Thursday, January 21, 2010

River Ghaggar / Saraswati Did Not Have A Glacial Source In Historical Times

[Update : New geochemical and geomorphological studies strongly suggest that Yamuna and Sutlej stopped flowing in to the Ghaggar /Saraswati thousands of years before the Harappan civilization. See these posts for more on this topic - 

1) Geological Update On the River Ghaggar
2) New Geochemical and Sedimentological Work On Ghaggar
3) New Geomorphological Work on Ghaggar
4) K.S Valdiya On The Glacial Saraswati Published in Current Science 
-------------------

A number of recent studies have bolstered the case that the River Ghaggar  -  which has been equated with the River Saraswati described in the Rigveda - did not have a glacial source in historical times and was likely always fed from the sub Himalayas (Siwaliks).

Why is this of any interest?

The background is the controversial question of the origin of the Aryans.

The more widely accepted theory is that proto-Sanskrit speakers entered the northwestern parts of India after or during the latter stages of the demise of the Harappan city states beginning around 1800 -1500 B.C. The ancestors of these proto-Sanskrit  speakers can be traced according to this theory to the central Asia steppes. In terms of the local ecology, geological evidence shows that by this time the River Ghaggar which was once a river with substantial water flow and was perhaps perennial had transformed into a smaller ephemeral stream.

The competing theory is that the Aryans are indigenous to India - indigenous in the sense that they were present on the northwestern plains at least since the advent of agriculture. In this scenario the Harappan city states was an Aryan civilization. To support this more ancient presence of the Aryans on the plains of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan, one line of argument is to point to the Rigveda which mentions a mighty Saraswati river located between the rivers Sutlej and the Yamuna. The argument is that the composers of the Rigveda must have been living on the plains of Haryana when the Ghaggar = Saraswati was perennial which means before 1800 B.C which in one way supports the theory that they and the Harappan people were one and the same.

The Rigveda describes the Saraswati as originating high in the Himalayas. It is described as a mighty river and so has been thought to have been perennial and having a glacial source. But today the Ghaggar / Saraswati is no doubt fed from only the Siwaliks, nowhere near the high glaciers. To account for this, supporters say that earlier the glacially fed Sutlej  and /or Yamuna flowed into the Saraswati. Later around 1800 B.C or so the channels shifted and the Ghaggar was stranded as a small ephemeral Siwalik fed river. Image below shows the Ghaggar basin flanked by the Sutlej and Yamuna.


A virtual industry dedicated to creating geological scenarios as to how this must have happened and to collecting "evidence" has proliferated on the internet, in various articles and in popular books.

A review of the peer reviewed geological literature shows that these scenarios are wrong and are based on exaggerations of the size of the Ghaggar and misunderstandings of geological processes. I have written an explanation of much of the list below in an article for the magazine Pragati. A short list is given here.

1) Use of isotopes in search of Lost River - Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry: Data on stable isotopes of water in buried channels of ancient Ghaggar in Rajasthan shows a composition compatible with water from Siwaliks and not glacial high Himalayas.

2) Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical constraints - Current Science: Shows based on sediment geochemistry and composition and geomorphologic and paleo-climatic constraints that the River Ghaggar was likely always Siwalik fed.

3) Late quaternary geomorphic evolution of Yamuna-Sutlej interfluve: Significance of terminal fan - Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing : Studies the stratigraphy and geomorphology of Yamuna channels and concludes that the Yamuna has been flowing within its channel and has not been part of the Indus system i.e. could not have flowed into the Saraswati.

4) Saraswati Nadi in Haryana and its Linkage with the Vedic Saraswati River – Integrated Study Based on Satellite Images and Ground Based Information - Journal Geological Society of India: Collected data shows that metamorphic pebbles in the upper reaches of the River Ghaggar can be derived from Siwalik source rocks and does not indicate a high glacial Himalayan source. Also shows based on geomorphology that the Yamuna did not flow into the Saraswati.

