Okay this is a very important point you have raised John My response is as follows  The four pillars described in A Test of Time were historical That is to say they were a summary of the methods used by Egyptologists to establish and fine tune the Egyptian chronology The Assyrian synchronisms  of which there is in fact only one direct example  were introduced later to support the dating arrived at using the ShishakShoshenk identification and Sothic dating Today the Ebers papyrus Sothic date has been abandoned by most Egyptologists however they continue to use the Year  Middle Kingdom Sothic date to determine dates for that period  Now to deal with the socalled Assyrian synchronisms An Assyrian ruler called Ashuruballit did correspond with Akhenaten However in the Amarna Letters he gives his fathers name as Ashurnadinahhe whereas Ashuruballit I in his royal genealogy gives his fathers name as EribaAdad whilst Ashurnadinahhe is not mentioned at all Bernard Newgrosh in his book Chronology at the Crossroads argues that there is sufficient doubt here to suggest that we are dealing with two Ashuruballits and not one He also shows that the Ashurubalit of the Amarna Letters claimed victory over Hanigalbat whereas neither the earlier Ashuruballit I nor his descendants recorded a victory for this king over Hanigalbat The other synchronisms you mention between th Dynasty pharaohs and Hittite kings no problem there and then between those Hittite kings and Assyrian rulers is more problematical In the correspondence between Hatti and Assyria the royal names do not have identifiers such as I or II  just the names Shalmaneser and TukultiNinurta In the New Chronology the Egyptian and Hittite dates coincide not with Shalmaneser I and TukultiNinurta I but with Shalmaneser II and TukultiNinurta II As for Burnaburiash of Babylon he is not independently datable but tied to Assyrian chronology Therefore if Assyrian chronology is revised  as Newgrosh has proposed on independent grounds to the issues I raised over Egyptian chronology  then Kassite and postKassite chronologies would move with any lowering of Assyrian chronology prior to  BC It might be useful to take a look at Newgroshs book to get all the arguments It is very comprehensive and I cant do his arguments justice here If you cant do this then his much shorter paper in JACF IX is available online at ISIS  Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum My final comment would be given the copious amounts of data available to Egyptologists from within their own discipline do you not think that they should be able to construct a chronology of the pharaohs without recourse to outside chronologies whose synchronisms can be questioned