108 Rev. Epwarp Hincxs on the Defacement of Egyptian Monuments. 
was only reigned over a part of Egypt,—evidence that there was another king 
in existence who bore the corresponding marks. If this can be established, it will 
lead to some conclusions of rather an extraordinary nature respecting the succes- 
sors of Rameses the great; and I will, therefore, digress a little in order to 
answer some objections that may be started 
In the first place, it will be said that fig. 6 (see the preceding page) is not 
« Lower Egypt,’’ but ‘‘ Heliopolis.” To this I answer, that the mention of this 
place on the obelisks of Heliopolis only proves that that city was 7 Penne, which 
I do not deny. It is, however, extremely unlikely that Penne should be a mere 
city, seeing that Amuntuonkh, Horus, Rameses III., and other kings, are admitted 
to be generally called “ Kings of Penne.” But that Penne was really a tract of 
country, extending northward to the Mediterranean Sea, is placed beyond a doubt 
by the Sallier MS. No. 2, in the British Museum, in which the Areku en Penne, 
or “extremities of Penne,’’ are frequently mentioned ; and in one instance are 
named, along with Ebo or Elephantine, as the opposite limits of Egypt, at the 
time of which the MS. speaks. Secondly, it will be said that Rameses III. 
could not have been King of Lower Egypt, as this theory would make him, 
because his palace was in Thebes. To this I answer, that the division between 
the two kingdoms may have varied at different times, and that it is possible that, 
in this instance, Rameses III. may have governed the western half of Thebes and 
all Egypt northward of Thebes; while his partner in the government held the 
eastern half of Thebes, and all Egypt to the south of Thebes, with Nubia and 
Meroe. Thirdly, it may be objected that, in the cartouches of the early Ame- 
nothphs, who were kings of the entire of Egypt, the same distinguishing marks, 
King of Kheme(?) or the pure country(?), i.e. of Upper Egypt, are found. To 
this I answer, no such distinguishing marks are ever found in any genwine car- 
touche of either Amenothph I. or Amenothph II. The cartouches in which 
they occur are all restorations by Horus and subsequent monarchs, of cartouches 
of these kings, which were wholly defaced by the sun worshippers; and the 
insertion of these distinguishing marks is to be attributed to the ignorance or 
carelessness of the sculptors, who inserted in their cartouches characters which 
properly belonged only to Amenothph III. A plain proof of this is to be found 
in an examination of the obelisk of Amenothph II. in the Alnwick Museum. In 
the pyramidion of this obelisk, the genuine cartouche of this king remains 
