Chapter III (2)

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.

INTERIOR OF DR. SCHWEINFURTH’S “TEMPLE,”

FROM WEST END OF OPEN ROOM.]

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.

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.