> I'm sure they do but it will be within the level of technology
> that that civilization is known to have had at the time of
> construction..... not on imagined 11 m high, pyramid powered
> mega-saws and all that goes with them.
I don't disagree in the least and only a couple years ago I'd have thought nothing of this statement but things have changed a great deal. The problem here is that people don't understand the nature of technology, the knowledge that causes it, nor the science and metaphysics that make it all possible. We tend to take knowledge for granted and attach more weight to it than isactually warranted. Technology is not at all a sort of knowledge cast into the concrete as we imagine it.
Science gains knowledge only through the means it can learn about nature and this is experimentation (based on observation) and its metaphysics. There is no scientific truth beypond experimentation and metaphysics. We have lost sight of this simple fact which has led to the confusion. It is far more accurate to think of technology as experimentation set into the concrete. Technology is almost closer to magic than it is science from this perspective since people misunderstand science and its metaphysics. Some individual through observation or serendipity will invent an experiment which allows new technology. It's almost never new inventions springing from theory but rather from experiment or trial and error. Indeed they are usually the result of an accident leading to a new observation.
I point out these truths for a very simple reason; the ancients had no known science whatsoever. You say they had technology and I say show me the cause. Show me how they knew they could beat stones against one another to shape things. How did they know to build ramps without science? How did they do all the spectacular things they are KNOWN to have done? You will it was all merely trial and error by people who knew nothing except simple technology but where they got the idea for trial and error is still unanswered. But more to the point, if they could invent the calender through trial and error, if they could design G1 through trial and error than what would prevent them from using the wheel that was ancient even in 2750 BC when G1 was built through trail and errror? What would put any simple technology whatsoever out of their reach?
Orthpodox ideas simply are inconsistent with nature and with human nature. You can't simply say they were so primitive only ramps could be used to lift and simple tools used to quarry while ignoring evidence for more sophisticated knowledge and not seeking the metaphysics that allowed them to learn it. In a nutshell you can't build a pyramid with magic and you can't will it to exist with religion. Across the board orthodox beliefs don't ffit the facts. It's true that I don't understand most of the geological arguments well enough to have an informed opinion but I believe I do have an informed opinion on their knowledge base and I believe any idea that suggests they were incapable of any simple technology is in error. If they needed 11 meter high mega-saws to build something then they might well have been able to build them. It certainly isn't your fault we lack the knowledge of what they needed and what they had but we need to go where the evidence points. So far no technology has been ruled out because we still don't know any of the most things. This ignorance certainly includes their tools until someone can drill a hole in granite and leave the same evidence as what we see. My guess is that when they do these jobs will go a great deal faster than what you propose. They had a million people and a thousand years and orthodox methods would seem to take many multiples of this.
I guess we're really where we always were not knowing if it was aliens or bumpkins and with leaders who refuse to narrow down the options with facts. I can appreciate the effort you put into this but you are wrong when you write off the possibility of a different and more extensive technology generated by a different kind of metaphysics. It is wring to make baseless assumptions and this is the only reason we have for bumpkins learning by trial and error. That they were so incapable is the only reason we have to reject the possibility all technology not sitting in the Cairo Museum.
We need to lose this idea that the ancient Egyptians were backward and nearly perfectly ignorant while we can put a man on the moon so must know everything. As long as we have such a perspective then we don't need no stinkin' evidence.