to be somewhere in the direction of the Euphrates. We can see however that the Egyptians were careless and inaccurate in their geographical presentation of foreign peoples, as in other things, and could mix up Syrians with Aegeans with little compunction. Further, the name Keftiu may conceivably have included Cilicia (see later, p. 322), so that the association with Mennus (Mallos?) can be explained, while that with Naharin must be set down to mere insouciance. Brugsch's identification of Kaphtor and Keftiu with Crete may therefore stand, and it has generally been accepted until quite recently when an attempt was made to transfer it to Cilicia, without complete success as we shall see later (1).

In connexion with the Philistines, whose identity with the Purst'a (Purusata, Pulesti) he accepted, following Champollion, Brugsch made the interesting suggestion that the Zakuli» (Zakkarai) were the namegivers of the town of Ziqlag (the Sikella or Sekella of Josephus) (2). Ziqlag (Ziklag) was certainly in the domain of the Cherethim, the Cretan Philistines of the XIth cent. B. C., and the name is non-Semitic. May we go further than Brugsch or E. de Rouge or Chabas here, and suggest that the Ziqlelement of the town-name, the Zakul- or Zakel- of the tribal name, is much more likely to be identical with the name of the Zixed-o, Sicul-i, than is the name of the Sakalša, with which E. de Rougé identified it. But of this

more anon.

We come to E. de Rouge's articles in the Revue archéologique of 1861 and 1867, the latter of which was originally read as a paper before the Academy of Inscriptions. In the first (3) he treated the famous «Hymn of Victory" of Thutmes III, discovered by Mariette at Karnak, which had already been published (owing to a misunderstand

(1) See P. 311.

(2) Geogr. Inschr., II, p. 87, n.

(3) Etude sur divers monuments du règne de Toutmès III», Rev. arch., 2a série, 1861, II, p. 196-222, 344-372; MASPERO, Bibl. ég., XXIV, p. 117 ff.

ing) by Birch in Archaeologia (1); in the second (2) he dealt chiefly with the attack on Egypt by the Peoples of the Sea in the reign of Meneptah, which had already been discussed by Brugsch. «Kefa or Keftiu he assigned to Cyprus and Crete, following Birch, whose view had been accepted with less definiteness by Brugsch. «Asi", which goes with Keftiu in the hymn, and is now generally regarded either as Cyprus (this I believe to be erroneous) or (I think more probable) Asia Minor generally the name is probably no other than Aota itself— he assigned vaguely to the west, because Keftiu was there. The Isles of the Very Green were still further west. Utentiu, be compared with the « Tanai of the Annals of the 41st (?) year of Thutmes, and also with the name of the Taanau (sc. Daanau or Danauna) of the campaign of Rameses III. It is uncertain whether either of these suggestions can now be accepted. The first is more attractive than the second. The first sign of the line in which the name occurs is broken away, and it has been supposed that the which precedes the may be part of the name, which therefore reads ...ntinay. W. M. Müller supplied the missing sign as and read the name therefore as Intinay (3). I have myself, basing my suggestion on the view that the word may be the original of the corrupt Ptolemaic name for Cyprus,, put forward the view that the missing sign is to be restored as ▲, and the name read Yentinay or Yantinay, which is extremely like the later Assyrian name for Cyprus, Yatnan (4). A metathesis of the n and t is conceivable enough, when we have so simil

(1) On a Historical Tablet of the Reign of Thothmes III», Archaeologia (XXXVIII), 1861.

(2) Mémoire sur les attaques dirigées contre l'Égypte par les Peuples de la Méditerranée vers le xiv siècle avant notre ère; read at the Academy of Inscriptions April 1867, published Rev. Arch., 2° série, 1867, et VII, p. 38-81; MASPERO, Bibl. ég., XXIV, p. 417 ff.

(3) M. V. G., 1900, p. 8.

(*) Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 163; Ann. Brit. Sch. Ath., Vin (1904), p. 167.

ar a name as a known appellation of Cyprus. This identification I still think probable, but in view of the oddness of such a spelling as as, it may be that the original spelling was, misread later as, The Ptolemaic word

is obviously corrupt, a misreading of a hieratic original, and can be most easily emended to Müller did not perceive any identity of his

s

with 11, nor did the resemblance to Yatnan strike him. The reading of E. de Rougé (following LEPSIUS, Denkm., III, 3o a, 18) is retained by most scholars, as Breasted, who makes the A mean mean of, and restores «(The tribute of the chief) of Tinay (1). Brugsch (Thesaurus, V [1891], p. 1184) read | ll — Ti nemy, but the is generally accepted. My suggestion affords an explanation of the otherwise inexplicable & Nebinaitet name for Cyprus, and the likeness of the restored name to Yatnan is remarkable.

