situation of Abaris, which determines it to have been placed in the
_Sethroitic_ Nome. For it has been long acknowledged that we should
read it so, instead of the _Saitic_ Nome, as it is in our present text.
This is also shown by the reading of Eusebius, which, indeed, is still
incorrectly written in the Armenian translation[232], but evidently
purports to say, _in nomo Methraite_ in place of _Sethraite_, and by many
other passages in which this town, though without a name, is mentioned
by Manetho, and is placed in the Sethroitic Nome[233]. But even if this
correct reading had not been preserved to us by others, we must still
have rejected the Saitic Nome, because this is situated in the western
part of the Delta, while Abaris ought to be placed to the east of the
Bubastic arm of the Nile.
There can be no doubt about the general situation of the _Sethroitic_
Nome, from the statements of Strabo[234], and of Ptolemy[235], who was
born in Egypt. It lay eastward along the northern part of the Bubastic,
or Pelusaic arm of the Nile. Its capital was Heracleopolis Parva, and
Pelusium, from its position, must also have belonged to this Nome,
although this is never expressly said. Abaris must accordingly be
situated there.
The object also which was to have been gained, by the original founding
of Abaris, directs us to this province, and to its most north-eastern
portion in the neighbourhood of Pelusium. It was to serve as a _boundary
fortification_ against Syria. In all times, ancient as well as modern,
there was only _one_ military entrance from that country. The road
led from Gaza, along the sea-coast by Raphia (Refah), Rhinokolura (El
Arisch), Mons Casius, along the Lake of Serbon, to Pelusium, which
is situated at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. This part
of the Nile, which extended far out towards the east, was the first
within reach; therefore, although the destination of most travellers
lay considerably to the south, the northern circuitous route by this
road was rendered necessary, and for the march of armies indeed it was
quite unavoidable. When _Sesostris_ led home his conquering army from
Asia, he returned by this road. According to Herodotus[236], Δάφναι
αἱ Πηλούσιαι (Daphni of Pelusium) was the place where his treacherous
brother met him; according to Manetho[237] and Diodorus[238], it was
PELUSIUM itself. It is said that from this place the same Sesostris
fortified the eastern frontiers as far as Heliopolis[239]. Hither Sethôs,
the priest of Ptha, came to meet Sanherib, because, as Herodotus[240]
adds, “here was the entrance into Egypt.” In this neighbourhood, at the
Pelusaic mouth, below Bubastis, the Ionians and Carians brought hither by
Psammeticus were stationed undoubtedly as frontier guards, at a place
which afterwards bore the name of Στρατόπεδα[241]. In the strong town of
PELUSIUM, Psammenitus waited for Cambyses, and by losing this position,
lost besides all Egypt to the Persian conqueror[242]. In later times,
the great Macedonian entered by Pelusium[243]. In Strabo’s time, also,
Pelusium, to which point according to him Phenicia extended[244], was the
frontier post in the direction of Syria and Arabia, and the road to Egypt
led through this “inaccessible” country, not only from Phenicia, but
also from the Nabatain Arabia[245]. _Amru_ (_Amr ebn el As_) also took
the same road with his 4000 Arabs, when he conquered Egypt from the side
of Syria, A.D. 639, having first taken the strong town of Pelusium by a
thirty days’ siege; even down to the latest times, we see the Egyptian
armies marching _to_ and from Syria by this road.
It appears accordingly undoubted that ABARIS, which during the time
of the Hyksos, and in the reign of Menephthes, was destined for the
same purpose as Pelusium at a later period, could not have been far
removed from it also in point of situation. To me, indeed, it seems
very probable that it was the ancient name of PELUSIUM. According to
the accounts we receive, both towns were of considerable extent, and
it cannot be supposed that there were several of such a description in
that neighbourhood. No proof is required to show that Πηλούσιον was
not, as the Greeks imagined, formed from πηλός, although the Arabs in
their translation of _Tineh_—_i. e._ _Lutetia_—accepted the quibble.
