48 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 
nhbt(?)} kr ib 
(and) a vulture (goddess) on a basket (= “‘lord’’)-sign, 
sm‘ hr-s 
a bush of rushes (= ‘‘south”) underneath 
13d 
hr [qh ?mnty] | kyt-tn 
(are) on [the right side! of] this chapel. 
oe dsrt(?) hr nb 
Anuraeus (and)a “north” (hieroglyph)2on a‘‘lord’’(-sign) 
h} hr-s* 
(with) a papyrus bush (7. e., ‘“‘north’’)-sign underneath 
hr = q‘h-s—ybt(y) 
(are) on its left side. 
Wh'-f pw: 
Its explanation is: 
I3c 
Nobtyy* 
the Master of the vulture and uraeus crowns 
s—hz 
(of Upper and Lower Egypt) who illuminates 
[Sm‘t mhyt| 
[the South and North.] 
DEMOTIC TEXT. 
13b ao 
| hr (?) w*(t?!)° nbé 
on (?) a néb(=lord)-basket-sign. 
I 3c 
Nt(u)—-w hy‘ w‘t(/)® | [F]m'ée 
And be placed a “‘south” sign (7. e., a bush of rushes) 
hr-rt-s_ p(?)'-[p(r)_’mnty(?) n(?) p-gh 
underneath it (on) the (?)® [right of the side 
13d 
e-22 t-git] | [n mb(?)? 
upon the shrine] of gold(?). 
Ni(u)-w [hs w't-'r'yt w*(t?) nb(é) 
And be [placed an uraeus (with) a méb-sign 
I3e 
hr—r]|t-s | hr w' wt(t)(t) 
un]derneath it on a papyrus stalk 
p(r)—ybty 
on the left side, 
 nt-é bf(?)-whm(?)  p,(2)# 
of which its interpretation is: 
r—" ler s-hz 
the king [who has illuminated 
Smt mht.| 
the South (and) North.] 

‘The front ornament of the white crown is visible (perhaps in an unusual form, like the red crown below). 
* The uraeus as symbol of the Delta goddess Buto is clear, but the following symbol of the north, Damanhur 
27; disfigures it to myitt “‘likewise,”’ 
proving that our sign appeared disfigured on its papyrus copy, whether it 
is to be corrected simply to the hieroglyph of the red crown or not. 
* The second half of r and s are visible, ir is preserved in less certain traces. 
* Thus the later Egyptians seem to have expressed this old title, 7. e., 
“the one who has both goddesses,”” 
(evidently with a possessive ending —y after the dualic ie —ty); the original lengthy transcription remains 
unknown. 
* See below (note 10) on the strange feminine indefinite article with this word, although the word itself lacks 
the feminine ending —t (like $m‘é in note 6). 
able —é to $m‘; can this be the “nisbe”’ 
5 Thus after Ros. 
The determinative “ 
° Ros. 27 more correctly the masculine for the strange feminine article; see note 5. 
(i. e., derivative adjectival) ending? 
’ The article p- ought not to stand there, of course. 
Our text seems to differ and to be longer, offering, e. g., the sign X. 
wood,” with nbé “basket sign,” is remarkable. 
Our text adds a remark- 
It looks like: “they 
are ([é|w hpr) lords (nbw, 7. e., here, probably, ‘lord signs’?) ten upon (?) [it?].” 
* Following again Ros. 
changes in the Phile text of the obscure style. 
. . . sd 
'” See note 5 on the feminine indefinite article. 
The traces on the stone are widely different, it seems (like “‘ten crown’’??), indicating 
On the contrary, the word wi(it) below has the masculine 
article, as Ros. 27, but adds the feminine substantive ending —/, lacking correctly in Ros. 
'' Again very uncertain traces which never could be explained without the parallel of Ros. 
”’ and still more p;, pe 
whm (?) is quite in the dark; pef “‘its 
Particularly 
“it is,” are barely possible. 
a i 
