> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> > ...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
> > millennium"?
> 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
> 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.
So your grounds for claiming this:
“Tallet fully acknowledges that those galleries were breached and pillaged untold centuries ago.”
—are that Tallet did not say that they were not “breached and pillaged”. Right. Thanks for that: a perfect example of your extraordinarily arbitrary and biased approach to the text.
“This is a speculation presented by Tallet based on scant evidence. As far as I can tell . . . For all we know . . . it's reasonable that . . . may not have been . . . may have freely pillaged . . . may simply have been . . . How can Tallet be sure . . . the first clue . . . The second clue . . . it's fair to characterize . . . we really do not know . . . it's fair to assume . . .”
See the problem? I’m sure everyone else does. It’s far from clear that you are any judge on the question of speculation. You have a notable blind spot for your own.
The Bedouin, is it? Care to cite any evidence at all of the Bedouin having been there? One identifiable thing? Same for the Greeks and Romans. Not one Latin graffito? Shame! Not exactly Pompeii, is it?
Will you be telling us next that some of the Bedouin (or Greeks, or Romans) had the curious hobby of forging Old Kingdom inscriptions and papyri? Seeing as how you’ve already told us that the painted inscriptions could have been applied “at any time”:
Care to be more specific?
Certainly we have from you the usual excuse of a posited process which conveniently removes all of the “lost civilisation” stuff and leaves only the ancient Egyptian stuff. Can you even spell “ad hoc”?
Where does it say that the photographs you reference show the entrances to the galleries as originally discovered? Seems to me rather obvious that they show them as revealed by excavation. Let us note that you question the galleries having been sealed in the first place, which makes your talk of of the galleries having been “breached” what I called it, melodrama, while the “pillaging” is also what I called it: mere assertion, unevidenced and dogmatic.
Inference from assumed intrusion post-4th dynasty to intrusion pre-4th dynasty (which seems to have been quietly set aside here) is of course entirely gratuitous and speculative.
Past time you stopped trying to bamboozle readers of this board with your empty speculations, Doc.