THEORIES AS TO WHERE AND WHAT LAKE MŒRIS WAS.
_Postulates._—There seems to be a general agreement that Lake Mœris
was in the Fayûm, the evidence being conclusive. There is, further,
no disposition shown to question the fact, that the Labyrinth and the
pyramid alongside it, were on the borders of Lake Mœris, and that
the present capital of the Fayûm, Medineh or Medinet-el-Fayûm,
occupies part of the site of the ancient town of Crocodilopolis,
or, as it was called afterwards, Arsinoë.
There seems also to be sufficient evidence for accepting the
conclusion, that the site of the Labyrinth was at the foot of the
Hawârah pyramid.
It also seems to be agreed to accept the testimony of Herodotus,
Strabo, and Diodorus, when they describe the uses which Lake Mœris
served, namely, to receive part of the Nile waters when the river
was in flood, and so to moderate its excesses, and also to return
the stored-up water to the Nile, when its discharge had fallen low
in summer, and so to supplement its deficiencies.
_Statements not accepted as postulates._—These same witnesses made
other statements, which have been accepted or rejected according
to the individual views of different theorists. If Herodotus and
others after him are rightly interpreted as stating that the Lake
Mœris was artificially dug out by human labour, I too must claim
the privilege of assuming that they were mistaken. As pointed
out at the commencement of Chapter II. of this paper, Herodotus
was trying to give an account of what took place more than, at
least, 2000 years before, with no records to help him. Under such
circumstances, accuracy as to the origin of Lake Mœris was not to
be expected in his accounts. Being no engineer, and having a large
belief in the marvellous, he might well have supposed the whole
oasis artificially dug out. The absence of all signs of the earth
resulting from this immense excavation puzzled him, and he asked what
had become of it. He was told that it had been carried to the Nile,
whose waters dispersed it, and this he _readily believed_, because
he had heard of a similar proceeding in another country, where some
thieves excavated an underground passage to a king’s treasury,
and got rid of the earth resulting from the excavation by throwing
it into a river at the outer end of their shaft. This is comparing
small and great with a vengeance. The distance of the centre of the
Lake Mœris excavation to the Nile would have been 50 kilometres
(31 miles), and the quantity of earth to be carried and dispersed by
the Nile would have been at least 50,000 million cubic metres. Such
a task can scarcely be called similar to a simple mining operation.
The Egyptian of to-day, if asked to account for any assumed fact,
will not pause to consider whether the assumed fact is really fact,
but will at once invent some more or less plausible explanation
to account for it. I will give a remarkable instance of a very
generally believed explanation of an annual Egyptian phenomenon,
though it has nothing to do with the Fayûm or Lake Mœris. In the
summer the land surface of the inundation basins of Upper Egypt is
split up into mazes of deep cracks, into which innumerable rats
are seen to disappear when disturbed. On the waters entering the
basins all this cracked area becomes submerged, and the question is,
what becomes of the rats? Again, when the water is discharged from
the basins after remaining in them two months, the rats are found
(or appear) to be in as great numbers as before. Again the question
is, where have the rats come from? The accepted explanation is that
when the water comes the rats turn into mud, and when it retires
the mud changes back again into rats. I could scarcely credit that
so childish a belief was general, so I submitted the question to
a large Assembly of Notables (collected for a different purpose),
and several members came forward and declared they had seen the
rats in the state of semi-transition, when half mud and half rat,
and offered to catch and deliver one to me. I accepted the offer,
but the matter has not yet gone any further.
Returning to the discussion of the statement that Lake Mœris was
artificially excavated, it strikes one as being a senseless operation
to dig out a basin to the depth given as being that of the deepest
part of Lake Mœris, viz. 92 metres, as all the water lying below half
the depth stated could have served no useful purpose, except from the
point of view of aquatic animals that have a liking for deep water.
Theorists lay stress on some features testified to by the ancients,
and explain away or discredit other points of their testimony
according as they support or are hostile to their adopted theories;
or else they give strained interpretations to other statements from
the same motives. Such statements, for instance, as the following
are subject to this varied treatment.
Herodotus, and others after him, state that the circumference of
Lake Mœris was 720 kilometres (450 miles), or, as some interpret,
360 kilometres, according to the value of the stadius adopted. Depth,
92 metres.
The length of the lake lies north and south. It was artificially
made. There were two pyramids, crowned by colossal statues, centrally
situated in the lake, as viewed from the Labyrinth or Arsinoë.
The water in the lake was not derived from local sources, but
was brought in from the Nile by a canal. The lake was between the
Arsinoïte and Memphite nomes.
Crocodilopolis was on or near the borders of the lake, and 9400
metres from the Labyrinth.
Lake Mœris formed an elbow to the west, was oblong, and situate in
the middle of the lands along the mountains above Memphis.
These statements are not in the original language in which they were
made, and may be inaccurately translated, where accurate rendering
is important. I have found for instance in different publications
the two following translations of the same passage in Diodorus:—
(_a_) “A little south of Memphis a canal was cut for a lake,
brought down in length from the city 40 miles.”
(_b_) “And a little above the city he cut a dyke for a pond,
bringing it down in length from the city 320 furlongs.” (Translation
by G. Booth.)
A canal and dyke are not synonymous terms, in all parts of England
at any rate; nor are lake and pond.
Some of the statements are founded also on hearsay when they were
first made, and the ancestors of the present inhabitants of the
Fayûm may, for all that is known, have had as great a tendency to
the widest possible departure from scientific accuracy of statement
in their verbal representation of facts, as it is notorious that
their modern successors have. Hence it is not surprising that human
nature, which has a parental prejudice in favour of any theory to
which it may have given birth, should take advantage of these weak
points to the benefit of its offspring.
We will then proceed to discuss the present generation of theories,
which exemplify this principle.
LINANT THEORY.
The most important of these theories is that of Linant de Bellefonds
Pasha, once Minister of Public Works in Egypt.
His views will be found in Chapter II. of his ‘Mémoires sur les
Principaux Travaux d’utilité publique exécutés en Egypte depuis
la plus haute antiquité jusqu’à nos jours, 1872-1873.’
His theory, which defines the form and limits of Lake Mœris,
appears to have been generally accepted after being propounded,
and still to be the accepted theory with many, who have not, by a
personal acquaintance with the Fayûm and its actual conformation and
levels, corrected the ideas which they had accepted on the authority
of Linant Pasha.
(For the names of places quoted from M. Linant’s writings I have
adopted the more modern way of spelling, as otherwise the places might
not be recognised. For instance, had it not been for the context, I
should not have been able to recognise the village known as Abûksah
in “Bogça.”)
_Linant’s Theory stated._—M. Linant maintains that Lake Mœris
occupied the gap in the hills by which the Bahr Yûsuf enters the
Fayûm, and covered the so-called “plateau” on the south-east
of Medineh, the encircling bank commencing at its north-east
end at Edwah, and being continued through el-Alam, Biahmu,
Zowyet-el-Karatsah, to Medineh. See Plate VII.
The remains of this bank he traced throughout this length, and saw
evidences of it again to the S.S.E. of Medineh.
Thence he _supposed_ that it must have passed on to Abgig (“je
suppose qu’elle a dû passer à Ebgig”), el Sawafnah, Atamnah,
and Gaafrah. Then he found it again constructed in masonry over a
great length not far from the village of Miniet-el-Hêt. It continues
afterwards (according to Linant Pasha) up to Shêkh Abu Nûr, and then
takes the direction of “el Gharak in the plain,” where it is no
longer well defined (“où elle n’est plus bien marquée”). He
notes that at Bahr Nezlah its height (that is, the wall’s,) is
12 metres.[2] He then makes the bank pass on from the south-east
of Sélé (?) to between Shêkh Danial and Tutûn, in an easterly
direction, and turn to the north by Kalamshah, El Nedlé (?), to
the Bahr Yûsuf, then following the Bahr Yûsuf up to Dimishkîn,
turning along the banks at Lahûn (Bahlawân and Gedallah), it again
returns to the west near Hawârat-el-Maqta, and, following the old
canal Wardan, passes the Hawârah pyramid at the village of Dimu
and joins the commencement of the bank at the south-east of Sêlah
(Sélé).
