> ...You have no idea if
> they were ever "repurposed" and are just making up
> whatever. And isn't it odd that after all this
> "pillaging" you keep claiming went on the only
> stuff left over were OK artifacts? Weird.
> Again-where does he say they were "breached and
> pillaged" after they were closed and abandoned in
> the 4th Dynasty (possibly beginning of the 5th)
> let alone as you now say he claims says Wadi
> al-Jarf was in "active use which exceeded a full
For that matter, you have no idea whether those galleries were actually ever "closed and abandoned" in the 4th Dynasty. This is a speculation presented by Tallet based on scant evidence. As far as I can tell from the literature, all of those 30 galleries at el-Jarf were found almost completely empty except for some broken pottery, charred wood, and a some tattered segments of papyrus, the latter buried in the rubble at the entrance outside (NOT inside) the gallery (see Fig. 12 in "The Harbor of Khufu.."). If those galleries were emptied before they were sealed, then why bother sealing them with such a "complex and massive closing system" in the first place?
For all we know, the Bedouins likely knew every square meter of that part of the Egyptian desert, and it's reasonable that they were well aware of those galleries. Likewise, they may not have been very respectful of pharaonic property, and so they (and/or other local tribes) may have freely pillaged those galleries, and the artifacts that were found in there by Tallet may simply have been what those locals left behind as useless, such as cracked pottery and some charred boat wood (again, the main deposit of papyri was found in the rubble outside of the galleries). How can Tallet be sure that his observation of "layers of occupation" at those galleries isn't evidence of desert nomads after the 4th Dynasty, and that the Old Kingdom artifacts found there don't simply represent the final stage of a much longer (e.g., earlier) occupation/use of those galleries?
That aside, the first clue that the galleries were "breached" (if they ever really were sealed) was Tallet's statement "In each case it was possible to recognize at the entrances the remains of a complex and massive closing system.". He certainly doesn't describe any closure system as intact. He never states he had to break the seal formed by the portcullis system, or even move any portcullis stone to gain access to any gallery. All of his photos show a fully breached gallery, i.e., Fig. 3 and Fig. 11 in "The Harbor of Khufu".
The second clue that the galleries were breached long ago was Wilkinson's observation with Burton in 1832: "Near the ruins is a small knoll containing eighteen excavated chambers, beside, perhaps, many others the entrance of which are no longer visible. We...found them to be catacombs; they are well cut, and vary from about eighty to twenty-four feet..." Those "catacombs" were already breached when Wilkinson stumbled on them, and Tallet reframed them simply as storage galleries. If those galleries weren't sealed when discovered by the European explorers in the 19th century, then it's fair to characterize those galleries has having been "breached" since the time of any alleged closure back in the Old Kingdom.
Likewise, in Tallet's paper on Ayn Sukhna and Wadi ell-Jarf, Tallet's photos also show breached galleries. And the same for "An Early Pharaonic Harbour on the Red Sea Coast" which includes this reference to a "portcullis block at the entrance" which doesn't actually block the entrance at all:
...and likewise for Fig 17 in that same paper.
As a sidebar comment, the narrowing at the entrance to the gallery along with the stone that's placed as an "obstacle" in front of the entrance (as seen in the above photo) are very similar to what David Peacock observed at the repurposed entrance to the "Fort" at Mons Claudianus (some distance to the south of el-Jarf, also in the Eastern Desert of Egypt) which was modified to add a "threshold" step and also a narrowing to the entrance in a later construction phase performed by the Romans. Interestingly, Wilkinson (who I think also originally discovered Mons Claudianus) interpreted the el-Jarf galleries to be catacombs that were constructed during the Greco-Roman period since he observed what he considered to be evidence of cremation and noted that the Egyptians did not burn their dead. Whether that evidence of cremation was misinterpreted or lost by the time Tallet arrived is unclear. If the galleries were constructed by Egyptians but were used for Greco-Roman cremation in a later era, this certainly supports repurposing, as does Wilkinson's observation that those galleries already had been breached prior to his discovery of them.
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. Considering that Wilkinson and others stumbled upon these breached galleries in relatively modern times, it's fair to assume many others have visited them over the centuries, investigated them, and took anything they found of any value there. And so to assert that Tallet found those breached galleries in the same condition as the day they might have been closed 4500 years ago (no evidence for that) despite them having been discovered unbreached, and that they housed the same artifacts as back then for all those millennia, is simply unrealistic.
Meanwhile, I have no idea why Dscribr insists those galleries were "UNBREACHED" since all of the evidence indicates otherwise.
Regarding my comment about Tallet claiming that galleries were used for a millennium, that was at Ayn Sukhna a similar harbor/gallery complext located a bit to the north of el-Jarf. Sorry about the mixup.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?