The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Fayûm and Lake Mœris
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Fayûm and Lake Mœris
Author: Robert Hanbury Brown
Release date: December 21, 2023 [eBook #72471]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Edward Stanford, 1892
Credits: Galo Flordelis (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAYÛM AND LAKE MŒRIS ***
THE FAYÛM
AND LAKE MŒRIS.
[Illustration: _FRONTISPIECE._
OLD LAHÛN REGULATOR.
AT THE POINT WHERE THE BAHR YÛSUF TURNS WESTWARDS INTO THE FAYÛM.
The down-stream wing of the upper regulator is seen projecting into the
foreground on the left-hand side, and the Lahûn Pyramid is visible in
the distance.]
THE FAYÛM
AND LAKE MŒRIS.
BY
MAJOR R. H. BROWN, ROYAL ENGINEERS,
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF IRRIGATION, UPPER EGYPT.
WITH A PREFATORY NOTE BY
COL. SIR COLIN SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, K.C.M.G., C.S.I.,
And Illustrations
_FROM PHOTOGRAPHS BY THE AUTHOR._
LONDON: EDWARD STANFORD,
26 & 27, COCKSPUR STREET, CHARING CROSS, S.W.
1892.
PREFATORY NOTE.
* * * * *
During the last nine years it has fallen to the honourable lot of a
small band of English engineers, most of them trained in India, to
effect a revolution in the irrigation system of old Egypt, and thereby
materially to improve the wealth and agricultural prosperity of the
country. This is not the place, nor would it be becoming on my part to
tell what has been effected. We had the happy fortune to find things
at their lowest ebb. We could hardly make a change without making an
improvement. In all these improvements Major Robert Hanbury Brown,
R.E., has from the first occupied a conspicuous place. Few Englishmen
have gone through so many summer seasons as he has, in the blazing
heat of Upper Egypt. For that has been his field of labour, and of
that field the fertile, abnormal, neglected, quaint old Province of
the Fayûm forms a part. Truly, an old world province! whose historical
roll carries us back to very early days, before that venerable Sheikh
Abraham had made his emigration from Assyrian Haran—a province
abundantly watered, and therefore rich, and highly prized by Pharaoh
and Ptolemy, Cæsar and Arab Khalif, until Mameluke misrule and Turkish
brutish ignorance let it fall into decay.
It has fallen to Major Brown to help to restore the Fayûm, and he has
thus obtained a very intimate knowledge of it. He is not the first
author on this subject. Learned Germans and brilliant Frenchmen have
already written on the Fayûm. Major Brown pretends neither to the
learning of the one, nor to the brilliancy of the other, but he has,
what neither one nor the other ever had, an accurate knowledge of the
levels of the country. This information is quite indispensable to the
hydraulic engineer, and it is strange that that distinguished Frenchman
M. Linant de Bellefonds, who devoted so many years to the physical
improvement of Egypt, should have been evidently without it.
Of course Major Brown could not write of the Fayûm without introducing
the mystic Lake Mœris. Herodotus does not lie when he tells of the
things he has actually seen, and he says he saw Lake Mœris. So it must
have existed. But where was it? That is the question that has been
asked from one generation to another.
In the following pages Major Brown, in simple, straightforward
language, gives his opinion, and the reader may be sure that he does
not talk of what he does not know. Whether his conclusions are correct
or not, this account of the Fayûm is an important addition to our
knowledge of the subject.
COLIN SCOTT-MONCRIEFF,
_Late Under-Secretary of State, Public Works Ministry, Cairo._
LONDON, _September 1st_, 1892.
CONTENTS.
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER I.
THE FAYÛM OF TO-DAY 5
CHAPTER II.
ANCIENT TESTIMONY ABOUT LAKE MŒRIS 19
CHAPTER III.
THEORIES AS TO WHERE AND WHAT LAKE MŒRIS WAS 25
GENERAL REMARKS, 25 — LINANT THEORY, 28 — COPE WHITEHOUSE
THEORY, 40 — LINANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THEORY FAVOURED, 48 —
W. M. F. PETRIE’S VIEWS, 56
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF THE FAYÛM PROVINCE 61
THE FAYÛM BEFORE LAKE MŒRIS, 61 — THE FAYÛM AS LAKE
MŒRIS, 69 — TRANSFORMATION OF LAKE MŒRIS TO THE FAYÛM
OF TO-DAY, 94
CHAPTER V.
THE FAYÛM IN THE FUTURE, AND POSSIBLE UTILISATION OF
THE WADI RAIÂN 105
LIST OF PLATES.
* * * * *
PLATE PAGE
Old Lahûn Regulator. _From a Photograph taken by the
Author._ _Frontispiece_
I. The Bahr Yûsuf skirting the Libyan Desert. _From a
Photograph taken by the Author_ _To face_ 9
II. Bazar Street Bridge, Medinet-el-Fayûm. _From a
Photograph taken by the Author_ _To face_ 11
III. Tunnel on Bahr Yûsuf. _From a Photograph taken by
the Author._ _To face_ 13
IV. Water-wheels on Canal Tamîyah. _From a Photograph
taken by the Author_ _To face_ 15
V. Diagrams of two kinds of Water-wheels 15
VI. Nasbah Mitertaris. _From a Photograph taken by
the Author_ _To face_ 17
VII. Map showing the “Linant” Lake Mœris 29
VIII. Section of the Fayûm through the Linant Lake 31
IX. Diagram to scale showing Outline of Linant Lake 33
X. Cross sections of Minia Wall and Edwah Bank 35
XI. Linant’s and actual Sections of the Fayûm 36
XII. Part of Egypt from Map of Cl. Ptolemy 45
XIII. Proposed Wadi Raiân Reservoir 46
XIV. Exterior, Schweinfurth’s “Temple.” _From a Photograph
taken by the Author_ _To face_ 51
XV. Interior, Ditto. _From a Photograph taken by the
Author_ _To face_ 53
XVI. Ground plan, Ditto 53
XVII. Medinet-el-Fayûm. _From a Photograph taken by the
Author_ _To face_ 57
XVIII. Cross section of 50 miles on lat. 30° 63
XIX. Contoured Diagram of the Fayûm Depression 65
XX. Map of Lake Mœris 73
XXI. Map to show position of Edwah Bank and supposed Lake
Mœris Regulators 75
XXII. Biahmu Ruins. _From a Photograph taken by the Author_
_To face_ 77
XXIII. Restoration of Biahmu Ruins by Petrie 84
XXIV. Modified representation of Biahmu Ruins Restored 86
XXV. Sections of Bahr Yûsuf Valley and Ravine behind
Hawârat-el-Maqta 98
XXVI. Sketch Map of the ground between Hawârat-el-Maqta and
Hawârah Pyramid 100
XXVII. Sections of Lahûn Banks 103
Map of the Fayûm Province End of Book
THE FAYÛM
AND LAKE MŒRIS.
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION.
I commenced this paper with the sole object of giving a technical
description of irrigation in the Fayûm Province as practised to-day,
for the information of my brother officers in the Royal Engineers.
But let any one turn his face towards the Fayûm, he is sure to
see the speculator’s will-o’-the-wisp of Lake Mœris, which
must needs be followed over the marshy borders through a tangle
of theories left high and dry, until the pursuer is submerged deep
beneath the waters of the lake, and has to find his way out again
as best he can with a theory of his own begetting or adopting.
The question of where and what Lake Mœris was has been guessed at by
many, and some of the guesses have been rather wild and regardless
of the attributes which the lake of the theory must be demonstrated
to have, before it can be recognised as Lake Mœris.
In the time of the early Nile tourist and historian Herodotus, about
450 B.C., there existed in Egypt an extensive lake, known as Lake
Mœris, of such dimensions, levels, and geographical position,
that it absorbed the surplus waters of the overflowing Nile,
and afterwards gave back to the dwindling river the water it had
received from it, thus becoming a regulator to diminish the excesses
of the Nile floods, and to supply the shortcomings of the shrunken
summer flow. The benefits resulting to the land of Egypt from such
a moderator of high and low Niles were supposed to have been great,
and the idea of the possibility of restoring the boon to Egypt by the
discovery of the true position of the ancient Lake Mœris has helped
to increase the interest in the subject, which curiosity about one
of the lost wonders of the world in the once glorious kingdom of
the Pharaohs would alone have been sufficient to excite.
At the end of a long letter to Mr. Paul Ascherson about a journey
in the Fayûm, Dr. Schweinfurth writes:—“It must have already
occurred to you, that I, in these already much too comprehensive
remarks, have kept going round about the Mœris question, like a
cat round hot broth. I must guard myself from pulling unripe fruit,
which in a not far future will be ripe for judgment.” This was
written in January 1886. Dr. Schweinfurth seemed to expect that
discoveries of papyri in the ruins of Arsinoë would be made, and
the riddle by them be solved. We are still waiting for the papyri.
Though the fear of picking unripe fruit may produce an unfavourable
state of mind for assisting to promote discussion, it is far
preferable to M. Linant’s attitude with reference to this question,
when he stated that “J’ai retrouvé la véritable situation de
cet ancien lac ou réservoir d’eau,” and caused or allowed to
be printed on the “Carte Hydrographique de la moyenne Égypte, par
M. Linant de Bellefonds, Paris, 1854,” the following presumptuous
and decidedly untrue statement: “Le mémoire publié par M. Linant,
sur le lac Mœris, donne tous les éclaircissements désirables sur
ce point de l’histoire ancienne de l’Égypte”!
Though more illumination has been thrown on the subject since
this unfounded claim to finality was made, there still remains much
information to collect about doubtful points of levels, identification
of old ruined towns, and so forth, but I do not on that account
consider that the fear of “too hastily confusing” the question
should forbid the publication of fresh facts and speculations thereon,
so long as the door is not slammed in the face of those who prefer
to give their support to other theories.
I will briefly state the order, and reasons for the order, in which
I have arranged the different parts into which this paper is divided.
I have described the “Fayûm of To-day” first, as a conception of
its condition in the past must of necessity be founded on a knowledge
of its condition in the present.
Next I give the statements made by the ancient travellers, as it is
upon them that the ideas, of what Lake Mœris was, are based.
I then proceed to try and dispose of theories which I consider
erroneous, so as to clear the way for a more correct view; or at
least to expose some of the errors of statement which might mislead
others into accepting or forming wrong notions on the subject. Next
I give the views that I have adopted, and point out what support
they have from others, and discuss M. Linant’s objections to the
views favoured.
Then I have endeavoured to sketch the history of the Fayûm—
(1) Before it became Lake Mœris.
(2) As Lake Mœris.
(3) While it was undergoing the process of being transformed from
Lake Mœris to what it is to-day.
And lastly, I have added a few remarks about the possible future of
the Wadi Raiân, and the effect upon the Fayûm of a more abundant
supply of water in consequence of the construction of storage
reservoirs now under consideration.
I have made use of all previous writings on the subject that I could
lay hands on. Mr. Cope Whitehouse kindly lent me his papers and
showed me where to get others. Mr. Flinders Petrie has also given
me what information I applied to him for. The maps and levelling of
the Fayûm, made under the direction of Lieut.-Col. J. C. Ross,
C.M.G., late Inspector-General of Irrigation in Egypt, have
naturally been invaluable aids to the study of the subject. Sir
Colin Scott-Moncrieff, late Under-Secretary of State for Public
Works, Egypt, has also given me his views on some points raised in
this paper, and I have taken advantage of them. Miss M. Brodrick
has most kindly assisted me in the correction of the proofs, and
in other matters connected with the publication of this paper. Ali
Bey Borhan, Chief Engineer of the Fayûm, and Monsieur A. Pini,
in charge of works, have assisted me by collecting information and
obtaining levels that were wanting.
Finally, I wish to lay claim to no originality in the views
adopted. What I have aimed at in this paper is to work those
views out, and to go more thoroughly into them than has hitherto
been done, thereby making a contribution to the discussion of an
unsolved problem, interesting alike to Engineers, Archæologists,
and Classical Scholars.
As the metrical system is in use in Egypt, all dimensions and
quantities are given throughout this paper in metres and cubic metres,
and distances in kilometres.
1 metre = 3·2809 feet.
1 square metre = 10·7643 square feet.
1 cubic metre = 35·3166 cubic feet.
= 220·097 gallons.
8 kilometres = 5 miles (approximately).
Discharges are given as so many cubic metres per day of 24 hours.
1,000,000 cubic metres a day = 11·5741 cubic metres per second.
= 408·9775 cubic feet per second.
Areas are given in feddans, which is the Egyptian acre.
1 feddan = 4200·8333 square metres.
= 1·038 acre.
R.L. signifies “reduced level,” or the level referred to mean
sea-level:—e.g. “at R.L. 25·00” means that the spot, to which
the figure relates, is 25 metres above mean sea-level; and “R.L. -
40·00” means 40 metres below mean sea-level.
A contour is the line running through all the points which are at
the same level above or below mean sea-level.
An Egyptian pound, L.E., = 1¹⁄₃₉ English pound, £.
CHAPTER I.
THE FAYÛM OF TO-DAY.
_Position of the Fayûm with reference to the Nile Valley._—About
50 miles south of Cairo, a branch line leaves the Upper Egypt line
of railway and goes west. After crossing the Basin land of the Nile
Valley, it enters the western desert, and after a short ascent and
somewhat longer descent, it reaches the station of Edwah in the
Province of The Fayûm.
This province is the most remarkable and interesting of all the
provinces of Egypt. It is an oasis surrounded by desert, being
separated from the Nile Valley by four to twelve kilometres width of
the Libyan Desert, and being connected with it by a narrow neck of
cultivation marking the gap in the Libyan Hills, by which the Bahr
Yûsuf enters the Fayûm.
_Depressions connected with the Fayûm._—Forming part of this
province, and included in it administratively, is the Gharaq Basin
or depression, which is partly cultivated, but surrounded by desert
lands above the present limits of irrigation, and in communication
with the Fayûm by a narrow neck at R.L. 16·00 (16 metres above
mean sea-level).
Adjacent to the Gharaq Basin is another more considerable depression
with an area of about one-quarter that of the Fayûm (at contour
R.L. 25·00). This depression, known as the Wadi Raiân, had attention
drawn to it by Mr. Cope Whitehouse, who proposed its utilisation as
a reservoir for controlling the Nile floods, and supplementing the
low summer Nile. This Wadi is now bare desert. Its lowest point is
40 metres below sea-level, and the depression thus corresponds, as a
geological formation, with the Fayûm depression, the lowest point of
which (the bed of Lake Qurûn), is known to be not less than 48, and
is perhaps as much as 60 metres below mean sea-level, but soundings
are required to establish the actuality of the greater depth.
The Wadi Raiân is surrounded by hills, on all sides rising above
the level of + 36, except at two gaps in the hills separating it
from the Gharaq Basin, which have their sills at R.L. 27·00 and
26·00 respectively.
_The Fayûm Depression._—The Fayûm Province has the shape of a
leaf, (see Plate XIX.) of which the Bahr Yûsuf, from its entrance
at Lahûn to its end at Medineh, forms the stalk, and the different
canals, branching from Medineh, the veins. The province is generally
described as being formed of three plateaux, but this description
can only properly be applied to that part of the Fayûm, most rich in
Nile deposit, which lies between the main south drain (Wadi Nezlah)
and the main north-east drain (the Bahr Bilamâ or Wadi Tamîyah).
The lower section given on Plate XI., which is typical of this part
of the Fayûm, shows the three plateaux, and gives the different
surface inclinations. The contoured diagram, Plate XIX., also shows
the conformation of the Fayûm Province.
The two strips of land outside the main drainage lines have a
different character, and considerably less Nile deposit (see Map).
Medineh, the chief town of the Fayûm, from which most of its canals
and roads radiate, stands on ground (R.L. 22·50) three to four
metres lower than the land of the Nile Valley in the neighbourhood
of Lahûn, where the Bahr Yûsuf turns westward to enter the Fayûm.
From Medineh for 8 kilometres the country surface slope is 1
in 1400, for the next 4 kilometres 1 in 666, and then 1 in 150,
till the Birket-el-Qurûn (Lake of the Horns) is reached. This
lake occupies the lowest part of the Fayûm, and at the beginning
of 1892 its water surface level was 43·30 metres below mean sea;
while the bed of the lake is 5 metres lower at least.[1]
The Fayûm and Wadi Raiân together are everywhere encircled by
a continuous range of hills, except where the Bahr Yûsuf enters
through the gap in the Libyan Hills, and also towards the north of
the Fayûm, where the height of the hills becomes less, but where
there is probably no gap lower than R.L. 30, though this has not
been actually established by levelling.
_The Birket-el-Qurûn and Evaporation._—Such being the physical
features of the Fayûm, it is evident that there is no outflow for
the drainage of the province. All the drainage (except that of the
Gharaq Basin) finds its way into the Birket-el-Qurûn and there
evaporates. The present surface area of the lake is not accurately
known, but being about 40 kilometres long by 5 broad, the area is
about 200 square kilometres (78 square miles).
Notwithstanding the considerable quantity of water that drains into
the lake during the twelve months of the year, its level has fallen
steadily of late years. The following table gives the measure of
the fall from the first of March of one year to the first of March
of the next.
LEVEL ON 1ST MARCH.
Year. Metres below Sea. Fall.
1885 39·80
1886 40·00 ·20
1887 40·38 ·38
1888 40·73 ·35
1889 41·17 ·44
1890 42·00 ·83
1891 42·78 ·78
1892 43·32 ·54
----
Total fall from 1st March, 1885, to 1st March, 1892 3·52 metres
----
Yearly average ·50 nearly.
There are no records of the level of the lake previous to 1885. Linant
Pasha states in his ‘Mémoires’ that Vansleb, who was in the
Fayûm in 1673, said that one embarked at Sanhûr to pass to the
other side of the lake. Dead tamarisk bushes standing in the water
seem to prove that the lake has in the past been lower by a metre
or more than it is at present, for these tamarisks grow along the
margin of the lake above the water edge, but not in it.
The fall of the lake is not continuous throughout the year, but
generally takes place from the 1st March to the 31st October; the
level rises from the 1st November to the end of January, and remains
stationary during February.
If the area of the lake were more accurately determined, there are
several problems of interest connected with evaporation and the
“duty” of water which might be calculated out from the facts
known about the fall of this lake, the level of which is recorded
daily. The discharge entering the Fayûm throughout the year is known,
as also approximately the areas under crop; but while the area of the
lake remains so vaguely guessed at, the results of the calculation
would be of little value, as the figure representing the lake area
is an important factor in the calculations.
But the following figures give a measure of what the daily evaporation
is in June and July, at least approximately:—
In 1889 and 1890, when there were exceptionally short summer supplies,
and the drainage into Lake Qurûn must have been as little as it
ever is, the lake levels were as follow:—
--+----------------+---------------+-----------+----------------+--
| Date. | Level of Lake.| Fall in | Daily Average. |
| | R.L. | 30 Days. | |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+----------------+
|1st June, 1889 | - 41·63 | | |
| | | | |
|1st July „ | - 41·87 | ·24 | ·008 |
| | | | |
|31st July „ | - 42·11 | ·24 | ·008 |
| | | | |
|1st June, 1890 | - 42·38 | | |
| | | | |
|1st July „ | - 42·66 | ·28 | ·0093 |
| | | | |
|31st July „ | - 42·89 | ·24 | ·008 |
--+----------------+---------------+-----------+----------------+--
The evaporation, then, could not have been less than ·0093 of a
metre per diem in June 1890; or less than ·008 per diem in June
and July 1889 and July 1890.