[Illustration: PLATE VII.
MAP SHOWING LINANT’S SUPPOSED LAKE MŒRIS.
From Rawlinson’s ‘Egypt,’ 1881.]
All the land enclosed by this bank represents the site of Lake Mœris
according to the theory of Linant de Bellefonds Pasha.
I give here a map, Plate VII., copied from one of Mr. Cope
Whitehouse’s papers on the Wadi Raiân, being a reproduction from
the ‘Egypt’ of Canon Rawlinson, as it is a convenient one for
demonstrating what this theory is. Linant’s Lake Mœris is shown
on this map as a dark patch occupying what M. Linant calls the high
plateau. The part where “LAKE” is printed is actually the highest
part of the Fayûm, at R.L. 22 to 25, if we except the narrow pass
by which the Bahr Yûsuf flows in. This latter has its land surface
at from R.L. 24 to 26. But the word “MŒRIS” on the shaded area
lies over a depression whose bed is at R.L. 12·00, that is, 11 to
12 metres lower than the land surface covered by the word “LAKE”
on the same shaded area.
The north boundary of this area through el Edwah and el Alam runs
generally along contour R.L. 17·50, 5 to 7 metres below the high
plateau. It is therefore incorrect to speak of the ground represented
by the shaded area as a plateau.
M. Linant’s depth of water in his supposed lake was fixed at
9·60 metres. Its bed must have been at R.L. 21·00, the level
of the rock-bed at Hawârah, and its maximum water surface at
R.L. 30·60. The height of the surrounding bank would have had to
be, on the Edwah-el-Alam line, 15 metres, and at the Wadi Nezlah
(at the initial letter of “MŒRIS” on the map) 20 metres.
Now the country lying between the Linant Lake Mœris and the
Birket-el-Qurûn was said to be irrigated from this lake. Imagine
the state of insecurity for this tract of sloping land, with a huge
reservoir of water standing 13 metres above that part which lies along
the north face of the lake, and more than this above the part along
the west face. When one considers, too, that there must have been
passages for irrigation through this bank, and how dangerous such an
arrangement would be, it is scarcely credible that the collection of
thriving towns included in the Arsinoïte nome would have grown in
such a perilous situation. Imagine, also, the infiltration that would
result on the lands along the faces of this lake. According to the
theory, the Lake Linant, not being of sufficient dimensions itself to
regulate the Nile, was to pass on the surplus into Birket-el-Qurûn
by escapes on the two main drainage lines. Thus the poor fools, who
had settled themselves on the strip between the two lakes, would be
in danger of inundation, both from above and below, and would be in
as bad a plight as Pharaoh’s horsemen in the Red Sea.
A diagrammatic section of the Fayûm (Plate VIII.), as it would have
been when in this unhappy state (fortunately imaginary), will make the
situation perhaps plainer. The diagram, by exaggerating the vertical
dimensions with reference to the horizontals, emphasises the danger
of the situation and shows how improbable it is that such a theory
could be true.
[Illustration: PLATE VIII.
SKETCH OF THE FAYÛM
From Lahûn through Biahmu to Lake Qurûn through the highest plateau,
showing Linant’s supposed Lake.]
It should be noted that the Linant Lake itself covers the richest
land of the Fayûm, namely, that which, being near the first point of
expansion of the inflow into the depression, had received the richest
deposit during the time that the Fayûm was forming previous to the
creation of Lake Mœris; and, further, it should be remarked that the
remainder of the best land round the margins and for a considerable
distance from the Linant lake banks would have been probably ruined
by infiltration. Where, then, should we find the rich lands of the
Arsinoïte Nome, so famous for their produce?
M. Linant objects (and there is, doubtless, weight in this objection)
to the theory of the submergence of the Fayûm by a sufficient
elevation of the waters of the Birket-el-Qurûn, that there would be
no place for the Arsinoïte Nome; and he thinks that by his theory
he has found a place for it between the two rival lakes. The ancient
Egyptians, who lived before our era, must have had prodigious faith
in their protecting deities, or in their department of public works,
if they took up their abode behind Linant’s bank.
Such a peculiar arrangement of land and water as that supposed,
would scarcely have been passed without notice by those who visited
and described Lake Mœris. The Arsinoïte Nome would have been in
some way described as being between two lakes, with a mass of water
impending over it. The danger of such an arrangement in case of
a breach would have been surely noted. Imagine also the condition
of Arsinoë from its sanitary aspect in the hot months of summer,
when by reason of all the water in the Linant lake being utilised,
the bed of the lake would be laid bare at a time when no crops could
be sown on it. But this objection may be met by supposing the lake
to have been excavated to a sufficient depth for water to remain
in it at lowest Nile. But if originally so excavated, a lake such
as this was supposed to be, would rapidly silt up, and M. Linant
supposes it silted up 8 metres, as is shown by his section and
description. Could such a lake have continued in working order for
over 2000 years, as it was supposed to have done? It would only have
done so by means of periodical silt clearances of such magnitude,
that the population of Egypt alone would not have been equal to
the task. Suppose only a metre to be cleared over the whole area
(assuming it a plateau according to M. Linant’s view of it), the
quantity to be cleared would have been 250 million cubic metres, which
would have to have been removed to a mean distance of at least 2000
metres! What would have happened to Linant’s supposed Arsinoïte
Nome, and the west bank of the Nile irrigated by his Lake Mœris,
while these clearances were going on?
The perimeter of Linant’s supposed lake is 96 kilometres (60 miles)
measured on the map published in the atlas accompanying the book
containing M. Linant’s theory. Its _correct_ area is 257,800,000
square metres. But M. Linant himself gives the area as 405,479,000
square metres, which is 57 per cent. in excess of the true area as
taken from his own map (see diagram, Plate IX). The paragraph in
which this figure is given concludes: “Mais nous avons vu quelle
foi on devait avoir dans les dimensions données par les auteurs
anciens.” Need he have added “anciens”? M. Linant himself is
the greatest argument for placing no faith in reported dimensions of
lake areas, since, with his own map before him, and the limits of his
lake definitely determined, he was unable to avoid so large an error.
The author of this theory states that it satisfies all the conditions
required for its recognition as Lake Mœris. I think it will be
found to satisfy very few, and obviously not the two following,
regarding its size and depth.
It is generally stated that Herodotus gave the circuit of Lake Mœris
as 450 miles, or 720 kilometres. The perimeter of M. Linant’s
lake is about 110 kilometres, but he makes the difference less by
adopting M. Jomard’s opinion, that Herodotus’ “stade” was
“le petit stade,” whereby the circuit of the lake, according to
Herodotus, would be 360 kilometres. Even thus we can scarcely admit
this condition to be satisfied. But M. Linant, as we have seen,
has no faith in the dimensions given by “les auteurs anciens,”
but though his want of faith may be justified, his statement that
this condition is satisfied is not.
[Illustration: PLATE IX.
OUTLINE OF THE LINANT “LAKE MŒRIS.”
Taken from Linant’s own Map.]
Another condition which M. Linant’s lake is far from satisfying, is
the depth, which Herodotus gives as 92 metres. Linant makes his lake
depth 9·60 metres, assuming that his lake area occupies a plateau,
which it does not. The greatest depth of his lake, according to the
actual levels of the ground included in it, would be 18·60 metres,
against the 92 metres of Herodotus. This condition therefore is
not satisfied.
