Well quite, I mean the whole concept of the 3rd intermediate period is a load of old rubbish isn't it? An overgeneralisation of a complex period, the characterisation actually inhibits understanding of the span it's meant to illuminate. e.g. was it really a period of division and weakness? Is the 21st dynasty really significantly different to the end of the 20th? Why not end the period with dynasty 26, since that represents the greatest break: namely Egypt's long running occupation by an external empire? As for 'the themes of Egyptian history', well that's just it isn't it? The Victorians were just aching for a decline and fall narrative and here's the period for the icing on the cake. But far better, surely, to address these questions in the historiography section of the article. I haven't the sources, personally.  22:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)