Allowing for a slight amount of drainage finding its way into the
lake, an estimate of 1 centimetre a day for evaporation during the
three hottest months of the summer would seem to be nearly correct.
We have also the following figures:—
R.L.
On 14th March, 1890, the lake level was - 42·00
On 18th September, 1890 „ - 43·13
-----
The fall in 188 days was therefore 1·13
-----
Giving a daily average of ·006
As, for half this period, the flow of water into the lake must have
been considerable, the average fall per diem due to evaporation for
these six months must have been certainly over 6 millimetres.
Observations on evaporation made in the Abassieh Observatory in Cairo
give the following figures as the measure of the average evaporation
for each month of the year:—
Metres.
January ·071
February ·074
March ·172
April ·193
May ·252
June ·299 }
} Average per diem
July ·370 } for three hottest
} months, ·0107.
August ·310 }
September ·226
October ·179
November ·120
December ·098
-----
Total 2·364 metres per annum.
The average per diem for the three hottest months of the year,
according to these observations, is ·0107, as against ·01 deduced
from observations of the levels of Lake Qurûn. The figure given for
July in the above list is higher than I should have expected, as the
evaporation of that month I should estimate to be very slightly in
excess of that of June or August; that is, about 1 centimetre a day.
[Illustration: PLATE I.
THE BAHR YÛSUF, SKIRTING THE LIBYAN DESERT, IN THE NILE VALLEY.]
_The Bahr Yûsuf outside the Fayûm._—The Bahr Yûsuf (Canal of
Joseph) is the watercourse that carries the Fayûm supply. It is
not an artificial canal, but a naturally formed sinuous channel,
resulting from the Nile flood water draining off the lands and
following the line of least resistance along the low-lying part of the
Nile Valley on the side of the Libyan Desert. Plate I. shows where
the Bahr Yûsuf touches the desert and forms a line of separation
between the fertile land of the Nile Valley with its grateful shade
of trees and the barren desert sands under a scorching sun.
As is usual in the case of rivers which periodically overflow their
banks, the land is highest alongside the Nile, and slopes away
from it to the hills on either side. The high margins of the Nile
are known in Egypt as the “Sahel.” As the Bahr Yûsuf has for a
great many years been given an artificial connection with the Nile,
and been used as a channel to carry flood water to inundate the
lands along its course on both sides, it has imitated the Nile in
its action on its borders, and raised a “Sahel” of its own on a
smaller scale. The cross-section of the Nile Valley is thus roughly
represented in the following diagram.
A former artificial connection of the Bahr Yûsuf with the Nile is
plainly visible at Derût, 200 kilometres farther up the Nile Valley
than Lahûn, the point at which the Bahr Yûsuf turns westward into
the Fayûm. The artificial part is easily distinguished from the
natural channel, as the former is straight with high spoil banks,
resulting from the earth excavated to form the channel, whereas the
latter is sinuous without any signs of spoil banks. The length of
the channel from Derût to Lahûn, measured along its windings, is
270 kilometres, as against 200 kilometres measured as the crow flies.
[Illustration]
A second artificial connection with the Nile farther south was made at
Manfalût by the excavation of a channel 30 kilometres in length. The
part of this that remains now is called the “Manfalûtîyah” or
“old Bahr Yûsuf.” About twenty years ago a large canal, called
the Ibrahimîyah, was made for the irrigation of the Khedive Ismail
Pasha’s large sugar-cane plantations. It was made to take off from
the Nile at Asyût, 30 kilometres above Manfalût and 61 kilometres
above Derût. It absorbed part of the Manfalûtîyah Canal from
Beni Qora to Derût. At Derût, regulators of a fine description
were constructed for the distribution of the water, and a regulator
of five openings of three metres’ span, with a lock 8·50 metres
wide, was made as the head work of the Bahr Yûsuf, which under the
new nomenclature became a branch of the Ibrahimîyah Canal. When the
Ibrahimîyah Canal was first opened, it appears from the Mémoires
on Public Works, published by Linant de Bellefonds Bey in 1872-73,
that its discharge was small compared with its present discharge,
and the Fayûm summer irrigation must have been limited. M. Linant
states that the bed width of the main Ibrahimîyah was 35 metres,
and its reputed depth in summer 1·50 metres; but, in consequence
of the inefficient means of dredging, a depth of one metre at most
was all that could be obtained at the lowest level of the Nile;
and he calculates that the minimum discharge, which theoretically
should have reached Derût, was 666,840 cubic metres per 24 hours
(273 cubic feet a second), but, in consequence of the inefficient
dredging, no more than 369,624 cubic metres per 24 hours (151 cubic
feet a second) were delivered. Under present conditions in the worst
years the minimum has never fallen below two million cubic metres
per 24 hours (818 cubic feet a second) since, at any rate, 1883.
[Illustration: PLATE II.
BRIDGE CARRYING THE BAZAAR STREET, MEDINET EL FAYÛM, OVER THE
BAHR YÛSUF.]
Of the Bahr Yûsuf before the Ibrahimîyah Canal was made, M. Linant
remarks in the same Mémoires, that “it is the only canal in Egypt
which, without receiving water from the river during the summer,
nevertheless has enough to serve for the irrigation of the Fayûm
from the springs in its bed.” These springs still supplement
the summer supply of the Fayûm by adding to the discharge, which
is apportioned to the Bahr Yûsuf at Derût, about a quarter of a
million cubic metres a day (102 cubic feet a second).
During the summer and winter the water of the Bahr Yûsuf is (with
the exception of an insignificant quantity lifted for the irrigation
of small areas at different points along its course) reserved for
the Fayûm, but during the flood season its channel is used to carry
water for the inundation of the lands on both sides of it, and later
it is made use of as the channel of discharge for the basins which
it has filled, or helped to fill.
At Lahûn, where the Bahr Yûsuf turns into the Fayûm, the quantity
of water admitted is controlled by two regulators. The lower bridge
is a very ancient one (frontispiece), of what date is unknown. Its
floor in Linant Pasha’s time had already partly given way, but from
his description it would seem to be now in the same state in which it
was more than twenty years ago. The upstream half has evidently been
added to the downstream half, as there is a clean line of separation
in the middle of the length of the present archway. This is only to
be seen by entering the passage below the arches, as the junction
is not visible from above.
In 1838 Linant Pasha caused the second regulator of three openings
(two of three metres’ and one of four metres’ span) to be
constructed as a precaution 80 metres above the old one, and it was
a very wise precaution to take. The head of water is now divided
between the two bridges so that the action is less severe than it
was before the second bridge was constructed.
The present discharges passed by these regulators into the Fayûm
are:—
During the flood season 6½ to 7 million cubic metres per day (2658
to 2863 cubic feet per second).
During the winter season 3 million cubic metres per day (1227 cubic
feet per second).
During the summer season 1½ to 1 million cubic metres per day
(713 to 409 cubic feet per second).
The ordinary and maximum and minimum levels of the Bahr Yûsuf are
given in the list below:—
--+--------------+--------------+----------------+------------------+--
| | Below Derût. | Above New | Below Old Bridge |
| | | Bridge, Lahûn. | on Fayûm Side. |
| +--------------+----------------+------------------+
| Flood season | 46·75 | 26·50 | 23·90 |
| | | | |
| Winter | 43·00 | 24·14 | 23·15 |
| | | | |
| Summer | 42·15 | 22·90 | 22·50 |
| | | | |
| Maximum | 46·95 | 27·80 | 23·90 |
| | | | |
| Minimum | 41·67 | 22·50 | 22·27 |
--+--------------+--------------+----------------+------------------+--
_The Bahr Yûsuf inside the Fayûm._—At the end of the Bahr Yûsuf
at Medineh the water-level is now kept constantly at R.L. 21·70 to
21·80. In Nile time any increase on this tail level is forbidden by
the effect of the heading-up caused by the obstructions met with by
the large flood discharge in its passage through the town between the
houses which line its edges. The Bahr Yûsuf is bridged in this length
twice, first by a three-arched bridge, Plate II., which carries the
main street and bazaar of Medineh; and again by a two-tubed tunnel,
over which the mosque of Kait Bey is built, Plate III.
In passing through the bazaar with shops on either side the Bahr
Yûsuf is crossed without its being noticed, and a stranger to the
town is presently surprised to find himself on the other side of
the canal to which he imagined himself to be.
[Illustration: PLATE III.
TUNNEL ON BAHR YÛSUF,
OVER WHICH THE KAIT BEY MOSQUE IN MEDINET EL FAYÛM IS BUILT.]
The waterways of these two constructions are sufficient to pass
the winter discharge with but slight heading-up, but when the flood
supply is flowing, they (assisted perhaps by old blocks of masonry
and débris of fallen houses in the channel) cause a backing-up of
the water of from 50 to 60 centimetres and thereby (with the level
at the tail below the town fixed at R.L. 21·80) produce the maximum
level above the town, which it is safe to allow.
The distance from Lahûn to the end of the Bahr Yûsuf at Medineh
along the canal is 24 kilometres (15 miles). Between kilometre
11 and 14 the bed is rock, the highest point of the bed being at
R.L. 21·00 and between kilometre 12 and 13. The bed elsewhere is
generally between R.L. 17 and 19.
At kilometre 10·130, the Bahr (canal) Sêlah takes off on the
right, and after flowing by the Hawârah pyramid and passing under
the Fayûm railway, its water surface comes level with the soil and
irrigates the strip of land bordering the Fayûm depression on the
right of the main drainage line on this side.
Similarly at kilometre 15·5 the Bahr Gharaq takes off on the left of
the Bahr Yûsuf, and, aided by the Bahr Qalamshah, irrigates the east
slope of the Fayûm and the whole of the Gharaq Basin. The strip on
the left of the south main drainage line, forming the sloping side
of the Fayûm Basin on the south, is irrigated by the Bahr Nezlah,
which takes off from the main canal at kilometre 16·370.
With the exception of the Bahr Tamîyah, which flows in the channel
of the north-east main drain itself and irrigates the distant north
corner of the province on the right of the drain, all the other
canals irrigate the central part of the Fayûm, which lies between
the two main drainage lines. These canals may be divided into three
classes corresponding to the three plateaux:—
1. The short and high level canals irrigating the high land on both
sides of the Bahr Yûsuf and round Medineh, roughly speaking all
lands down to contour R.L. 18·00.
2. The medium canals, which irrigate between R.L. 18·00 and 10·00
or thereabouts.
3. The long ravine canals, which carry water to the distant parts
of the Fayûm below contour R.L. 10·00.
In a lawless province like the Fayûm, such an arrangement of canals
is of great assistance in the equal distribution of water to all
parts of the province. The long canals of class 3 are, in their
upper reaches, so far below the cultivated surface of the soil,
that no crop-owner of the first and second plateaux would attempt to
irrigate from them except by means of water-wheels, which have to be
regularly licensed. The canals of the 2nd class are intermediate in
level and length between the first and third, and do not conveniently
irrigate, except at some considerable distance from their heads.
There is a further advantage gained by the water of the long canals
falling at once to low levels at their commencement. Along the margins
of the Bahr Yûsuf and round about Medineh is a considerable area
of valuable land above the highest level reached by the water in the
parent canal. To irrigate this, water is lifted in pitchers fastened
to the side of the outer edge of undershot wheels, which are turned by
the force of the water descending to the low-level beds of the ravine
canals. These wheels turn day and night without ceasing, so long as
there is sufficient water. A head of 25 centimetres is sufficient
to turn an ordinary wheel which lifts the water about 2 metres, but
when greater heads are obtainable, water is lifted in this way as
much as from 4 to 6 metres (Plate IV.) A fall of 80 centimetres will
work two wheels, one behind the other, which lift the water 5 metres.
The channel, carried by the imposing looking aqueduct of Plate
IV., is only 40 centimetres wide by 30 centimetres high, the whole
thickness of the aqueduct being only 85 centimetres. The expense,
incurred in building it, points to the value of a constant stream
of water raised in this manner.
There are two kinds of wheels used, one in which the water lifted
is contained in earthenware jars fastened to the side of the wheel
near its outer edge, the arrangement of which is shown by the
drawing, reproduced from Willcocks’ ‘Egyptian Irrigation’
(Plate V.) The other kind of wheel, called a _tabût_, has a hollow
chambered tube of square cross-section forming its circumference,
the holes to admit water into each chamber being made in such a
position that the water, which enters the chamber when submerged,
does not commence to flow out again, till the chamber approaches
the highest point of its path. Below the point, at which the flow
out commences, a trough is placed to catch the water.
It will be seen that in both these arrangements there is a loss of
work in lifting the greater part of the water rather higher than
the level at which it is utilised. The principle of the tabût
will be understood from the drawing given on the same plate No. V.,
as the other arrangement with pitchers. Either kind is known as a
_saqya hedêr_.
[Illustration: PLATE IV.
HIGH-LIFT WATER-WHEELS ON THE TAMÎYAH CANAL.
The pair of wheels shown on this Plate raise the water 4·50 metres,
and are worked by a total fall of water of 0·55 metres.
As a means of estimating the heights and widths in the Plate, the
widths of the arches are given.
Left-hand arch, 3 metres span; next arch on its right, 2½ metres span.]
[Illustration: PLATE V.
UNDERSHOT WHEEL FOR RAISING WATER.
Scale ¹⁄₅₀. From Willcocks’ ‘Egyptian Irrigation.’]
[Illustration: SKETCH DIAGRAM OF TABÛT.
Drawn with side as if transparent, to show water in compartment,
and principle.]
The _saqya mawâshi_ (saqya worked by cattle) and the _shadûf_
are also employed to a small extent, as elsewhere in Egypt, but only
for small areas.
There are 205 saqya hedêrs in the province. To obtain a license to
erect one, the applicant has to pay L.E. 1 to get his application
accepted, and L.E. 5 more, if the license is granted.
_Water-mills._—The fall of the water is also used to turn mills
for grinding corn, of which there are 243 in the province, which
paid as tax in 1891 a total of 810_l._ (L.E. 791).
Plate VI. is from a photograph of one of the falls, below which are
first a pair of tabût wheels, one behind the other, for lifting
water to high-level lands, and, below these in the same mill-race,
an undershot wheel working a mill for grinding corn.
The mills are worked either by turbines (_panchakkis_) of a
pattern introduced from India thirty years ago, according to
Mr. Willcocks, or by undershot wheels. The latter method is used,
where the fall available to work the mill is small, but not less
than 60 centimetres. The former system requires a fall of at least
1·60 metres.
_Falls and Regulators._—For purposes of irrigation the fall of
the country surface is excessive, and works have to be built at
intervals along a canal, after the point where it begins to irrigate,
to hold up the water-surface to a sufficient height to flow over
the fields. These works are generally placed where the canal splits
up into branches, and they take the form of a collection of small
weirs. Where the maximum water-levels below all the weirs of such
a group never rise above the level of their weir-sills we have a
“free fall” in the case of each weir, and the discharge over
each sill is directly proportional at all seasons to the length
of the sill, which in each weir is made proportional to the area
irrigated from the canal below the weir. Thus the collection of
weirs not only holds up the water for the irrigation from the canal
above it, but acts automatically as a just distributor of water to
the canals below it. Such a group of weirs is called a _nasbah_,
an Arabic word signifying “proportion.” The arrangement is
thoroughly understood and appreciated by the Fayûm cultivators,
and is useful in rendering unnecessary the employment of a numerous
establishment of low-paid agents—a great end to gain in a country
where the inferior employés are so easily corrupted.
There are, besides the nasbahs, a large number of small masonry
works, as head regulators, sluice heads to branch canals, syphons,
aqueducts, and pipe heads scattered all over the province, but there
is nothing peculiar in them as irrigation works.
[Illustration: PLATE VI.
NASBAH MITERTARIS.]
The upper bridge at Lahûn has hitherto been closed by vertical
needles, but in 1892 it has been altered, and will in future be
regulated by horizontal planks. The openings have also all been made
one width, namely, 3 metres.
_Crops._—The area on which land tax was paid in 1891 was
Ushuri lands 131,155 feddans.
Kharagi „ 102,146 „
-------
Total 233,301 „
The total amount received into the Government treasury on this area
was L.E. 132,668, which gives an average of 57 piastres a feddan,
or 11_s._ 2¾_d._ an acre.
The actually cultivated area of the Fayûm is said to be about
280,000 feddans. Almost the whole of this area is under crop during
the flood season and winter, and about 50,000 to 60,000 feddans are
planted with summer crops, chiefly cotton.
If cotton is grown, it is followed by a winter crop of wheat, clover,
or beans, and this is followed by a flood crop of millet. The cotton
is sown in March of one year, and the flood millet is harvested in
November of the following year, so that three crops are obtained
in twenty months. After the flood millet, clover will be sown, and
this will be cleared off the ground in time to plant cotton, which
will be picked and finished with in October. This makes five crops
in thirty-one months. I believe that sometimes even this record is
beaten, and three crops are got out of fifteen months.
Everything which is sent out of the Fayûm, with the exception of
an insignificant quantity which is carried out by camels, is shown
in the railway books, from which the following figures, in kantars,
have been obtained. (A kantar = 98·09 lbs.)
EXPORTS FROM THE FAYÛM PROVINCE.
--+-------------+---------+---------+-----------+--
| | 1889. | 1890. | 1891. |
+-------------+---------+---------+-----------+
|Cotton | 39,433 | 56,334 | 86,638 |
| | | | |
|Cotton-seed | 82,010 | 104,608 | 185,917 |
| | | | |
|Cereals | 418,935 | 797,363 | 1,109,070 |
--+-------------+---------+---------+-----------+--
The value of the exports in 1891 was not less than that given in
the following calculation:—
Kantars. Piastres. L.E.
Cotton 86,638 at 170 = 147,284
Cotton-seed 185,917 at 55 = 102,254
Cereals 1,109,070 at 70 = 776,349
---------
Total = 1,025,887
The area on which an average land tax of 57 piastres a feddan was paid
has been given before as 233,301 feddans (242,166 acres). Hence the
value of cotton, cotton-seed, and cereals exported from the Fayûm
in 1891 was at the rate of L.E. 4·397 a feddan (4_l._ 6_s._ 10_d._
an acre).
Clover, which is extensively cultivated, is all consumed in the
province.
Besides the above, the Fayûm exports also figs, grapes, olives,
quail, fish, mats, baskets, and a few other things.
The province is justly famed for its excellent figs, but the grapes
are not of superior quality to those of other parts of Egypt, though
they have the reputation of being so.
In 1891 Government farmed out the fisheries for a sum of
L.E. 2000. Every day large numbers of fish, chiefly _bulti_
(Nile carp) are sent in crates to Cairo. The bulti is excellent
eating. Another common fish is the _armûd_, or Nile shad-fish _alias_
sheath-fish or cat-fish (_Silurus_). It is considered by the natives
to be good to eat, but according to others it is not fit for food.