_Faulty Foundations on which the Linant Theory was built._—Had
Linant Pasha had before him a contoured map of the Fayûm, I believe
he would never have enunciated his theory. The Minia wall made
an undue impression on him and has been his stumbling-block. He
clearly traced the remains of a large bank from Edwah to Biahmu,
and less plainly to Medineh, but after Medineh he found _no traces_
of a bank, but being desirous of connecting up with the big wall,
_supposed that it must have_ passed through certain villages leading
to it. This wall, closing a valley encircled by contour R.L. 15·00,
was probably constructed at a much later date, or at any rate
independently of the bank of which the remains are found on the other
side of Medineh, and for a different purpose. If this wall had been
originally higher there would be remains of the high parts at each
end, where breaches had not carried away the original wall. This we
do not find, but on the contrary, the crest of the wall is at one
uniform level from end to end, and appears to have been added to,
instead of taken from. From an examination of the abutments of the
bridge, built in the line of the wall, the original wall appears to
have been constructed of stone, and to have been widened subsequently
by an addition of coarse brick masonry of rough bricks, in mortar
made of lime and clay, probably with the view of obtaining width
enough to carry an aqueduct along the top of the wall. None of the
masonry is sufficiently good for this purpose, and so, no doubt,
the water, leaking from the aqueduct channel, gave rise to breaches
in the wall, of which the signs are evident in the blocks of masonry
lying scattered about on its down-stream side.
The cross-section of the wall, Plate X., gives its dimensions at
a point near the bridge, where its height is greatest. Below this
cross-section another of the Edwah-Biahmu bank is given for a
comparison of the levels of wall and bank.[3]
_Erroneous Data employed by Linant._—In Linant Pasha’s Atlas,
published with his Mémoires, is to be found an extraordinary section
of the Fayûm from Lahûn to Birket-el-Qurûn, in which the land
from Lahûn to Medineh is shown as being higher than the land of
Beni Suef on the Nile Valley side of Lahûn.
I reproduce his section on Plate XI., and below it I give a section
showing the actual levels. As Linant appears to refer all his levels
to the rock bed at Hawârat-el-Maqta, which he makes 32·80 metres
above sea, whereas it is really 21·00, it is necessary before
comparison to apply a correction of - 11·80 to all his levels.
[Illustration: PLATE X.
CROSS SECTION OF THE MINIA WALL.]
[Illustration: CROSS SECTION OF THE EDWAH-BIAHMU BANK AT A POINT
WEST OF EDWAH.]
Comparing the figures after correction with those of the “actual
section,” it will be found that Linant puts the level of the
Beni Suef lands 5½ to 7 metres too low, and that of his first
plateau 6 to 8 metres too high, with reference to the rock bed
at Hawârat-el-Maqta. According to the corrected figures his Lake
Mœris level would be + 32·00, but how he gets it to that level
it is difficult to understand, inasmuch as he says that his lake is
filled by the Bahr Yûsuf, whose high-water level is shown 4½ metres
lower. (The Birket-el-Qurûn level, after applying the correction,
becomes 40·80, which must have been about its correct level in
Linant’s time.)
[Illustration: PLATE XI.
SECTION OF THE FAYÛM THROUGH LAHÛN-MEDINEH-SANHUR. By M. LINANT.]
[Illustration: ACTUAL SECTION ON THE SAME LINE.
_Note._—The water-level of the Bahr Yûsuf from Lahûn to Medineh
is a little below country level throughout.]
I give another instance of error with reference to Linant’s
conception of the first plateau. Writing of the bank from Edwah to el
Alam, he states that the land to the south of this bank was about 2
metres below its crest, and to the north of it from 8 to 9 metres,
which difference, he says, is explained by the deposition of silt
in the interior of the basin formed by the bank, as is always seen
elsewhere at all the banks of the inundation basins of Egypt. This
great difference of level of the country surface on either side of
the bank would have been very suggestive in a sense favourable to
M. Linant’s theory had the difference of level been a fact instead
of a fiction. The cross-section of the bank given on Plate X. shows
its actual state with reference to the land on each side of it.
It seems scarcely necessary to discuss further a theory that was
based on such erroneous data, but as the data were not known
to be erroneous, and Linant propounded his theory with an air
of authority, it has had considerable success in getting itself
accepted. Guide-books, and even books used as school text-books on
Egyptian history, show that his theory has been hitherto judged the
correct one.
It is, however, satisfactory to find that in the fifth edition
(1890) of ‘Ancient Egypt’ by George Rawlinson (The Story of
the Nations Series) the exact size and position of “Amenemhat’s
reservoir” is admitted to be _sub judice_, and it would appear that
this desirable attitude is the result of a challenge of Linant’s
theory by Mr. Cope Whitehouse, who is reported as believing that
the water was freely admitted into the whole of the depression
(i.e. the Fayûm), which it filled, with the exception of certain
parts, which stood up out of the water as islands from 150 to 200 feet
high. Nevertheless, in spite of this new attitude towards the Linant
theory, the map representing Linant’s Lake Mœris is to be found
at the end of the book, without any remark to prevent readers from
being misled by it, the map being described as “Map of the Fayoum,
showing the Birket-el-Keroun and the artificial Lake Mœris.”
(Plate VII. is from an earlier edition.)
The Linant theory, examined in the light of the more accurate
knowledge gained of the physical features of the Fayûm, and tested
by the application of figures to determine its possible performances,
can no longer stand, but falls to pieces; and the wonder is that,
based as it was upon erroneous data and propped up by no solid
support of facts, it stood so long. It may be said of it, to the
credit of its author, that it was ingenious, but not that it was true.
Since writing the foregoing concerning the Linant theory, Mr. Cope
Whitehouse has kindly lent me his first papers on the subject, the
earliest paper, that I had previously seen of his writings, being
that which was read by him at the Manchester meeting of the British
Association, September 2nd, 1887. I now find that he has been before
me in stating many of the arguments I have used against the Linant
lake theory, but it is satisfactory to find that we have independently
arrived at the same conclusions, though by no means surprising, as I
believe that any one, with the same amount of personal acquaintance
with the Fayûm, would be naturally led to hold the same views of this
fantastic theory. As early as 1882, Mr. Cope Whitehouse pointed out
that the Linant lake satisfied none of the conditions which a lake
professing to be Lake Mœris must satisfy, and he concluded one of
his papers with a remark expressing his conviction that, when Lake
Mœris shall be recognised by the light of discoveries yet to be made
through further research, the site of the ancient lake will in no case
be found to be that of the reservoir of M. Linant de Bellefonds Pasha.
Mr. Whitehouse, at the same time as he lent me his papers of 1882,
also lent me a copy of Dr. G. Schweinfurth’s letter to Paul
Ascherson on a journey undertaken in the depression of the Fayûm
in January 1886, in which letter I find I am anticipated again in
a footnote on this theory, which gives an argument not given by
Mr. Cope Whitehouse, and runs as follows:—
“Here it must be mentioned that one of the most important points
on which Linant grounds his Mœris theory is the Dams[4] which has
proved quite fallacious. The dam at Adwa (Edwah) geology shows to
be layers of gravel; the stone dam at Minia is, on the other hand,
a weir for the Bahr-el-Wady, and is evidently throughout its whole
length of later date. Besides, it fills up only the deep curves of
the ground, and has no continuation on the rising grounds.”
Dr. Schweinfurth, as well as Mr. Whitehouse, had thus pointed out
the weakness of the Linant theory, but still we find it living and
_taught_ as a true theory so late as 1890; and this is my excuse for
repeating the arguments which have not yet succeeded in overwhelming
it, notwithstanding its feebleness, so much support does it derive
from its parent being a reputed authority.
But we have public acceptance of the Linant theory so late as 1892,
and by so eminent an Egyptologist as Brugsch Pasha, who communicated
his views to the Société Khédiviale de Géographie in a paper
read in Cairo, on the 8th April, 1892, the title of the paper being
“Le Lac Mœris d’après les monuments.” A quotation from this
will show that he accepts the Linant theory.
“De nos jours, les traces visibles de cet immense bassin d’eau
(le lac Mœris) ont disparu et les savants les plus distingués se
sont en vain efforcés pendant longtemps de retrouver ses anciennes
limites sur le sol moderne de la province du Fayoum.
“L’opinion la plus généralement acceptée au sujet de sa position a
Linant pacha pour auteur. C’est lui qui, le premier, a rejeté l’idée de
reconnaître le bassin du lac Mœris dans le Birket-el-Kouroun de nos
jours, c’est-à-dire ‘le lac des Cornes,’ situé comme on sait, à l’ouest
du Fayoum. Suivant les recherches très minutieuses de l’illustre savant,
il faudrait, au contraire, se diriger vers le côté oriental de la
province susnommée, et, notamment, vers les plateaux bien connus de
Hawara et de El Lahoun, où deux pyramides construites à l’époque de
la XIIme dynastie (vers 2500 a. J.C.) excitent encore la curiosité
des voyageurs.
