^{page 39 note a} That the Bahr el Abyadh or White River, and not the Bahr el Azrek or Blue River, is the principal stream of the Nile, is now an ascertained fact. And not merely so, but the Abái is not even the direct stream of the Blue River. For, when in Abessinia, I learned that, in the same way as the Nile is formed by the junction of the White and Blue Rivers, the Blue River itself is formed by the junction of the Dedhésa and the Abái; the former having its rise in the Galla country to the south, and running directly northward; and the latter being the river encircling the peninsula of Gódjam, of which the source is described by the Portuguese Jesuits, and after them by Bruce, as that of the Nile. See Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. XV. p. lxvGoogle Scholar. M. Russegger, who was in Sennár and the country to the south of Fazókl, in the years 1837 and 1838, went along the western bank of the direct stream of the Bahr el Azrek for some distance above where it is joined, in about 11° N. L., by the Abái from the east, without being conscious of the difference between the two streams. See his Karte von Ost-Sudan. Vienna, 1843Google Scholar. [This subject is discussed at length in An Essay on the Nile, read before the Royal Geographical Society on the 28th December, 1846, and 11th January, 1847, which will be printed in vol. XVII. part 1, of that Society's Journal.]

^{page 39 note b} Formerly the entire peninsula bore the name of Gódjam, and so indeed it is still called in other parts of Abessinia. But within the peninsula itself, the name of Gódjam is, in the present day, confined to the southeastern portion alone. It is remarkable that Bruce, in his Travels to discover the Source of the Nile, (edit, pr.) vol. III. p. 257, should describe the province of Dámot as being in the south-east of the peninsula, precisely in the place of Godjam Proper; whereas its true position is to the west of the latter district, towards, and also beyond (i. e. to the south and south-west of) the source of the Abái.

As the Jesuits had Residencies throughout the peninsula,—at Mártula Máriam, Hádasha, and Kóllella, in Eastern Gódjam; at Lídja-negús, in Dámot; at Temhuá and Nefassá, in Ágaumider; &c.—it is manifest that they were able to visit, and that in fact they did visit, the source of the Abái; notwithstanding Bruce's assertion to the contrary. See his Travels, vol. III. pp. 615–626. My own two visits to it are recorded in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. XIV. pp. 12 and 33.

^{page 40 note a} Historia geral de Ethiopia a Alta ou Prete Joam, pelo P. Manoel d'Almeyda, abreviada pelo P. Balthezar Tellez. fol. Coimbra, 1660.

^{page 40 note b} Bruce observes (Travels, vol. II. pp. 118, 119), “A wonderful confusion seems to be introduced at this time into history by the Portuguese writers. Iscander is said to die in the 1490. He began, as they say, to reign in 1475, and this is confirmed by Ludolf; and, on all hands, it is allowed he reigned 17 years, which would have brought the last year of his reign to 1492. It seems also to be agreed by the generality of them, that Covillan saw and conversed with this prince, Iscander, some time before his death: this he might very well have done if that he lived to the 1492, and Peter Covillan came into Abyssinia in 1490, as Galvam says in his father's memoirs. But then Tellez informs us expressly, that Iscander was dead six months before the arrival of Peter Covillan in that country. If Peter Covillan arrived six months after the death of Iscander, it must have been in the end of his son's reign, Amda Sion, who was an infant, and reigned only seven months. Alvarez omits this king, Amda Sion, altogether, and so does Tellez; and there is a heap of mistakes here that show these Portuguese historians paid very little attention to the chronology of these reigns. They call Alexander the father of Naod, when he was really but his brother; and Helena, they say, was David's mother, when, in fact, she was his grandmother, or rather his grandfather's wife; for Helena, who was Iteghé [i.e., Queen Dowager] in the time of David III., had never either son or daughter.”

Whatever amount of truth may be in these strictures, they are certainly not altogether well founded; for Tellez (as is seen above), in citing Galvam, at the same time that he says Covilham arrived in Abessinia in 1490, adds “during the reign of the Emperor Escander.” It is therefore manifest that the word “before “in the sentence immediately following is only a clerical error, and should be read “after;” and then the statement that “Escander died six months after the arrival of Pedro de Covilham” is consistent with the preceding one. Further, Tellez is so far from saying that the Empress Helena was the mother of David III., that he expressly mentions “his mother Mógesa and the Empress Helena “together, and adds that the latter “had neither son nor daughter,” and that she brought that prince up “as her son.”

