70 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
of 7h 
[hr | glw)t-sn | hm|w—-sn?] | [nw-?] (htp?)w hn n-w- gywt(?) —n-nir 
[for(?)]! their shrines (and) [their?| adyta? (and) their sacrifices(?) in their divine shrines(?)® 
[sh] m[zw] nw ntrw. W’-sn 
[(and) the stat]ues®? of the gods. They devastated(?)4|). 9. 2. . 2. 1. 1 «4 0% «(5 
nwt? h‘ ms‘(w?)—sn 
the cities together with their populace(?)® 
I oa 8a 
hriw(?) —hl 
[doing to women(?) and] young children, 
m. \hmwi |: 4 <5 
(even) of [women(?) and little children. 
WES 2 ig mytt— ’r(y)w(?)? k-hw bi(w)(?) [kt-?|hew(?) 
committing crimes] of such kind other ones* | [committing] crimes(?)" other ones 
l Of m1, an? 
2 The word is probable but not absolutely certain. 
3 We guess this restoration from the determinative. ‘The space would also allow the supplying of a verb of 
its own (like “they dishonored, profaned,” etc.) before this noun. 
4’This verb is not frequent and therefore presents difficulties. It may be related to the root w(;y), ‘‘to be 
distant’’; we find the Egyptian scribes, at least, confounding both words in the variants of Toth. Leps. 99, 23, 29; 
also the verb rw’: ‘‘to remove,” is not easily separated from it. W’; (determinative: 1, soft action of the hand; 2, 
action of the feet) means ‘“‘to remove,” of booty, Merneptah-inscription (D H I II, 5, 61, etc.), of persons (determ. 
dto) Pap. Turin 4, 5; 6, 9; Anast. I, 17, 4, shepherd story, Pap. Berl. III, 170 (wy, det. legs): “to carry away, to 
kidnap.’’ Wy in obscure passage, Rec. Trav. 8,161. Causative s—w’ (determ. legs) likewise: ‘to remove (thirst),”’ 
Miss. Frang. V, 517. M w’-tw rf: “do not remove thyself from him,”’ Prisse 14, 11. The passage LD. III, 202¢ 
(w’ grg) is obscure. Ebers 109, 8, Stern’s reading st w’;t (det. arm) might be questioned; in Pap. Ebers the noun 
w’;t: ‘‘disgust,” seems to mean: ‘“‘the impulse of removing, abhorrence.’’ Other passages may rather belong to 
rw;, €. g., Anast. VIII, 3, 13, Sallier I, 5, 1 (of ‘‘unloading”’). The reduplication w’}w’; is known only from a 
single passage (Amnast. I, 28, 2, det. ‘‘confusion’”’ or “separation,” and “‘wickedness’’), applying it to a faulty 
literary style. The meaning given by our text seems thus to be rather peculiar, including “‘to devastate, vacate, 
expel, plunder.” 
°’The arrangement shows that three parallel plural strokes stood below, thus indicating space for a small 
sign like -¢ behind the half-preserved circle of ‘‘city.’”’ 
° I assume the hieroglyph “soldier” here to have the same meaning as Coptic me(e) Se, ‘multitude, people in 
the widest sense,”’ as irregularly in demotic use. 
’The above translation (assuming an archaic use of the noun mytt: “likeness, identity, copy, likewise,”’ 
instead of the preposition my: “‘like,”’ so that we should obtain myit—(’)r(y)w “‘likewise’’) must remain uncertain 
with such fragmentary text. Thus I have hesitated for a long time as to whether the three traces behind, running 
in horizontal direction, could not be read as ’r—rn “they did;”’ I seek these words now rather in the gap. See the 
following note. Lacking the context, I am unable to decide. . 
* This pronominal form seems to stand here not absolutely, i. e., as substantive, as mostly in archaic style. 
Later the absolute is not the exclusive usage, as might erroneously be concluded from the too scanty quotations 
in Erman, Neuaegypt. Gramm. § 92. Yet it stands as epithet always before the noun, e. g., Anast. I, 22, 3; Sallier 
II, 9, 5, Harris I, 6, 6; 76, 11, etc., Canop. 33. Already Toth. 175, Ani, 1, 18 (=ht, Naville, 1. 17), often in demotic, 
e. g., Canop. 18, Ros. 11, 19. “The Coptic kekéuni, kekauni “others,’’ which, notwithstanding the assimilation of 
the second consonant (i) to the first (k), has originated from our kt-ht, kt—-(’)ht “another kind”’ (kekauni meaning 
really “another kind of beings’’), stands between both usages, taking the place of kt-ht as substantival plural 
and yet showing in its composition the prefixed employment of an adjective, before uni “‘being(s).” The sub- 
stantival use kth, indeed, still occurs in demotic (Ros. 20), and the postposition in our passage seems unique for 
the latest style, so that it could be explained only as having half-independent, appositional, supplementary char- 
acter. Otherwise, taken as quite substantival, it would confirm the reading ‘‘they did’’ (’7-sz), which we have 
con-idered in the preceding note and would furnish thus the translation ‘‘. . . likewise. ‘They did other such 
(things), did the like.’”’ ‘The demotic text, however, seems to point to the above translation. 
* It is easiest to consider the strange group for “‘sacrifice’”’ simply as disfigured form itp. The next ques- 
tionable group seems g;wt “‘shrines”’ (with g and } in ligature) rather than [mw] ‘‘sanctuaries.”’ 
'° In this hazardous restoration we have to admit that the orthography of hrtw, “children,” is unusual (assum- 
ing a varying repetition of the ideographic sign “‘child’’ as determinative) and uncertain. ‘The group suggests 
bi(w) and seems verbal. Probably the determinative of the ‘‘wicked bird”’ stands there as the sign before the last. 
For the restoration of the last group to k(4)héw: “‘ other(s),”’ see the note on the hieroglyphic text. I first thought 
ot gah f= **ae thnatich hax worn nutshell Peele tae Lbh ee oer ees eee ae 
