> Origyptian Wrote:
> > First, would you mind not just posting the
> > 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
> > lumbar inside one of them, and what he
> > could be changes made to the internal structure
> > 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
> > or about Tallet or Wilkinson that would
> > that they discovered any galleries (as defined
> > Tallet) that were actually blocked by any of
> > 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
> > no photo off the papyrus squeezed between two
> > blocks, nor is there any photo of limestone
> > in their original intact blocking position (ie,
> > the time the original function of the site was
> > abandoned) preventing any passage by humans.
> > Neither Tallet or Wilkinson reported that any
> > those galleries had any blocking stones intact
> > when they were discovered, such that humans
> > 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
> > was discovered inside those dozens of
> > The blocking function of that limestone is a
> > hypothesis of Tallet, presumably in an effort
> > reconcile their presence outside the galleries.
> 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
> > He simply speculates that's what might have
> > happened based on his forensics of the site.
> See above.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?“ - Decimus Junius Juvenalis
“Numero, Pondere et Mensura“