(4.) “Ibissibur.”—In chapter 25, Schiltberger describes a country called “Ibissibur”. That there was a city of the name is clearly established by the Catalan atlas and Pizzigani map, in which we find Sebur, near a chain of mountains called “los montes de Sebur”, evidently the South Ural, styled Sibirsky kamian in a Russian work on ancient hydrography (_Knyga bolshem. Tchertejou_, 151, St. P., 1838). The Sibir of the Russians, known also as Isker, was situated on the Irtysh, ten miles from Tobolsk; it was the residence of the Shaïbani khans, and was taken in 1581 by a handful of Cossacks under their ataman Yermak, who, in his turn, was besieged by the Tatars, and lost his life in the river during a sortie (1584). His countrymen have erected a monument at Tobolsk in honour of this Russian Cortez.—BRUUN. (5.) “Alathena.”—Alla Tana for Tana, which stood where is now Azoff, was a place of great importance in the 14th and 15th centuries. It was completely destroyed by Timour in 1395, but the Venetians returned soon afterwards, as would appear by the statement of Clavijo, that “six Venetian galleys arrived at the great city of Constantinople to meet the ships which were coming from Tana”. They maintained commercial intercourse with Tana even after its destruction by the Tatars in 1410, by the Turks in 1415, and later again by the Tatars; and there is the evidence of De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 43) that in 1421, four Venetian vessels arrived at Caffa from that port. Schiltberger, who visited Tana at this period or shortly afterwards, proves that it had recovered its commercial prosperity, at all events so far as regards the fisheries, a fact supported by Barbaro.—BRUUN. (6.) “Vulchat.”—In saying that “Vulchat”, intended for Solkhat, was the capital of “Ephepstzach” or Kiptchak, Schiltberger may not have been aware that this latter name included the whole of South Russia and the Crimea, of which, Solkhat, afterwards Esky Crim, actually became the chief town. Neumann believes the author to have made a mistake, which may have arisen from the fact that in his time there were many princes, as has already been shown, who disputed the sovereignty; and a large portion of Kiptchak may have recognised the authority of one or the other of those princes who had taken up his residence at Solkhat, as for instance, the “viel empereur” to whom De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 42) was accredited as the ambassador of Vithold in 1421, and who died at an unfortunate moment, because the knight leaves us in ignorance of his name. I believe that ruler to have been Ydegou, in the absence of any proof of Hammer’s statement (_Gesch. d. G. H._, 352), that Vithold’s old ally was the chief of an independent state on the shores of the Black Sea so late as the year 1423.—BRUUN.