sed, that
the passage in the _Treaty of Ramses II. with the Prince of
the Khati,_ which speaks of a treaty concluded with
Sapalulu, looks back to the time of Ramses II.'s
predecessor, Harmhabi.

*** This follows from the situation of the two empires, as
indicated in the account of the campaign of Seti I. in his
first year. The king, after having defeated the nomads of
the Arabian desert, passed on without further fighting into
the country of the Amurru and the regions of the Lebanon,
which fact seems to imply the submission of Kharu. W. Max
Miiller was the first to* discern clearly this part of the
history of Egyptian conquest; he appears, however, to have
circumscribed somewhat too strictly the dominion of Harmhabi
in assigning Carmel as its limit. The list of the nations of
the north who yielded, or are alleged to have yielded,
submission to Harmhabi, were traced on the first pylon of
this monarch at Karnak, and on its adjoining walls. Among
others, the names of the Khati and of Arvad are to be read
there.

This could have been but a provisional arrangement: if Thebes had
not altogether renounced the hope of repossessing some day the lost
conquests of Thutmosis III., the Khati, drawn by the same instinct which
had urged them to cross their frontiers towards the south, were not
likely to be content with less than the expulsion of the Egyptians
from Syria, and the absorption of the whole country into the Hittite
dominion. Peace was maintained during Harmhabi's lifetime. We know
nothing of Egyptian affairs during the last years of his reign. His rule
may have come to an end owing to some court intrigue, or he may have had
no male heir to follow him.* Ramses, who succeeded him, did not belong
to the royal line, or was only remotely connected with it.**

* It would appear, from an Ostracon in the British Museum,
that the year XXI. follows after the year VII. of Harmhabi's
reign; it is possible that the year XXI. may belong to one
of Harmhabi's successors, Seti I. or Ramses II., for
example.

** The efforts to connect Ramses I. with a family of Semitic
origin, possibly the Shepherd-kings themselves, have not
been successful. Everything goes to prove that the Ramses
family was, and considered itself to be, of Egyptian origin.
Brugsch and Ed. Meyer were inclined to see in Rams