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.