in Reply to Mr. Beke. 255 



making no large gatherings of buoyant matter to mingle with 

 its waters like the fertilizing Nile*, but whenever its current 

 is strong enough to lift earthy substances from its channel, it 

 rather takes up comminuted granite f, or other heavy debris, 

 which sinks when the impetus that upheld it fails J. If to 

 this we add, that in ancient times it became at length an ex- 

 tremely slender stream at its termination §, we may conclude 

 the Euphrates to have had, within the historic era, a very mo- 

 derate share in the uprearing of any delta. 



In this reference to Mr. LyelPs work for the aids of analogy 

 it was surely overlooked, that the whole joint delta formed by 

 the mighty rivers whose waters are set free at the mouths of 

 the Ganges and Burrampooter, is there said || to be of the 

 length of 200 miles only, yet " so great is the quantity of mud 

 and sand poured by the Ganges into the sea, in the flood sea- 

 son, that the sea only recovers its transparency at the distance 

 of 60 miles from the coast, and even islands are formed in its 

 channel in a period far short of a man's life, many miles long; 

 some of the islands there rivalling in size the Isle of Wight." 

 What proportion of this 200 (or 220 miles) in any fair judge- 

 ment on the two localities, can we be required to add to the 

 50 miles of admitted delta at the head of the Persian Gulf? 



But from the infinite varieties of level, soil and other local 

 causes operating to produce and transmit the matter abraded, 

 from the higher to the lower lands, over thousands of square 

 miles of country, it is manifest that no such criterion applies, 

 and I reluctantly turn from the plainer facts adduced in proof 

 of this theory being unfounded, to deal with topics in their 

 nature and application of a less determinate character. 



I must, however, notice that " it is beyond the scope of the 

 present paper to institute an inquiry into what may have 

 been the direction of the coast line, when the voyage of 

 Nearchus was undertaken." Yet it determines again that the 

 Euphrates and Tigris had once separate outlets, and proceeds 

 to a lengthened enumeration of investigations impliedly neces- 

 sary to the present discussionf . But it was surely forgotten, 

 that if not within the scope of that paper, both the inquiry 

 and the decision were within the scope of the last, for there 

 we find " the distance from Babylon to the sea, by following the 



* Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xviii. cap. 17- 



t Col. Chesney's Evidence in Report. 



j Buckingham's Travels in Mesopotamia, ch. ii. 



$ Adrian, Exped. Alex., lib. vii.cap. 7« 



|| Ly ell's Geology, p. 243. 



1 In the last paper we read " of a portion of the Euphrates finding a 

 partial course through the less obstructed channels of the Tigris, and of 

 the consequently easier and more rapid victory," &c. But it is forgotten 



