> And what exactly do you think "it already
Port facilities. You know, for the port.
> For example, Tallet claims the galleries
> were used for "storage" but then describes "layers
> of occupation".
You forgot the scare quotes around "claims" too.
If you read what Tallet actually wrote, these "several layers of occupation" are not "inside" the galleries, but rather on the artificial platform made in front of them created from the detritus of making the galleries. Also, these several layers of occupation are "contemporary to the functioning of the galleries".
All of the galleries seem to have been dug at the same time and the debris from this digging activity was used to level the natural slope and create a functional platform in front of the entrances. On this ﬁrst terrace several levels of occupation have been found which are contemporary to the functioning of the galleries.
> So what is it really,
It really appears to be the storage galleries of the port facility.
> how did Tallet draw his conclusion regarding
How can you even ask such a question after reading what he wrote not to mention all that has been talked about regarding what he wrote.
> when they were already breached and
> pillaged and apparently used as dwellings over the
Where does he say they were "breached and pillaged" after they were closed and abandoned in the 4th Dynasty?
And no, they were not "apparently used as dwellings"-this is something you have just made up by your misinterpretation of what he actually said.
The layers of occupation in front of the galleries: "...are characterized by ﬁreplaces and signiﬁcant accumulations of ashes and organic materials."
These galleries would have been constantly active with workers which these layers of occupation would be typical of such. Fires for light, warmth, reshaping of copper tools, cooking food, ect.
And as far as these layers of occupation are concerned, Tallet notes that excavation of these facilities in general point to an origin at the very beginning of the 4th Dynasty, i.e. Sneferu, which much of the occupation appears to have been concentrated during Khufu's reign. Meaning between the two there could potentially be several decades of use.
What I find interesting is that Wadi al-Jarf is almost directly across the Red Sea from the turquoise and copper mining colonies at Wadi Maghara on the Sinai Peninsula which date back to at least the 1st Dynasty, apparently abandoned during the 2nd Dynasty, resuming in earnest in the 3rd (particularly in the 4th) continuing through the OK, abandoned, and picked up again in the 12th Dynasty:
And yes, Sneferu and Khufu are also attested there. Though there is no evidence as of yet the port of Wadi al-Jarf was used prior to the 4th Dynasty, those who came before must have had at least some permanent port facilities in the area as well. Whether Wadi al-Jarf may have been a later expansion of one of these pre-existing sites is yet to be seen, but as said before it is possible.