<HTML>I don't see the relevance of, for example, the likes of Petrie. At that time there were no qualifications so you couldn't gain them. It isn't really a question of of qualifications - although that's a good starting point, it's a question of following a method founded in evidence (see Garrett's 3Ps). I know plenty of really knowledgeable people - with no formal qualifications - who follow an accepted method and make meaningful contributions. The likes of Hancock have no qualifications, don't follow an accepted method, and make no contribution.
John</HTML>