Another handsome fish, called by the fishermen _lâl_, and also a
fine species of the perch family, known to them as _lafâsh_, both
from their appearance good table fish, are not uncommon, except by
comparison with the abundant carp. The _lafâsh_ grows to a great
size, one that I photographed, measured, and weighed being 1·32
metres long, of 1 metre girth, and 92 lbs. weight.
The fishermen move about the lake in the most primitive kind of boats,
propelled by the clumsiest possible oars, and without any sails. How
long they will continue to be satisfied with their craft it is hard
to say, but they show no signs of desiring anything better.
CHAPTER II.
ANCIENT TESTIMONY ABOUT LAKE MŒRIS.
Evidence concerning the existence of Lake Mœris, which has been
briefly referred to in the Introduction, is to be gained from the
following sources:—
The Egyptian monuments, in which are found inscriptions on stone
and records on papyri.
The writings of Herodotus, who visited Egypt B.C. 450.
The writings of Diodorus Siculus, a Sicilian, and of Strabo, a Greek
geographer and contemporary with Diodorus, about B.C. 25.
Lastly Pliny, A.D. 50 to 70.
It must be borne in mind, while reading their accounts, that, in
attempting to give information as to the origin of Lake Mœris, they
were undertaking a task beyond their powers, since, according to the
scanty revelations of the monuments, which on this point are the only
witnesses worthy of credence, the Lake Mœris _existed_ 2000 years
before Herodotus visited Egypt, and therefore must have been _formed_
at a more remote date. What then these ancients may have been told
as to the _origin_ of Lake Mœris may well be classed with tradition,
and be assigned its true value as such, but what they state, that they
themselves _saw_, is as worthy of belief as statements found in the
descriptions of any other sober historian’s personal experiences.
I am indebted to the Rev. Edwin Meyrick, M.A., for the translations of
the passages from Herodotus, and to Mr. Edward Meyrick, of Marlborough
College, for those from the other classics.
_Translations from Ancient Authors, who have referred to Lake Mœris,
and Arabic Tradition._
HERODOTUS, Book II. (B.C. 454).
“These twelve kings (who were governing Egypt at the time of
which Herodotus was writing) agreed to leave a work which should
make their names remembered, and, uniting all their powers, they
built the Labyrinth, a little above the Lake Mœris, and situated as
nearly as possible opposite the city called Crocodilopolis. (Here
follows a description of the Labyrinth, in which it is stated to
surpass the pyramids as a wonder of construction.)
“Adjoining the angle where the Labyrinth ends, is a pyramid,
240 feet high, on which large figures of animals are engraved. The
entrance into this is subterranean.
“Now, the Labyrinth being such as I have described, the lake,
named that of Mœris, causes still greater astonishment, on the
bank of which this Labyrinth was built. The perimeter of this lake
measures 3600 stadii, which is the same thing as 60 schœni. This
measure is nearly equal to the entire seaboard of the whole of Egypt.
“This 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, out-topping the
water 50 fathoms each, and that part of them which is built under
water is as much more. On the top of each is a colossal figure
in stone, seated on a throne. So these pyramids are 100 fathoms
high. Now, 100 fathoms are exactly equal to a stadius, consisting
of six plethra, seeing that the fathom is equal to 6 feet, or four
cubits, a foot measuring four palms, a cubit six palms.
“The water in the lake is not derived from local sources, for
the earth in that part is naturally excessively dry and waterless,
but it is brought in from the Nile by a canal. It takes six months
filling and six months flowing back. During the six months of the
return flow, it yields a talent of silver each day to the Treasury,
and during the flow in, twenty minæ from the fish.
“The people of the country also told me that this lake on its
western face, inland along the mountain which is over Memphis,
has an underground outlet into the Syrtis, which is in Libya. But
when I nowhere saw the earth-mounds which came from this excavation
(for this was much upon my mind) I questioned those who lived in the
neighbourhood of the lake as to where the excavated material could
be. They told me that it had been carried out, and without difficulty
they led me to believe it. For I knew by report that a similar thing
had taken place in Nineveh, the city of the Assyrians. For burglars
contrived a plan to carry off the treasures of King Sardanapalus,
son of Ninus, which were valuable and guarded in subterranean
treasuries. These burglars then, starting from their own dwellings,
and calculating the distance, tunnelled to the palace. And when night
came on they carried out the material, which was removed from the
excavation into the river Tigris, which flows past Nineveh, until
they accomplished what they wished. In a similar way to this I heard
that the excavation also of the lake in Egypt had been carried out
(except that it was done by daylight, not by night), inasmuch as
the excavators carried the material to the Nile, and the Nile,
receiving it, would disperse it. In this way the lake is said to
have been excavated.”
STRABO, Book XVII. (B.C. 24).
Writing of the Arsinoïte Nome he says, “This province is the
most remarkable of all in appearance, natural properties, and
embellishment. It grows olive-trees which bear fruit. It produces wine
in abundance, corn, pulse, and a great variety of other grains. . . .
“It has also a remarkable lake called the Lake of Mœris, large
enough to be called a sea, and resembling the open sea in colour;
its shores are also similar in appearance to sea-beaches, whence
we may suspect a community of nature between them and the district
about Ammon. For they are in fact not far distant from one another
or from Parætonium, and as there is good reason to suppose that the
latter temple formerly stood on the sea-shore, so also this district
must formerly have been littoral. Lower Egypt and the parts towards
the Serbonian Lake were then covered by the sea, perhaps connected
with the Red Sea by Heroöpolis and the Elanitic Gulf. . . .
“Thus, the Lake of Mœris is, from its size and depth, capable of
receiving the overflow of the Nile at its rising, and preventing the
flooding of houses and gardens; 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
controlling the inflow and outflow. Near these is an immense stone
Labyrinth, a work comparable with the Pyramids; and the tomb of the
king who constructed it. . . .
“Sailing 100 furlongs further one comes to the city Arsinoë,
formerly called Crocodilopolis.”
DIODORUS SICULUS, Book I. Chap. LI. (about B.C. 20).
“He (King Mœris) dug a lake 600 furlongs above the city (Memphis), which
is amazingly useful and incredibly large. Its circumference is said to
be 3600 furlongs, and its depth in most parts 50 fathoms. . . . For as
the rising of the Nile is irregular, and the fertility of the country
depends on its uniformity, he dug the lake for the reception of the
superfluous water. And he constructed a canal from the river to the lake
80 furlongs in length and 300 feet in breadth. Through this he admitted
or let out water as required, the mouth being opened or closed by an
elaborate and costly process (for it cost not less than 50 talents
whenever any one wished to open or close the mechanism). This lake has
continued to serve the Egyptians for this purpose down to our own times,
and is called the Lake of Mœris after its constructor. When the king dug
it he left in the centre a place on which he built a tomb and two
pyramids, one for himself and the other for his wife, a furlong in
height, expecting thus to leave an immortal reputation for his
benefactions. The revenue of the fisheries in the lake he gave to his
wife for her allowance for perfumes and cosmetics generally; they
brought in a sum of a talent of silver daily; for there are said to be
twenty-two kinds of fish in it, and the quantity taken is so large that
the numerous hands engaged in the salt-curing industry can hardly keep
pace with the work.”
PLINY, Nat. Hist., Book V. Chap. 9 (A.D. 50-70).
“Between the nomes of Arsinoë and Memphis was a lake, 250 miles
(i.e. Roman miles) in circumference; or, as Mucianus tells us,
450 miles in circumference and 50 paces in depth, artificially
constructed, called the Lake of Mœris, from the king who made
it. Seventy-two miles distant from this is Memphis, formerly the
capital of Egypt.”
PLINY, Nat. Hist., Book XXXVI. Chap. 16.
“There were two other pyramids near the Lake of Mœris, which is
a large excavation.”
ARABIC TRADITION,
as given by Mr. Cope Whitehouse in his article entitled “The
Expansion of Egypt” in the _Contemporary Review_, September 1887,
translated from an Arabic manuscript which once belonged to Cardinal
Mazarin:—
“Joseph, to whom may Allah show mercy and grant peace, when he was
Prime Minister of Egypt and high in favour with Raiyan, his sovereign,
after that he was more than a hundred years old, became an object of
envy to the favourites of the king and the puissant seigneurs of the
Court of Memphis, on account of the great power which he wielded and
the affection entertained for him by his monarch. They accordingly
thus addressed the king: ‘Great king, Joseph is now very old;
his knowledge has diminished; his beauty has faded; his judgment
is unsound; his sagacity has failed.’ The king said: ‘Set him
a task which shall serve as a test.’ At that time el-Fayoum was
called el-Hun, or the Marsh. It served as a waste basin for the
waters of Upper Egypt, which flowed in and out unrestrained. The
courtiers having taken counsel together what to propose to the king,
gave this reply to Pharaoh: ‘Lay the royal commands upon Joseph
that he shall divert the water of the Nile from el-Hun and drain
it, so as to give you a new province and an additional source of
revenue.’ The king assented, and summoning Joseph to his presence,
said: ‘You know how dearly I love my daughter, and you see that
the time has arrived in which I ought to carve out an estate for
her out of the crown lands, and give her a separate establishment,
of which she would be the mistress. I have, however, no territory
available for this purpose except the submerged land of el-Hun. It
is in many respects favourably situated. It is a convenient distance
from my capital. It is surrounded by desert. My daughter will thus be
independent and protected.’ ‘Quite true, great king,’ responded
Joseph, ‘when would you wish it done? for accomplished it shall
be by the aid of Allah, the all-powerful.’ ‘The sooner, the
better,’ said the king. Then Allah inspired Joseph with a plan. He
directed him to make three canals; one from Upper Egypt, a canal on
the east, and a canal on the west. Joseph collected workmen and dug
the canal of Menhi from Ashmunîn to el-Lahûn. Then he excavated the
canal of el-Fayoum, and the eastern canal, with another canal near it
called Ben-Hamed to the west. In this way the water was drained from
el-Hun; then he set an army of labourers at work. They cut down the
tamarisks and bushes which grew there and carried them away. At the
season when the Nile begins to rise the marsh had been converted into
good cultivable land. The Nile rose; the water entered the mouth of
the Menhi canal and flowed down the Nile Valley to el-Lahûn; thence
it turned towards el-Fayoum, and entered that canal in such volume
that it filled it, and converted the land into a region irrigated by
the Nile. King Raiyan thereupon came to see his new province with the
courtiers who had advised him to set Joseph this task. When they saw
the result they greatly marvelled at the skill and inventive genius
of Joseph, and exclaimed: ‘We do not know which most to admire,
the draining of the marsh and the destruction of the noxious plants,
or the conversion of its surface into fertile and well-watered
fields.’ Then the King said to Joseph, ‘How long did it take
you to bring this district into the excellent state in which I find
it?’ ‘Seventy days,’ responded Joseph. Then Pharaoh turned
to his courtiers and said: ‘Apparently one could not have done
it in a thousand days.’ Thus the name was changed from el-Hun,
or the Marsh, to el-Fayoum, ‘the land of a thousand days.’”
This pun is not to be appreciated in the translation without a
knowledge of Arabic. _Elf_ is the Arabic for a thousand, and _yôm_
for a day; _elf-yôm_ being a thousand days. As the work took seventy
days to complete, according to the tradition, it does not appear clear
why it should have been called “the land of a thousand days”
instead of “the land of seventy days.” But the tradition must
not be criticised, as it will not stand it.
The name Fayûm is derived from an old Coptic word _phiûm_ signifying
a sea or lake; _el_ is simply the definite article.
CHAPTER III.
THEORIES AS TO WHERE AND WHAT LAKE MŒRIS WAS.
_Postulates._—There seems to be a general agreement that Lake Mœris
was in the Fayûm, the evidence being conclusive. There is, further,
no disposition shown to question the fact, that the Labyrinth and the
pyramid alongside it, were on the borders of Lake Mœris, and that
the present capital of the Fayûm, Medineh or Medinet-el-Fayûm,
occupies part of the site of the ancient town of Crocodilopolis,
or, as it was called afterwards, Arsinoë.
There seems also to be sufficient evidence for accepting the
conclusion, that the site of the Labyrinth was at the foot of the
Hawârah pyramid.
It also seems to be agreed to accept the testimony of Herodotus,
Strabo, and Diodorus, when they describe the uses which Lake Mœris
served, namely, to receive part of the Nile waters when the river
was in flood, and so to moderate its excesses, and also to return
the stored-up water to the Nile, when its discharge had fallen low
in summer, and so to supplement its deficiencies.
_Statements not accepted as postulates._—These same witnesses made
other statements, which have been accepted or rejected according
to the individual views of different theorists. If Herodotus and
others after him are rightly interpreted as stating that the Lake
Mœris was artificially dug out by human labour, I too must claim
the privilege of assuming that they were mistaken. As pointed
out at the commencement of Chapter II. of this paper, Herodotus
was trying to give an account of what took place more than, at
least, 2000 years before, with no records to help him. Under such
circumstances, accuracy as to the origin of Lake Mœris was not to
be expected in his accounts. Being no engineer, and having a large
belief in the marvellous, he might well have supposed the whole
oasis artificially dug out. The absence of all signs of the earth
resulting from this immense excavation puzzled him, and he asked what
had become of it. He was told that it had been carried to the Nile,
whose waters dispersed it, and this he _readily believed_, because
he had heard of a similar proceeding in another country, where some
thieves excavated an underground passage to a king’s treasury,
and got rid of the earth resulting from the excavation by throwing
it into a river at the outer end of their shaft. This is comparing
small and great with a vengeance. The distance of the centre of the
Lake Mœris excavation to the Nile would have been 50 kilometres
(31 miles), and the quantity of earth to be carried and dispersed by
the Nile would have been at least 50,000 million cubic metres. Such
a task can scarcely be called similar to a simple mining operation.
The Egyptian of to-day, if asked to account for any assumed fact,
will not pause to consider whether the assumed fact is really fact,
but will at once invent some more or less plausible explanation
to account for it. I will give a remarkable instance of a very
generally believed explanation of an annual Egyptian phenomenon,
though it has nothing to do with the Fayûm or Lake Mœris. In the
summer the land surface of the inundation basins of Upper Egypt is
split up into mazes of deep cracks, into which innumerable rats
are seen to disappear when disturbed. On the waters entering the
basins all this cracked area becomes submerged, and the question is,
what becomes of the rats? Again, when the water is discharged from
the basins after remaining in them two months, the rats are found
(or appear) to be in as great numbers as before. Again the question
is, where have the rats come from? The accepted explanation is that
when the water comes the rats turn into mud, and when it retires
the mud changes back again into rats. I could scarcely credit that
so childish a belief was general, so I submitted the question to
a large Assembly of Notables (collected for a different purpose),
and several members came forward and declared they had seen the
rats in the state of semi-transition, when half mud and half rat,
and offered to catch and deliver one to me. I accepted the offer,
but the matter has not yet gone any further.
Returning to the discussion of the statement that Lake Mœris was
artificially excavated, it strikes one as being a senseless operation
to dig out a basin to the depth given as being that of the deepest
part of Lake Mœris, viz. 92 metres, as all the water lying below half
the depth stated could have served no useful purpose, except from the
point of view of aquatic animals that have a liking for deep water.
Theorists lay stress on some features testified to by the ancients,
and explain away or discredit other points of their testimony
according as they support or are hostile to their adopted theories;
or else they give strained interpretations to other statements from
the same motives. Such statements, for instance, as the following
are subject to this varied treatment.
Herodotus, and others after him, state that the circumference of
Lake Mœris was 720 kilometres (450 miles), or, as some interpret,
360 kilometres, according to the value of the stadius adopted. Depth,
92 metres.
The length of the lake lies north and south. It was artificially
made. There were two pyramids, crowned by colossal statues, centrally
situated in the lake, as viewed from the Labyrinth or Arsinoë.
The water in the lake was not derived from local sources, but
was brought in from the Nile by a canal. The lake was between the
Arsinoïte and Memphite nomes.
Crocodilopolis was on or near the borders of the lake, and 9400
metres from the Labyrinth.
Lake Mœris formed an elbow to the west, was oblong, and situate in
the middle of the lands along the mountains above Memphis.
These statements are not in the original language in which they were
made, and may be inaccurately translated, where accurate rendering
is important. I have found for instance in different publications
the two following translations of the same passage in Diodorus:—
(_a_) “A little south of Memphis a canal was cut for a lake,
brought down in length from the city 40 miles.”
(_b_) “And a little above the city he cut a dyke for a pond,
bringing it down in length from the city 320 furlongs.” (Translation
by G. Booth.)
A canal and dyke are not synonymous terms, in all parts of England
at any rate; nor are lake and pond.
Some of the statements are founded also on hearsay when they were
first made, and the ancestors of the present inhabitants of the
Fayûm may, for all that is known, have had as great a tendency to
the widest possible departure from scientific accuracy of statement
in their verbal representation of facts, as it is notorious that
their modern successors have. Hence it is not surprising that human
nature, which has a parental prejudice in favour of any theory to
which it may have given birth, should take advantage of these weak
points to the benefit of its offspring.
We will then proceed to discuss the present generation of theories,
which exemplify this principle.
LINANT THEORY.
The most important of these theories is that of Linant de Bellefonds
Pasha, once Minister of Public Works in Egypt.
His views will be found in Chapter II. of his ‘Mémoires sur les
Principaux Travaux d’utilité publique exécutés en Egypte depuis
la plus haute antiquité jusqu’à nos jours, 1872-1873.’
His theory, which defines the form and limits of Lake Mœris,
appears to have been generally accepted after being propounded,
and still to be the accepted theory with many, who have not, by a
personal acquaintance with the Fayûm and its actual conformation and
levels, corrected the ideas which they had accepted on the authority
of Linant Pasha.
(For the names of places quoted from M. Linant’s writings I have
adopted the more modern way of spelling, as otherwise the places might
not be recognised. For instance, had it not been for the context, I
should not have been able to recognise the village known as Abûksah
in “Bogça.”)
_Linant’s Theory stated._—M. Linant maintains that Lake Mœris
occupied the gap in the hills by which the Bahr Yûsuf enters the
Fayûm, and covered the so-called “plateau” on the south-east
of Medineh, the encircling bank commencing at its north-east
end at Edwah, and being continued through el-Alam, Biahmu,
Zowyet-el-Karatsah, to Medineh. See Plate VII.
The remains of this bank he traced throughout this length, and saw
evidences of it again to the S.S.E. of Medineh.
Thence he _supposed_ that it must have passed on to Abgig (“je
suppose qu’elle a dû passer à Ebgig”), el Sawafnah, Atamnah,
and Gaafrah. Then he found it again constructed in masonry over a
great length not far from the village of Miniet-el-Hêt. It continues
afterwards (according to Linant Pasha) up to Shêkh Abu Nûr, and then
takes the direction of “el Gharak in the plain,” where it is no
longer well defined (“où elle n’est plus bien marquée”). He
notes that at Bahr Nezlah its height (that is, the wall’s,) is
12 metres.[2] He then makes the bank pass on from the south-east
of Sélé (?) to between Shêkh Danial and Tutûn, in an easterly
direction, and turn to the north by Kalamshah, El Nedlé (?), to
the Bahr Yûsuf, then following the Bahr Yûsuf up to Dimishkîn,
turning along the banks at Lahûn (Bahlawân and Gedallah), it again
returns to the west near Hawârat-el-Maqta, and, following the old
canal Wardan, passes the Hawârah pyramid at the village of Dimu
and joins the commencement of the bank at the south-east of Sêlah
(Sélé).
