Chapter VII: The Oasis Under Persian and Roman Rule

Previous Descriptions of Archæological Remains — Mr. Lythgoe’s Excavations — Dr. Ball’s Report — Article by Professor Sayce — Prehistoric Period — Earliest Historical Records — Persian Domination — The Army of Cambyses — Temple of Hibis — Græco-Roman Period — Qasr el Ghuâta — The Roman Emperors — Proclamations on the Temple of Hibis — Qasr Dush — Nadûra — Ruins at Ain Amûr — Qasr Zaiyan and the Town of Tchonemyris — Roman Fortresses — Dêr el Ghennîma — Qasr Lebekha and Um el Dabâdib — Monasteries — Watch-Tower in Bellaida — Introduction of Christianity — The Christian Necropolis — Representations of Biblical Scenes and Personages — Embalming — Celebrities banished to the Oasis — The Columbaria — Olympiodorus describes the Fertility of the Oases under the Romans.

The archæological remains of the oases have been referred to, and in some cases described in more or less detail, by most of the travellers who have left any records of their journeys in the Libyan Desert. Among the latter may be mentioned Cailliaud, Hoskins, Schweinfurth, and Brugsch. At the same time, compared with the antiquities of the Nile Valley, those of the oases have received scant attention; indeed, it is only within the last year or two that any systematic excavations have been undertaken. At the present time Mr. Lythgoe, assisted by Mr. Winlock, is excavating in the neighbourhood of the Christian Necropolis, for Mr. Pierpont Morgan, on behalf of one of the American museums, and the results promise to be of the greatest interest and importance. It is to be hoped, therefore, that, in a few years, we shall be in possession of a detailed and authoritative account of the history of the oasis during the last few thousand years, as it must be admitted that the only information available at the present day is woefully scrappy and in many respects unreliable. Ball, in his report on Kharga published in 1900, gave an excellent summary of all that was at that time known concerning the antiquities, together with a number of useful plans of the chief buildings. Since that date, with the exception of a press article by Professor Sayce, little, if anything, has been published.

Without making any pretensions to special archæological knowledge, I shall attempt to give a brief sketch of the past history of the oasis, at the same time drawing the reader’s attention to the distribution and general characters of the more important remains.

Although the oasis of Kharga was doubtless inhabited in prehistoric times, as, indeed, is shown by the existence of flint implements of Palæolithic type on the surrounding plateaux, and also to a lesser extent within the depression, no graves referable to the prehistoric period of Egyptologists—_i.e._, the period immediately preceding that known as the first dynasty, when Menes united Egypt about 3,300 B.C.[4]—have as yet been discovered. But while it is known that the Egyptian kings claimed the allegiance of the inhabitants of the oases as far back as the eighteenth dynasty (1545-1350 B.C.), the earliest known monumental records in Kharga date from a much later period—_i.e._, the twenty-seventh dynasty—when Egypt was under Persian domination.

It was at this time that Cambyses, in an endeavour to subdue the inhabitants of the outlying oases, lost a large portion of his army in the Western Desert, probably somewhere to the west or north-west of Kharga. The Persian monarch had recently defeated the Egyptian king, Psammetikh III., at Pelusium, and made Egypt a Persian province. On his arrival at Thebes some 50,000 men were detached from the main army proceeding to Ethiopia, and ordered to march against the Ammonians and burn the oracular temple of Jupiter Ammon. This abortive expedition into the Libyan Desert is described by Herodotus (‘Thalia,’ 26) as follows:[5]

“The men sent to attack the Ammonians started from Thebes, having guides with them, and may be clearly traced as far as the city Oasis, which is inhabited by Samians, said to be of the tribe Æschrionia. The place is distant from Thebes seven days’ journey across the sand, and is called in our tongue ‘the Island of the Blessed.’ Thus far the army is known to have made its way; but thenceforth nothing is to be heard of them, except what the Ammonians, and those who get their knowledge from them, report. It is certain they neither reached the Ammonians, nor ever came back to Egypt. Further than this, the Ammonians relate as follows: that the Persians set forth from the Oasis across the sand, and had reached about half-way between that place and themselves, when, as they were at their midday meal, a wind arose from the south, strong and deadly, bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up the troops, and caused them wholly to disappear. Thus, according to the Ammonians, did it fare with this army.”

