Hands Description

<handDesc>↗ can contain as many <handNote>↗s as you wish. The following is an example from Egypt, Dayr as-Suryān, DS Ethiop. 11

        <handNote script="Ethiopic" xml:id="h1" corresp="#p1.2 #p1.3 #a4">
            <seg type="script">First half of the twentieth-century script.</seg>
            <seg type="ink">Black, red.</seg>
            <seg type="rubrication"></seg>
            <date notBefore="1900" notAfter="1949">First half of the 20th century.</date>
            <desc>
                Careful, somewhat irregular; by a good scribe (name:
                <persName role="scribe" ref="PRS11958WaldaM">Walda Māryām</persName>
                ).
            </desc>
        </handNote>
    

In practice, <seg type="script">↗ contains a categorization, as "square script" in the example, gwəlḥ or similar and for <desc>↗ contains any other or more general description of the script.

The categorization of "square script", "gwəlḥ", "compressed script", etc. is based on S. Uhlig's works and relates to very broad "palaeographic periods", not really to true, well-defined scripts. Thus a definition "square script" is, according to this system, equivalent to mid-14 - mid-15th century. Cataloguers should try to compare the handwriting in a manuscript with Uhlig's division (working closely with the book "Äthiopische Paläographie" and samples) and locate the script broadly within one of the periods or between them. One can also look at dating obtained from other sources and check that it would not be contradicted by palaeographic evidence - this is even better. E.g., BAVet7:

 
                   <handNote xml:id="h1" script="Ethiopic">
                    <seg type="script">Written in a mediocre handwriting.</seg>
                    <seg type="ink">Black, red</seg>
                    <date notBefore="1400" notAfter="1499">15th century</date>
               </handNote>  

Please note the distinction between "script" and its variety produced by an individual scribe, which is "hand". We describe here the hand and associate it with a script, thus start from evidence.

Quality evaluation as 'fine', 'mediocre', 'poor', even if subjective, is helpful.

Give an @xml:id to each handNote to be able to refer to it in other parts of the record. You can also use @corresp to point to <msPart>↗s, <msItem>↗s or <addition>↗s in which this hand is used. @script should take one of the values in the Writing Systems Taxonomy proposed from the schema. You can always add a <locus>↗ within <handNote>↗ to determine where the hand is used. This can overlap with the corresponding parts without any problem.

Inside <handNote>↗ you can also list abbreviations, using <abbr>↗ and <expan>↗ inside <list type="abbreviations">↗:

        <list type="abbreviations">
            <item>
                <abbr>ፍ፡</abbr> for <expan>ፍቱሐ፡</expan> (e.g., <locus target="#36ra #36vb #39ra"></locus>)
            </item>
            <item>
                <abbr>ይ፡ ሕ፡</abbr> for <expan>ይበል፡ ሕዝብ፡</expan> (e.g., <locus target="#40va"></locus>)
            </item>

        </list>