5) Reconstruction of buried channel-floodplain systems of the northwestern Haryana Plains and their relation to the ‘Vedic’ Saraswati - Current Science: Demonstrates based on stratigraphic, sedimentologic and geomorphologic data that the River Ghaggar in historical times had a smaller flow regime than in the earlier Quaternary period and derived its sediments likely from the Siwaliks.

I say it is time to abandon the theory that Ghaggar/Saraswati had a glacial source in historical times.

That does not mean abandoning the broader theory that the Aryan /Vedic people were present on the Haryana plains before the collapse of the Harappan civilization. Archaeology and linguistics and perhaps genetics are a more powerful tool to address that question. Let me add here that most archaeologists and linguists support the theory that the Aryans were late arrivals to the northwestern part of India.

The funny thing is, in my opinion the theory of a glacial source of Saraswati is not necessary in this debate. The Ghaggar was a wetter river before 1800 B.C. because of a generally more wetter climate. Strong summer monsoons over the Siwaliks and then spring flow would have made human settlements along its banks sustainable. A life sustaining river would have been holy to the people depending on it, regardless of whether it had a glacial origin or not.

The insistence that there was a past glacial source derives from a belief that the Rigveda is accurate in every aspect of its recording of geography and physical events. Descriptions of Saraswati in Rigvedic hymns as originating from Heaven...High Mountains..boundless....impetuous...fast flowing.. arising from a slowly moving serpent Ahi (source here) has led to a conviction that the Saraswati arose from glaciers. This reading of the Rigveda has led to the theory being proposed initially and for sustaining it.

Unhappily for science and for those who are looking for a scientifically accurate account, this has frustratingly meant a popularization and easy availability through the internet of an increasingly untenable and unsupported geological narrative which is creeping into the public consciousness as the correct story. People who are supporting the glacial origin theory assert that they are approaching the problem as a scientific question and with a scientific temperament. I would like to take them at face value.

However, that does come with a condition and this is the willingness to give up on your pet theory if the evidence piles up against it. This is one of the critical tests of the scientific temperament. There is plenty to show now that the Ghaggar / Saraswati was always a Siwalik fed river. Persisting with the glacial theory in light of this gathering evidence and pointing to scripture as a back-up will diminish the scientific credibility of the "early Aryan presence" supporters and perpetuate misinformation about the subject. I hope one of them stands up and admits that geological data does not support this particular theory.

20 comments:

  1. That's a really interesting post.totally agree with the main point you are making of accepting scientific basis..But I am not a geologist.. as a Saraswat, I am now very curious...can you send me the links to why Ghaggar is equated with Saraswati, please? Coz now I am wondering why should the name of the river change..or did I get this wrong?Tks

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. I agree with Suvrat's statement "in my opinion the theory of a glacial source of Saraswati is not necessary in this debate". It is true that Rig-Veda doesn't demand a glacial source for the river. But the error is found in papers by professional geologists, eg in a much-quoted paper (Tripathi, Jayant K., et al., ‘Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical constraints’, _Current Science_, vol. 87, no. 8, 25 October 2004, pp. 1141–45) which also expects a glacial source for the Sarasvatî, and finding none, concludes the Ghaggar could not have been the Sarasvatî. At the same time the authors admit that "the Palaeo-Ghaggar must have been a mighty river", a description that fits the Sarasvatî well enough! So Suvrat might wish to take issue with them.

    2. Suvrat might also wish to take issue with other geologists, such as V.M.K. Puri, B.C. Verma and K.S. Valdiya, who do find evidence of a glacial origin for the Sarasvatî. His assumption that amateurs alone are responsible for such a belief is patently wrong. Clearly, there is serious disagreement on the issue among geologists.

    3. The fact remains that the Sutlej was connected to the Ghaggar at several points — this is beyond doubt, having been noted since the 19th century by topographers, archaeologists (such as Aurel Stein) and being confirmed in historical times by Muslim chronicles and more recently by satellite imagery. The Sutlej should have carried some sediments of glacial origin, so what happened to them if none are found in the Ghaggar?