In modern times considerable doubts have arisen as to which oasis was the objective of this army, and certainly the description of Herodotus is such as to admit of various conclusions being drawn. Rohlfs considers that Dakhla, not Siwa, was its goal, and remarks that, however light-headed Cambyses might have been, he could hardly have been so foolish as to have chosen Thebes as the starting-point of an army destined for Siwa. The same writer points out that a temple dedicated to Ammon does exist in Dakhla, and that the distance of the latter oasis from Thebes corresponds with the ten days mentioned by Herodotus. Vivien de St. Martin (“Le Nord de l’Afrique dans l’antiquité,” 1863, pp. 40-41) had, some twelve years previously, come to somewhat similar conclusions.

Ascherson, on the other hand, regards it as highly improbable that Dakhla, which was hardly known and certainly of little importance in the time of Cambyses, could have been the objective of so dangerous and difficult an undertaking, and points out, moreover, that the temple of Ammon in that oasis dates from much later (_i.e._, Roman) times. He further remarks that Parthey (‘Das Orakel und die Oase des Ammon,’ Abhandl. der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, 1862, S. 131-194), in a contemporaneous work, had already met the objections raised by Vivien de St. Martin. According to the ancient maps the distance from Memphis to Siwa was much the same as that from Thebes to Siwa. No reliance, moreover, can be placed on the distances given by Herodotus. Judged with reference to Thebes, the country of the Ammonians certainly agrees more or less with the position of the oasis of Dakhla; but considered in relation to Augila (a place which has retained its name unchanged up to modern times), it corresponds with the modern Siwa, where the well-known oracular temple of Jupiter Ammon actually existed.

It seems to me quite reasonable to suppose that Cambyses only decided on the despatch of this expedition after reaching Thebes, and from there the route, via Kharga, Dakhla, and Farafra, would be fairly direct, and have the advantage of passing through oases, well provided with water and food-supplies, separated by marches not exceeding four days. Possibly, moreover, the ‘oasis’ through which the army is recorded to have safely marched may not have been Kharga at all, but Baharia, or even Farafra, either of which would have been reached by striking into the desert along one of the roads leaving the Nile Valley in the neighbourhood of Assiut or Mellawi; this would have been quite a likely route for an army starting for Siwa from Thebes, as over a third of the distance would have been along the fertile plains bordering the Nile.

The evidence, however, seems to favour the view that the army proceeded westwards from Thebes, and passed safely through Kharga, possibly also through Dakhla; in those days the latter may have been coupled with Kharga, as it was later, when the two together were called the Great Oasis. As it is impossible to imagine a body comprising 50,000 men being destroyed by a sandstorm, I am inclined to agree with Hoskins that the army was purposely misled and sacrificed by the guides, with the object of preventing the capture of Siwa and the destruction of the far-famed temple of Jupiter Ammon. In the deserts to the north and west of Dakhla immense accumulations of sand cover, without a break, thousands of square miles of country; only one or two possible tracks cross this lonesome wilderness, and these, following narrow troughs hemmed in by hills of sand, are invisible even from the distance of a few hundred yards. Only a party thoroughly acquainted with desert travelling could hope to penetrate this region, and nothing would be easier than to encompass the loss of a large and unwieldy army among these terrible dunes. It seems probable, moreover, that this body of troops was as ill-equipped and badly led as the main army which at the same time was marching southwards to Ethiopia. Led by circuitous routes till they reached a point many marches distant from the nearest well, worn out by the incessant clambering over endless ridges of soft sand, their stores of water and food exhausted, their tracks obliterated by the ever-moving sand, the fate of the unfortunate soldiers, deserted at the last by the treacherous guides, could not long have remained in doubt.

