Pyramid concrete controvery continues

From the New York Times:

In new research on the Great Pyramids of Giza, a scientist says he has found more to their construction than cut natural limestone. Some original parts of the massive structures appear to be made of concrete blocks.

If true, historians say, this would be the earliest known application of concrete technology, some 2,500 years before the Romans started using it widely in harbors, amphitheaters and other architecture.

But the "if true" is the sticking point:

Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of antiquities in Egypt and director of the Giza Pyramids excavations, said in an e-mail message, “The idea that concrete was used is unlikely and completely unproven.”

Noting that the pyramids have been restored and reinforced many times with the extensive use of concrete, Dr. Hawass said, “I would ask Dr. Barsoum the question: where did he get the samples he is working with, and how can he show that the samples are not taken from areas that have been restored in modern times?”

Hawass has further derided the theory here, stating:

"We don't know the origin of these samples ... We certainly never gave permission for anyone to take samples," he said. "This well-worn theory keeps coming up for publicity purposes."

Given the current state of Egyptian archeology, failure to get official permission to take samples would be a huge misstep. As is, just publishing controversial interpretations of excavation results without running them past Hawass is enough to draw down official opprobrium.

In any event, the new theory seems to have a gaping weakness in that it was done by geologists without sufficient consultation with archeologists, necessitating a complete review of the samples' origin and possibly new sampling -- which would now seem politically dicey.

Posted by David on December 5, 2006 11:42 AM