There are fundamental differences between the way a modern individual sees things and someone from only a hundred years ago. Descartes caused one of the biggest of all such shifts with his concept "I think therefore I am".
The biggest reason that change is so glacial to the species is that people don't examine the fundamentals and the assumptions. New data and knowledge is always being added to the sum total yet it doesn't really get integrated but rather is heaped up on everything else. It's analgous to learning arithmetic by mere rote and not examing what the terms really mean.
When you combine this with the tendency for people to resist change of all sorts and simple inertia it becomes a wonder we advance at all.
There's no sense though in simply tossing out orthodox thinking in egyptology and replacing it with something just as tenuous and founded on assumption. There is a great deal of knowledge here and much would get lost in a shift. We'd be behind where we had been.
Yes, I do think there will have to be a shift of some sort since it will become increasingly clear that evidence does not fit assumptions. But the new paradigm must be much better evidenced than the current.