well known that Diodorus adduces this circumstance as forming the glory of Sesostris, that he had all his buildings erected by prisoners of war. 98

In the smaller temple the king is said (p. 173. Pl. cxr.) "to have annihilated Pan destroyed the Nehesu (Negroes), smote the South, and overturned the North."

....

III. BUILDINGS AT THEBES AND LUXOR-THE SO-CALLED MEMNONIUM (RAMESSEUM). - KARNAK.

RAMSES adorned every part of Thebes. In the vast edifice of Amenōphis (Luxor) he erected the court and pylon, which were already connected by the dromos of columns of King Horus with the main building. He erected also two obelisks, one of which is now in the Place de la Concorde at Paris. It appears from the inscription, as Rosellini happily remarked 99, that this was a restoration of the more ancient and gorgeous buildings in honour of Ammon. It is certain, therefore, that these must have been built by the Theban Kings of the Old Empire, who were much better able to construct such splendid temple-palaces than the tributary princes in the Middle Empire. This is true also of the adjoining constructions of the 12th Dynasty. We have an instance of it at Karnak, in a shrine which bears the name of Sesortesen.

On the wall behind the obelisk the king's tent is again represented, who is at war with the Kheta, and a repetition of the scene with the envoys, who are seized and tortured as spies (Pl. cvI. seq.). The date of the day and month in the fifth year is likewise the same.

It

"The great house of Ramses," his principal building, the Ramesseum, is on the western side of Thebes. is described by the French savans sent by Napoleon, as

VOL. III.

98 Diod. Sic. i. c. 55. seq.

99 M. St. p. 202. seq. Comp. p. 198.

N

the Memnonium.

Here it was that he erected the

largest of all the colossi, the sitting figure of himself, about forty feet high from the seat. Here is also a repetition on the walls of the great expedition to Palestine and Mesopotamia against the Kheta, but with certain peculiarities. Some well preserved names of leaders of the Kheta are also given 100,- Khirupasaru, Magaruma, Tarakanasi.

In all these representations there are various particular traits, such as those described by Diodorus after Hecatæus on the so-called tomb of Osymandyas; the four sons as leaders of four divisions, an attack upon a fortress near which a river is flowing, and, lastly, the lion by the king's side. This renders it therefore certain that the historian obtained his information from the Ramesseum, the site of which, and even its dimensions, correspond exactly with his account. But if Hecatæus described this war as carried on against the rebellious Bactrians, such a statement would seem, from the above inscriptions, to be as fabulous as the name of the king. There is no authority for Champollion's idea that the people here represented are from the north-west of Persia, consequently Bactrians, or Scythian Bactrians. Rosellini, who in the first instance read the Kheta SKHETO, and interpreted them as Scythians, rather inclined in his last work to the notion that they were people of Western Asia.101

It seems to us to represent nothing but a glorious campaign against Palestine as far as Lebanon. Kanaana (Canaan) is the only certain identification. Those that are uncertain are, ASHT, ASHTEN, a fortress on the water (Asdod ?). REMNU cannot be explained as Lebanon. But there are, at all events, still extant, scutcheons of the conqueror at Beyroot, at the foot of Lebanon.

100 M. St. p. 231. seq. Pl. cix. cx.

101 M. St. iii. B. 257. seq.

No. 8 on our plan of the PALACE OF KARNAK marks the works of this king. He erected the propylæa in front of the hall of columns, with two vast colossi facing each other, twenty-five high, of red granite, likenesses of himself, and a spacious forecourt. Here are represented many conquered nations.102 Among "those of the south," the names still legible are Kesh, Arashu, Barabara (Barabra, now in Nubia); among "those of the north," the name which Rosellini read JUININ (Ionians) when speaking of Sethos I. This, however, is decidedly incorrect. The Ionians (UINA) certainly occur in early times, but written as on the Rosetta stone. The people or country is called ARHUNA or IHUNA, as our alphabet shows.

