Dec.4] PROCEEDINGS. [1S94.someemendations in the first signs, apparentlycorrupted by the
sculptor. Alsothe last six signs ~~~^[|(] ^r are slightly corrupted,
D
read , (](] M£ kup-ny, " the Byblian." Thisis an awkwardly
**' CXT3<"^^^A \
modernizedformof the old ' .. I kup-ni (Pap.Ebers.58,
D ^ C^Q
16; 63, 8, etc.), i.e., Byblos * (Gubl). Themostplausiblerender
ing of the passage is that a man is mentioned, apparently the
dedicator of the monument, bearing the long name: V\ A C\
n>(](]^3 "sacred eyeof Horus of Byblos." t Most likely,this
nameis Egyptianized onlyin order to fit into the style of this in
scription, and has a Phoenician prototypewhich mayhave been-
ratherdifferent. Theimportantresultis that in Egyptianizing style
one of the chief godsof Byblos, apparentlythe sun-god Baal,was
identifiedwiththe Egyptian godHorus,the young sun.
We must supposethe temple of Horus-Baal, or the necropolis of
Byblos,to have beenthe place wherethis monumentwaserected.
But it is not impossible to think of the neighbouring Sidonwhere,
accordingto Mr. Griffith, the fragment has been found.
- Identification proposed firstby Chabas, see Asicn undEurofa,p. 18S
following,especially 190, wherethe frequent form "^ instead of JJ is
explained.
- It is improbable to take Kupnynot as a pari of the name, but as an
epithetonof that Phncniciandedicator,"themanfromByblos." OneN& would
be omitted. The y is hardly the grammatical ending of the "nisbe"
(J?—, ""• Tj. It stands for the old silent letter\v-
299