The Persians left a magnificent record of their rule in the temple of Hibis, situated 4 kilometres north of Kharga village. Founded (or possibly only rebuilt) by Darius I. between 521 and 486 B.C., in honour of the god Ammon-Ra, it was enlarged by Nektanebos about 150 years later. In the hieroglyphics the King is mentioned as having built the temple of good white stone, and as having covered its portals, made of Libyan acacia-wood, with bronze from Asia. There are long lists and representations of the offerings made to Ammon-Ra the sun-god, commencing with the wine of the oasis. The building is situated in the midst of fields and palm-groves, and the accompanying illustrations give a good idea of its general aspect and architecture. The main portion has its long axis east and west, and measures 44 by 19 metres, the walls being about 6 metres high. To the east of the chief entrance there are three isolated pylons, one of them being at the present day almost hidden by palms. The entire building is constructed of Nubian Sandstone, believed to have been obtained locally, though the quarry has never been located. Hibis means ‘the town of the plough,’ and is referred to in the Ptolemaic inscriptions at Edfu as the capital of Kenem (Kharga). It is not certain whether the town, which probably existed into the Middle Ages, was in the immediate vicinity of the temple, or, as suggested by Rohlfs, near Nadûra, a smaller edifice on a marked eminence a little to the south-east.

Apart from the temple of Hibis most of the antiquities in the oasis belong to the Græco-Roman period, and probably the most interesting and important of these is the temple now known as Qasr el Ghuâta, situate 6 kilometres south-east of Gennâh, on a conspicuous eminence composed of sandstones and shales. Qasr el Ghuâta dates from the time of the Ptolemies, and, as the cartouche of Ptolemy III. (Euergetes I.) appears on the entrance walls, it may be presumed that it was erected during his reign, between 247 and 222 B.C. The actual temple is of sandstone, and measures approximately 10 by 20 metres, the main entrance being richly inscribed and having ornamental columns with beautifully designed capitals. The interior consists of three courts or rooms, the first plain, the second with four ornamental columns and walls decorated with exceptionally well-cut hieroglyphics, while the third is much smaller, and contains enclosed passages and cells. The building is hemmed in by numerous crude enclosures, with partitions of sun-dried brick, the whole of which, forming a large rectangular block, was originally surrounded by a high brick wall of considerable thickness. According to Schweinfurth, the outer crude erections formed the quarters of a garrison at a later date.

It was during the sway of the Roman Emperors that the Egyptian oases attained their maximum importance. During this period, from 30 B.C. to about the beginning of the seventh century, extensive towns existed in Kharga, and the oasis was strongly garrisoned and protected by forts. Temples and other edifices were erected, while a great development of the water-supply took place. During the same period the oases were used as places of banishment, just as they were in earlier days under the Pharaohs, and have been, in a way, in quite modern times. Juvenal, the Latin satirist, was banished to Syene at the beginning of the second century, as a punishment for his attacks on the Court, and he appears also to have been for a time confined in Kharga; Athanasius, Nestorius, and other celebrities likewise made unwilling acquaintance with this portion of the Empire.

Sayce remarks that the oases under the Romans were thoroughly cultivated, a brisk trade in wine being carried on, and mentions that on one of the temple walls there are several inscriptions which lead one to infer that Kharga yielded a considerable revenue. One of the best known, dated in the first year of the reign of the Emperor Galba (A.D. 68), is a long Greek inscription on one of the pylons of the temple of Hibis; this has been carefully copied by more than one traveller, and translations have been published by Young, Letronne, and Hoskins. In it the Prefect of the oasis, Julius Demetrius, communicated the answer of the Governor of the province, Tiberius Julius Alexander, to various complaints made by the inhabitants, not only of the oasis, but of other districts under the same jurisdiction. The proclamation admits the justice of the complaints, and lays down at great length the steps to be taken in regard to the appointment of tax-gatherers, the payment of debts, and imprisonment for various offences; it deals with deeds of sale, the marriage portions of women, rents, military service, legal appeals, the punishment of libellous informers, etc.; forbids extortion and exorbitant taxes; orders the restitution of illegally exacted moneys; and ordains that taxes are to be based on the extent of the Nile inundation.

