^{page 157 note 1} The date of the XVIIIth Dynasty has finally been proved by Dr. Budge in a concise and convincing argument on pp. 153–156 of the first volume of his new History of Egypt; Amenophis III. began to reign not later than 1450, and Amenophis IV. (Khu-en-Åten or Åkhu-n-Åten) ceased to reign not later than 1400 B.c. These dates are based, not on mere calculations of the reigns of Egyptian kings, but on a synchronism with Assyrian and Babylonian kings whose dates are known from the cuneiform records, and, further, this Babylonian evidence agrees in every point with the Egyptian evidence on the subject.

^{page 159 note 1} Daressy, Recueil, xxii.; Oldest Civilization, p. 323.

^{page 159 note 2} Asien u. Europa, p. 24 ff.

^{page 159 note 3} Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 159 f.

^{page 160 note 1} Prof. Petrie's discoveries of ‘Aegean’ pottery in tombs of the First Dynasty at Abydos still remain difficult to explain, since the evidence from Crete seems to point to a contemporaneity of the primitive ‘Amorgian’ period with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.

^{page 160 note 2} Müller thinks this word originally meant the ‘Circle’ of the Gulf of Issos (op. cit., p. 248), and to judge from the way in which it is mentioned in the inscription of Rameses III. describing the march of the Pulesatha and their confederates against Egypt (v. bost, p. 183) this seems a very probable explanation.

^{page 160 note 3} so distinguished from the pekher uer Naharen ‘Great Encircling Water of Mesopotamia,’ i.e. the encircling waters of the Euphrates and Tigris. The of the sentence quoted by Müller, op. cit., p. 253, n. 3, must be emended to ‘the Great Ring of the Great Green Sea,’ for the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean do not encircle anything, as those of the Euphrates and Tigris do, but are enclosed in the Great Ring of Palestine, Asia Minor, Crete, and Libya.

^{page 161 note 1} We have no proof of the existence under the New Empire of any inhabitants of the Delta other than the Egyptians themselves, some Semites in the direction of the Wadi Tûmilât and the Isthmus (the Israelites, for example), and the Libyans, whose encroachments on the Delta had become very noticeable in Merenptah's time. I am therefore unable to accept the theory, erroneously ascribed to me by MrTorr, Cecil (Class. Rev. xvi. p. 183)Google Scholar, that ‘the name Haunebu … was always applied to the inhabitants of the Delta; so that, when the Hellenes settled in the Delta, the term came to be applied to them.’

^{page 161 note 2} As it stands, this is the name of a land, not of a people. Prof. Maspero prefers to use the form Keftin (Kefâiou) for the people, the land being, according to him, properly Kefti. This may be so, and the derivation of an ethnic Keftm from the land-name Kefti is very probable, but we have no instance of the form Kefti unless we read the sign as ti, and not as liu. Probably Prof. Maspero reads it ti: I, in consonance with an equally well-grounded opinion, read it tiu, and in presence of the variant spelling Kefthiu, which is as certainly that of the land and not of the people, I am inclined to retain the reading Keftiu for the land. The people may very well have been called ‘Keftiu’ also, but to avoid confusion, I have generally spoken of them as ‘Keftians’ or ‘men of Keftiu.’

^{page 162 note 1} E.g. in a list of the Nine Barbarian Nations (Brugsch, , Geographische Inschriften, ii. p. 88Google Scholar).

^{page 162 note 2} I propose to read here keftiuu, not the ordinary pehuu (u. Brugsch, örterbuch, p. 1493).

^{page 162 note 3} Determined by the sign ‘island.’

^{page 163 note 1} Geographische Inschriften, loc. cit.

^{page 163 note 2} I am indebted for this information, as regards the tomb of Puamrā, to Mr. Percy Newberry, who was kind enough to allow me, during a stay at Thebes in the early part of last year, to make many notes of his tracings, &c., of the wall-paintings in the tombs, which I have, with his per mission, used to supplement the results of my own examinations of the representations of the men of Keftiu and their belongings.

