'r:ocesG jnr oF '.'.:l:.:-'le Lani:r_re-e 2, eilt*o lr.: n.r.enc€ leries,

iiunar: Jractoz.s, YcI. 13)n i{err Yon!: an<i. London,

A l,'^ ,' .,-c I I rl !'" !.- l' !J

,

Se:'iea if I:1980: 43-66

"

emphasis on itsRemarks on ancient Egyptian writing withmnemonic aspects

Edmund S. Meltzer

In aruient Egyptian writing the ideographi,c and phonetic elernents are closelyinterhLtined; aarious orthographic conaentions are goaerned by the centralimpor-tance of a recognizable uord-p'hture and the mnemon'i.c principle. The essential

unity of hieroglyphic writing, andthe impornnce of context, mustbe stressedin theorigin as well as in the we of the script. These poinx are important in the study ofthe cursiae (h'ieratic and demotic) scripts as uell. E gptfuin writing (and education)emphasized uord-recognition and multifaceted, uord, characterization in which anincomplete phonetic representation was supplemented by (and euen subordinatedto) aisual and mnemonic priorities.

Only in the writing of Coptic, the most recent stage of the language, did theancient Egyptians adopt a purely alphabetic script (the Greek alphabet, supple-mented by a few signs from demotic for phonemes absenr from Greek). Thisalphabetwas a foreign script (except for the few demotic letters which provided adirect link with native Egyptian writing), and, moreover, was widely adopted onlywhen Pharaonic culture was virtually defunct. The earlier Egyptian scripts-hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, which altogether cover a history of about3500 years and continue into the beginning of the Coptic period-were of a verydifferent character. In the present survey, we shall concentrate on the hiero-glyphs, which are the most accessible and offer the most obvious possibilities for thestudy of visible language, but we shall not restricr ourselves to rhem. Hieroglyphicorthography and scribal conventions changed over the course of time; the rnajor-ity of the writings discussed here are most characteristic of the period extendingfrom the beginning of the Middle Kingdom through the Eighteenth Dynasty (c.2000-1320 B.C., when Middle or Classical Egyptian was rhe literary language),and are typical of themodrc operand,i of the hieroglyphic scripr in general. Exam-ples referring to specific periods will be so designated.

Elaborate typologies of hieroglyphic signs have been presented in recentyears (Hodge, l97b; Kaplony, 1966; Schenkel, 1976), and they will not be dupli-cated here. The ancient Egyptians'approach to taxonomy was quite differentfrom ours and so, rather than concentrate on the typology of individual signs, weshall examine some of the processes by which ancient Egyptian writing works. weshall, however, begin with a typology of sorrs: a very simple (and simplistic)inventory of the types of signs as often presented in elementary instruction.Hieroglyphs comprise both ideograms and phonograms.

I d e o gr ams are of two main types : I o go gr ams (word-signs ) and de t erminatiu e s,the latter being placed at the end of words spelled ottwithphonogra,ms. Moreover,there are two types of determinarives: generir which label a class (motion, physical

fiz:

(ar.cph); { lr 44 , \\e s; ) !; trp,x^'gs;ex;1-gE;g (oris. z). p E; aa!;

=2!; €g;

E.S. Meltzer

3 {"rro1t

-Ei$; llt^(g); e

I; --O!r$ )

Ir; a!; a r1^. d\r

!;E;6E;

A.L!0

\s nri I EE; * b1tWith Phooetic Couplenents:

, 6?{

hpn:

1r<- ,

t}gt) a\

:Ef.o

.a.. E:!l,-\t:i o e4

+ 3s;

*;

I nfr; & btp; trWith Phonetic Couplenents

tr+ . *A: i- ; S,

Figure l. Uniliteral (,,alphabetic,') signs.

Aa.iflr.tr4l nn!

G et A 9i ?<re;6u, ! e!;

,

seFigure 2. Biliteral signs (including some which function as ,,root-signs,,).

(exaraples fron peet 1925 at b)Figure 4. "Semi-phonetic,,signs and uses.

force, actions having to do with the mouth or speech, animars, abstractions, and soon) andspecffic whichlabel a particular object or action. The same word can ofrenbe written with a specific or a generic determinative (for example, that for dog orthat for animals in general) and many specific (as weil as ro-. gi;".ic) determina_tives can also be used as logograms. Many words take rnore tha-n one determinative(.r lgures 5- /).

;-flFigure 3. Triliteral signs (mostly .,root-signs',).

./-d

in edn "hea-, r "/ $. , */ S.{ia slrv ttguard"r

d5.${ 'EIldg' fl.-/'-\K

gE

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

El Dr rrhousetr:l-

,ni -C

u -^-- tt / \

Generic: A,a

@

sSpecific:

--rol dnt rrha:xdrr

45

?)

in j{a !!"coneu,7 $.ain g-D ? @ "dav"(t), 2t@in f=\$ E44 "relate", flr{fl

0 $$,I l<>

pr^

Sn ng6tr

tr rrseasonrr

smi trreporxrr

SiQn

gnr rrcourtierrl

EgZ " slayrr

9 !u trsunrt (logographic); =3 a (with @ as d.et.)

!T strmanrr( * +logographic:LtN)l

gAg E"daY"(g-$ +lososraPhic

Figure 5. Logograms and determinatives.

in { ?trFf gl rtbuild''r

in =$*t

$ "hound" (also =.[{with ggglg det. t for aninals)

Figure 6. Generic and specific determinatives.

tr \i$$ E@ "herard"; rfi$

nFX+r

b.?la $ "rleeu;

Figure 7. Multiple determinatives.

Phonograms are of three types: uniliteral or "alphabetic" (representing a

singleconsonant; Figure L),biliteral (representingasequenceof twoconsonants;Figure 2), andtriliteral (representing a sequence of three consonants; Figure 3).

Bi- and triliteral signs are often accompanied by uniliteral signs which give one ormore of their component consonants and are known asphonetic complements (Fi-gures 2-3).

It should be emphasized that the phonetic and ideographic aspects of thescript are very closely intertwined; this is basic for an appreciation of the hiero-glyphs in both synchronic and diachronic terms. Gardiner (1957 , p. aaD) notes "theimpossibility of a hard and fast classification of the uses of signs. Ideographic uses

shade off into phonetic...." Perhaps this close intermingling of the phonetic andthe ideographic is one reason why Egyptologists have always employed a purelyphonetic (now consonantal) transliteration, rather than using upper case forideographic writings, superscripts for determinatives, and so on, as in thecuneiform disciplines. (Edgerton 1L947) is perhaps the only Egyptologist whodeveloped such a system; Wiedemann advocated the use of hieroglyphic fount

46 E.S. Meltzer

-ll Drw trhousesr!!t I

It(y\w trfathersrt (archaistic)

* S enr I'brothelsrr

i

n'IJ.r

g rthouserr; OCT

it(ir rrfarher,'!r I i,sn Itbrotherrt l

^I"$"

0-

}{}

,[jf6

Figure 8. Singular and plural.

ig t o + yl ) in ini'bring'r and derivatives

ll ( 4 + A ) in il trcometr and derivatives

rnp ( f + tr ) in rnpl 'rbe youngil and d.erivatives

Figure 9. Composite signs ("monograms").

numbers as a compromise between rival systems of transliteration but did not,apparently, ever use them himself.) The type of transliteration used by Egyp-tologists provides an interesting sidelight on their approach to visible language:surely it is relevlnt to the fact that deciphering was made possible by the realiza-tion that there are phonetic hieroglyphs, and it may even be seen as a reaction tothe "symbolic" interpretation of the hieroglyphs current from Classical times tothe early nineteenth century. In any case, Egyptologists do not employ a trans-literation which itself makes possible a visual reconstruction of the text.