^{page 41 note a} This custom has long ceased to exist, foreigners being allowed freely to enter and quit every province of the empire. The expulsion of the British Protestant missionaries from Tigre in 1838, and the refusal of the King of Shoa, in the beginning of 1843, to allow them to re-enter his dominions, are exceptions arising from special circumstances, and do not invalidate the general rule. It appears, however, from Mr. Isenberg's statement (Abessinien und die evangelische Mission, vol. i. p. 100) that the entrance into Shoa by the way of Tadjúrrah has been closed by King Sáhela Selássie against all foreigners, with the exception of M. Rochet d'Héricourt. But from the north, strangers may still freely enter Shoa, as was instanced in the case of MM. Lefebvre and Petit in 1843, shortly after the British Political Mission had left that country.

^{page 41 note b} Literally it is incorrect to describe Mártula Máriam as being situate “in the centre” of Gódjam. But doubtless all that is intended by this expression is, that it is at a considerable distance within the peninsula from the point at which the Jesuits entered it, namely the Bridge of Álata.

^{page 42 note a} Mr. Hope, in his Historical Essay on Architecture, p. 241, gives the following very plausible reason for the diversity usually found to exist in the details of ancient architectural ornaments:—“As, of those masonic bodies, each member had a certain weight in the general meetings of the chapter, and, to a certain degree, followed his own private impulse, it arose on the other hand that, while each of the essential mechanical parts of each building observed that connection with the rest, that subservience to the general design so indispensable to the durability, to the very completion, of the edifice, the more arbitrary ornamental parts, which might each by its different artist be executed according to his own fancy or desire of distinction, and without danger to the stability of the fabric, preserved so little unity or similitude, that, in most buildings, bases, columns, architraves, basso-relievos, cornices, and other members, often offer a diversity equal to that of the number of individuals employed upon them.”

^{page 43 note a} In a subsequent passage (see page 45) it is said “800 and 600 ounces.”

^{page 43 note b} A better reason for this darkness of the Abessinian churches is the practice of the primitive Christians to meet in crypts and vaults, in subterranean buildings and caverns, for the sake of privacy and security. The darkness of these crypts appears to have been imitated and preserved in the primitive churches. Added to which, it may be remembered that the ancient Pagan temples were often dark also. But, independently of this special reason for darkening the interior of their sacred edifices, the Abessinians are generally averse to the admission of the sun's rays even within their private dwellings, owing apparently to the existence among them of some deep-rooted superstition, one branch of which is the belief—like that of the Italians in the cattivo occhio, or “evil eye”—that the shadow of a person supposed to possess the power to do harm, such as a sorcerer, may be made to work malignantly on any one over whom it passes. The particular superstition here adverted to is curiously illustrative of what is recorded in Acts v. 15, when “they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” The question is open for discussion whether this belief in the power of the shadow to work either good or evil was, in its origin, common to the Israelites and Abessinians, or whether it has been adopted by the latter people from the former, either previously to or since the introduction of Christianity into Eastern Africa. Its existence among the neighbouring pagan Gallas is not necessarily opposed to its foreign origin; inasmuch as the country which they now occupy was formerly inhabited by Christians, whose religion, degenerated and loaded with superstitions as it already was, they have in part adopted, although in a form so much more debased that it is now scarcely to be recognized even as a corruption of the Faith of the Apostles. See on this subject a Paper on “Christianity among the Gallas,” in the Friend of the African (1843), vol. I. pp. 90–94.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note c} Ahmed Grañ, or Ahmed the left-handed,—called by the Abessinians, and after them by the Portuguese, Mohammed Granhe, or simply Granhe or Gragne,—king of Adál or Ádel, was a celebrated warrior, who in the year 1528 invaded Abessinia, the greater part of which country he overran and devastated. He was at length conquered and slain by the Emperor Claudius, with the assistance of a body of 500 Portuguese soldiers. Abessinia has never recovered from the ruinous effects of the invasion of Ahmed Grañ, followed as it closely was by the inroads of the Gallas, who possessed themselves of the fairest portions of the country, which they retain to this day.

^{page 44 note a} Father Bruno Bruni, who is mentioned in the sequel.