On the outer wall, on the left wing of the hall of columns of his father, which he sculptured, there are several inscriptions of Ramses, but sadly mutilated. There are also wars and triumphs depicted. The Retennu are mentioned (p. 263.), Kesh and Arashu (p. 264.), as well as the Kheta and "the fortress of the land of Tesh;" a chief of the land of Arutu; Iriunna; Masi.

There are, on another wall, more than thirty lines containing the treaty made with the KHETA on the 20th of Tobi (the fifth month) of the 21st year of his reign. Rosellini translated it, but with his usual modesty called it an unsuccessful attempt. (p. 269. seq. Pl. cxvi.) From this it appears, that on the day above mentioned, Ramses, after defeating the rebellious Kheta, made a treaty with their chief, Prince KHETA-SIRA (KhetaPrince 103), who, with other leaders of the nation, came to him, and that mention is made of the Gods of both

102 M. St. iii. B. 260., and corresponding plate.

103 We have remarked in our treatise on the Semitic languages that the Babylonian has a similar construction, at variance with the later Semitism.

nations. Amun-Ra appears as an Egyptian God, Sut and Asterta 104 as Gods of the Kheta, i. e. as stated in the first book, Set and Astarte, consequently a God whose name corresponds with the Egyptian Seth, and a Goddess whom we know as Syrian and Babylonian. In the land of the Kheta, "waters" are also mentioned. (p. 280.) It seems, as Rosellini remarks, as though the likenesses of the Gods were intended to mark the boundaries between the two peoples. For it says at line 27. (p. 280.), "the God Sut of the fortress of . . . Sut of the fortress of the land of Aranita: Sut (Ros. Sutsh) of the fortress of the land of Chisisi ;" and the same formula occurs in other mutilated passages.

IV. THE TOMB OF RAMESSES, THE SON OF SETHOS.

THE tomb of this conqueror appears, from a number of his scutcheons which are extant there, to be the third to the right of the entrance into the valley at Biban el Moluk. Rosellini, however, did not succeed in clearing away the vast heap of rubbish, and only got a glimpse at the interior in a very hurried and unsatisfactory manner. Lepsius gives no drawing of it in his Monuments. Rosellini found some of the walls wholly without ornament, and it was evidently never completed. I cannot believe, in deference to Hecatæus' description of the tomb of Osymandyas, that he was buried in the Ra

messeum.

V. THE NORTHERN WALL OF DEFENCE, AND THE CANAL OF THE RED SEA.

AFTER Lepsius' researches, there can be no doubt that Ramses restored or completed the walls of defence

104 Usually in Rosellini, SUTX, i. e. SUTKH. Perhaps the sieve, or what looks very like it, is only a determinative. The accompanying figure is that of Set. Rosellini twice read it Sut (p. 280. note). Asterta (ASTARTE) is erroneously read ANTERTA.

which his father erected or commenced against the inroads of the Palestinian and Arabian shepherds. The canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, at the first turn of it to the east as far as Seba Biar, also bears the name of Ramesses. It is well known that Ramses was the name of one of the two depôts or storehouses in the land of Goshen, which must have been erected by the Israelites.

III.

HISTORICAL RESULTS OF THE CRITICISM OF THE MONUMENTS.

WE have, first of all, not a tittle of authority in the monuments for assuming that Ramesses was called Sesostris, or even had such an appellation as a title of honour. It is on the other hand expressly stated of Sethos, his father, that, after Osiris, he was the greatest benefactor Egypt ever had. Ramses is the son of Sethos, and nothing else. He is the heir of his conquests and armies. But not only were his expeditions confined exclusively within the same circle as those of Sethos, but his later campaigns were to the northern frontiers of Egypt against the Hittites, who were then powerful in Southern Palestine. Canaan, within its ancient boundaries, which included Phoenicia, is the principal theatre of them. Mesopotamia (Naharina), which would seem to have been the limit of the conquests of Sethos, or extreme point of his expeditions, does not once occur in the extant monuments of Ramses. The extreme southern point reached was Ethiopia (Kush); but even there much fewer names of subjected tribes occur than in the case of Sethos.

This can hardly be accidental, inasmuch as we possess more monuments of Ramses than of any other king. How different was the state of things under Tuthmō