I do love the theory, and the elevator pitch makes a lot of sense. Unfortuantely I don't have the bandwidth to really dive into it like I'd like to, but I did f

I do love the theory, and the elevator pitch makes a lot of sense. Unfortuantely I don't have the bandwidth to really dive into it like I'd like to, but I did find what seems to be a paper disputing his claims[0]. Below is the abstract (emphasis my own): > Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer “concrete” poured into molds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone. We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks. It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. [0]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25?journalCode=ujge19& https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.2...