“H. Lepsius, mon savant compatriote qui, il y a presque cinquante
ans, a eu l’occasion d’examiner sur les lieux les résultats
obtenus par Linant pacha, n’a pas hésité à déclarer dans un
Mémoire spécial que le savant français avait fait la découverte la
plus brillante et la plus indubitable quant à la véritable position
topographique du fameux lac Mœris. Les doutes qu’il exprima à
la même occasion ne s’appliquaient qu’à l’extension du lac
vers le nord.
“Depuis Linant et Lepsius, aucun savant sérieux, du nombre des
géographes et des Égyptologues, ne s’est opposé à l’opinion
émise par ces deux illustres auteurs.”
Apparently Brugsch Pasha does not class Dr. G. Schweinfurth, Mr.
Flinders Petrie, and Mr. Cope Whitehouse as “savants sérieux,” for they
have expressed themselves as opposed to the Linant theory.
Lieut.-Colonel J. C. Ross, C.M.G., late Inspector-General of Irrigation,
Egypt, justly renowned for his power of comprehension of the levels of
any part of the country, which he studied professionally, at one time
gave much of his attention to the Fayûm, and especially to that part
which was known as Hod-el-Tuyûr, and which is the depression embraced in
the area which Linant calls a plateau and in which he localised his
supposed Lake Mœris. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction,
that Colonel Ross’s examination of the ground in question was much more
thorough and more prolonged than that of M. Lepsius; but whereas the
latter did not hesitate to accept Linant’s theory and to style it the
most brilliant and certain discovery as regards the position of Lake
Mœris, Colonel Ross on the contrary rejects Linant’s theory and
thinks that the lake was north of the Edwah bank and not south of it.
Mr. Petrie has also clearly expressed the same views as Colonel Ross
on this point.
I too have had advantages of studying the ground itself and the way
the water runs, such as few have had, and have come in for the legacy
of Colonel Ross’s levellings and maps.
The names of Linant and Lepsius do not therefore carry with them
sufficient authority to override the facts, which are ascertained to
be such by a more thorough examination of the country and a better
knowledge of the physical features of the province.
Irrigation officers may, perhaps, not be classed as “savants,”
but they have at least as much right to be heard as any other body of
experts on such a subject as Lake Mœris, which is more than anything
else an irrigation question, and one that has especial interest of
a more or less practical nature at this time, when the question of
the construction of Nile reservoirs for the storage of the surplus
waters of the Nile is under consideration.
COPE WHITEHOUSE THEORY.
Mr. Cope Whitehouse, who has a personal acquaintance with the
Fayûm, and has studied the question of Lake Mœris, though with
a prejudice in favour of giving the Wadi Raiân a leading part,
would possibly have been inclined to hold the same views as I do,
had it not been for his anxiety to recommend the Wadi Raiân for
future use by magnifying its imaginary past performances. But as
his views about the Wadi Raiân are the essential and distinctive
part of his theory, we do not agree.
For ten years Mr. Whitehouse has been brooding, as the faithfullest
of mothers, over his theory, looking for a practical project to be
hatched therefrom, but, as time passes, he begins to show signs of
impatience, and fears lest his egg be addled. The possibilities as
to what the chick may be when it appears, are set forth in Chapter
V. of this paper, for I cannot but think that the egg is a good one.
Mr. Whitehouse believes that in prehistoric times, before artificial
works of control were made, the Nile flowed into and submerged the
whole Fayûm, which was filled at high Nile, and that when the flood
subsided, the return flow, that took place from the Fayûm to the
Nile, prolonged the period of inundation by at least two months. He
also believes that the river flowed in a single channel along the
eastern desert.
So far most of us who have our theories about the Fayûm travel
together, with but small differences on the way. But after this our
roads diverge, and each thinks the road he has selected leads to
Lake Mœris. But they cannot all go there.
Leaving prehistoric times, and coming to the period of ancient
history, Mr. Whitehouse holds that there were two lakes. At first the
northern lake, the Fayûm, was a lake and marsh serving as a backwater
to the Nile, while the southern, the Wadi Raiân, was dry. So far I
agree with him, but now we part company. Subsequently, he imagines,
engineers of an alien race diverted the flood waters into the dry
Wadi Raiân to the south-west and evaporation dried up the Fayûm,
which was then irrigated by a system of canals. The Wadi Raiân
basin becoming, full served as a reservoir, and was, according to
Mr. Whitehouse, the “Mœridis Lacus” of Ptolemy.
Later on, in 1890, Mr. Whitehouse explains his views in terms which
are not quite in agreement with the foregoing, for he then supposes
that the natural backwater of the Nile included the Fayûm and Wadi
Raiân (with its minor basins Wadis “Safir” and “Lulu”) at
one and the same time, and that these combined basins were filled
to the level of high Nile, which he puts at R.L. 30·00.
I think, however, his present views are, that at first the Wadi
Raiân formed part of the Lake Mœris of Herodotus, of which the
Fayûm was the main part; and that afterwards the Wadi Raiân alone
formed the “Mœridis Lacus” of the Ptolemaic maps, the Fayûm
having been brought under cultivation, after its waters had been
dried up by evaporation.
As the Wadi Raiân is the prominent feature of this theory, I will
give here in full Colonel Western’s official description of it:—
_Description of the Wadi Raiân._—“This valley or depression in
the Libyan Desert, discovered by Mr. Cope Whitehouse in 1886 (really
three or four years earlier), lies immediately to the south-west of
the Fayoum Province, but separated from it by a range of low hills,
2 kilometres in width and with heights of about 40 metres above
sea-level. Two passes, however, leading from the Gharak basin, with
level of + 26 metres, have been found in this dividing range and,
except for these two passes or entrances, the Wadi is everywhere
bounded by hills of at least + 36 metres.
“The soil of the Wadi is for the most part composed of desert sand
and pebbles overlying in places a yellow clay, but this desert sand
is for about one-sixth of the area hidden by drifting sand-hills or
ridges rising some 5 to 10 metres above the general plain.
“Towards the south of the Wadi there are two fresh-water springs;
and near these a few date-trees and some brushwood grow.
“The deepest level of the Wadi Raian reaches 40 metres below
sea-level.
“To the east of the Wadi, and connected at a level of + 55, is
the Wadi Muellah, a valley about 1½ kilometres wide and 7 long. Its
lowest depression is at + 25.
“In the Wadi Muellah there are ruins of ancient buildings, and a
fair amount of coarse vegetation near them.
“Another small depression, also connected with the Wadi Raian,
has been found lying to the south of the Gharak basin of the Fayoum,
and only separated by a ridge at level + 35, and 1 kilometre in
width. This depression is some 10 kilometres in length by 4 mean
width, and has a bottom at about + 15 metres.”
Now, there is no evidence whatever that the Wadi Raiân had ever
any possible communication with the Nile except by way of the
Fayûm depression through the two gaps in the encircling walls of
the Wadi, the sills of which are stated by Colonel Western to be at
R.L. 26·00, but which later surveys, not yet published, show to be
one at R.L. 26·00, and the other at R.L. 27·00. The Wadi Muellah,
on first inspection of the map, appears to offer the most likely
line of communication with the Nile Valley, but an examination of
this Wadi at its upper end towards the Nile Valley gives no evidence
of any such communication having ever existed.
What seems a conclusive proof that the Wadi Raiân was never in
_direct_ communication with the Nile Valley, is the total absence
of all trace of Nile deposit within the limits of the depression.
If the muddy waters of the Nile in flood entered a lake 60 to 70
metres deep, the silt would be deposited and remain, for the return
flow from the uppermost stratum back into the Nile would disturb none
of the Nile mud brought in. After a long succession of such annual
deposits, the depth of deposit would be considerable. In the Fayûm
entrance we find such a deposit up to R.L. 25·00, and it is to be
noted that the Wadi Raiân was supposed by Mr. Cope Whitehouse to
have been in working order, as Lake Mœris, after the Fayûm ceased
to be so, and therefore there would have been less time for the
disappearance of the Nile deposit of the Wadi Raiân than of that
of the Fayûm.
