The "Geopolymer" method for ancient building construction has nothing whatsoever to do with science, history or Egyptology. It has been discussed here at length in the distant past, but I'm afraid most of those discussions are now in server back up somewhere.

The proponents, especially Davidovits' publicist Margaret Morris, have been unable to answer some of the most simple questions that completely annihilate their hypothesis. In fact, both Davidovits and Morris were found to be posting under pseudonyms at various sites and email lists, then asking questions of themselves as a "feed" to expound upon the theory ad nauseum.

When I first read your post, I figured you were just MM showing up again to do more of the same. In fact, I now recognize your name from Schoch's site, right? I can only hope you are the real Dr. Dowell...lol.

If you'd like a list of the problems, I'm sure we can come up with at least a dozen fatal flaws in just a few minutes.

1. If the stuff is disaggregated, then why are there shapes of blocks carved in the quarries?
2. If molds were used, then why do no two blocks in Khufu's pyramid even look alike? Wouldn't molds produce uniformity?
3. "Synthetic Zeolyte 23" is little more than carbon and ammonia. It turns out this "sample" was taken from the wall of a passage in the pyramid. The entire sample was ground up, mixing the surface with the core of the stone. The pyramid has been used as a tourist attraction for millenia before the sample was taken. Carbon came from the torches. Ammonia came from people/bats/etc urinating in the passageways. So much for a mystery.

As Archae has pointed out, there are more problems here than one can count easily.

I'd wish you luck investigating the idea, but in fact, it would be nothing but a complete waste of your time. Just these three points above sink the idea and its strongest "proof".


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.