In Appendix A of the paper we present, for the first time, transliteration, and English translation of the last 11 rows of the demotic text from row 22 till row 32. We decided to present only part of the text, simply because the limited length of the paper at a congress. We present especially this part of text, because it is more adequate in sense of partitioning the signs into words and sentences. Easier partitioning of words and sentences is a direct consequence from very frequent usage of the word јьви [jьvi], meaning order (ordered, shall be) equent usage of the word s itioning. of the paper at congress, and especially very similar with makiong a p in English.
At the beginning of the analysis of our results of reading demotic text, we simply counted the number of occurrences of this word in demotic text with the number of occurrences of word order in English translation of ancient Greek text, presented by the British Museum, London, and conclude that these numbers are equal. After that, we start to compare our reading of demotic text with English translation of ancient Greek text sentence by sentence, i.e. order by order. At this stage of analysis, we came to conclusion that two compared text have almost the same content. However, the structures of sentences obtained in demotic text are different from the structures of sentences that we have in ancient Greek text. This is very understandable, and logically, we can say that any one who makes more thorough analysis could easily conclude that in the case of two different languages and texts with same content, such result would be more than expected. We found two cases in which two texts, demotic and ancient Greek are different, and much more these differences are crucial in providing evidences in favor of our methodology, and in assumption that the middle text on the stone is ancient Macedonian text.
First difference between demotic text, and ancient Greek text, appears at row 22/23 of the demotic text comparing with rows 37/38/39 in ancient Greek text. In the demotic text, of which detailed transliteration is presented in Appendix A of this paper, in these rows the pharaoh gives detailed instructions for the arrangement of the near area of the stone installation. Shortly, the pharaoh order that above the stone, the draw (picture) of him should be engraved in stone, behind him his ancestors should be pictured, beside that a stone relief should represent him (pharaoh) how he asks the Goddess Ltcha (goddess of sun ray, Isis) to give him the sword of the land (inanata), and there should be a statue of the God of scripts Hoo, or Thoth in Egyptian mythology. This text is crucial evidence of correctness of our assumption, because it is in direct connection with archeological evidences found in duplicates of the Rosetta stone, namely the Stele of Damanhur, or Stele of Annobairah, as it is sometimes called. In his book, , on page 39, Sir W. Budge says: “Immediately above the inscription, and under the Winged Disk, is sculptured a scene in which the king, Ptolemy V, is represented in the act of spearing an enemy, who kneels before him and has his arms tied together at the elbows behind him. Behind the king stands a royal lady wearing disk and plumes of Isis. Facing him is a god who has the feather of Maat upon his head (our comment – may be Hoo??), and is presenting to the king a scimitar of victory. Behind him stands a lioness-headed goddess (Bast?), and behind her are figures of three of the Ptolemies and their Queens, and close to their heads are the cartouches containing their names. These probably represent the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of Ptolemy V”. This was a general scheme of decoration from the Stele set up in honor of Ptolemy III and Ptolemy IV as well.
Second substantial difference between demotic and ancient Greek texts appears in the last row of demotic text when pharaoh, according to our reading, lists the territories where the stone should be installed within the corresponding temples of God Snake of the Delta, God of Aswan, and ours God. In the demotic text, we found that the pharaoh orders for the stone to be installed in temples in the main city of Egypt, which was Alexandria in that period and in Sinai and Israel as well. In his book, , on page 46, Sir W. Budge says: “If they took care that a hard stone tablet inscribed with the Decree in Greek, Demotic, and hieroglyphs was set up in all the temples of the first, second, and third orders in Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, a very considerable number of copies would have to be made. But it is very doubtful if their decision was carried into effect literally, for the only two complete copies of the Decree inscribed on stela known to us are those of Rosetta and An-Nobairah. No copy of the Decree has been found at Thebes or Abydos, or even at Memphis, and it seems as if the priests contented themselves with setting up copies of it in the towns of the Delta, which lay at no great distance from Alexandria, the seat of the Government of the Ptolemies.” Again, according to our reading the conclusion is straightforward, no stela should be found outside the area of Alexandria, because that was the order of the pharaoh, to be set up only in Alexandria.