 |
| Watercolour from Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis. Image source Quibell and Green 1902. |
The following serves as an illustration of the pitfalls of
writing beyond your knowledge base and also for talking to people who are
experts in another area if you can’t be bothered doing the required amount of
study yourself. And incidentally, that free access to books online is
pretty much useless when this only provides the reader with outdated research.
Recently the amateur history blog Sumerian
Shakespeare who writes up ancient Mesopotamian topics took it upon themselves
to critique objects from Predynastic Egypt in two of their posts. In the
past I had assumed this blog was an adequate if unimaginative introduction to
Mesopotamian culture for keen learners, but with the added bonus of nice
pictures that are credited. I have since altered this stance.
Now I find their blog shallowly researched, outdated, a bit
racist, pseudo-archaeological nonsense that is effectively dressed up to look
like ‘educated’ critique.
The Hierakonpolis painting and the Gebel el Arak knife
The overall premise of both blog articles by Sumerian
Shakespeare is that while the Sumerians could not have settled Egypt and
founded the Egyptian state (an outdated theory from the early 20th century)
they could have mounted rustling expeditions … have a think about that … a
rustling expedition ... or two.
This glorious theory is supported by the fact that the two
examples that they cite are contemporary and from the same region, Abydos …
Well … no … there is no evidence for where the knife came
from. It was purchased from a Cairo dealer by George Benedité for the
Louvre collection, and is only reputedly from Gebel el Arak near Abydos. In
addition, the painting and knife are not contemporary. The knife is dated
to Naqada IIIA (c. 3350-3150 BCE), Tomb 100 at Hierakopolis is earlier and
dated to Naqada IIC (c. 3500 BCE). They are, at best, a hundred years
apart, or likely more.
Master of animals on the Gebel el Arak knife. Image credit Wikipedia.
The critique of the Gebel el Arak knife (Aug 2016)
The knife is a flint blade with a carved ivory handle that
has always attracted plenty of commentary, so this choice is rather predictable.
The post itself is basically introduced with the assertion that the writer
decided to study the knife, because upon finding it in a web search of Sumerian
images they were sure it was Sumerian, not Egyptian. So like all good
critical thinkers (from 1899) they set out to prove their theory was correct.
As is to be expected, a great deal of waffle about this
object revolves around the master of animals figure between two lions that is
on one side of the knife. However, the writer immediately recognises him
as the Sumerian shepherd king from Uruk in southern Mesopotamia. Here we
have a glorious example of early 20th century Biblical terminology being
imposed on this early Mesopotamian motif, which is usually called a
‘priest-king’.
‘For a hundred years there has been a lot of scholarly
debate about the identity of this man,
none of which is correct’… Cocky arse.
none of which is correct’… Cocky arse.
The Gebel el Arak knife handle. Image Wikipedia.
Once the writer has exhausted all the generic comparisons to
4th and 3rd millennium Sumerian glyptic to justify their claims, they
arbitrarily switch sides of the knife and deal with the battle scene on the
opposing side. This incidentally ignores the desert hunt imagery on the
previous side. And apparently on viewing the new scene, the penis sheaths
worn by all combatants made them uncomfortable:
‘All of the soldiers wear penis sheathes. It’s beyond me why
any man would wear this
ridiculous contraption, especially in combat – but there it is. I have to admit, I was very
disappointed to see the Sumerians thus attired. I always assumed that the Sumerians,
even at their most primitive, were more civilized than that.’
ridiculous contraption, especially in combat – but there it is. I have to admit, I was very
disappointed to see the Sumerians thus attired. I always assumed that the Sumerians,
even at their most primitive, were more civilized than that.’
There is a lot of time wasted on describing the
fighters – where the dominant figures with no hair are designated as Sumerians
versus their opponents, who must be the long haired Egyptians. Let us just ignore
that the fighting figures are equal in size and are all dressed in those penis
sheaths.
Then some considerable time is spent identifying the boats, basically
still intended to prove that the boats on the lower part of the handle are all
Sumerian, not Egyptian.
To conclude the piece the writer backflips their entire
argument and says that the knife cannot be Sumerian because a real battle
between Egypt and the ‘marines’ of a Sumerian shepherd king is not possible.
They instead state that the artist copied details from Sumerian seals and
artefacts, but did not understand all their iconography, so drew what they knew.
