Glyphs in the summary line

(šsp: shesep) "daylight" daylight Gardiner [595.2:9] <tug stool sun: rays>

Your amateur researcher into Egyptian hieroglyphs has made a database to help him with his enquiries. This database has been referred to in earlier posts in this Nedj Nedj blog. The database reveals similarities in words, enables glyph sequences to be searched for, and shows how words were, or might be, made up from stems, prefixes and suffixes to provide their meanings. Examples from the database have been used on many occasions so far. These examples sometimes have taken the form of graphics, such as an analysis of the word ‘shesep’:

Fig. 1 shesep

 and sometimes as summary lines for the graphic group concerned:

(šsp: shesep) "daylight" daylight Gardiner [595.2:9] <tug stool sun: rays>

So it is that the summary line for the above graphic for ‘shesep’, meaning ‘daylight’ (and also ‘image’ / ‘statue’) is presented with the following elements:

— šsp: official spelling

— shesep: simple-to-read transliteration

— "daylight" translation offered by the source

— daylight JSM (JS main) translation in the database

— Gardiner [595.2:9]: source, including the page and line, and item within the line

— <tug stool sun: rays> glyph sequence, using database names for the glyphs

So, at the end of the summary line, the glyph composition for the word ‘shesep’ is shown, using the names your researcher has devised for them for his own convenience, in order to make the database work: tug / stool / sun: rays

Is there something obvious missing here? After a while it seemed that if this database and blog were intended to help others, not just your researcher, to see what lay behind the hieroglyphs, if the blog were to help show how the Ancient Egyptians made the hieroglyphs work, then the summary lines were deficient in a major respect. Everybody other than your researcher would be unfamiliar with the (sometimes-regrettably-far-from-obvious) names used for the glyphs. Those people (i.e. all of you) would be at a disadvantage in trying to understand what was being discussed. Hieroglyphs are obscure enough without adding another layer of obfuscation. So why not have the hieroglyphs themselves included as part of the summary lines? Why not, indeed.

The reason was that the big hieroglyphics you can see in the coloured picture above, with the pink and purple and yellow explanatory bars, are actually pictures, just as if they were photographs.  In fact, here is the very group concerned, from a wall in Karnak:

Fig. 2 shesep from Karnak

This is obviously a picture, not a keyboard character. This group in this picture is to be read top to bottom, and right to left. That is why everything looks backwards in relation to the graphic analysis of the word at the start of this entry.

What is the problem? Why can’t the hieroglyphs appear as part of the line of text? Well, no doubt they could, if you only knew how to do it. And certainly not your researcher, who is neither computer programmer nor smart young member of the modern world but only a retired administrator who once used to help things along in a big organisation. In short, he is no-one at all special.

Yet the problem gnawed away. The summary lines really ought to include the glyphs. 

If the glyphs were to appear in a line of type, then maybe if they were themselves characters in a type font it might be possible for them to be there. Your amateur researcher knew there were lots of fonts on his computer as this segment from near the start of the font list reveals:

Fig. 3 Font list A-B

In the list above there’s ‘Arial Hebrew’, and ‘Baghdad’. 
Could there be a font for Egyptian hieroglyphs? Have a look . . .:

Fig. 4 Font list F-G

Well I never: what’s ‘GlyphBasicA’ and so on? 

GlyphBasicA turned out to be:

Fig. 5 GlyphBasicA displayed

That looked promising, but it also turned out that there were not enough characters in all the 'GlyphBasic' fonts together — not nearly enough.

This led to a search for other fonts on the internet —and  a Laser font was duly found, with a wider range.

Then either the computer itself, or the database program, caused new difficulties. For, to achieve the hieroglyph image you want to see, you have to type on a ‘qwerty’ Roman alphabet keyboard. Thus it was that at first, when the glyphs were required to appear, up they came as a series of jumbled ordinary letters, not as hieroglyphs at all. Somehow the keyboard had to be ‘told’ that the /k/ between the slashes was a duck hieroglyph k and not a k at all.