It is pertinent to discuss whether the phonograms are purely consonantalor syllabic. The early Egyptologists, who considered thealeph (now transliterated3),agin (c), "reed-lea?' (i),y,and zr to be vowels, regarded bi- and triliterals as

"syllabic" signs and the term was perpetuated uncritically by several Egyptologistssimply as a label for multiconsonantal signs (in which usage it can still be found, forexample, in Bakir [978, $ I t11. More recently, Gelb (1963, pp. 72-81) has assertedthatall the phonograms are to be seen as syllabic, that is, as sequences of CV...where C is a consonant and V is any vowelinclud,ingd. Callender (1975) has givenqualified approval to this view, writing of "the likelihood that the Egyprians wereat least aware of syllable structure if not the notion of vowels, and at leastsporadically attempted to represent it" (p. 3). The following points should benoted, however.

First, the hieroglyphic orthography disregards inferrable changes insyllabification; accordingly, in many cases a biliteral would end one syllable andbegin the next with no orthographic change deemed necessary.

Second, although highly speculative (especially for the early period inwhich the hieroglyphs were developed), what we can infer abouf the syllable

;ic)

Mnemonic asPects of Egnrtian writing 47

srructure of Egyptian does not suggest that words ended with open syllables; thus,

especially in the case of the multiliteral signs, the concePt of a grapheme for CV,

C-iCV, or CVCVCV should perhaps be only cautiously attributed to the Egyp-

tians. However, it can be countered that certain final consonants such as r, the

feminine ending r, the semivowels u and i ly, and ptobably alepi quiesced at an

early date. There are also apparently monoconsonantal words (for example, l,..bread";

", ..arm,') the original consonantal structure of which is moot. (The

secondary development of a possible CV notation which is specialized and limited

in its use is discussed below but it may be the exception that proves the rule')

Third, Schenkel ( 1976) rightly observes that, for the syllabic hypothesis to

be rnaintained for Egyptian writing, "The syllables of the hieroglyphic script

cannot be those of Egyptian language, but must be somthing like'orthographic

syllables,,' (p. 4). Moreover, and more significantly a thorough study of the

hieroglyphic script suggests that it is not syllable-oriented: it does not have the

..pr"L*u,ion of syilables as a priority. One of the basic points which will be

discussed is that one of the guiding principles of ancient Egyptian writing is the

maintaining of a consistent and recognizable word-group (or, as I would like to call

it, "word-picture"). As Schenkel (I967) writes:

The most important factor in the development of the script's structure is

probably the reluctance to give up sign groups, especially groups used

ior writing complete words, once they had been introduced; this can be

observed at all periods. As the language changed, but the script did not

follow these chinges fast enough, historical writings developed. These

aresigngroups*ho,.constituentelementsnolongerdirectlysupplyinformation about the linguistic forms they encode. If the greater com-

plexity of the hieroglyphic script is disregarded, this results in an ortho-

graphy whose relationship to the spoken language is very similar to that ofcontemporarY English. (P. 7.)

In addition, it will be seen not only that a number of the scribal conventions and

orthographic traits have a mnemonic importance but also that the mnemonic

emphasis goes along with the central role of the word-picture'

The interplay of ideographic and phonetic aspects

Some clarihcadon of the intertwined ideographic and phonetic aspects of the

hieroglyphs is in order.

Phonetic writings and, d.eterminatiues (Figutes 4-6). As mentioned above, a (usually

"specific") determinative can often be used for the logographic writing of a word'

Mtreover, as Gardiner (lgb7,523 Obs. 25 Obs. 2) notes, in many cases the

logogram was probably the earlier writing and the phonograms were added in

effect to "determine" it by indicating its phonetic reading'

48 E.S. Meltzer

Figure 10. Long name of Nefertiti.

Figure 11. Pictogram on the Natmer palette.

Multiliteral phonograms and uord- (or root-) si,gns (Figures 4, 12). Particularly in the

case of the triliteral signs, the choice of multiliteral signs in the writing of most

words is far from arbitrary. Gardiner (1957) notes that: "In the case of the

triliterals the distinction between phonograms and ideograms becomes Particu-larly precarious" ($ 42 Obs.; cf . p. a$; Gelb (1963) has denied the existence of a

triliteral class of phonogTams outside the domain of word-signs (but it has been

pointed out that the bird tyw is apparently always used phonetically). The Egyp-

tians seem to have used a given triliteral in a SrouP of words which they regarded

as being related or as having something in common regardless of whether or not

rhe words were actually related etymologically (Gardiner,1957 , $ 42 Obs., p.440:,

Hodge, lg75). This is easy to understand as the Egyptian language abounds in

triliteral roots, and the number of longer unrelated or unassociable words sharing

the same three-consonant sequence would in most cases be quite limited. The

same phenomenon is found in the use of biliteral signs in words consisting of orderived from biliteral roots.

Phonetic complements and phoneti.c writings: the cart before the horse? (Figures 4-7). As

mentioned above, multiliteral signs are often accompanied by one or more of their

component consonants. This has both a mnemonic and an aesthetic motivation:

Mnemr

the firssymmecompltdevicethus, ir(phon<

phonerphonephonethem a

them a

once hthem tfollowbecomgood rsome Ican be

deterrstrokehave t

wordspecifillustrideog1957,becauare al,

(Defeexamsemilreconp.52,

Fem'in

of the

EgypCASC C

interl

The w

$;l

:x

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

the first to remind the reader of the value of the sign, the second, to form a

symmetrical square or rectangular group. Many of the signs that take phonetic

complements are not ambiguous in their reading in any case, but a mnemonic

deviie is not thereby precluded. Phonetic complementation applies to root-signs;

thus, in a given case it is often a matter of habit to consider a sign a "triliteral

(phonogram)," and Gardiner often uses the term "semi-phonetic." Moreover,

pfro.r.,[ complementation is essentially the same phenomenon as the addition of

phonetic writings to logograms which then become "determinatives." When the

pho.retic complements follow an ideogram or root-sign, it has been easiest to see

ih.- u, "phonetic complements," and when they precede it, it is easiest to take

them as a "phonetic writing" and the ideogram as a "determinative." Of course,

once hieroglyphic writing was standardized, the Egyptians too must have accepted

them that way to some extent; root-signs with phonetic complements are often

followed by determinatives, and ideograms preceded by a phonetic writing (thus

becoming jeterminatives) are often followed by additional determinatives' Thus a

good many words can have multiple determinatives. It is also worth noting that

,o*e logograms are used as generic determinatives; for instance, the sun-disk

can be ulogog.uphic writing for r" "sun" as well as for hrto "day i' and is the

determinative for periods of time. At some point the writing Dra * sun-disk *srroke, originally hrw prefixed to the logographic writing of the word, seems to

have beeni reanalyzed" and the sun-disk parsed, as it were, as a determinative.

