I apologize for that unchecked rant. I went too far and didn't re read enough. I of course don't disparage the entire pursuit of Egyptology when I say "stone and copper".

It just seems that Egyptologists and Engineers could stand to benefit with a cooperation, but it seems sadly impossible, as the engineers perspective tends to only fly in the face of many archaeological presumptions made in the absence of their input. As a result, it comes off as a loud presumptive voice from the kids table. Any archaeologist is justified to react with equal disregard to any opinion seemingly void of any historical context, and it starts a spiraling dysfunctional foundation of miscommunication and missed opportunity.

So just out of interest, if the dynamic above is a possible component of the state of dueling disciplines, how would you describe your perspective of the 'bias' of the alternative perspective of pure engineering on analysis of these pyramids? Do you presume any non historical perspective suffers from myopia? I could see that as a totally valid perspective.

I'm sure many engineers could be guilty of that. For example, I'm intrigued by Chris Dunn's observation of harmonic resonance, but I believe he took it too far presuming the Grand Gallery housed resonators. That appears to me as one singular focus running wild. But I also consider that in the discipline of engineering, one is not simply observing relevance to existing systems of fabrication, construction, structural analysis, etc. As in any discipline, you hone a pure instinct in the area of your focus. Meaning immersion in the world of industrial process and fabrication, offers its designers a subtle power of observation that is unique to their discipline. Understanding and developing an intuitive sense for complicated machinery, chemical processes, and force vector analysis tunes the mind to notice certain commonalities among similar machines and structures. One doesn't require an historic context to observe these commonalities, and the world seems full of ancient structures that wreak of these hints and clues.

I think once some of the less likely presumptions of old school archaeology are modified to accept the validity of engineers analysis, the process of cooperation across disciplines will be less painful. Any reactive defense of some of the weaker theories just to silence the new voices will only fracture progress in my opinion.

Personally, I think the anchor of this divide is the abosolute of the tomb theory. You don't want to be the last guy at the party on that one. Don't you think?