> First, would you mind not just posting the French,
> or at least accompany it with the English? Of
> course each of us can separately go through the
> monotonous copy-paste to put those blurbs into
> google translation, but why make us do that,
> especially when you presumably want us to
> understand the point you're trying to make?
Unfortunately, I wouldn't have time to translate this extrapolated material. I suggest that anyone who finds a problem with the French text will simply have to continue to use Google Translate.
> Tallet suggests that there was subsequent
> occupation after the site was abandoned on the
> basis of fire pits outside a gallery, burnt boat
> lumbar inside one of them, and what he interpreted
> could be changes made to the internal structure of
> the galleries which involve low 'walls', stone
> barriers, etc., that might be the remnants of
> dwellings -- findings that he attributes to a
> later culture after the original "storage"
> function of those galleries was abandoned.
There is further discussion of investigation of other archaeological layers here - (Jarf 2016: 2 and 3): a backfill phase, two occupation phases, and a hollow area (with evidence of scraps of papyrus indicating that it was contemporary with the foundation of the site). The idea was apparently to see if they could find evidence to show whether the circles of pebbles east of G1-G2 were those left by Wilkinson, or belonged to some earlier date: but, in the event, no conclusion could be drawn (3).
There is mention of a recent attempt to empty the cavity between G1 and G2 using a circular saw, but (unless I've misunderstood) there was nothing in it anyway (4).
> I see nothing in any English document I've read by
> or about Tallet or Wilkinson that would indicate
> that they discovered any galleries (as defined by
> Tallet) that were actually blocked by any of those
> limestones to which Tallet imbues with a
> "blocking" (e.g., 'security') function.
It states here how the majority of the papyri were found underneath the blocking stones:
Sous le blocage scellant le système de fermeture, qui avait révélé la majeure partie des archives papyrologiques de Jarf ... (Jarf 2016:2)
And here it describes (with diagrams, especially fig. 11) the difficulties involved in removing each of the blocking stones, and opening up all the galleries (13, 15).
> The "Fig.
> 4" referred to on your citation of page 1016 is
> simply the photo of the tattered papyrus in
> isolation on the surface of the ground. There is
> no photo off the papyrus squeezed between two
> blocks, nor is there any photo of limestone blocks
> in their original intact blocking position (ie, at
> the time the original function of the site was
> abandoned) preventing any passage by humans.
> Neither Tallet or Wilkinson reported that any of
> those galleries had any blocking stones intact
> when they were discovered, such that humans were
> unable to enter any gallery before removing any
> blocks (again, at least in any English document
> I've read about it). This is likely why so little
> was discovered inside those dozens of galleries.
> The blocking function of that limestone is a
> hypothesis of Tallet, presumably in an effort to
> reconcile their presence outside the galleries.
A video of the 2013 excavations shows the scene outside galleries being excavated at that time (2:25 - 2:35); one of the papyri is also shown in a layer of sand/small pebbles (and also here, cover page).
> Tallet doesn't state that the papyri were found
> between two limestone blocks that were in an
> intact blocking position when he discovered them.
> He simply speculates that's what might have
> happened based on his forensics of the site.