Talk:Bob Brier

Untitled
I know there's probably a discussion elsewhere for this sort of thing, but I would like to know why I'm not staying logged in whenever I edit this article. My username is Wikilackey and because I keep getting logged out, it's not showing up in the article history, only my IP address is. Can't seem do do anything about it. Can anyone help me out? I'm using Firefox, just for the record.

Addendum: The problem seems to have fixed itself. I hope this doesn't foreshadow my future editing endeavors...

I have edit the beginning of the article because Bob Brier is NOT an Egyptiologist! He has not studied Egyptiology. He can't understand the language, he hadn't studied the architecture and everything that belongs to it! He has a specialisation to Egypt because he has examined such many mummies, and he is very good in it, but he has no deep knowledges in the history. In his book, for example, in the history part about the 18th dynasty, he tells one version of how-it-could-have-happened. But at the Egyptiologists, it's very discussed if Echnaton wanted to make a monotheism and if really there were only one god in Amarna. But whatever, that is not part of the discussion. Important is, that Bob Brier has NO EGYPTIOLOGISTIC KNOWLEDGES, whatever might stand on the back side of the book. I am studying Egyptiology in Germany (sorry this way for my bad English), and trust me, he is no Egyptiologist. So please do me a favour and don't edit it back. Thank you very much. Felis

Dear Sir: If possible, please watch the series of 48 lectures Bob Brier gave, called The «History» of Ancient Egypt. In several lectures he discusses in great detail the monotheistic views of Akenaten (Echnaton) and his efforts to convert Egypt to monotheism. The lectures also provide much detail on Egyptian architecture. You can also view the link to the Teaching Company for further information. I have placed Egyptologist back into the beginning of the article, but have left your emphasis on Brier's paleopathological skills, as I believe they are appropriate.

-Also, I do not believe "Egyptology" is as rigidly defined as our German friend describes. An Egyptologist is merely someone who has devoted themselves to the study of Ancient Egypt. This is certainly not a hobby to Dr. Brier, he has focused hi career on it. Therefore, he is an Egyptologist, no matter what his degree is in.

-

I am not an Egyptologist (professional or otherwise), but I have studied enough Ancient Egyptian history to spot controversial claims, and in those TV programmes I have seen Dr Brier presents what is either pure speculation on his part or, at the very least, a controversial issue, as if it were commonly established fact (particularly on Amarna and Akhenaten), supporting it with no more than token evidence which could quite easily be interpreted differently if given in proper context.

I have, of course, no way of knowing whether this is Dr Brier making the facts fit the theory, or the programme producers' agenda.

There is nothing wrong with educated speculation, but he must identify it as such and support it with evidence of the research on which he bases it; he must also point out where evidence is not conclusive, and that there are differing views amongst experts.

I appreciate that the programmes are aimed at a lay audience, but even so they should give precedence to good scholarship over sensationalism (although quite possibly the latter criticism may well have to be aimed at the programme producers again rather than at Dr Brier personally).

Rkhtmdwt (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Brier is obviously not well-regarded by mainstream Egyptologists, despite having a handfull of publications in JEA, ZÄS, etc. If you really want to add to this article, I suggest setting up a criticism section. I will look into it in a few months - it's a big goal of mine to go through these types of wiki pages (which have obviously been written to embellish these dubious academics) and make them more ballanced.122.106.209.159 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It does say that his specialty is paleopathology and the physical properties of mummies. It certainly should be possible to be doing good work in that specialty without being expert on the Egyptian language or culture, but it does sound like he may have overblown his general Egyptological knowledge. Someone should add a criticism section, but it needs to be based on published criticism by other academics, not personal speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.176.148.174 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The University of Vermont link at the end leads to a dead page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.123.214.139 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)