<HTML>Michael,
the last post was sooo good I posted it twice!!! Sorry, administrative error - my PA's been sacked!!! Anyway to answer your specific questions:
1. Let me copy an extract from the second piece I put on the G:TT web site - I think it answers your question re the source of stone for the KVT.
"THE SPHINX TEMPLE AND KHAFRE VALLEY TEMPLE
Schoch has also suggested that the Sphinx temple and Khafre’s valley temple are also older than generally thought, having reached this conclusion on the basis of the condition of the masonry of the temples. In support of this idea they cited work by Dr. Mark Lehner. Lehner argued that the masonry used to build the Sphinx and Khafre valley temples was quarried from within the Sphinx enclosure. The concept of the Sphinx as a source of building stone for both temples appears, however, to be the result of some confusion.
On p127 of the Complete Pyramids, Lehner uses the word ‘probably’ when discussing the Sphinx enclosure as the source of the masonry for Khafre’s valley temple. In an article in Archaeology, Lehner is even more circumspect “..Khafre Valley Temple [was built] from huge blocks of limestone…..that were quarried from the upper layers of rock corresponding to those of the Sphinx head and possibly higher”. I also draw your attention to the figure at the top of p207 of the Complete Pyramids. The caption quite clearly states that “Monoliths for Khafre’s temples were channelled out of a quarry southwest of the Sphinx”.
If there is a lack of clarity on this issue, it is possibly because of a working hypothesis Lehner developed during the original ARCE Sphinx Project. Lehner postulated that Khafre’s valley temple had been constructed from the Member I rock quarried to form the platform for the Sphinx temple and then the Sphinx temple had been built from Member II rocks quarried from round the Sphinx.
When Lehner tasked a geologist with confirming this, that geologist - Thomas Aigner - was unable to do so. “A typology of core blocks was established on the basis of lithological and paleontological features. The attempt was then made to trace the individual and/or broad types of blocks to the geological stratification and to the horizontal distribution of the facies within given units. In general the study confirmed an earlier hypothesis that the core blocks of the Sphinx Temple derive from the quarry immediately to the west from which the Sphinx was formed. The earlier suggestion that the blocks of the Khafre Valley Temple were taken from the cut into the Member I which created the lower terrace of the Sphinx complex was definitely nullified by Aigner’s study.”
So, whilst it has been proven that the masonry used for the construction of the Sphinx temple was quarried from within the Sphinx enclosure (indicating that the Sphinx and assocated temple are of the same age) the source of masonry for the valley temple is by no means proven. It can not be stated, therefore, that Khafre’s valley temple is contemporaneous with the Sphinx."
2. This has confused me at times because people always discuss the 2 temples together and, as you now know, I think this is an oversimplification. In the KMT article by Lehner at the height of the Schoch/West debate (KMT Vol 5 No 3) "Notes and Photographs...." the issue is not clarified. There is a section titled "Granite Facing and 'two stage' construction on the VT" (it's ages since I read this - it's good to re-read it!). Despite the title, however, Lehner does not go on to discuss the KVT and ST in equal terms. Every time the orthodox dating is mentioned, it is evidence from the KVT that is proffered. Except for a few mentions in passing the ST does n't get a look in.
There is also an interesting contradiction (perhaps) that is illuminating. When discussing the Menkaure Mortuary Temple (!) Lehner states "the surface of the large limestone core blocks has not appreciably weathered, even in the ninety years since Reisner exposed them." The interesting bit comes later when discussing the KVT, for he says "Note how seriously the limestone core blocks have weathered in just the last eighty-five years since Holscher exposed them!" We're clearly NOT looking at the same strata here so this really removes Menkaure's MT from the debate - which is nice!
I think this may answer your third point too.
I'll not claim that this is a definitive review as I've only looked at one of Lehner's articles. From memory though, I believe that he went into more detail on this subject in this article than he has subsequently.
Best I can do
Colin</HTML>
