On April 20, 2018, Andrea Sinclair posted a blog page that
she described as a “scathing review” of my website, specifically my two pages where
I explained the Sumerian context of the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Hierakonpolis
painting. By “scathing” Andrea Sinclair means “insult and ridicule.” This is
her idea of academic debate. At first, I tried to ignore Ms. Sinclair because her
writing is so silly and so riddled with errors that I thought no one would take
it seriously. Then I noticed that the BANEA Facebook (British Association of
Near Eastern Archaeology) stopped posting my pages after Andrea Sinclair’s
snarky comments. I realized that some people are foolish enough to listen to
her. The Sumerian context of the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Hierakonpolis
painting is much too important to let Ms. Sinclair have the last word, so here is my
reply to her ranting and raving
(by her own admission she calls it a rant).
I urge the reader to read my pages about the Gebel el-Arak
knife and the Hierakonpolis painting before proceeding with this one. Make up
your own mind about them before listening to Andrea Sinclair’s sneering “commentary.”
Where academic research into iconography and art history
finds its expression. Otherwise being an outlet for various rants about
misrepresenting and rewriting of ancient Near Eastern text and image in modern
western scholarship and media.
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.
As we shall soon see, Andrea Sinclair did not study at all.
And incidentally, that free access to books online is pretty
much useless when this only provides outdated research. It is possibly also a
recommendation not to write and drink at the same time. But this is more
of a guideline.
Your drunken tirade, Andrea Sinclair, proves that you should
follow your own advice.
For some reason 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.
Racist? Really? I suggest those who bandy about unfounded charges of
“racism” are the worst racists of all.
We will soon see the shallowness of Andrea Sinclair’s own research. It's an inch deep.
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.
There is only one rustling expedition, not two. On the Hierakonpolis
painting, animals are being lassoed, corrals are broken open, herds are
scattered, and captured animals are trussed up with ropes to make them easy to
transport. 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.
On the page about the Hierakonpolis painting, I stated,” The
provenance of the knife wasn't known. It was allegedly from Gebel el-Arak, 60
miles north of Hierakonpolis. There aren't any major archaeological sites in Gebel
el-Arak, so the curators made an educated guess and assumed that the knife was
probably from nearby Abydos.” You would know that, Andrea Sinclair, if you
weren’t such a shallow reader. Don’t try to correct me on one of the few examples
where we actually agree.
Although I acknowledged that the knife was reputedly from Abydos, I went on to
suggest that the knife is really from Tomb 100 in Hierakonpolis. 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.
The tomb and the knife are exactly contemporary. They belonged to the same man. Remember what Andrea
Sinclair says about the dating of the artifacts. I will refer to it later.
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’.
I never referred to him as a “priest-king.” I refer to him
as a “king,” and only as a king. He wears a shepherd’s hat, the crown of a Sumerian
king. On the page about The Kings of Uruk,
I explained the difference between a Sumerian priest, a priest-king, and a
king. I am the only in the world who has done so. Andrea Sinclair would know
this if she had actually read my website. To summarize, “For the sake of
reference, the ruler of Uruk is a priest when he is shown nude, he is a
priest-king when he wears the ceremonial netted skirt of Inanna, and he is a
king when he wears a regular skirt.” The Uruk king on the Gebel el-Arak knife
is wearing a regular skirt (typical of Uruk at this stage of history), in case Andrea
Sinclair didn’t notice. I don’t know where she got the idea that a “priest-king” is an example of “early 20th century Biblical terminology.”
‘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.
Now that’s mature.
So, Andrea Sinclair, that’s how you want to play it? Okay. You
want attitude? I’ll show you attitude.
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.
Actually, I went to great length to explain the animal imagery
on the Gebel el-Arak knife. Ms. Sinclair would know this if she wasn’t just skimming the
article. To summarize, so even a beetle-brow like Andrea Sinclair can
understand it, “The continuous presence of animals in the iconography of the
Uruk king is meant to establish his identity as a shepherd, as the guardian and
protector of his flock, the people […] This is why animals are often in the
presence of the Uruk king.”
By the way, there are boats on a river, so this is no “desert
hunt.”
And apparently on viewing the new scene, the penis sheaths
worn by all combatants made them quite 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.’
Andrea Sinclair loves
penis sheathes. She is obsessed with them. The doctor said it was the worst
case of “penis sheath envy” that he had ever seen.