A still earlier inscription, on the southern portion of the same pylon, refers especially to the inhabitants of the oasis, and is translated by Hoskins as follows:

“Cnœus Virgilius Capito says: I have both heard long ago some
unjust expenses and false charges to be made by certain persons
avariciously and shamefully abusing their powers: and I have just
now been informed, that in the territory of the Libyans certain
things are consumed by those seizing them under pretence, as it
were, because of their necessities, as being set apart for their
expenses and entertainments; which charges are neither true nor
admissible: and in like manner under the name of the service
of couriers. Wherefore I command those travelling through the
nomes, soldiers, and horsemen, and serjeants, and centurions,
and tribunes, and all others, to take nothing nor to exact the
privileges of couriers, except certain have my warrants; and these
passing along only indeed to be accommodated with lodging: and
that it be laid down, that no man do any thing, beyond what were
established by Maximus. But if any individual may give, or consider
any thing as given, and exact as for the public service, I will
exact ten times the amount of what he has exacted from the nome,
and give a fourfold portion to the informer out of the property of
the condemned. The royal scribes, and the village clerks, and the
clerks of the districts in each nome, shall keep a register of all,
that is expended by the nome upon any one: that, if this or any
thing else has been irregularly committed, they may be recorded,
and may repay sixty-fold. But the inhabitants of the Thebaid may
for four months come up to the tribunals of accounts: and let
them address themselves to Basilides, the freedman of Cæsar,
an officer of the tribunal of accounts, and to the comptrollers;
that, if any thing may be adjudged or done contrary to what is
just, I may in like manner put this in order.”

These are interesting side-lights on life in the oasis in those days, and show that the people were well treated by their highly gifted foreign rulers, who, as is well known, respected the customs and religion of the Egyptians and, other nations over whom they ruled.

Although there exists in the neighbouring oasis of Dakhla a temple erected during the reign of Vespasian, the earliest Roman temple in Kharga is probably Qasr Dush, the ancient Kysis, erected by Trajan in A.D. 117, and dedicated to Isis and Serapis. The temple, standing in the midst of the ruins of a town, occupies the summit of a hill a couple of kilometres north-east of Dush. The main building, constructed of stone, has its long axis north and south, and measures 15 by 7½ metres. It is preceded by a forecourt, in front of which are two pylons, the first bearing a Greek inscription relating the date of its erection. Hoskins gives the following translation of this inscription:

“For the fortune of the Lord Emperor Cæsar Nero. . . . Trajan
Optimus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, under Marcus Ruffinus Lupus,
Governor of Egypt, to Serapis and the supreme gods, those of
[Cyrene?] having written, erected from a principle of piety this
building. The nineteenth year of the Emperor Cæsar Nero Adrian
Optimus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus.”

There appears originally to have been a colonnade between the first and second pylons, but only fragments of the columns exist at the present day. The front of the forecourt is covered with hieroglyphics, while the interior is unsculptured except at the portal leading to the main hall, the latter measuring 6 by 5½ metres, and having four columns. On the west side there is an entrance leading to an inclined passage. The northern part of the building consists of a central semi-divided portion flanked by two elongated chambers, all of which have arched roofs. A parapet is formed by the external walls of the temple, while the roof over the three southern chambers is at a lower level than that of the main hall.

The temple proper is in the western portion of an immense rectangular enclosure bounded by very thick walls of sun-dried brick; these walls at the present day are in a very bad state of preservation, but appear to have been of the type common in some similar buildings in the north of the oasis— _i.e._, hollow at the top, so as to enclose a passage by means of which the custodians could make the circuit of the building without descending, and from which, unobserved from the exterior, they had the advantage of a splendid view of the surrounding country. The measurements and details which I have given above are largely taken from Dr. Ball’s report, to which the reader is referred for plans and sections of this and other temples.

One of the most conspicuous ruins in the oasis is the little temple of Nadûra, situated on a hill 1 kilometre south-east of the temple of Hibis. The inner building is of sandstone, and roughly measures 8 by 11 metres, while the outer portion, bounded by walls of unburnt brick, is very much larger. According to Sayce, the temple was built by Hadrian between A.D. 117 and A.D. 138. Brugsch, however, refers it to a somewhat later date, considering it to have been erected by Antoninus Pius. Several smaller ruins in the neighbourhood are probably referable to the same period as the temple itself.

The ruins of Qasr Zaiyan, 5½ kilometres north-east of Bulaq, enclose a small sandstone temple of somewhat doubtful age, though a Greek inscription over the entrance records that the building was restored by Antoninus Pius and dedicated to Amenebis (Ammon of Hibis), god of Tchonemyris, the ruins of which town exist in the vicinity. The inscription is translated by Hoskins as follows:

“To Amenebis, the supreme god of Tchonemyris, and to the associated
gods of the temple, for the eternal preservation of Antoninus
Cæsar our Lord, and his whole house. The cell of the temple and
the vestibule were repaired and renewed under Avidius Heliodorus,
governor of Egypt; Septimius Macro being commander-in-chief,
Plinius Capito being general of the forces, in the third year of
the Emperor Cæsar Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus, the
Pious. Mesore the eighteenth.”

