LEOLAIA. Hi. I'll address this as best as possible. Actually I do need to look these things up and have references.
Actually, the Babylonian record claims they were dispersed when they fought in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Please cite the Babylonian text that says that the Egyptians were "dispersed" from their land.
Actually the text I had in mind is this one. I don't have the exact BM number but it is quoted from Wikipedia under "Nebuchadnezzar II'
Following the pacification of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar turned again to Egypt. A clay tablet,  now in the British Museum, states: "In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the country of Babylon, he went to Mitzraim (Egypt) to make war. Amasis, king of Egypt, collected [his army], and marched and spread abroad."
The text mentions "spread abroad" which I'm using interchangeably here. No pretended expertise on what is meant here, but it does say "spread abroad" which if applied to the army of Amasis would be consistent with the Biblical record that the Egptians were scattered about and abandoned Egypt at this time. This may not prove to be relevant but that is the Babylonian text citing I had reference to.
LEOLAIA Your source on Polycrates, Herodotus, gives absolutely no hint that Amasis was ever in captivity,
Sorry, I apologize if I gave the idea that he was in "captivity." He was in exile from Egypt and befriended Polycrates, who with him created some sort of a pack of exchange residence. So he was not in captivity in Greece but in exile with friends while dispersed or "spread abroad."
I must begin a new and comprehensive research regarding Amasis to see if any un-revised clues slip through. But as I noted, his rule from 571 BC, 40 years after the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar (511 BCE, per my Biblical chronology where 455 BCE is 1st of Cyrus and the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar n 525 BCE), he would have died in the 4th year of Kambyses in 543 BCE, thus had a rule of 29 years. Thus an Apis Bull dedication in year 23 of his reign would fall in year 7 of Cyrus, not during year 23 based on his original rule that would have been interrupted in his 5th of 6th year in year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So the inscription would not be a contradition at this point.
There also no Egyptian archaeological and historical evidence of a 40-year "gap" during the reign of Amasis, during which Egypt was depopulated -- which surely would have been the worst disaster Egypt would have experienced in its long history. Everything indicates that reign of Amasis was a continuous and prosperous one.
None that you/we know of, that is, except the Bible. This is particularly complex since Herodotus is biased since he was part of the propaganda of the revised chronology, but fortunately played both sides of the fence. So a close scan of his works might lead to a hint regarding this period of desolation during the 40p years after year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. But in the revised history, which removes 26 years from the timeline, we're only talking about faking 14 years of history for Amasis who later came to rule 29 years. So we'd have to find some subtle contradiction, maybe in archaeology that would suggest or support the interruption.
In that regard the only suspicious thing so far I've found is in regard to the archaeology at Naucratis. I'll have to get the specific reference, but apparently they found a destructive level and some interruption. I won't stand by that until I look up the actual information, but as I recall it would lend itself to the circumstances of a short interruption in occupation. So when one says, "no Egyptian archaeological" information it is always understood in the context of what we personally know about. So I'll look up what I have on Naucratis and comment further.
Thanks for your valued reflection and I will review previous discussions you noted. I'll also try to find the reference to that "occupancy" agreement between Amasis and Polycrates as a specific reference as well.