Rw ROS wal 
LXXXVII. On the former Extent of the Persian Gulf, and 
on the Non-identity of Babylon and Babel; in Reply to Mr. 
Carter. By C. T. Bexe, Esq., £.S.A. 
To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 
GENTLEMEN, 
(THE opinion which was, in the first instance, advanced by 
me in the Number of your Journal for February 1824*, 
was to the effect that the low lands of the Euphrates and Ti- 
gris have been formed by the gradual deposits of those rivers, 
and that this operation has been so extensive, that, at the time 
of the erection of the Babel of Genesis, it must have been phy- 
sically impossible for that city to be built near the spot where 
the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar afterwards stood. ‘This 
opinion may be considered as embracing two distinct and 
separate propositions :—the first is that, within the period of 
history, an advance of the Jand upon the sea has taken place 
of sufficient importance to affect materially the geography of 
the localities in question; the second is that, within the same 
period, that advance has been so great as (independently of 
all other arguments,) to warrant my conclusion with respect 
to the non-identity of Babylon and Babel. If the former of 
these propositions be untrue, @ fortior? must the latter be so; 
but, on the other hand, even if the former be established, it 
does not follow that the latter is likewise correct. 
From Mr. Carter’s former arguments I certainly was led to 
consider, that he not merely disputed the correctness of the 
first proposition to its entire extent, but that he went yet 
further, and contended that the changes (if any) which have 
taken place, are altogether insignificant. In his present re- 
marks he says, however f, ‘I much object to such expressions 
in the reply as, ‘ Mr. Carter has, in fact, asserted the opinion 
that, since the time of Nearchus, the encroachments on the 
gulf must be very unimportant,’ omitting the words ‘to the 
point in question, any later encroachments,’ &c., as conveying 
the idea of a mere assertion without proof, and a much broader 
one than my remarks warrant.” I am most anxious that no 
difference should exist between us on the score of mere mis- 
conception of each other’s meaning, and [I therefore give at 
length, in the note at foot, an extract of the whole passage 
from which I made my citation{; and I put it to the candour 
* Lond. and Edinb. Phil. Mag., vol. iv. p. 108—111. 
+ Supra, vol. vii. p. 195, 
t ‘Following the course of Nearchus, as given in his own clear account 
of the voyage preserved by Arrian, from his arrival at the Arosis, the river 
