The Fayûm and Lake Mœris

by R. H. Brown

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.