The Fayûm and Lake Mœris

by R. H. Brown

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.

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.