^{page 164 note 1} Mr. Torr's attempt to explain away this by the supposition that when the Egyptians spoke of Keftiu and Åsy as being in the West, the word ‘West’ need not here mean ‘west’ as a point of the compass, but may quite well mean ‘the west country’ in the sense in which that term is used in cuneiform inscriptions, namely, as a designation of the seaboard of Syria (loc. cil. p. 183) breaks up upon the fact of the pictures of the Keftians as representative of the Western point of the compass in the Theban tombs. But in any case his suggestion would have been impossible. The word Amenti means the western point of the compass, and was never used by the Egyptians as a designation for Syria as a translation of the Sumerian group MAR-TU, ‘the West,’ which a Babylonian, pronouncing it Aharru, naturally used for Syria. Had it ever been used in so confusing and absurd a way, we should find the lands of Tchahi, Rethnu, &c., spoken of as in ‘the West’: but we find no instance of this. I do not, as Mr. Torr says, imply that the Babylonian term was known to the Egyptians (generally): no doubt it was known to those who could read or write cuneiform, but to nobody else. The word Amar, used by the Egyptians as a designation for part of Syria, is probably a native name (the land of the Amorites), identical with a name for part of Syria, Amurru, which, since the syllable mur is written with the same sign as the syllable har, was used by the Babylonians in the fifteenth century B.C. to designate the country known usually as Aharru, ‘the West,’ the Sumerian group MAK- TU. Neither Amar nor Amurru meant ‘the West’ to either Egyptians or Babylonians; they meant nothing more than Amar and Amurru.

^{page 165 note 1} Jahrb. Arch. Inst. xiii. pp. 53–54:—‘(i) Except in the stereotyped Lists of Nations, the Keftiu only occur during the reign of Thothmes III.—with the Phoenicians, as is well enough known, the Egyptians had relations in later times as well; (ii) The Keftiu occur in none of the commemorative inscriptions or romances which deal with Phoenicia and Syria; (iii) The Keftiu are not mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which are so well informed on all Syrian-Phoenician relations; (iv) Nothing in type or costume of the Keftiu indicates a Semitic origin’ (Transl.).

^{page 166 note 1} Ath. Mitth. xxiii, p. 248, n. 2.

^{page 166 note 2} Torr, , Class. Rev. xvi. p. 184.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} That the men of the Vaphio cups, whose coiffure is in details the counterpart of that of the Keftians, were Cretans, seems, in view of the probability that these cups are really of Cretan workmanship, extremely likely.

^{page 167 note 1} Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 163. The word was only known in a mutilated form …. ntanay: the first syllable being unknown. I identified it with a Ptolemaic name for Cyprus ‘Nebinaiti,’ which, as it stands, is corrupt and impossible; it is a misreading of a hieratic original of the XVIIIth Dynasty, giving the true form for the mutilated word in the inscription of Thothmes III. (Lepsius, , Denkmäler, iii. 30a, 18Google Scholar), which is obviously the same as the Assyrian name for Cyprus, Yatnan or Yatnana. Mr. Torr has misunderstood me on this point, and has also fallen into a serious error as to a matter of fact. He says (Class. Rev. xvi. p. 183), ‘the author says that Asi was “certainly part of Cyprus,” but he does not give any reasons for saying so. As a matter of fact, Asi was supposed to be Cyprus, because the Canopic decree of 238 B.C. was supposed to have a name like Asi in the hieroglyphic text to represent the name Cyprus in the Greek text. But on p. 163 the author has a long note, showing that the name in the hieroglyphic text has been misread and is not the least like Asi.’ But, as a matter of fact Åsy is not mentioned in the Canopic decree at all, and, further, in my note on p. 163, I never said that the name in the hieroglyphic text of the Canopic decree had been misread as ‘Asi.’ When I say ‘Nebinaiti,’ I do not mean ‘Asi.’

(In his article ‘Die Urheimat der Philister,’ in Mitth. Vorderasiat. Ges. 1900, p. 8, W. M. Müller suggests This is possible, and gives practically the same result, Antanay. But I prefer to in view of my identification of the XVIIIth Dynasty word with the Ptolemaic ‘Nebinaiti.’ This identification is not made by Müller, nor has he perceived the identity of ‘Antanay or Yantanay with the Assyrian Yatnan.)

^{page 167 note 2} Das Land Alašia; Zeits. für Assyriologie, x. (1895) P. 257 ff.

^{page 168 note 1} “Aḫi, kî siḫêr erû ina libbi-ka lâ išakîn, šumma ina mâti-ya kâti Nergal beli-ya gabba amelûti ša mâti-ya idûk, u ebîš erî yanu; u, aḫî-ya, ina libbi-ka lâ; šakîn. Maršipri-ka itti maršipri-ya arḫîš uššîr, u minûmme erî ša terîššu, aḫî-ya, u anaku ultebilâk-ku.” (Budge and Bezold, p. xxxvi.)

^{page 169 note 1} Mémoire sur une Patère égyptienne; pp. 23 ff., 50 ff. Brugsch preferred Crete. Both were right, if Keftiu includes both Crete and Cyprus.

