> Where exactly are you getting this assertion from?
First, would you mind not just posting the French, or at least accompany it with the English? Of course each of us can separately go through the monotonous copy-paste to put those blurbs into google translation, but why make us do that, especially when you presumably want us to understand the point you're trying to make?
Tallet suggests that there was subsequent occupation after the site was abandoned on the basis of fire pits outside a gallery, burnt boat lumbar inside one of them, and what he interpreted could be changes made to the internal structure of the galleries which involve low 'walls', stone barriers, etc., that might be the remnants of dwellings -- findings that he attributes to a later culture after the original "storage" function of those galleries was abandoned.
I see nothing in any English document I've read by or about Tallet or Wilkinson that would indicate that they discovered any galleries (as defined by Tallet) that were actually blocked by any of those limestones to which Tallet imbues with a "blocking" (e.g., 'security') function. The "Fig. 4" referred to on your citation of page 1016 is simply the photo of the tattered papyrus in isolation on the surface of the ground. There is no photo of the papyrus being jammed between two blocks, nor is there any photo of limestone blocks in their original intact blocking position (ie, at the time the original function of the site was abandoned) preventing any passage by humans. Neither Tallet or Wilkinson reported that any of those galleries had any blocking stones intact when they were discovered, such that humans were unable to enter any gallery before removing any blocks (again, at least in any English document I've read about it). This is likely why so little was discovered inside those dozens of galleries. The blocking function of that limestone is a hypothesis of Tallet, presumably in an effort to reconcile their presence outside the galleries. I certainly consider possible that this was a function of those blocks at some time in the past, but it's still a hypothesis. Likewise, any claims about when those blocks might have been removed if they ever were truly intact and blocking human entrance is speculation.
Tallet doesn't state that the papyri were found between two limestone blocks that were in an intact blocking position when he discovered them. He simply speculates that's what might have happened based on his forensics of the site.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 23-Jan-18 15:45 by Origyptian.