Which rather insanely explains away all the Predynastic Egyptian features of
the knife.
Then they
end on their awkwardness with penises again.
‘That is why he shows them wearing penis
sheathes like the Egyptians. (I was relieved
to know that my beloved Sumerians never wore
these ridiculous accoutrements.)’
Watercolour from Tomb 100 Hierakonpolis. Image Quibell and Green 1902.
But it did not stop there and in February of this year
Sumerian Shakespeare produced a sequel:
The critique of the Hierakonpolis tomb painting (Feb 2018)
With this piece a lot of time was again wasted by the writer
in self satisfied waffle about their own ability to reinterpret ancient art,
but when conclusions come they are odd and based on this person's intuitive
perceptions of a modern painting of an ancient painting. Admittedly these
conclusions are entirely consistent with the previous ramble.
The images they use are incidentally a watercolour and a
line drawing from the original excavation report in around 1900-2. Their
only other literary source appears to be an article from 1962. But they
clearly ignored most of its content, as that article (Case and Crowfoot Payne) assumes the imagery is
Egyptian. The haphazard narrative style is, like before,
quite confusing and contradictory, as though they were just writing out their
thought processes (at 2 am in the morning).
Anyway, some highlights:
The writer claims that all the red figures in the painting
are Sumerians, and the white figures are Egyptians … this assumption is based
on schematic figures and goes against the Egyptian convention for the
colour of people, red-brown was for Egyptian men, light colouring were used to
depict Egyptian women.
Although, I am not confident to push that
convention into the Predynastic. However, the easiest way to find
differentiation is to look at costume and hair. The writer does not do this, and
all figures in the drawing are, by the way, red-brown to dark brown.
Watercolour from Tomb 100 Hierakonpolis. Image Quibell and Green 1902.
There is some fairly predictable use of the media worthy
cliché about experts being baffled … yes, that’s us …
baffled by the image of goats encircling a wheel like enclosure. The writer
calls this symbol a ‘carousel’ in what can only be a ludicrously subjective
manner and uses condescending language inferring that the Egyptians kept trying
to control nature well after everybody else had moved on like sensible people.
Regardless, the circular design that is called a carousel is
probably an animal trap. Traps or hides for wild animals were a common
motif of control over nature in Egyptian funerary art, early and later.
Apparently this trying to tame nature is why the master of
animals was so compelling to the Egyptians … was it? … oh oh … wrong culture
right there.
While the writer assumes control of wild nature was a compelling
motif, they appear unaware that the Egyptians made a distinction between
domesticated animals and the desert dwellers. Symbolically speaking they
were the difference between social order and chaos. However, in ignorance
of this, instead the writer states that the wild antelopes are all livestock … Egyptian
livestock that is ripe for rustling ... so he is thinking quite subjectively
and a fan of cowboy movies.
According to Sumerian Shakespeare the entire painting is
about warfare brought about through a spot of livestock theft … They argue the
painting illustrates the invasion of Egypt by a Sumerian expedition. The
flotilla of boats that dominate the composition are Sumerian boats and the red
skinned Sumerians in long white skirts are the captains of the ships. On
the largest boat Sumerian warriors are surrounding and capturing an Egyptian
leader who is in a pavilion.
Watercolour from Tomb 100 Hierakonpolis. Image Quibell and Green 1902.
Short pause as they talk about lord Hierakon and I wonder
vaguely who he is? Apparently the captive leader on this boat can’t be
him … oh it is his tomb … gotcha … because he wouldn’t put a record of his own
public embarrassment in his tomb. Therefore it must be a neighbour who
was attacked by the Sumerians ... seriously? … although another part of me is
like, Lord Hierakon, eh … sounds sinister … wait, I’m thinking of the vampire
lord.
Then the writer heads off at a tangent and compares this
imagery to the battle scene from the Gebel el Arak knife and gives some
scintillating commentary on that. Apparently on the knife the Egyptians
were also overwhelmed in an attack, by that shepherd king and his marines …
Reiterating that the bald figures are Sumerian and those with long hair are
Egyptian ... But I thought they decided it was all a dream?
Watercolour from Tomb 100 Hierakonpolis. Image Quibell and Green 1902.
Then we return to the Hierakonpolis painting and the scene
of a man facing two lions that is in the upper left part of the painting, and
without any pause for breath the writer says that this small scheme shows the
lion pals of the Sumerians, because the lions are totally chilled and not
hostile … muahaha … therefore they must be pets!