Then 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, 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.
These are the Egyptian boats:
On the other hand...
This is one of the Sumerian boats (they are in the middle register
of the handle, not the lower one, as Andrea Sinclair mistakenly claims):
These Sumerian boats are very distinctive. No other boats in
history look quite the same. The artist who created the Gebel el-Arak knife
included the Sumerian boats to show this is a foreign invasion by the Sumerians,
and not just a civil war between neighboring Egyptian tribes in the region. The
Sumerian boats prove there is a Sumerian context to the knife. To conclude the piece the writer backflips their entire
argument and says that the knife cannot be Sumerian […]
I never said the knife is Sumerian. At the beginning of the
article I clearly said, “… the Gebel el-Arak knife is not Sumerian.” Do you
even know how to read, Andrea Sinclair? Are you dyslexic?
[…] 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.
Clearly, the Gebel el-Arak knife has both Egyptian and Sumerian features. It is the key to understanding
the narrative of events that is portrayed on the knife. Andrea Sinclair doesn’t
see this, which is why she doesn’t have the slightest idea what she is talking
about.
Notice that Andrea Sinclair doesn’t offer her own
interpretation of the events that are depicted on the Gebel el-Arak knife. Nor
does she explain why it includes a portrait of a Sumerian king.
Then they
end on their awkwardness with penises again. ‘That is why he [the artist] shows
them wearing penis sheathes like the Egyptians. (I was relieved to know that my beloved Sumerians
never wore these ridiculous accoutrements.)’
Andrea Sinclair doesn’t like it when someone criticizes Egyptian
penis sheathes. She doesn’t like it at all.
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.
If Andrea Sinclair wants to claim that the watercolor is not
an accurate depiction of the tomb mural, she needs to show some proof. 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 assumes the imagery is
Predynastic Egyptian.
Above, Andrea Sinclair states, ”Tomb 100 at Hierakopolis
[sic] is earlier and dated to Naqada IIC (c. 3500 BCE).” Predynastic dates from
3100 BC all the way back to the Neolithic Age (4500 BC). The Naqada IIC period is Predynastic! Good grief, Andrea
Sinclair. You have just flunked Egyptology 101.
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).
All of which applies to Andrea Sinclair’s writing, which is
just shy of coherence. Again, Andrea Sinclair, don’t drink when you are trying
to write a scholarly paper, not at 2 am, or at any other time. And don’t do drugs.
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. They do not do this, and all figures in the
drawing are, by the way, red-brown to dark brown.
The Sumerian (right) is colored red. The Egyptian is drawn
in red but colored white.
I did look at the costumes. This is how I identified Lord
Hierakon (right). Andrea Sinclair seems to suggest that he is a woman.
The costumes is also how I identified the two looters who
plundered the lord’s wardrobe. The costumes match the standard of the captured
lord.
Notice that Andrea Sinclair doesn’t offer her own
explanation for the costumes.
There’s no point in looking at the hair because all of the
men on the Hierakonpolis painting are shown bald. Apparently, Andrea Sinclair
failed to notice this obvious fact.
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 for 100 years …yes, that’s us …
No, not you, Andrea Sinclair. You are not an expert, not by
any stretch of the imagination.
[The experts were] baffled by the image of goats encircling
a wheel like enclosure.
Andrea Sinclair is still
baffled by the enclosure.
The writer calls this symbol a ‘carousel’ in what can only
be a ludicrously subjective manner […]
I said it looks
like a carousel. Then in the next sentence I said, “I finally realized that it
is actually a corral. The animals are standing in it.”
So, I distinctly said it is a corral. In the very next
sentence I even said, “This is an important clue to the painting. You cannot
understand the Hierakonpolis mural until
you understand the meaning of this corral” (italics added). Then I mentioned
the corral six more times on the
page! It’s one of the central themes on the article!
This is further evidence that Andrea Sinclair should not read
or write when she is drunk. She cannot understand a simple sentence! I used to score
standardized tests for a living, and I can honestly say that any 4th grader
scores higher in Reading Comprehension than Ms. Sinclair does.
[…] and uses condescending language inferring that the
Egyptians kept trying to control nature well after everybody else had moved on
like sensible people.