    4. The statement that "Let me add here that most archaeologists and linguists support the theory that the Aryans were late arrivals to the northwestern part of India" may apply to linguists but not to "most archaeologists". There is a long list of archaeologists (not just Indian ones) who reject this theory.

    Regards,

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post and article. Very interesting how geology and archaeology interface with cultural assumptions and agendas. I've thought long about these sorts of things in North America and it's good to have a lucidly explained example from the subcontinent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice posting. Do you know about these Sanskrit books?

    http://www.YogaVidya.com/freepdfs.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Michel-

    let me begin with point 3

    The fact remains that the Sutlej was connected to the Ghaggar at several points, this is beyond doubt

    I don't agree. Surveys and Remote Sensing has shown the presence of paleochannels in the Ghaggar river basin. No one disputes that the river was bigger in the past (and a wetter climate can explain this). So based on that people have theorized that the Sutlej must have been connected to the Ghaggar in historical times. However, this has not been
    demonstrated by sedimentological studies. And satellite images do not show a clear link between the Sutlej and the Ghaggar. All they show are abandoned meanders which likely belong to the river Ghaggar.

    The absence of high Himalayan sediments in the Holocene Ghaggar sediments documented by the paper you mention reflects the absence of a glacial source. The authors take up a hypothesis, test it and reject it. There is nothing
    for me to take issue with. The authors admitting that the Paleo Ghaggar was a mighty river is irrelevant and non-controversial.

    2) Suvrat might also wish to take issue with other geologists, such as V.M.K. Puri, B.C. Verma and K.S. Valdiya, who do find evidence of a glacial origin for the Sarasvatî.

    I am familiar with their work and in my article in Pragati I have criticized the conclusion reached by Puri and Verma that metamorphic pebbles in the Marakand river terraces is "proof" of a past glacial high Himalayan source.

    There is a local source of these metamorphic pebbles in the Upper Conglomerate facies of the Siwaliks. Sediment recycling from the Siwalik source into streams explains their presence in the Marakand river terraces.

    An important point is that these metamorphic clasts are only restricted to the uppermost reaches of these streams near the local source. If there had been a glacial source you would expect metamorphic clasts of not just large pebbles upstream but also the finer sand fraction to be present in the mid Holocene sediment of the Ghaggar throughout its course.

    They are absent as attested by the papers I have mentioned in the list.

    3) Clearly, there is serious disagreement on the issue among geologists.

    There is no serious disagreement because the subject has never been seriously debated. I don't want to make a big issue out of this but for example you have to question why such an important geological "finding" was published by Puri and Verma not in a peer reviewed geology journal but in the obscure Itihas Darpan which is unlikely to be critically read by Himalayan sedimentary geology experts.

    4) There is a long list of archaeologists (not just Indian ones) who reject this theory.

    have you counted the yeas and the nays :)

    regards
    Suvrat

    ReplyDelete
  6. CM- there is fertile ground in India to write about these topics :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. How do rivers get named, and renamed? I wonder the basis of naming this Particular river - Ghagger and then renaming it Saraswati. Did it have any relegious overtone of the time?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Suvrat for your answers. Brief points below, putting yours within square brackets.

    [... people have theorized that the Sutlej must have been connected to the Ghaggar in historical times.]
    It isn't theory but fact. The palaeochannels connecting the Sutlej and the Ghaggar have been noted by many topographic surveys right from the early 19th c. and by geologists (see Gurdev Singh). They include the Patialewali, the Wah and the three Naiwals. The main and easternmost palaeochannel joined the Ghaggar above Shatrana, causing the Ghaggar's bed to widen suddenly.

    [However, this has not been demonstrated by sedimentological studies.]
    Probably because the samples were taken in the wrong places. The alternatives would be that faster sedimentation is taking place in the upper Sutlej (possible?), or that there is something wrong with the interpretation of the data. In any case, afaik, no sedimentological study has ever compared sediments upstream *and* downstream of the meeting points between the Ghaggar and those palaeochannels; yet it's obvious that only such comparisons could bring out the Sutlej's signature in the Ghaggar.

