' [ 434 ] 
tional light upon part of the preceding remarks, and 
more clearly evince a point of confiderable import- 
ance, with regard to the true explication of the 
Oxford infcription, that has been manifeftly oppofed 
by M. l’Abbe. ^ . .... 
i. The twenty-firft of the Citiean mfcriptions, 
which confffts only of the two words 7n {OOiO, or 
^hn IDtSN 1 ?, had probably loft a Lamed, before the 
autograph itfelf was deftroyed ; unlefs we will fuppofe 
the Phoenicians of Cyprus, when it firft appeared, to 
have ufed even the participle pahul itfelf of the radix 
^n, or SSn, in the contracted form. The original 
Phoenician is equivalent to the Latin amamono 
INTERFECTO, AMAMONO in acie INTER1ECTO, OT 
amamoni in praelio confossi, fcil. lapis fepulchra- 
lis, i. e. the grave-ftone of amamon killed in 
war j which feems to imply, that this Amamon, 
who was probably an officer of fome note, fell in the 
affair that happened between a part of the combined 
army of Perffans and Phoenicians and a body of 
Euagoras’s troops (92) near Citium, foon after 
the commencement of the Cyprian war. Whence 
we may infer, that this infcription is coeval with 
thofe 1 have already endeavoured to explain j that it 
points, clearly enough, at the fame event ; and con- 
fequently that it brings a frefh acceflion of ftrength 
both to my opinion of the age of thofe monuments, 
and alfo to the authority of Diodorus Siculus himfelf 
in the point before us. 
As for the Phoenician proper name amamon, I 
have formerly expatiated fo (93) largely upon it, . 
( 92 ) Dlod. Sic. Bibl. Hi ft. Lib. XV. p. 459* 4^°* 
1 ( 93 ) Infer ipt. Cit. p. 20 , 21 , 22 . Oxon. 1 75°* 
that 
