hati was _Sabreddin_
Mahomed Valahui; and that it was ’Ali, the son of this Sabreddin,
who first threw off allegiance to the Abyssinian King, then Saif
Arad (son of Amda Zion). The latter displaces ’Ali and gives the
government to his son Ahmed. After various vicissitudes Hakeddin,
the son of Ahmed, obtains the mastery in Aufat, defeats Saif
Arad completely, and founds a city in Shoa called Vahal, which
superseded Aufat or Ifat. Here the _Sabreddin_ of Makrizi appears
to be identical with Amda Zion’s governor in Bruce’s story, whilst
the _Hakeddins_ belong to two different generations of the same
family. But Makrizi does not notice the wars of Amda Zion any more
than the Abyssinian Chronicles notice the campaign recorded by
Marco Polo.

(_Bruce_, vol. III. and vol. IV., pp. 23–90, and _Salt’s Second
Journey to Abyssinia_, II. 270, etc.; both these are quoted from
French versions which are alone available to me, the former by
_Castera_, Londres, 1790, the latter by _P. Henry_, Paris, 1816;
_Fr. Th. Rink, Al Macrisi, Hist. Rerum Islamiticarum in Abyssinia_,
etc., Lugd. Bat. 1798; _Rüppell_, Dissert. on Abyss. Hist. and
Chronology in his work on that country; _Quat. Makr._ II. 122–123;
_Quat. Mém. sur l’Égypte_, II. 268, 276.)

NOTE 6.—The last words run in the G. T.: “_Il ont singles de
plosors maineres. Il ont_ gat paulz (see note 2, ch. xxiii.
_supra_), _et autre gat maimon si devisez qe pou s’en faut de tiel
hi a qe ne senblent a vix d’omes._” The beautiful cocks and hens
are, I suppose, Guinea fowl.

[We read in the _Si Shi ki_: “There is (in Western Asia) a
large bird, above 10 feet high, with feet like a camel, and of
bluish-grey colour. When it runs it flaps the wings. It eats fire,
and its eggs are of the size of a _sheng_ (a certain measure
for grain).” (_Bretschneider, Med. Res._, I. pp. 143–144.) Dr.
Bretschneider gives a long note on the ostrich, called in Persian
_shutur-murg_ (camel-bird), from which we gather the following
information: “The ostrich, although found only in the desert of
Africa and Western Asia, was known to the Chinese in early times,
since their first intercourse with the countries of the far west.
In the History of the Han (_T’sien Han shu_, ch. xcvi.) it is
stated that the Emperor _Wu-ti_, B.C. 140–86, first sent an
embassy to _An-si_, a country of Western Asia, which, according to
the description given of it, can only be identified with ancient
_Parthia_, the empire of the dynasty of the Arsacides. In this
country, the Chinese chronicler records, a large bird from 8 to 9
feet high is found, the feet, the breast, and the neck of which
make it resemble the camel. It eats barley. The name of this bird
is _ta ma tsio_ (the bird of the great horse). It is further
stated that subsequently the ruler of An-si sent an embassy to the
Chinese emperor, and brought as a present the eggs of this great
bird. In the _Hou Han shu_, ch. cxviii., an embassy from An-si is
mentioned again in A.D. 101. They brought as presents a lion and
a large bird. In the History of the _Weí_ Dynasty, A.D. 386–558,
where for the first time the name of _Po-sz’_ occurs, used to
designate Persia, it is recorded that in that country there is a
large bird resembling a camel and laying eggs of large size. It has
wings and cannot fly far. It eats grass and flesh, and swallows
men. In the History of the _T’ang_ (618–907) the camel-bird is
again mentioned as a bird of Persia. It is also stated there
that the ruler of _T’u-huo-lo_ (Tokharestan) sent a camel-bird
to the Chinese emperor. The Chinese materia medica, _Pen ts’ao
Kang mu_, written in the 16th century, gives (ch. xlix.) a good
description of the ostrich, compiled from ancient authors. It is
said, amongst other things, to eat copper, iron, stones, etc., and
to have only two claws on its feet. Its legs are so strong that
it can dangerously wound a man by jerking. It can run 300 _li_
a day. Its native countries are _A-dan_ (Aden) _Dju-bo_ (on the
Eastern African coast). A rude but tolerably exact drawing of the
camel-bird in the Pen-ts’ao proves that the ostrich was well known
to the Chinese in ancient times, and that they paid great attention
to it. In the History of the _Ming_ Dynasty, ch. cccxxvi., the
country of _Hu-lu-mo-sz’_ (Hormuz on the Persian Gulf) is mentioned
as producing ostriches.”—H. C.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Reinaud (_Abulf._ I. 81) says the word _Interior_ applied by the
Arabs to a country, is the equivalent of _citerior_, whilst by
_exterior_ they mean _ulterior_. But the truth is just the reverse,
even in the case before him, where _Bolghár-al-Dakhila_, ‘Bulgari
Interiores,’ are the Volga Bulgars. So also the Arabs called
Armenia on the Araxes _Interior_, Armenia on Lake Van _Exterior_
(_St. Martin_, I. 31).

[2] Thus (2) the Homeritae of Yemen, (3) the people of Axum, and Adulis
or Zulla, (5) the _Bugaei_ or Bejahs of the Red Sea coast, (6)
_Taiani_ or Tiamo, appear in Salt’s Axum Inscription as subject to
the King of Axum in the middle of the 4th century.

[3] _Muir’s Life of Mahomet_, I. cclxiii.

[4] _Ritter, Africa_, p. 605. The statement appears to be taken from
Burckhardt’s _Nubia_, but the reference is not quite clear. There
is nothing about this army in Quatremère’s _Mém. sur la Nubie_.
(_Mém. sur l’Égypte_, vol. ii.)

[5] Armandi indeed quotes a statement in support of such use from a
Spaniard, _Marmol_, who travelled (he says) in Abyssinia in the
beginning of the 16th century. But the author in question, already
quoted at pp. 368 and 407, was no traveller, only a compiler;
and the passage cited by Armandi is evidently made up from the
statement in Poggio and from what our traveller has said about
Zanjibar. (_Supra_, p. 422. See _Marmol, Desc. de Affrica_, I. f.
27, v.)

[6] 834 for 836.

[7] On Aufat, see De Sacy, _Chrestom. Arabe_, I. 457.