The Emperor Antoninus Pius reigned from A.D. 138 to A.D. 161, but antiquities unearthed from the ruins show that the town dates from the time of the Ptolemies and flourished into the Byzantine period.

In addition to the above the dilapidated ruins of what were doubtless once imposing buildings exist at various points within the depression. One worthy of attention will be noted at Ain Amûr by travellers to Dakhla along the upper road. The exact age of the building is uncertain, though Wilkinson discovered thereon a portion of the name of one of the Cæsars. The small stone temple stood, like so many others in the oasis, in a courtyard enclosed by thick walls of unburnt brick, the fragmentary remains of which are visible in the illustration. The names of the principal deities inscribed on the temple walls are Kneph, Ammon, and Mut. Both Edmonstone and Wilkinson came to the conclusion that the temple is of greater antiquity than the majority of the monuments of the oasis; but I am inclined to believe, with Hoskins and Rohlfs, that its somewhat crude design is explicable on other grounds than that of age.

Perhaps the most remarkable and imposing buildings in the oasis are the great Roman fortresses, among which may be mentioned Um el Dabâdib, Qasr Lebekha, and Dêr el Ghennîma. Possibly some of these were fortified monasteries, though until the ruins, as well as those of the extensive towns and cemeteries which existed in the neighbourhood, have been subjected to critical examination, their exact nature must remain in doubt. The so-called Dêr, near the foot of Jebel Ghennîma, was certainly a fort guarding one of the chief passes up the escarpment of the oasis. It is built of immensely thick walls, strengthened intermediately and at the four corners by enormous buttresses. The walls taper slightly upwards, and at the top are double, concealing a passage which ran round the entire building. In the centre of the court was a deep bore from which the inmates obtained their water, the surplus supply flowing through an underground conduit to the cultivated lands outside.

Qasr Lebekha, situated in a lonely part of the depression under the northern escarpment, 12 kilometres north-west of Meheriq, has many points in common with the fortress just described. It is, however, much smaller, and its interior is completely filled with domed chambers, now falling into shapeless fragments.

The impressive ruin at Um el Dabâdib, 36 kilometres N.N.W. of Kharga, seems to me to have been a fortified monastery, the interior being filled with vaulted cells. Its appearance is quite distinctive, lacking as it does the round buttresses of Qasr Lebekha and Dêr el Ghennîma, though the walls are still of great thickness, and loopholed for defence. Outside are the remains of a town of considerable size, and here doubtless several hundred workmen were quartered when the extensive subterranean waterworks, which exist in the locality, were in course of construction.

A fourth large ruin, of somewhat similar architecture, occupies a conspicuous position on the edge of the escarpment overlooking the Bellaida district, about 2 kilometres north of the temple of Hibis. Ball describes this under the name of Qasr Ain Mustapha Kashef, a name which, of course, merely refers to its position near a well of that name. The interior consists of tiers of arched chambers, and according to Schweinfurth there is little doubt that the building was a monastery.

All the above-mentioned forts and monasteries are built of large sun-dried bricks measuring, as a rule, 35 × 17 × 9 centimetres, and it is noteworthy that the walls, where of exceptional thickness, were built in sections, perhaps to allow of their drying more readily. Besides those described, a great many other mud-brick buildings are to be found scattered through the oasis, the majority of which possess no very distinctive features. One, however, being sure to attract the attention of visitors may be specially referred to; this is a high rectangular tower occupying a very conspicuous position on the open plain to the west of Jebel Têr, measuring 5 by 6½ metres at the base, the walls tapering slightly upwards to a height of about 15 metres. It was originally divided into storeys and provided with a staircase, and may very probably have been used as a watchtower. The remains of a circular brick or pottery kiln are to be seen twenty paces to the south.

