THE LIST OF SHESHONQ AT KARNAIv. 125 



No. 22. It seems to me doubtful if Shishak went over Jordan, 

 and as no other towns are noticed beyond Jordan, I think 

 we should not place MaJumema at Mahanaim — which I have 

 identified north-east of es Salt, but more probably in the 

 Mttkhnah plain, near Sliechem, which would agree with 

 M. Maspero's view that No. 20 is Shechem itself — only 

 No. 20 is unfortunately erased. 



No. 23. Keheana is no doubt Gibeon as Brugsch proposed in 

 1879. 



No. 24. Bit Huanin. No doubt Beth Horon (Brugsch). 



No. 25. KadtUim, according to M. Maspero, is Kademoth, 

 according to Brugsch, I am inclined to think that 

 Katanneh is the modern site, being near the places with 



which this name occurs (c'J^yi). The Egyptian lettering- 

 does not forbid such a proposal. 



No. 26. Aiauhm. Ajalon, according to Brugsch, is mentioned 

 also in the Tell Amarna texts. 



No. 27. Mahidau. Makkedah. M. Maspero confirms the sug- 

 gestion which I j)ublished in 1879, as against Brugsch's 

 suggestion of Megiddo. The site is noticed in the Tell 

 Amarna tablets, with topographical details which fully 

 confirm Sir C. Warren's proposed identification with El 

 Mnghdr, "the caves." 



No. 28. Adiru or Adilu may, I think, perhaps be (Ataroth) 

 Adar, which I discovered at the modern Ed Darieh close to 

 Beth Horon. 



No. 29. Yzidah maluh seems to me correctly fixed by M. Maspero. 

 When in 1879 I proposed the site of Jehud {El YeJiudhjeh) 

 I was not aware that Dr. Brugsch held such a view, as he 

 gives no identification in his list in 1879. This opinion 

 seems to me much more probable than the old suggestion 

 " King of Judah," Avhich is contrary to Semitic syntax. 

 The name bears the sign for "country," not for " person." 



No. 31. Haianim (or Haanma a^ccording to Brngsch) . I think 

 the ruin Sannunali is too insignificant to be the site of 

 an ancient town — a few traces of iniins only remain with 

 fig gardens — and that Beit 'Aiidn is more probable. The 

 interchange of Ain and Cheth, which is not uncommon in 

 the modern peasant dialect of Palestine, seems clearly 

 to have been also an Amorite peculiarity, according to the 

 Tell Amarna tablets, and was also a Samaritan vulgarism. 



K 2 



