124 G. MASPEEO, 



maps leave spaces more or less entirely void of names, or topo- 

 graphical indications " ; but the district to which he refers is an 

 open pastoral desert, with a few arable tracts, in which there are 

 neither ruins nor springs, and in which — as in the desert of Judah 

 and in Moab — names are few, and no traces of ancient settled popula- 

 tion occur. This region was quite as carefully surveyed as others, 

 and cannot be said to be " imperfectly known." Want of ac- 

 quaintance with the country has led M. Maspero to make a 

 statement which I am obliged to notice, because he has uninten- 

 tionally brought a charge against - the Surveyors, which I am 

 certain he would not have made if he had i-ead the account of the 

 country in the Survey Memoirs; and which if unnoticed might 

 mislead others. The hills, valleys, and natural features in this 

 district are given with the same amount of detail as in the thickly 

 populated parts of my Survey. 



To proceed to the details of the list, which (as concerns Pales- 

 tine) begins with No. 11 Gaza and No. 12 Megiddo, the towns are 

 as follows : — 



No. 13. Rabhati, Rabbith, follows Brugsch. The site I have 

 placed at the modern Baha. 



No. 14. Taanahu, Taanacb, follows Brugsch. The termination 

 in « here denotes the Canaanite form. 



No. 15. Shaunama, Shunem (Brugsch) is now SiUem. 



No. 16. Bit Shanla. It seems to me that Shiloh is too far 

 away, and Brugsch's Beth Shean more probable. 



No. 17. Bnhaiba, Tel Beliah. M. Maspero adopts the identifica- 

 tion which I proposed in 1879 with the Roob of the 

 Onomasticon, and discards Brugsch's suggestion of Rehob, 

 which is far away to the north. 



No. 18. Hap^irama, HajDhraim, as Brugsch proposed in 1879, 

 I believe to be the modern El Farriyeh west of the plain of 

 Esdraelon. 



No. 19. Adulmim could certainly, as M. Maspero says, not be 

 Adullam. Perhaps it might be Idalah of Zebulon, the later 

 Hirii (Talmud of Jerusalem, Megillah 1) which appears to 

 be the modern Hmuarah. 



No. 21. Shaicadi might be Suweidiyeh, as M. Maspero proposes, 

 since the ruin seems to be ancient, but the Arabic s does 

 not usually I'epresent the Aramaic or Hebrew sh. I am 

 inclined to think the real site was iShadid (Sarid in the 

 A, V.) which is the modern Tell Shaclvd, 