In the Wadi Raiân, Nile deposit has _not_ been found, though eagerly
looked for. I think this fact is fatal to Mr. Cope Whitehouse’s
theory of a _direct_ communication between the Wadi Raiân and the
Nile or Bahr Yûsuf.
Dr. Schweinfurth thus expresses his views as regards fresh-water
deposit in the Wadi Raiân:—“The basin (Wadi Raiân) exists,
but it comes from geological time, does not belong to the Nile,
and offers nowhere in its tracts at some distance from the Fayûm
any trace of a fresh-water formation. . . .
“The traces of a settlement of water and layers of Nile earth which
are said to exist in some parts of the depression are certainly
absent. The grey clay-layers of the old sea with shells of fresh
water, innumerable fish vertebras, bones of tortoises, &c., are not
to be overlooked where they exist. I could prove such fresh-water
formations on the road from Talît over Raiân and Medinet-el-Bahrl
(27 kilometres to the west of the actual lake) only at a distance
of 8 kilometres from the lake (Birket-el-Qurûn). The yellow Eocene
marls with stripes of erosion, results of the wind, moving sand,
and of periodical rains, are not to be confounded with these lake
formations. A man who does that will find traces of old water and
Nile earth everywhere in the deserts of Egypt.”
Later on in the same letter he says that the question, whether
fresh-water formations exist in the basin of Raiân or not, is to
be answered in the negative.
But supposing an _indirect_ communication with the Nile by way of the
Fayûm Lake, it is easy to understand that no Nile deposit would be
found in the Wadi Raiân, even if it had been thus repeatedly filled,
because the top water only would begin to spill over into it after the
Fayûm Lake level had risen above R.L. 26·00, and after the water
had travelled at an extremely low velocity to a long distance from
the point, at which it first spread itself out in the Fayûm Basin.
But I regret, for the sake of Mr. Cope Whitehouse’s feelings,
that even this cannot be admitted to have taken place, for in
every situation where Nile water has been, fresh-water shells of
distinct species are always found, and their total absence in the
Wadi Raiân is sufficient proof to geologists that Nile water has
never been there.
To the conclusion that the Wadi Raiân was never in _direct_
communication with the Nile must therefore be added this further
conclusion, that the Nile water _never_ entered the Wadi Raiân _at
all_, even by the only possible entrances over the sills on the side
of the Fayûm Lake.
Mr. Cope Whitehouse has not distinctly stated how he supposes the
Wadi Raiân was put into direct communication with the Nile, but I
believe there are only three possible theories, each one without a
particle of evidence to support it. One theory supposes a connection
along the bed of the Wadi Muellah, another a tunnel through the
hills dividing the depression from the Nile Valley, and the third
a hill-side canal fed from the Nile waters entering at Lahûn and
carried along the south slopes of the Fayûm.
In the absence of any evidence witnessing to the previous existence
of such connections, and in the face of the fact that the Wadi Raiân
contains no Nile deposit, I do not think that Cope Whitehouse’s
Raiân-Mœris or Ptolemaic-Mœridis-Lacus theory can stand.
Failing better support to his theory, Mr. Whitehouse has called
the Ptolemaic maps to his aid, and in his pamphlet on the subject
he has reproduced the map of Egypt from the Atlas of Cl. Ptolemy,
of which I here repeat the copy, with an outline map of the Fayûm,
Wadi Raiân, and part of the Nile Valley, taken from ‘Egyptian
Irrigation,’ by Willcocks, and which was compiled from the latest
surveys in 1888 (Plates XII. and XIII.)
Mr. Whitehouse considers that the Ptolemaic map has been most
accurate in giving the exact shape of a lake in the desert, whereas
the representation of the features of the much better known Nile
and Nile Valley is evidently most incorrect, and much distorted in
longitudinal and transverse dimensions.
If, however, any argument can be based on the shape of the “Mœridis
Lacus” of Ptolemy, as compared with existing depressions, it seems
to me that its shape resembles much more closely the outline of the
Fayûm Province, with the Bahr Yûsuf indicated, than it does that
of the much indented Wadi Raiân.
[Illustration: PLATE XII.
EGYPT FROM THE ATLAS OF Cl. Ptolemy.]
Mr. Petrie has furnished me with the following observations on the
Ptolemaic maps.
[Illustration: PLATE XIII.
_Stanford’s Geogl. Estabt. London_
PROPOSED WADI RAIÂN RESERVOIR.
From Willcocks’ ‘Egyptian Irrigation,’ 1889.]
The Ptolemaic maps are built up from itineraries and ship routes,
checked by a few latitudes. Now we know this much from Ptolemy, that
Skiathis, Bakkhis, Dionysias, the Small Oasis and the Great Oasis
were on one route, and that on this route Lake Mœris was passed. This
was the desert itinerary from Alexandria to the Great Oasis.
Using another distinct itinerary from the Nile Valley, the route
passes to Arsinoë (the modern Medinet-el-Fayûm) and Ptolemais
(the modern Talît), and then on to Behnesa, without any connection
being made with the Bakkhis-Dionysias route. Hence it is presumed
that these two routes did not cross each other. It is therefore
concluded that Dionysias can be identified neither with the ruins on
the Wadi Muellah (as Cope Whitehouse identifies it), nor with Lahûn,
and that it was probably on the west of Lake Mœris. Mr. Petrie
(to whom I am indebted for the whole of this reasoning) supposes
Bakkhis to have been at Dimeh (Dimay), and Dionysias somewhere at
the extreme south-west of the Raiân valley.
If this conclusion is right, and if the Fayûm, or the Wadi Raiân,
was the Lake Mœris of Ptolemy, the Lake has been placed too much
to the west on the map, and should have been shown on the east of
the line joining Bakkhis and Dionysias. In any case the Ptolemaic
evidence, when sifted, does not support Cope Whitehouse’s theory,
that the Wadi Raiân was the “Mœridis Lacus” of Ptolemy.
To show what little faith can be put in the identification of
some of the ancient towns with modern remains, I may mention that
Dr. Schweinfurth says of the monastery in the Wadi Raiân, that
it is “evidently the Bakkhis of Ptolemy.” Thus we have this
monastery identified as Dionysias by Cope Whitehouse, as Bakkhis by
Dr. Schweinfurth, whereas Flinders Petrie places both Dionysias and
Bakkhis on the far side of the Fayûm depression. Who shall decide
when savants disagree?
In his papers on Lake Mœris, Mr. Whitehouse makes reference to _two_
lakes, and I believe his theory of two lakes is based on some ancient
maps.[5] I have not seen the map or maps, but I should expect the
lakes represented to be intended for Lake Qurûn in the Fayûm,
and a corresponding lake in the Gharaq basin. The Gharaq basin is
the Fayûm depression repeated on a small scale, and at some period
of its development towards total reclamation from the waters that
covered it, it must have had a lake at its south and lowest end,
corresponding to the Birket-el-Qurûn, but of smaller dimensions.
The Gharaq basin is connected with the Fayûm depression by a gap in
its surrounding higher lands with sill at R.L. 16·00. Consequently
the basin would not have begun to dry up from evaporation till the
Fayûm Lake had fallen below R.L. 16·00, and probably the fall was
not continuous, but, through some accident at Hawârah or elsewhere,
the Fayûm Lake, after falling below R.L. 16·00, may have risen
again and re-drowned the reclaimed land in the Gharaq. This may have
occurred more than once, and have given rise to the name “Gharaq,”
or the “Flooded.”
Mr. Whitehouse, in his latest expression of views, supposes the
Fayûm and the Wadi Raiân were filled to R.L. 30·00. I have given
reasons for concluding there was never any Nile water in the Wadi
Raiân. The evidence furnished also by Nile deposit and fresh-water
shells on the Fayûm side of the entrance at Lahûn shows that the
level of 30 was never reached.