In this regard, consider "defective" or summary writings, in which a

word is habitually wriuen without its full consonantal value being (ostensibly)

specified (Figure 13). Sometimes this is motivated by symmetry but sometimes itillustrates the principie that "the Egyptian was under no obligition to prefix to an

ideogram .rroie pho.r.tic signs than were needed to remove obscurity" (Gardiner,

1957, S 59). Thi; again is similar to other cases of phonetic complementation

because only in a fairty limited number of cases (and hardly ever with a triliteral)

are all the consonants of a multiliteral sign given in the phonetic complements'

(Defective writings are probably a good deal more common than the few oft-cited

examples would lead one to believe, especially writings which ignore the

semivowels zu and i/1,, although some examples depend on the inference or

reconstructionoftheseconsonantsinagivenroot. (SeeGardiner, 1957, $ 63, 1916,

p. 52, and Callender, 1975, P' 21.)

Feminine .t in logographic writings offeminine word$ (Figf:e 5). The separate writing

of the feminine ending with logographic writings does not simply indicate that the

Egyptians felt it to be an ending rather than part of the root. It is really a special

.u-r.if th" phonetic complementation of ideograms and testifies once again to the

intermeshing of the phonetic and ideographic.

The writing of the plural (Figure 8). Here the close relationship of phonetic and

49

50 E.S. Meltzer

ideographic aspecrs is extremely prominent (Gardiner, lgs7, $ s z2-4;Faulkner,1929). There are severar ways of writing a prural noun. A rogogram or determina_tive can be repeated three times; in the i'atter case the piural ending can be writtenphonetically (optional). A logographic writing or determinative can be folowedby three strokes which serve as a "plural deteiminati".,;,-ugri", the phoneticalry_written plural ending is optional. Far more rarery, a brief wJrd written entirely inphonograms can be repeated three times. The second method is the most usual inMiddle Egyptian; afterthe old Kingdom rhe third is extremely rare and limited toreligious texts or archaic contexrs. ih. firrt method i, g..r..uily found more inhieroglyphic inscriptions than in hieratic manuscripts [trrougr, even in the larterthere are words such asnlrtu, ,,gods,', which u.. -or, typicalil.written with threelogograms or word-signs). what has been said about tir. pt,r.ut appries with somequalifications to the dual.

The dual strokes and 1. Two strokes, the marker of the dual, become a phonogramfor 1 at the end of words. The duar endings are .w) (masc.) and, .ty(fem.) and wecan see rhe two strokes passing from the ideographic to the phonetic as their use isextended beyond dual words (Gardiner, lgb7,i Zg.4).

c.omposite signs (Figure ?l -o_f

rhe "monograms" (two hierogryphs combined into asingle sign, [Gardiner, 1957, g 5g; FischJr r9iza,pp. r ros'-6ia]), there are somewhich combine a phonogram with an ideogram.

The em.ergence of Egyptian writing and, the represenrational contextThe situation described above is u .rut,r.ul outgrowth of the historical develop_ment of the hieroglyphic writing, and of the.o.rt.*t, in which ir arose. The mostessenrial point is rhat, as Fischer (rg77a) wrires: "The Eg. ,yr*- of phonetichieroglyphs was devised at the beginning of the ri.st oyiasiy in conjunction with anew style of art that is crosery rerated to ii in form and i,r.r.rio.r, in the earliestpharaonic reliefs pictographic hieroglyphs and rarger-scale representationsform a complementu.y rr.rity" (.or. rlgg). In some lrtrr. eariiest exampres ofhierogiyphs-the palettes and maceheads of the terminal preciynastic and inci_pient dynastic period-we see hierogiyphs (pictographic or otherwise) raberingfigures or ohiects in a scene. In effeci, iir. prro.r.ti". o, oth.r.*fil.i, hieroglyphs

are added to gloss the representations uri p..pu.. for the compremenhry orintertwined relationship of ideographic and phonetic erements. when thehierogiyphs are removed fro- the original .ort.*, of pictorial art and used rowrite texts, the representation is transfia.rted in the purery written conrext as alogogram or cieterminative. The co-pi.-".rtution of writing and art persists afterthe initiai period of hierogiyphic rvriting (Gard.iner, 1g57, $ 5-; Fischer, lg77b, $ z).Especialiy in the OId Kingdom, ."p..rJrr,r,ions of peopf.l ,"i."fr, objecrs, oractions in a scene are accompanied- by phonetic writings, as the representadons

li

l.1

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

themselves supply the determinatives; similarly, a man's name written on his

statue will have no determinative, as the statue itself is the determinative. After the

Old Kingdom there are more and more exceptions ("redundant" determinatives)

as if "the old complementary relationship between hieroglyphs and repres-entations was never abandoned, it was gradually respected to a lesser degree"(Fischer, 1977 (a),col. I 194). But the Egyptians were always aware of it and could

exploit it; they never lost sight of the suitability of the hieroglyphic script forintegration into artistic and decorative contexts.

In considering rhe relationship of the hieroglyphs to a representational

context, mention should be made of their orientation, a subject which has been

investigated most exhaustively by Fischer (1977 (a), cols. I 192-93, 1977b).

Hieroglyphs normally face the beginning of the line (or text, or written unit) : one

reads from the direction towards which the hieroglyphs face. Thus, if the signs

face to the right, the text is read right to left (the most common direction), and vice

versa. Parts of the same hieroglyphic text or body of writing can be oriented indifferent ways to fit in with certain decorative contexts or the formats of certain

inscribed surfaces (borders, the two sides of a doorway, and so on). Moresignificantly for the present survey, "the mixing of directions of writing" is an

aspect of "exploitation of the script's pictorial character in order to convey picto-

rial information additional to the linguistic text" (Schenkel, 1976, p. 6). One

example will suffice (from the late Eighteenth Dynasty,long after the Old King-

dom): the reversed writing of th eworditn (Aten, the sun-disk) in the long form ofNefertiti's cartouche. I'lfr-nfrw-itnNfrt ii.ti (Figure I0). "Aten," designating

the sun-god, appears at the head of the cartouche because of honorific transposi-

tion (Gardiner, 1957,$ 57) and is oriented the opposite way from the rest of the

name below it. As Tawfik has explained (1973), a parallel with the accompanyingrepresentation is expressed. Just as in the scene the sun-disk hands Nefertiti the

emblems of life and dominion and accepts the offerings which she presents, in the

writing of the name the word for the sun-disk is oriented so that in effect it faces

the rest of Nefertiti's name.In addition to the unity of the representations and the hieroglyphs in the

early development of Egyptian writing, the organic unity of the scene itself must

be considered. Gardiner (1915) asserts that, although the earliest hieroglyphs

were probably "confined to the ticketing of depicted objects and the like," and

accordingly were probably "phonetic, and not ideographic in character" (p.74),

we cannot approach the further development of hieroglyphic writing in terms ofrenderings of individual words, but must see the scene as a whole, with itshieroglyphic glosses or "labels," condensed as it were into a linguistically more

explicit text. The "hieroglyphic sentence," with its composite of complementary

signs, would be "developed directly from the composite picture...traced back to

the complex scenes in which the Egyptians sought to record their actions" ratherthan to an aggregation of disembodied signs or even disembodied words (Gar-

5r

52 E.S. Meltzer

diner, 1915, p. 75). He nores rhe parallel between this approach and the idea "thatin language the ultimate unit is not the word but the sentence" (Gardiner, l9 t b, p.75), a notion which has received a great deal of attention in currenr linguistictheory. He discusses at length (Gardiner, 1915, pp. 72 ff .) the complex picto-graphic group on the Nahmer palette in which the Horus-falcon brings thepapyrus-land captive (taking the papyrus-clump as six lotus plants or the numeral6000), considers it "intermediate between picrure and writing" (Figure l l).Perhaps this group provides some corroborarion for his view of the "hieroglyphicsentence."