As the (il)logical extension of this idea, the armed male
figure is therefore siccing (not my term) his lions on the antelopes!
So there it is, in a nutshell.
The second piece claims that on the Hierakonpolis tomb
painting the Sumerians are rustling the Egyptian herds of domestic antelope
with their highly trained pet lions.
‘That's it boys, saddle up the boats, we need to travel a
few weeks with our trusty pet lions and rustle us some ibex in Egypt.’ ... (me
btw)
After this bombshell, Sumerian Shakespeare puts some time
into explaining with maps how the Sumerians might have travelled in boats all
the way to Hierakonpolis (in inland Upper Egypt) … just to rustle some
livestock … I might add. Then he backflips again by saying it
couldn’t happen and the Egyptians just thought they were Sumerians … eh?
Basically the writer of these pieces can’t make up their
mind whether the Sumerians could invade Egypt or not, and repeatedly contradict
themselves. After all, if it is too far to settle, invade, or whatever,
it is also technically too far for spot rustling raids. And how did they
go with all those pet lions and antelopes on the long boat trip home?
Did anybody get back alive?
Finally, to conclude both articles Sumerian Shakespeare ties
it all seamlessly together with the pithy conclusion that these Sumerian
rustling events on the Hierakonpolis painting and on the Gebel el Arak knife
were so traumatic for the Predynastic Egyptian rulers that they caused
political collaboration between tribal groups which resulted in state formation
in Egypt …
Now I really need a lie down.
Conclusions
Basically this was a farce from go to woah. So lets
get three points clear:
1) Interconnections: In the 4th millennium Egypt did
have long distance contact with the Near East and there is no question that
early Egypt valued raw materials sourced from much further north-east. Even in the
Predynastic they valued lapis lazuli highly, which will have come from northern
Afghanistan to Egypt via overland or maritime trade routes. This relationship
was most likely over land via Sinai, the Levant and Syria. In the 4th
millennium Egypt also had a cultural presence in the southern Levant.
But the evidence favours connections to Susa in Iran, not
necessarily Uruk period Sumer in Mesopotamia. And this long distance
trade does not prove direct contact with any of the intermediate cultures, but
it infers the existence of trade routes and movement of objects and people in
both directions. It also infers they could have seen each other’s visual
idiom, particularly administrative sealings.
However, we have absolutely
no archaeological evidence of intercontinental wars or invasions. This theory is an example of early 20th century colonialist thinking, stemming from the likes of Assyriologist A. H. Sayce and others of his generation (and earlier) who chose to trace the development of all western 'civilisation' from Babylon.
2) The Hierakonpolis painting and the Gebel el Arak
knife
Early ancient Egyptian iconography was complex and does not
always mirror the imagery they produced in the pharaonic period. However,
some important themes about power survived into the Bronze Age and dominated
state rhetoric, and they were formed in the Naqada period, when both the knife
and painting were made.
The most important of these were the use of battle, prisoner
taking and hunting scenes to show dominance over the forces of disorder. The
forces of chaos were always wild (not domestic) desert animals and human
enemies. These motifs were used in the Naqada period and the painting and
knife examples discussed here have them. Visual propaganda representing
the ruling powers conquering chaos was common to Egyptian royal monuments and
for high status tombs.
Boating scenes were also dominant in both early and later
Egyptian funerary art. They painted these scenes of funerary barques and
cult festivals in rich tombs and temples. In the Naqada period they were
also de rigueur on funerary and cult vases ... usually with specific details
like pavilions, standards and palm fronds on the prows. Just like those
that are present on the knife and in the tomb painting.
The flotilla of boats in the Hierakonpolis painting is
thought by experts to show a funerary or ritual procession. With three
female figures on the largest boat who could be gods or cult personnel. The
posture and dress of the figures have parallels with the depiction of female
ritual figures at that time. The boats on the painting and the knife are
also pretty consistent with Predynastic boat imagery, but I understand
that Sumerian Shakespeare got around that awkward issue by saying the Egyptian artists
drew what they knew.