The highest Nile deposit near and on the Fayûm side of Lahûn is
at about R.L. 26·00. The highest in the Fayûm near the Hawârah
pyramid, which is on the edge of the Fayûm basin, is at R.L. 24·50
or thereabouts. The highest level of the lake was probably never
more than one metre above this level, and it is therefore almost
certain that the water-level was never sufficiently high to flow
into the Wadi Raiân; and _if_ it ever did, it must have been but
rarely, when extraordinarily high and prolonged Niles occurred; so
that it must be concluded, if my views are correct, that the normal
condition of the Wadi Raiân was then, as now, that of a dry waterless
depression in the desert, and it cannot therefore be considered as
having been Lake Mœris, or a part of it even, _at any time_.
LINANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THEORY FAVOURED.
_Author’s Views of Lake Mœris generally stated._—I myself agree
with those who are of opinion that the Fayûm Province, or depression,
(including the Gharaq Basin and the neck from Lahûn to Hawârah),
was by itself Lake Mœris, and that within its limits and along its
borders was to be found the inhabited and cultivated region known as
the Arsinoïte Nome, which possibly also extended into the Nile Valley
along the course of the canal connecting the Nile with the lake.
The Fayûm then in its submerged state was, I believe, the Lake
Mœris of Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, and Pliny, the modern Lake
Qurûn being the persistent rudiment of this lake, and all that now
remains of its formerly extensive sheet of water. (See Plate XX.)
_Objections urged by Linant against these views._—This is no new
theory. It is found _passim_ before Linant Pasha in 1842 took great
pains to point out its absurdity, but it was his own assumptions
regarding the maximum height which the water surface of Lake Qurûn
could have reached, that created the absurdity. Assuming without
evidence that the villages on the second plateau were all in existence
at the time of Lake Mœris, he limits the level of Lake Qurûn to
the edge of the second plateau, which is the same thing as laying
down that its water surface never rose above R.L. + 10·00.
Having come to this conclusion, he might have spared himself all
his arguments against the theory, other than that which pointed out
that a reservoir in the Fayûm at this level could have been of no
utility in supplementing the low waters of the Nile.
It is, however, instructive to note how he deals with the arguments
against this lake, which his imagination set bounds to, being
Lake Mœris. After a separate review of each condition which Lake
Mœris should fulfil and which the limited Lake Qurûn did not,
he closes his reviews with the remark that “we may then conclude
that Birket-el-Qurûn is not the Lake Mœris.” But he does not
do so _always_. Should the condition be one with which his own
theory is not in agreement, he explains it away or discredits it. The
dimensions assigned to Lake Mœris by the ancient historians evidently
trouble him, and he does his best to discredit their testimony on
this point. After discussing this condition, he does not end his
argument with the usual conclusion that “the present Lake Qurûn
cannot be Lake Mœris,” but he says “an absolute importance must
not be attached to all these measures in order to draw from them
conclusions either positive or negative as to the identity of the
position of Birket-el-Qurûn with that of the ancient Lake Mœris.”
The depth assigned to Lake Mœris also gives rise to the following
remarks, which will afford the means of judging of the value of
M. Linant’s arguments. He states that Herodotus gives the depth
of the lake at 92 metres, and remarks that if the whole Fayûm had
been filled to form the lake, its dimensions would have surpassed
by ten times the greatest given for it.
But as a matter of fact, they do not even _come up to_ the greatest
dimensions given, which are, for the depth 92 metres, and for the
perimeter of the lake 720 kilometres (450 miles), or, assuming as he
does that Herodotus made use of the small stadius, 360 kilometres. Now
the perimeter of the Fayûm is 220 kilometres, and if that of the Wadi
Raiân is added, namely 200 kilometres, the total perimeter becomes
420 and that figure is only obtained by measuring the indentations
of the Wadi Raiân, which is of a peculiar shape.
The depth of the Fayûm Lake, if filled to say R.L. + 25·00,
would be not less than (25·00 + 43·50 + 5·00 =) 73·50 metres,
nor more than 88·00 at the highest estimate.
These dimensions agree approximately with those given by Herodotus,
and are not, as rashly stated by Linant, ten times in excess.
To show with what unfairness Linant deals with statements made by
Herodotus, his arguments about the bricks made for the pyramid built
by Asychis may be noted. It was stated that the bricks were made
from mud brought up from the bottom of the lake. Linant claims this
statement as supporting his theory, as his lake was a shallow one,
and as opposing the enlarged Lake Qurûn theory, as this latter would
be a deep one. It does not seem to strike him that the workmen could
have sought their mud along the shallow margins of the larger lake. He
further argues that one could not reach down more than 4 metres with
poles, and therefore the lake could not have been so deep as stated
by Herodotus, and hence Herodotus contradicts himself! But Herodotus
did not say that the lake was 92 metres deep all over, and that its
shores were not shallow, but that its _greatest_ depth was 92 metres.
Linant Pasha discussed the possibility of the submerged Fayûm
being the Lake Mœris, but rejected the idea, because, to fulfil
the condition of supplementing the low Nile, the water must have
covered the second plateau, and risen to a level above the rock
sill at Hawârah (R.L. 21·00). “Then,” he points out, “the
whole Fayûm would have been only a vast lake and with a height of
water impossible to reconcile with the existence of large towns,
which formed the rich Crocodilopolite or Arsinoïte nomes. The
great quantity of ruined towns, abandoned like Medinet-el-Mahdi,
Medinet-el-Hêb, Medinet Nemroud, Kasr Keroun, indicate, as well
as those which still exist, as Sanuris, Sanhur and all the others,
that this part has never been under water, and they date from the
time of Lake Mœris and of Crocodilopolis.” (Earlier in his book he
states about Kasr Keroun, “Kasr Keroun is a little monument, quite
modern as compared with the epoch of the Labyrinth.” Mr. Petrie
and Dr. Schweinfurth both state that Qasr Qurûn is a Roman temple
or town.) M. Linant continues, “If ever the Fayûm has been under
water, as we have supposed it, it was long before it was habitable
and before the Lake Mœris existed.”
[Illustration: PLATE XIV.
OLD BUILDING ON NORTH SIDE OF LAKE QURÛN,
DISCOVERED BY DR. SCHWEINFURTH IN 1884. EXTERIOR FROM NORTH-EAST.]
Now as regards the modern villages of Sanûris, Sanhûr, and others,
I am not aware on what evidence M. Linant states that they existed
at the same time as Lake Mœris. As regards the old abandoned towns
mentioned, some of them are on elevated spots, and probably were
on the shores of Lake Mœris. When Lake Mœris declined and the
water had receded to a distance from them, they were abandoned for
more favourable sites, less remote from a water supply and water
transport. Probably Sanûris and Sanhûr, and the other villages on
the edge of the second plateau, are the successors in time of the
ancient elevated towns mentioned as ruined and abandoned.
Thus, instead of considering the remains of the old high-level
abandoned towns as evidence destructive of the theory that the whole
Fayûm was filled with water, I consider their testimony distinctly
favours such a theory.
Those towns especially, whose ruins are found on the _north_ side of
Lake Qurûn, would certainly have been built near the then borders of
the lake, as they could have had no possible source of water supply
other than the lake itself. It, therefore, is a matter of great
interest to determine the levels of any ancient towns that may be
found on the north of the lake; and the more ancient the town and
the more remote from the present lake, the more suggestive will be
the facts that may be ascertained with reference to its levels.
Now there are two monuments of antiquity known in such a situation,
namely, the ruins of Dimay (Dimeh or Dimé) and an ancient temple
(if it is a temple) discovered by Dr. Schweinfurth 7 or 8 kilometres
north of Dimay.[6] Dimay itself is 3 kilometres from the nearest point
of the present Lake Qurûn, and the surface of its causeway or quay
at its upper end, near the old town, is 69 metres above the water
surface of the lake (May 2nd, 1892), or at R.L. + 25·44. The south
end of the quay is now about 2·85 metres lower, but it was doubtless
originally somewhat higher than this, as its present is not apparently
its original surface, some of the layers of stone having disappeared.