^{page 44 note b} The meaning of the Ethiopic word : (Mártul) is Tabernacle, but it is poetically used to signify Temple or Church: see Ludolf's Lexicon Æthiopicum. The Portuguese missionaries appear to have understood the word in the sense of dwelling, as, in the text of Tellez, Mártula Máriam is rendered “pouzada de Maria.”

^{page 44 note c} The Bishop of Abessinia, who is styled Abúna, “our Father,” is the head of the church of that country. He is subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, by whom he is appointed; and, under the constitutions of Abúna Tékla Háimanot, who was the last native Bishop, in the 13th century, he must be a foreigner,—a Copt from Egypt.

^{page 45 note a} Viaggio nella Ethiopia al Prete Janni, fatto per Don Francisco Alvarez, Portuguese; in Vol. I. of Navigationi et Viaggi, raccolto gia da M. Gio. Battista Ramusio. (Edit. 3^a. Venetia, 1563,) p. 249.

^{page 45 note b} i.e. “within.” See page 41, note.

^{page 45 note c} Very nearly 3000l. sterling.

^{page 45 note d} He was crucified in the market-place of Témbien, in Northern Abessinia, on the 12th April, 1640, on his way to Massówah, on the Red Sea.

^{page 45 note} These convents, which are frequently improperly called monasteries, ought rather to be styled collegiate churches; the members of them not being subject to any monastical rule, but dwelling with their families in their own private houses.

^{page 45 note f} The Dábtaras, who appear to answer to the Levites of the Israelitish church, are the scribes or literati of Abessinia. They take a prominent part in the celebration of divine worship, which consists principally of singing, in which they are specially educated. They are not in holy orders, or at most some of them are deacons. The álaka, “chief,” is the (lay) elder of the church, of the temporalities of which he has the management. He too is not of necessity ordained; although not unfrequently he is a deacon, and sometimes a priest or monk. The Portuguese text has “debteras e prebendados.”

^{page 47 note a} The opinion has already been expressed (see A Statement of Facts relative to the Transactions between the Writer and the late British Political Mission to the Court of Shoa, p. 13, note) that the Ágaus are the representatives of the primitive inhabitants of the Abessinia of the present day, (that is, of the northern portion of the great Abessinian plateau,) who have in part been displaced by the irruption from the south-east of the Amháras, the present dominant race. Of these Ágaus, the Hhámara of Waag and the Aghaghá of Ágaumider have maintained their nationality in their not easily accessible mountainous countries; whilst the Faláshas, Kamáunts, Zaláns, and various other low-caste tribes scattered over the provinces lying between the other two, are the remains of the ancient inhabitants of Ágau race, the physical character of whose countries has not afforded them the same means of resistance. The Faláshas still continue to profess the Israelitish religion, which apparently was that of the Ágaus generally, when and how introduced among them it may be difficult, if not impossible, to say. [The Faláshas are apparently of the sect of the Samaritans. See the Jewish Chronicle (of February 19th 1847), vol. III. p. 83.]Google Scholar

The Kébra za Negést, or “Glory of the Kings,” better known by the name of the “Chronicle of Axum,” professes to give the origin and early history of the rulers of Abessinia. It states that the imperial family of that country is descended from Ménilek, the son of Solomon, King of Israel, by the Queen of Sheba; that this dynasty, which adopted the Christian religion on its introduction into Abessinia in the fourth century, was set aside in the tenth century by an usurping Israelitish family of Lásta; and that, after a lapse of more than three hundred years, it was, in the thirteenth century, by the instrumentality of Abúna Tékla Háimanot, restored in the person of Áikuna Ámlak (Icon Amlac), from whom the present titular Emperors of Abessinia are descended. The native Ágau tradition of Lásta (respecting which see p. 55, note) is however directly at variance with this legend, and apparently not without reason. Dr. Prichard, in his Physical History of Mankind, (2nd edit.,) vol. II. p. 149, remarks that “the Chronicle of Axum is evidently, in its early parts, a mere monkish legend. It is proved to be unworthy of credit by the discovery by Mr. Salt that the princes of Axum were, previously to their conversion to Christianity, not Jews, as the chronicle declares, but worshipers of Mars and the Gentile gods of Europe.” But, without disputing the apocryphal character of the early portions of this chronicle, I cannot assent to Dr. Prichard's argument in its entire extent; for I am inclined to regard the legend of the descent of the imperial house of Ethiopia from the Queen of Sheba as an Ágau, i. e. native Abessinian, tradition,—how far founded on truth is immaterial to the present question,—which was in existence among the Israelitish Hhámara before they were conquered by their neighbours, the pagan Axumites, which they are shown to have been by the very “Inscription of Axum,” discovered by Mr. Salt, to which Dr. Prichard alludes.

