The volume is dedicated to the ‘supporting characters’ in the history of Egyptology who are not often in the limelight. This is not intended to work to the detriment of the lead actors, nor is the intention to politicize disciplinary history. Rather, it is meant as an appreciation and recognition of the range of agents involved, and relationships within their networks. Rendering disciplinary history more inclusive is a long process. The case-studies assembled in this volume do not aspire to represent the complete range of possible stakeholders. Instead, it is intended to open-out the discourse, and to demonstrate various modes in which individuals have advanced research into ancient Egypt. To cite but two ‘marginalized’ groups, women have often been presented as subservient spirits, assisting their Egyptologist-husbands, with perhaps the concession that ‘behind every great man there has to be a great woman’. For a long time all-but-excluded from academia, such individuals’ contributions have been disregarded. Second, exclusion from academia was also the fate of most early Egyptian Egyptologists. Within the frame of post-colonial studies, they have only recently garnered serious attention. Yet, even then, the paradigm of ‘Western’ disciplinary history has been replicated, concentrating on the outstanding figures and lead players in the field, often to the detriment of lesser-known scholars, officials, and local actors such as the Quftis and workmen. This volume is thus not meant to criticise previous endeavours in the recent development of disciplinary history but, rather, as a constructive contribution or complement to these. We cannot make amends for past implicit slights, or restore a person’s role in the history of Egyptology to its ‘rightful place’, but the aim is to broaden the perspective of the history of Egyptology, while at the same time paying more attention to its diversity.weiterlesen