Not at all what I was getting at. I should have said "un-scientific," or maybe "supernatural." The point I was making is that the historical sciences (astronomy, geology, etc.), although non-experimental, are nevertheless natural and scientific, and your usage of the term "natural" when referring only to the experimental sciences could give someone the wrong impression.
Earlier you wrote to suggest that once you know the tools that were available to work on a [historical] problem, then you can deduce all the rest.
I didn't write that -- not precisely that. We were talking about how it can be deduced what technology was available to the pyramid-building Egyptians. I gave a range of evidence, from tools to texts to artwork to examining the actual artificats that were constructed. And I told you I'm not an expert in this area. We can never literally know how the Egyptians built the pyramids, because there are no witnesses left alive, and no contemporaneous writings have been found. So it's detective work (or "historical science"), which is never 100% convincing, but it applies reason to all the available evidence. What else can we do?
This is worth elaborating on: no scienctific theory, historical or experimental, is "100% convincing" in the sense that we can know it to be a completely accurate model of reality. All scientific theories are held tentatively. Thus, when one says that a historical science is "not 100% convincing" it in no way reduces the stature of that science to level beneath "experimental" sciences.
In point of fact, Popper specifically opined that historical sciences are no less scientific than the experimental sciences, in that theories in either of them can satisfy the requirement of falsifiability.
In conclusion, "historical science" does not mean "less scientific" than experimental science.
Costruct a model that would permit us to get some greater precision with respect to how long it would have taken Egyptians to have constructed the pyramids (as I sketched out, above), and cross-correlate that with Egyptian life-expectancy data. If it were to be learned that it likely took longer to construct the Great Pyramid than the reign of Khufu, or even his total lifespan, then this would be helpful information. The converse, BTW, is also true. It seems the best way that I can think of to settle the matter.