    [And satellite images do not show a clear link between the Sutlej and the Ghaggar. ...]
    Not at all -- they show clear palaeobeds connecting the Sutlej from and after its sharp bend at Rupar with the Ghaggar system at various points. See the well-known 1980 study by Yash Pal et al. showing the "Old channel of the Sutlej" joining the Ghaggar a little above Shatrana.

    [The absence of high Himalayan sediments in the Holocene Ghaggar sediments documented by the paper you mention reflects the absence of a glacial source. ...]
    Reading their paper critically shows how shoddily Tripathi et al. have handled their data. They give no precise locations for the samples studied; their crude map shows that no sample was taken from the Ghaggar’s bed, and none from any of the palaeochannels of the Sutlej. We need much better studies than this.

    [The authors admitting that the Paleo Ghaggar was a mighty river is irrelevant and non-controversial.]
    It is relevant because you gave copious hints that those insisting on a glacial source for the Sarasvati were amateurs. Here we have "professionals" insisting that the Rig-Veda demands a glacial source, and on this wrong assumption + their incomplete data conclude that a "mighty Ghaggar" cannot have been the Sarasvati. Quite a series of non-sequiturs!

    [I am familiar with their work and in my article in Pragati I have criticized the conclusion reached by Puri and Verma ...]
    You may well have a point and I wish geologists could thrash out such issues. I have my own reservations (for different reasons) on some of Puri's and Verma's conclusions. I brought them in only to show that geologists need not agree -- which is OK; that's the way science moves on.

    [... you have to question why such an important geological "finding" was published by Puri and Verma not in a peer reviewed geology journal but in the obscure Itihas Darpan ...]
    Well, since you at least have read it, why not publish a rejoinder in a peer-reviewed "non-obscure" journal and help get the issue resolved? That would be the right way to enrich the debate.

    [have you counted the yeas and the nays :)]
    Numbers aren’t everything. You are perhaps unaware that there is a large body of respected archaeologists who reject it, e.g. Jim Shaffer, Colin Renfrew and J.-P. Demoule, D.K. Chabrabarti, B.B. Lal, S.P. Gupta, S.R. Rao, R.S. Bisht ... Even those who accept the invasion/migration (e.g. Raymond Allchin) acknowledge that there is no archaeological evidence for it; they choose to believe in it for linguistic or cultural reasons. On this point, at least, we do have a broad consensus.

    Regards,
    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Michel-

    regarding your comments on Sutlej-

    The area between the present Sutlej and the present Ghaggar is an ancient alluvial fan made up of sediments derived from Siwaliks and lesser Himalayas. This fan was built up through the late Pliestocene to Holocene as sediments prograded westwards from the rising Siwaliks. Geomorphology sedimentology and Field studies (Yamuna-Sutlej interfluv in my list) conclude that the fan was built through deposition from ephemeral streams and there is no indication of a large trunk river flowing through the fan.

    There are plenty of relict drainage lines some oriented south-south west. And some arising mid fan flowing westwards and south. These have been mapped and some interpreted by workers as likely the paleo-Sutlej.

    What would be the consequence of a large paleo-Sutlej flowing between say Rupar and Shatrana throughout the mid late Pleistocene until the mid Holocene?

    The Alluvial fan would not extend west of this paleo-river because prograding sediment from the Himalayas would be trapped by this trunk river. Just like today the Ganga and Yamuna mark the southern /western boundary of alluvial fans prograding from the Siwaliks.

    You don't see that in the area between the Sutlej and Ghaggar. There are continuous alluvial fan deposits extending well west of this hypothesized big river implying there was no big river which could limit the westward progradation of sediments.

    So I maintain that the Sutlej flowing into the Ghaggar is a theory and one that does not explain these features satisfactorily.

    Regarding your comments on the Tripati paper I am puzzled. The author's don't insist that the Rigveda demands a glacial source. They simply state the hypothesis with references. That may or may not reflect their personal beliefs. You are reading more than they have said.

    Regarding samples ...yes I would have loved to see more samples though sampling from Ghaggar's bed might not help since they would sample modern sediment unless they drilled deep and had good chronological controls.

