THE FAYÛM AS LAKE MŒRIS.
Judging then from the evidence furnished by Nile deposit and fresh-water shells, there is nothing to support the theory that there has been any great change in the Nile levels since the waters first found their way into the Fayûm. But whatever conditions of levels and volumes of Nile discharges we start with, we must at some date arrive at the period of present conditions. According to Mr. Petrie, however, there is good evidence (which I will give later on) to support the theory that in Herodotus’ time the Nile levels were 2 metres lower than now, and it is further probable that, at the time of the transformation of the Lake Fayûm into Lake Mœris, the Nile volumes were what they are now. I shall, however, discuss the subject, assuming that present conditions as to Nile levels also existed at the formation of Lake Mœris, and point out afterwards how the difference of 2 metres in the level at the time of Herodotus affects the conclusions.
The formation of Lake Mœris is credited to Amenemhat III. of the XIIth Dynasty, who gained a reputation for making great improvements in the Irrigation Department, and carrying out hydraulic works of immense benefit to the country, about 2500 B.C., or within 5000 years of to-day. Now, 5000 years, geologically estimated, is a very short time, and we may assume, without much chance of error, that he had practically the same general conditions to work with as regards relative levels of land and water and Nile discharges as we have to-day.
The Fayûm Lake would, in his time, have filled and emptied itself, and low Niles would now and then have occurred. But even without the occurrence of a low Nile it would have been observed that during the summer, when the surface of the lake in the Fayûm had reached its lowest level, there was a considerable area of land, formed of Nile deposit, laid bare. A shining light among the king’s subjects may have conceived a project for reclaiming this land from the annual inundation, submitted his project to the king and obtained his approval to its execution.
The problem would be that, while reclaiming the land, the advantages to be derived from a natural regulator to the Nile should not be lost. The return flow which took place from the lake would, while it was uncontrolled by artificial works, be greatest when there was least benefit to be derived from a raising of the Nile water-surface; and least in the summer months, when an addition to the Nile discharge would have been most needed. The effect of the uncontrolled early return-flow might even have acted disadvantageously in checking the fall of the Nile level in December and the following winter months, and thereby delaying the draining of the lands which had been inundated by the preceding flood.
Now, although the amount of water stored in the lake might, according to the project we are considering, become less in quantity than it was before control was introduced, still by husbanding the water till the season of low Nile, when an addition to the Nile was most required, the same benefits might be obtained from the reservoir during the summer months as were felt when the lake acted under nature’s guidance only; and in addition to this, the flood water would be more quickly drained off the inundated lands, and crops be sown earlier, than would have been the case when the return-flow from the lake commenced with the fall of the Nile.
The project would then consist of works for admitting water into the lake until it rose to a certain height and then excluding any more, with the exception of about 10 to 15 million cubic metres a day, which would be required to make good the loss by evaporation over an area of about 1500 million square metres. The same work could be adapted to hold in the water on the fall of the river, and let it flow back when required; or this duty might be performed by a separate regulator. Some point between Lahûn and Hawârah would be chosen to make a bank and regulator to bar the Bahr Yûsuf passage through the hills. Probably a convenient place was found near Hawârah pyramid, close to which the Labyrinth was built.
By limiting the level of the lake to R.L. 22·50, all the area above that level, which is that of the highest plateau in the Fayûm, would be left uncovered, and fitted for cultivation and habitations.
The regulator established and the level of the water in the lake being thereby brought under control, it would be safe to commence the occupation of the reclaimed land.
All this is speculation as to how the natural Fayûm Lake became transformed into the artificially controlled Lake Mœris of Herodotus. There is little to base speculation upon, and therefore the transformation process may be varied within certain limits at the choice of the speculator.
Mr. Petrie’s views, already given at length, suggest a modification of the foregoing, which I will give as an alternative idea.
The natural drainage channel for carrying off the overflow of the Nile, now the Bahr Yûsuf, being situate in the lowest lying lands, would of necessity be kept clear by the annual discharge of the waters from the inundated lands. On reaching the south end of the isolated piece of desert in front of Lahûn, part of its discharge would go east of this island, part to the west. The western discharge would, at Lahûn, either enter the Fayûm, or part would do so and part continue northwards. At the north end of the isolated piece of desert, the discharge, going northwards, would again divide up, some of it continuing to flow in the channel under the Libyan Desert, some finding its way back to the Nile near Wâstah. Under these circumstances the channel north of Lahûn would not be so likely to keep itself clear as the channel to the south of Lahûn. Thus the channel conducting the water to the Fayûm would remain clear, while that carrying the outflow would be less likely to do so. The outflow would also be more within soil (i.e. below the land surface) than the inflow and therefore under worse conditions for keeping its channel open. The outflow channel might therefore deteriorate, and, as there would be water flowing in it during the hot season at a low velocity, reeds might grow and obstruct the water-way. The draining of the Fayûm Lake would therefore be unsatisfactorily done, and the water would stand in it at a comparatively high level till the end of the summer. This would encourage the growth of rushes also in the Lahûn-Hawârah passage, which would check the inflow, and, while preventing the rise of the lake, would favour silt deposit. “This then,” in Mr. Petrie’s words, “was the state in which the great engineering monarchs 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.”
A channel to drain off the water at low Nile and reclaim the marshes would have been the first work to suggest itself, and the necessity for regulators, to prevent any excess of water from entering by the cleared channel, would then have been felt. The flow of water in the drain leading back to the Nile may have suggested the grand idea of utilising the lake as a regulator for the excesses and shortcomings of the Nile.
Amenemhat I., who was a sportsman, and prided himself on “hunting the lion and bringing back the crocodile a prisoner,” may have chosen the point which projected farthest into the Lake (now Medinet-el-Fayûm and Kom-Faris) for the site of his palace and garden. Here he would escape from the pestilential odours that he probably kept about him in his original home, and at the same time enjoy the desert air, cooled by the immense surface of the lake, on which he could indulge his taste for crocodile hunting. The natural attractions which so rare a combination of desert air and open space of water would afford, would probably, under the royal favour, have made the new watering place and sanatorium a fashionable resort for the aristocracy, who would soon have built villas on the borders of the lake along the esplanade of Crocodilopolis, or Shed, as its first name appears to have been.