Finally, the master of animals on each of these examples is
the main argument for foreign influences or presence on the painting and the
knife, (high prowed boats being another), because the master of animals was not
a feature of Egyptian iconography. But in the mid 4th
millennium it was not an important motif in Sumer either. It comes
properly into vogue in Mesopotamia in the early 3rd millennium. In the
4th millennium it was a visual motif from Susa.
3) Writing style: The language employed in this blog
is problematic at best. The choice of language and terms has a distinctly black and
white, good versus evil, primitive versus civilised tone which contaminates both entire pieces.
Nothing is impartial about their writing, it is about hammering home an argument.
The writer employs an array of loaded modern American
film-media language to gleeful effect, such as ‘rustling’, `bad guys’,
‘homeland defence’, ‘action hero’, ‘marines’, ‘soldiers’ and ‘seaborne
invasion’. By doing this they manipulate the perception of the reader in inappropriate directions. This is an emotive technique that is neither impartial nor academic.
If you don’t want to read the originals, I will cut it down
to essentials:
The Egyptians were the bad guys and they wore creepy penis
thingys.
‘For the record, the Sumerians never wore this ridiculous
apparatus. It was much too primitive and barbaric for the Sumerians. In my
opinion, it proves that the Sumerians were far more civilized
than the Egyptians during this period of history. There, I
said it. Someone had to say it.’
..... what is there to add?
To sum up, as I said at the beginning, I would generally
recommend reading more widely before deciding it was a good idea to produce
such incoherent, longwinded and culturally ignorant dross, and then, to publish
this on the internet. However, it did give us a running gag around the
house for about 24 hours. A good hearty laugh about rustling antelopes
with your trusty pet lions is never a bad thing... (edit) it turns out we
are still getting the odd laugh out of it.
So, to close … a word or two of advice. An uninformed
opinion is pretty much valueless to humanity, whether you are talking about
history, archaeology, politics or dental procedures ... Don’t publish it ...
Another basic rule of thumb for coherent historical reasoning is, if a reading
resource is more than 60 years old it is best to avoid relying on it. Some truly dreadful attitudes were shared in the early 20th century, and a lot of misinformation as well. Equally,
scrolling through pop history sites on the internet at 2am in the morning is
not a basis for sound research. These pieces of writing are living proof
of the pitfalls of these methods.
Andrea Sinclair
2018
Sumerian Shakespeare blog
Gebel el
Arak knife - http://sumerianshakespeare.com/748301/748322.html
Hierakonpolis painting - http://sumerianshakespeare.com/748301/855901.html
The racial origin of Sumerians (big surprise; white caucasian) - https://sumerianshakespeare.com/734501.html
Identification of ceramic naked female figurines as prostitutes (in panties) - https://sumerianshakespeare.com/999701/index.html
My critique of the latter post here 'The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia'.
Links
Hierakonpolis
https://interactive.archaeology.org/hierakonpolis/field07/6.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/hierakonpolis/tomb100/index.html
Louvre knife
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=668
Sources/further reading
The research they seem to have cherry picked:
Case, H. and J. Crowfoot Payne. 1962. ‘Tomb 100: The
Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis’. JEA 48.
The ‘out of Babylon/Sumer’ theory
Sayce, A. H. 1903. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. (p 23)
Waddell, L. A. 1929. The Makers of Civilization in Race and History. (all)
Better literature on these topics
Hendrickx, S. and M. Eyckerman. 2012. ‘Visual Representation
and State development in Egypt’. Archaeo-Nil 22.
Hendrickx, S. and M. Eykerman. 2015. ‘Les animaux
sauvages dans l’Egypt prédynastique’. Apprivoiser le sauvage/Taming the Wild,
editors B. Massiera, B. Mathieu and F. Rouffet.
Philip, G. 2002. ‘Contacts between the ‘Uruk’ World and the
Levant during the Fourth Millennium BC: Evidence and Interpretation’. Artefacts
of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, editor N. Postgate. BSA
Iraq.
Pittman, H. 1996. Constructing Context: The Gebel el-Arak
Knife. The Greater Mesopotamian and Egyptian Interaction in the Late Fourth
Millennium B.C.E. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First
Century, editors J.S. Cooper and G.M. Schwartz.
Teissier, B. 1987. ‘Glyptic Evidence for a Connection
between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the 4th and 3rd Millennia'. Iran 25.
Trost, F. 2012. ‘Das Berühmte Grabe 100 von Hierakonpolis’.
Almogaren XLIII.