It is much more probably referred to the Philistine name Pelistim,
which is already proved in the above-mentioned tradition of its heros
eponymos Παλαιστινός, or Πηλούσιος. We must, therefore, explain Pelusium
by “Philistine” or “Palestine-town.” It appears to me that Ewald[246]
has successfully attributed a similar origin to the name of the town
Ἄβαρις[247], as the “_town of the Hebrews_,” _of the Abarim_. A peculiar
historical epoch may, perhaps, be indicated in this change in the
name. Ewald’s searching investigations concerning the history of the
Israelites, have demonstrated that the term Hebrew nation had originally
a far more comprehensive signification than has been hitherto commonly
accepted. It comprised the most south-westerly Semitic tribes[248], and
extended to the gates of Egypt, therefore as far as our frontier town.
But we afterwards find in these very same countries the immigrated race
of the PHILISTINES, who had driven back the Hebrews from that spot.
Ewald[249] does not place this change before the time of the Judges.
Therefore, if our town had formerly been an advanced frontier-post in
the land of the Hebrews, and afterwards in the land of the Philistines,
and was undoubtedly each time filled with a large Semitic population, it
may have exchanged its earlier name Ἄβαρις, Hebrew town, for the later
Πηλούσιον, Philistine-town.
Abaris has frequently been identified with Heroonpolis, by
D’Anville[250], Larcher[251], Champollion[252], Gesenius[253],
Jomard[254], and others. The only apparent reason which is cited for
this opinion is that Stephanus, of Byzantium, quotes the otherwise
unauthenticated tradition, that Typhon was struck with lightning at
Heroonpolis; and that Manetho called Abaris, according to an old
tradition, a Typhonic town[255]. This comparison does not at all
overbalance the distinct geographical statement of Manetho, that Abaris
was situated in the Sethroitic Nome, to which Heroonpolis, as we shall
see, could not belong. That tradition, indeed, seems only to be founded
upon a misunderstanding of Stephanus; namely, upon the unauthentic
information that Ἡρώ was also called Αἷμος. Greek tradition[256], namely,
connected Αἷμος (not a town, however, but the Thracian mountains), as it
did other mountains, with Typhon, and probably, only on account of its
name, imagined that it was here he was killed, and shed his blood.
On the other hand, this tradition about Typhon refers us again to the
idea that Abaris was the most ancient name of Pelusium. Typhon was always
considered as the particular god of the hereditary enemy of the Asiatic
Hyksos. The mythological evidence of this assertion, which is far from
new, does not belong here. But this was, perhaps, the reason why this
god, according to tradition, was also brought into local connection with
that important point on the frontier, the only entrance into the kingdom
of Osiris from the land of Typhon. Herodotus related[257], probably,
therefore, from a native Egyptian tradition, that it was there—namely,
in the Lake of Serbonis, so dangerous to all travellers, which stretched
out directly from Pelusium eastwards, that Typhon, who was struck by
lightning, lay chained; and others, also, make him fly away from Jupiter
out of Syria, as far as Pelusium[258].
But, perhaps, another Typhonic trace may still be referred to Pelusium.
It might have been expected, namely, that the town of Abaris, or
Pelusium, had, besides these signs which were deduced from its origin
or from its population, a real Egyptian name; still more, because we
find that most Egyptian towns had a double name—the popular name which
usually appears in the Coptic and Arabic writings, and the sacred name
derived from the local gods, which the Greeks generally, though not
always, retained in their translations. Πηλούσιον undoubtedly answered
to the popular name of the town. The sacred name, according to report,
could only be derived from Typhon. Now we find the Nome to which Pelusium
belonged always called Σεθρωΐτης, or Σεθραΐτης, not Ἡρακλεοπολίτης, as
we should have expected, since Ἡρακλέους πόλις is cited as its capital.
This denomination necessarily presupposes a town, which in Greek would
have been Σεθρώη, Σεθρώ, Σεθραΐς. Stephanus, of Byzantium, also mentions
such a town, and calls it Σέθρον. Perhaps, instead of reading ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛ, we
should read, with Salmasius, ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲏ[259].
It is, however, extraordinary, that we should find the town which gave
its name to a Nome, only once mentioned. But this is explained, if we
admit that the denomination of the Nome was taken from the sacred name
of a town, which was unfamiliar to the Greeks, as in Διὸς πόλις, Ἡλίου
πόλις, Πανὸς πόλις. If we may now venture to admit, that the beginning of
the name Σεθρώ, signified the god _Seth_, or _Set_, _i. e._ Typhon[260],
it is not improbable that this was the sacred name of the Typhonic town
Pelusium, which had once been of greater importance, and had given the
name Σεθρωΐτης to the Nome.
