Rev. Epwarp Hineks on the Defacement of Egyptian Monuments. 109 
(fig. 7, a), and is without the distinguishing marks ; a b 
but in the vertical hieroglyphics, the name has been 
defaced, and the restored name, 6, bears the distinguish- 
ing marks which do not properly belong to this mo- 
narch. 
The defacements made by order of this monarch | 
may be reduced to three classes. Ist. Those which at aaa El | 
be) 
were never restored ; the name of Amoun having been | 
hammered away, and remaining so still. Such is the S47 \._ 
case with the lesser obelisks at Karnac, in which the Fig. 7. 
name of the god Ammon and his figure are completely defaced, though the 
name of the king, Thothmos, by whom they were dedicated to him, is unin- 
jured.* A stele of Mr. Harris’s, in which a deceased person of the name of 
Amenothph is commemorated, has the name defaced in four several places; 
and im the statue in the Athanasi collection, already referred to as having suf- 
fered by the first defacement, the name Mouth, which forms part of the name of 
the deceased person for whom the statue was erected, is repeatedly hammered at, 
though in general ineffectually. 
2. The second class of defacements made by the sun worshipper are those 
in which he himself altered the name that he defaced to another. This he did 
in the case of his own name, as already mentioned, and in that of his grand- 
father(?), Amenothph III., in which he frequently substituted a repetition of the 
prenomen for the obliterated name. At a subsequent period the name of Ame- 
nothph was restored, being cut over the repeated prenomen. I am aware that 
Sir J. S. Wilkinson makes a somewhat different statement of the facts observed. 
He alleges that the repeated prenomen was what was originally cut; and that 
only one change took place, which, he thinks, was in the reign of Amenothph 
himself, namely, the substitution of the phonetic name for the repeated praenomen. 
I am persuaded, however, that, in many cases, the repeated prenomen is itself a 
substitution for the phonetic name. A careful examination of the stone proves 
that it is less elevated where this repeated prenomen occurs than in other parts ; 
nor do the two pranomens appear, if closely examined, to be the work of the 
* Burton, Exe. Hier, pl. 29. 
