You believe he can glean what the original purpose was of those galleries even though there is no documentation describing when they were originally constructed, and there's essentially nothing found inside them that definitively shows what their original function was.
Those dozens (30) of non-descript, long, shallow, narrow "galleries" are hewn into bedrock hills that are 5 km inland from the harbor. Why would such caves need to be located so far from the harbor if they were originally intended to be a storage facility associated with that harbor? Note that the few things found inside those caves were in tatters and mixed in with the loose rubble.
Meanwhile, Tallet reports that outside of those caves are limestone blocks that have been exposed to the weather and elements for untold centuries, and yet the painted glyphs that are allegedly 4500 years old still are clearly legible on those blocks today even though Jenkins reported that similarly painted glyphs were rendered "almost illegible" on limestone blocks in G1's 1st boat pit after being exposed to the open atmosphere for only about 25 years, and that's after they were treated with preservative and protected from the sun and weather by a series of overlying boards.
To support his hypotheses, Tallet often relies on oddly vague quantifiers such as "very large" deposit, "large" storage jars, "large" pebbles, "large" blocks of limestone, "large" anchors", :"large" number of accounts, "large" amount of copper, "several" dozens of jars, without offering any specifics. This is a difficult standard to accept as a basis for drawing important conclusions from such archeological findings.
I think we should wind down this debate and agree to disagree.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Sep-16 22:37 by Origyptian.