OK, so who are your favourite archaeologists, discoverers, collectors, Egyptologists or surveyors etc....

My first choice would definately be; Ernesto Schiaparelli, Bernard Bruyere and Jaroslav Cerny for all their work at Deir el-Medina and the Valley of the Nobles. But I must admit I also really love Kent Weeks' ongoing work at KV5 and the rest of the Valley of the Kings.
I know I'm missing loads of important people off, so does anyone have anymore to contribute?

BTW, the first one's supposed to say Petrie not Perie. LOL
Sorry for the typo

What happens if your favorite & least favorite are grouped?
My favorite is Petrie & i think Belzoni did well for his time.

So, I'm guessing you don't really think much to Budge then?
It doesn't really matter who you vote for anyway, I just thought it might be interesting to find out which discoverers - past and present - people found inspirational is all. Also I know there are many that I haven't listed, so if anyone feels like some of thier favourites are missing you can still talk about them here, the poll was just to give some ideas!


Why Petrie? Speak people!!
OK, I must admit that I think Petrie did a lot for the study of Pre-Dynastic Egypt, that's very commendable.

Petrie's work with pottery is still considered to be the standard for dating of different periods in ancient Egypt. Although time has proven many of his theories wrong--most notably, the idea of an outside superior race that started the Egyptian civilisation--a lot of his work is still applicable.
Budge, in my opinion, was little more than a tomb-robber and a self-agrandising personality. I was ok with him before I read "Rape of the Nile" which high-lighted some of his more flagrant activities. 99% of his work in translation has been discredited.

I thought that Petrie's excavations in Egypt started with Petrie himself wanting to prove them kinds of theories wrong. He started by studying the Great Pyramid, where he found large cracks in the structure where an earthquake had caused much damage in antiquity, known because the artisans had plastered over it. He also found that the inner stones used were not perfectly finished. Petrie concluded that although the pyramid certainly appeared flawless, it in fact wasn't, therefore no outside superior race had been involved. I could be wrong though. I haven't heard of his ideas of the Egyptian civilisation being started by a superior either, I must admit that doesn't bode well, I often think it's quite insulting when people don't like to admit that the AE's were just regular people with an emormous amount of skill.


I haven't read Rape of the Nile, but I do see your point completely. I read Ancient Egypt by Nicholas Reeves and even though the book isn't directed particularly to Budge's work, just from reading that I could tell that he didn't really go in for much of the archaeological study, more just 'dig and take'.

Only 3 votes from about 55 views?

I do not know that mutch about Egyptologists including Budge. I get the impression Petrie was about the 1st modern style archaeologist. Didn't he say the richest place to dig was on 1 of his predecessors (can't remember who - I think he had a French name) spoil heaps?

I think that's just the way it goes 'round here.


I do remember something along them lines, but I can't remember who it was that he was referring to either.

An interesting bit of trivia--

Petrie was the nephew of the "pryamididiot" Smyth. His original intention in going to Egypt was to study the pyramids and prove that the ideas of Smyth were correct.
When he bagan to study the pyramids, he saw how vastly wrong Smyth's Ideas and measurements were, and ended up writing his first discourse of the Pyramids of Egypt--completely showing his uncles ideas of the pyramids being the "Journal of God", or history in stone, to be wrong.