ON THE NAMES ON THE LIST OF TIIOTriMES I IF. :32;3 



(ILlrali), as bein^' near Hazor and Laisli. The sugo'estions for Nos. 42, 

 43, are, of cours;c, indisputable, and have long been fixed points in tlie 

 list. 



As regards No. 41, I do not think it is ufc all possible that Geba of 

 Horsemen can be Sheikh Ibreik. The idea rests on a mistaken reading of 

 Josephus by Guerin. We have, however, Jebata not far off, which does 

 quite well for Gcbatuati, as I have previously proposed. In my original 

 MS. I find 'Arraka identified as proposed by M. Maspero ; but I have not 

 got the papers by me to ascertain if I published this proposal. 'Aiua in 

 this case seems clearly to be 'Anai near 'Arraka. M. Maspero searches for 

 it farther north, because he makes No. 47 to be Accho. It might, how- 

 ever, be 'AjjcJi, a large ancient village in the vicinity of 'Anin and 'Arrakah. 

 If No. 48 be a Kadesh, why not Kadesh of Issachar, which was probably at 

 Tell Abu Kadeis ? No. 49 is Caliimna, or Galliimna, which seems to me 

 rather to Ibe Jellameh than the distant and doubtful Calamon. 



In Nos. 53 and 54 M. Maspero adopts two identifications which I proposed 

 I believe for the first time, in 1876, and which have always seemed to me 

 specially important. In this case he has omitted to refer to my article, 

 but the important point is that I now — ten years later — find myself sup- 

 ported by his A^aluable authorit}^ No. 57 also agrees with my views, Imt, if 

 I remember rightly, is due to Mariette. No. 58 I should propose to jilace at 

 Shihon, on Jebel es Sih, or at the Ayiin Shain, East of Nazareth. No. 59 

 cannot very well be Tell en Naam, as that word contains a hard guttural not 

 found in Bauama, which is' more probably, I think, Ilimmon of Zebulon, 

 now Eiimmaneh. The town Osha mentioned for No. 58 by M. Maspero is 

 now the ruin of Husheh. 



It thus appears that as to the general district in which the names are to 

 be sought, I arn fully supported by ]M. Maspero, who agrees to my views in 

 twenty cases, including several identifications, such as the two Ophels, 

 Tubi Sarona Adami, &c. (not to speak of Misheal and Achshaph) of which 

 I am specially confident, even in face of the authority of INIariette. 

 While acknowledging several additions and improvements in M. Maspero's 

 paper, I still think, with duo deference, that in a few cases my suggestions 

 hang together better than his own, in the identifications which he rejects. 



C. E. Co>rDER. 



Sir CiiAELES Wilson, K.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.E.S.— I am afraid I 

 cannot say much about the paper this evening, as I ^ad no time to look 

 over it before coming here. I think there can be no question as to the very 

 great interest and value of the paper. It is, however, exceedingly technical, 

 and will have to be studied carefully with the aid of a map. I know from 

 personal experience that M. Maspero takes the greatest interest in Palestine 

 exploration and the identification of the names in the lists of Thothmes, 



