I, too, read about the Red Sea's original name of Reed Sea. Somewhere, it lost an 'e'. That tells me that it might not be that deep and that weather/climate conditions could possibly make it shallow enough to cross, at times.
Actually the current thinking is that the "Red Sea", the part where it's commonly thought the Israelites miraculously crossed is now known as the Gulf of Suez, and the "Sea of Reeds" (Yam Suph) are two different bodies of water. According to the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, The Sea of Reeds "was perhaps located at the S extension of the present Lake Mensaleh." The biblical account implies that the Yam Suph was the border between Egypt and the desert, which is not true of the Red Sea. The changing from "Reed Sea" to "Red Sea" could have been a scribal error, a translation error, or an attempt to substitute the original body of water in the story with one that the Israelites were familiar with. In any case, "Yam Suph" simply cannot be translated to "Red Sea", as several others have already pointed out. Therefore any artifacts found there cannot have anything to do with the Exodus story.