<HTML>James -
I am talking about the critics here, too. Anytime I see people dumping that hard on good science, I suspect a turf war or another motive.
I agree with your statement 100 percent: "It is a terrible thing to deny samples. It strikes me that more should be made of this, as it impedes scientific progress."
Most Egyptians are very poor. Some are living in tombs, and destroying them in the process. Egypt is a large exporter of kaolin. If this research were being treated correctly, Egypt and Egyptology could benefit greatly from the country's natural resources. Out of work Egyptologists could be busily working to restore tombs (see Morris' web site concerning monument restoration). Egypt could use the technology to build housing, roads and buildings. The fomulas for other stones might be worked out and used to make artwork and decorative stone. All kinds of cottage industries could spring up in Egypt because of the low tech methods. The potential seems so great. It is insane that this research is spit on and ignored and that they are too often treated like von Danikens.
I think any geophysicist would agree with Zeller that they proved their case for limestone with the chemically bound water, especially since it turns up in all studies (except Harrell. whose hostility disqualifies him. and his botched chemical analysis shows he did not know how to deal with this material). I think that chemically bound water is the least area that would need more work.
More chemical and miscroscopic testing on limestone samples is reasonable in a reasonable world. We are not living in such a world here in the little world of archaeology, as their plight shows. They have taken this research very far under the circumstances--far enough to show sufficient data.
Sandy</HTML>