I thought the timeline was a little less than 600 years but after reopening the book immediately saw that you were right. What I was pondering for myself was the idea/possibility that since all pre-history comes from a fixated timeline, relying on the accuracy of the Egyptian empire, that maybe there’s even more of these gaps out there. Aside from Velikovsky, whom i was told was an idealist, simply trying to promote the legitimacy of his religion, I hadn’t much to go on regarding whether there was truth to his calculations. After hearing your presentation on the Grecian theory around a dark age, I’ve been reinvigorated to look at this further.
I was always fascinated by Velikovsky’s work but thought it was isolated. Though there are varying gaps in time, is it fair to argue that if there is any truth to overlapping rulers, that much of pre history is suspect? In other words, either of these theories may be true based on which pharaoh ruled singularly or concurrently. Taking Everything into consideration: the intermediate periods of Egyptian rule, the multiple rulers at one time (on occasion), the understanding that Egyptian scribes only wrote about what they wanted known (ie, they never wrote about losing battles, mummification, etc.), the strange fact that each pharoah had 5 names-some of which were interchangeable with other pharoahs- and the fact that we use this as the basis for calculating all of pre-history, I guess I’m basically curious of how deep this goes? Are there any more works of scholars that might help make pre-history more concrete for someone interested?