22 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 
name in a demotic schoolbook, the papyrus 3116, of Cairo (Die demot. Papyrus von Cairo, text 
271, pl. CLIX, col. 2, 13) dorwesy S(a)gan, SC) gin. Consequently the Hntywy (19), Hntynwy 
(20), of the Damanhur stone is to be read $}(=Hnt +3}=ty)g(=nty)nw, exactly as written in 
demotic. ‘The orthography of the Rosetta text (line 12) 2]5,-~3 is now to be understood 
as Skan or S(a)kan. ‘The varying expression of the palatal k/g may betray the beginning 
of the soft pronunciation of that letter which we find in the Coptic letter Jima. The group- 
ing of the names in the Cairo papyrus does not help us at all; a preceding city “house of 
Osiris of Rakotis’’ confirms only the neighborhood of Busiris, evidently not of Alexandria, for 
which the copyist seems to have misunderstood it. Would it not be possible to find our name 
also in the part of the Busiris nome which appears in the geographic lists as S}-tp-nty or S3sf(1)? 
Cp. J. de Rougé, Géographie Ancienne de la Basse Egypte, 58. 
The description of the campaign shows that the city was surrounded by water like so many 
Delta places and that the summer inundation had increased the strength of these natural 
fortifications. From the sentimental story how the noble king had even to pay the guards of 
the dykes, the inference could be drawn that the commander of the royal army wanted to pro- 
tect the fortifications around the city mound, and at the foot of it, situated still in the plain, 
against flooding by piercing the dykes. This would mean an extremely difficult task, how- 
ever. Simpler is the assumption that there is meant only the protection of the long highroads, 
which in summer stand like dykes from the inundating water; the rebels coming on boats from 
the city tried to cut these at the proper places (‘‘at the mouth of canals,”’ z. e., where navigable 
canals met those highroads at right angle) and to isolate the besieging Greek troops. The 
insurgents may have done this with success repeatedly; otherwise the efforts to protect the 
dams would not be mentioned.' 
The final capture of the city was followed by a general massacre, as the Rosettana clearly 
states (cp. Damanhur, 22: “he made (of) them a great slaughter” (5d ‘;). Those occupants of 
the city, who even endured a formal siege, must have been the most desperate elements among 
the rebels, who had forfeited their lives repeatedly. Thus, it seems, the Greeks made an exam- 
ple of them, which impressed the other rebels deeply. 
Here Polybius sets in with a fragment of the ecoripta Valesiana (23, 16 Schweighaeuser, 
21, 19 Dindorf): 
[IIro\euatos 6 Bactreds Aiyirrovu| dre When he [Ptolemy the King of Egypt] (had) 
Thy Avxav Ilé\w éwodtudpxnoe [| . . . | besieged the city Lycopolis [ . . . ] frightened by 
Katat\ayévTes TO yeyovos ol duvaorat that which had happened, the chiefs of the Egyptians 
tov Aiyurtiwy wxav odas adtrovs eis gave themselves into the faith of the king [ 
Thv Tov Bactlews miory [| . .. | He treated these badly [ . . . ] and fell ‘ate 
ois Kak@s éxpjoaro [| . . . | xal es many dangers. 
Kw vvous To\Xovs EvVeTTETEV. 
This very fragmentary excerpt’ confirms the Rosettana in reporting a formal siege of 
Lycopolis and terrible cruelties of the king’s forces (indicated by the terror which seized the 

1 Budge, in his The Rosetta Stone (The Decrees of Memphis and Canopus, vol. I1), pp. 30 to 31, strangely understood the description 
in the Rosettana that the king shut off the rebels from drinking water, until they ‘‘were driven to surrender; immediately all the stale 
water which lay a few feet below the canal-bottoms was exhausted.’ A strange fancy! In summerly Egypt, at least in the Delta, 
the slightest digging strikes ground water and should have prevented a surrendering for the sake of thirst. 
2 Schweighaeuser, 7, 516, remarked correctly: in brevius haec contracta esse a compilatore eclogarum satis apparet. 
—_—— . 
