When I proofread the text of Inherkhau's harpist song (TT 359) sent to me by M. Nico Pollone, I found a few cases where the current repertoire of the Manuel de Codage is problematic, or deserves some remarks. I would like to discuss them here.

You can see a photo of the text on the IFAO web site.

Uses of the Manuel de Codage

A76A A76A

the text uses A76A as determinative for man (e.g. col 7 in z:A76A*Z1). Interestingly, the text also uses A52 A52 for the defunct. It's relatively unusual, as one would expect A76A to be more or less a variant of A52.

G37 G37

all G37 signs in the text are reversed. It's probably an euphemistic practice, to neutralize their negative connotation. It's not an encoding problem, but I feel it is worth mentioning. Actually, the word b-w-t:K2-G37 is almost fully reversed. To understand what's going on in this case, it's better to look at the text in its original layout, in columns.

R10A R10A

the Manuel provides many variants of the sign R10, R10 for ẖrt-nṯr. Most of those variants offer interesting graphical solutions for expressing the idea of necropolis, and can't be considered as mere cosmetic variants.

You find R10A, R10A, R10B, R10B, R10C, R10C, R10D, R10D, R10F, R10F, R10G, R10G, R10h, R10h, R49, R49, R50, R50, and probably R53, R53.

Each of those sign express ẖrt-nṯr in a slightly different way. Some of them use a hill sign, like a half slope N26, other a full N25 sign. In the case of Inherkhau, he uses a sign where the hill is replaced by an arm D36. The closest we get in the Manuel is R10A, R10A. In Inherkhau's version, the nTr sign rests on the arm, not on the beginning of the forearm, and the feather Sw stands vertically on the Xr block.

The question is how those variants are defined and how they should be used. For the signs which have many variants, the risk is that the choice of a particular code could be relatively arbitrary. In this precise case, R10A is probably as good an approximation as we get, and would be a reasonable choice.

U22 U22

the text uses a variant of U22 which is probably not in the Manual. The sign looks like U27B, U27B. However, as it is not a variant of U27, I'm reluctant to use this code, and I'd rather use the standardized U22.

W17D W17D

the shape of W17 W17 found in the inscription matches almost exactly the version of the Manuel for W17D. The only difference is the number of horizontal lines in the upper part. The prototype of W17D has one additional line. Note that the original Manuel grouped W17A W17A and all simplified/schematic variants of W17 together. JSesh has also US22W17BVARE US22W17BVARE, which is probably too close to W17D to be interesting (but it's a bit late to remove this sign). The JSesh W17D (as of JSesh 7.9) does not fit the usual JSesh rendering, as it draws the outline instead of the lines themselves. It should probably be fixed.

W59 W59

the Manuel de Codage lists W59 under varia, and not under a specific kind of vase. In Cauville, fond hiéroglyphique, p. 138, the sign is given the value ḥq.t , which probably means Dr. Cauville sees it as a variant of W22 W22, with the protective net represented by the two horizontal lines.

In Inherkhau's tomb, the sign is used as a determinative for various kinds of vases. In that respect, it is similar to W23 W23, the usual vase determinative.

However, there are two important differences. The neck of the sign in Inherkhau's tomb is much longuer and thinner. Besides, the bottom of the vase is pointy like in W20 or W65, not flat.

The sign in Inherkhau looks like the milk-jug W20 W20, without the leaf covering the milk (see Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., p. 530).

The importance of vase profiles in ceramology and the absence of an exact match might suggest that it's probably better to use the standard W23 sign than a somehow similar sign which could point to a much later prototype.

However, the original Manuel de Codage lists quite a few variants for W59, most of them with a pointy bottom.

Interestingly, the shape is found in the much later Taharqa stelae at Kawa (Lenzo, Pal. Hiero. 7, p. 167, § 391), with more or less the same generic use.

Signs outside of the Manuel

• the sign for sr, A21, fancies a nice linen dress, with fashionable sleeves.

• the M40 sign looks like its unicode version US1M40AEXTU US1M40AEXTU, but with an additional oblique stroke.

Conclusions

Are those particularities worth encoding, and does the Manual, as it stands, provides good solutions for them?

• regarding the uses of A76A and the reversal of G37, I think their use is significant and meaningful; they deserve to be encoded;

• R10A provides an interesting choice, but it is typically the case where I'd like to have a better view of the sign's history (which in a way is somehow a chicken-and-egg problem);

• given the data I have found about W59 W59, I this it might be interesting, in the prospect of writing an history of this sign. It seems to appear in quite a few XXVth dynasty texts, often linked to vases of Napatean origin. It's obviously not the case here, but one would like to have a better panoramic view on the sign's history;

• I find the problems of US22 U22 and W17D W17D less interesting, but it's somehow subjective.