The only reason which could be employed against Abaris and Pelusium being
identical places, and which is really given by D’Anville is, that it
would have been mentioned by Manetho. But this reason may be used against
every other town, and in that case we must suppose that the enormous
town had afterwards been entirely deserted, and that no traces of its
ruins remained, which is more than improbable. It is more likely that
either Manetho did not know himself to what modern town the ancient name
ought to be applied, which he only met with in old writings, or that he
mentioned it in a passage which Josephus has not preserved. For Josephus
himself at least supposed, that by Abaris, Pelusium was meant, as his
words show in the 29th chapter, where he even puts the last name in the
mouth of Manetho: τοὐναντίον γὰρ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν ὡς ὁ παῖς τοῦ Ἀμενώφιος
τριάκοντα μυριάδας ἔχων εἰς Πηλούσιον ὑπηντίαζεν—(For, on the contrary,
he said that the son of Amenophis, having thirty myriads, advanced to
_Pelusium_)—and Chairemon[261] had no doubt about it, since he does not
name Abaris, but makes the lepers march to Pelusium.
Now, if it is certain that Abaris was the ancient name for Pelusium,
or at any rate was situated in the neighbourhood of this town, it is
impossible at the same time to consider it to be Heroonpolis; but neither
could it be Ramses. On the contrary, both these latter towns are brought
into close connection with each other, even by the Seventy, since they
placed the town of Heroonpolis in the district of Ramses, in which
undoubtedly the town of Ramses must have been situated[262].
Scholars also hold the most different opinions about the situation of
Heroonpolis, it will therefore be necessary to examine this question next.
Strabo[263] says that the town was situated “in the _angle of the Arabian
Gulf_,” and thence people concluded that it must have been situated in
the neighbourhood of the present Suez[264], and on that account assert
that the gulf itself was called after it κόλπος Ἡρωοπολίτης[265], and
cites the statement of Ptolemy[266], according to which Heroonpolis is
placed at 30° north latitude, which corresponds nearly with the present
Suez. These reasons appear to be of great importance. Nevertheless we
cling, without hesitation, to the opinion of those scholars who place
Heroonpolis far more north, namely, on the ancient Nile canal, west from
Birket e’ temsah, in the neighbourhood of the valley Seba-Biar. D’Anville
was also of this opinion, though he was not then aware of the ruins of
ancient towns which are found there. The French expedition pointed out
two of them. Adjoining Seba-Biar, at the west end of this low district,
lie the ruins which are now called _Mukfâr_, and farther west those of
_Abu-Keshêb_[267]. The latter are considered by Et. Quatremère[268],
Champollion[269], Du Bois Aymé[270], and others, as the remains of
Heroonpolis. I am more in favour of those at _Mukfâr_.
With regard to the general situation of Heroonpolis in this country, we
must next remark, that it would be singular if _three_ towns, Arsinoë,
Klysma, and Heroonpolis, had been crowded together at the head of the
gulf, while the ruins of _two_ only are to be seen. But it is a still
more important consideration, that we find the meeting between Joseph
and Jacob placed at Heroonpolis not only by Josephus[271], but also by
the Seventy, who must undoubtedly have known the situation. Heroonpolis
existed in their time, indeed it appears to have been first mentioned by
them. But it was impossible that they could have made Joseph go to Suez,
if he wished to meet his father, who came out of Syria. It must have
been situated on the road from Syria, and they undoubtedly mentioned it,
because in their time it was the capital of that province, which they
considered to be the district of Goshen and Ramses. But the situation
which the Itinerarium Antonini[272] gives to the town _Hero_, which is
Heroonpolis, is decisive, since it places it XXIV. mille passus from
_Thoum_, XVIII. from _Serapiu_, and the latter L. from _Klysma_. But
Et. Quatremère[273] has most completely pointed out that Klysma was
situated at the head of the gulf opposite Arsinoë, as it is marked in the
tablet of Peutinger. But _Thoum_, _i. e._ _Pithom_, was situated on the
Nile, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis[274]. Thereby the situation of
Heroonpolis is placed somewhere near the above-mentioned ruins.
