02:30 pm
Cursive features in hieroglyphic writing: quantitative perspectives from the 3rd millennium BC
Philipp Seyr | FNRS / Université de Liège | Belgium
Show details
Author:
Philipp Seyr | FNRS / Université de Liège | Belgium
In this paper, I propose a procedure of how to mine quantitative palaeographic data and integrate it into the study of cursive influences.
My first case study discusses the transformation of the hieroglyphic phonogram wḏ from 𓎗 into 𓎘. It will be shown that this change is based on an adaption of the hieroglyphic sign based on its corresponding cursive grapheme, whose ductus was simplified at the latest during the 5th Dynasty. Indeed, a quantitative approach reveals a significant diachronic and diatopic distribution of 𓎗 vs. 𓎘 in specific types of inscriptions during the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period.
The second case study discusses the sign 𓂙 (radicogram ẖni “to row”) whose variant with an 𓂋 -shaped top is generally explained as deriving from cursive writing. A close look at the Old Kingdom evidence will show that this cannot be maintained with any certainty. In view of the late appearance of the grapheme and its composite nature, I will argue that both sign variants were originally two equivalent options for transposing a cursive sign into hieroglyphs.
03:00 pm
A study in classifier variation between hieroglyphic and hieratic: Sinuhe’s Eulogy of Sesostris I and the Boundary Stelae of Sesostris III.
Susana Soler | University of Barcelona (UB) | Spain
Show details
Author:
Susana Soler | University of Barcelona (UB) | Spain
This presentation proposes a pilot study on classifier variation between hieroglyphic and hieratic scripts using the digital research tool iClassifier. It intends to be a new approach to a still underdeveloped topic in the study of Egyptian hieroglyphs.
The corpus of study will be two different texts from the 'Encomia' genre. The hieratic will be represented by the Eulogy of Sesostris I included in Sinuhe from two versions of the Middle Kingdom: Papyrus Berlin 3022 and Papyrus Ramesseum A (Berlin 10499). Conversely, the hieroglyphic comparison will be established with the Boundary stelae of year 16 of Sesostris III (Semna & Uronarti).
The similarity of the content – eulogistic texts that stress the military prowess of the king – provides a comparable lexicon for the study of variability in semantic classifiers in both types of script. One apparent difference may be the tendency to use specific classifiers in the hieroglyphic inscriptions due to the higher iconicity of the script (i.e., the classifier of the bounded enemy A13 which is absent in hieratic Sinuhe). In addition, the similarity of structure and length could allow an approximation of other variability parameters, such as differences in classifier repertoire, classifier combinations, and percentage of classified tokens.
03:30 pm
Lost in transliteration: The unhappy marriage of hieratic and hieroglyphic signs: A case study
Wael Sherbiny | Belgium
Show details
Author:
Wael Sherbiny | Belgium
The conversion of script in ancient Egyptian texts stands always at the crossroads of hieratograms, ancient hieroglyphs, and the modern standardized hieroglyphs produced by hieroglyphic text processing software.
One outcome of this intricate situation is that some signs of one script become prone to be mistakenly identified. Eventually, this misidentification turns into an established fact circumventing all kinds of doubt, revision, or critical examination. This paper addresses this issue by studying a certain hieratogram mainly found in few Middle Kingdom texts. The true identity of the studied hieratogram is still concealed in Egyptological literature due to its being associated with a supposedly similar hieroglyph. Investigating the complex entanglements of this hieratic-hieroglyphic relationship should finally put an end to their mismatch.