Hodge (197 5) suggests that hieroglyphic writing arose in a ritual conrexr,taking much impetus from word-plays and other such associations. He em-phasizes the improbability of a gradual development beginning with logogramsand culminating in alphabetic signs and points out the magical use of puns and thelikelihood that prehistoric art had magical significance, noting "the association ofmagic with mnemonic symbols of various sorts" and "the recitation of formulaeassociated with such symbols" (Hodge, 1975, p. 334) and srressing the magicalimportance and function of writing throughout Egyptian history. For Hodge,hieroglyphs "were part of a symbolic system involving representation by sculptureand painting" (p. 5), and the Nahmer palette "is part of the history of Egyptiansymbolic art, including hieroglyphs" (p. 3). In summarion, he wrires: "The wordplays and other phenomena discussed above are precisely the kinds of factorswhich must have been involved in the development of writing and which arereflected in the usage of the hieroglyphs by the Egyptians.... It would thus havebeen among the priests who composed and recited such spells, full of constantlinguistic manipulation, that writing arose, reflecting the same associations madeverbally" (p. 3a6). Hodge recognizes the link with represenrational arr but seemsto present the origin of hieroglyphic writing as a more abstract process, at oneremove from the representational context. His formulation embodies dubiousviews of the antiquity of the Pyramid rexts, and the observed contexr of theearliest recognizable hieroglyphs is ambiguous with respect to his suggestion.Regardless of the ultimate validity of his suggestion, however, he makes extremelycogent comments on the features and principles of the hieroglyphic script. Mostimportant, his view of the development of the hieroglyphs recognizes and em-phasizes their emergence in an organic context, their complementary relationshipto it, and the unity formed by the various fearures of the hieroglyphs themselves.

It is difficult if not impossible to derive convincingly a piecemeal origin ofthe script. The writer's opinion is that the script grew as a composite, a unity ofmutually complementary parts. The subsequent great step would have been theadaptation of writing as a medium for recording the language in an accurate andconnected fashion, independent of the original representational framework. Thisdevelopment, while permitting the continued complemenrarion of writing andrepresentations, would have given rise to a script incorporating the represen-tational context.

M

wlan

thPrticesi

HtBrmshreen

torene

SU

na

pl,mlm{

aCr

derh,

w(Eg

re.

otltorejthr

Eg

a\

Thsta

anvatinsig

WC

pe

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

An historical note is important to understanding not only the beginningwriting in Egypt but also the centralization of the Egyprian state a.rd bureaucrac!and the standardization of the scribal tradition. Whatever the precise chronology,the emergence of writing accompanied the unification of Egypr at the end of thePredynastic period, the foundation of the united monarchy. while that unifica-tion is often seen as a military conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt, ir moreessentially represents the realization that centralization was necessary for Egypt.

H iero glyphi,c ortho gr aphy : The " word-p,it tur e"Before proceeding to a detailed consideration of the word-picture, and of themnemonic aspects of ancient Egyptian writing, the mnemonic principle itselfshould be clarified. What is meant by mnemonic is not the complete and accuraterepresentation of the utterances of language, but a representation which providesenough information to bring an item unambiguously to mind and which dependsto a large extent on a consistent one-to-one association between the item and therePresentation, which is learned and remembered even if the representation isneither complete nor accurate. In some cases completeness and accuracy must besubordinated to the main criterion of recognition; in others they can be subordi-nated to other considerations (for example, symmetrical grouping) because com-pleteness and accuracy are not essential to the effective operation ofthemnemonic principle. Two closely related demonstrations are phonetic comple-ments, which seldom repeat all of the component consonants of the sign theyaccompany, but which remind the reader of its entire value, and the summary ordefective writings of words. Another parallel example is the most elementary-the unvocalized nature of the script itself, in which the vowels and vocalic structurewere subordinated to other priorities but were, of course, supplied by the ancientEgyptian reader. In that sense, the script as a whole is an incomplete mnemonicrepresentation of the language (but a more complete representation than manyother scripts). In some respects, the scribal habits of the Old Kingdom evince thisto a greater degree: the first person singular suffix-pronoun ./, for instance, isregularly ignored (as is also rhe case, interestingly enough, in early demotic). Asthe various scribal conventions are examined, it will be seen how, even when theEgyptians attempted to increase the accuracy of the representation, they did so ina way which shows the primary importance of the word-picture.

The snndard orthography: generalities (Figure l2). The prevalence of a consistenr,standard orthography certainly owes much to the centralized. training of scribesand the high degree of standardization of the literary language. Though there arevariant writings ofwords and preferred orthographies change over the course oftime, the degree of standardization is remarkable (D6vaud, lg24). The choice ofsigns is far from arbitrary and the total of possible combinations for spelling aword is not exploited (except for Ptolemaic inscriptions which belong to a very lateperiod and are specialized phenomena). This standardized choice of signs does

5J

il

YJ E! "woman',; l^0 @! ,,maidservant'r

ES mrl "love"; TA:"- g ',(be) irrn

h Bg, "say"; t= !&L!, ,'(be) stable, enduring,,

Ej.F qh! "unsuent't; lfSf sE! r,courtier,'

!} E3 "not", t}, an 'tthi6rr

Figure 12. Standard orthography.

EF,4 4 "nankind'r (copti.c pfo[)

Efl El rrchild," (usua].lv written

Figure I 3. Defective/summary writings.

51,

ea,<- hft t'opposLte":t- *9,- hfty rrenenyir

lFt

hftyy tteneniesrr-as.iFigure 14. Symmetrical misspellings.

QJfr=SI:4f {L\fi-:r-

It trthinettr;

!!3 "yoke of anima.le'r 1

g! rrwretchedrr; both

4J f,T irr1e"; 3{ fboth La=sq 1G9

!g nscaeontr

I n1()) trsoail,

-,E rrrestralnn

rkidil

Figure 15. Embedded homophones (,.phonetic determinatives,,).

btr 7 EE! "nl E z tf U Fig. 15 above

tl={=fl ElE > srl 'drlnkn

K4 R:r- @.> s[ "wretohsd,"

l

Figure 16. Mixed spellings.

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing 55

not apply only to those bi- and triliterals that serve as root-signs in groups ofrelated or associared words. As Schenkel ( 1976) writes: "The strictness of this sort

of orthographic convention is clearly of an altogether lesser order than that of an

alphabetic script with fixed spellings, but it still constitutes a significant restriction

in comparison with the range of possibilities offered by the huge repertory ofsigns,, (p. 6). Fisch er (1977a) agrees that, "Despite the overall irregularity ofstructure, the orthography of a given word at a given period was almost always

sufficiently distinctive and consistent so as to eliminate any ambiguity" (col. I 1 90)'

Thus, the standard orthogTaphy serves both to write a given word in a consistent

and recognizable way and to prevent the confusion of different words on grounds

of either homophony (or near-homophony) or synonymy (that is, having the

ideographic element in common). Callender (1975) draws attention to the non-

interchangeability of homophonous biliterals (such as the hoe and chisel for mr),

whether or not used as root-signs, concluding that: "This points to the likelihood

that the Egyptians were at least aware of syllable structure if not the notion ofvowels, a.rd at l.ast sporadically tried to represent it" (p. 3). The writer's opinion is

that this characteristic testifies to the desideratum of maintaining distinct and

consistent word-pictures; the observation that the sign in question remains con-

stant as the word is taken through its grammatical permutations would seem to

indicate that, as suggested above, syllable structure is not central to the hiero-

glyphic orthography. (Callender [1975] realizes that many features of the ortho-

graphy are used "in order to remove any ambiguity whatsoever" [p' 3]')