The exact age of these numerous brick buildings cannot be stated with certainty, and we can only hope that when the pottery, coins, and other objects which exist in the ruins of the adjoining towns have been systematically collected and examined, it may be possible to date them with more accuracy. At present we can only conjecture that while the greater number were erected during the Roman occupation, between 30 B.C. and A.D. 395, some of them may date from the succeeding Byzantine period. Many of the cemeteries contain mummy-cases on which the likeness of the deceased is carved in wood on the outside, or fashioned in stucco and painted in colours. Three of these from an ancient burial-place in the Bellaida district, between Jebel Têr and Jebel Tarif (one of a number of cemeteries of Roman age which await the attention of archæologists), are shown in one of our illustrations.

Christianity was introduced into Egypt in the early part of the Roman domination, and spread rapidly through the country, although the national Egyptian or Coptic Church was not established until A.D. 451. Judging by the size and importance of the cemetery at the south end of Jebel Têr, and by the numerous monasteries, Christianity must have had a great following in the oasis of Kharga. During this period many of the temples in Upper Egypt were converted into churches, and it was not until A.D. 640, when the Caliphs conquered the country, that Christianity began to wane.

The Christian Necropolis lies 1 kilometre north of the temple of Hibis, on the southern extremity of the foot-hills of Jebel Têr. The cemetery, known at the present day as ‘El Baguat,’ consists of a great number of tombs built of unburnt brick, the majority showing a considerable amount of architectural decoration. The buildings cover a large area, and are to a certain extent laid out in streets, which, as Ball remarks, give the place the appearance more of a strange deserted town than of a graveyard. Some are small tombs, noticeable for their simple beauty; others are large mausolea and sanctuaries, richly ornamented with columns, pilasters, and arches. Almost without exception the tombs are surmounted by domes, though, owing to the walls being carried up beyond the base of the dome, the latter is not always conspicuous from the outside.[6] The interior walls are invariably plastered and whitewashed, and covered with numerous Greek and Arabic inscriptions, the old Egyptian ‘Tau,’ the sign of eternal life, being frequently displayed. In addition, the walls and domes are in some cases ornamented with crude coloured designs. The pictures have, unfortunately, been mostly hacked to pieces or covered by Arabic writings, so that there are now only two tombs in which the original paintings are anything like intact. On the dome of one of these, near the south end of the cemetery, a number of familiar Biblical personages are represented in colours, their names being inscribed in Greek characters immediately above. Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sara and Isaac, Christ, Paul, and others are clearly distinguishable.

The actual grave is below the centre of the floor of each tomb. The bodies, which mostly appear to have been embalmed and wrapped in cloth, have in many cases been plundered of ornaments and thrown out. Even at the time of Hoskins’ visit in 1837 the majority of the tombs had been ransacked, and at the present day there are probably few left intact. With regard to the practice of embalming, Hoskins writes: “It is highly satisfactory that we have such indubitable evidence to enable us to establish the fact, that the custom of embalming the dead was continued by the first professors of the Gospel in Eastern Africa. The introduction of Christianity produced great and sudden changes in the minds, habits, and customs of believers; but a length of time was no doubt often necessary to root out many of the prejudices of the people; and it is very possible, that the practice of embalming may have been continued as a necessary mark of respect to the dead, long after the doctrine had been entirely exploded, in accordance with which the custom had been originally established. This practice, however, even in the most ancient times, was not confined to the worshippers of Amun. The physicians of Egypt were forty days in embalming Jacob; and Joseph also was embalmed in Egypt.”

We cannot speak with certainty as to the exact period during which this cemetery was in use. In the course of the reign of Constantius (337-361), Athanasius, the champion of the doctrine of the Trinity, was several times expelled from Alexandria and compelled to take refuge in the Libyan Desert, where there were numerous monasteries, which afforded safe asylums from the followers of Arianism and Paganism. Hoskins states that the name of Athanasius occurs in one of the Theban sepulchres, and he believes that “the ruined monasteries in the Oasis Magna were, probably, the abode of the great champion of the Christian religion.”

During the reign of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius numerous personages, including the general Timasius, were exiled to the Great Oasis, described by a writer (Zosimus) as “a barren place whence no one could escape when once carried thither; for the way being sandy, desert, and uninhabited, no one can find it, the wind covering the traces of people’s feet, nor is there any tree or house to guide them.”