I had a trench dug against this quay or causeway, at about the
middle of its length, to determine the depth to which the masonry
was carried down.
If this had been merely a causeway, it is not easy to understand
the necessity for so great a depth of masonry. It was therefore more
probably a quay projecting into the water. This quay is 400 metres
long, and its direction is due north and south. The level of the
plateau sloping up to the end of the causeway on the south of Dimay
is from R.L. 13·00 to 17·00; the plateau on the north side of the
ruins is at R.L. 21·45.
The ruins of Dimay are Roman on the surface, but I do not know if
it has been established that below the Roman remains there do not
exist more ancient ones. Dr. Schweinfurth thus expresses his opinion
about this old town: “Dimé seems to have filled the position of
‘tête-de-pont’ in relation to the Fayûm, as in consequence of
its strong position, it afforded a secure outlet and final station
for the caravan road opening out towards the Oasis. That the tribes
of the Libyan Desert must even in the times of the Romans have been
very restless and enterprising, is testified by the numerous similar
fortifications, which in the day of the so-called good emperor,
were erected on all the principal exits and entrances to the Oasis
roads.”
Seven or eight kilometres north of Dimay (magnetic bearing from north
entrance in Dimay enclosure wall 12° east of north) is found the
ancient so-called temple, discovered by Dr. Schweinfurth in 1884. I
give here photographs of the exterior and interior of the building,
as well as its ground plan, that those who are capable of judging
may have the means of estimating from them its probable age. (Plates
XIV., XV., and XVI.) The important level, so far as the subject
of this paper is concerned, of the old town, marked by mounds of
ancient pottery on the south of the “temple,” was determined
on the occasion of my visit. The level of the upper parts of these
mounds was found to be R.L. + 24·58. The pottery was, of course,
spread out to lower levels, but probably the ancient town was built
between the levels of 23·00 and 26·00.
Dr. Schweinfurth remarks that the buildings dating from the XIIIth
Dynasty are all distinguished by the same kind of four-cornered
arrangement as this temple and generally scorn every kind of ornament;
and he notes that the great size of the blocks and peculiar method
of fitting the stones together give it a resemblance in style to
other old buildings. Instead of giving his further description, I
refer to the ground plan and photographs. It is worth noticing that
the north-west room has no visible means of communication either
with the exterior or with the other chambers of the building; also
that the displacement of the stones, forming the upper half of the
chambers on the raised floor, is suggestive of an earthquake, the
upper stones having slid on the lower to a measurable extent in a
north-easterly direction. Cracks in the roofing stones corresponding
with the displacement seem to confirm the theory of earthquake action.
[Illustration: PLATE XV.
INTERIOR OF DR. SCHWEINFURTH’S “TEMPLE,”
FROM WEST END OF OPEN ROOM.]
[Illustration: PLATE XVI.
PLAN OF OLD BUILDING DISCOVERED BY DR. G. SCHWEINFURTH IN 1884.
Height of chambers from surface of raised floor to ceiling
2·65. Scale ¹⁄₁₀₀. Dimensions in metres.]
The object of the building is a riddle. Each of the raised cells
has a recess for a door. “In the thickness of the south wall,
on the east side of the principal entrance, runs a passage half a
metre wide, leading to which, at the south-east corner of the temple,
a door of equally narrow proportions is attached. This passage leads
downwards to the chambers below” (Schweinfurth). Dr. Schweinfurth
came to the conclusion “that the old temple, as well as the original
settlement or formation, is one of the monuments belonging to the
oldest times.”
Concerning the old town he writes:—“In the neighbourhood of
the temple, from south-east to south-west, at a distance of about
500 paces, that is, on the edge of the rising ground, there are
quantities of potsherds lying in heaps here and there. They are of
the most weather-worn appearance, and have formed portions of coarse,
thick vessels. No such things as fragments approaching the pottery
work of the Greek or Roman period are found. The eye of the seeker
sought in vain for remnants of that blue glazed pottery ordinarily
so common, or the long amphoræ of the Greek shape.
“The amphoræ points or ends, which I picked up, were all stumps,
and of an almost cylindrical shape. The corresponding pottery
showed no sign of rings. They were almost entirely coarse, red
clay fragments, with here and there a yellow or black bit, and all
distinctly showed the work of the potter’s wheel.
“Below the scarp of the lowest rising ground no more pottery was
to be found, neither did the marl mounds display on examination
any admixture of manufactured pieces. The heaps of pottery formerly
existing appear to have been flattened down and spread out over a
much wider space by the disintegration and sweeping down of the marl
bed. A similar occurrence may be observed on the few stone walls
yet remaining of the old temple settlement.”
For Schweinfurth’s further remarks see pp. 101 to 107 of his
veloci-graphed letter to Paul Ascherson on his journey in the
depression of the Fayûm, 1886.
The line of levels, which I had taken between this old building
(temple) and Dimay, followed a direct line between the two, crossing
the elevations and depressions given in the list below:—
_From Schweinfurth’s “Temple” to Dimay._
R.L.
Floor surface of raised chamber on left of central chamber 35·506
Pottery mound of old settlement 24·580
First depression on line of levels 9·611
Following elevation 16·521
Second depression 6·096
Following elevation 14·461
Third depression 7·716
Plateau north of Dimay 21·448
On ruined mounds in Dimay enclosure 28·368
Causeway at undamaged upper end 25·438
_From Dimay to Lake Qurûn._
Causeway 25·438
Plateau north of Dimay, upper end 17·000
„ „ lower end 13·270
Fossils plentiful between - 3·500
and - 13·000
Water surface, Lake Qurûn, May 2nd, 1892 - 43·540
These levels I am convinced are correct, as they were taken with the
utmost care, as I myself saw, by Messrs. W. O. Joseph and A. Pini,
who had been in constant practice at levelling. The levels between
Lake Qurûn and Dimay were taken twice over; the first levels,
taken by Monsieur Pini alone, giving a difference of level between
the lake and causeway of 68·952 metres, while the difference found,
when both read, was 68·978.
The levels for the old town near Schweinfurth’s “temple”
having been found to be from R.L. 23 to 26, the theory that Lake
Mœris was a little below the level of R.L. 23·00 is favoured by
the determination of this level. The presence and peculiarities of
the quay at Dimay, if it is such, and the existence of an old town
on the heights where the Dimay ruins stand, if they can be used as
evidence of what the lake level used to be, point to high levels
rather than to low ones, and do not answer to Linant’s appeal to
the old abandoned towns to bear witness in his favour.
In connection with the levels of Dimay and Schweinfurth’s “temple” the
levels of the ruins of Biahmu should be studied. These are given on
Plates XXII. and XXIII.
The top of the highest corner-stone of the enclosure wall, now _in
situ_, is at R.L. 21·59, and, accepting Mr. Petrie’s restoration of
these ruins, the top of this wall, when complete, would have been at
R.L. 23·00, which would seem to indicate that the maximum water-level
of the lake was below R.L. 23·00, but higher than R.L. 17·00, the
level of the ground outside the enclosure. These ruins are referred
to more fully on p. 83 _et seq_.
_Mr. Flinders Petrie’s Views of Lake Mœris._—Having discussed
the theories of Linant Pasha and Mr. Cope Whitehouse, the only
two that I can find stated with any distinctness, and the only
ones that have been put forward by travellers having a personal
acquaintance with the Fayûm, I will, before setting forth my own
reading of the past history of the province and my theory as to its
connection or identity with Lake Mœris, first give Mr. Petrie’s
views, who should be included with the two foregoing theorists,
as a traveller having a personal acquaintance with the Fayûm, and,
in a special line, a very intimate one. I do not think that he would
claim that the expression of his views constitutes the enunciation
of a new theory of Lake Mœris, but only his way of viewing an old
theory with some side-lights of his own added by way of illumination.
The views, that I have adopted, are in general agreement with those
favoured by Mr. Petrie, and as he, an Egyptologist and archæologist,
has thrown light on the subject from his standpoint, I propose to make
the same attempt from my point of view as the Public Works officer
in charge of the irrigation of the Fayûm. The working out of the
problem of Lake Mœris would seem to require an alliance between
a palæontologist, an archæologist, an Egyptologist, a geologist,
and a hydraulic engineer.
