Here is some commentary that I posted on a thread at the Daily Grail on the subject:http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Jay-Kinney/2010/6/Do-we-want-real-history-or-lucid-dreams
We can now discern that Homer's characters were based on well known figures from Archaeology/Egyptology who had far-reaching influence in the ancient world. However, the Iliad doesn't give up its secrets through a literalist interpretation. The Iliad was a poetic representation of a larger struggle for kingly dominance that occurred in the Near East upon the death of Ramses the Great. The battle over Troy, a single city in a strategic location, stands symbolically for the quest for control over a vast empire (much like Constantinople would in the Byzantine Period). The technique used by Homer is related to the literary device we call synecdoche: referring to the whole by one of its parts.
There could have been a siege and battle at Schliemann's Troy or somewhere in the vacinity. That is NOT the point though. The drama of the Iliad describes something very different and much more significant. It deals with the deadly succession battle between royal claimants that unfolded over the entire Near East shortly after the death of Ramses the Great. The true Ilios ("city of the gods") in those days was Thebes in Egypt. Priam stands for the beleaguered Meremptah. Achilles was a theatrical rendition of the brilliant but crippled (possibly from Polio) prince Siptah. Paris was Seti II, and so forth. These persons had power that extended far beyond the borders of Egypt. They had Hebrew names, Greek names, Assyrian names, Babylonian names, and many other regional and ethnic identities. They were part of an extended royal family that dominated the entire Near East.
The Iliad reflects the international nature of the ancient royal family. However, the powers-that-be in ancient studies do not recognize the true dynamics of ancient kingship. Nor are they particulary interested in knowing. They have a nice, neat compartmentalized view of the ancient world. Egyptologists study Egypt. Biblical archaeologists study Israel/Palestine. Assyriologists study Mesopotamia. Greek scholars study Greece. It's better than nothing, but it isn't ever going to provide insight into what really was going on in ancient times and how "La Familia" transcended national boundaries and language barriers. If we really want to know the truth, we are forced to enter the world of the esoteric, the world of indirection, the world of man's hidden nature (and natural instinct to hide things) - not necessarily the world of clairvoyance, but certainly the world of intuition.
But, again, very few really care to know how the world works (then or now). The majority prefer to "eat, drink, marry and give in marriage", right up until the day that the next catastrophe carries them away. Why worry about something you have no control over? Truth is for gods, delusions (and Deluges) are for earthlings.
Greek and Egyptian history was very much intertwined during the Egyptian New Kingdom. (Actually, it was always intertwined. The Greeks were teased for having no history of their own.) The so-called "Coming of the Sea Peoples" involved the mass immigration/invasion of Greeks across Anatolia, Palestine, and even into Egypt, starting in the reign of Merenptah and continuing through the reign of Ramses III. However, it is now clear that Greeks did not move spontaneously (due to drought or other factors), but were being directed by one faction/alliance in a greater succession battle that involved the entire Near East. The main rivals of Merenptah (and the later Ramses III) were trying to undermine his rule and establish dominance, not only in Egypt but over all regions claimed by the royal family as their traditional possessions. Greeks were pawns in that operation.
The royal family transcended national boundaries in those times, even as they did in more recent times in Europe. This is an example of ancient truth waiting to be "discovered", but it is not capable of being explored by Academia because of cultural taboos - and not because the theory lacks the potential to explain ancient history better than the current (universally accepted) theory.
Greece was never free from royal domination in ancient times, not even after repelling Persian forces. Even less so was the Israel of David and Solomon. The history of ancient Israel is merely a local rendition of Egyptian history. Ancient Israel was always a part of the Egyptian Empire, which at times spanned from the Nile to the Euphrates. There was never a kingdom/empire based in Israel that dominated that specific territory. It's a dead give-away to the real history of the region! However, we have a cultural mental block and are unable to recognize the "true situation". David and Solomon are based on historical kings, they just happen to have been Egyptian kings (who were in turn also members of the Near East ruling elite). Likewise, Greece had kings, but they were not "home grown". They were members of that single royal family of the Near East, and appointed ("elected") by the family Godfather. Democratic elections in Greece (and Rome for that matter) were a total farce. All candidates had to be pre-approved and came from a very narrow pool of candidates.
Schliemann fell into the trap of "finding exactly what he was looking for". I did not go looking for the structure of the ancient Matrix, but it found me! It's not easy researching The Matrix, now or then. There are huge psychological barriers to overcome. We learn from an early age not to challenge authority or even seek to understand it. We are taught that the only way is to "trust and obey". Academics should get a free pass to look at the world more objectively, but they choose not to exercise that freedom. It's up to the "lunatic fringe" to ask the hard questions and find real solutions. (And when they find answers nobody believes them, so was it really worth the effort? The Matrix always wins.)
It isn't so much that the Egyptians did or didn't dominate this group or that group, but that a single royal family dominated all groups within the Near East. It's very much analogous to the situation in Europe in more modern times. Yet, somehow when people hear of such an idea it sounds totally ridiculous to them.
In recent centuries a single extended family ruled Russia, England, Germany, Austria, and so forth. Should we not at least suspect that this was a continuation of more ancient practices? The only difference is that in more ancient times it was easier to conceal the game the royal family was playing. They did not have to reveal to commoners that they were supplying all the rulers to all the major population groups from Greece to Persia and beyond. Even so, they usually didn't try very hard to hide the truth. (Hint: Atilla the Hun was really a contemporary aristocratic Roman named Attalus.) In fact, the argument could be made that ancient rulers actually wanted posterity to recognize their greatness in being "all things to all people". But, too bad, we just don't get it. We're just too stupid or too brainwashed to perceive it.