The choice of a combination of signs for "spelling" the word is only one

aspect of the word-picture and far from the only way in which it is established. As

SJhenkel (1976) notes, the convention of ending words with determinatives or

terminal ideograms "provides a good criterion for dividing the continuous stream

of the script into individual words. The resulting'word images'contribute much

to the legibility of hieroglyphic texts. They do, however, have the disadvantage

that they prepare the way for an erosion of the values of individual phonograms,

as those which belong to a'word image' adapt to phonetic change fitfully, if at all"

(p. 6). Also to be included among orthographic means of delineating a word-

pi.trrr. is the convention of accompanying a logographic sign with a stroke'

sho*ing at a glance that the logogram is the writing of a word rather than part of a

larger unit (although this stroke is not confined to logographic writings and to

some extent is used for symmetry and because of what Schenkel calls the Egyptian

scribes' horror uacui). At the same time, it should be noted that a number of words

of primarily grammatical function (prepositions, particles, demonstratives) are

*ritt., purely with phonograms (in a number of cases alphabetic signs). Al-

togethe; the use of the mixed script provides the maximum opportunity forword-recognition.

We can begin to appreciate the multifaceted nature of the word-picture

and what it conveys to the scribe and the reader. "Morphemes or words were

M

SO

w(yo

p

p(totr;hz

Mtir

hr

clol

pli:,n,

th

ir,

m

(lli

5t) E.S. Meltzer

identified as having many things in common, notjust one or more consonants"

(Hodge, 1975,p.5), and the recognition of "various deSrees of phonologic

similaiity and of semantic grouping" (p. 18) goes along with "differentiation ofgraphically fconsonantally] homophonous forms" (p. 17).The central role of the

standard orthography in establishing and maintaining these word-pictures is

made all the more obvious by the observation that the obscurity of so-called

cryptographic or enigmatic writing depends to a large extent on changing these

u...sto-"d pictures in certain ways: "by the use of abnormal phonograms (ob-

tained, however, in the normal manner...), by the invention of new semoglams

[ideograms], and by the use of abnormal selections of phonograms and semog-

rams for writing words (words generally written with phonograms are written

with semograms, and uice uersa), etc." (Schenkel, 1976, p' 6)' Cryptography and

"sportive" writings attest to the fact that, despite the unity of the script and the

stiong orientation towards word-groups, it always remained "manipulable"

(Hodge, i 975, p. 16) in the hands of the erudite. This type of manipulation might

see* su.prising in the light of our emphasis on the organic nature of the hiero-

glyphic siript a.ra our avoidance of an overly typological approach to individual

signs. However, it seems that the very fluidity of the categories, their ability to shift

according to the individual point of view, and the apparent ability of a word-sign

to grow in either or both directions provided great potential for manipulation by

those scribes with a better than superficial understanding of the script.

Defectiue uritings and, symmetrical misspellings (Figures i 3- 14). It has been noted that

some of the defective or summary writings are at least partially motivated by the

maintaining of a symmetrical group. The same holds true for other words which,

although not written defectiveiy, are not written with the consonants in the "right"

order. Thus, the prepositionfuft, "opposite," appears as if it were tead*futf.

Though here the decisive factor has been regarded as symmetry, the predomi-

nance of symmetry in this manner would be impossible without the primary

importance of the recognizable word-picture. In fact, the "incorrect" spelling of

ffi canbe carried over to related or derived words such as Qfty ," enemy ," andfoftyw

'ienemies." In effect, we see the "phonetic" writing of a stem carrying the word-

picturejust as a word-sign or root-sign would. (Other graphic transpositions,

rreated in Gardiner llSbT , $ 561, belong under the same general heading.)

"Phc-rnetic d,eterminatiues" or embetld,ed.homophones (Figure 15). What Gardiner (1957 ,

S 54) calls "phonetic determinatives" are, from one point of view, determinatives

of (consonantally) homophonous words, for example, the kid in /D "thirst," from

the homophonous ib "kid." But it is more illuminating to see such orthographies

as embedded homophones; as Gardiner recognizes, "the entire

word{.J |}{:tb'kid'entersbodilyintothewritingoftheetymologicallyunrelatedverb for'thirst."'Such embedded homophones or transplanted words testify to

the pervasiveness of the word-picture in Egyptian orthography. Moreover, in

C

rl

l.

C

T

!

t(t

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

some cases the embedded homophone is homophonous only with a part of theword into which it is transplanted; thus lr "season" appears inhtr,"pak of horses;yoke of animals." Instances can even be found in which one word has two"phonetic determinatives": m3r, "wretched," can be written as if it were com-pounded of m3(3) "see" andJr "restrain." As a general rule it is not as productiveto see an individual sign introduced as a "phonetic determinative" than as part of atransplanted or partially coinciding word although in some cases, of course, it mayhave happened that way.

Mixed spellings (Figure 16). Mixed spellings are a convention for indicating phone-tic change while keeping the original word-picture intact. The writing of "pair ofhorses" which one would naturally transliterate as futri actually indicates that htrchanged to futi (Gardiner, 1957, p.447, S 279); the mixed spelling provides ttreoriginal word-picture and indicates the particular which has changed. This some-what roundabout device shares the same general approach as phonetic com-plementation. Gardiner (1957) does not devote much artenrion to mixed spel-lings; he writes (his italics):"Themethod of this boohis largely based uponthe aiew that beginners, once haa'ingmasteredthe main princi,ples of the writing, should, not inquire too curiously into the nature ofind,iaid,tnl spellings, but should learn both the hieroglyphic groups and their traruliterationsmechanically" ($ 54).(Note that there is no universally accepted Egyptological convention for trans-Iiterating mixed spellings.)

Croupuriting (Figure 1 7). Before leaving the fundamentals of hieroglyphic or-thography, mention must be made of another device: "group-writing" or the"syllabic orthography" (Gardiner lg57 , $ 60). A word or name in group-writing isnot written with most of the usual building-blocks of the script (aparr fromdeterminatives), but with biliterals whose second consonant is a semivowel orJ, orpairs of alphabetic signs the second of which is a semivowel orJ. Sometimes thewriting of a monosyllabic word such as t,"bread", can be used as a grapheme ingroup-writing. Schenkel (1976) summarizes the prevailing view of this orrho-graphy:

In the New Kingdom syllabic or "group" writing was evolved under theinfluence of cuneiform.... The new system was mostly used to writewestern Asiatic words. It employs groups of signs to encode syllablesconsisting of consonant * vowel.... There is still controversy amongegyptologists over the interpretation of these groups as a syllabic script.Extreme views are, on the one hand, that group writing is a fully de-veloped syllabic script, and, on the other hand, that it cannot be termedsyllabic at all, as the notation of vowels is totally confused. The truthprobably lies midway between the two. (pp. 5-6)

5l

E8 E.S. Meltzer

Group-writing has been attested before the New Kingdom and it can be found innative Egyptian words (Ward, 1957). Ward challenges the oft-repeated sratementthat Egyptian words and names in group-writing are "etymologically obscure"(Gardiner, 1 957, $ 60). It is certainly true that in Late Egyptian many more nativewords appear in group-writingbut there is much ambiguity in such writings as, forinstance, any biliteral ending withJ could be used purely consonantally because ofthe quiescence of 3 , the two-strokel (and often a meaningless zr.,) could be addedubiquitously as space-fillers, and so on. Moreover, although the hieroglyphicinscriptions of the Ramesside period tend to be more cluttered in appearance thanmost earlier ones, the influence and consequences of this "group-writing" trendare seen primarily in late hieratic and demotic orthograph|, not hieroglyphic.Schenkel (1976) writes: "In the New Kingdom an attemptwas made ro form agenuinely syllabic script. But by this time the use of the script seems to have beendetermined to such an extentby tradition-by the'word images'evolved over the6sntu1ls5-that an innovation as radical as this could not succeed in the long run."(p.6.)

