Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You will find in the discussion here:
>
> [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_Vys
> e#The_Great_Pyramid_Hoax]https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Talk:Howard_Vyse#The_Great_Pyramid_Hoax[/url]
>
>
> —that Wikipedia likewise regards being at
> doctoral level as a precondition of properly being
> called an Egyptologist.
>
> The requirement is often waived for earlier
> contributors to Egyptology.
>
> M.

Thanks Martin. I found the ambiguity of the definitions amusing. By the Oxford dictionary definition anyone who has spent energy or time studying (reading books, academic articles etc) about the religion, culture or history of ancient Egypt could be an Egyptologist. This rests upon the definition of study.

Taking this line of thought you could look to constrain the set by saying “they must rely upon their study for income”. This would still include Scott Creighton as he draws an income (I presume) from his published works and has spent time studying Egypt whether we agree with his published works or not.

The doctorate aspect does offer a means to constrain the set of possible people that might be an Egyptologist but there must be more to it than a PhD. Do we need to look behind the PhD to the quality or reputation of the University that granted the PhD?

Anyhow I get that you’re really trying to refer to an Egyptologist of note or merit. The real mystery to me is why do you so feverishly promote Scott’s work when you clearly do not agree with it? (Neither do I btw)

Regards