This was a convenient situation for the capital of that part of the
country to which it gave its name[275]. But the province, which extended
as far as the gulf, might have been suitably named after it. The account
given by the Seventy also agrees very well with this, since the road
from the north to Cairo still passes in this neighbourhood[276]. But
the question is, how can Strabo, who places Heroonpolis in the _angle
of the gulf_, be made to accord with this? In consequence of these
different statements, Du Bois Aymé believed he was justified in the
supposition[277], which he has fully stated, that in earlier times the
gulf extended much farther north, and filled up all the low districts
of the now dry so-called Bitter lakes, but afterwards being covered by
sand, withdrew itself within its present shore. I do not think that it is
necessary to believe in such a physical change; and the idea of it seems
to me most completely set aside by the remains of an artificial canal,
more than four leagues in length, which runs from Suez towards the north,
and which was pointed out by the French expedition, for no canal could
be cut where there was sea; the utmost that was necessary was to render
the passage navigable when it was filled up with sand. But the opening
of this canal must have had nearly the same results as those which may
be derived from the belief in the extended sea. The wide basins of the
Bitter lakes were filled by the canal, as well as the adjoining lakes to
the north, and the low district of Seba-Biar, which extends even to the
ruins of Mukfâr. Here first commenced the real Nile canal, which received
its water from the west. Here was the harbour, as Strabo expressly
says[278], in which they embarked for a voyage on the Red Sea. On account
of the natural and extensive shore of the lake, the notion of a sea
voyage was here imparted to the traveller; and, therefore, this part
artificially drawn into the gulf might naturally be called the μυχὸς τοῦ
κόλπου, the innermost angle of the gulf. Strabo, or Eratosthenes, whom he
cites, even says expressly in one place, that Heroonpolis was situated on
the Nile, that is to say, on a canal of the Nile, and yet calls the town
itself at the same time the μυχὸς τοῦ Αραβίου κόλπου (The innermost part
of the Arabian Gulf)[279].
Ptolemy also says, that the _Trajanic river_ (as the canal was called,
which was afterwards cut from Babylon) flowed through Heroonpolis. On
account of the sharp angle so far removed to the east, which is formed
here by the Nile canal and the extended gulf, this provincial capital was
particularly adapted for the more general geographical determinations of
those countries, for which purpose it had been especially used by Strabo,
and earlier, also, by Eratosthenes[280].
With regard to the statement of numbers given by Ptolemy, the longitude
agrees very well with our acceptation, and also prevents us placing the
town still farther west. But the latitudes, according to which Ἡρώων
πόλις would fall under 30° (others give 29° 50′), the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου
(innermost part of the gulf) under 29° 50′, and Ἀρσινόη under 29° 30′
(or 29° 10′, also 29° 20′), certainly contain an error, wheresoever we
place the μυχός, because Arsinoë, which was undoubtedly situated in the
neighbourhood of Suez, is placed 30′, or even 50′, too far south. It is,
therefore, more probable, that we ought only to consider the distances
of the three places from one another as correctly fixed, somewhat in
the order, 29° 50′, 29° 50′, 29° 10′, exactly as they are given in the
codex Mediceus, but that there is an error easy of explanation throughout
the numbers, by which they have all been placed 50′ too far south. For
the true position, according to other proofs, demanded for Heroonpolis
(Mukfâr), and for the μυχός (Seba-Biar), bordering on it, 30° 40′, for
Arsinoë (not far north of Suez), 30°.
Thus the statements of Ptolemy also appear to me to be no longer opposed
to our acceptation. We decide, therefore, for Mukfâr, rather than for
Abu-Keshêb, because the first was in reality situated close to the μυχός
of Seba-Biar, while Abu-Keshêb lay about an hour and a half farther west
on the canal, and not on the lake.
There is, besides, the additional reason, that we believe we have found
in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb the still more ancient town of _Ramses_, which
must have been situated in this neighbourhood, and yet can hardly be the
same as Heroonpolis. The Seventy say that Heroonpolis was situated in the
province of Ramses. Thence follows that in their time at least the town
no longer bore the name of Ramses. This last name, moreover, is nowhere
found except in the Old Testament. The town had therefore undoubtedly
been already forsaken and forgotten, and appears to have been exactly
supplanted and replaced by Heroonpolis, which was afterwards built in its
neighbourhood; whilst no reason could be discovered wherefore the old
Egyptian name of Ramses should have been changed into the later Egyptian
name of Heroonpolis.