Detail from the Narmer macehead (ca 3100 BC). On the right,
broad-horned aurochs are seen in a corral and during a royal ceremony. Aurochs
are wild cattle that cannot be domesticated. On the left is a corral with wild
antelopes. If Andrea Sinclair thinks other civilizations attempted to control
wild animals at a later date in history, then she will need to offer some proof. 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 in Egyptian funerary art, early and later.
If this is a trap, Andrea Sinclair needs to describe the
mechanism that was used to spring the trap. And where’s the funeral?
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.
The Egyptians obviously knew about the Sumerian Master of
Animals. That is why he appears on both the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Hierakonpolis
painting.
The Sumerian Master of Animals
Hierakonpolis was the home of the world's first zoo. The
king kept wild animals (including elephants and a hippopotamus) to show his
total control over the natural world. This supernatural power demonstrated his
divine right to rule. That was why the Sumerian Master of Animals was such a
compelling figure for the ancient Egyptians.
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.
Actually, I spent a great deal of time explaining the
difference between wild animals and domesticated animals. Andrea Sinclair must
have missed this part when she was bouncing off the walls in a drunken stupor.
Symbolically speaking they were the difference
between social order and chaos.
Animals never meant the difference between social
order and chaos. Not in any culture, ever. Instead, the god-like power to control
nature demonstrates the king’s divine right to rule.
However, in ignorance of this, instead the writer states
that the wild antelopes are all livestock … Egyptian livestock that is ripe for
rustling ... so they are 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.
It really is a Sumerian expedition. The red Master of
Animals is quintessentially Sumerian, the red invaders are his men, and they
arrive in Egypt by boat.
Watercolour from Tomb 100 Hierakonpolis. Image Quibell and
Green 1902. 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. 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
Andrea Sinclair did not consider the man for whom the tomb
was built. If she had thought about it for one minute, she might have gained
some insight into the events that are portrayed on the painting.
… 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.
Okay, now you’re just being silly, Andrea Sinclair. “Hierakon means "falcon,” polis means “city,” Hierakonpolis is the
City of the Falcon,” as explained in the opening sentences of my page. How can
you write about Hierakonpolis if you don’t know what it means?
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
…
The Egyptians are momentarily overwhelmed in the battles
depicted on both the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Hierakonpolis painting. No
other battle scene in the ancient world shows the heroes losing the battle,
even for a little while. This reinforces my claim that the Gebel el-Arak knife and
the Hierakonpolis painting belonged to the same man. 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!
Andrea Sinclair makes the stupid, careless mistake of saying
the armed man shown above is siccing his lions on the antelopes.
Actually, this is the man who is siccing a lion on the
animals, and they are ibexes, not 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.
The Sumerian Master of Animals is the controller of animals.
It’s who he is, what he does.
‘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)
Andrea Sinclair thinks that being cutesy is an acceptable
substitute for scholarly debate.
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 they backflip again by saying it
couldn’t happen and the Egyptians just thought they were Sumerians … eh?
Andrea Sinclair is easily confused. I made it quite clear
that both battle scenes are “hypothetical,” They show what would happen if the Sumerians attacked Egypt.
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?
I never said the Sumerians brought the lions with them. For
the record, the lions are Egyptian. The irony is the Sumerian Master of Animals
turned the Egyptians’ own lions against them. He could control the Egyptian
lions just as easily as the Sumerian lions. After all, it’s not like the lions
spoke different languages.
Andrea Sinclair doesn’t offer her own explanation for the
symbiotic relation between the Sumerians and the lions. No one can pretend to
understand the narrative of the Hierakonpolis painting without explaining what
is happening with the lions.
Andrea Sinclair makes the same mistake as previous scholars
(I use this term loosely in reference to Andrea Sinclair) by assuming that the
painting is just a “catalog of themes and motifs,” a variety of unrelated
images without any overall coherent meaning. It is actually a highly complex
and cohesive narrative. She doesn’t give the artist proper credit for his work
because she doesn’t understand the artistic mind, even though she purports to
be an artist. Andrea Sinclair’s idea of art is to make lifeless, unimaginative
copies of other people’s work.
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 …
The threat of foreign invasion always provides a compelling
reason for national unity.
Now I really need a lie down.
Yes, sleep it off, Andrea Sinclair, and take an Alka-Selzer.
You’ll be hungover when you wake up.
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 from much further 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 had a cultural presence in the
southern Levant.
