(Cathay, P. Clxxxi.;
Quat., Mem., Sur L'Egypte, II.
98, 113; India in XVth Century, 37;
Ludolf, I. 10, 32; Armandi, H. Militaire des Elephants, p. 548.)
NOTE 5. - To the 10th century at least the whole coast country of the Red
Sea, from near Berbera probably to Suakin, 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was superseded in the 10th century by Falasha Jews, then by other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 Danakil. 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.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 433 of 701
Words from 225003 to 225522
of 370046