The modern Helouan, a dry treeless spot on the eastern desert a few miles south of Cairo, found favour in the eyes of the late Khedive, Tewfik Pasha, and became a sanatorium for the Cairenes, to whom a good draught of pure desert air must be a real treat after living in the tainted air of Egypt’s unsavoury capital. Helouan has sulphur springs to boast of, but Crocodilopolis had a fine expanse of sweet water to look out upon, instead of a dry, blinding and scorching desert.
The area above R.L. 22·50, at first reclaimed from the lake between Lahûn and Medineh, would have been about 10,000 acres; and the king and his favourites would, according to nature, have taken possession of it. But there would have been an extensive shore of habitable ground round the margins of the lake and on each side of the canal connecting the lake with the Nile, which would be within reach of a perpetual water supply and with the means of water transport at the door almost of the habitations.
When the attractions of Crocodilopolis and its suburbs became more appreciated and the population increased, the want of a larger area of cultivable land would be felt. There would also be another inconvenience, besides scarcity of arable land, felt by the dwellers in Crocodilopolis, arising from the yearly fall of the water surface. At high water, when the lake was filled up to R.L. 22·50, embarkation and disembarkation from boats might take place at Crocodilopolis itself, but, as the waters of the lake were allowed to flow back to the Nile, and the water level fell to R.L. 20·00 or 19·50, there would be laid bare a muddy margin of 2 kilometres breadth between the city and the water, which could with difficulty be crossed, and if crossed, the depth of water along the edge of the lake would be found too shallow to allow boats to get close to the land. One or both of these wants probably was the cause that led to the construction of the bank from the high land, east of Edwah to Biahmu, and thence, it appears probable, to Medineh. (See [Plate XX.]) The bank from Edwah to Biahmu runs generally along contour R.L. 17·50, and therefore would have been formed in water, probably with material transported from the high lands on the east and south-east of Edwah. This may account for the material of which the bank is formed being different from the land on either side of it, and for the absence of any trace of a borrow pit from which the bank was made. Such a bank, connected with the high land east of Edwah, running along contour R.L. 17·50 and joined from Biahmu to the high land at Crocodilopolis, would have enclosed an area, from which the lake water would have been excluded, the other two sides of the enclosure being formed by the natural ridge at the end of which Crocodilopolis was built, and by the high land connecting this ridge near Hawârat-el-Maqta with the commencement of the artificial bank at Edwah. From the levels of the rock underlying the Nile deposit at Hawârah it seems probable that the entering waters flowed in greatest volume past the Hawârah pyramid, separating the reclaimed tract from the desert on which the pyramid stands. Possibly this was the only channel by which the waters were admitted to the lake, and across which the regulator was built in the immediate neighbourhood of the Labyrinth and pyramid. The present course of the Bahr Yûsuf beyond Hawârah may have been closed and the Medineh ridge connected with the high desert on the left of the Bahr Yûsuf, near the modern head of the Gharaq canal. At present it is so connected, and the connection is only broken by artificial canals cut through it.
Plate XX.
DIAGRAM SHOWING THE LIMITS OF LAKE MŒRIS ACCORDING TO THE THEORY FAVOURED IN THIS PAPER.
Note.—The contours along the N.W. side of the lake are not accurately shown as this side has not been surveyed.
Outside the contour of R.L. 25·00 the dotted surface represents uncultivated desert. Within the contour of R.L. 21·00 the area crossed by parallel lines represents the water-surface of Lake Mœris.
The unshaded and undotted area represents the cultivable land in and around Lake Mœris.
Thus would the second reclamation have been contrived, and it would have added about 7000 feddans of good land to the 10,000 feddans included in the first reclamation.
The Edwah bank, however, does not stop at Biahmu, but (a fact Linant did not remark) continues in its first alignment to Kalabiîn, past Saliîn and Fidimîn, to a point a little to the north of Sinrû. (See [Plate XXI.]) Thence it curves round towards the south, and crosses the Abûksah Railway at a point half-way between Agamiîn and Abshiwâî (Abû Ginshû). At this crossing are extensive remains of an old town on the line of the bank. The remains of several smaller towns are also to be found between the railway and the point in the bank north of Sinrû, all on the line of the bank. From this length of bank other banks at different angles to the main bank seem to have existed; some appeared to go towards Medineh, others towards Abûksah in the direction of Lake Qurûn.
Following the main bank on the other side of the railway along contour R.L. 17·50 or thereabouts, a ravine is crossed, on the far edge of which, in the line of the bank, is a peculiar black mound, formed of layers of cinders or some material that has been blackened by fire. The bank is thence traceable for about a thousand metres more, continuing in a due southerly direction, and then it is lost among the thick plantations of date-trees which commence at this point and extend to Tobhâr.
Plate XXI.
Stanford’s Geogl. Estabt. London
MAP TO SHOW POSITION OF SUPPOSED REGULATORS OF LAKE MŒRIS.
Does it double back to Medineh through Talat and Sinbat; or continue along its contour through Tobhâr, Manâshi, Disyâ, Abgig, and to the desert near Azab? (See [Map] at end.) There were found no traces to show. A further examination of the ground on both sides of the Abûksah Railway has thrown no light on the matter. It would appear that the traces of the bank end somewhere in the triangle formed by joining the villages of Abû Ginshû, Agamiîn, and Sinrû.
I thought it might be possible that, either from near Sinrû or west of Agamiîn, the bank was carried up the slope, at right angles to the contours, to Medineh to close the side of the new area to be reclaimed, but I looked for its traces in vain. But, supposing the existence of this side-bank, the new area, enclosed by the bank joining Medineh, Sinrû (or Agamiîn), and Biahmu, and bounded also by the former bank from Biahmu to Medineh, would add about 10,000 feddans to that already reclaimed, bringing up the total to 27,000 feddans.
The want of a larger cultivable area would thus by these reclamations be partly met.