^{page 170 note 1} Also the use of the ‘Ring’ and ‘Circle’ terms for the Mediterranean lands looks to me as if the earliest way of getting to Crete was by circling round the coast-line; you began with the Fore Lands to the east of the Delta, passed on to the first twist round (the debn of the VIth Dynasty?) to Palestine, then reached the next ‘left incline’ at the ‘Circle’ (Kedi, the Gulf of Issos) and passed along the coasts of the Back of Beyond, the Hinder Lands, to the southerly turn which brought you to the Isles of the West.

^{page 170 note 2} That the clay Bügelkanne had already reached Egypt at this time is shown by the specimen (doubtless of Cretan origin) from the Maket tomb at Kahun (temp. Thothmes III.).

^{page 170 note 3} A similar ‘beer-warmer’ in Egyptian blue faïence of late XVIIIth or XIXth Dynasty date is preserved in the Fourth Egyptian Room of the British Museum (No. 22,731), where it is exhibited together with two XIXth Dynasty blue faïence Bügelkannen (No. 30, 451); the first two published by me in Oldest Civilization, Figs. 53, 52). No. 22,731 is presumably the Trichter mentioned by v. Bissing, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. loc. cit.

^{page 171 note 1} loc. cit.

^{page 171 note 2} Temple Bequest, 1856; W. T. 703: Blacas, 1867. The same type is also known from Neuenheiligen in Germany (Horae Ferales, vii. 10)Google Scholar and La Guillotière in France (ib. vii. 8).

^{page 173 note 1} Prisse d'Avennes, loc. cit. 4; Oldest Civilization, Fig. 47.

^{page 173 note 2} Ibid. Fig. 21.

^{page 174 note 1} Rev. Arch., xxvii. (1895) pll. 14–15, Maspero, Premières Mêlées, p. 407.

^{page 175 note 1} In the tomb of Menkheperrāsenb, once or twice; in the tomb of Amenemḥeb, the well-known General of Åmenḥetep II., usually.

^{page 177 note 1} Transi, by Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 344. The text reads:— ‘Šarru ša ištu ebirtân Idiglat adi Labnana u tâmdi rabîte, Lakî ana siḫirti-ša Šuḫi adi Rapila ana šêpê-šu ušikni-ša, ištu rêš eni Sûbnât adi nirib ša bitani kât-su ikšud.’ The passage giving the exact position of Lakî reads:— ‘Alâni ša šêp annate ša Puratte ša Lakî ša Suḫi’ (ib. p. 355). Further, the cities of the land of Lakî were reached after the king had gone up into the narrows of the Euphrates, and in other inscriptions the country is spoken of as lying between Carchemish and Urartu (Ararat).

^{page 178 note 1} Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 178.

^{page 178 note 2} Proc. Soc. Bild. Arch. xxiv. p. 317.

^{page 178 note 3} Oldest Civilization, p. 100.

^{page 179 note 1} W. M. Müller, Asien u. Europa, p. 369. This is the least probable reading and identification. I have already noted (Oldest Civilization, p. 129) that no ‘Yivana’ are mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna letters.

^{page 180 note 1} The Maxyes; see Budge, , Hist. Eg. v. 150Google Scholar, vi. 39.

^{page 180 note 2} Egypt under the Pharaohs, ii. 124.

^{page 180 note 3} Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. x. p. 147 ff.

^{page 181 note 1} Müller, W. M. (Mitth. der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1900, p. 4Google Scholar) errs in attributing this identification to Herr C. Niebuhr, who seems, when he repeated it (Orientalische Litteratur-zeitttng, ü. 381) to have been unaware that Prof. Maspero had twenty years' priority of him in the matter.

^{page 182 note 1} On this subject cf. Principal Moore's article Philistines in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and the articles of W. M. Müller in the Mitth. Vorderasiat, Ges. for igoo. The latter is the first to comment on the occurrence of the name Caphtor in a Ptolemaic inscription at Ombos, as Keptar (p. 5). The fact that the translators of the Septuagint translated Caphtor by ‘Cappadocia’ shows. that they were looking in the right direction for a country with a name resembling Caphtor.

^{page 184 note} Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 177.

^{page 185 note 1} Wide, , Jahrb. Arch. Inst. xiv. p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Murray, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 12, Fig. 19.

^{page 187 note 1} The Egyptian painter has Egyptianized the forms in some measure, but the character of the ornamentation, and its identity with that of the Bügelkannen with which these vases are associated, make it very probable that they are carelessly represented Mycenaean pithoi but of metal, not of clay.