Group-writing is the Egyptian orthogtaphic convention that does least toembody or convey a word-picture. Thus, it makes very good sense that it was usedpredominandy to write foreign words or words of obscure etymology which wouldbe least associated with a word-picture. Not surprisingly, it was occasionally usedto render familiar Egyptian words (as perhaps being more phonetically explicit,but at the expense of the word-picture); moreover, its use proliferated in LateEgyptian (in conjunction with developments in Egyptian phonology and tenden-cies in New Kingdom hieratic briefly alluded to above). It is not at all surprisingthat the word-picture prevailed. Indeed, the Egyptian attachment ro word-pictures can be observed even in that form of notation which fundamentallyignored them.

The cursiue scripts (and remarks on the deaeloprnent of the scribal tradition in late times)Having illustrated the role of the word-picture and various mnemonic devices inhieroglyphic orthography, it is necessary to discuss the cursive scripts, hieratic anddemotic, in so far as they offer independent considerations and do not simply

$-hf-l-l *, g-Fb I'Aleppo" (foreiga toponvn)

:'f,? =-1= ![I, cu K-:rk+-H rcarshenishr (foret$*.>

qS 3S 4 LE (ro'aotE uame)

{s},5e lgE nwitlr (!ate EsvptiaE)

In\E/

Mnemon

Figure 18.

s=fi'ene-lr e!

Figure lg.

n,

Figure 20. r

sul

(ar

g

Figure 2l . I

reflect whiglyphswersame signs

forms bec:(col.1189)(starting al

cursive hie

sive form Ientire scril

fo:

fo:

fo:

H,4a.

st-J

B

e

h

Figure 17. Group-writing.

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing

Figure 18. Hieroglyphs derived from hieratic.

J5 S' .1 for Knt

3[)H 0= ron

for 3 E; a for tt gZ neonr'.

for both Y (re) and, I (Es, g);!

for @ rrunite, Jointr, from hieratic .for $ (etolenaic)

59

e

J)\r/

*Egypt* (Middle Kingdon) ;

dne rthearwrt.

(New Kingdon;

(uotn

(fron

1T*Tconfounded with I _Gardiner 19122 62a)

I

a in mortuar;r textsabbnerriation!' for Ihoee)

hleratic)DT

!w

H,4a.

st-J

I

gun nestablishrr

I43'd!,,

Figure I 9. Spelled-out determinatives (hieratic).

smgw rreldesttt. i.oo 8-E-gw rman rith gwr?

btp dl aew ran offering rhich the king givee,, (a kingFiivips E@)

(tonguc) for fny-r] troverseerr (Iit. nhe who is in thenoutbtr) - vsr5r corrnor Ln orriliuary Mlddlc EgyBtian terbs.

Figure 20. Cryptography and sporrive writings.

eu?erstltioualy nodifled to(am boldius std.ok) connon rt

E$

Figure 2l . Structure of individual signs.

reflect what is found in the hieroglyphs. As Fischer (1977a) nores: "the hiero-glyphs were supplemented, from the very beginning, by more cursive forms of thesame signs, better adapted to the use of pen and ink on papyrus, and these cursiveforms became increasingly simple and abstract (hieratic, and finally demotic...)"(col. 1189). Whereas hieratic was a cursive rendition of the hieroglyphs, demotic(starting about the seventh century B.C.) was a further cursive reduction ofcursive hieratic (not returning tca hieroglyphic model). Moreover, neither cur-sive form makes any attempt to simplify the composite narure of the script; theentire script is condensed into more cursive, ligatured forms. The successive

60 E.S. Meltzer

cursive scripts are derived with the same unity which characterized the emergenceof the hierogryphic.writing in the first prace. It shourd also be nored rhar rheintroduction of each successive cursive script results in a certain division of laboramong the scripts; none of them entirely superseded its predecessors or put themout of use. Rather, the new script took over the ,,o.. rtiliturian, everyday uses ofwriting.'The hieroglyphs arwayi remained the monumentar script, the form ofwriting found in artistic, architectural, decorative contexts, the script whose picto_rial and aesthetic potential was greatest. Because the cursive forms are less accessi-ble to non-Egyptologisrs and E[yptologists publish rhe mass of hieratic literarytexts, letters, and documents in hi.rogiyphic transcription, the non-L,gyptologistmay not realize that the vast majority of everyday writing in ancient Egypt was notin hieroglyphs.

Though the earliest hieratic which we study as an entity dares to the oldKingdom, rhe cursive writings in ink onjars and ortrer objects from the first rwodynasties must also be considered hierati"c, and we kro,, tiut papyrus was used as awriting material in the Archaic period. The introduction of a cursive form ofwriting for everyday, utilitarian use was one of the most important steps inextending the sphere of writing, enabling it to grow as a lingristic toor and to beused independently of the original repreJentational conrextlHieratic acquired itsown orrhographic pecuriarities (Gardiner, 1g5lr $ 684, pp. 4zz-4zz) dicrared bydifferences in function hnd medium from the hie.ogryphs; hieratic was lessexplicitly pictorial. Nonetheless, the purely visual element remains important. Allof the components of the hieroglyphic word-picture are carried over into thehieratic' Though intricate determinatives can be repraced by an oblique stroke,hieratic determinatives and word-signs are often.".og.riruble and can be vividexamples of calligraphy when done by a skilled scribe.*Moreover, hieraric arwaysretains a close link with the hieroglypirs. tt4any hieroglyphic inscriprions_on

stelae' in temples, and in to-ur-r".e composed in rrieratic; inscriptions ofdifferent periods have scribal errors which result from the incorrect transcriptionof a hieratic original. There are also a number of signs which work their way backinto the hieroglyphs from the hieratic (Figure lg).Hieratic texts are the source of one of the most strikingindications of themnemonic principle of Egyptian writing and the pervasivenesl of'the word-picture: the "spelling out,, of dete.minaliu.s.

The hieroglyph & is both the word-sign for.,city,,and the dererminativefol many toponyms. In Middre Kingdom hieraric the determinarive is ofren

lll,llilll, :ll . (the writing of the word niwt,,city,,), perhaps to avoidconrusrng the crty-sign with other circular signs in simplified hieratic form. In NewKingdom manuscripts. rhere are a number of cases oi*hat Gardiner (r932) calls"prefixing to a determinative its more usual phoneti. *.itirgl,_ihe inclusion,

M

alplpialtahz

Wm,

us

w(gr

deh'neWC

orisol

hirres

us(

hiefurlatrtextexKirins,

mirmacorinc,att(dertharec(

Pto

eve

eve.

con

. Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian writing 6l

along with the determinative, of another word in which it is a central part, a kincl ofphonetic determinative in reverse (Figure l9). The pervasiveness of the word-picture as a mnemonic unit provides evidence that word-recognition, rather thana sign-by-sign spelling or analysis, was typical of the way in which writing wastaught. It is also significant that, judging from the many school texts which wehave, students were taught to write in hieratic before they learned hieroglyphs.williams (1972) wrires: "It is significanr rhat the first steps in writing b"guri*irh ,h.more commonly used hieratic rather than hieroglyphic. Because of the frequentuse of ligatures in this cursive hand, the pupils were raught ro write co-pleiewords or phrases without analyzingthe component signs. By this *.u.rrih"ygradually learned to recognize individual words" tp. ff g).