Now, as the artificial bank was formed along contour R.L. 17·50 (under the conditions assumed), and the water of the lake, as will be shown afterwards, never fell below R.L. 19·50, there would at lowest water be 2 metres depth of water up against the bank, and the most convenient point of embarkation and disembarkation for the inhabitants of Crocodilopolis on their way to Memphis would be at Biahmu, which they would reach by the road running along the top of the artificial bank formed between Crocodilopolis and Biahmu. They would take ship at Biahmu for the north-east corner of the lake, whence the desert route runs direct to Memphis. This is the direct road used to-day by the natives, who journey between Medineh (Crocodilopolis) and Bedreshên (Memphis), the road passing through Tamîyah, the site of which was, at the time that we are considering, 30 metres below water. (See [Map] at end.) It was therefore strictly correct to say that Lake Mœris lay between the Memphite and Arsinoïte Nomes.
The ruins at Biahmu, of which [Plate XXII.] shows the present condition, are not in the line of the main bank from Edwah to Kalabiîn, but about 300 metres to the north of it. It is probable, therefore, that they were placed at the end of a projecting bank, in connection with the main bank, alongside which boats could lie. The two colossal figures ([Plate XXIV.]) mounted on their pedestals would have formed splendid landmarks for ships crossing from the north shore of the lake.
Plate XXII.
BIAHMU RUINS.
![[(Large-size)]](#8796510106779394573_i24_large.jpg.id-4546127479048124741.wrap-0.html.html){kind=link}
Thus we have a vast lake of about 1600 million square metres of water surface, and an area of 27,000 feddans (acres) reclaimed from it, with Crocodilopolis in the reclaimed area, and the Hawârah pyramid and the Labyrinth on the shores of the lake at the point where the waters entering the lake were controlled. ([Plates XX.] and [XXI.]) This, I believe, was the Lake Mœris of Herodotus and of those who confirmed his testimony, and Mr. Petrie, as I have shown before, holds the same general views.
But his theory, that the two pyramids, which Herodotus stated stood about the middle of the lake, were identical with the two colossi of Biahmu, of which the present ruins are all that is left, does not appear to me a satisfactory explanation of the account of them given by Herodotus, though to what Herodotus said he was told I think no importance need be attached, as statements in a foreign language are apt to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Arab traditions also may be curious and interesting, but they are of little value as a record of the past.
It will be worth while to calculate the inflow and outflow of the lake in the condition, in which I have supposed it to be, as Lake Mœris, and to see if the existing features of the Nile Valley throw any light on the statements of the first historical witnesses to its existence.
In my former calculations of the volumes of water required to fill the Fayûm depression to higher levels, I have taken the area of the depression at 2000 million square metres. But our mean water level is now R.L. 21·00, and the area of the lake will be reduced.
| The present taxed area in the Fayûm isnearly | 234,000 | feddans.[8] | ||
| The actual cultivated area is moreprobably about | 280,000 | „ | ||
| The area of the Birket-el-Qurûn is about | 70,000 | „ | ||
| Total | 350,000 | „ | ||
| 350,000 feddans | = | 1,470,000,000 | square metres. | |
| Add the uncultivated area below R.L. 21·00 | = | 300,000,000 | ||
| Total | 1,770,000,000 | |||
| Deduct areas reclaimed from Lake Mœris:— | ||||
| 1st reclamation | 40,000,000 | |||
| 2nd „ | 24,000,000 | |||
| 3rd „ | 40,000,000 | |||
| 104,000,000 | ||||
| Remaining for area of LakeMœris | 1,666,000,000 | |||
| or, say, 1600 million squaremetres. | ||||
Now let us suppose that the exit channel joins the Nile at the point where Kosheshah Escape has been built, a little above Wâstah ([Plate XXI.])
The lowest summer levels at Wâstah were in 1887, 18·82; 1888, 18·12; 1889, 18·26.
Let us then call the mean L.W.L. of Wâstah 18·50.
As the exit channel would be of considerable dimensions, we may suppose a water-surface slope, at the final date of outflow, of ¹⁄₅₀₀₀₀. The distance from Wâstah to Lahûn is 25 kilometres, and from Lahûn to Hawârah 10 kilometres; total 35 kilometres. The fall in this distance would then be 0·70, which would make the level at Hawârah, or the level of the lake (18·50 + 0·70 =) 19·20. But the outflow, even at the date of the lowest level of the Nile, before the rise commenced, may be assumed to have raised the Nile 30 centimetres, which would make the lowest level of the lake R.L. 19·50.
The water surface of Lake Mœris would therefore oscillate between the level of 22·50, beyond which the regulator would be used to prevent its rising, and R.L. 19·50, below which it could not fall on account of the level which the Nile maintains at its point of union with it.
On the map of Linant Pasha’s, published in 1854, before the railway and Ibrahimîyah Canal were made, the channels in the Nile Valley shown in connection with the Lahûn entrance are the Bahr Yûsuf, coming from the south, and the Magnûnah Canal going north. The latter, after going north for 13 kilometres, is joined by three channels, the first taking off from the Nile at Beni Suef, and the second and third a little south of Ashment. The third is the old Magnûnah. These channels unite in the neighbourhood of Abûsir-el-Malaq, the second passing by the village of Bûsh, the immense heap, on which the modern village stands, witnessing to the existence of an ancient town on that spot. Abûsir-el-Malaq also was evidently in the far past a place of importance. North of Abûsir-el-Malaq the channel of the Magnûnah is continued as a single channel along the west desert for 4 or 5 kilometres when it bifurcates, one branch continuing under the western desert, and the second going east to join the Nile at the point where Kosheshah Escape now stands. Some of these channels are shown on [Plate XXI.]
Having evidence of no other channels, let us suppose that the Magnûnah Canal with its mouth near Ashment was the feeder, the branch to Kosheshah Escape the exit channel, and the eastern branch under the western desert a canal of supply to Memphis. (The Bahr Yûsuf I do not consider as in those times a channel in direct communication with the Nile.)
With R.L. 22·50 and 19·50 as the maximum and minimum levels of Lake Mœris, there would, under these circumstances and unless prevented by the use of a regulator, have been a flow into the lake from about the 15th July to the 15th January, and a return flow from the 15th January to the 15th July.