In the consideration of this question, which is of the first importance with reference to the early history of Ethiopia, it must be borne in mind that, among the Abessinians, the firm impression exists, and has from time immemorial existed, that their rulers are of “the tribe of Judah and the house of David;” and that they are equally persuaded of the divine right, and indeed sacred character, of their sovereigns; so that, in their estimation, no one but a descendant of Ménilek, the son of Solomon, is qualified to hold the sceptre of that monarch. Upon the accession of Áikuna Ámlak it became necessary therefore, in order to secure the allegiance of the people, that his descent from the revered stock, and consequently his legitimate right to the throne, should be shown; and this I look upon as the origin and scope of the “Chronicle of Axum,” which, taking as its basis the principle that the sovereign de facto must necessarily be so de jure, joins together the successive but unconnected dynasties of the Israelitish Ágaus, the pagan (afterwards Christian) Axumites, and the Christian Amháras, in one continuous chain of legitimate successors, and consequently descendants, of the alleged founder of the monarchy.

That this is not mere hypothesis is evidenced by what is actually going on at this moment in Abessinia, where another distinct and independent dynasty is being linked on to the house of Ménilek. I allude to that of the rulers of the province of Shoa, who, since the decadence of the empire, have acquired virtual independence, although that province still continues nominally to form an integral portion of the Abessinian empire. These princes are descended from Negássie, who, towards the end of the seventeenth century, was appointed Márdazmach of Shoa, under the then reigning Emperor of Abessinia. Negássie was sprung from a novus homo, probably some Galla chieftain, who had a princess of the blood-royal given him in marriage. This alliance, however, gave Nagássie and his descendants no claim whatever to be considered of the imperial house. For, as Alvarez (in Ramusio's Collection, p. 218) wrote more than three centuries ago, “Prester John [so the Portuguese styled the Emperor of Abessinia] has no relations; for those on the side of the mother are not considered nor named as relations; and those on the father's side are confined on the said mountain and considered as dead.” In fact, the Salique law prevails in Abessinia as in France. But latterly, since their independence, the rulers of Shoa have dropped the title of Márdazmach (respecting which, see page 50, note,) and have assumed the sacred dignity of Negús, “King.” And, as this title can hardly fail to convey to the mind of an Abessinian the impression of kingly descent, it is perfectly natural that he should jump at the conclusion that its possessor must necessarily be of the house of Solomon. This idea has, from motives both of personal vanity and of policy, been fostered by the descendants of Negássie, so that from it has resulted the legend that that chieftain was a male scion of the imperial house, who escaped from the state prison in which the princes of the blood-royal were wont to be confined, and fled into Shoa, just as the progenitor of Áikuna Ámlak is said to have saved himself from the slaughter of the princes on Débra Dámo, and to have taken refuge in the same province. In fact, the old legend is being repeated, just as we find instances in the histories of ancient Greece and Rome. The story goes on to say that the fugitive prince was received with open arms by the inhabitants of Shoa, whose loyalty and attachment to the “house of Solomon” are proverbial; and that, owing to the weakness of the empire in consequence of the inroads of the Gallas, he was enabled to declare himself independent, and to transmit his sceptre to his lineal descendants, of whom the present king, Sáhela Selássie, is the sixth. This fable has not hitherto received favour in any other portion of Abessinia; nor is it indeed yet universally adopted even in Shoa, where the real facts are still too recent not to be well known to those possessed of any acquaintance with the history of the country. But I was informed that it has been chronicled in Shoa! So that, when, in the course of time, the oral tradition of Negássie's true origin and history shall be forgotten, the written legend will acquire an authority similar to that of the Chronicle of Axum; in which the recorded “restoration of the line of Solomon” to the throne of Ethiopia, in the person of Áikuna Ámlak, is doubtless just as apocryphal as it would be in that of Sáhela Selássie, supposing that he, like the former, were destined to re-unite the dissevered and distracted provinces of Abessinia into a single and settled monarchy.