It took about a fortnight of entering the Laser characters into the companion ‘JS Hiero Names’ database, as well as some serious pondering over how to make the characters actually appear. And finally here is the result for the summary line at the start of this entry. It includes a new group at the end:

(šsp: shesep) "daylight" daylight  Gardiner [595.2:9] <tug stool sun: rays> {opf}

That new group appears in what are small characters, but here they are enlarged:

{opf}

And to show that getting them to appear at all was not a fluke, here is a longer example, chosen at random:

Fig. 6 ateput

The word is ‘ateput’, and it means ‘load’.

Here is the entry for ‘ateput’:

Fig. 7 ateput entry

and here is its summary line, complete with the glyph sequence at the end:

(3tpwt: atepu) "load" load  Faulkner Concise [7:1.1] <eagle bun stool quail bun SQUATTER: hat arm: stick PLURAL> {atpwt‹˚¬}

Here is the glyph portion enlarged:

{atpwt‹˚¬}

How was it done? By a combination of ‘container’ fields, scripts, and advice from a son-in-law who really knows what you need to know.

Here is the first of the two scripts used.

This one copies all the typographic glyphs (as opposed to the ‘picture’ versions) from the separate fields they were in, as shown in one of the coloured graphics (shesep and ateput) above into a single ‘field’. 

HIERO JS NAMES ID01::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID02::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID03::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID04::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID05::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID06::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID07::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID08::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID09::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID10::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID11::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID12::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID13::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID14::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID15::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID16::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID17::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID18::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID19::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID20::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID21::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID22::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID23::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID24::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID25::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID26::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID27::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID28::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID29::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID30::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID31::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID32::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID33::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID34::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID35::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID36::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID37::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID38::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID39::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID40::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID41::font item Laser & HIERO JS NAMES ID42::font item Laser

and here is the result of that script for ‘ateput’:

Fig. 8 Glyphline with errors

This illustrates what is typical about a process to try to achieve what you want. First the glyphs come up as jumbles ‘Roman type’ letters. Then they come up only partially what you were hoping for. So while the first four characters seem right, the rest are not. Consequently they could not help to produce a useful, accurate, summary line.

Then it was found that simply by clicking in this field for ‘ateput’, a new result appeared:

Fig. 8 Corrected glyphline, after clicking

After one had simply clicked in the field, everything looked right! Somehow, by clicking, the desired appearance of the characters was activated. The ‘wrong’ images occurring in some cases were possibly due to being derived from a font other that the exact one used for the first four. So near and yet so far. How to tell the computer to click in the field itself?

It was discovered that copying this field into another field had the effect of clicking in the field. The result was that the characters all presented themselves as desired. This is shown in the next illustration, where the transferred characters appear in the new blue bar:

Fig. 9 Glyphline transfer, and original glyphline

They do not appear there automatically, but in response to an instruction: a keyboard combination ‘command 3’ [cmd3] activates the transfer, with the result shown above. 

Here is the script to achieve this:

Fig. 10 Script to effect the transfer to the new 'transfer' glyphline

The challenge was then to copy the glyphs of the blue ‘glyphline transfer’ bar above into the desired summary line. Here is the script amended to achieve this result:

"(" & transcription & ":" & " " & If(prefix 1=""; "" ; prefix 1 & "-") & If(prefix 2=""; "" ; prefix 2 & "-") & If(respelt JS =""; "" ; respelt JS)  & If(sfx DFX 1=""; "" ; "-" & sfx DFX 1) & If(sfx DFX 2=""; "" ; "-" & sfx DFX 2) & If(sfx tense=""; "" ; "-" & sfx tense) & If(postfix 1 =""; "" ; "-" & postfix 1) & If(sfx pronoun nom=""; "" ; "-" & sfx pronoun nom) & If(sfx pronoun acc =""; "" ; "-" & sfx pronoun acc) & If(postfix 2 =""; "" ; "-" & postfix 2) & ")" & Char(9) & Quote (meaning) & Char(9) & Eng JS main & " " & Eng suffix & " " & Eng JS adj & Char(9) & source & Char(9) & "[" & page & ":" & line & "]" & Char(9) & "<" & identity JS & ">" & Char(9) & "{" & If(glyphline transfer =""; "" ; glyphline transfer) & "}"