The levels of the Nile and lake would have been approximately as follows:—
| R.L. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest water levels, when lakeceases to flow out and the flow-in is about to commence. | ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ | Lake | 19·50 | |
| Junction at Abûsir-el-Malaq | 19·40 | |||
| Magnûnah Nile mouth at Ashment | 20·00 | |||
| Outlet into Nile at Kosheshah Escape | 19·00 | |||
| Water levels on 15thJanuary, when flow-in would cease and lake return-flow wouldcommence. | ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ | Lake | 22·50 | |
| Abûsir-el-Malaq | 22·00 | |||
| Magnûnah mouth | 23·00 | |||
| Outlet, Kosheshah | 21·00 | |||
| Ordinary flood maximumlevels at end of September. | ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ | Lake | 21·50 to 22·50 | |
| Abûsir-el-Malaq | 25·30 to 27·40 | |||
| Magnûnah mouth | 26·00 to 28·00 | |||
| Outlet, Kosheshah | 24·80 to 27·00 | |||
The year 1888 was one of very low Nile flood, but even in that year, from about 20th July to 15th November, the Nile level at Magnûnah mouth was above R.L. 23·00, and reached R.L. 26·00 at the top of the flood.
The quantity of water required to fill the lake from R.L. 19·50 to 22·50, and to allow for its evaporation for six months, is calculated as follows:—
| Million cubic metres. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume required to raise lake 3 metres =1600 million square metres × 3 | 4800 | ||
| Volume required to make good 6 months’evaporation = 1600 million square metres × 1·30 | 2080 | ||
| Volume required for irrigation of 25,000feddans reclaimed, for 6 months | 100 | ||
| Total volume required | 7580 | ||
The greater part of this would be poured in during the three months of flood, say 5000 million cubic metres in 100 days, or an average of 50 million cubic metres a day.
There now remains to be calculated the discharge that this reservoir would give back to the Nile during the low water months.
| Million cubic metres. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The content of the stratum of waterbetween R.L. 22·50 and 19·50 is 1600 million square metres × 3 | 4800 | ||
| Of this there would be lost byevaporation during the 6 months 1600 million square metres × 1 | 1600 | ||
| There would thus remain availablefor purposes of irrigation | 3200 | ||
| The reclaimed land round Arsinoë (about25,000 feddans) would require about 50 million cubic metres for itsirrigation during the 6 months of winter and summer | 50 | ||
| The balance available for theNile Valley would be | 3150 | ||
If we suppose this water husbanded and made use of only during the 100 days of summer, when its want is most felt, the lake would give an average daily discharge to the Nile of 31½ million cubic metres, that is, the low Nile discharges would be doubled and raised from 30 millions to 60 millions. But by a careful distribution of this stored-up water between the months of April, May, and June, and ten days of July, it would have been possible to keep up the discharges constantly to seventy millions, as shown in the table below:—
| Month. | Average Nile Discharge, without reservoir. | Supplied by reservoir. | Total Increased Discharge. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March | 70,000,000 | Nil | 70,000,000 | ||
| April | 45,000,000 | 25,000,000 | 70,000,000 | ||
| May | 34,000,000 | 36,000,000 | 70,000,000 | ||
| June | 34,000,000 | 36,000,000 | 70,000,000 | ||
| July 1 to 8 | 45,000,000 | 25,000,000 | 70,000,000 |
The supply from the reservoir will thus be
(36 million × 61 days) + (25 million × 38 days) = 3146 million cubic metres.
Such an increase of the summer supply would probably have the effect of doubling the area under summer crops in the Delta, if it could be obtained now, but it is not clear how it could have been utilised without a barrage to raise the water-level, and without, as far as we know, any Sêfi (summer) canals.
It is not, however, imagined that in the days of Lake Mœris there was any such scientifically economical control of the Nile waters, as supposed in the foregoing calculations, but they are given to show what the possibilities of a lake under the conditions assumed would be. My aim has been to establish its utility, in answer to Linant’s argument against the developed Lake Qurûn theory, which consisted in a demonstration that this lake could have served no useful purpose, such as the historians credited it with.
Possibly the needs of navigation were a more important consideration in those days than summer irrigation, though not given the first place now. An increased volume supplied at low water to the shallowing water-routes would even for this object have been a gain.
The disappearance of all trace of the regulators is felt by some to be a difficulty in the way of the admission of their former existence, inasmuch as the ancients built on such a colossal scale. But the Labyrinth, which was built out of the reach of water, has disappeared, and its traces were only of late years identified in a mass of stone chips and trenches filled with sand, which underlay the foundations. Such being the fate of the Labyrinth, which must have surpassed the regulators as a structure of colossal dimensions, it is only natural to suppose that the stones forming the superstructure of the regulators should also have been removed for the same objects as the stones of the Labyrinth, and, if the materials of the floors were spared, it would only be on account of their situation being unfavourable to their removal. But, if spared, the action of running water would in time cause their disappearance, either by undermining them and burying them to depths below their original position, or by depositing a layer of mud above them. In the latter case they may still exist in a situation where some future excavation may chance to bring them to light again.
Hence I hold that, in the face of Strabo’s explicit statement that there were regulators at each end of the canal for controlling the inflow and outflow of the lake, the objection of want of evidence of the former existence of regulators is not sufficiently strong to be allowed to have much weight against the theory, that the submerged Fayûm, with the entry and exit of its waters kept under control by regulators, and its water-levels ranging between R.L. 22·50 and 19·50, was the Lake Mœris of Herodotus; the Arsinoïte Nome, in connection with it, consisting of the reclaimed high lands within the limits of the lake and along the borders of the lake itself and margins of the feeder canal. It is admitted, as a weak point in this theory, that unless the Arsinoïte Nome can be imagined as extending into the Nile Valley, the area of cultivable land comprised in the nome is very limited. Let us see how far such a conception of Lake Mœris is in accord with the testimony of the ancient records which relate to it.
