> However, that doesn't affect
> Plate 6b, which resolutely continues to display
> not the slightest evidence of geopolymer, welding,
I have found some time to look at the doc in brief.
I do not know whether you are throwing in "straw men" or "red herrings" or are just an undercover supporter of the concept?
Page 89 discusses the mud brick pattern utilized by the builders of G3 mortuary temple seemingly the later addition closest to the pyramid. Interesting but irrelevant.
Plate 6b again deals with a mud brick wall but it is interesting that even at that stage they were "plastering" or rendering such walls with what seems to be a limestone or lime based mortar.
Did they used to do the same when walls of limestone blocks instead of mud were used to give the impression of one large block?
More interesting to me was plate 11b. Impossible to be definitive from old photo (requires personal onsite examination)
Note top right the portions of roof blocks that clearly have large stones or bricks inside larger squared blocks.
Top left the remnant of roof . Blocks seem to be joined (bonded together)
The strange wriggly pattern on the large wall behind pylons or columns block (centre)
The remnant of granite paving is extremely interesting . It looks incredibly well jointed and seemingly glued or bonded together.
Reisner can be completely excused for , not discussing or looking for, artificial cement or stone as there was no such notion of such known at that time.
Again geopolymer is difficult even for expert geologists to detect, without chemical and xray & electron microscope analysis.
I realise it all seems preposterous to you.
Thanks for the information and interest and opinion.