But the evidence favours connections to Susa in Iran, not
necessarily Uruk period Sumer in Mesopotamia.
The Egyptians had connections to Iran but not Sumer? Sumer
and Iran are neighboring countries. Susa is within walking distance of Sumer! Andrea Sinclair should try looking at a map.
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.
Andrea Sinclair disagreed with me when I said the exact same
thing.
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 disorder 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.
A battle scene doesn’t show a ruler conquering
“disorder,” it shows him conquering his enemies.
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.
Egyptian funeral barges
have ibex heads on the prows. Ibex heads are shown on the Gebel el-Arak knife,
symbolizing the Sumerians’ passage into the afterlife. If the boats in the Hierakonpolis
painting are funeral barges, they would have ibex heads on the prows, not palm
fronds. The palm fronds on the six boats are “standards,” insignia to show that
all the boats belong in the invasion fleet. Plus, six funeral boats in one painting? In the middle of a battle? Also,
Andrea Sinclair doesn’t bother to explain why there is only one person on all
six boats (it’s because all of the Sumerians are on the shore, attacking the Egyptians).
With three female figures on the largest boat who could be
gods or cult personnel.
They are not on the boat. They are standing on land behind
the boat.
The posture and dress of the figures have parallels with the
depiction of female ritual figures at that time.
They are not female, and they are not ritual figures. Three
of them are shown carrying weapons. Is Andrea Sinclair suggesting they are Egyptian
Amazon warriors?
The boats on the painting and the knife are also pretty
consistent with Predynastic boat imagery, but I understand that the writer got
around that awkward issue by saying the Egyptian artists drew what they
knew.
Many of the boats on the Gebel el-Arak knife are unmistakably
Sumerian.
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 pharaonic Egyptian iconography.
The Egyptians obviously knew about the Sumerian Master of
Animals. That is why he is unmistakably shown on both the Gebel el-Arak knife
and the Hierakonpolis painting. Didn’t Andrea Sinclair just say people “could
have seen each other’s visual idiom, particularly administrative sealings”? I
explained why the Master of Animals “was not a feature of pharaonic Egyptian
iconography.” It’s because he became the symbol of a foreign civilization. But in the mid 4th millennium it was not an overly dominant
motif in Sumer either. It comes properly into vogue in Mesopotamia in the
early 3rd millennium. In the 4th millennium it was a motif from Susa in
Iran.
The Gebel el-Arak knife and the Hierakonpolis painting
clearly show that the Sumerian Master of Animals was “in vogue” in the mid 4th
millennium. Andrea Sinclair will need to show some proof to support her absurd
claim that the iconic Sumerian Master
of Animals originated in Iran. The shepherd kings of Sumer had been around
since the very beginning of Sumerian civilization (see The Kings of Uruk). A
shepherd is all about controlling animals, yet Andrea Sinclair claims that the Sumerians
needed to borrow the Master of Animals from the Iranians. It just goes to show
that Andrea Sinclair knows nothing about the Sumerians. Earlier, she complained
about people who write beyond their knowledge base and experts in one area who don’t
do the required amount of studying. It sounds like she is talking about
herself.
Andrea Sinclair obviously didn’t spend more than five minutes
trying to discern a coherent meaning for these two artifacts. She just spouts
off random ideas as they occur to her. She’s just “shooting from the lip,” as
it were. Listening to Andrea Sinclair is like listening to a drunken “know it
all” in a bar. You can almost smell the beer on her breath. She just rambles on and on
without saying anything at all.
In America, if someone is arrested for a DUI (Driving Under
the Influence), a breathalyzer is affixed to their
car that keeps the doors locked until the driver passes a sobriety test. Andrea
Sinclair should have a breathalyzer installed on her computer.
3) Writing style: The language employed in
this blog is problematic at best. The choice of words has a distinctly
black and white/primitive versus civilised tone which contaminates both entire
pieces. Nothing is impartial about their writing.
Unlike Andrea Sinclair’s measured tone of judicious impartiality.
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
very inappropriate directions.
“Bad guys,” and “action hero” are the only two movie terms
in Andrea Sinclair’s list. Compare this to Andrea Sinclair’s use of “film-media
language”: cowboy movies, vampire lord, cocky arse, “That's it boys, saddle up the boats”[?], btw, oh oh, gotcha, totally chilled,
seriously?, I really need to lie down, eh?, muahaha, and “it was all just a
dream.”
