What you're describing is not a logical argument...it's a logical fallacy known as a circular argument. In a nutshell, the theory you present is the evidence for the theory you present.
Perhaps this will help you understand why your ideas carry no weight with serious historians:
Quote
The Latin phrase comes from the Greek en archei aiteisthai in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi:
"Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue....
Begging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself ... either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical."
...
Though "begging the question" and "circular reasoning" are often used interchangeably, some textbooks maintain that this is not quite correct in the strictest sense. In this view there is the following difference between them: Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (possibly with one or more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments, the conclusion of some argument is used as a premise in one of the earlier arguments that eventually led to that conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument; on this understanding, begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise. (emphasis added) [
en.wikipedia.org]
I strongly suggest you use all these modern technological tools at your disposal to learn about logic and argumentation, as your work is rife with logical fallacies, errors of fact, and omissions of important evidence. When you're done learning all that, and if you want to learn about Egypt, try going there. If you can't afford that, then try reading newer books by learned people who really do understand the subject. The internet, satellite photos and CAD drawings are no substitutes for real study.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.