    Regards
    Suvrat

    ReplyDelete
  10. I apologize for this very late reply. I was travelling and suppose the thread is now cold.

    Let me however thank you Suvrat for your explanation but point out briefly that it is no one's case that the whole Sutlej ever flowed into the Ghaggar. Rather it was a "braided" river (as its own name in the Mahabharata, Shatadru or "with a hundred channels" suggests) and several of those partial palaeobeds are well known and listed in a number of topographic surveys since the 19th century: the three Naiwal channels, the Wah (also called ‘Sirhind’), the Patialewali (or ‘Patiala’), etc. Some have been traced independently by satellite imagery. And we have historical evidence that some of them were active (seasonally at least) up to medieval times. I have given some details in my new book "The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati".

    My own guess is that water flow in those channels was slow (at least because of the weak gradient) and most sediments (Himalayan or otherwise) might have been deposited upstream -- but this is no more than a guess. As you say, we need more samples, and from all those palaeobeds: it stands to reason that that would be the only way to reach some conclusion.

    As for the Tripathi study (which took samples away from the Ghaggar), let me quote from the paper: "The Ghaggar was also thought to be the mythical river Saraswati, which was described as glacial-fed river. ... Our isotope data provide a scientific basis for the absence of a glacial-fed, perennial Himalayan river in the Harappan domain, i.e. the River Ghaggar is not the Saraswati as far as its origin in the glaciated Himalayas is concerned.” But no one — at least not in the Vedas or other ancient texts — demanded that the Sarasvati should be “glacier-fed”, so the whole argument falls to the ground. The only descriptions we have are that the Sarasvati was a “mighty river”, and Tripathi et al. concede that “The Palaeo-Ghaggar must have been a mighty river” — so what’s their problem?? Their paper supports rather than disproves the existence of an ancient sizable river in the Yamuna-Sutlej interfluve.

    ReplyDelete
  11. but point out briefly that it is no one's case that the whole Sutlej ever flowed into the Ghaggar.Rather it was a "braided" river...

    I agree that a braided channels likely existed on the Haryana plains. That goes hand in hand with the development of an alluvial fan. I am however skeptical that the Sutlej was part of it. High Himalayan rivers like Ganga, Yamuna, Sutlej are big and powerful by the time they enter the plains and they carve out and occupy relatively narrow valleys within with they do bifurcate and meander. but they generally don't form very broad braided channel systems that encompass the breadth and length of the alluvial fans.

    My feeling is that the channels you refer to are streams that originated in the Siwaliks and lesser Himalayas.

    Tripati's quote: the River Ghaggar is not the Saraswati as far as its origin in the glaciated Himalayas is concerned.” But no one — at least not in the Vedas or other ancient texts — demanded that the Sarasvati should be “glacier-fed”, so the whole argument falls to the ground..

    Yes but the next sentence in that paper is : Alternatively, River Saraswati had its origin in the Sub-Himalayas. So they readily accept and present that possibility too!

    Their paper supports rather than disproves the existence of an ancient sizable river in the Yamuna-Sutlej interfluve

    Sure but the point of the paper was not the size of the river but its high Himalayan origin. No one disagrees including Tirpathi et al that the Ghaggar was once a bigger river system.

    No the Vedas don't demand a glacial origin for the Saraswati. But that description of a Saraswati rising from the high mountains has crystallized into an image of a glacial origin for the Saraswati. Practically every article on this topic both technical and popular begins by stating that the Saraswati arose from the glaciers of the high Himalayas. That's what people assume whether or not the Vedas demands it and so proving a glacial origin has become an important component of Ghaggar- Vedic Saraswati connection.

    Anyways, good luck with your new book. I look forward to reading it.

    And thanks for your considered and thoughtful debating points.

    regards
    Suvrat

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for this, you make a strong argument. The most important point you make is that it doesn't even matter much whether the Ghaggar was ever glacier-fed. What matters is that the Ghaggar used to be much bigger, and that it used to be well populated by people who had similar and to some extent shared culture with the Indus valley.