As regards the real origin of Áikuna Ámlak and his people, the Amháras, who under him acquired the supremacy in Abessinia (like as the Axumites of the north had done before them), I look upon them as being derived from the same stock as the people of south-eastern Abessinia, who, three centuries later, under Ahmed Grañ, invaded the upper country, and who, from the certain guide afforded by their languages,—namely, those of Amhára, Shoa, Argóbba, Hárrargie, and Gurágie, which are all cognate and closely allied to one another,—must have had their origin in colonists from Southern Arabia, who settled on the African coast, beyond the Straits of Babelmandeb, mixing there with the native tribes already occupying that portion of the continent.

With reference to this subject generally, as likewise to that of the people and languages of the southern portion of the Abessinian plateaul, see, further, a Paper “on the Countries South of Abyssinia,” in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. XIII. pp. 254–269, and one “on the Languages and Dialects of Abyssinia and the Countries to the South,” in the Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. II. pp. 89–107.

^{page 49 note a} This name is unknown to me; but in the map in Tellez's Work it is placed to the west of the upper course of the Abái, between its source and Lake Tsána, and not far from Temhuá.

^{page 50 note a} An account of the market of Báso is given in the Friend of the African, (1844,) vol. I. pp. 134–136, 145–147; and vol II pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note b} My Itinerary is published in the fourteenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, in page 26 of which is a brief notice of my visit to these ruins.

^{page 50 note c} Dédjazmach, contracted from Déij-ázmachi (which Bruce writes Kasmati) is compounded of the two Amháric words, dedj “a deor” or “gate,” and ázmachi, “a warrior,”—or rather, as the word is derived from the verb in the seeond form, “he by means of whom others are warriors,” that is to say “a leader “—the herzog, dux, duke of Europe. As the position of the Emperor's door, which, like the “Sublime Porte” of the Ottomans, is reverentially substituted for the dwelling itself, whether palace or tent, is in the centre, the Dedjazmach is consequently the general of the centre.

The Káñazmach, from kañ, “right,” is the leader of the right wing, as the Gérazm.ach, from gerá, “left,” is that of the left wing. The general of the vanguard is styled Fitaurári, from fit, “front,” “before,” and aurári, “a leader of plunderers.” I cannot find any name in use for the general of the rear-guard, unless it be Márdazmach, from ráda—infinitive márdát—“to help”or “succour;” a title formerly borne exclusively by the governors of the province of Shoa. See page 48, note.

The title of Dédjazmach, which in rank is far superior to those of Káñazmach and Gérazmach, and may be understood as corresponding with the “grand-duke“of Europe, was formerly borne by the rulers of a few principal provinces, and probably in the first instance by the governor of Biégamider alone. But in the present day this title is assumed by almost every governor of a petty province.

The son of a Dédjazmach, till some dignity is conferred on him, has by courtesy the title of Lidj, “child,” prefixed to his name—e. g. Lidj Bíru—corresponding to the Spanish Infante, or more closely to the old German Junker, and the old English Childe.

^{page 51 note a} This is the usual conversational contraction of the word Dédjazmach.

^{page 53 note a} See page 47.

^{page 54 note a} On the subject of “Outward Confessionals of Churches,” see a letter from “E. I. C”, in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. XXVI. p. 380; and another from Mr. J. G. Nichols, in vol. XXVII. of the same work, p. 19.

^{page 54 note b} “the house of bread.” The word lehhem is not found in the Ethiopic language, whilst in the Arabic it signifies not “bread “but “meat.” It must therefore have been adopted in the former signification directly from the Hebrew.

In like manner as the shew-bread of the Israelitish Temple was made by the priests, and as in the ancient religious establishments of Europe the altar-bread was prepared with a peculiar office, with fasting by the whole fraternity, the wafers being actually made by two priests and two deacons, vested in albs; the preparation of the sacramental bread of the Abessinian Church devolves on the deacons, who perform this duty in the Bethlehem, with peculiar ceremonies, females and unclean persons being strictly interdicted from approaching the spot. The shew-bread of the Israelites was renewed only every Sabbath (Levit. xxiv. 8); but the sacramental bread of the Abessinians is made fresh daily, and the Portuguese Jesuits record (Tellez, p. 97) that the natives were shocked at their not making the wafers for the Host every day.