You’re a hypocrite,
Andrea Sinclair.
Notice how Andrea Sinclair uses sarcasm and ridicule to make
statements that she cannot support with facts. She sounds like a sophomoric
Millennial who adopts a snotty tone of voice in a desperate attempt to be
“cool.”
If you don’t want to read the originals, I will cut it down
to essentials:
Andrea Sinclair couldn’t be bothered to study the originals,
so why should you?
The Egyptians were the bad guys and they wore creepy penis
thingys.
This is further evidence that Andrea Sinclair doesn’t know
how to read a simple sentence. I distinctly said the Sumerians were the bad
guys, not the Egyptians.
... ‘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.’
Yes, Andrea Sinclair, penis sheathes really are creepy and barbaric.
That is why penis sheathes were discarded after the Egyptians became more
civilized.
As for you, Andrea Sinclair: If you think penis sheathes are so great, then
picture your father in one.
.....
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 trash, and then, to publish
them 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) turns
out we are still getting the odd laugh out of it.
It goes to show that everyone in Andrea Sinclair’s
household is just as ignorant as she is. Obviously, they didn’t actually read
my pages. If they had, they would have corrected Andrea Sinclair and saved her
some embarrassment. They could have prevented her from making a complete fool
of herself. They should have sat on her, if necessary, to keep her from
publishing her drunken tirade.
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.
I used the article published in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (Dec. 1962, by the authors
Humphrey Case and Joan Crowfoot Payne) because it is the most comprehensive
treatment of the subject. I also studied more recent sources, but they offered
no new information (and apparently they did little to edify Andrea Sinclair).
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 Idiot.
I truly believe that Andrea Sinclair’s drunken tirade is
literally the worst excuse for a scholarly paper that has ever been written. I
mean it. It's the worst “scholarly” paper that has ever been published in the
entire history of Western Civilization.
To use her own words, it is a shallowly researched,
outdated, pseudo-intellectual bit of nonsense that is effectively dressed up to
look like ‘educated’ critique. It is quite confusing and wildly contradictory.
It is rambling, incoherent, longwinded, and culturally ignorant trash. It is an
uninformed opinion that is pretty much valueless to humanity.
I challenge the reader to name one single part of the
preceding paragraph that isn’t true.
Ms. Sinclair’s lack of insight and her numerous errors
are bad enough, but her snide tone and her liberal use of unwarranted sarcasm means
she comes across as being both a smartass and a dumbass at the same time.
Here’s a tip for you, Andrea Sinclair: Before you adopt a snarky
tone of voice, make sure you have the facts on your side. Otherwise you’ll end
up looking like an obnoxious fool.
Andrea Sinclair is disgrace to Egyptology, a discredit to
the University of Melbourne, and an embarrassment to scholars everywhere.
Links [These are Andrea Sinclair’s links. They are followed
by my closing comments.]
Hierakonpolis
Gebel el
Arak-http://sumerianshakespeare.com/748301/748322.html Hierakonpolis-http://sumerianshakespeare.com/748301/855901.html
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.
Possibly this dreadful article
Comte Mesnil de Buisson. 1968. ‘Le décor asiatique du
couteau de Gebel el-Arak’. BIFAO 68.
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.
In other words, Andrea Sinclair, you got nothing, absolutely
nothing. You can list all the references you want, they obviously didn’t do you
a bit of good. You have zero insight into understanding these artifacts. Zero.
For 100 years, scholars were unable to piece together a
narrative of events portrayed on the Hierakonpolis mural and the Gebel el-Arak
knife, because they did not know the context of the stories. Within the context
of a Sumerian invasion, everything about the artifacts makes sense. Without
this context, nothing does.
I stand by my work. I’ll put it up against Andrea Sinclair’s
drivel any day of the year.
I’ve got an idea, Andrea Sinclair. Instead of using sarcasm
and ridicule, if you want to refute my findings, why don’t you try using facts?
If you want to discredit my interpretation of the events, try coming up with
your own interpretation. If (and only if) you can precisely describe everything that is happening on both the
Hierakonpolis painting and the Gebel el-Arak knife, as I do, then you can talk.
In the meantime, Andrea Sinclair, either put up
or shut up.
The Sumerian Master of Animals