Strabo remarks, that “the Lake Mœris, by its magnitude and depth, is able to receive the superabundance of water which flows into it at the time of the rise of the river, without overflowing the inhabited and cultivated parts of the province.” This could not be made to accord with M. Linant’s theory, and can only be understood by supposing that the high lands in the Fayûm were reclaimed, and that the flood waters filled the rest of the Fayûm without rising so high as to inundate them. At the same time the area of the lake must have been great to fit it, under this limitation, to receive a sufficient volume to moderate the Nile floods and to be able to return to the Nile a sufficiently large supply to supplement the low Nile discharge in an efficient manner. The figures representing the possible performances of the lake have been given.
Diodorus also says, “Accordingly the king dug a canal from the Nile to the basin 10 miles in length and 300 feet in breadth.” This would seem to show that the canal took off from the Nile immediately opposite Lahûn, for, if its mouth had been carried further south up the Nile, its length would have exceeded 10 miles. The breadth of 300 feet equals 91½ metres. This also agrees with the size of the inflow and outflow canals which would have been necessary to discharge the calculated volumes.
A canal with bed width 90 metres, depth 8 metres, and water surface slope ¹⁄₂₀₀₀₀, will discharge about 69½ million cubic metres per 24 hours, which agrees with the calculation for the inflow.
A canal with bed width of 90 metres, depth 6½ metres, and water surface slope of ¹⁄₂₅₀₀₀, would discharge 34 million cubic metres per 24 hours, which agrees with the calculations for the outflow.
Diodorus remarks also that “a little south of Memphis a canal was cut for a lake, brought down in length from the city 40 miles.” This is somewhat obscure, but may mean that a canal 40 miles in length was dug to connect Memphis with the lake. Supposing the canal that fed the lake from the Nile passed Abûsir-el-Malaq as already described, the canal to connect the lake and Memphis would have taken off from the feeder canal at or near Abûsir-el-Malaq. The distance from that point to the modern Bedreshên, the station at which tourists alight for viewing the ruins of Memphis, is 47 miles, and it is quite possible that what was known as Memphis extended several miles to the south, and that the canal was only 40 miles in length between Abûsir-el-Malaq and Memphis.
Herodotus states that the lake is six months filling and six months emptying. With the surface level of the lake limited to R.L. 22·50, and with the mouth of the feeder canal near Ashment and the outflow at Kosheshah Escape, such would be the case, for though the lake might be filled during the months of flood to R.L. 22·50, there would still be a flow into the lake for the remainder of the six months to meet loss by evaporation.
On the shores of the Lake Mœris would stand the Labyrinth with its pyramid (Hawârah), and within the lake area Crocodilopolis or Arsinoë (Medinet-el-Fayûm). The lake would serve as a moderator for the Nile in flood, and would supplement the short supply of the river in summer. It would have had a perimeter of 220 kilometres against Herodotus’ perimeter of 360 kilometres, assuming that Jomard and others were right in supposing that Herodotus made use of the little stadius. The greatest depth of the lake, when filled to R.L. 22·50, would have been at least 70 metres against Herodotus’ depth of 92 metres.
The lake itself was not artificially made, as supposed by Herodotus, but was brought under control by the works of man.
The water in the lake came from the Nile and not from local sources.
The lake lay between the Arsinoïte and Memphite Nomes.
Herodotus and others after him state that there existed two pyramids, crowned by colossal statues, centrally situated in the lake, and Herodotus thus describes them:—“The lake lies oblong north and south, being, in its deepest part, 50 fathoms deep. It tells its own story that it is artificially made, for about the middle of the lake stand two pyramids, each rising above the surface of the water 50 fathoms, and that part of them which is built under water being as much more. On the top of each (or against each, according to Cope Whitehouse’s translating) is a colossal figure seated on a throne. So these pyramids are 100 fathoms high.”
It is supposed by some that the ruins at Biahmu ([Plate XXII.]) are the remains of what Herodotus described as pyramids. Possibly they are, but it seems a somewhat feebly supported supposition. Though a colossus on the top of a pyramid is not what one would expect to find there, and the dimensions of the pyramids given by Herodotus are, of course, obtained second-hand and may be worthy of little reliance, still the evidence, that the Biahmu ruins are the remains of what he referred to, does not seem to me convincing.
Plate XXIII.
RESTORATION OF A COLOSSUS, BIAHMU, FAYÛM.
Reproduced from Petrie’s ‘Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoë.’
Mr. Flinders Petrie considers that these ruins are the remains of what was once a place of embarkation and disembarkation on the lake, consisting of a flight of steps, flanked by two colossi raised on high pedestals. In one of his publications he has pictorially reproduced these colossi, their pedestals and enclosure walls, in a most complete manner ([Plate XXIII.]), his only personal acquaintance with the figures consisting of a broken nose and fragments of stone drapery, discovered among the débris of their ruins. To one of the uninitiated, even after studying the evidence adduced by Mr. Petrie, there appears to be a great deal of esoteric ingenuity or imagination in the process of reproduction, but one or the other of these gifts is a necessity in dealing with anything Egyptological on account of the incompleteness of the historical records. [Plate XXIII.] gives a reproduction of Mr. Petrie’s restoration, and [Plate XXII.] is from a photograph of the ruins as they exist now. The reduced levels have been added by me.
In Mr. Petrie’s restoration he has shown the worshipper down below, standing on the general country level. My idea is that the interior of the courtyard was filled up to the level of the surrounding wall and formed a landing-place, as I have indicated in [Plate XXIV.] by the upper figure and the boats. If the water stood up against the courtyard wall, as I have shown, since there is no mortar in the joints of the masonry, the man below (as shown in Mr. Petrie’s unmodified representation) would have been drowned out.
This landing-place was probably connected at the back by a bank with the main bank running through Biahmu.
