Virgo, If you want to consider the problem logically, aren't the logistics of carving millions(2.5) of (at least) two-ton limestone blocks with copper and flint tools(okay, I'll give you bronze, too), from the surrounding bedrock of Giza, in roughly a 20-year time-frame, insurmountable, in and of themselves, to mention nothing of the construction of the GP's. To claim, as Egyptologists do, that the AE's carved the facing stones of the Gizamids, which have fit tolerances ranging from .02-.002 inches, and of which there were 112,000 in number, with the copper and flint tools they possessed for carving rock, is flatly laughable. It would have required more people than could have physically fit into the work site, to raise the blocks to their present height, at a rate of placement impossible to achieve in the time frame allowed. The Egyptologists use results as proof of method, an extremely weak technical argument, to try to disprove other more well-founded arguments for construction of the Gizamids. Their arguments say nothing to settle the methods used ! Saying "it must have been so-and-so", does not settle the issue at all. Geochemical analysis is much more likely to, if proper sampling is allowed. This technique, dependent less on interpretation than small experiments, carving sandstone or soft limestone with primitive tools and then extrapolating this to huge monumental block-carving, is likely to give a lot more definitive answer to the methods the AE's used for building the GP's. Cheers, Rick