Chapter IV (1)

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.

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.

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.

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.

_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.

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.”