    The debate then should be focusing on whether the Ghaggar is the Saraswati (I for one am pretty certain it is), and when the Ghaggar dried up. I don't know who to believe on that latter question, and it's very important for dating the era when the Rig Veda was composed (when the Saraswati was full) and of the era in which the Mahabharata was intended to be set (when the Saraswati was drying up).

    ReplyDelete
  13. when the Ghaggar dried up. I don't know who to believe on that latter question,

    that's a telling comment.. the issue has become so polarized that the credibility of every result is being questioned..

    regarding when the Ghaggar dried up..judging by the distribution of ancient sites and dating of sediments and so on...it was likely a protracted process. The Thar began drying up as early as 3500 B.C and the arid zone crept northeastwards over the next millennium. But there are late Harappan settlements (2000 -1900 B.C or so..?) along the Ghaggar valley, so even though situated in an arid zone, the river had water then and perhaps into later times, likely sustained due to strong summer monsoons over the Siwaliks.

    it's very important for dating the era when the Rig Veda was composed (when the Saraswati was full)

    That begs the question doesn't it :) I agree though archaeology and improved dating of artifacts and sediments are key..

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cheers. I don't understand what you mean here though: "That begs the question doesn't it :)"

    I do think it's fair to assume that the Vedic Saraswati was a big river at the time when the Rig Veda was composed. I have a hard time imagining people inventing hymns to an imaginary lost river that never existed. That's akin to imagining Troy never existed. It makes infinitely more sense that there really was some Vedic Saraswati river.

    So if the Vedic Saraswati is the Ghaggar, then the Rig Veda was composed when the Ghaggar was a big river, and the Mahabharata was composed sometime after the Ghaggar became a smaller perennial that disappeared in the desert and before memory was lost that it had once been perennial. No?

    ReplyDelete
  15. your reasoning is good..except that it presupposes that the Rigveda was composed on the Haryana plains (at least I think you mean that). The alternative theory is that most of it was composed much north of current India, perhaps Afghanistan (Gandhara grave culture and so on). References to Saraswati are then memories of rivers elsewhere. I meant "beg the question" regarding "Ghaggar is the Vedic Saraswati" in that context.. that there are alternative theories.

    regards
    Suvrat

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you Suvrat for this post which is rational and scientific. I ahve been trying to construct a timeline from Vedas to present for my yoga studies and was aware that much of what I was reading on the net seemed to have been written because there is a want to believe rather than hard scientific evidence. Your post is refreshing. I hope that good scientific and archeological research continues, so that even more will be revealed in this fascinating question - when and where was the Rg Veda really composed?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter Clift's research may be of interest to you ... see page 18 of the Geoscientist magazine at this link

    http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/shared/pdfs/Geoscientist/Download%20PDF%20copy%20of%20Geoscientist%2019.9%20September%202009.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, the most recent and presumably the most definitive study by Peter D. Clift, Andrew Carter, Liviu Giosan, Julie Durcan, Geoff A.T. Duller, Mark G. Macklin, Anwar Alizai, Ali R. Tabrez, Mohammed Danish, Sam VanLaningham and Dorian Q. Fuller, namely, "U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of
    the Yamuna River" has been published online on 23 January 2012 in "Geology".

    The conclusion states:
    "While drainage from the Yamuna may have been lost from the Ghaggar-Hakra well before development of the Harappan Civilization, fl ow from the Beas and Sutlej may have been more recent in Cholistan, if still prior to 10 ka.

    Loss of these rivers might be expected to have had a catastrophic effect on
    sustaining settlement in this region, but our evidence argues against this.

    Water in the small Ghaggar-Hakra (or Sarasvati) River would have beenfurther reduced by monsoon weakening from 4.2 ka (Enzel et al., 1999;Staubwasser et al., 2003; Wünnemann et al., 2010), but evidence for dramatic changes in water sources was much earlier. While drainage capture
    is dramatic in the eastern Indus Basin in the late Quaternary, it appears to have occurred prior to human settlement and not to have directly caused the Harappan collapse."