[Illustration: PLATE VII.
MAP SHOWING LINANT’S SUPPOSED LAKE MŒRIS.
From Rawlinson’s ‘Egypt,’ 1881.]
All the land enclosed by this bank represents the site of Lake Mœris
according to the theory of Linant de Bellefonds Pasha.
I give here a map, Plate VII., copied from one of Mr. Cope
Whitehouse’s papers on the Wadi Raiân, being a reproduction from
the ‘Egypt’ of Canon Rawlinson, as it is a convenient one for
demonstrating what this theory is. Linant’s Lake Mœris is shown
on this map as a dark patch occupying what M. Linant calls the high
plateau. The part where “LAKE” is printed is actually the highest
part of the Fayûm, at R.L. 22 to 25, if we except the narrow pass
by which the Bahr Yûsuf flows in. This latter has its land surface
at from R.L. 24 to 26. But the word “MŒRIS” on the shaded area
lies over a depression whose bed is at R.L. 12·00, that is, 11 to
12 metres lower than the land surface covered by the word “LAKE”
on the same shaded area.
The north boundary of this area through el Edwah and el Alam runs
generally along contour R.L. 17·50, 5 to 7 metres below the high
plateau. It is therefore incorrect to speak of the ground represented
by the shaded area as a plateau.
M. Linant’s depth of water in his supposed lake was fixed at
9·60 metres. Its bed must have been at R.L. 21·00, the level
of the rock-bed at Hawârah, and its maximum water surface at
R.L. 30·60. The height of the surrounding bank would have had to
be, on the Edwah-el-Alam line, 15 metres, and at the Wadi Nezlah
(at the initial letter of “MŒRIS” on the map) 20 metres.
Now the country lying between the Linant Lake Mœris and the
Birket-el-Qurûn was said to be irrigated from this lake. Imagine
the state of insecurity for this tract of sloping land, with a huge
reservoir of water standing 13 metres above that part which lies along
the north face of the lake, and more than this above the part along
the west face. When one considers, too, that there must have been
passages for irrigation through this bank, and how dangerous such an
arrangement would be, it is scarcely credible that the collection of
thriving towns included in the Arsinoïte nome would have grown in
such a perilous situation. Imagine, also, the infiltration that would
result on the lands along the faces of this lake. According to the
theory, the Lake Linant, not being of sufficient dimensions itself to
regulate the Nile, was to pass on the surplus into Birket-el-Qurûn
by escapes on the two main drainage lines. Thus the poor fools, who
had settled themselves on the strip between the two lakes, would be
in danger of inundation, both from above and below, and would be in
as bad a plight as Pharaoh’s horsemen in the Red Sea.
A diagrammatic section of the Fayûm (Plate VIII.), as it would have
been when in this unhappy state (fortunately imaginary), will make the
situation perhaps plainer. The diagram, by exaggerating the vertical
dimensions with reference to the horizontals, emphasises the danger
of the situation and shows how improbable it is that such a theory
could be true.
[Illustration: PLATE VIII.
SKETCH OF THE FAYÛM
From Lahûn through Biahmu to Lake Qurûn through the highest plateau,
showing Linant’s supposed Lake.]
It should be noted that the Linant Lake itself covers the richest
land of the Fayûm, namely, that which, being near the first point of
expansion of the inflow into the depression, had received the richest
deposit during the time that the Fayûm was forming previous to the
creation of Lake Mœris; and, further, it should be remarked that the
remainder of the best land round the margins and for a considerable
distance from the Linant lake banks would have been probably ruined
by infiltration. Where, then, should we find the rich lands of the
Arsinoïte Nome, so famous for their produce?
M. Linant objects (and there is, doubtless, weight in this objection)
to the theory of the submergence of the Fayûm by a sufficient
elevation of the waters of the Birket-el-Qurûn, that there would be
no place for the Arsinoïte Nome; and he thinks that by his theory
he has found a place for it between the two rival lakes. The ancient
Egyptians, who lived before our era, must have had prodigious faith
in their protecting deities, or in their department of public works,
if they took up their abode behind Linant’s bank.
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.
[Illustration: 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.
The cross-section of the wall, Plate X., gives its dimensions at
a point near the bridge, where its height is greatest. Below this
cross-section another of the Edwah-Biahmu bank is given for a
comparison of the levels of wall and bank.[3]
_Erroneous Data employed by Linant._—In Linant Pasha’s Atlas,
published with his Mémoires, is to be found an extraordinary section
of the Fayûm from Lahûn to Birket-el-Qurûn, in which the land
from Lahûn to Medineh is shown as being higher than the land of
Beni Suef on the Nile Valley side of Lahûn.
I reproduce his section on Plate XI., and below it I give a section
showing the actual levels. As Linant appears to refer all his levels
to the rock bed at Hawârat-el-Maqta, which he makes 32·80 metres
above sea, whereas it is really 21·00, it is necessary before
comparison to apply a correction of - 11·80 to all his levels.
[Illustration: PLATE X.
CROSS SECTION OF THE MINIA WALL.]
[Illustration: CROSS SECTION OF THE EDWAH-BIAHMU BANK AT A POINT
WEST OF EDWAH.]
Comparing the figures after correction with those of the “actual
section,” it will be found that Linant puts the level of the
Beni Suef lands 5½ to 7 metres too low, and that of his first
plateau 6 to 8 metres too high, with reference to the rock bed
at Hawârat-el-Maqta. According to the corrected figures his Lake
Mœris level would be + 32·00, but how he gets it to that level
it is difficult to understand, inasmuch as he says that his lake is
filled by the Bahr Yûsuf, whose high-water level is shown 4½ metres
lower. (The Birket-el-Qurûn level, after applying the correction,
becomes 40·80, which must have been about its correct level in
Linant’s time.)
[Illustration: PLATE XI.
SECTION OF THE FAYÛM THROUGH LAHÛN-MEDINEH-SANHUR. By M. LINANT.]
[Illustration: ACTUAL SECTION ON THE SAME LINE.
_Note._—The water-level of the Bahr Yûsuf from Lahûn to Medineh
is a little below country level throughout.]
I give another instance of error with reference to Linant’s
conception of the first plateau. Writing of the bank from Edwah to el
Alam, he states that the land to the south of this bank was about 2
metres below its crest, and to the north of it from 8 to 9 metres,
which difference, he says, is explained by the deposition of silt
in the interior of the basin formed by the bank, as is always seen
elsewhere at all the banks of the inundation basins of Egypt. This
great difference of level of the country surface on either side of
the bank would have been very suggestive in a sense favourable to
M. Linant’s theory had the difference of level been a fact instead
of a fiction. The cross-section of the bank given on Plate X. shows
its actual state with reference to the land on each side of it.
It seems scarcely necessary to discuss further a theory that was
based on such erroneous data, but as the data were not known
to be erroneous, and Linant propounded his theory with an air
of authority, it has had considerable success in getting itself
accepted. Guide-books, and even books used as school text-books on
Egyptian history, show that his theory has been hitherto judged the
correct one.
It is, however, satisfactory to find that in the fifth edition
(1890) of ‘Ancient Egypt’ by George Rawlinson (The Story of
the Nations Series) the exact size and position of “Amenemhat’s
reservoir” is admitted to be _sub judice_, and it would appear that
this desirable attitude is the result of a challenge of Linant’s
theory by Mr. Cope Whitehouse, who is reported as believing that
the water was freely admitted into the whole of the depression
(i.e. the Fayûm), which it filled, with the exception of certain
parts, which stood up out of the water as islands from 150 to 200 feet
high. Nevertheless, in spite of this new attitude towards the Linant
theory, the map representing Linant’s Lake Mœris is to be found
at the end of the book, without any remark to prevent readers from
being misled by it, the map being described as “Map of the Fayoum,
showing the Birket-el-Keroun and the artificial Lake Mœris.”
(Plate VII. is from an earlier edition.)
The Linant theory, examined in the light of the more accurate
knowledge gained of the physical features of the Fayûm, and tested
by the application of figures to determine its possible performances,
can no longer stand, but falls to pieces; and the wonder is that,
based as it was upon erroneous data and propped up by no solid
support of facts, it stood so long. It may be said of it, to the
credit of its author, that it was ingenious, but not that it was true.
Since writing the foregoing concerning the Linant theory, Mr. Cope
Whitehouse has kindly lent me his first papers on the subject, the
earliest paper, that I had previously seen of his writings, being
that which was read by him at the Manchester meeting of the British
Association, September 2nd, 1887. I now find that he has been before
me in stating many of the arguments I have used against the Linant
lake theory, but it is satisfactory to find that we have independently
arrived at the same conclusions, though by no means surprising, as I
believe that any one, with the same amount of personal acquaintance
with the Fayûm, would be naturally led to hold the same views of this
fantastic theory. As early as 1882, Mr. Cope Whitehouse pointed out
that the Linant lake satisfied none of the conditions which a lake
professing to be Lake Mœris must satisfy, and he concluded one of
his papers with a remark expressing his conviction that, when Lake
Mœris shall be recognised by the light of discoveries yet to be made
through further research, the site of the ancient lake will in no case
be found to be that of the reservoir of M. Linant de Bellefonds Pasha.
Mr. Whitehouse, at the same time as he lent me his papers of 1882,
also lent me a copy of Dr. G. Schweinfurth’s letter to Paul
Ascherson on a journey undertaken in the depression of the Fayûm
in January 1886, in which letter I find I am anticipated again in
a footnote on this theory, which gives an argument not given by
Mr. Cope Whitehouse, and runs as follows:—
“Here it must be mentioned that one of the most important points
on which Linant grounds his Mœris theory is the Dams[4] which has
proved quite fallacious. The dam at Adwa (Edwah) geology shows to
be layers of gravel; the stone dam at Minia is, on the other hand,
a weir for the Bahr-el-Wady, and is evidently throughout its whole
length of later date. Besides, it fills up only the deep curves of
the ground, and has no continuation on the rising grounds.”
Dr. Schweinfurth, as well as Mr. Whitehouse, had thus pointed out
the weakness of the Linant theory, but still we find it living and
_taught_ as a true theory so late as 1890; and this is my excuse for
repeating the arguments which have not yet succeeded in overwhelming
it, notwithstanding its feebleness, so much support does it derive
from its parent being a reputed authority.
But we have public acceptance of the Linant theory so late as 1892,
and by so eminent an Egyptologist as Brugsch Pasha, who communicated
his views to the Société Khédiviale de Géographie in a paper
read in Cairo, on the 8th April, 1892, the title of the paper being
“Le Lac Mœris d’après les monuments.” A quotation from this
will show that he accepts the Linant theory.
“De nos jours, les traces visibles de cet immense bassin d’eau
(le lac Mœris) ont disparu et les savants les plus distingués se
sont en vain efforcés pendant longtemps de retrouver ses anciennes
limites sur le sol moderne de la province du Fayoum.
“L’opinion la plus généralement acceptée au sujet de sa position a
Linant pacha pour auteur. C’est lui qui, le premier, a rejeté l’idée de
reconnaître le bassin du lac Mœris dans le Birket-el-Kouroun de nos
jours, c’est-à-dire ‘le lac des Cornes,’ situé comme on sait, à l’ouest
du Fayoum. Suivant les recherches très minutieuses de l’illustre savant,
il faudrait, au contraire, se diriger vers le côté oriental de la
province susnommée, et, notamment, vers les plateaux bien connus de
Hawara et de El Lahoun, où deux pyramides construites à l’époque de
la XIIme dynastie (vers 2500 a. J.C.) excitent encore la curiosité
des voyageurs.
“H. Lepsius, mon savant compatriote qui, il y a presque cinquante
ans, a eu l’occasion d’examiner sur les lieux les résultats
obtenus par Linant pacha, n’a pas hésité à déclarer dans un
Mémoire spécial que le savant français avait fait la découverte la
plus brillante et la plus indubitable quant à la véritable position
topographique du fameux lac Mœris. Les doutes qu’il exprima à
la même occasion ne s’appliquaient qu’à l’extension du lac
vers le nord.
“Depuis Linant et Lepsius, aucun savant sérieux, du nombre des
géographes et des Égyptologues, ne s’est opposé à l’opinion
émise par ces deux illustres auteurs.”
Apparently Brugsch Pasha does not class Dr. G. Schweinfurth, Mr.
Flinders Petrie, and Mr. Cope Whitehouse as “savants sérieux,” for they
have expressed themselves as opposed to the Linant theory.
Lieut.-Colonel J. C. Ross, C.M.G., late Inspector-General of Irrigation,
Egypt, justly renowned for his power of comprehension of the levels of
any part of the country, which he studied professionally, at one time
gave much of his attention to the Fayûm, and especially to that part
which was known as Hod-el-Tuyûr, and which is the depression embraced in
the area which Linant calls a plateau and in which he localised his
supposed Lake Mœris. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction,
that Colonel Ross’s examination of the ground in question was much more
thorough and more prolonged than that of M. Lepsius; but whereas the
latter did not hesitate to accept Linant’s theory and to style it the
most brilliant and certain discovery as regards the position of Lake
Mœris, Colonel Ross on the contrary rejects Linant’s theory and
thinks that the lake was north of the Edwah bank and not south of it.
Mr. Petrie has also clearly expressed the same views as Colonel Ross
on this point.
I too have had advantages of studying the ground itself and the way
the water runs, such as few have had, and have come in for the legacy
of Colonel Ross’s levellings and maps.
The names of Linant and Lepsius do not therefore carry with them
sufficient authority to override the facts, which are ascertained to
be such by a more thorough examination of the country and a better
knowledge of the physical features of the province.
Irrigation officers may, perhaps, not be classed as “savants,”
but they have at least as much right to be heard as any other body of
experts on such a subject as Lake Mœris, which is more than anything
else an irrigation question, and one that has especial interest of
a more or less practical nature at this time, when the question of
the construction of Nile reservoirs for the storage of the surplus
waters of the Nile is under consideration.
COPE WHITEHOUSE THEORY.
Mr. Cope Whitehouse, who has a personal acquaintance with the
Fayûm, and has studied the question of Lake Mœris, though with
a prejudice in favour of giving the Wadi Raiân a leading part,
would possibly have been inclined to hold the same views as I do,
had it not been for his anxiety to recommend the Wadi Raiân for
future use by magnifying its imaginary past performances. But as
his views about the Wadi Raiân are the essential and distinctive
part of his theory, we do not agree.
For ten years Mr. Whitehouse has been brooding, as the faithfullest
of mothers, over his theory, looking for a practical project to be
hatched therefrom, but, as time passes, he begins to show signs of
impatience, and fears lest his egg be addled. The possibilities as
to what the chick may be when it appears, are set forth in Chapter
V. of this paper, for I cannot but think that the egg is a good one.
Mr. Whitehouse believes that in prehistoric times, before artificial
works of control were made, the Nile flowed into and submerged the
whole Fayûm, which was filled at high Nile, and that when the flood
subsided, the return flow, that took place from the Fayûm to the
Nile, prolonged the period of inundation by at least two months. He
also believes that the river flowed in a single channel along the
eastern desert.
So far most of us who have our theories about the Fayûm travel
together, with but small differences on the way. But after this our
roads diverge, and each thinks the road he has selected leads to
Lake Mœris. But they cannot all go there.
Leaving prehistoric times, and coming to the period of ancient
history, Mr. Whitehouse holds that there were two lakes. At first the
northern lake, the Fayûm, was a lake and marsh serving as a backwater
to the Nile, while the southern, the Wadi Raiân, was dry. So far I
agree with him, but now we part company. Subsequently, he imagines,
engineers of an alien race diverted the flood waters into the dry
Wadi Raiân to the south-west and evaporation dried up the Fayûm,
which was then irrigated by a system of canals. The Wadi Raiân
basin becoming, full served as a reservoir, and was, according to
Mr. Whitehouse, the “Mœridis Lacus” of Ptolemy.
Later on, in 1890, Mr. Whitehouse explains his views in terms which
are not quite in agreement with the foregoing, for he then supposes
that the natural backwater of the Nile included the Fayûm and Wadi
Raiân (with its minor basins Wadis “Safir” and “Lulu”) at
one and the same time, and that these combined basins were filled
to the level of high Nile, which he puts at R.L. 30·00.
I think, however, his present views are, that at first the Wadi
Raiân formed part of the Lake Mœris of Herodotus, of which the
Fayûm was the main part; and that afterwards the Wadi Raiân alone
formed the “Mœridis Lacus” of the Ptolemaic maps, the Fayûm
having been brought under cultivation, after its waters had been
dried up by evaporation.
As the Wadi Raiân is the prominent feature of this theory, I will
give here in full Colonel Western’s official description of it:—
_Description of the Wadi Raiân._—“This valley or depression in
the Libyan Desert, discovered by Mr. Cope Whitehouse in 1886 (really
three or four years earlier), lies immediately to the south-west of
the Fayoum Province, but separated from it by a range of low hills,
2 kilometres in width and with heights of about 40 metres above
sea-level. Two passes, however, leading from the Gharak basin, with
level of + 26 metres, have been found in this dividing range and,
except for these two passes or entrances, the Wadi is everywhere
bounded by hills of at least + 36 metres.
“The soil of the Wadi is for the most part composed of desert sand
and pebbles overlying in places a yellow clay, but this desert sand
is for about one-sixth of the area hidden by drifting sand-hills or
ridges rising some 5 to 10 metres above the general plain.
“Towards the south of the Wadi there are two fresh-water springs;
and near these a few date-trees and some brushwood grow.
“The deepest level of the Wadi Raian reaches 40 metres below
sea-level.
“To the east of the Wadi, and connected at a level of + 55, is
the Wadi Muellah, a valley about 1½ kilometres wide and 7 long. Its
lowest depression is at + 25.
“In the Wadi Muellah there are ruins of ancient buildings, and a
fair amount of coarse vegetation near them.
“Another small depression, also connected with the Wadi Raian,
has been found lying to the south of the Gharak basin of the Fayoum,
and only separated by a ridge at level + 35, and 1 kilometre in
width. This depression is some 10 kilometres in length by 4 mean
width, and has a bottom at about + 15 metres.”
Now, there is no evidence whatever that the Wadi Raiân had ever
any possible communication with the Nile except by way of the
Fayûm depression through the two gaps in the encircling walls of
the Wadi, the sills of which are stated by Colonel Western to be at
R.L. 26·00, but which later surveys, not yet published, show to be
one at R.L. 26·00, and the other at R.L. 27·00. The Wadi Muellah,
on first inspection of the map, appears to offer the most likely
line of communication with the Nile Valley, but an examination of
this Wadi at its upper end towards the Nile Valley gives no evidence
of any such communication having ever existed.