The following is copied from ‘Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoë,’ by
W. M. Flinders Petrie, published in 1889:—
“Medinet el Fayûm (Plate XVII.) is the modern town which represents
the ancient Arsinoë, so named by Ptolemy Philadelphos in honour
of his sister-wife; it lies at the extreme south of the old site,
which covers a space of over a mile long and half a mile wide, a
vast wilderness of mounds strewn with pottery. At the opposite end
of the ruins, toward the north, is the great temple enclosure of the
old Egyptian town. Before its name of Arsinoë, the city had obtained
the name of Crocodilopolis, from the worship of the sacred crocodiles
maintained there; and still earlier it was known as Shed, meaning,
apparently, that which is saved, cut out, delivered, or extracted,
referring to the district being reclaimed from the great lake. The
whole province was known as Ta-she, ‘the land of the lake’; and,
whatever may have been the mistakes of historians about Lake Moiris,
there is no doubt that the lake was the main feature of the district.
[Illustration: PLATE XVII.
VIEW OF MEDINET EL FAYÛM,
WHICH OCCUPIES PART OF THE SITE OF THE ANCIENT TOWN CALLED
SUCCESSIVELY “SHED,” “CROCODILOPOLIS,” AND “ARSINOË.”]
“So many opinions have been broached about Lake Moiris that an
account of antiquities in the Fayûm without mentioning it would seem
impossible. So, although my work has not been in that line, yet it
will be well to state what seems to be the truth about it, in order
that some collateral questions should be the better understood. For
the following view of the use of the great dyke I am indebted
to Colonel Ross, R.E., C.M.G., who has professionally considered
the subject. The Fayûm is one of the oases of the Libyan Desert,
lying close to the Nile Valley; and the intervening ground is low
enough for the Nile to pour into the basin. The fall from the Nile
Valley to where the channel widens out into the Fayûm is about 12
feet; and the water flows over the province by canals and ravines,
worn through the rock and its superincumbent mud, until the streams
finally collect in the Birket Kurûn at more than 200 feet below
the Nile level, and, indeed, 130 feet below the sea. The present
area of cultivation is about 20 miles in each direction; but the
whole basin, geographically speaking, is about 40 miles across on
an average. This does not include the secondary basin of the Wadi
Raian to the south, which never had any connection with the Fayûm
basin in historic times, the ground rising over 100 feet above Nile
level between the two depressions.
“In pre-historic times the Nile Valley was full of water to a
far greater depth than at present, probably 100 to 200 feet deep of
water filled it right across. A river of such a size seems almost
incredible, and we naturally should suppose it to have been an
estuary; but this must not be too hastily assumed, as there are
evidences over the whole country of an enormous rainfall, which
ploughed up the cliffs with great ravines; while the bare bed
of the old Nile in the eastern desert at Silsileh is some miles
in width, showing what a large volume of water has filled it; a
lesser stream would have cut down a deep channel in the old bed,
and would never have filled that and topped the rocks to force its
present cut. This pre-historic high Nile is not, however, pre-human,
as I found a palæolithic flint high up on the hills to the west
of Esneh, clearly river-worn. The geologic conditions, then, in the
pre-historic time prove that the Fayûm Basin must have been a vast
lake, connected by a broad arm with the Nile Valley. Thick beds of
Nile mud exist beneath 10 to 20 feet of deposits washed down from the
desert hills; and even this desert detritus is strewn with felspar
and quartz pebbles brought in by the Nile from Assuan, and now lying
high above the present Nile level. As the rainfall ceased, and the
Nile fell, the neck of water was reduced, but it still sufficed as
a channel for the filling of the Fayûm, in all probability, in the
time of the earliest dynasties. The Nile bed has risen, it is true,
4 inches a century by its deposits; and hence at the time of the XIIth
dynasty, when it was down to its present volume of water, it probably
stood about 14 feet lower than it does now in the Nile Valley; but
as the drop to the point of flow into the Fayûm is at present 12
feet below high Nile, and the water-level has risen somewhat there,
it is pretty well certain that the Fayûm Basin continued during the
early dynasties to receive the inflow of the Nile as it had done for
ages before. This, then, was the state in which the great engineering
monarchs of Egypt found the province; a basin full of overflow Nile
water, replenished at each inundation through a marshy shallow inlet,
and with much of its bottom so raised by deposits as to have become
almost marsh ground, like the present lakes about the coast.
“Amenemhat I. is the earliest king of whom we have any evidence
in the Fayûm. He appears to have reclaimed the site of the capital,
Shed, ‘the separated’ or ‘extracted,’ and thus he established
‘the land of the lake.’ The dyke of Amenemhat I. may perhaps be
seen in a fragment of an enormous bank which remains on the north
of the temple area at Medinet. It cannot be part of the temenos
wall, as it is far too thick in proportion; and no king later than
Amenemhat I. would need to place a dam so near to the capital. The
great dyke noticed by Linant—if indeed it be ancient, which some
have doubted—is probably the further reclamation of Amenemhat III.,
signalised by his erecting at Biahmu two great statues of himself at
the projecting corner of it looking over the lake, and flanking the
road on either side. That the water was on the lower and not the upper
side of the dyke, as Linant supposed, is proved by the levels. For if
the area within the dyke had been covered with water as a reservoir,
the Biahmu structures would have been submerged some 12 feet; whereas
there is no trace of deposited mud on any of the upper stones, nor is
the building such that it is likely to have been placed in a depth of
water. (See Plates 22 and 23.) The work of Amenemhat III. consisted
in reclaiming more land, and damming back the lake to narrower limits,
while improving the canals which led in and out of it, so as to render
it more effective in co-operating with the Nile. He thus established
Lake Mœris, and his works gave him the credit of being its founder
in later ages. In the time of Herodotos the lake still seems to
have been kept up to its high level, and if this view be correct,
we ought not to find any pre-Greek remains in the Fayûm below Nile
level outside of the great dyke; so far as is at present known this
is the case. The circumference mentioned by Herodotos as equal to the
coast of Egypt, would have been about 130 miles, against 180 length
of the coast-line; so this statement is but little exaggerated. The
length in stadia is, however, evidently wrong. Apparently under the
Persians or Ptolemies the desire to acquire more land in the Fayûm at
the expense of the irrigation of the Nile Valley, led to restricting
the inflow, and gradually drying up the lake. It was reduced greatly
during the Greek period, as the temple of Kasr Kerûn, of Roman age,
on the shore of the Birket Kurûn, is 72 feet below Nile level; and
Dimeh, a Roman town, is at 69 feet, and has a quay, I am informed, at
about 87 feet below the Nile.[7] The shrinkage of the lake, however,
went on until it has now left the Roman quay 130 feet high in the
air, and the Nile falls over 200 feet before its waters evaporate
from the lake. The present problem is how just to let in enough for
cultivation without any surplus, and so still further reduce the lake,
and increase the area for crops.
“The general level of cultivated land in the Fayûm has not risen
by deposits as in the Nile Valley; the denudation by the rapid
drainage into the lake just compensating the rise by deposit which
would otherwise take place. The evidence for this is seen on the east
side of Arsinoë, where the Bahr Tirseh has cut a clean section of
the mounds, and the undisturbed bed of Nile mud beneath the ruins
is seen to be at just the same level as the fields at present. Also
at Biahmu it is certain that the ground has never been much below
its present level, or the foundations would have been washed out;
nor has it risen much above the level apparently, as the highest
mud on the stones is only three feet over the present soil. The fact
seems to be that it slowly rose while the lake was at a high level,
until it was about two feet higher; and then it has denuded since
the lake was reduced, and drainage set in, until it is now perhaps
a foot below the ancient level of the XIIth dynasty.”
I have quoted Mr. Petrie in full, as he is reputed to be accurate
in his statement of facts, and undoubtedly is so as regards his own
discoveries and excavations.
I must now pass on to my own views, and set them forth in more detail.