And here is the successful result, now including the glyphs at the end:

Fig. 11 ateput entry, including glyphs at the end

Here too are the glyphs from the end, enlarged:

Fig. 12 ateput glyphs enlarged

And here is the now standard summary line presentation for it:

(3tpwt: atepu) "load" load  Faulkner Concise [7:1.1] <eagle bun stool quail bun SQUATTER: hat arm: stick PLURAL> {atpwt‹˚¬}

For general information only

Here is the whole photograph from the great temple at Karnak, from which the actual ‘shesep’ example was obtained:

Fig. 13 Heavily incised hieroglyph wall at Karnak

The extract can be seen just below the big hole near the top left corner.

You know the direction of reading is from right to left as all the glyphs with faces (birds, snakes, etc.) face to the right.

Your amateur researcher was there on 8 March 2009. Here is part of a diary entry for that day:

“Karnak is the largest religious complex in the world, and much photographed. At first there is a great open space, and the complex stretches behind it, heralded by the first of ten 'pylons', which are short tall walls, broken in the middle by a gap, through which some extent of the complex can be glimpsed, through successive further pylons and spaces.

Karnak is the work of a series of pharaohs, with Ramses II being a singular contributor. His statues and cartouches were practically everywhere.

As pharaohs added sequentially to the complex, the buildings first encountered were the most recent. The first pylon was attributed to Nectanebo II, in power at the same time as Alexander the Great. The pylon was not fully finished, so much so that ramp works still remained behind the pylon, giving a fairly clear indication as to how these great structures might have been made, including the pyramids. The ramp was held together by big mud bricks, about 40 cm long, with other dimensions to match. It might have been 20 metres wide, and it had some parallel internal walling, the rest being filled up with general rubble. It might have been 5-10 m in height where it touched the pylon  — nowhere near the top of the pylon, so perhaps much of it had been dispersed over the centuries, or perhaps had been demolished, for the present ground level, taken back to the original ground level, was many metres lower than it was when Muslims had built a mosque on the ruins, the front entrance to which is now way up in the air.

Then next wonder, and wonder it truly was, was the great and famous hypostyle hall with its 134 giant columns. This had been started by Seti I and completed by Ramses II. There were very many columns, but because they were placed so close together it was not possible to obtain many diagonal views through them. After Ibrahim's [the guide’s] presentation of the complex I returned there to photograph everything I could think of, particularly the hieroglyphics, in the brief time allocated for free inspection.

We went through the various spaces, and took a right turn someway down, for the last four pylons branch off in that direction. Here and there one would come upon some item already familiar from photographs in books of Egypt or on TV programs. At the lake we were let loose to photograph what we wanted.

[’Queen Hatshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty erected some six obelisks in the 16th year of her reign, around 1485 BC. One still stands at Karnak, 97.5 ft high, 8.6 ft wide at the base, and 5.3 ft wide at the top, making a taper of 1 in 27.' <http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/classics/obelisk.htm >] [‘The photograph shows an obelisk erected by Queen Hatshepsut (1473-1458 BC). It is 97 feet tall and weighs approximately 320 tons (some sources say 700 tons). An inscription at its base indicates that the work of cutting the monolith out of the quarry required seven months of labor.’]

There is also a fallen obelisk of Hatshepsut’s.

[‘Hatshepsut raised four obelisks at Karnak, only one of which still stands.’ <http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/obelisk.html >]”

Nearby stands a smaller obelisk erected by Tuthmosis I (1504-1492 BC). It is 75 feet high, has sides 6 feet wide at its base, and weighs between 143 and 160 tons.

Jeremy Steele

Monday 10 June 2013