What seems a conclusive proof that the Wadi Raiân was never in
_direct_ communication with the Nile Valley, is the total absence
of all trace of Nile deposit within the limits of the depression.
If the muddy waters of the Nile in flood entered a lake 60 to 70
metres deep, the silt would be deposited and remain, for the return
flow from the uppermost stratum back into the Nile would disturb none
of the Nile mud brought in. After a long succession of such annual
deposits, the depth of deposit would be considerable. In the Fayûm
entrance we find such a deposit up to R.L. 25·00, and it is to be
noted that the Wadi Raiân was supposed by Mr. Cope Whitehouse to
have been in working order, as Lake Mœris, after the Fayûm ceased
to be so, and therefore there would have been less time for the
disappearance of the Nile deposit of the Wadi Raiân than of that
of the Fayûm.
In the Wadi Raiân, Nile deposit has _not_ been found, though eagerly
looked for. I think this fact is fatal to Mr. Cope Whitehouse’s
theory of a _direct_ communication between the Wadi Raiân and the
Nile or Bahr Yûsuf.
Dr. Schweinfurth thus expresses his views as regards fresh-water
deposit in the Wadi Raiân:—“The basin (Wadi Raiân) exists,
but it comes from geological time, does not belong to the Nile,
and offers nowhere in its tracts at some distance from the Fayûm
any trace of a fresh-water formation. . . .
“The traces of a settlement of water and layers of Nile earth which
are said to exist in some parts of the depression are certainly
absent. The grey clay-layers of the old sea with shells of fresh
water, innumerable fish vertebras, bones of tortoises, &c., are not
to be overlooked where they exist. I could prove such fresh-water
formations on the road from Talît over Raiân and Medinet-el-Bahrl
(27 kilometres to the west of the actual lake) only at a distance
of 8 kilometres from the lake (Birket-el-Qurûn). The yellow Eocene
marls with stripes of erosion, results of the wind, moving sand,
and of periodical rains, are not to be confounded with these lake
formations. A man who does that will find traces of old water and
Nile earth everywhere in the deserts of Egypt.”
Later on in the same letter he says that the question, whether
fresh-water formations exist in the basin of Raiân or not, is to
be answered in the negative.
But supposing an _indirect_ communication with the Nile by way of the
Fayûm Lake, it is easy to understand that no Nile deposit would be
found in the Wadi Raiân, even if it had been thus repeatedly filled,
because the top water only would begin to spill over into it after the
Fayûm Lake level had risen above R.L. 26·00, and after the water
had travelled at an extremely low velocity to a long distance from
the point, at which it first spread itself out in the Fayûm Basin.
But I regret, for the sake of Mr. Cope Whitehouse’s feelings,
that even this cannot be admitted to have taken place, for in
every situation where Nile water has been, fresh-water shells of
distinct species are always found, and their total absence in the
Wadi Raiân is sufficient proof to geologists that Nile water has
never been there.
To the conclusion that the Wadi Raiân was never in _direct_
communication with the Nile must therefore be added this further
conclusion, that the Nile water _never_ entered the Wadi Raiân _at
all_, even by the only possible entrances over the sills on the side
of the Fayûm Lake.
Mr. Cope Whitehouse has not distinctly stated how he supposes the
Wadi Raiân was put into direct communication with the Nile, but I
believe there are only three possible theories, each one without a
particle of evidence to support it. One theory supposes a connection
along the bed of the Wadi Muellah, another a tunnel through the
hills dividing the depression from the Nile Valley, and the third
a hill-side canal fed from the Nile waters entering at Lahûn and
carried along the south slopes of the Fayûm.
In the absence of any evidence witnessing to the previous existence
of such connections, and in the face of the fact that the Wadi Raiân
contains no Nile deposit, I do not think that Cope Whitehouse’s
Raiân-Mœris or Ptolemaic-Mœridis-Lacus theory can stand.
Failing better support to his theory, Mr. Whitehouse has called
the Ptolemaic maps to his aid, and in his pamphlet on the subject
he has reproduced the map of Egypt from the Atlas of Cl. Ptolemy,
of which I here repeat the copy, with an outline map of the Fayûm,
Wadi Raiân, and part of the Nile Valley, taken from ‘Egyptian
Irrigation,’ by Willcocks, and which was compiled from the latest
surveys in 1888 (Plates XII. and XIII.)
Mr. Whitehouse considers that the Ptolemaic map has been most
accurate in giving the exact shape of a lake in the desert, whereas
the representation of the features of the much better known Nile
and Nile Valley is evidently most incorrect, and much distorted in
longitudinal and transverse dimensions.
If, however, any argument can be based on the shape of the “Mœridis
Lacus” of Ptolemy, as compared with existing depressions, it seems
to me that its shape resembles much more closely the outline of the
Fayûm Province, with the Bahr Yûsuf indicated, than it does that
of the much indented Wadi Raiân.
[Illustration: PLATE XII.
EGYPT FROM THE ATLAS OF Cl. Ptolemy.]
Mr. Petrie has furnished me with the following observations on the
Ptolemaic maps.
[Illustration: PLATE XIII.
_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.
The highest Nile deposit near and on the Fayûm side of Lahûn is
at about R.L. 26·00. The highest in the Fayûm near the Hawârah
pyramid, which is on the edge of the Fayûm basin, is at R.L. 24·50
or thereabouts. The highest level of the lake was probably never
more than one metre above this level, and it is therefore almost
certain that the water-level was never sufficiently high to flow
into the Wadi Raiân; and _if_ it ever did, it must have been but
rarely, when extraordinarily high and prolonged Niles occurred; so
that it must be concluded, if my views are correct, that the normal
condition of the Wadi Raiân was then, as now, that of a dry waterless
depression in the desert, and it cannot therefore be considered as
having been Lake Mœris, or a part of it even, _at any time_.
LINANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THEORY FAVOURED.
_Author’s Views of Lake Mœris generally stated._—I myself agree
with those who are of opinion that the Fayûm Province, or depression,
(including the Gharaq Basin and the neck from Lahûn to Hawârah),
was by itself Lake Mœris, and that within its limits and along its
borders was to be found the inhabited and cultivated region known as
the Arsinoïte Nome, which possibly also extended into the Nile Valley
along the course of the canal connecting the Nile with the lake.
The Fayûm then in its submerged state was, I believe, the Lake
Mœris of Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, and Pliny, the modern Lake
Qurûn being the persistent rudiment of this lake, and all that now
remains of its formerly extensive sheet of water. (See Plate XX.)
_Objections urged by Linant against these views._—This is no new
theory. It is found _passim_ before Linant Pasha in 1842 took great
pains to point out its absurdity, but it was his own assumptions
regarding the maximum height which the water surface of Lake Qurûn
could have reached, that created the absurdity. Assuming without
evidence that the villages on the second plateau were all in existence
at the time of Lake Mœris, he limits the level of Lake Qurûn to
the edge of the second plateau, which is the same thing as laying
down that its water surface never rose above R.L. + 10·00.
Having come to this conclusion, he might have spared himself all
his arguments against the theory, other than that which pointed out
that a reservoir in the Fayûm at this level could have been of no
utility in supplementing the low waters of the Nile.
It is, however, instructive to note how he deals with the arguments
against this lake, which his imagination set bounds to, being
Lake Mœris. After a separate review of each condition which Lake
Mœris should fulfil and which the limited Lake Qurûn did not,
he closes his reviews with the remark that “we may then conclude
that Birket-el-Qurûn is not the Lake Mœris.” But he does not
do so _always_. Should the condition be one with which his own
theory is not in agreement, he explains it away or discredits it. The
dimensions assigned to Lake Mœris by the ancient historians evidently
trouble him, and he does his best to discredit their testimony on
this point. After discussing this condition, he does not end his
argument with the usual conclusion that “the present Lake Qurûn
cannot be Lake Mœris,” but he says “an absolute importance must
not be attached to all these measures in order to draw from them
conclusions either positive or negative as to the identity of the
position of Birket-el-Qurûn with that of the ancient Lake Mœris.”
The depth assigned to Lake Mœris also gives rise to the following
remarks, which will afford the means of judging of the value of
M. Linant’s arguments. He states that Herodotus gives the depth
of the lake at 92 metres, and remarks that if the whole Fayûm had
been filled to form the lake, its dimensions would have surpassed
by ten times the greatest given for it.
But as a matter of fact, they do not even _come up to_ the greatest
dimensions given, which are, for the depth 92 metres, and for the
perimeter of the lake 720 kilometres (450 miles), or, assuming as he
does that Herodotus made use of the small stadius, 360 kilometres. Now
the perimeter of the Fayûm is 220 kilometres, and if that of the Wadi
Raiân is added, namely 200 kilometres, the total perimeter becomes
420 and that figure is only obtained by measuring the indentations
of the Wadi Raiân, which is of a peculiar shape.
The depth of the Fayûm Lake, if filled to say R.L. + 25·00,
would be not less than (25·00 + 43·50 + 5·00 =) 73·50 metres,
nor more than 88·00 at the highest estimate.
These dimensions agree approximately with those given by Herodotus,
and are not, as rashly stated by Linant, ten times in excess.
To show with what unfairness Linant deals with statements made by
Herodotus, his arguments about the bricks made for the pyramid built
by Asychis may be noted. It was stated that the bricks were made
from mud brought up from the bottom of the lake. Linant claims this
statement as supporting his theory, as his lake was a shallow one,
and as opposing the enlarged Lake Qurûn theory, as this latter would
be a deep one. It does not seem to strike him that the workmen could
have sought their mud along the shallow margins of the larger lake. He
further argues that one could not reach down more than 4 metres with
poles, and therefore the lake could not have been so deep as stated
by Herodotus, and hence Herodotus contradicts himself! But Herodotus
did not say that the lake was 92 metres deep all over, and that its
shores were not shallow, but that its _greatest_ depth was 92 metres.
Linant Pasha discussed the possibility of the submerged Fayûm
being the Lake Mœris, but rejected the idea, because, to fulfil
the condition of supplementing the low Nile, the water must have
covered the second plateau, and risen to a level above the rock
sill at Hawârah (R.L. 21·00). “Then,” he points out, “the
whole Fayûm would have been only a vast lake and with a height of
water impossible to reconcile with the existence of large towns,
which formed the rich Crocodilopolite or Arsinoïte nomes. The
great quantity of ruined towns, abandoned like Medinet-el-Mahdi,
Medinet-el-Hêb, Medinet Nemroud, Kasr Keroun, indicate, as well
as those which still exist, as Sanuris, Sanhur and all the others,
that this part has never been under water, and they date from the
time of Lake Mœris and of Crocodilopolis.” (Earlier in his book he
states about Kasr Keroun, “Kasr Keroun is a little monument, quite
modern as compared with the epoch of the Labyrinth.” Mr. Petrie
and Dr. Schweinfurth both state that Qasr Qurûn is a Roman temple
or town.) M. Linant continues, “If ever the Fayûm has been under
water, as we have supposed it, it was long before it was habitable
and before the Lake Mœris existed.”
[Illustration: PLATE XIV.
OLD BUILDING ON NORTH SIDE OF LAKE QURÛN,
DISCOVERED BY DR. SCHWEINFURTH IN 1884. EXTERIOR FROM NORTH-EAST.]
Now as regards the modern villages of Sanûris, Sanhûr, and others,
I am not aware on what evidence M. Linant states that they existed
at the same time as Lake Mœris. As regards the old abandoned towns
mentioned, some of them are on elevated spots, and probably were
on the shores of Lake Mœris. When Lake Mœris declined and the
water had receded to a distance from them, they were abandoned for
more favourable sites, less remote from a water supply and water
transport. Probably Sanûris and Sanhûr, and the other villages on
the edge of the second plateau, are the successors in time of the
ancient elevated towns mentioned as ruined and abandoned.
Thus, instead of considering the remains of the old high-level
abandoned towns as evidence destructive of the theory that the whole
Fayûm was filled with water, I consider their testimony distinctly
favours such a theory.
Those towns especially, whose ruins are found on the _north_ side of
Lake Qurûn, would certainly have been built near the then borders of
the lake, as they could have had no possible source of water supply
other than the lake itself. It, therefore, is a matter of great
interest to determine the levels of any ancient towns that may be
found on the north of the lake; and the more ancient the town and
the more remote from the present lake, the more suggestive will be
the facts that may be ascertained with reference to its levels.
Now there are two monuments of antiquity known in such a situation,
namely, the ruins of Dimay (Dimeh or Dimé) and an ancient temple
(if it is a temple) discovered by Dr. Schweinfurth 7 or 8 kilometres
north of Dimay.[6] Dimay itself is 3 kilometres from the nearest point
of the present Lake Qurûn, and the surface of its causeway or quay
at its upper end, near the old town, is 69 metres above the water
surface of the lake (May 2nd, 1892), or at R.L. + 25·44. The south
end of the quay is now about 2·85 metres lower, but it was doubtless
originally somewhat higher than this, as its present is not apparently
its original surface, some of the layers of stone having disappeared.
I had a trench dug against this quay or causeway, at about the
middle of its length, to determine the depth to which the masonry
was carried down.
If this had been merely a causeway, it is not easy to understand
the necessity for so great a depth of masonry. It was therefore more
probably a quay projecting into the water. This quay is 400 metres
long, and its direction is due north and south. The level of the
plateau sloping up to the end of the causeway on the south of Dimay
is from R.L. 13·00 to 17·00; the plateau on the north side of the
ruins is at R.L. 21·45.
The ruins of Dimay are Roman on the surface, but I do not know if
it has been established that below the Roman remains there do not
exist more ancient ones. Dr. Schweinfurth thus expresses his opinion
about this old town: “Dimé seems to have filled the position of
‘tête-de-pont’ in relation to the Fayûm, as in consequence of
its strong position, it afforded a secure outlet and final station
for the caravan road opening out towards the Oasis. That the tribes
of the Libyan Desert must even in the times of the Romans have been
very restless and enterprising, is testified by the numerous similar
fortifications, which in the day of the so-called good emperor,
were erected on all the principal exits and entrances to the Oasis
roads.”
Seven or eight kilometres north of Dimay (magnetic bearing from north
entrance in Dimay enclosure wall 12° east of north) is found the
ancient so-called temple, discovered by Dr. Schweinfurth in 1884. I
give here photographs of the exterior and interior of the building,
as well as its ground plan, that those who are capable of judging
may have the means of estimating from them its probable age. (Plates
XIV., XV., and XVI.) The important level, so far as the subject
of this paper is concerned, of the old town, marked by mounds of
ancient pottery on the south of the “temple,” was determined
on the occasion of my visit. The level of the upper parts of these
mounds was found to be R.L. + 24·58. The pottery was, of course,
spread out to lower levels, but probably the ancient town was built
between the levels of 23·00 and 26·00.
Dr. Schweinfurth remarks that the buildings dating from the XIIIth
Dynasty are all distinguished by the same kind of four-cornered
arrangement as this temple and generally scorn every kind of ornament;
and he notes that the great size of the blocks and peculiar method
of fitting the stones together give it a resemblance in style to
other old buildings. Instead of giving his further description, I
refer to the ground plan and photographs. It is worth noticing that
the north-west room has no visible means of communication either
with the exterior or with the other chambers of the building; also
that the displacement of the stones, forming the upper half of the
chambers on the raised floor, is suggestive of an earthquake, the
upper stones having slid on the lower to a measurable extent in a
north-easterly direction. Cracks in the roofing stones corresponding
with the displacement seem to confirm the theory of earthquake action.
[Illustration: PLATE XV.
INTERIOR OF DR. SCHWEINFURTH’S “TEMPLE,”
FROM WEST END OF OPEN ROOM.]
[Illustration: PLATE XVI.
PLAN OF OLD BUILDING DISCOVERED BY DR. G. SCHWEINFURTH IN 1884.
Height of chambers from surface of raised floor to ceiling
2·65. Scale ¹⁄₁₀₀. Dimensions in metres.]
The object of the building is a riddle. Each of the raised cells
has a recess for a door. “In the thickness of the south wall,
on the east side of the principal entrance, runs a passage half a
metre wide, leading to which, at the south-east corner of the temple,
a door of equally narrow proportions is attached. This passage leads
downwards to the chambers below” (Schweinfurth). Dr. Schweinfurth
came to the conclusion “that the old temple, as well as the original
settlement or formation, is one of the monuments belonging to the
oldest times.”
Concerning the old town he writes:—“In the neighbourhood of
the temple, from south-east to south-west, at a distance of about
500 paces, that is, on the edge of the rising ground, there are
quantities of potsherds lying in heaps here and there. They are of
the most weather-worn appearance, and have formed portions of coarse,
thick vessels. No such things as fragments approaching the pottery
work of the Greek or Roman period are found. The eye of the seeker
sought in vain for remnants of that blue glazed pottery ordinarily
so common, or the long amphoræ of the Greek shape.
“The amphoræ points or ends, which I picked up, were all stumps,
and of an almost cylindrical shape. The corresponding pottery
showed no sign of rings. They were almost entirely coarse, red
clay fragments, with here and there a yellow or black bit, and all
distinctly showed the work of the potter’s wheel.
“Below the scarp of the lowest rising ground no more pottery was
to be found, neither did the marl mounds display on examination
any admixture of manufactured pieces. The heaps of pottery formerly
existing appear to have been flattened down and spread out over a
much wider space by the disintegration and sweeping down of the marl
bed. A similar occurrence may be observed on the few stone walls
yet remaining of the old temple settlement.”
For Schweinfurth’s further remarks see pp. 101 to 107 of his
veloci-graphed letter to Paul Ascherson on his journey in the
depression of the Fayûm, 1886.
The line of levels, which I had taken between this old building
(temple) and Dimay, followed a direct line between the two, crossing
the elevations and depressions given in the list below:—
_From Schweinfurth’s “Temple” to Dimay._
R.L.
Floor surface of raised chamber on left of central chamber 35·506
Pottery mound of old settlement 24·580
First depression on line of levels 9·611
Following elevation 16·521
Second depression 6·096
Following elevation 14·461
Third depression 7·716
Plateau north of Dimay 21·448
On ruined mounds in Dimay enclosure 28·368
Causeway at undamaged upper end 25·438
_From Dimay to Lake Qurûn._
Causeway 25·438
Plateau north of Dimay, upper end 17·000
„ „ lower end 13·270
Fossils plentiful between - 3·500
and - 13·000
Water surface, Lake Qurûn, May 2nd, 1892 - 43·540
These levels I am convinced are correct, as they were taken with the
utmost care, as I myself saw, by Messrs. W. O. Joseph and A. Pini,
who had been in constant practice at levelling. The levels between
Lake Qurûn and Dimay were taken twice over; the first levels,
taken by Monsieur Pini alone, giving a difference of level between
the lake and causeway of 68·952 metres, while the difference found,
when both read, was 68·978.
The levels for the old town near Schweinfurth’s “temple”
having been found to be from R.L. 23 to 26, the theory that Lake
Mœris was a little below the level of R.L. 23·00 is favoured by
the determination of this level. The presence and peculiarities of
the quay at Dimay, if it is such, and the existence of an old town
on the heights where the Dimay ruins stand, if they can be used as
evidence of what the lake level used to be, point to high levels
rather than to low ones, and do not answer to Linant’s appeal to
the old abandoned towns to bear witness in his favour.
