Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
Institute for Egyptology
Prof. Dr. Schenkel

Comments on the question of encoding Egyptian hieroglyphs in the UCS - WG2 N2025-1
Presentation of the argument
While the encoding of Egyptian hieroglyphs within Unicode is worth looking into in principle, it isfor the following reasons not yet ripe for decision at this point in time:1.) All lists of hieroglyphical »characters« that are in use today are directly or conceptionallyderived from registers of print types. Lead types were created to cater for specific practicalneeds, often therefore without thorough systematic stock-taking of those characters occurring on
Egyptian Buildings (statues,tombs).
2.) The most thoroughly worked through directory is Gardiner’s list of types, on which theStandard Library that is being taken into consideration for a standardization is based on. In thislist of types, there is on the one hand a basis of hieroglyphs that more or less has to be listed inany usable register of types, but on the other hand it also contains rare characters andpaleographical variants which were selected more or less at random. Any list of characters, thataimed to contain only those characters that belong to the classical hieroglyphical script in themost general sense, would have to include at least twice as many hieroglyphs as the Standard
Library. Such a list does not yet exist, but is being worked on. (See also 5.)3.) The Extended Library is a list which is even less complete and elaborated than the Standard
Library. In this list it is even less clear than in Standard Library, whether a glyph represents acharacter in the sense of a unit of information or a paleographical variant –– a glyph variant in
UCS terminology. This list especially takes into account the immensely expanded repertoire of»characters« of the latest, Ptolemaic-Roman period, without exhaustively covering all of themand without sorting this stock according to scriptsystematical aspects.
4.) Almost none of the numerous types from the Early Egyptian period, which were no longer used
after that, are listed in general registers. These types are catalogued in Jochen Kahl, Das Systemder ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.–3. Dynastie, Wiesbaden 1994 (The system ofEgyptian hieroglyphic script letters in the 0–3rd dynasty). This register is not complete either,as new characters are continually being discovered and the categorization of these newcharacters is often unstable. However, these special difficulties of early written language do notnecessarily hinder the standardization of letter repertoire from later periods. The letters fromearly periods are a more or less marginal problem.
5.) A new extensive but condensed list of characters (»handlist«) of –– in a most general sense ––classical hieroglyphical script is being worked on by Prof. Dr. Erik Hornung, Basel. This list
will be much bigger than the Gardiner repertoire of types or the Standard Library. Judging fromthe parts of this list that have been communicated to me personally, it would be much more
appropriate as a basis for a standardization than those print type derived lists already inexistence. Here it is at least being attempted to list the complete stock of the –– in the mostgeneral sense –– classical hieroglyphical script, and at the same time to determine the functionsof these characters and thus to get a better hold of the paleographical variants.
6.) At the present stage of research in Egyptian hieroplyphic script, one always has to expect newcharacters and changes in what we currently perceive to be an abstract character. This meansthat the clumsy instrument of standardization cannot meet the demands of the incomplete stageof research in Egyptology. A far more appropriate means would be fonts registered byEgyptologists, which can be very quickly expanded and modified within the science itself, as is
the case with the directories of the Standard and the Extended Library that Hans van Berg,1Utrecht, is running within the framework of the program for hieroglyphical print »Glyph«(please note the name).

SummaryIf, inspite of what was said in 6., a standardization of hieroglyphical character repertoire should beconsidered, then in any case the publication of the new list of characters by Hornung (mentionedunder 5.) should be waited for. Whether this list of characters can actually serve as a basis for astandardization remains to be examined when it is published. At this point in time and on the basisof registers of hieroglyphs currently available a standardization within Unicode cannot berecommended.

2