Derbend-nämeh or the History of Derbend. 577 
In our MS. there is nothing of that which we read in Klaproth's translation relative to Yezid’s 
going to Berda &c. The following quotation of the MS. of St. Petersburg refers to the same sub- 
ject: cs cp né a SOLS eue ab _p 3 ile El SAS (42) als Je pl Je} 
AU « Yezid the son of Asad went to Berdæ and put in his own place Æ4ghlab (in Klap- 
roth Æ4ghet) the Selmi, in order to defend the town against the [nfidels. » 
Remark 5. page 571. 
Suwär, Metaa, Kamakhi, Simnan (in the other two versions, Sifnän), Darvägk, Fersi and 
Humeidi, are the names of the fortresses which, according to the narrative in our MS., were 
partly repaired aud partly built by the order of Æ/mansür. The first four, of which for the 
first time mention is made here, must be those built by Almensour’s order. Of these Weta’a, 
is a village, which, among many others, now belongs to the Mehdl of Tat, in the lower Ta- 
basarân. The ruins of Kemakhi are to be now seen about 3!/ miles to the N.W. of Derbend, 
under the name of Kamakh-gkala, or the fortress of Kamakh. 
Suwér, according to the text of our MS., belonged to the fortresses situated on the fron- 
tiers of the province of Derbend; but it is unknown to me. Simnan or Sifnân , otherwise 
called ja cherki likewise is unknown to us; but if we could read the word Zchereli which is 
very probable, we should recognize it in a village of that name in the IV Mehal of Gkara-gkaitagk, 
not far from Gkazi- gkumugk. — For Fersi, Dervagk and Aumeidi, see Part IV. Rem. 11 14 & 15. 
Remark 6. page 572. d Jp, ah 0 pus 
These are two fortresses, according to the account of all three versions, built by Yezid and 
inhabited by many families of his own tribe. We do not find any similar-names among the 
villages of Legzistan. — yblie and 42% now are two villages numbered to the Mehäl of Tat 
in the lower Tabasaran, not far from Derbend. Klaproth reads these erroneously «Syhi and 
&s3* which are the accusative case of yhie or 49#..— 
Remark 7. page 572. 
As the reader may observe, there is in this place a great difference between our MS. and 
that of Berlin, with regard to the arrangements of Yezid &c. In the MS. of St. Petersburg we 
find a more extensive detail of what we read in Klaproth's translation. — This obviously imdi- 
cates the existence of some omission in our MS. I therefore present here, accompanied with a trans- 
lation, the account given in the MS. of St. Petersburg, as we find it in Dr. Dorn’s copy, at 
the same time placing our corrections in parentheses. 
LT 