It appears that some say that the lake waters flowed into and out of the lake by one and the same channel, and that others say there were two canals, one for the inflow and another for the outflow. These two accounts may be reconciled by supposing that the former referred to the canal south of Abûsir-el-Malaq, which is a single canal, [Plate XXI.,] and that the latter referred to the channels, one of which was for the inflow from the Nile near Ashment, to Abûsir-el-Malaq, and the other for the outflow from Abûsir-el-Malaq to Memphis or perhaps to the point on the Nile where Kosheshah Escape stands. Strabo is obscure on this point. He writes:—“Then follows the Heracleöte Nome, in a large island, near which is the canal on the right hand, which leads into Libya, in the direction of the Arsinoïte Nome; so that the canal has two entrances, a part of the island on one side being interposed between them.” Possibly this refers to the isolated bit of desert in front of and to the east of Lahûn, which is “a part of the island” interposed between the Bahr Yûsuf coming from the south and passing to Lahûn on the left of the island, and the Magnûnah canal or special lake-feeder, which passes on the right of the island, turns south towards Lahûn and leads into Libya in the direction of the Arsinoïte Nome.
Plate XXIV.
MODIFIED REPRESENTATION OF THE BIAHMU RUINS RESTORED.
I have consulted Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography,’ to find out what the editor considered to be the accepted views about Lake Mœris in 1868. Under “Mœris Lacus” I find that the views stated agree in the main with those favoured in this paper. Linant’s theory is not referred to, and probably had not been heard of by the editor. The following passage about the connecting canal occurs in the Dictionary, which can hardly be made to refer to the Bahr Yûsuf as the main lake-feeder, though assumed to do so in the passage itself:—“There are grounds for supposing that ancient travellers did not always distinguish between the connecting canal, the Bahr Yûsuf, and Mœris itself. The canal was unquestionably constructed by man’s labour, nor would it present any insuperable difficulties to a people so laborious as the Egyptians. If, then, we distinguished, as Strabo did, the canal from the lake, the ancient narratives may be easily reconciled with one another and with modern surveys. Even the words of Herodotus may apply to the canal, which was of considerable extent, beginning at Hermopolis (Ashmunîn) and running four leagues west, and then turning from north to south for three leagues more, until it reaches the lake.”
Now the old Magnûnah Canal, with its mouth on the river near Ashment, goes west for a little over three leagues to Abûsir-el-Malaq, and then turns from north to south for three leagues till it reaches Lahûn. ([Plate XXI.]) As it is a remarkable thing to find a canal in the Nile Valley which runs from north to south, the near agreement of these figures and directions is a remarkable coincidence, if it is nothing more.
There is another coincidence which may well be accidental, but is worth noticing. Arab tradition is, I believe, the authority for placing the mouth of the connecting canal at Ashmunîn. “Joseph collected workmen and dug the canal of Menhi from Ashmunîn to el-Lahûn.”
Now the mouth of the old Magnûnah Canal, which I have been supposing may have been the canal of inflow, had one of its mouths near “Ashment.” Can a misprint have been responsible for “Ashment” being changed into “Ashmunîn,” or may it not have been changed during the process of handing down the tradition orally, the name of the larger town Ashmunîn being substituted when the lesser Ashment lost its importance and its notoriety after Lake Mœris ceased to be?
But all these speculations must be modified, but not more than modified, if what follows is a more correct view of the conditions of the Nile at the time of Herodotus.
Hitherto I have assumed that the levels of maximum and minimum Nile were the same in his time as they are now.
But it is supposed that the Nile levels at that time were about 2 metres lower than they are now, and it is necessary to consider in what way such a change of conditions would modify the views of what Lake Mœris was and did, as given in the foregoing arguments and calculations.
The supposition, or certainty, that the Nile in the time of Herodotus was about 2 metres lower in level than it is now, is based on the following observations, which Mr. Petrie has given me. He estimates that the rate of rise has been about 4 inches a century. This, he states, is shown by a Roman wall at Tanis and by the town-level of Naukratis, both old towns in Lower Egypt. The old tombs at Memphis are now under water. At Edfu the High Nile rises shoulder high on the walls, which shows a rise of 4 inches or more per century. At Aswân (Assouan) the records of High Niles on the Roman Nilometer show that they were lower than now by an amount calculated at a rate of 4 inches per century.
There is also, Mr. Petrie adds, other evidence of the same sort, but less definite, giving the same general result.
If now we suppose the Fayûm (Lake Mœris) filled to R.L. 20·50 and emptied to R.L. 17·50, there is nothing to be changed in the calculations, except the maximum and minimum surface levels of the lake. Thus there would be a rather, but not much, larger area reclaimed and the Edwah-Biahmu bank would have been formed along the edge of the lake at lowest water, instead of in two metres of water. This modified view of its formation would seem to be more probable than that which supposed it to have been formed in water.
If, however, we suppose the lake still filled to R.L. 22·50 as a maximum, while its lowest level reached R.L. 17·50, the discharges found to have been necessary to fill the lake (under the conditions previously assumed excepting as regards minimum level), must be increased by 50 per cent., and the figures representing the return-flow be doubled.
In all probability the maximum level of the lake was somewhere between R.L. 22·50 and 20·50, and may be taken as varying from R.L. 22·00 to 21·00.
The lake may have been chiefly filled by the Bahr Yûsuf and the flood waters inundating the Nile Valley, but, to fulfil the conditions of a six months’ flow-in and six months flow-out of the lake, under the new conditions supposed, and retaining a maximum lake-level of R.L. 22·50, the canal of supply would have to have its off-take from the Nile moved to a point about half-way between Beni Suef and Biba. Supposing the Bahr Yûsuf and the flood water of the Nile Valley filled this lake during the flood months and the Bahr Yûsuf ceased to flow with the end of the flood, the canal from between Beni Suef and Biba would have had to supply only about 10 million cubic metres a day to make good the loss by evaporation, if the lake-level was not to be allowed to fall below R.L. 22·50 till the return-flow to the Nile was required. But there is no reason to suppose this to have been a necessity. With a lowest level of 17·50 instead of 19·50, the problem of the lake as a relieving and supplementing reservoir to the Nile, with houses and cultivation above its highest levels, is much simplified, and a large margin is given between R.L. 20·50 and 22·50 for increasing the volumes given in my former calculations, to render the lake a more efficient safety-valve for excessive floods, and for moderating the fall of the Nile to low discharges by giving back to it a more abundant outflow.
