10 
TANIS. 
these are all small obelisks, under twenty feet, 
while there are many other obelisks here all in 
one piece of forty to fifty feet in length. The 
explanation seems to- be that these are old 
obelisks, like that of Prince Nehesi, and with 
designs like the old obelisk (inscrip. 13) ; and 
that these, having been damaged, and the points 
broken, were re-cut by Eamessu II. ; adding a 
new point dovetailed on, rather than cut the 
whole end down ; and curving the pyramidal face 
in order to swallow some of the side, and so 
make a triangle large enough for the Eamesside 
scenes of offerings, which took up more room 
than the older designs. 
Amongst the chaos of blocks in the sanctuary 
are two very remarkable pieces, apparently parts 
of two false doors of red granite. The larger 
door (Plan, 180; inscr. 22) has just a fragment 
of the edge of the inscription on its centre panel 
remaining, and from the style of the work and 
the separation of the pet and tarn, it would seem 
more likely to belong to the twelfth than to any 
later dynasty. But the other fragment (Plan, 183; 
inscr. 23) is more important. It is part of a 
regular sepulchral false door, and therefore sug¬ 
gests that it belonged to a royal tomb at San; 
if so, some early kings buried at San have been 
disinterred, and their sepulchres destroyed. On 
the defaced drum can be seen traces of the upper 
and under lines of a cartouche, and two t’s, which 
probably belonged to the regular royal title. 
Another fragment (Plan, 152 ; inscr. 24) of the 
end of an early inscription (the block of which 
was reversed and used by Eamessu II.) seems as 
if it had belonged to a very large scene enclosed 
in the pet and tam. 
15. A pair of sphinxes may be here described, 
the original age of which is somewhat uncertain. 
One is now in the Louvre, the central object in 
the gallery, at the end next to the staircase ; and 
the other is in the garden of the Bulak Museum, 
with a plaster imitation facing it. These spinxes 
have the hair dressed in quite a different way to 
that on the great pair of sphinxes of the twelfth. 
or the smaller sphinxes of the Hyksos dynasty. 
Instead of a close mass of short locks, it is repre¬ 
sented by parallel lines, running in curves, like 
the sea-shading round the coast in maps; and 
there is a long pointed and curved lap of hair 
on the shoulders. These are certainly older than 
Eamessu II., since his name is over an erasure; 
and De Eouge compares the style of that in the 
Louvre to the statue of Sebakhotep III. They 
are very different from the larger sphinxes, both 
originally, and in their later history; and the 
pointed look of hair is like that on a sphinx 
which I discovered last year at Tell Khatanah. 
It is, however, remarkable that there is no Hyksos 
inscription erased from the shoulder, no Hyksos 
inscription on the base, and the chest inscription 
(which is erased) has not had a large hawk over it, 
as on the great sphinx. Eamessu II. appropriated 
these sphinxesby cutting his names over the erasure 
on theohest(25c),butthe erasure is not deep, and 
hence the original inscription must have been but 
lightly cut. He also put his names and a long 
inscription around the base (25 a, 25 b), in-which 
he is said to be “like his father Ptah,’’ and 
“ beloved of Set.” Afterwards Merenptah placed 
his names on the right shoulder (25 d). These 
inscriptions are from the Louvre sphinx. This 
closes the pre-Hyksos monuments known to belong 
to San. 
16. The monuments of the Hyksos are among 
the most curious in Egypt; and it is to San 
that we owe the greater number of those brought 
to light. They are all distinguished by an entirely 
different type of face to any that can be found on 
other Egyptian monuments, a type which cannot 
be attributed to, any other known period; and it 
is therefore all the more certain that they belong 
to the foreign race whose names they" bear. 
Another peculiarity is that they are without ex¬ 
ception executed in black or dark grey granite ; 
no monument of this type is known in other 
material. Such cannot be said of any other 
epoch, and this alone may serve as a useful test 
of the originahty of any supposed Hyksos monu- 