If Tinay is regarded as the correct reading, E. de Rouge's comparison of ~ with is certainly suggestive, and the of the second word may really be a (3), not ti: or, conversely, perhaps the first should be read Tintiy. The identification with seems comparatively hazardous, and, although the Egyptian scribes were often vague in the spelling of these names, the is against it: this is not an Egyptian plural, but part of the name, which is also spelt with its own ethnic termination -na as Danauna. E. de Rougé recognized in the name that of the Greek hero, Danaos, in an ethnic Aaνάων-form (cf. Ιάων, Λυκάων).

Passing to the second memoir, on the attacks directed against Egypt & about the fourteenth century B. C. (E. de Rougé was, as was natural at the time, a century too early) we have first the names of the allies of the Kheta against Rameses II: «Masa doit désigner la Mysie; Leka, la Lycie, et les Dardani où je n'hésite pas, quant à moi, à reconnaître l'antique race de Dardanus, marqueraient

() Ancient Records, II, 537 (p. 217).

vers le Nord la limite de cette alliance de peuples." Of these the identification of the Leka or rather Luka with the Lukki of the Tell el-Amarna letters, and of both with the Lycians, is universally accepted: this piratical maritime people, that raided Alašiya constantly, can be no other than the Lycians. Whether, however, the Masa were Mysians one may still doubt. The Mysians of history were still astride the Hellespont even in Homeric days, and the invasion of the Mysians and Phrygians from Thrace can hardly be put down to much before 1200 B. C., and was probably the cause of the great migration that brought the Philistines to Palestine in the reign of Rameses III. It is not likely therefore that any Mysians would be in alliance with the Hittites as early as 1295 B. C., the approximate year of the battle of Kadesh. However, one will not deny the possibility.

E. de Rouge's interesting identification of the Dardeny, , with the Aapdavo, incredible as it may have seemed to some, holds good. There was of course no need for doubt: but preconceived ideas were shocked. There is no need to suppose that these Dardanians actually came from Troy itself, though there is no reason why they should not have done so; Troy had Trojans then and had had for a millenium or more. They may then have lived elsewhere in Asia Minor, and there is said to be a Durdun Dagh, that may preserve their name, in Cilicia (1). Pidasa and Aruna E. de Rougé did not identify : Karkis'a (Kalakiša) he compares with the Girgashites of the Hebrews. The Pisidian possibility for the first named occurred to him later (2).

Passing on to the attack from the West in the reign of Meneptah, E. de Rougé identifies the Tuirša as Tyrrhenians (Tursce), the Sakalaš as Siculi, the Sardaina as Sardinians, and the Akaiwaša ( of the land of the sea") as Achaians. These identifications, the last especially,

(PETRIE, in P.S.B.A., XXIV, p. 318. He gives the name in Arabic, as Jebel Durdun.

(2) Mél. Arch. ég, assyr., II, p. 267.

:

have encountered much unbelief and scholastic prejudice. The second and third have not seldom been abandoned by those who have studied the matter; the second remains most questionable it is very doubtful if the Šakalša had anything to do with the Sikels (1). But of the identity of Tuirša with Tyrseni and of Akaiwaša with AxaFol, we now have little doubt (2). The Sardana too may have been Sardinians, but they were Sardinians who never in all probability saw Sardinia. As Maspero pointed out (3), these tribes were in the full movement of folk-wandering, no doubt from Asia Minor over the seas to the west and to Libya the Tuirša were Etruscans who had not yet reached Italy from their Anatolian home, the Šardana were, equally, Sards on their way from Sardès to Sardinia, the Akaiwaša were Achaians now (c. 1230 B. C.) first appearing in the Mediterranean as piratical warriors, fighting to fill their bellies daily", as the Egyptian record pithily but rudely puts it. They never reappeared in Egypt they were but a little band, probably, that had thus early adventured to Libya, rich in fleeces, from their land in the midst of the sea" six centuries before the Pythia bade their descendants go thither as colonists. Caught in a stream of migration and fighting, they indeed wound the skein of a grievous war till every man of them perished in the fields of Egypt, and they remained but a name on an Egyptian monument, to be in after ages a matter of disputation among the learned (").

"

(1) It is notable that the well-known head of a Šakalša chief, illustrated by PETRIE, Hist. Eg., III, p. 111; MASPERO, Hist. Anc. de l'Or. class., II (1897), p. 465, is distinctly Semitic in type.

(2) For my explanation of the ethnic termination -sha (-ša) (in The Oldest Civilization of Greece, 1901), see later p. 318, and for Weill's quotation of the interesting explanation by Streitberg (1896), p. 319.

(3) Rev. Crit., 1873, p. 81 ff; Bibl. Eg., VII, p. 97 ff.

(*) E. de Rouge points out the interesting fact that the Akaiwaša are described as wearing body-armour, a thing previously unknown to the Egyptians, probably, unless it was worn by the Sardana. The Philistines certainly wore it (see later, p. 324, n. 2) and bronze cuirasses are mentioned in lists on inscribed tablets from Knossos (see my Aegean Archaeology [1915], p. 243). Thus the panoply, which the Greeks always thought to

BECUEIL CHAMPOLLION.

20