In connection with the levels of Dimay and Schweinfurth’s “temple” the
levels of the ruins of Biahmu should be studied. These are given on
Plates XXII. and XXIII.
The top of the highest corner-stone of the enclosure wall, now _in
situ_, is at R.L. 21·59, and, accepting Mr. Petrie’s restoration of
these ruins, the top of this wall, when complete, would have been at
R.L. 23·00, which would seem to indicate that the maximum water-level
of the lake was below R.L. 23·00, but higher than R.L. 17·00, the
level of the ground outside the enclosure. These ruins are referred
to more fully on p. 83 _et seq_.
_Mr. Flinders Petrie’s Views of Lake Mœris._—Having discussed
the theories of Linant Pasha and Mr. Cope Whitehouse, the only
two that I can find stated with any distinctness, and the only
ones that have been put forward by travellers having a personal
acquaintance with the Fayûm, I will, before setting forth my own
reading of the past history of the province and my theory as to its
connection or identity with Lake Mœris, first give Mr. Petrie’s
views, who should be included with the two foregoing theorists,
as a traveller having a personal acquaintance with the Fayûm, and,
in a special line, a very intimate one. I do not think that he would
claim that the expression of his views constitutes the enunciation
of a new theory of Lake Mœris, but only his way of viewing an old
theory with some side-lights of his own added by way of illumination.
The views, that I have adopted, are in general agreement with those
favoured by Mr. Petrie, and as he, an Egyptologist and archæologist,
has thrown light on the subject from his standpoint, I propose to make
the same attempt from my point of view as the Public Works officer
in charge of the irrigation of the Fayûm. The working out of the
problem of Lake Mœris would seem to require an alliance between
a palæontologist, an archæologist, an Egyptologist, a geologist,
and a hydraulic engineer.
The following is copied from ‘Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoë,’ by
W. M. Flinders Petrie, published in 1889:—
“Medinet el Fayûm (Plate XVII.) is the modern town which represents
the ancient Arsinoë, so named by Ptolemy Philadelphos in honour
of his sister-wife; it lies at the extreme south of the old site,
which covers a space of over a mile long and half a mile wide, a
vast wilderness of mounds strewn with pottery. At the opposite end
of the ruins, toward the north, is the great temple enclosure of the
old Egyptian town. Before its name of Arsinoë, the city had obtained
the name of Crocodilopolis, from the worship of the sacred crocodiles
maintained there; and still earlier it was known as Shed, meaning,
apparently, that which is saved, cut out, delivered, or extracted,
referring to the district being reclaimed from the great lake. The
whole province was known as Ta-she, ‘the land of the lake’; and,
whatever may have been the mistakes of historians about Lake Moiris,
there is no doubt that the lake was the main feature of the district.
[Illustration: PLATE XVII.
VIEW OF MEDINET EL FAYÛM,
WHICH OCCUPIES PART OF THE SITE OF THE ANCIENT TOWN CALLED
SUCCESSIVELY “SHED,” “CROCODILOPOLIS,” AND “ARSINOË.”]
“So many opinions have been broached about Lake Moiris that an
account of antiquities in the Fayûm without mentioning it would seem
impossible. So, although my work has not been in that line, yet it
will be well to state what seems to be the truth about it, in order
that some collateral questions should be the better understood. For
the following view of the use of the great dyke I am indebted
to Colonel Ross, R.E., C.M.G., who has professionally considered
the subject. The Fayûm is one of the oases of the Libyan Desert,
lying close to the Nile Valley; and the intervening ground is low
enough for the Nile to pour into the basin. The fall from the Nile
Valley to where the channel widens out into the Fayûm is about 12
feet; and the water flows over the province by canals and ravines,
worn through the rock and its superincumbent mud, until the streams
finally collect in the Birket Kurûn at more than 200 feet below
the Nile level, and, indeed, 130 feet below the sea. The present
area of cultivation is about 20 miles in each direction; but the
whole basin, geographically speaking, is about 40 miles across on
an average. This does not include the secondary basin of the Wadi
Raian to the south, which never had any connection with the Fayûm
basin in historic times, the ground rising over 100 feet above Nile
level between the two depressions.
“In pre-historic times the Nile Valley was full of water to a
far greater depth than at present, probably 100 to 200 feet deep of
water filled it right across. A river of such a size seems almost
incredible, and we naturally should suppose it to have been an
estuary; but this must not be too hastily assumed, as there are
evidences over the whole country of an enormous rainfall, which
ploughed up the cliffs with great ravines; while the bare bed
of the old Nile in the eastern desert at Silsileh is some miles
in width, showing what a large volume of water has filled it; a
lesser stream would have cut down a deep channel in the old bed,
and would never have filled that and topped the rocks to force its
present cut. This pre-historic high Nile is not, however, pre-human,
as I found a palæolithic flint high up on the hills to the west
of Esneh, clearly river-worn. The geologic conditions, then, in the
pre-historic time prove that the Fayûm Basin must have been a vast
lake, connected by a broad arm with the Nile Valley. Thick beds of
Nile mud exist beneath 10 to 20 feet of deposits washed down from the
desert hills; and even this desert detritus is strewn with felspar
and quartz pebbles brought in by the Nile from Assuan, and now lying
high above the present Nile level. As the rainfall ceased, and the
Nile fell, the neck of water was reduced, but it still sufficed as
a channel for the filling of the Fayûm, in all probability, in the
time of the earliest dynasties. The Nile bed has risen, it is true,
4 inches a century by its deposits; and hence at the time of the XIIth
dynasty, when it was down to its present volume of water, it probably
stood about 14 feet lower than it does now in the Nile Valley; but
as the drop to the point of flow into the Fayûm is at present 12
feet below high Nile, and the water-level has risen somewhat there,
it is pretty well certain that the Fayûm Basin continued during the
early dynasties to receive the inflow of the Nile as it had done for
ages before. This, then, was the state in which the great engineering
monarchs of Egypt 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.
“Amenemhat I. is the earliest king of whom we have any evidence
in the Fayûm. He appears to have reclaimed the site of the capital,
Shed, ‘the separated’ or ‘extracted,’ and thus he established
‘the land of the lake.’ The dyke of Amenemhat I. may perhaps be
seen in a fragment of an enormous bank which remains on the north
of the temple area at Medinet. It cannot be part of the temenos
wall, as it is far too thick in proportion; and no king later than
Amenemhat I. would need to place a dam so near to the capital. The
great dyke noticed by Linant—if indeed it be ancient, which some
have doubted—is probably the further reclamation of Amenemhat III.,
signalised by his erecting at Biahmu two great statues of himself at
the projecting corner of it looking over the lake, and flanking the
road on either side. That the water was on the lower and not the upper
side of the dyke, as Linant supposed, is proved by the levels. For if
the area within the dyke had been covered with water as a reservoir,
the Biahmu structures would have been submerged some 12 feet; whereas
there is no trace of deposited mud on any of the upper stones, nor is
the building such that it is likely to have been placed in a depth of
water. (See Plates 22 and 23.) The work of Amenemhat III. consisted
in reclaiming more land, and damming back the lake to narrower limits,
while improving the canals which led in and out of it, so as to render
it more effective in co-operating with the Nile. He thus established
Lake Mœris, and his works gave him the credit of being its founder
in later ages. In the time of Herodotos the lake still seems to
have been kept up to its high level, and if this view be correct,
we ought not to find any pre-Greek remains in the Fayûm below Nile
level outside of the great dyke; so far as is at present known this
is the case. The circumference mentioned by Herodotos as equal to the
coast of Egypt, would have been about 130 miles, against 180 length
of the coast-line; so this statement is but little exaggerated. The
length in stadia is, however, evidently wrong. Apparently under the
Persians or Ptolemies the desire to acquire more land in the Fayûm at
the expense of the irrigation of the Nile Valley, led to restricting
the inflow, and gradually drying up the lake. It was reduced greatly
during the Greek period, as the temple of Kasr Kerûn, of Roman age,
on the shore of the Birket Kurûn, is 72 feet below Nile level; and
Dimeh, a Roman town, is at 69 feet, and has a quay, I am informed, at
about 87 feet below the Nile.[7] The shrinkage of the lake, however,
went on until it has now left the Roman quay 130 feet high in the
air, and the Nile falls over 200 feet before its waters evaporate
from the lake. The present problem is how just to let in enough for
cultivation without any surplus, and so still further reduce the lake,
and increase the area for crops.
“The general level of cultivated land in the Fayûm has not risen
by deposits as in the Nile Valley; the denudation by the rapid
drainage into the lake just compensating the rise by deposit which
would otherwise take place. The evidence for this is seen on the east
side of Arsinoë, where the Bahr Tirseh has cut a clean section of
the mounds, and the undisturbed bed of Nile mud beneath the ruins
is seen to be at just the same level as the fields at present. Also
at Biahmu it is certain that the ground has never been much below
its present level, or the foundations would have been washed out;
nor has it risen much above the level apparently, as the highest
mud on the stones is only three feet over the present soil. The fact
seems to be that it slowly rose while the lake was at a high level,
until it was about two feet higher; and then it has denuded since
the lake was reduced, and drainage set in, until it is now perhaps
a foot below the ancient level of the XIIth dynasty.”
I have quoted Mr. Petrie in full, as he is reputed to be accurate
in his statement of facts, and undoubtedly is so as regards his own
discoveries and excavations.
I must now pass on to my own views, and set them forth in more detail.
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF THE FAYÛM PROVINCE — THE FAYÛM BEFORE LAKE MŒRIS.
The past history of the Fayûm Province was probably the following.
In the beginning, the sea covered the whole of the area which
afterwards became the Nile Valley and its bordering hills. By a slow
process of upheaval the dry land appeared above the level of the
waters, but, in the process, what was formerly the uniform bed of the
sea became an uneven surface with heights and depressions and faults.
The Nile Valley, the Fayûm and Wadi Raiân depressions were the
ultimate result of this action, the formation of the Nile Valley being
completed by the flow of water. At first the upper reaches of the Nile
Valley held its waters at a high level by barriers of rock, but in
process of time these barriers were cut through, the bed scoured out
by the constant flow of water, and the water surface lowered beyond
its present levels, to be again gradually raised to the levels of
to-day. The lower reaches of the Nile Valley were probably at first
occupied by the sea, until the yearly deposit of the floods formed
the Delta, and pushed the land thus formed further and further out,
forcing the sea to retire. As the surface of the Delta became raised
and prolonged by successive annual deposits, the bed and water-surface
of the Nile also would have risen with it, until the levels at which
the Nile flowed in its lower reaches became those of the present day.
At a point in the hills dividing the Nile Valley and the Fayûm, about
10 kilometres south of Lahûn, near Sidment-el-Gebel, Dr. Schweinfurth
found “the indubitable witnesses of a Pliocene sea” preserved in
the form of oysters (_Ostrea cucullata_ and _Pecten_) in the white
sand at about R.L. 60 to 70. (See map and Plate XXI.) The Pliocene
sea, he maintains, intruded up the Nile Valley and extended on both
sides of it as far as the contours of 60 to 70 metres above sea-level
allowed. The place, where the oysters in the white sand were found,
is situated in a flat depression on the plateau of the narrowest part
of the hills separating the Nile Valley and the Fayûm. The Pliocene
sea flowed here from one depression into the other, and would have
succeeded in scouring away the barrier between the two depressions,
if it had not been interrupted by a later upheaval or a withdrawal of
the sea. In a similar manner there seems to have been made from Lahûn
to Hawârah, the present communication between the Nile Valley and the
Fayûm by which the Bahr Yûsuf entered to form Lake Mœris, either
as an old Nile-arm or as an artificial branch of the natural arm.
Besides this passage, the desert tract on the north of it offers,
as breaks in the higher ridge, several depressions, which must have
been accessible to the Pliocene sea. The present railway line to
the Fayûm crosses the hills at one of these depressions.
On account of the regularity of the limestone strata in the Fayûm
and Wadi Raiân, a violent upheaval cannot be supposed to have been
the cause that produced these two depressions, and it is more likely
that they are the results of erosion and scour.
In a passage I have already quoted from Mr. Petrie’s writings, he
states that in prehistoric times the Nile was a vastly greater river
than it is now, due to an enormous rainfall. Let us then assume the
Pliocene sea-level at R.L. 60 to 70, according to Dr. Schweinfurth,
and an enormous volume of water coming down from the Upper Nile Valley
according to Mr. Petrie. The sea which then invaded the Nile Valley
would have been in communication with the Red Sea, and may have had
a tide of 5 metres range, which would have complicated the currents,
and added to the scouring action. Below Wâstah, the channel of the
Nile Valley, contained between the Libyan and Arabian Hills, is much
contracted. Under these conditions the floods from the Upper Nile
would escape sideways through the depressions in the Libyan Hills
into the Fayûm and the Wadi Raiân; into the latter by way of the
Wadi Muellah, and possibly by other connections with the Nile Valley
of a low enough level.
A large volume of water would thus be forced westwards out of the
Nile Valley, and would find its way towards the sea to the west
of Alexandria. In its endeavours to dig out a channel for itself
it would erode laterally, or scour down vertically according as
the softer material was found in one direction or the other. The
different points of delivery and volumes of the water contributing
to the flow, and the nature of the rock met with in its path would
determine the form the channel would take at the various stages of
its development. Tremendous eddies would be produced by projections
of hard rock and contractions of the irregular channels, which would
lift material from the bed and produce deep holes.
Had this action not been arrested by the further upheaval of the
land, perhaps a second Nile Valley would have been formed branching
from the main valley at Behnesa, passing through the Wadi Raiân and
Fayûm depression, and continuing through the Wadis Fadhi and Faragh,
west of Memphis and Cairo, to the Natron Lakes, and thence to the sea
west of Alexandria; or returning to the Nile Valley, or side of what
is now the Delta, but was then sea, at some point south of Alexandria.
If this theory is a sound one, the remarkable depressions of the
Fayûm and Wadi Raiân are paralleled on a small scale by the deep
holes (_bayarât_) scoured out below the bridges or cuts in the
Upper Egypt Basin embankments, or outside a breach in a Nile bank.
The section, given on Plate XVIII., of 50 miles of the Nile Valley
and desert opposite Cairo, is taken from Mr. Cope Whitehouse’s
article, entitled “The Pyramid Hill of Gizeh,” which appeared
in the ‘Quarterly’ some time ago. It shows (assuming it on
Mr. Whitehouse’s authority to be a correct representation of the
ground) the channels, that I have named, in the arrested state of
development which they had reached, when the flow of water, which
was digging them out, was cut off.
[Illustration: PLATE XVIII.
SECTION OF 50 MILES ON LAT. 30°.
Borrowed from Cope Whitehouse.
_Note._—The dotted line represents the level of the Pliocene Sea,
but is not in Cope Whitehouse’s section, which was drawn for
another purpose.]
After the upheaval had raised their borders above sea-level, the sea
would be henceforward excluded from the depressions and be replaced
by the waters of the Nile, which would have entered by the gap in
the Libyan Hills at Lahûn. The upheaval continuing and the Nile
at the same time scouring out its bed, a condition of levels would
have come about, under which there would have been an annual inflow
during the floods and outflow into the Nile on the floods subsiding.
In a long series of years there would result a thick deposit of Nile
mud in the Fayûm, the richest deposit being found near the point
where the waters first spread themselves out after passing through
the comparatively narrow defile in the Libyan Hills. The tendency
of the entrance of the waters, heavily charged with silt, into an
extended basin filled with water would be to form a delta of Nile
deposit similar to that which the Nile itself has formed in entering
the sea, modified by the form of the basin bed, which would not have
been uniform like that of the sea. On account of the momentum of
the body of water leaving the defile and entering the lake, there
would be formed a projecting ridge (contour R.L. 23) of deposit in
the direction of the flow, while the deposit, resulting from the
end and side spills, would form in gentle slopes with approximately
parallel and rounded contours (R.L. 17 to 10) on both sides, and at
the end of the projecting ridge as shown in Plate XIX.
Thus, in consequence of the former action of rain on the surrounding
hills, greater or less at different points along the borders according
as the inclination of the adjacent watersheds was towards or away
from the depression, and in consequence also of the deposition of
Nile mud by the annual entry of the river flood, the bed of the
lake formed in the depression would take the shape shown by the
contours on the diagram of the Fayûm, Plate XIX. The former of
these processes of change of the bed and borders of the depression
may have ceased before the latter commenced to operate, or both
may have acted simultaneously or alternately, which would account
for layers of Nile mud being found near the Hawârah pyramid lying
below the water-borne detritus of the hills.
From a knowledge of the rules which govern the formation of a Delta,
and the consequent raising of the level of the river which forms it,
we might conclude that the Nile floods in past times were not as high
as they are nowadays, though on the other hand we do not know that
the floods were not greater in volume, and the probability is that
they were. But whatever may be the truth about former Nile levels,
the levels, at which Nile deposits are found in the Fayûm, furnish
evidence of the maximum height to which the flood waters rose in
the Lake.
At the commencement of the passage by which the waters entered the
Fayûm, the highest Nile deposit is at R.L. 26·00. At Hawârah it
is at R.L. 24·50, and along the ridge reaching out towards Medineh,
R.L. 23·50. Probably, therefore, the water in the Lake reached
about R.L. 26·50 at the commencement of the gorge, but the level
of the Lake itself rarely, if ever, exceeded R.L. 25·00.
[Illustration: PLATE XIX.
CONTOURED DIAGRAM OF THE FAYÛM DEPRESSION.
_Note._—This being a diagram only, all minor folds and indentations
of contours have been suppressed, so as to show more clearly the
general shape.
The upper contours along the north-west side of the Lake must not
be considered to be accurately represented, as no surveys of this
side have been made.]
It will be as well to determine, before going further, whether the
present volumes of the Nile flood would suffice to fill the Lake
Fayûm to the level of R.L. 25·00, which I have assumed it must
have reached to account for the Nile deposits on its borders at
R.L. 24·50.
At the time we are considering, no artificial works existed for
controlling the inflow and outflow of the Lake.
We have first to determine the lowest level to which the Lake would
have been lowered by the outflow and evaporation at the end of the
summer, and before the next rise of the river commenced. The Nile may
have flowed at a lower level then (that is, in very early prehistoric
times) than now, the summer volume was probably greater then than now,
as the unbreached barriers in the upper reaches would have ponded
up the water into reservoirs, which, slowly emptying themselves,
would have helped to raise the summer level; the flow-out also from
the Fayûm Lake would have raised at its exit the level of the summer
Nile, at least during the winter months, but not necessarily during
the summer months, as it may have expended itself sooner. There are
thus three unknown elements in the problem, and nothing to witness
to the former _minimum_ levels in the same way that the Nile deposit
does to the maximum levels. We are therefore forced to base the
calculations on existing levels, and to suppose that the effect on
the water surface of the former lower level of the Nile bed was
counterbalanced by the increased volume of water flowing in the
river bed. At any rate at some period sooner or later the present
minimum level of the Nile must have been reached.
