Colette,

The unfortunate reality of the geopolymer solution is the absolute lack of evidence to support it. Too bad, as it would solve many questions. As an economical way to build one would expect that it would easily force the abandonment of mud-brick use, but that certainly wasn't the case. Additionally, because forms used to make mud-brick were essentially uniform so too should we expect to see uniformity of size with a geopolymer system (not just with one pyramid but every pyramid and structure built either before or after), not to mention the trace elements commonly found on the product from the actual forms used in the process (i.e. seams, wood-grain and air-pockets). But more importantly the trace elements we do have are quarry marks on the stone blocks (each block different from the other) and of course many stone quarries. We also have the evidence of seeing old Kingdom pictographs of masons working stone, not mixing concrete (geopolymers). The builders did use a thin mortar in some instances for tight fits but on the whole the gaps in the core masonry of G1 were filled in with loose gravel and sand mixture. If geopolymers were in use for building a pyramid we should also have examples to cite in temples, mastabas and perhaps even sculpture. AFAIK, the heavier the block is the more reliant it is on internal reinforcement like the iron reebar they use today when pouring structural cement, otherwise it will crumble under severe weight.

Best Regareds,

B.A. Hokom