The Fayûm and Lake MœrisBrown, R. H. (Robert Hanbury)
History
The Fayûm and Lake Mœris
Brown, R. H. (Robert Hanbury)
Fayyum (Egypt) -- Description and travel; Moeris, Lake (Egypt)
Such a peculiar arrangement of land and water as that supposed,
would scarcely have been passed without notice by those who visited
and described Lake Mœris. The Arsinoïte Nome would have been in
some way described as being between two lakes, with a mass of water
impending over it. The danger of such an arrangement in case of
a breach would have been surely noted. Imagine also the condition
of Arsinoë from its sanitary aspect in the hot months of summer,
when by reason of all the water in the Linant lake being utilised,
the bed of the lake would be laid bare at a time when no crops could
be sown on it. But this objection may be met by supposing the lake
to have been excavated to a sufficient depth for water to remain
in it at lowest Nile. But if originally so excavated, a lake such
as this was supposed to be, would rapidly silt up, and M. Linant
supposes it silted up 8 metres, as is shown by his section and
description. Could such a lake have continued in working order for
over 2000 years, as it was supposed to have done? It would only have
done so by means of periodical silt clearances of such magnitude,
that the population of Egypt alone would not have been equal to
the task. Suppose only a metre to be cleared over the whole area
(assuming it a plateau according to M. Linant’s view of it), the
quantity to be cleared would have been 250 million cubic metres, which
would have to have been removed to a mean distance of at least 2000
metres! What would have happened to Linant’s supposed Arsinoïte
Nome, and the west bank of the Nile irrigated by his Lake Mœris,
while these clearances were going on?
The perimeter of Linant’s supposed lake is 96 kilometres (60 miles)
measured on the map published in the atlas accompanying the book
containing M. Linant’s theory. Its _correct_ area is 257,800,000
square metres. But M. Linant himself gives the area as 405,479,000
square metres, which is 57 per cent. in excess of the true area as
taken from his own map (see diagram, Plate IX). The paragraph in
which this figure is given concludes: “Mais nous avons vu quelle
foi on devait avoir dans les dimensions données par les auteurs
anciens.” Need he have added “anciens”? M. Linant himself is
the greatest argument for placing no faith in reported dimensions of
lake areas, since, with his own map before him, and the limits of his
lake definitely determined, he was unable to avoid so large an error.
The author of this theory states that it satisfies all the conditions
required for its recognition as Lake Mœris. I think it will be
found to satisfy very few, and obviously not the two following,
regarding its size and depth.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account