    As far as I can say, the study pretty much settles the issue. Do you agree with this impression?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon- thanks for the comment and the link. is there a chance you can mail me the paper? suvrat underscore k at yahoo dot com.. appreciate if you can.. I had written about Peter Clift's work earlier and suggested that river avulsion scenario makes more sense if it occurred much earlier in the late Pleistocene early Holocene..see - http://suvratk.blogspot.in/2011/04/geological-update-on-river-ghaggar.html.. and yeah the results do suggest (although I do want the read the paper before commenting more) that while the Yamuna and Sutlej may have been part of the Ghaggar-Indus system in the Pleistocene they were diverted much before the Aryan presence in that area.. that is what much of the controversy is about.. eh :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. AncientArcheologistMay 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM

    HARAPPA, Mohejo daro has been underwater in floods of SINDHU before 4500 years ago

    Mohejo daro Ground level 56m from sea level and present near flood water of river (River bank burst to 25 to 30 Kms ad just close to the Cilisation, any more flooding will cover the area)

    HARAPPA Ground level 166m from sea level and presently most of the area is under the rain water as swallen Indus river flow is obstructed and can not drain the flood water around the ground.



    Though this is only just a sample of rain cycle in 80 years time. Not as wild monsoon to destroy the civilisation as it has happened in the past with Mohenjodaro.



    Weather pattern runs in cycles of floods/famine of 30-40 years and world weather cycle of 120 years (accordingly based on the scientific tree ring study - wider rings in tree in good rain and narrow in droughts time) - from the data in our library. And based to that 120 years cycle is approaching in next decade. So we have to be prepared during this decade and also that will be helpful to regulate water in floods and droughts.



    Present situation is not the perfect green Famine, there is a plenty of rain but if it cause a scarcity of crops or food. Reasons may be floods, destroyed crops, less sunlight due to high rain and clouds - crops fail or less productive or even washed away, destroyed food grains as wet damp weather or rain water may decay those food stores.



    As in areas of floods in PAKISTAN INDUS region is happening there, that may happen in GANGETIC plains as those area has less slopes in river drains in Northern India. (Less likely in Southern as is mountain area and river slope is good in gradient to drain all water quickly)



    Recorded available data of KUTCH



    Kutch civilisation like DHOLAVIRA, Kuran, Kanmer, BHADLI KOTADA etc has highly developed Irrigation engineering architect. as with the canal water was diverted to right places in reservoirs and in a perfect gradient all reservoirs filled one by one by gravitation. Not only was that, at that time droughts were in the cycle. Though we name those as Saraswati civilisation but in fact Saraswati river bed was lifted higher and was dry river bed. Else they do not make such water irrigation system to fulfil the demands in water scarcity. NOT ONLY that Each reservior has a WELL in the Bottom of the reservior so as when the reservior becomes empty water in the deep well in the bottom of the reservior can be used (as we do in our village water lakes).



    There has been records of two cycles of weather in KUTCH. though a mini cycle of 3 years of good and bad rain is known as short term periods as we are aware of in our regular life time.

    But a major cycle of droughts an very Good Rain cycle are different e.g. 40 years of cycles of major droughts (e.g. 1, CHHAPANO Vikram sanvant 1956= 1900AD and 2, 1940 KUTCH FAMINE CHHANAVO Vikram sanvant 1996= 1940AD) affecting most parts of western Monsoon system and also has Good Monsoon of 30 years cycle. both of those weather cycles falls in 120 years world weather cycle studied scientifically with rings in tree trunks. as good rain makes a ring wider expanding growth and narrows in famines. (30x4 cycle=120 years=3x40 cycle)

    CHHAPANO 1956 VS= 1900/01 famine has been recorded in major parts of the world tree records. and if cycle is repeating after 120 years Major world dropout is possible in next few years after next decade!


    Dr. BHUDIA Science Group Of INDIA
    President:'Kutch Science Foundation'.
    Founder :'Kutch Amateurs http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/kachchh

    ReplyDelete