Not so much the archeologists, really, but the Egyptologists, i.e., those in the universities and academies who maintain the "standard" line that Giza was begun by King Khufu, whom they maintain built the Great Pyramid, and that the other structures of Giza are of Egyptian origin and provenance, beginning with the Fourth Dynasty. Acrheologists and researchers such as John Anthony West, Alan Alford, and Robert Bauval, while certainly outside the academic "mainstream" in that sense, have compiled very convincing and sophisticated arguments that the main structures at Giza (the temples, Sphinx, and the three larger pyramids) are much older. Even the ancient Egyptians themselves indicate - if one takes their own texts seriously - that their's was not an original civilization, but a legacy from something far older. Suffice it to say that about the only ones who maintain an Egyptian origin for these structures are the Egyptologists and university historians. I would also add that the hypothesis of a non-Egyptian origin and of the great antiquity of these structures does NOT depend on whether or not the weapon hypothesis is true. One may quite plausibly maintain their pre-Egyptian origins without it, as the research of West, Bauval, Alford, and Mehler indicate.
Daniel is the Business and Technical Developer of the Giza Community. He conceived of the entire community architecture, leads the Giza Support Team, and also serves as Host of the Giza Member Dialogues.