After the preparation of the fresh bread, such as remains over from the Communion of the preceding day is eaten by the priests. But, like the shew-bread, (see 1 Samuel xxi. 4–6,) it would seem to be, under special circumstances, not absolutely interdicted to laymen; for, on my journey homewards through Lasta, when I was detained, on the 1st April 1843, by the collector of customs on the frontiers of Waag, and kept the whole day without food, a reverend aged priest and monk, named Walda Sámuel, brought some of the hallowed bread, and gave it me to satisfy my hunger. That he was doing an unusual (not to say an improper) act, is however clear from his bringing the bread to me secretly and desiring me to eat it in private; at the same time that he felt it necessary to justify his act by saying that he considered me qualified to partake of it, as a learned (and consequently holy) man, acquainted with the books and ancient history of his country, and as a pilgrim wandering about and doing good “for my soul's sake:” for such is the light in which my journey was usually regarded, no other motive for it being readily intelligible.

I must not omit to record here that I obtained from Abba (Father) Walda Sámuel much valuable information respecting the traditional history of Lasta. He was himself of the house of the Ngíkera-Shums, a branch of the Wáag-Shums, or rulers of Wáag, who trace their descent from Sírak, the son of Saloméa, an alleged sister of Solomon, King of Israel. The intrusive dynasty of Israelitish (afterwards Christian) monarchs, who reigned in Abessinia from the 10th to the 13th century, were of the line of Zágie, who is said to have been, like Ménilek, a son of Solomon, but not by the Queen of Sheba. We have here another proof of the necessity which the Abessinians seem to feel (see page 48, note) that their sovereigns de facto, even of an avowedly intrusive dynasty, should be of the “lineage of Solomon.”

The last emperor of the house of Zágie was Nákweto Láab, who, according to the Axumite Chronicles (see Bruce, vol. I. p. 533; vol. II. p. 687), was induced by Abúna Tekla Háimanot to resign the throne to Áikuna Ámlak, he retaining a portion of the empire in independent sovereignty. On the other hand, the Ágau tradition of Lasta is that this division of the empire originated with king Solomon himself, who assigned two-thirds of it to his son Ménilek, whom he made emperor, and one-third to his nephew Sírak, whom he nominated Wáag-Shum. The rank of the two princes was to be equal, and the state of each similar, as is expressed in the saying—

Wáag-Shum la wánbar: Negús la mánbar.

i.e. “the ruler of Waag to the wánbar, and the emperor to the mánbar” the two words being synonymous, and signifying throne or chair of state. This subject is adverted to more in detail in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. XIV. p. 55, where, through an oversight, the house of Zágie is stated to be descended from Sírak. The emendation of this error is material. The descendants of Nákweto Láab, of the house of Zágie, still exist in Lasta as tributaries of the emperor, being totally distinct from the Wáag-Shums, of the house of Sírak, who to this day continue to be regarded as independent sovereigns. These are facts with which t ie Axumite tradition is irreconcileable, let the value of that of Lasta be what it may.

^{page 57 note a} From the Greek Κƍανιον—that is to say, the Calvary of the Gospels. This name, more usually in the Hebrew form, Golgotha, is of not unfrequent occurrence in Abessinia.

^{page 57 note b} This second bridge over the Abái was erected after the expulsion of the Jesuits; as, on the occasion of their quitting Gódjam, they expressly state that there was then only one bridge, namely that of Álata. (See Tellez, p. 530.) The native trạdition is that it was built by the Emperor Fásil (Basilides), who commenced his reign by the persecution and banishment of the Jesuits. As a number of the Portuguese or their immediate descendants, who were settled in this vicinity, remained in the country, this bridge was doubtless their work; and, as the reign of Fásil extended from 1632 to 1665, its age is two centuries, little more or less. It is first described in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. XIV. pp. 29 and 46. The centre arch, of about sixty feet in the span, is turned, as are also the eight approach arches on either side, in large flat red burned bricks of good quality, the work between the arches being of rough stone and mortar. The main arch was sprung by Ras Fásil Waréña, the governor of Dámot in the time of Bruce, for the purpose of cutting off the communication between the two banks of the river. Hence its name of the “broken” bridge.