He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto (according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district of Megiddo. Amenophis II. died in 1423 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period. According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie). At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid, and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear of endangering his daughter’s safety, and for the same cause he would naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt, and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their education. As it was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous, therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many letters in the Babylonian language.