80 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE STATUES COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
[m] kit msntyw nw  Bedt E-w ’ryi[-f]® eh yb n rm(t) t-Kmy. 
[in?] work (of) sculptors of Egypt. It is made like work of Egyptian people. 
14d Fig 
Miwtw {s-\‘hi . . . . | nitr—nt(y)(2) Niu-w t(y)—'h, | wetwt n p-tntr 
And be _ set up [an image of] the local? [go]d And shall be set up a figure (of) the god 
m  ht-ntr-tn t-p, wt? | n. p-rpy let ae 
in this temple [giving a (royal?) sickle-sword of vic- | of the divine cycle] of the temple [who gives 
1th 
[é]wiw(/)? 2 nb [qnw?]* hps | qn(!)® | n p-twot =n 
tory to] theimage of the Lord (of) [victory?] a sickle-sword]| (of) victory to the image of 
r4e 
| nz(?)- n-f® hl wy?] pr- ‘h (?)m—b,h(?)°—-  [f] 
punishing for him asmitten (captive)(?) the king. standing(?) [before](?) [him!"] 
I2a 
n[ty?]} . . . . ‘m(?)-[s?|n |. . . mt(u)—w(?} ; Lor 
[which is?] [imploring?]  [th]em(?),° . . ». « . and they(?) < . . 0s eee 
rdy(?)—n wn|w|t(y) w PP 
(and shall?) give (? 4. ¢., place) the officiating priests’ | . . . . . «s+ « «= os © ge 

1 The determinative of the sitting god is preserved, but rather rudely drawn. 
2 This reading ‘‘city god, local god,’’ seems clear on the stone and gives an excellent sense, especially if we 
compare it with the mention of the ‘“‘nome gods,”’ Ros. 7. —The demotic parallel, however, seems to show that the 
reading ntir pswty (psdty?) “god of the divine circle,” i. e., dominating the local circle of gods, was intended as the 
original sense, at least in the Rosetta decree. The circle sign admits either pronunciation in abbreviated 
orthographies. ‘The parallel passage, decree I, ge, renders the passage differently, it seems, 7. e.. more elaborately. 
’ The ¢ is not certain; the first sign looks rather like traces of w than of #7. The word “image” is here written 
twiw (cp. 8b, etc.). The restoration [k;|-tw [-n-/], “which is called,” is risked; at any rate, there seems almost 
nothing between 2 and nb; the space points to as narrow a sign as that of “‘statue.”” (The vertical stroke after the 
vertical palimpsestic line belongs to this line as a tentative scratch.) 
4’The traces -do not favor the restoration nb gn(w), ‘‘lord of victory,” it is true, but the demotic text seems 
to leave no other choice. 
>“ To stand,” ‘i, is improbable without determinative, so I find a club-like ideograph and the strong arm 
as nz (cp. 12c? or hsf, ge?). Again, the reading (after Ros. 6), “he has defended (nz—n-f) Egypt” militates against 
the rather clear , which could hardly be read Bgt “Egypt.” ‘The least probable explanation of the above group 
is as a verb ending in s. 
°T assume that the (very probable) ’m- expresses, as explained in the note on demotic line ge in a modern- 
izing way, the object of a somewhat emphasized verb. ‘This verb might then be dw; “worshipping, saluting,” 
dbh “‘begging,” or the like; the space is, however, very narrow (especially if we understand the horizontal stroke 
above as pointing to m[ty], the relative) to identify it in the traces below that stroke. Bold also is the restora- 
tion of h[wy], ““a smitten man,” as crowding and archaizing.. (I considered, for a long time, a restoration like 
hn‘ or hr “‘with, and.’”’) ‘The description of that representation, of course, admits much variety of expression. 
’The group rdy-n “have given” is by no means certain. We can not restore the group determined by 
“people” to w‘bw “priests’’; the high size of -w would be intelligible only after a w‘b written with 6 underneath, 
for which group space and traces are unfavorable. The -i-like trace under w, if not secondary, would also be 
against that restoration. ‘The expression ’irty seems, however, always to refer to the sanctuaries of Egypt (cp. 
Philensis I, 4b; II, 4a, etc.), so that the priests must be meant. So we read, after the initial traces, wnwtyw “the 
officiating priests’’; literally “those in their hours” (cp. decree I, 14/), as synonymous with “the attendants”’ (I, 
rob), although the space is scarcely sufficient and indicates unusual crowding of the signs. 
* Unusual verbal form, disfigured by the engraver. The text is already difficult in Ros. 23; especially the 
sign ’r ‘‘make”’ is similarly disfigured. ‘ ; 
* The enormous extension of the last stroke does not seem to indicate a division. 
This restoration is not at all certain. ‘The preposition m-—b3h ‘before’? would be strongly disfigured; it 
looks quite different directly underneath in line 72h, namely, like ’rw “they made.’’ Yet, a reading “they (sé) 
(are?) made (’7-w)’’ would not easily fit into the context. 
The passage, very negligently written in Ros., seems, according to the space, to have been shortened 
(probably the verb). ‘The determinative ‘‘metal’”’ of ps, apparently, is further disfigured (like ¢-), ete. 
‘2 T do not succeed in connecting the demotic and hieroglyphic texts. Worthless guesses from the isolated 
traces are better not discussed here. 
