I would also make note that the whole "dynasty" thing is a purely arbitrary creation of Manetho built on by modern scholars as a matter of convenience. There is no actual "line" between dynasties the Egyptians gave themselves, so when thinking of the 4th or 5th Dynasties what does this really mean especially considering the overwhelming majority of the peripheral activity at Giza dates to the 5th Dynasty and end of the "4th Dynasty". I am of the mind the 5th and 6th Dynasties require much greater attention.
I've read that too, that there really isn't a linear succession of pharaohs, but that at many times in the history of Egypt there were different pharaohs ruling in different regions at the same time. I'd like to find some authors who have tackled this subject, but given the dearth of data to begin with, it probably isn't something anyone could really draw any solid conclusions from.
The Hyskos are high on my research list, but I've been dragging my feet because I need to go in deep. My thinking is leading me to the conclusion the Hyskos and the peoples of the Caucasus region they come from are an integral part of the mystery which likely dates back to well before pre-dynastic times.
I need to research them in-depth, too. As it stands, I'm thinking they are possibly another wave of Asiatics coming west after the collapse of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization. But then again, I'm already thoroughly convinced of the Out-of-Asia theory for the origins of western civilization. Which of course, rubs the Euro-centric orthodox academics the wrong way, which is why they are content to let people like the Phoenicians remain a "mystery civilization" that miraculously just came out of nowhere...
Thanks, I'll take a look at them when I have a little more time to explore them.
The Temple Mount blocks remind one of the blocks at Baalbek, obviously not built by the Romans either.
Absolutely. Not to mention, that is one of the reasons I was so disgusted with the first hour of this ignorant "Ancient Aliens Debunked" program, as when it came time to explain how the Romans (allegedly) managed to move the Trilithon at Baalbek, they actually cited the megaliths in the Temple Mount as proof the Romans could move stones that large, completely ignoring the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Herod's refurbishing/rebuilding included that layer of stonework!?! But I guess they could probably fool many reality TV-viewers who are completely uninformed about the subject, but alas, I digress...
Post Edited (24-Feb-13 23:03)