You've misunderstood "inland waterway." The atlas had an inland waterway
from New Orleans to Minneapolis, or thereabouts, up to Ohio River to
Wheeling or thereabouts. These are not the realm of deep draft vessels,
but of shallow draft stern-wheelers in the past, and barges in the
present. So I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the vessels
that navigate the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio Rivers could not sail on the
Mesopotamian rivers. But the stern-wheelers were nowhere near as large as
the Ark is stated to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_River says "The Euphrates is only
navigable by very shallow-draft boats." Elsewhere I learned that modern
transportation is restricted to downstream of Basra.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:59:46 -0500 "Dick Fischer"
Hi Dave, you wrote:
Sure, Dick, there was a flood in Mesopotamia. Indeed, there seems, if my
memory serves, more than one, for flood deposits in different cities were
not simultaneous. There is still the problem of 8 people poling a
gigantic barge upstream. Additionally, I found a transportation map in an
atlas. Neither Tigris nor Euphrates, though long, was tagged as an inland
waterway. Ports are located on the Persian Gulf.
Inland waterways are natural coastal waterways formed when the ocean
builds protective sand barriers. No ocean action in Mesopotamia. Cities
in the southern part of Mesopotamia could not be built in close proximity
to either river as they would have been swept away every Spring. The
irrigation canals allowed them to locate their cities some miles away
from the river. The distance gave them some measure of protection.
Received on Sun Feb 26 23:19:31 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 23:19:31 EST