The probability is that the exit channel of the lake joined the
Nile at or near Wâstah. Up to the end of April the rate of fall
of the river exceeds the rate at which evaporation would lower
a lake surface, but in May the river falls about 15 centimetres,
and not at all on an average in June. Hence, up to the end of April
the fall of the river would determine the rate of fall of the lake,
but in May and June the fall due to evaporation would rule the rate.
R.L.
The level of the Nile at Wâstah at the end of April
may be taken to be 18·75
The distance from Wâstah to Lahûn is 30 kilometres.
„ Lahûn to Hawârah 15 „
--
Total 45 „
Allowing a water surface slope for the outflow of ¹⁄₂₅₀₀₀,
the difference in water surface level between the lake at
Hawârah and the Nile at Wâstah would be 1·80
-----
Hence the water surface of the lake at the end of April
would be at 20·55
Evaporation would still further lower
the surface in May by ·25
„ „ „ June „ ·30
---
0·55
-----
The water surface in the lake would thus become 20·00
Probably the commencement of the flow into the lake would
not take place till a few days after the middle of July,
which may be taken as the time when the lake reaches its
lowest level for the year. Evaporation for this period of
July must therefore also be allowed for, say 0·20
-----
The lowest level of the lake would therefore be 19·80
The mean surface area of the Lake Fayûm between R.L. 19·80 and
25·00 may be taken as 2000 million square metres.
Evaporation during the ninety days of flood would tend to lower the
level 70 centimetres.
The quantity of water required to raise the lake from R.L. 19·80
to 25·00 would therefore be 2,000,000,000 × (5·20 + 0·70) =
11,800 million cubic metres, or a daily average for ninety days of
131,111,111 cubic metres.
At the commencement of these ninety days the inflow would be small,
increasing rapidly to the maximum; and again, as the lake level rose
and the Nile began to fall in October, the inflow would gradually
decrease to nothing by the end of the ninety days. Hence it would
probably be necessary to suppose a maximum daily discharge into the
lake of about 200 million cubic metres a day for part of the time.
--+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+--
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| | Number of | | | |
| | Years out | | | |
| | of 16 in | | | |
| | which the | Balance | |Corresponding|
| | Supply | available |Corresponding| Gauge, |
| Date. | given in | after | Gauge, Beni | Magnûnah |
| | Col. 3 | allowing for | Suef. | Mouth on |
| | would be | Lower Egypt. | | Nile. |
| | available | | | |
| | for | | | |
| |abstraction.| | | |
+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| | |million cubic | metres. | metres. |
| | | metres per | | |
| | | day. | | |
| | | | | |
|Sept. 1| 11 | 67 } | 28·08 | 26·64 |
| | | } Average| | |
| „ 11| 11 | 108 } 112 | 28·11 | 26·67 |
| | | } | | |
| „ 21| 11 | 162 } | 28·14 | 26·70 |
| | | | | |
|Oct. 1| 13 | 157 } | 28·14 | 26·70 |
| | | } Average| | |
| „ 11| 12 | 174 } 192 | 28·15 | 26·71 |
| | | } | | |
| „ 21| 14 | 245 } | 28·12 | 26·68 |
| | | | | |
|Nov. 1| 15 | 372 | 28·05 | 26·61 |
| | | | | |
| „ 11| 11 | 372 | 27·05 | 25·61 |
| | | | | |
| „ 21| 11 | 67 | 26·40 | 24·98 |
| | | | | |
|Dec. 1| 12 | 63 | 25·88 | 24·40 |
--+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+--
Colonel Western, in a note on the Wadi Raiân, shows that for a
certain number of years out of sixteen years (1872 to 1887, of which
he had the statistics to work with) there is a surplus discharge in
the Nile which might be abstracted without in any way interfering with
the ordinary irrigation of the Delta. In his calculations he takes 565
million cubic metres in twenty-four hours as the discharge required
by the Delta during September and the first half of October. He is,
of course, referring to the conditions of the Delta at the present
time. He gives the table which appears on the preceding page, to
which I have added the corresponding gauge levels at Beni Suef and
Magnûnah mouth for reference further on.
The month of August has not been given, as the conclusion was come to
that there was no water to spare in August under present conditions.
The calculation, giving these figures, is made assuming that
regulation on the Barrage below Cairo is not called in to assist;
the discharges allowed to Lower Egypt, after abstracting the above
quantities, being sufficient to give a water surface at the level
required for irrigation without any heading-up. Now, the quantity
required to fill the lake to R.L. 25·00, as found before, is 11,800
million cubic metres. This, let us suppose, would be made up thus:—
September 30 days at 112 millions = 3,360 millions.
October 31 „ 192 „ = 5,952 „
Parts of August
and November 29 „ 86 „ = 2,494 „
------
Total 11,806 „
These discharges could be abstracted without affecting Lower Egypt
irrigation, as it exists now, for eleven years out of sixteen. This,
however, is not a quite correct statement as applied to each of
the eleven years, since the discharges given in the table are
the _averages_ of those years in which a surplus discharge is
available. Among these would be some very high years, in which it
would be possible to fill the lake to a higher level than 25·00,
and years when this level would not be reached.
Besides the years, for which the averages of surplus discharges
are taken, there would be five years out of sixteen when the supply
would fall short in September, the month of highest level.
There is no necessity in this stage to seek for a connection between
the lake and the Nile for filling the lake, as the water would find
its way in large volumes across all the low parts of the valley
into the drainage depression along the edge of the Libyan Desert,
now known as the Bahr Yûsuf.
The levels at which the Nile deposits are found in the Fayûm, the
discharges which might be drawn off from the Nile, and the area of
the Fayûm Lake are thus all in agreement with the supposition that
the level of the Fayûm lake was yearly raised from about R.L. 20·00
to 25·00, and that the level attained was never sufficiently high
to cause an overflow into the Wadi Raiân.
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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: PLATE XXII.
BIAHMU RUINS.]
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
is nearly 234,000 feddans.[8]
-------
The actual cultivated area is more
probably 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 Lake Mœris 1,666,000,000
or, say, 1600 million square metres.
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.
{ Lake 19·50
Lowest water levels, {
when lake ceases to { Junction at Abûsir-el-Malaq 19·40
flow out and the {
flow-in is about to { Magnûnah Nile mouth at Ashment 20·00
commence. {
{ Outlet into Nile at Kosheshah Escape 19·00
{ Lake 22·50
Water levels on 15th {
January, when flow-in { Abûsir-el-Malaq 22·00
would cease and lake {
return-flow would { Magnûnah mouth 23·00
commence. {
{ Outlet, Kosheshah 21·00
{ Lake 21·50 to 22·50
{
Ordinary flood maximum { Abûsir-el-Malaq 25·30 to 27·40
levels at end of {
September. { 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 25,000 feddans
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 water between R.L. 22·50
and 19·50 is 1600 million square metres × 3 4800
Of this there would be lost by evaporation during the
6 months 1600 million square metres × 1 1600
----
There would thus remain available for purposes of
irrigation 3200
The reclaimed land round Arsinoë (about 25,000 feddans)
would require about 50 million cubic metres for its
irrigation during the 6 months of winter and summer 50
----
The balance available for the Nile 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:—
--+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+--
| | Average Nile | Supplied by |Total Increased |
| Month. |Discharge, without | reservoir. | Discharge. |
| | reservoir. | | |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+
|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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
TRANSFORMATION OF LAKE MŒRIS INTO THE FAYÛM OF TO-DAY.
Assuming that the conception of Lake Mœris, as given in this paper,
is a true one, we have now to consider how the change to present
conditions in the Fayûm came about.
In the passage quoted from ‘Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoë,’
Mr. Petrie states that “apparently under the Persians or Ptolemies
the desire to acquire more land in the Fayûm at the expense of
the irrigation of the Nile valley, led to restricting the inflow,
and gradually drying up the lake.”
Mr. Cope Whitehouse, in one of his papers, points out that Mœris,
in its character of regulator and reservoir, existed chiefly for
remote provinces, and therefore required for its maintenance a strong
central government with sufficient administrative skill and energy to
take the necessary steps and to expend the necessary amount of money
to secure the maintenance of the reservoir, canal, and regulators
in working order. Under a careless government, or while anarchy, or
internal or external troubles weakened administration, the private
interests of individuals who were on the spot to assert themselves,
would have prevailed over the public claims of the Northerners,
powerless to keep watch over and to insist upon their rights from
the distant towns of the Delta. A corrupt Public Works Department,
uncontrolled by a chief with broad views of what was desirable in the
general interests of Egypt, may have permitted each chief engineer
of a nome to do what seemed good in his own eyes for the profit
of the particular part of Egypt in which he was the Public Works
officer. If we imagine that he had scruples, there have not been
absent, in the modern history of the Irrigation Department of Egypt,
instances of the application of means for overcoming scruples, and,
as so much else in the customs of the country can be traced back
to that far past time when Lake Mœris must have been languishing
towards extinction, we may also suppose that the Eastern salve for
tender consciences was applied and the scruples overcome.
But whatever the cause (and there is nothing but speculation,
which can help us to imagine it), at some time or other, either by a
gradual or sudden process, Lake Mœris ceased to perform its offices
of regulator and reservoir, which had won for it the admiration of
all who visited it. Having once reached the stage when it ceased to
be useful in supplementing the low Nile, there would be nothing to
prevent measures being taken to exclude all water, but such as was
necessary for the irrigation of the reclaimed areas. Evaporation would
lower the Lake level year by year, and leave more land uncovered. Year
by year the Lake would contract itself, and retire to lower levels,
until it had reached the present dimensions of the modern Lake Qurûn,
whose water surface at the commencement of May 1892 was 43·50 metres
below mean sea-level. The rate of the lake’s retreat was doubtless
not uniform and continuous, but was retarded by accidents and breaches
of the barrier, raised against the Nile floods, causing a return of
the water over reclaimed lands. The deep ravines of the Fayûm are
nature’s bold strokes on the face of the province, which record
some of the victories of the water, in its efforts to fulfil the
law imposed on it to find its own level, over man’s endeavours to
control this law.
Evaporation by itself, had its results not been vitiated by other
causes, would have lowered the lake surface by about 2 metres a year,
but the drainage and waste from the reclaimed area under irrigation
would have retarded the fall, and breaches would probably have
occasionally converted the fall into a rise. It is therefore difficult
to assign dates for different levels of the lake surface, but probably
the old towns at different levels around the borders of the Fayûm,
so far as their dates can be fixed, will, when their levels have
been correctly ascertained, throw some light on this subject.
The former manner of conducting the irrigation of parts of the
province would have caused a much larger proportionate discharge into
the lake, than finds its way to it at present. Considerable areas
were enclosed by banks, and inundated under the Basin system, known
in the Fayûm as “Malaq,” in contradistinction to irrigation by
small field channels, a system called “Misqâwi.” The contents of
these small basins, when emptied, flowed into the lake. On the south
side of the Fayûm there was, until late years, a large basin known
as “Hod-el-Tuyûr” (the Basin of the Birds), which was formed by
building an immense wall across a fold of contour R.L. 15·00. The
top of this wall is about R.L. 16·00. The bed of the basin is at
R.L. 12·00, so we may conclude that, when this wall was built, the
lake levels must have been at any rate below R.L. 12·00. This basin
was abolished in 1886, and ordinary perennial irrigation introduced
over the area formerly included within the basin limits. Since then
the fall of the lake surface has been more rapid, in spite of its
annually diminishing evaporating area.
The existing lake, which is the rudiment of the large lake that once
filled the whole of the Fayûm depression, is called Lake Qurûn,
or el-Qurn, the Lake of the Horns, or the Horn, apparently so named
from a rock that projects into the lake from its west side and
called “el-Qurn.”
It is evident, from the levels of the rock bed underlying the Nile
deposit near Hawârah, that the original course of the waters flowing
into Lake Mœris (after it became Lake Mœris by introducing means of
controlling its waters) must have been along the ravine which runs to
the north of the modern village of Hawârat-el-Maqta. The bed of the
present Bahr Yûsuf, at a point about a kilometre below that village,
is rock at R.L. 21·00, and this rock joins the high desert on the
south of the Bahr Yûsuf. But on the north it dips down, and close
under Hawârat-el-Maqta has been found to have its original surface
at R.L. 19·17, dipping still lower towards the north-east. Plate
XXV. gives cross-sections of the entrance valley of the Fayûm,
and also of the ravine behind Hawârat-el-Maqta.
“Hawârat-el-Maqta” signifies “Hawârah of the Breach,” and
round about this village lay the battlefields where many a struggle
was made by man to get the mastery of the water, until he at last
prevailed. Massive walls and solid banks, retaining the Bahr Yûsuf
in its high level channel, and barring the passage into ravines,
scoured out by previous torrents of water bursting away from control,
mark the sites of many a breach, and suggest sleepless and anxious
nights of hard labour for the wretched irrigation officer in charge
in the days when the water seemed to have asserted its rights to
flow where it pleased.
On the left of the Bahr Yûsuf are the remains of a channel, which
was clearly a temporary one for carrying the water, while a breach
near Hawârat-el-Maqta was being repaired. Linant Pasha tells of the
occurrence of one of these breaches on the west of Hawârat-el-Maqta
as late as the commencement of this century (in 1819 or 1820). He
states that this breach caused much damage. An attempt was made to
close it during the floods, but in spite of all that could be done,
and in spite of the energy of the people employed by Mehemet Ali,
it was not till after six months at the time of low water that the
closure was effected. It appears that the old bridge at Lahûn (the
only one existing at the time) could not be closed, when the breach
occurred, probably for want of suitable closing apparatus. This
breach was down-stream of the rock bed in the Bahr Yûsuf.
When the level of Lake Mœris was kept up to levels above R.L. 17·50,
the regulator at Hawârah near the Labyrinth, which I have supposed
controlled the entry of the water into the lake, would have admitted
the flood waters freely until the lake rose to the maximum allowable,
say R.L. 22·00. If then closed, and supposing the Nile levels to
have been 2 metres lower then than now, the regulator would probably
have been subjected to a head of about 3 metres as a maximum, but
afterwards when Lake Mœris ceased its functions and the lake fell
to low levels, the regulator would have had to hold up a head of
water equal to the depth of water on its floor, in order to exclude
the water from the lake. The right and left side channels would have
taken in water from above the regulator for irrigating the reclaimed
tracts. The drainage of the irrigated areas would have commenced
to form drainage channels, the right drainage following the bed
of the original inflow channel into Lake Mœris. As the lake level
continued to fall, the drains would have scoured themselves out to
lower levels, and cut back. The canals too would then have breached
into the deepening ravines.
[Illustration: PLATE XXV.
CROSS SECTION OF THE ENTRANCE VALLEY TO THE FAYÛM AT THE OLD BAHR
WARDAN MOUTH, 3 KILOMETRES ABOVE HAWÂRAT-EL-MAQTA.]
[Illustration: CROSS SECTION OF RAVINE BEHIND HAWÂRAT-EL-MAQTA.]
On the opposite sides of the ravine and in face of the village of
Hawârat-el-Maqta, during one of my inspections, I came across
the remains of two ancient canals, shown on the sketch map,
Plate XXVI. Starting from the present edge of the ravine are two
old canals, clearly distinguishable as such by the existing banks,
which are of considerable height. In the angle between the two are
the remains of an ancient town, and fragments of granite pillars. One
of these fragments was part of the shaft of a large pillar of the
clustered-stalk design.
Both these canals, after a few hundred yards, lose themselves in
broken ground sloping down and tailing into the main ravine.
Probably the left canal was the first made, and, when it breached
into the ravine on its left, the right canal was made to take its
place, which in its turn also breached and found its way into the
ravine. The take-off was then shifted farther up the Bahr Yûsuf
to the position of the present head of the Bahr Sêlah. The dotted
lines show the supposed continuations of the two old canals. To feed
them, either the ravine must have been dammed below their present
take-off from it, or else they must have been continued across the
head of the ravine to the banks of the Bahr Yûsuf. The fact that the
second diversion diverges from the old canal just where it leaves the
ravine, suggests the former alternative, but more probably this was
made the point of departure from the first channel so as to utilise
the banks, which already existed, for crossing the ravine and avoid
the necessity for making a new crossing.
Joined on to the breached end of the left canal there exist some
curious vestiges of irrigation works, which have failed. It appears
that there was originally an earth dam A B joining the banks of one
or other of these two old canals with a point in the direction of
or across the ravine. In the line of this bank where the height was
greatest, was a thick masonry wall, now known as “Hêt Rozma.”
This wall is made of brick and rubble stone of a very inferior
quality, built in mortar made of lime and mud; it is 90 metres in
length, 5 metres thick, and 6·70 metres high. (The top of this
wall is at R.L. 21·35.) The bare end of the wall is evidently the
original masonry end, as it was built, no part of the wall having
been carried away when the bank, which must have joined its outer
end, disappeared. The bank, of which this wall formed the centre,
evidently breached and scoured out a hole, marked by the pool C
below the breach. This breach was repaired by adding an inclined
wall D E to the Hêt Rozma, continued by an earth bank E F to the
bank of the old left canal. Again another bank G F seems to have
been formed above this, and to have breached. The violent action of
the water is shown by the circular hollow H, which has been scooped
out of the level ground _upstream_ of this breach.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVI.
_Stanford Geog. Estab. London_
SKETCH MAP OF THE GROUND BETWEEN HAWÂRAT-EL-MAQTA AND HAWÂRAH
PYRAMID.
_Note._—The ravines are not correctly mapped, but only sketched
in to show generally how the ground is broken up.]
I give this description to indicate what interesting problems there
are to solve, or lose oneself in conjectures about, in various
parts of the Fayûm Province, and especially in the neighbourhood
of Hawârat-el-Maqta and the wonderful Labyrinth.
Given then the actual conditions of a considerable difference of
level, continually increasing, between the water at its entrance
to the Fayûm, and the lake surface, and, from an irrigation point
of view, a steep surface slope to the country under irrigation,
ravines would commence to form along the lines where drainage and the
water, discharged by canal breaches, would collect to flow towards
the lake. Wherever also an inundated area, surrounded by banks,
effected the discharge of the water contained in the basin, there
would be made the beginning of a ravine, which may afterwards have
been utilised as an irrigation or drainage channel.
The main drainage lines of the north and south were naturally formed
along the lines, where the rounded concentric contours of the central
part of the Fayûm double back to run along the north and south sides
of the depression, as shown in the diagram (Plate XIX.). At many
points the rock being reached, further deepening of the channel was
checked. The rock being close to the surface along the upper part
of the course of the south main drainage line, a deep ravine has
not been formed, until after the village of Miniet-el-Hêt is passed.
But the north drainage line has been scoured out and cut back to the
banks of the Bahr Yûsuf itself, so that deep ravines exist within
a short distance of and parallel to its present watercourse. Into
these ravines a breach would precipitate all the main canal supply,
if such were to occur from negligence or from rashly permitting
irrigation to be conducted from heads roughly constructed by the
fellahîn in the Bahr Yûsuf banks.