In demotic, the link with rrierogryphs is more remore, as the script is notderived directly from the hieroglyphs. It is possible ro rranscribe demotic intohieroglyphs but the exercise is of dubious value and the result looks very strangenext to hieroglyphic spellings, largely because many of the late hieratic writings ofrvords which directly give rise to demotic writings are like the group-writingorthographies menrioned earlier. Thus, the scribal fad describld above hassomewhat paradoxically given rise to new word-pictures for many words in latehieratic and demotic but not in hieroglyphic texrs. This development is the logicalresult of the division of labor among the scripts: the scribal ,.udirio., of writiirgused for everyday purposes or general literacy parrs company with that of thehieroglyphs, which are increasingly reregated to an academic'tradition andfurther and further moved from utilitarian communication. (Another facet re-lates to language rather than writing: while late hieratic documents and demotictexts write an approximation of the language spoken at the time, late hieroglyphictexts often have as their model the literary language of the old and MiddleKingdoms.) The academic tradition of the hieroglyphs reaches its zenith in theinscriptions of the Ptolemaic period (particularlyin the temples), which embodyamixture of self-conscious scholarly manipulation of the r..ip,, sometimes of amarkedly obfuscatory nature, and new values, signs, and confusions which havecome about because of phonetic change and the inconsistencies arising from theincongruity between phonetic change and the archaic language which the textsattempt to reproduce (Fairman, lg4z, 1g4b). In these inscriptions, cerrain ren-dencies of the hieroglyphic script can be exploited a.rd .*rgg..ated to rhe extentthat they become counterproductive in terms of communic-aiion, consistency andrecognizability being virtually neglected as guiding principles. certain aspects ofPtolemaic orthography are the culmination of theiiyptographic writings.

In demotic, ligatures abound and the pictorial erement is much reducedeven from hieratic. The mnemonic principle remai,s at Ieast as important, how-ever; as every student of demotic knows, the reading of the script depends to aconsiderable extent on the recognition of fixed word-groups. rrrougr, there are of

62 E.S. Meltzer

course many readable signs, phonetic and otherwise, a number are ambiguousoutside the context of particular word-groups and many have contextual variants.Demotic illustrates the following aspect of the mnemonic principle; the recogni-tion or association of a grapheme or graphemic complex as representing an objectto which it no longer bears a visual resemblance, a development well known inmany of the ideograms of cuneiform and Chinese. (Note that some late demoticmagical texts use an entirely alphabetic writing, withmatres lectionis, to ensure theprecise pronunciation of the text: phonetic explicitness at the expense of theword-picture once again. During the same period-and sometimes in the sametext, as in the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leyden-there appears"Old Coptic," written in the Greek alphabet for the same reason.)

Remarhs on sportiue arul cryptographic writingslfigure ZOl

Selected aspects of cryptographic writing can illuminate our investigation fromanother direction. As has been menrioned earlier, cryptography shows the Egyp-tians' ability to manipulare their own script, to exploit its potential forjuggling andreshuffling its components, sometimes for deliberate obfuscation. one of themajor mechanisms of cryptography is changing the word-picture around (schen-kel, i976).

Some cryptographic writings are extremely interesting in conjunctionwith our discussion of the origins of the hieroglyphic script and Gardiner's"hieroglyphic sentence" because they show that the "hieroglyphic sentence,,' as inthe Nakmer palette, remained part of the repertoire or potential of the script, butwas used peripherally rather than centrally in writing.

A standing man holding the biliteral sign szrr can be found as a crypto-g::aphic writing of the wordsmsu,"eldest," the group being read as s4n-su "man withszrr" (Drioton, 1935, 1940). In effect, the word is broken down into its componentconsonants (or sequences featuring one strong consonant) and "spelled" oranalyzed as a "sentence" or, in any case, a sequence of words which its componentconsonants make up. Likewise, the phrase beginning the standard offering-formula, l.ttp di nsw, "an offering which the king gives," although usually writrenout in individual words, can be found written by the figure of a king holding outtire htp-sign (Faulkner, 1962, p. 179), that is, a king givinghtp (the word foroffering). Here a sequence of words is written as a single group combining morethan one hieroglyph but constructed essentially as a single figure. Many additionalexamples could be noted.

Both groups have two features worth noting. A word in the sentence orgroup is not directly represenred or spelled our by a hierogiyph but is implicit inthe figure or action represenred (rnan with szr , king giu ing lrtp) , and one of thecomponent hieroglyphs (szu in the first, htp in the second) is treated quite self-consciously as a grapheme, a hieroglyph. Such groups suggesr the "hieroglyphicsentence" of nascent writing but are utilized as sophisticated devices by experi-

Mnemonic asPects of Egyptian writing 63

enced practitioners of writing. Thus, cryptographic use of the.hieroglyphs em-

bodies features of the earliest emergence of writing while still influencing the

latest period of hieroglyphic inscriptions'

Some characteristics of indfuidualsigns (Figure 21)

Though this papeiis.or.e.r.d"primaiily with the writing of rvords and with the

princi[les gor"irring the use of signs as they function in words (and other con-

,.*rr, io, e*arrrpl., representations), the characteristics and structure of indi-

vidual hieroglyphs -,rrt b. mentioned' (For more comprehensive remarks see

Fischer tgzi(ai;Kaplony,1g66,1g73;andSchenkel,l976.)compositesignshavealready been mentior.d. -I.h. repertoire of hieroglyphic signs embraces both the

natural and the man-made objects of the Egyptian environment, as well as the

inhabitants of the spiritual *o.ld, the gods. The rendition of a given sign is in

accordwiththeprinciplesgoverningtwo-dimensionalart.Aclassofsignsmayconsist of variation, of th" ia-e basic figure in one essential feature (for instance'

the seated or standing human figure with a wide variety of gestures). An interest-

ing ramification can b.-e observed in the magical significance ofhieroglyphs' In

-J.,,ru.y texts it is common to avoid, or to represent in a mutilated or partial

fashion,signs(especiallyhumanandanimalfigures)whichmightthreatenthedeceased (Lacau, 1913). In human figures, the head and hands showing a distinc-

tive gesture are often represented, the superstitious modification resulting in the

writing of the essential part of the sign only'

An important manifestation of the mnemonic principle in the structure

of individual hieroglyphs is what might be termed the diacritical differentiation

between signs, the .,obli,h.,'.nt of an apParently arbitrary distinction between

two sigrs which represent similar objects buthave differentvalues. Thus, the hoe

without a crossbar (or rope) has the value hnn, while that with the additional

feature has the ,al,.e -r.^sometimes such a distinction arises secondarily in order

to differentiate two different values of the same sign. The ostrich feather can be

used as a logogram, root-sign' or determin ativeinnt,3"t, ..truth, justice, universal

order,,, and can also hrve trre valueizo. In hieratic, an innovation adds two ticks to

the feather rvhen it has the value izu'

