> Origyptian Wrote:
> > It may very well be true that the galleries were
> > indeed closed toward the end of the 4th Dynasty.
> > But we really do not know that with certainty,
> > especially since Ayn Sukhna was used from OK to NK
> > a few miles to the north of el-Jarf, and those
> > galleries have have never been reported as being
> > observed as unbreached.
> At Ayn Sukhna nearly all of the evidence is of NK provenance....
You sure you didn't mean Middle Kingdom?
> There is very little attributed to the
> OK and what does dates to the end of the 5th
> Dynasty. At Wadi al-Jarf, the exact opposite is
> true. There is no evidence of the NK, or anyone
> else for that matter, and all that has been found
> dates to the OK, namely the 4th Dynasty.
That simply could mean that the 4th Dynasty artifacts were the least valuable of what was found there by subsequent occupants, and so those artifacts were left behind (mainly broken shards of pottery). There's no reason to expect we'd see intact, useful artifacts there today since there's no evidence the galleries were sealed, and those artifacts would have been taken by subsequent occupants such as Bedouin and other nomads who typically were minimalists and took all their stuff with them.
> If Wadi al-Jarf was known to the NK just as Ayn
> Sukhna was, then why are they completely missing
> from the archaeological record there let alone, as
> at Ayn Sukhna, not the dominant provenance found?
It seems that you think I'm suggesting that el-Jarf was occupied last by the NK, but I did clarify that I had mixed up el-Jarf with Ayn Sukhna. I'm pretty sure Tallet describes the MK as the dominant provenance at Ayn Sukhna.
> Are we to believe who ever may or may not have
> breached Wadi al-Jarf removed all evidence of
> everyone else except the OK and furthermore left
> no evidence of themselves?
I think it's fair to say that the OK had no use for its broken pottery and neither did any nomad occupants thereafter, and that seems to be the most prevalent evidence in those galleries. The papyrii were buried in the rubble outside the entrance; it's anyone's guess whether occupants after the OK even knew that material was there.
And yes, I believe it's quite possible that nomads occupying those galleries after the Dynastics would not leave much behind with their name on it, so how would we know whether it was OK or not? For example, who charred the charred wood that was found there? Is there any reason to believe the OK torched their own boats?
Why would subsequent occupants of the Eastern Desert have any interest in broken OK pottery (other than using it as ostraca during the Roman Empire)? Can we reasonably expect every occupant to leave a clear sign that they were there? How can we possibly know what those galleries might have been used for during all those centuries that they may have been openly accessed by the various occupants of that desert?
> There is no evidence of
> anyone before the OK and no evidence of anyone
> after yet there is plenty of evidence of the OK itself.
And the bulk of that evidence (at el-Jarf) was a bunch of shards from a few dozen broken jugs that were of no use to any occupant that may have been there post-OK. The lack of a definitive signature doesn't mean it wasn't used by others who left no signature after the OK. For example, how can you identify charred wood as having been burned by the OK vs any other subsequent occupant? What are those "levels of occupation" outside the galleries as described by Tallet? I think it's unreasonable to assert that those galleries were likely never occupied by anyone else after the OK, considering that there is no evidence that those galleries were ever sealed and, rather, that they may have been openly accessible to those Bedouin, etc., cultures occupying the Eastern Desert during all those centuries.
> "So some of you seem to believe Tallet is
> able to glean what those caves originally were
> used for even though they were breached and
> repurposed untold times over the centuries, for a
> duration of active use that he estimates to have
> exceeded a full millennium."
> All of it is false. Every single word of it.
If you are denying that those galleries were openly accessible, and claiming they were not "UNBREACHED" and not repurposed, then I respectfully disagree with you, and I believe the evidence supports my interpretation of Tallet.
Meanwhile, it may be Tallet who is overzealous in his interpretation of the evidence by making definitive claims based on his frequent use of uncertain conditionals (such as "probably" which he used 10 times in "Harbor of Khufu" and 9 times in the "Ayn Kukhna & Wadi el-Jarf" paper) rather than simply suggesting what he considers to be the possibilities. For example, there is absolutely nothing that definitively validates his contention that el-Jarf had anything at all to do with the original construction of G1.
Likewise, from all that I've read so far I've come across zero evidence that Tallet, Wilkinson, or any other investigator found any gallery at those sites that were sealed. And if Wilkinson already found 18 of them exposed and openly accessible to him and Burton, it's perfectly reasonable to assume those galleries were at least as accessible in previous centuries for use by the locals who lived in the Eastern Desert of Egypt all those centuries.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?