It seems to me that this statement is exactly what produces the narrow field of view taken by orthodox Egyptology and archeology as it relates to Ancient Egypt. It is patently clear that Egyptologists, for example, will interpret ancient writings, either papyri or stone and from this interpretation claim “documentary” evidence and discount accepted “hard” science in favor of a pre-existing notion of contextual theory. Hard science such as geology and “context” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but clearly “context” doesn’t trump hard science and must be abandoned when it is in direct conflict with hard science and yet that is exactly what has happened in the case of the Sphinx for example. When Egyptologists (like Lehner) cling to contextual evidence in spite of proven geological science it provokes all manners of contemptuous exchanges between the highly educated and orthodox academics and those considered to be simply rogue investigators. It is the mirror image of the heated debate between climate scientists and what are known as “climate deniers.” It is the epitome of the comic statement “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?” (I have used this analogy before, but here it is precisely accurate in my opinion)
Schoch’s scientific dating of the Sphinx and Lehner’s (and, of course Hawass) steadfast contextual dating (based on “documentary” evidence) are THE primary example of a soft, philological science confronting hard science. While I don’t discount the importance of Egyptology as a valuable source of study of ancient Egypt and it’s remarkable history I find it frustrating that Lehner et al and their subsequent theories force lines of inquiry into one direction and one only while the geological dating of the Sphinx opens the possibility for a new and as yet unidentified civilizing influence. This speaks directly to the original post that has produced this array of comment, skirmish and inquiry which posited the idea of a “stepped tower core construction method.” If this construction methodology is correct, might it also be possible that the pyramids we see are the result of generational building projects where Pharaohs (of the 4th Dynasty, for example) amended, appended or simply added to existing structures? Left to Orthodox Egyptologists, we might as well not even ask the question at all. They have concluded that they have, based on “documentary and contextual” evidence, all the information that they need and that further inquiry is unnecessary while I prefer to think that science has provided us with tantalizing clues to a much more interesting possibility and that “the opera ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings!” For my money….the music is still playing.
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"....Mark Twain