176 Rev. Epwarp Hineks on the Number, Names, and Powers 
8. Bypur-os, Strabo, xvi. 2; cy, Berit, fig. 114, Pl. 54, 1. 8, baRuTa. 
In H. I. 5, No. 65, a name occurs which is possibly a variation of this, fig. 115, 
bi-RUT. I give the two initial characters, which do not occur in the Chevalier’s 
alphabet, the value indicated under II. 7. 
9. wid, Kush, Gen. x. 7; Xovo-os, Jos. Arch. i. 6, 2, where he says that 
this was the name given in his time to the country south of Egypt, figs. 23, 26, 
27, Kesx, Kasx, Kesxr. 
10. I will now give an identification that requires some explanation. The 
country west of Egypt is always called in Egyptian inscriptions that of the Bows, 
or the Nine Bows. Now, “a bow’ is expressed phonetically (though I have 
never seen it so in reference to the name of this country) as in fig. 116, Burt. 
E. H. 47, from Karnac (at. Rameses II.), Pet. The Coptic equivalent is tut. I 
identify this Egyptian word with 35, Gen. x. 6, which Josephus asserts to be 
Libya, and which the LXX. have so translated. 
11. The name of the country from which the Egyptians imported frankin- 
cense and balsams is given, fig. 117, Pl. 96, 1. 2. O-Rusa. Now, the name of 
the people about the port, now called Yembo, in Arabia, is stated by Ptolemy to 
be the "Apo. 
12. I conclude with the name of a people which might have been placed in 
the preceding division. It is given by Champollion, p. 180, from Medinet Abu 
(zt. Rameses III), fig. 118, PuRusaTa. In an inscription given by Burton, 
E. H. 43, col. 1, a pair of leaves, I., is apparently added to the name as here 
given. I identify this with the »mwp, Plishti, of 1 Sam. xvii. 4, et al.: 
[PudAvore-eu, LXX.; Madaori-vor, Jos. Arch. v. 1, 18.] 
I come now to consider the third class of data, namely, the various modes 
in which the same Egyptian word is represented by phonoglyphs. These data 
are very valuable to a certain extent. When a word or termination is variously 
written phonetically, the characters which are interchanged must have had the 
same powers ; and where interchanges of this kind occur in a number of words, 
no stronger evidence of the equivalence of the characters can be required. But 
the number of characters which are interchanged in this manner is very limited. 
The quail and the /ituus (fig. 29), the purse and the character resembling a 
sugar-tongs (figs. 24, 25), the chair-back and broken line (fig. 119), both 
