[13]
one before us, i. j. Of the father, and grandfather of this
king we have the prenomens, in a curious tablet (3) at
Karnak, discovered by Mr. Burton, and in several places
at the temple of old Qoorna, (4) which are at all events a
very strong, if not a decisive proof, that all the lists in
Plate I, point out a succession of kings.
Some may question the name iiri being the same, as
that given in the tablet before us, or i No. 2.
I confess, from the first sight of the hieroglyphics, on
Egyptian obelisks, I was induced to consider the lateral
lines posterior to that of the centre; an opinion, which,
generally speaking, I have had no reason to change, at least
whenever the names in the centre line differ from those of
the lateral ones; but when the names are the same in all,
we may fairly conclude, that the whole was sculptured
during the reign of the same king. Such appears, to have
been the case in the obelisks at Luqsor. But let us con-
sider the arguments on both sides.—1. Some of the centre
lines contain the prenomen i No. 1, and the sculptures of
all of them are cut deeper than those of the side; this would
seem to favor the opinion, that this prenomen belonged to
a king anterior to i No. 2, (which name is in all the lateral
lines). 2. Oilier of the centre lines present the last men-
tioned prenomen, cut with the same depth, as the other,
before alluded to; and the square title under the hawk,
be changed; as in " beloved of Amun," and " loving Amun;" Tide names q,
and x, and their variations, Plate II, where in one Amun precedes, in the other
follows the sign " beloved."
(3) v. Plate I, No. 8; v. also Mr, Burton's Excepta No, 1, Plate XVII.
(4) V. Plate 1, Nos. 9. 10. 11.
one before us, i. j. Of the father, and grandfather of this
king we have the prenomens, in a curious tablet (3) at
Karnak, discovered by Mr. Burton, and in several places
at the temple of old Qoorna, (4) which are at all events a
very strong, if not a decisive proof, that all the lists in
Plate I, point out a succession of kings.
Some may question the name iiri being the same, as
that given in the tablet before us, or i No. 2.
I confess, from the first sight of the hieroglyphics, on
Egyptian obelisks, I was induced to consider the lateral
lines posterior to that of the centre; an opinion, which,
generally speaking, I have had no reason to change, at least
whenever the names in the centre line differ from those of
the lateral ones; but when the names are the same in all,
we may fairly conclude, that the whole was sculptured
during the reign of the same king. Such appears, to have
been the case in the obelisks at Luqsor. But let us con-
sider the arguments on both sides.—1. Some of the centre
lines contain the prenomen i No. 1, and the sculptures of
all of them are cut deeper than those of the side; this would
seem to favor the opinion, that this prenomen belonged to
a king anterior to i No. 2, (which name is in all the lateral
lines). 2. Oilier of the centre lines present the last men-
tioned prenomen, cut with the same depth, as the other,
before alluded to; and the square title under the hawk,
be changed; as in " beloved of Amun," and " loving Amun;" Tide names q,
and x, and their variations, Plate II, where in one Amun precedes, in the other
follows the sign " beloved."
(3) v. Plate I, No. 8; v. also Mr, Burton's Excepta No, 1, Plate XVII.
(4) V. Plate 1, Nos. 9. 10. 11.