There are, however, important points of divergence. The _asor_, which was apparently the favorite instrument of the Assyrians, is not found represented on any Egyptian monuments that have come down to us. In its stead the harp obviously held the place of honor. The Egyptian harp was much superior to the Assyrian instrument, both in design and construction; indeed, except for the lack of a front pillar, pedals, and double strings, it must have been little inferior to our own harp, even in musical quality, while in beauty of design it could hold its own with the best we are able to show. This is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that it was brought to perfection at least three thousand years ago. The two ornate and beautifully modelled harps found by the English traveller Bruce, painted in fresco on the walls of the Tomb of the Kings at Thebes, are attributed to the period of Rameses II (about 1250 B. C.) and, whatever they may have been musically, they are perfect models of grace and finished workmanship. Most of the harps on the Egyptian monuments are highly ornamented and were obviously constructed with an eye to decorative effect. The harp seems to have been the instrument _de luxe_ in Egypt--the necessary finishing touch to the furniture of every well-appointed home--the Egyptian counterpart of our piano. It varied in size to suit the taste, or perhaps the pocket-book, of its owner. The largest harps were almost as tall as a man and were equipped with twenty or more strings, the smallest ones had four strings and were easily carried about. In regard to the number of strings, however, the fidelity to numerical truth of the ancient artists cannot unquestionably be assumed. It is the opinion of Carl Engel that the Egyptian harp was tuned in the same diatonic series of intervals as the Greeks obtained by two conjunct tetrachords. He bases his opinion on the apparent number of strings. Probably it was tuned in a diatonic series of some sort; but opinions on the subject are the purest guesswork.