Chabas hesitates between Eiuna and Maiuna, Ionia and
Moonia and Brugsch read it Malunna. The reading Iriuna,
Iliuna, seems to me the only possible one, and the
identification with Ilion as well.

*** Owing to its association with the Dardanians, Mysians,
and Ilion, I think it answers to the Pedasos on the Satniois
near Troy.

The revenue of the provinces taken from Egypt, and the products of his
tolls, furnished him with abundance of means for obtaining recruits from
among them.*

All these things contributed to make the power of the Khati so
considerable, that Harmhabi, when he had once tested it, judged it
prudent not to join issues with them. He concluded with Sapalulu
a treaty of peace and friendship, which, leaving the two powers in
possession respectively of the territory each then occupied, gave legal
sanction to the extension of the sphere of the Khati at the expense
of Egypt.** Syria continued to consist of two almost equal parts,
stretching from Byblos to the sources of the Jordan and Damascus:
the northern portion, formerly tributary to Egypt, became a Hittite
possession; while the southern, consisting of Phoenicia and Canaan,***
which the Pharaoh had held for a long time with a more effective
authority, and had more fully occupied, was retained for Egypt.

* E. de Rouge and the Egyptologists who followed him thought
at first that the troops designated in the Egyptian texts as
Lycians, Mysians, Dardanians, were the national armies of
these nations, each one commanded by its king, who had
hastened from Asia Minor to succour their ally the King of
the Khati. I now think that those were bands of adventurers,
consisting of soldiers belonging to these nations, who came
to put themselves at the service of civilized monarchs, as
the Oarians, Ionians, and the Greeks of various cities did
later on: the individuals whom the texts mention as their
princes were not the kings of these nations, but the warrior
chiefs to which each band gave obedience.

** It is not certain that Harmhabi was the Pharaoh with whom
Sapalulu entered into treaty, and it might be insisted with
some reason that Ramses I. was the party to it on the side
of Egypt; but this hypothesis is rendered less probable by
the fact of the extremely short reign of the latter Pharaoh.
I am inclined to think, as W. Max Miiller has suppo