> Of course there is no proof that
> any of those galleries were completely sealed off.
> This is Tallet's hypothesis. None of the galleries
> were sealed with such blocks when he excavated the
Where exactly are you getting this assertion from?
blocs de fermeture de la galerie G1, où ils avaient manifestement été
placés au moment de la fermeture des galeries (fig. 4)3. ](1016)
The stone blocks were put in place - with the purpose of sealing the galleries, and concealing them from possible robbers (1016) - when the site was abandoned. There they stayed until the excavations effected by Tallet's team some 4,500 years later. However, it looks as if the papyri might have been disturbed at some time in the remote past, which was undoubtedly the reason why some scraps of the same documents were found in different places:
Ce rangement a probablement été perturbé dans l’Antiquité, des
fragments des mêmes papyrus ayant parfois été découverts à la fois au bas de la fosse et presque à
la surface du sol, sur l’esplanade qui se trouve devant les galeries G1 et G2, probablement en position
de rejet. Cette perturbation du système explique sans doute également que plusieurs fragments
des mêmes documents ont parfois été recueillis à des niveaux différents du comblement final de
cette fosse. (1016, n. 3)
> and while Wilkinson (?) reported having seen
> a small number of them on his own visit to the
> site, he did not report that any were blocked at
> that time either.
Under the impression that the galleries were catacombs, Wilkinson wrote:
Near the ruins is a small knoll containing eighteen excavated chambers, beside, perhaps, many others, the entrance of which are no longer visible. We went into those where the doors were the least obstructed by the sand or decayed rock, and found them to be catacombs; they are well cut and vary from about 80 to 24 feet, by 5; their height may be from 6 to 8 feet.(1832: 33).
> It's certainly reasonable to suggest that those
> limestone blocks were used to seal the galleries,
> but since it's not really possible to age the
> galleries themselves
You have to define what you mean by "the galleries themselves."
The limestone through which they were formed will presumably be somewhere in the region of several hundred million years old.
However, the formation of the galleries themselves is dated as follows:
Les installations pharaoniques, qui ont toutes pu être précisément
datées d’une période très limitée dans le temps (entre la fin de
la IIIe dynastie et le début de la IVe
dynastie, c. 2600 av. J.-C.)
> and since there is evidence
> that more than one culture "occupied" that site
Apart from the disturbance of the papyri referenced in Tallet's report, I cannot find any mention of any occupation of the site post-dating its abandonment.
> it's not known how many cultures may have
> introduced additional components there, such as
> the wooden boat, the boat wood repurposed to serve
> as a slipway leading to the gallery, or those
> limestone blocks lying near the entrance.
Fortunately, Tallet's team of specialists have been able to infer from the archaeological evidence that such artefacts can safely be dated to the reign of Khufu, and are connected with the building of the GP - as emphasised in the publicity for a forthcoming TV programme.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Jan-18 14:02 by Merrell.