Probably some small village channel, allowed to take off directly
from the Bahr Yûsuf without a proper head, and used to irrigate
some low lands along the slopes of the main ravine, caused a minor
ravine to commence and grow, until, cutting back as far as its head,
it eventually gave rise to the breach of 1820, which resulted in
a widening out of the branch ravine until it attained its present
dimensions.
It is, I think, evident that, when Lake Mœris ceased to be,
Hawârat-el-Maqta was the key to the position and the point where the
problem of the Fayûm irrigation had to be solved. It was necessary
for the irrigation of the whole province, that the water-level should
be held up at this point, so as to flow along the ridge between
Hawârat-el-Maqta and Medineh, from which the whole province, with
the exception of the land on the right of the north drainage line,
was commanded. For the irrigation from the Bahr Sêlah or from the
ancient canals, of which the Bahr Sêlah is the modern representative,
it was necessary also that the water should not be allowed to run
to low levels down the ravine at the back of Hawârat-el-Maqta. The
principal operation then to be performed was to bar this ravine to
the passage of the water, and to make the water flow forward along
the ridge to Medineh at a high enough level at least to pass over
the rocky bed, which is now found in the modern Bahr Yûsuf about a
kilometre beyond Hawârah. This end being attained, the water would
flow along the ridge, from the sides and end of which it would be
distributed into the different branch canals covering the face of
the province. Works to control the quantity of water given to each
branch, and weirs to head-up the water at intervals along the canals
of too rapid a slope would have been added as the want of them made
itself felt.
The lake level would become lower year by year, and more land would
be reclaimed and brought under cultivation.
At some period of this process, probably after a breach at
Hawârat-el-Maqta, or on the failure of the regulator supposed to have
formerly existed at Hawârah, the Lahûn bank and its old regulator
would have been formed to exclude the excess of water and to control
the discharge admitted into the Fayûm. (For sections of these banks,
see Plate XXVII.)
I have suggested before that the part of the Lahûn bank which runs
east and west was made in the time of Lake Mœris, and that the
part from Lahûn to the south side of the gap, which crosses the
Bahr Yûsuf at the old Lahûn Bridge, was subsequently made to shut
out the Nile floods, when for some reason the means of regulation
within the Fayûm at Hawârah ceased to be efficient.
The old Lahûn Bridge has three openings of 2·67 width, the floor
level of two of them being at R.L. 21·97 and of the third at
R.L. 20·72, so that this bridge could only have been constructed
_after_ the discharge required by the Fayûm had fallen to the amount
of its present requirements, or to even less, as the waterway is
somewhat under what is desirable for the passage of 7 million cubic
metres a day, the maximum discharge utilised in the Fayûm at the
present day during floods.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVII.
BANK RIGHT OF LAHÛN BRIDGE, OR GISR GADALLAH.]
[Illustration: BANK LEFT OF LAHÛN BRIDGE, OR GISR BAHLAWÂN.
CROSS SECTIONS OF LAHÛN BANKS.]
It is evident, from the remains of canals along the north and south
sides of the Fayûm, that at some time or other these slopes of the
province were irrigated to higher levels than the limit of the present
cultivation. On the right the old Bahr Wardan is traceable from its
old mouth on the Bahr Yûsuf (Kom-el-Iswid) above the present Sêlah
Head as far as the north-west corner of the Fayûm depression. It
would appear that the water surface level of the Bahr Yûsuf at
Hawârah must be lower now than when this canal was under conditions
favourable for irrigation. Perhaps it worked when the regulator was,
as supposed, at Hawârah, and before the Lahûn bank and old bridge
shut out the high-level waters of the Nile flood.
On the south side of the Fayûm there are similarly the remains
of an old canal within the limits of what is now desert. This was
probably fed by an aqueduct formed along the top of the Minia wall,
which held up the waters in Hod-el-Tuyûr. This wall and aqueduct were
breached, and though the wall was restored, the aqueduct was not, and
the supply was cut off from the high-level canal. The land depending
on it consequently returned to desert. Large blocks of old masonry
lying prone on the ground at some distance from the present wall
show with what force the escaping waters must have rushed through
the breaches to have been able to transport such massive blocks to
so great a distance from their original position.
CHAPTER V.
THE FAYÛM IN THE FUTURE, AND POSSIBLE UTILISATION OF THE WADI RAIÂN.
The subject of storage reservoirs for husbanding the flood or winter
surplus waters of the Nile with the object of supplementing the Low
Nile is now under consideration and _sub judice_. Mr. W. Willcocks,
M.I.C.E., has been appointed Director-General of Works for the study
of this subject, and his final report has not yet been made.
It has been calculated that the total of the Nile discharges for even
a minimum year is more than sufficient for all the needs of Egypt,
developed to its fullest extent, and the main question to decide is
where the reservoir is to be made and what form it is to take.
Portions of the Nile Valley itself could be made to store the water
by forming one or several masonry dams across the Nile, and the Wadi
Raiân could also be made to serve the same purpose by putting it
into communication with the Nile by means of a channel cut in the
range of hills which divides the depression from the Nile Valley.
The discussion of the advantages of the different methods of forming
Nile reservoirs does not belong to this paper, but there is a
probability that a reservoir in some form will be made, and that the
Fayûm will receive its share of the resulting increase of the summer
water supply. Its present summer supply would probably be doubled,
which would enable the province to increase the area under cotton
from about 50,000 to 100,000 feddans, but would otherwise have no
great effect on the province. The expansion of the present area
under cultivation in the Fayûm to the lands along the north-east
and south borders of the province does not depend so much on an
increase to the present supply as on the construction of canals
designed to carry sufficient water at a high enough level to command
the lands above the present limits of cultivation. There is no want
of water during Nile flood time outside the intake of the Fayûm,
but its present canals will not carry more than a total discharge
of 7,000,000 cubic metres a day, and therefore that is the maximum
allowed to pass through the Lahûn bridges.
If, however, the Wadi Raiân were to be made a reservoir, the
reclamation of the lands along the south and south-west borders of
the Fayûm would be made comparatively easy. What this area amounts
to is rather uncertain.
In Chapter III. the conclusion was arrived at, that the Wadi Raiân
depression had never hitherto acted as a regulator to control the
Nile floods and supplement the Low Nile, and that its past history
shows no record of useful work, so far as the irrigation of Egypt is
concerned. But this fact does not affect the question of its possible
uses in the future, for which its physical features and geographical
position may fit it. It is a depression, separated by a short width of
hill from the Nile Valley, and if filled with water up to R.L. 24·00,
would become a lake, having a surface area of about 600 million
square metres, and a greatest depth of 64 metres. There is no doubt
that the communication could be made; the only question is, would it
be worth the expense, and could not better results be obtained for
the same expenditure by the adoption of other rival projects. This
question is now being considered by the Ministry of Public Works.
There are four uses which the Wadi Raiân depression might be made
to serve, if a communication with the Nile Valley were established.
It might be used,
(1) As a reservoir of control for the Nile floods.
(2) As a reservoir of storage to supplement the Low Nile.
(3) As an area to be brought under cultivation.
(4) As a receptacle for the drainage of the Nile Valley during the
flood season.
(1) It would not make an efficient regulator for the control of the
Nile floods, unless it were to be expressly reserved for this object,
and its level kept low until all fear of the necessity of relief
arising had passed. If it were considered necessary to provide for
the relief of the Nile to the extent of 100 million cubic metres
per day for 30 days, the lake, having an area (at R.L. 24·00) of
600 million square metres, should be kept at such a level as would
allow of its receiving the 3000 million cubic metres without checking
the inflow in consequence of its surface level becoming too high. An
addition of 3000 million cubic metres to the reservoir would raise it
about 4¾ metres, allowing for evaporation for 30 days. This is about
the extreme duty the Wadi could perform as a reservoir of control,
if it were expressly reserved as such; but, if it is to serve this
object alone, the expenditure, which would be incurred in fitting
it to do so, would certainly be considered out of proportion to the
benefits to be obtained. An attempt to combine the two duties of
controller of Nile floods, and feeder to Low Niles would probably
result in failure, as the necessity of keeping the reservoir level
low to fit it to act as an escape-valve during September might make
it impossible to raise the level afterwards to a sufficient height
to render it an efficient feeder to the Low Nile.
(2) It would, however, make an efficient feeder for supplementing
the Low Nile, if the control of the flood Nile were neglected. If
connected with the Nile about Beni Suef, and also with the Bahr
Yûsuf (which could continue to flow into it after the Nile
ceased to do so), the reservoir could easily be filled to R.L. +
26·00. Assuming R.L. 21·00 as the level to which the water in
the reservoir would fall in summer, and allowing one metre for
evaporation for six months, the volume required to fill the lake
from R.L. 21 to 26 would be 600,000,000 square metres × (5 + 1) =
3600 million cubic metres. From November to January, say 90 days,
the Bahr Yûsuf could supply an average of 12 million cubic metres
a day at least, or 1080 million cubic metres, leaving 2520 million
cubic metres for the direct Nile feeder during the 90 days of flood,
or an average of 28 million cubic metres a day.
The reservoir would return to the Nile Valley 600,000,000 × (5 - 1)
= 2400 million cubic metres. Allowing for a loss of 10 per cent. in
the distributing canals outside the reservoir, we get a supply of
(2400 - 240 =) 2160 million cubic metres available for irrigation.
Now 60 days is given as the critical period in Lower Egypt, when
the Nile supply is generally insufficient. Subtracting 160 million
cubic metres for the Fayûm, the 2000 million cubic metres remaining
would therefore give an average discharge of 33 million cubic metres
a day to supplement the Low Nile, and, if distributed in increasing
quantities in proportion as the Nile fell, it might be so arranged as
to prevent the Nile minimum discharge ever falling below 50 million
cubic metres a day in the very lowest years of summer Nile.
But calculating with a period of 100 days, which is the length of
the critical period for Upper Egypt, we obtain a mean discharge of
20 million cubic metres a day, which might be so distributed as to
prevent the minimum Nile falling at any rate below 45 million cubic
metres a day, as for instance below:—
--+---------------+-----------------------+------------+----------+--
| |Minimum Nile Discharge |Supplied by | Total |
| Month. | without Reservoir. | Reservoir. |Increased |
| | Monthly Average. | |Discharge.|
+---------------+-----------------------+------------+----------+
|March | 40,000,000 | 5,000,000 |45,000,000|
| | | | |
|April | 35,000,000 | 10,000,000 |45,000,000|
| | | | |
|May | 25,000,000 | 20,000,000 |45,000,000|
| | | | |
|June | 20,000,000 | 25,000,000 |45,000,000|
| | | | |
|10 days of July| 30,000,000 | 15,000,000 |45,000,000|
--+---------------+-----------------------+------------+----------+--
This disposes of 1975 millions, whereas 2000 millions was the quantity
calculated as being available after loss by evaporation in the lake,
and by absorption and evaporation in the distributing canals outside
the lake. I think, therefore, I have not overstated the capabilities
of the reservoir as a feeder to supplement the Low Nile.
I have said nothing about the first filling of the lake, which is a
question of no small difficulty. To fill it to R.L. 21·00, its low
summer level when once in working order, would require a volume of
15,000 million cubic metres plus the quantity required to meet loss
by evaporation during the time of filling.
(3) The idea that the depression might be converted into a cultivated
basin is, I think, not likely to get beyond the stage of suggestion,
as, with the object only of extending cultivation, the expense
of connecting the Wadi Raiân with the Nile will not be incurred,
since there are so many other projects of reclamation, which would
need less expenditure and give a better return.
(4) The last use to which the Wadi Raiân might be put, and which
has lately been suggested, is to adapt it for the reception of the
drainage waters of the Nile Valley, after the basin area of at least
Middle Egypt has been converted into Sêfi (summer) irrigation by
means of the increased supply provided by the assumed existence of
reservoirs in the Upper Nile Valley and a regulating dam at Asyût.
When all these basin lands are converted into tracts under perennial
irrigation, there will be a great difficulty in the disposal of
their drainage water during the time of high flood, and the Wadi
Raiân affords a possible means of solving this problem. Even though
the drainage might gain on evaporation and the Wadi Raiân become
eventually full, its water surface could be annually so far lowered
by allowing a flow out into the Nile during the summer months, as
to prepare the basin for the reception of all the drainage it would
be called upon to receive during the next flood season.
It would further be possible to combine the uses Nos. 2 and 4,
and make the depression serve both as a receptacle of the drainage
during the floods and a reservoir to supplement the Low Nile during
summer. But it might be objected that the admixture of drainage
with the reservoir waters, returned to the Nile in summer, might
render the river water unfit for irrigation. Supposing the drainage
discharge, which must be received into the reservoir, amounts to 15
million cubic metres a day for 80 days (probably a high estimate),
the total volume of drainage water would amount to 1200 million
cubic metres, or one-third of the quantity of water (3600 million
cubic metres) required to fill the lake from R.L. 21 to 26, or half
of the 2400 million cubic metres returned to the Nile Valley. This
would be further diluted by the summer discharge of the Nile itself,
to which it would be added.
If the reservoir were filled to R.L. 25 during the flood months by
the drainage and flood waters together, the remaining metre could
be added by a canal discharging 7 million cubic metres a day for
100 days in winter, and fed from the Ibrahimîyah Canal, or a new
branch of it, which would replace the Bahr Yûsuf, when the latter
was converted into the main drainage line consequent on the basin
lands being brought under perennial irrigation.
If then the drainage water should not be found salt enough to
seriously affect the quality of the reservoir water, the Wadi Raiân
might be made to serve both the purposes stated.
It has been assumed in previous notes on the subject, that such
a reservoir alongside the Fayûm would be capable of giving that
province its summer supply, but there would be a difficulty in
the way of doing this. Under present arrangements the water-level
at the end of the Bahr Yûsuf at Medineh is maintained throughout
the summer at R.L. 21·70. If the level were to be lowered, lands
now commanded by the water would cease to be so. The Wadi Raiân
reservoir, whose level has been assumed to fall to R.L. 21·00,
while a length of canal of at least 40 kilometres would be required
to convey the water to Medineh, could not, during part of the summer
(after its water surface had fallen below R.L. 23·50) deliver water
at the level at present maintained.
It would, probably, therefore be necessary, in spite of the adjacent
reservoir, to supply the Fayûm during summer by a branch from the
Ibrahimîyah Canal, but the reservoir could assist by providing
for the irrigation of all the lands, now cultivated or capable of
being reclaimed, on the left of the main south drainage line, and
the part of the province watered by the Qalamshah Canal; that is,
it would feed the Gharaq, Qalamshah, and Nezlah Canals, and so far
assist in the summer irrigation of the province.
No doubt the proximity of a lake of 600 million square metres (280
square miles), filled to a high level with reference to the greater
part of the Fayûm, would affect the climate of the province, and
at any rate take some of the heat out of the south winds, which blow
at intervals in March and April.
INDEX.
* * * * *
Arsinoë, 25
Arsinoite Nome, 48, 82
Bahr Yûsuf, 9 _et seq._
Biahmu, ruins of, 76, 83; supposed quay at, 85
Birket-el-Qurûn, 6-9, 49, 96; area of, 7; evaporation, 9
Brugsch Pasha, 39, 93
Canal, the Ibrahimîyah, 10; ruins of two ancient canals, 99
Crocodilopolis, 25, 72
Crops in the Fayûm, 17
Diodorus, 21, 27
Fayûm, the, 5 _et seq._; area of the Lake Fayûm, 67; derivation of
name, 24; fisheries in the, 18; geological history of, 61; situation
of, 5
Hawârah, the pyramid of, 25
Hawârat-el-Maqta, 97, 102
Helouan, 72
Herodotus, 19
Labyrinth, the, 25, 81
Levels:—Lowest summer levels at Wâstah, 78; between Dimay and
Schweinfurth’s Temple, 55
_Reduced Levels_:—Bahr Yûsuf, 12; Birket-el-Qurûn, 7; the Fayûm, 30;
Gharaq Basin, 5; “Hêt Rozma,” 101; Lake Mœris (_max._ and _min._)
79, 88; Lahûn Bridge, 103; Medineh, 6, 65; of Nile deposit at
Hawârah, 48, 65; Nile deposit at Lahûn, 48; at Wâstah in April, 66;
rock sill at Hawârah, 48; ruins of Dimay, 51; Temple of
Schweinfurth, 52; Wadi Raiân, 5, 42
Linant Pasha, theories of, 28 _et seq._; difficulties of his theory,
30; inaccuracies of his theory, 34
Medineh, the town of, 6, 92
Mœris, the Lake, 19 _et seq._; Arabic tradition concerning, 22;
identical with Fayûm depression, 48; in the time of Herodotus, 88;
decline of, 95; inflow and outflow of, 77; levels of Nile and lake,
79; supposed regulators of, 73, 89; supposed maker of, 69; volume of
water required to fill, 79; Cope Whitehouse’s theory concerning, 5,
37, 40; objections to his theory, 42 _et seq._; Petrie’s theory, 56-60
Nile, the, gradual rise of water-level, 87, 92; the river in the days
of Herodotus, 87
Petrie, W. M. F., 77, 85, 94
Pliny, 22
Ptolemy, Cl., 41, 44
Reservoirs, different methods suggested, 105 Ruins at Dimay, 51, 52
Schweinfurth, Dr., 38, 43; temple of, 51, 52
“Shad,” the town of, 92
Strabo, 21
Wadi Raiân never in direct communication with Nile, 43, 48; position
of, 5; possible reservoir, 106; Western’s official description of, 42
Water-wheels, different kinds of, 14-16
LONDON:
PRINTED BY EDWARD STANFORD, 26 & 27, COCKSPUR STREET,
CHARING CROSS, S.W.
[Illustration: FAYÛM PROVINCE
London: Edward Stanford, 26 & 27, Cockspur St, Charing Cross, S.W.
_London: Stanford’s Geogl. Estabt._]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: A maximum of 20 metres is obtained from statements made
by the fishermen. Crossing to Dimay, the greatest depth I obtained
was 4·85 metres, but the fishermen said that at a point towards the
south-west four times that depth was to be found, but I have not yet
been able to verify this statement.]
[Footnote 2: Its actual height is under 6 metres as a maximum.]
[Footnote 3: I believe the ridge east of Edwah and running parallel
to the railway along its south side is natural. Its crest has a
decided inclination downwards from the hills on the east of Edwah. The
artificial bank begins at Edwah and runs west, but it is joined at
Edwah to this natural ridge.]
[Footnote 4: Dr. Schweinfurth includes the Edwah-Biahmu bank and the
Minia wall under the expression “dams.”]
[Footnote 5: Probably that of Fra Mauro, of 1459 A.D., which, as Mr.
Cope Whitehouse states, in a paper published in Paris, represents two
small lakes unnamed, of which that on the south is larger than that on
the north.]
[Footnote 6: See map at end.]
[Footnote 7: Mr. Petrie’s information is incorrect on this point. The
quay at its upper end is at R.L. 25·438, as ascertained by careful
levelling and check-levelling in May 1892, made by Mr. W. O. Joseph and
M. Pini, under my directions.]
[Footnote 8: A feddan = 4200 square metres.]
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAYÛM AND LAKE MŒRIS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