Accepting this view of the range of the lake-levels, we shall have to look upon the Magnûnah Canal and its branches as channels of return-flow to the Nile for the commencement of the period of outflow, which would afterwards cease to carry any discharge in summer, when the lake-level had fallen below about R.L. 19·00. For the remaining period of outflow the Kosheshah Escape branch from Abûsir-el-Malaq to the Nile and the branch to Memphis skirting the Libyan Hills, would have carried all the discharge returning to the Nile Valley.
The peculiar isolated piece of Nile desert opposite Lahûn and the cultivated strip of land between it and the main desert, through which the Bahr Yûsuf flows into the Fayûm, seems to lend itself to the regulation of the entry and exit of the Nile waters. To control the entry of the waters a regulator A and cross bank a b from the island desert across the Bahr Yûsuf to the main desert on the west could have been made. (See map, [Plate XXI.])
The excess water, excluded from the lake by regulation on A, would have found its way along the east of the patch of desert as it does to-day.
To retain and to control the exit of the water, a regulator B and its bank c d might have been added, where shown on the map, or anywhere between B and the end of the narrow band of cultivation at C. There is, however, no evidence to show that such works did exist, but Strabo’s statement, the presence of the Lahûn pyramid and the situation of the villages Lahûn and Manshîyah make it perhaps probable that there were some important works connected with the lake in their neighbourhood.
The reason for the peculiar alignment of the present bank g D B c which closes the gap into the Fayûm, is difficult to imagine, as the bank is at least three times the length it would have been, if it had been formed in a direct line across the gap. But it has suggested itself to me, that the length B c may be part of the original bank d B c, that may have crossed from side to side of the valley of exit, and on which the villages of Lahûn and Manshîyah were built.
Trying to find some explanation for the alignment of the existing bank, it had also occurred to me, that the line of the bank may have followed the ridge of the bar, that would have been formed across the wider part of the entrance to the Fayûm by the high level water flowing in. This bar would, if it had existed, have been the first land to show above water on the subsidence of the floods, and may have been chosen, on the occasion of one of the repeated breaches at Hawârat-el-Maqta, as the most convenient line for forming a bank to shut out the Nile flood. But this would have been at a later date, after Lake Mœris had ceased to perform its functions of a Nile regulator.
However, I think the former supposition, that the bank B c was part of an old bank, formed for quite another than its present purpose, and that the bank g B was subsequently made between Lahûn and the desert (perhaps when the existing old Lahûn regulator was made), a more likely explanation. The length B d would have disappeared after it ceased to perform any useful function.
There may have been both, or one, or neither of the regulators A and B, but if there was a regulator at Hawârah at the head of the lake at F, there would have been little to be gained except additional security from the regulator A.
If then we suppose that the bank c B d and the regulator B only existed to collect the flood waters, and turn them into the lake, and that a regulator at Hawârah at F also existed to keep excess water out of the lake, such an arrangement would agree with Strabo’s statement that “when the river falls, the lake again discharges the water by a canal at both orifices, and it is available for irrigation. There are regulators at both ends of the canal for regulating the inflow and outflow.”
The part A b of one of these suggested banks exists to-day, as a lately abandoned basin bank, with regulators in it, but there is nothing, that I know of, to show that it existed in the time of Lake Mœris. At the western desert end, a, of the supposed bank, stands the village Tamma. Dr. Schweinfurth says this is certainly an ancient Egyptian name, and he describes some remarkable mounds of pure black Nile earth, containing no trace of bricks, sherds, stones from buildings, or other things, which lie just to the south of the modern village in four symmetrically placed hills, containing about 300,000 cubic metres.
Possibly the ancient Tamma was in some way connected with Lake Mœris, but the riddle of the mounds has not yet been solved. They appeared to me to be the remains of the mouth of a canal taking off from a bend of the Bahr Yûsuf, but the great height and contour of the mounds and the abruptness with which they commence and terminate are not to be easily accounted for. The alignment of the canal, if such it was, points towards the entrance valley to the Fayûm.
On the east of Lahûn village there are also some mounds of moderate height, but of short length, which are evidently the remains of two old parallel canals, both pointing in the direction of the Fayûm. The abruptness with which these banks begin and end is also remarkable.
Supposing then, that the Nile levels in the time of Herodotus were 2 metres lower than those of to-day, the conception of Lake Mœris must be modified as follows:—
The lowest level to which Lake Mœris fell in summer was R.L. 17·50 above mean sea, and it was filled to levels ranging between R.L. 20·50 and 22·50, but its level was never allowed to exceed the latter level. Probably there was a regulator and bank passing through Lahûn from west to east between the main and detached desert preventing the flow of the Bahr Yûsuf waters to the north, and so diverting them into Lake Mœris; and also another regulator at Hawârah to forbid the admission of an excessive volume into the lake ([Plate XXI.]). On each side of this latter regulator may have been sluices, on the right to feed a canal to irrigate during flood time the high land, between Hawârah pyramid and the present railway line, along the course of the old Bahr Wardan; and on the left to admit water into the reclaimed tract round about Crocodilopolis, perhaps along the present course of the Bahr Yûsuf, for irrigation and navigation.
The old Edwah-Biahmu-Sinrû bank, instead of having been formed in water, would have been thrown up along the edge of the water when at its lowest level. The Biahmu landing-place would have been projected into the lake to obtain a quay for embarkation and disembarkation and possibly a channel would have been dug between the two colossi, so that boats might come alongside even at low water; a channel about 2 metres deep being sufficient.
The Edwah-Sinrû bank would have been subjected to most severe wave action, and could not have stood, unless we suppose it to have been well revetted with stone on the lake face. Probably it was, but the stone has entirely disappeared, a thing not incredible, when one considers how little has been left of the wonderful Labyrinth described by Herodotus and others after him.
