I can certainly understand the Egyptian people being upset about the large numbers of antiquities stolen from their country over the centuries, but this one was a gift from the Egyptian people to the American people. Hawass should concentrate on getting some of the looted stuff back and butt out on this one.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that the weathering issue has been known here for quite some time. The fact that this was a gift does complicate matters.

They should definitely make every attempt to prevent damage to the obelisk, don't get me wrong. But I don't think there is anything wrong with nations sharing parts of their cultural heritage with other nations, if it's done voluntarily. There are at least eight Egyptian obelisks in Rome that were removed under maybe less than ideal circumstances, and I was told there are more standing there than in all of Egypt. Maybe the gifting of the NYC example wasn't done under the highest values either, but I can't help but think Hawass has as much a political motive as one of preservation in mind.

The one in NYC is in better shape than some that are still standing in Egypt. Even a cursory look at the obelisk plainly reveals that the degradation of the stone is much accelerated on the (present) south side. The obelisk had fallen at some point in the past in Egypt, and it's a logical assumption that the side that is weathering faster might have been the side that was in contact with the ground for centuries, and that the damage has as much to do with ancient absorption as it does with modern acid rain; many of the obelisks in Egypt show the same process at work at the bases, where long contact with the sand has damaged them. (The obelisk from Luxor that is now at the Place de la Concorde in Paris is still in excellent condition...perhaps because it had remained standing until it was removed.)