322 M. G. MASPERO 



seems to be the Kasimij^eh, near Tyre ; he also speaks of Tubakhi, which, 

 as far a? sound <,foes, may be the same as Dibkhu or Tibkhu, and which 

 seems to be the Tibhath of the Bible (I Chron. xviii. 8). These places are, 

 of course, a good deal further north, but the suggestion for Nazana agrees 

 M'ith M. ISIaspero's location of Luhuia. He will, however, I think, find that 

 KHrah is spelt with a guttural at the end, and has thus nothing to do with 

 the Hebrew word, which in Arabic appears as Kariet. 



As regards the next section, I have no doubt that the names Damascus, 

 Abila, and Hamath or Hammath, are to be recognised, though I have pre- 

 viously supposed the latter to be Hammath on the Sea of Galilee. The 

 absence of the guttural in Adihi or Adiru is, no doubt, important ; but, 

 then, the Egyptians had no real guttural, and the mistake is conceivable. I 

 am inclined to see in Birutu rather the ruin Bireh south of the Sea of 

 Galilee, than the Berotha of Josephas, which I take to be the jwesent Biria 

 in Upper Galilee. This agrees with my supposition that No. 20 is, as 

 Mariette suggests, Madon (Madiia). I cannot see any possible connexion 

 of Aitharun with Berotha, nor is Aitharim the only place with many wells. 

 No. 20 is not identified by M. Maspero, but is, I think, very important. He 

 accepts my view as to No. 21 being Sarona, but this agrees much better 

 with the above-noticed identification of Nos. 18, 19 than his own. Tnhi at 

 et Taiyibeh has already commended itself to rae in connexion with the 

 other proposals, of which M. Maspero has accepted one. No. 23 as Bessum 

 I have already proposed in my " Handbook." No. 24 seems to me (see 

 " Handbook to Bible," p. 243) to be possibly Amathus (Amasna), No. 26 

 Kenath {Kana), No. 28, as M. Maspero also says, Ashtaroth {Tell 

 Ashterah), though this will not agree with his suggestion, Cana for No. 26. 

 Anurpha, as Raphana, seems to me a valuable suggestion. As to No. 30, 

 we do not know the exact position of Maked, or Maged, which I am 

 inclined to place at el Mcjed, further south. Malata, I would suggest, is 

 more probably Maachath, as being next to Laish. In this case it is probably 

 Abel Beth INlaachah, the present Abl, which is intended. 



M. IMaspero, I understand, accepts No. 31 as Laish, and No. 32 as the 

 celebrated Hazor of Galilee (Hadireh). No. 34 brings us both back to 

 Chinnereth on the Sea of Galilee. No. 36 he recognises, as I have already 

 proposed, as ed Damieh , agreeing with No. 34. In this section, therefore, 

 INI. Maspero agrees with my amended list as published in 1870 (" Handbook 

 to the Bible," p. 243) and 1881. 



In No. 39 he is again inclined to adopt my suggestion of Misheal, and in 

 No. 40 not only my suggestion Achshapli, but also my new site for that 

 town at el Yasif, Avhich differs from any previously proposed. 



No. 27 as 'xirraneh cannot, of course, be accepted if Megiddo be at 

 Lejjun ; but it becomes possible if it were at Mujedda, and thus strengthens 

 my case for that suggestion. Umm el Fahm docs not appear to be an 

 ancient name ; it means " Mother of Charcoal," which is made in the 

 vicinity. No. 33, Pa Hurah, I have sought in Upper Galilee at Horem 