ConcltuionAshort-lived'innovationofverylatetimesprovidestheproofofthe

pudding. There are a very few hieroglyphic inscriptions written out entirely in

utpt uU.ri. signs, notably ihe Naukraiis itela of Nectanebo II in the middle of the

fo,r.th..rrtrrry B'C' (Lichtheim, 1976)' This mode of writingwas probably stimu-

lated by G.eei influence (Williams, 1976). It is hardly surprising that these

inscriptions have presented difficulties to Egyptologists. This.innovation was not

widelyusedapparentlybecausewhentheEgyptianshadfinishedwritingsucha

64 E.S. Meltzer

text, it was difficult for them ro read it! Hodge ( l gTb) gives an overall appraisal ofhieroglyphic writing and, in particular, a comparison with purery arphabeticscripts as follows:

It is generally acknowledged that the Egyptians were, very early, on theverge of one of the greatest of all discoveries: the alphabet. It isjust asgenerally deplored that they did nor rake this logical nexr step.... Thiscriticism, voiced by many scholars, assumes the undisputed superiority ofalphabetic writing. These same authors, however, go on to describe someof the advantages of the cumbersome hieroglyphic sysrem.... It is onlyrecently, as we have been attempting to see language as a whole, that weappreciate the nature of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. To call such a mannerof writing a "system" is to mislead. It is rather a set of conventionsreflecting in a non-systematic fashion a number of facets of languagestructure.... As a semiologic complex it is unsurpassed by any otherwriting system. (pp. 3a7 $a8.)

Moreover, it will be noted that purely alphabetic scripts have often been eked outby various extra-alphabetic devices ro enhance intelligibility: word-division,capitalization, punctuation (to say nothing of additional visual devices such asitalics). In addition, various languages which use alphabetic scripts do nor use aphonemic orphoneticspelling but have historical and morphophonemic spellingswhich reinforce the recognition of a word or root. In that sense, Schenkel'scomparison ( 1 976) of Egyptian and conremporary Engtish orthography is apt;various attempts at spelling reform have gone the way of the Naukratis stela.

very little (and that cursory) has been said about sportive writings andcryptography, the special characteristics ofthe orthography and palaeography ofthe cursive scripts, the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Ptolemaic times, and thestructure of individual signs (as well as the inventory of the hieroglyphic reper-toire as a whole); and certain graphic conventions such as honorific transposition,the colors of hieroglyphs, visual aspects of the format of written texts, and therelationship between writing and the spoken language have been omitted entirely.The emergence of Egyptian writing has been considered but not the inscriptionsof the Archaic Period. The transition from the hieroglyphic sentence posited byGardiner to the strong emphasis on the word-picture has not been elucidated.Nonetheless, by focussing on a few aspects, some indication has been given of thecontribution which Egyptian writing can make ro the study of visible language andthe contribution which the study of visible language can make to undersrandingthe ancient Egyptian scripts and the scribes who wrote them.

Mnemonic aspects of Egyptian Writing

ReferencesBakir, A.M. An introd,uction to the study of the Eglptian langtage. A Semitic approach

(V o I . I) . Mirtd,le E gyptiltn . Cairo : General E gyptian B oo k Organ ization,

1978.

Callender, J . B. M idd.te E gyptian (Afroasiati.c Dilt lects 2). Malibu: Undena Publica-

tions, 1975.

D6vaud, E. L'dge d.es papynu hidratiques d'aprDs les graphi.es de certairts mots . Paris: P.

Geuthner, 1924.

Drioton, E. Notes sur le cryptogramme de Montouernh5t. Annuaire de I'Irutitut de

P hilotogie et d' H'istoire Orientales, 1935, 3 (Fs. J. Capart), I 33- I40'

Drioton, E. Recueil de cryptographie monurnerrtale. Annales du Seruice des An-

ti,quitds de I'E glpte , 1940 , 40 , 305-429 .

Edgerron, W. F. Egyptian phonetic writing, from its invention to the close of the

nineteenth dynasty . J ournal of the American oriental society , 1940, 50 ,

473-506.

Edgerton, W. F. Vowel quantity and syllable division in Egyptian.Journal of Near

Eastern Studies,lg47 ,5, l-17 .

Fairman, H. w. Notes on rhe alphabetic signs employed in the hieroglyphic

inscriptions of the temple of Edfu. Aznales du Sen-ice des Antiquitis de

tE gypte, 1943, 43, 19 1-3 10.

Fairman, H. W. An introduction to the study of Ptolemaic signs and their values.

Bulletin d,e l'Institutfrangais d'archdologie orienta,le, 1945, 43 , bl-138'Faulkner, R. o.The plural ancl d,ual in old Egyptian Brussels: Fondation Egyp-

tologique Reine Elisabeth, 1929.

Faulkner, R. O.A concise d,ictionary of Middle Eglptian. Oxford:'Oxford University

Press,1962.

Fischer, H. G. Hiero glyphen.LexikonderAgyptologie,Lief.ls (Bd. II, Lief.8), cols.

1189-99. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977 . (a)

Fischer, H. G, E g)pti&n stud,ies II : The orientation of hieroglyph"s. Pt. I . Reaersals . New

York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977. (b)

Gardiner, A. H. The narure and development of the Egyptian hieroglyphicwriting. J ournal of E gyptian Archaeology , 1915, 2 , 6l-7 5 '

Gardiner, A. H.No/es onthe story of Sinuhe. Paris: 1916.

Gardiner, A. H. Late-Egptian stories (Bibli,otheca Aegyptinca 1). Brussels: Fondation

Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, I 932'

Gardiner, A. H. Egyptio,n grarnnl.ar (3rd ed.). oxford: oxford University Press,

1.957.

Gelb, LJ.,4studryofwri.ting (2nded.). Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress, 1963.

Hodge, C. T. Ritual and writing; An inquiry into the origin of Egyptian script. InM. D. Kinkade, K. L. Hale, & O. Werner (Eds.), Linguistics and anthro-

pology: In Honor of C. F. Voegelin. Lisse: Peter Rider Press, 1975'

65

66 E.S. Meltzer

Kaplony, P. strukturprobleme der Hieroglyphenschrift .chronique d'Egypte,1g66,41,60-99.

Kaplony, P. Die Prinzipien der Hieroglyphenschrift .Textes et langages d,e l'Egyptepharaonique l. (InstitutfranEais d,'archdologie orientale. Biliothique d'Etude64/1). Cairo:7973.

Lacau, P. Suppressions et modifications de signes dans les textes fun6raires.Zeitschriftfilr iiglptische Sprache und Altertumshund,e, lgLZ,5l , l-64.

Lichtheirn, M. The Naucratis srela once again. studies in honor of George R. Hughes(Studies in Ancient Oriental Ciuilization No. 39). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1976.

Peet, T. E. Review of D6vaud 1924.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,lg?b,l t ,

1 I9-120. (a)

Peet, T. E. Review of H. Sottas and Drioton .Introduction d tdtude des hidroglyphes.

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, L925,11,122. (b)Schenkel, W. The structure of hieroglyphic script. -R oyal Anthropological Institute

News, 197 6, 15 (August), 4-7.Tawfik, s. 1973. Aton studie s 2. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiolog,ischen

Instituts Kairo, 197 3, 29, 82-86.ward, w. A. Notes on Egyptian group-writing.Journal of Near Eastern studies,

1957,16, l98-203.williams, R. J. Scribal training in ancienr Egypt. J ournal of the American oriental

Society, L972, 92, 214-221.Williams, R.J' The interplay of Egyptian and Hellenic cukures. InThe Mediterra-

nean world: Papers Presented in Honour of Gilbert Bagnani. peterborough,Ontario: Trent University, 1976.

1

rp

IF

2

ir

l

l(IS'

u

S

tIC;

S'

Sl

hE

E

It