> > Therefore, we don't really have
> > evidence that it's a workers village or that
> > cemetery is at all contemporaneous with the
> > construction of the pyramid and, rather, the
> > cemetery could have been an add-on long after
> > pyramid was constructed.
> I thought all this was obvious and widely
> BTW, 'plausible assumptions' is more appropriate
> than your dismissive 'merely speculation'.
When it concerns pyramid construction nothing at all is set in stone or fixed in the minds of Egyptologists. This is because their estimatation of the only possible means to have been used is as ephemeral as a cloud and as easy to construct or find in nature as an Ecsher subject. Since no infrastructure can survive being dismantled then anything that looks like ramps or infrastructure can always be wholly reinterpreted without affecting theory. Housing for workers can be turned into naval air stations and mere sand magically converted to ramps by merely waving an abstract of water over it. Meanwhile a perfectly good ramp and port go to waste becaause the ramp is in ruins and the port never excavated.
I believe even those things that are interpreted correctly are still being seen from the wrong perspective. Yes, there is a cemetery full of workers and yes I believe these people did build the pyramid but, no, they were not superstitious and they did not drag stones up ramps. There was no king who lived forever and the stones were not his tomb.
All the evidence looks very very different if you just step back and forget all the unproven assumptions. Look at it with fresh eyes and you'll see many possibilities. Some appear more likely and some appear less likely but once you get out of your shell you'll see that it was a prison all along that was made of assumptions.