But if the conclusion, that the Nile water-levels have risen at the rate of 4 inches a century, be a correct one, and if it may be assumed that the rise has been continuous and uniform in historic times, the levels at the time of the XIIth dynasty (B.C. 2500), when Lake Mœris is supposed to have been formed, would have been about 4½ metres lower than at present. Under such conditions R.L. 23·50 would have been the highest level reached by the floods at the Lahûn entrance; and therefore, at the site of the modern Medineh, the water-level would have been somewhat lower. Such a state of things would have permitted the establishment of the town “Shad” without the necessity of any arrangements for controlling the admission of the water. To what minimum levels the Nile fell, after it had first flowed at higher levels, and how far back the change from a deepening of its bed by scour to a raising of it by deposit took place is a geological question; but if the Nile flood maximum ever fell as low as about R.L. 18·00 at the Lahûn entrance, no water would have entered the Fayûm, since the rock bed at Hawârah is somewhere about this level. (Linant’s Hawârah sill at R.L. 21·00 is known to be higher than the bed of the natural channel, which runs between the village of Hawârat-el-Maqta and the Hawârah pyramid.)
Imagination thus may draw another picture of a time when, after the Fayûm deposit had been laid down by the Nile flowing at high levels, the gradual scouring of the Nile bed lowered the flood water surface to such an extent that the supply, which kept the Fayûm Lake full, was gradually shut off, until, at last, the maximum flood level falling below that of the lowest rock surface between Lahûn and Hawârah, no water would have flowed into the Fayûm, and the lake would have dried up and left the land barren for want of a water supply.
After the opposite action set in and the Nile levels rose again, the flow into the Fayûm would recommence and gradually increase century by century, until at last levels would be reached favourable to the establishment of the town “Shad” on the site of the modern Medineh.
The Nile continuing to rise, protecting banks to keep the waters of the lake, when at flood levels, from the cultivation and habitations would have been found necessary, and at last the capital itself would have been threatened by the gradually increasing level reached by the highest floods. Then, if not before, measures to regulate the inflow and to facilitate the outflow would be taken to protect the highest parts of the province from submersion, and means such as those suggested before would be resorted to to reclaim some of the invaded lands.
Since the foregoing was written, Brugsch Pasha, a leading Egyptologist, has delivered a lecture in Cairo to the Khedivial Geographical Society on the 8th April, 1892, from which I quote the following passage, showing that the Pasha’s conclusions, drawn from a study of the monuments, agree with the conclusions I have arrived at from a study of the levels and features of the ground in the neighbourhood of Hawârah.
“Nul doute que le vaste gouffre de 20-30 mètres de hauteur qui s’ouvre entre les bords occidentaux du désert de Hawara et les terrains cultivés du côté opposé est, qui, maintenant, porte le nom de “la Mer sans eau” (Bahr-bela-ma) formait anciennement une partie du lac Mœris. C’est ainsi que ce dernier avait acquis fortuitement une signification funéraire en rapport avec le culte des morts, qui, d’après la tradition en vogue chez les anciens Égyptiens, devaient passer en bateau le Nil ou un lac pour aborder au port de la nécropole et à l’entrée du monde souterrain. Hawara représentait depuis les temps de la XIIme dynastie le cimetière de la ville Crocodilopolis-Arsinoë, près de Medinet-el-Fayoum; les défunts étaient transportés sur les canaux jusqu’au lac, qu’ils traversaient pour arriver au port de la nécropole. Les textes que j’ai consultés lors de mon dernier séjour à Hawara, ne parlent de la terre du lac qu’en la mettant en rapport avec l’Osiris de la nécropole de Hawara.
“Un canal principal (ou si l’on veut plusieurs peut-être) conduisait l’eau du lac au pied du plateau de Hawara vers la métropole qui, à l’époque des Pharaons, s’appelait “Shad” et dont l’existence remonte au moins jusqu’au règne d’Amenemhê Ier, le fondateur de la XIIme dynastie. Les dernières fouilles que j’ai exécutées à Médineh, mettent ce fait hors de doute. Il paraît même que l’ancienne ville de Shad formait la résidence des rois de cette dynastie, dont les pyramides s’élèvent sur le sol de la terre du lac.”
This statement about the principal canal (or several canals), leading from the lake at the foot of Hawârah towards “Shad,” accords with my conceptions of the lake, but not with Linant’s; as in his theory all this plateau between Hawârah and the modern Medineh, or ancient Shad, was lake, and a canal or canals could not have been made in the lake itself. If then this fact about a canal leading from the lake at the foot of Hawârah to Shad is proved beyond a doubt, Linant’s theory is disproved by Brugsch Pasha himself, though he previously states that no “savant sérieux” is opposed to it.
In this same paper, from which I am quoting, this further passage also occurs, which agrees with what I have imagined to have been the early history of the town, on part of the ruins of which Medineh now stands.
“La terre du lac, ainsi que je l’ai déjà fait remarquer, a dû exister au commencement de la XIIme dynastie, dont le premier roi, Amenemhè Ier, avait fondé au bord de la ville Médineh un sanctuaire au Dieu Sobk. Au delà de cette époque je ne trouve aucune trace de sa mention dans les textes de l’ancien empire: l’œuvre de l’arrosement du Fayoum par un canal du Nil doit donc être reportée au moins jusqu’à l’époque du roi que je viens de citer. Également à cette époque, la fondation d’un sanctuaire et d’un palais royal fait supposer l’existence d’une résidence, c’est-à-dire d’une grande ville à laquelle le canal Hounet fournissait ses eaux.
“Tout porte à croire que le canal fut creusé longtemps avant le XIIme dynastie, car une résidence ne s’établit pas dans un pays inhabitable ou qui venait à peine d’être arrosé. L’opinion que les rois de la XIIme dynastie doivent être regardés comme les créateurs du canal Hounet n’est plus à soutenir, le Fayoum ‘la terre du lac’ date certainement d’une époque de beaucoup antérieure à la XIIme dynastie, et les rois de cette maison royale, pour des raisons que nous ignorons, ont seulement choisi cette terre pour y transférer leur résidence et les temples de leurs divinités.”
How this view is made to accord with the Linant Lake conception is not clear, but it is not opposed to the idea that a natural lake, connected by a natural channel with the Nile Valley, existed and made the growth of the town “Shad” a possibility before the canal was remodelled, and control of the entry and exit of the waters introduced by the engineering monarchs of the XIIth dynasty.