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, was excommunicated and banished to the oasis in A.D. 434 by the Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, and probably the necropolis contains the tombs of a large number of his followers. The Bishop, however, did not die in Kharga, as he was carried thence into captivity by the Blemmyes, the ancestors of the Bisharin and Ababdeh Arabs, and died, after suffering great persecutions, at Panopolis (Akhmîm) about the year 440. It is interesting to note that certain Christian customs and festival days are still observed in the oasis at the present time.

Ruins of columbaria are of frequent occurrence in many parts of Kharga, and judging from the size and shape of the bricks used, belong to the same period as the forts and monasteries. They are generally of considerable size, the inner walls being built so as to provide tiers of cubical niches to serve as nesting-places for the pigeons. Examples may be seen at Ain el Burg and Ain Tabashîr in the Meheriq district; in the Bellaida country, and near Ain Khenâfish; on the slopes of the Gorn el Gennâh; and near the village of Dush at the south end of the oasis. These ancient pigeon-houses are called ‘Burg’ by the natives, the Arabic name for dovecot being ‘Burg Hamâm.’

That the oases were very flourishing under the Roman Empire is shown by Olympiodorus, who lived in the reign of Theodosius II. (A.D. 408-450), and was born in Upper Egypt. Writing of the Great Oasis, he calls attention to its salubriousness, to the abundance of sand everywhere, and to the numerous wells, which, sunk to a depth of 200, 300, or even 500 cubits,[7] pour forth streams of fresh water at the surface, which is used in rotation by the owners for the irrigation of their fields. Barley, he avers, is sometimes sown twice a year, and millet almost always three times. Writing of the irrigation, Olympiodorus remarks that in this region the sky is always cloudless, and that the great fertility of the land is attributable to the fact that the peasants water their little enclosures every third day in summer, and every sixth in winter. The same writer states that dials were made in the oasis.

The presence of marine shells in the rocks of the surrounding deserts led Olympiodorus to conjecture that the oasis was formerly an island, separated by the sea from the rest of Egypt, and he recalls the fact that the place was called by Herodotus ‘the Island of the Blessed.’

Strabo writes of the Libyan Desert thus: “This continent resembles a panther’s skin, as being spotted with inhabited districts, insulated in the midst of a sandy soil and arid deserts; the Egyptians call these cantons ‘Auasis.’” He refers to the Great Oasis as follows: “In a parallel line with Abydus, and distant about three days’ journey across the desert, we find the first of the three Oases of Lybia; it is a spot well inhabited, well supplied with water, and producing wines and other commodities in sufficient abundance.”

With the withdrawal of the Roman garrisons and the Mohammedan conquest decay set in, and, as Sayce remarks, the aqueducts became choked, the fields were neglected, and malarial fever invaded a district which had at one time been regarded as a health resort.

Of the history of the oases during the succeeding seven or eight centuries no records are available, but, judging from the writings of Arabian geographers, between the eleventh and the fifteenth centuries, it is evident that they gradually became depopulated, and were regarded as of little importance. El Sherîf el Edrissi, writing about the middle of the sixth century of the Hegîra, refers to the oases (Al Vahat) as places formerly containing streams of water, with lands on which trees were still found growing, and with ruined, uninhabited towns. He adds that the goats and sheep had become quite wild, and were trapped by hunters like other wild animals. It is not improbable, however, that this author was referring to some of the smaller oases-depressions, such as Kurkur, or perhaps to some of the more outlying parts of Kharga or Dakhla. It seems extremely unlikely, as Hoskins remarks, that the Great Oasis as a whole had become entirely uninhabited.

Still later the emir and historian Ismail Abulfida, about the beginning of the fourteenth century, speaks of the oases as abounding with palms and running water, and describes them as situated like islands, in the middle of the desert, three days’ journey from the Said (Upper Egypt). Jacutus describes the positions of three oases, and refers to the first of them as being well cultivated, containing streams and hot springs, palms and cultivated lands. The inhabitants, he adds, are in a wretched state. Several other writers allude to the Egyptian oases, but their information is seldom, if ever, first hand, and the descriptions are in general so vague that we are left in doubt as to which particular oasis their remarks refer.

The more modern records, commencing with those of Poncet at the end of the seventeenth century, have already been referred to in a previous chapter.