...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Kushites: “Nilo-Saharan” speakers vs. a “language isolate” speakers
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Clyde Winters: Why do you act as if hieratic and demotic are the same writing systems? Any student of Egyptian writing knows that whereas hieratic is based on Egyptian hieroglyphics, demotic has no relationship to Egyptian hieroglyphics.[/QUOTE]Why do you keep “inventing” what people have said? Both hieratic and demotic are apparently “Egyptian“, and related [even your own diagram shows this] ! Egyptian hieroglyphics didn’t just jump from pictographic symbols to demotic, their was development in between, towards first hieratic, and then demotic; thereafter Coptic, a modification with Greek characters and those of demotic. Earlier, I posted: [b][i]About the Origins of Early Demotic in Lower Egypt, in: Life in a Multi-Cultural Society, 91-102. (tables, pl.)[/i][/b], by Ola El-AGUIZY: The first group of the Serapeum stelae, which dates back to the XXIInd Dynasty (Sheshonq V), shows that a cursive writing quite similar to abnormal hieratic was also used in Lower Egypt. The author assumes that the evolutions of the hieratic scripts of Upper and of Lower Egypt must have passed through similar phases, the latter leading to a cursive writing similar to abnormal hieratic. The Serapeum stelae are proof of this. [b]The XXVth Dynasty stelae show that the few signs resembling Early Demotic have intermingled with a well-formed hieratic style.[/b] Such a style must have co-existed in Lower Egypt with a more cursive one, and might probably be considered as the origin of the Early Demotic script born in this part of the country. The author suggests that Demotic is not derived from a different cursive branch of hieratic used in Lower Egypt, but rather from one of two hieratic styles used in Lower Egypt itself. The first of these styles, being the natural development of late hieratic, had become too cursive to go on being used. The second, closer to the hieratic originals, developed into Early Demotic, by a gradual and normal simplification of well-formed hieratic signs. [b]As for the early XXVIth Dynasty Stela Louvre C 101, bearing hieroglyphic, hieratic and Demotic signs, it must have been copied from a hieroglyphic original by a scribe familiar with Demotic.[/b] For the evolution see the comparative palaeographic tables added. El-AGUIZY, Ola, [b][i]A Palaeographical Study of Demotic Papyri in the Cairo Museum from the Reign of King Taharqa to the End of the Ptolemaic Period (684-30 B.C.)[/i][/b],[i] Le Caire, Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1998 = MIFAO [Mémoires. Institut français d'archéologie orientale], 113. (27 x 35 cm; XVI, 456 p.).ISBN 2-7247-0227-1; pr. FF 340/ LE 200[/i] This palaeography of pre-Roman Period Demotic starts with a bibliography, general as well as of papyri studied, and a list of the source documents in the Cairo Museum arranged in ten categories. In the introduction the author points out the problem of the development out of hieratic, since there is also a Theban script generally called Abnormal Hieratic. In fact, the first aim of her work is to attempt to determine the origins of Demotic and its relation with the preceding scripts, in order to define whether it was an entirely new script or derived from its predecessors. [b]Next, the study is concerned with the development of Demotic writing since its appearance in the XXVIth Dynasty down to the end of the Ptolemaic Period, whereby it is also determined whether this development was influenced by historical or geographical factors or both.[/b] The classification adopted by her for the development of the Demotic writing is as follows: (1) Early Demotic, spanning the XXVIIth to XXXth Dynasties; (2) Ptolemaic Demotic, spanning the entire Ptolemaic Period, but generally subdivided into Early Ptolemaic, covering the years of flowering and ending with the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, and Late Ptolemaic, contemporary with the decline of the dynasty and distinct from the earlier period by mentioning in dates also the day of the month; (3) Late Demotic of the Roman Period. Phase (3) is not included as documents dating to it are not numerous enough in the Cairo Museum to provide certain information. The present work is based on the published papyri of the Cairo Museum, [b]starting with the reign of Taharqa[/b] and having as the oldest among the texts those written in Abnormal Hieratic. However, owing to the scarcity of documents in Abnormal Hieratic texts from other collections (the Louvre and the British Museum) have been added to permit a more thorough study of this type of script. The work is presented in two parts, the first giving a detailed commentary on individual signs of interest in the study of the origins and development of the Demotic script, including figures illustrating the hieratic forms of the particular sign under study, in order to permit its comparison with the Demotic equivalent and establish the similarities or differences between them. The signs are divided into categories arranged by Gardiner's Sign-List and Möller's hieratic palaeography, but the numbering system is continuous (in Roman numerals), altogether 303 (CCCIII) signs, a number of which have been left undescribed by the author. Users will note that the alphabetic signs are grouped separately in front of the other categories. In this way, Gardiner's and Möller's category "A" is headed here under "B" etc.; further, two categories, i.e. anthropomorphic deities (= Gardiner "C" and Möller "C") and loaves and cakes (= Gardiner "X") are omitted (see the concordance on p. 4). This first part concludes with considerations on some of the papyri studied and on palaeographical matters. The second part consists of the plates corresponding with the author's sign list in Part 1, each plate being arranged in ten sections giving the Demotic sign forms by period and region. [b]The first section concerns Abnormal Hieratic, the following concern the three periods Early Demotic and Early and Late Ptolemaic (Demotic), each geographically subdivided into Lower, Middle and Upper Egypt.[/b] The signs are accompanied by source references. The sign numbering is also used in the commentary dealing with some of the signs of particular interest to the study of the development of the Demotic writing. In this commentary, Möller's palaeography is used in the comparison of hieratic and Demotic signs, despite the fact that his work is not always very accurate. Figures of the hieratic sign forms are given in the commentary, to determine the degree of affinity between a Demotic sign and its predecessor(s). It is worth noting that as transliteration system of the Demotic the method of Fr. de Cenival is adopted. Of the two indexes the first presents the sign forms from Early to Late Hieratic (Möller parts I-III) and Abnormal Hieratic, so as to show the process of development from hieratic to Demotic; the second lists the signs discussed in the commentary and given on the plates. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3