But that we may really seek for Ramses in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb is
most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found upon those very
ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of
three figures cut out of a block of granite, which represents the gods
Ra and Tum, and between them the King Ramses II. The shields of this the
greatest of the Pharaohs are repeated six times in the inscriptions on
the back[281].
It was therefore King RAMSES-MIAMUN who built this town, and was
worshipped there, as is shown by this monument, and he it was who gave
his name to the town[282]; for it is not easy to believe that it was
founded by his grandfather, Ramses I., who only reigned about one year.
This leads us to the history of the remarkable canal on which the town
was built. It is known that this canal afterwards served to connect
the Nile and the Red Sea. Concerning this connection, we read in
Herodotus[283] that it was first undertaken by Nekôs, who also caused
Africa to be circumnavigated, but that it was interrupted before its
completion. Darius then took up the work. The connection actually existed
in the time of Herodotus, as we learn from his words. The assertions of
Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny appear to contradict this, who
some of them fix the period of the first plan of the connection much
earlier than Herodotus, since they ascribe it to Sesostris, and some
make the completion of the work later than him, namely, that it was only
finished in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Aristotle[284] says that both Sesostris and afterwards Darius commenced
the work, but gave it up because the sea was discovered to be higher
than the land, and it was therefore feared that the Nile water might be
spoilt by the rushing in of the sea. Aristotle does not mention Nekôs;
it therefore appears that in his day the connection which existed in the
time of Herodotus had again ceased.
We can thus understand why Diodorus[285] ascribes the final completion of
the canal to PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. He makes no more mention of Sesostris,
than Herodotus did. But according to him, Nekôs as well as Darius are
prevented from completing it, lest by that means they should overflow
the country. This does not weaken the testimony of Herodotus concerning
the existing connection. Ptolemy Philadelphus did not only re-open the
connections, but he built an artificial sluice at its extreme point, at
Arsinoë, from which this canal received the name of the Ptolemaic.
Strabo[286] says, that SESOSTRIS began it, but desisted, being afraid
of the higher level of the Red Sea. It was not finished by the son of
Psammeticus (_Nekôs_), on account of his premature death. _Darius_ also
discontinued the almost completed work, because he feared that he should
overflow Egypt; the Ptolemies at length finished the opening, and made
a sluice at Arsinoë. By that means, the salt-water of the Bitter lakes
became sweet, and abounded with fish.
Of the more ancient kings, Pliny[287] only mentions SESOSTRIS and
DARIUS, but he says of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS, that he cut a canal 100
feet wide and 40 feet deep, as far as the Bitter lakes, called it _amnis
Ptolemæus_, and built Arsinoë upon it. He discontinued cutting the canal,
being afraid of an inundation.
Lastly, we must again cite here what has been already casually mentioned
in a former place, that a Τραϊανὸς ποταμὸς is named by Ptolemy[288],
which ran through Babylon and Heroonpolis.
The contradictions which these different statements of the ancient
authors appear to contain, have been frequently brought forward, but even
the full deliberation which Letronne has bestowed on this interesting
subject[289], does not appear to me to have given a perfectly true
picture of the history of this connecting canal. It has everywhere been
forgotten, that the question is not about _one_, but _two_ canals.
The first and the oldest canal was only conducted from the Nile to
Seba-Biar, in an exact easterly direction. This canal was undoubtedly
cut by Ramses (Sesostris), because, as has been remarked, in the
neighbouring ruins of Abu-Keshêb, a granite group has been found, which
represents this king, and which must have stood in the temple of the
place. Letronne, who appears to have been unaware of this circumstance,
is therefore wrong, when (p. 7) he considers the information given by
Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, that Sesostris commenced the connection,
but did not restore it, as a later tradition, only arisen since the time
of Herodotus, in order to enhance still more the name of Sesostris.
This canal, like many others cut by this king, had its own particular
purpose; he acquired thereby a considerable portion of the desert.
But if we consider the especial attention which Sesostris also paid
to ship-building, since he first navigated the Arabian Gulf with war
ships[290], it could not have appeared to him a very strange idea to cut
through the narrow isthmus between the Arabian Gulf and the Bitter lakes.
The Egyptians had for ages possessed the art of levelling in the greatest
perfection, and practised it more than ever in the time of Sesostris,
therefore there was nothing extraordinary at that time in the reasons
given by Aristotle and Strabo why the opening was not ventured upon,
because it was discovered that the Red Sea was too high[291].