A while back I had written a post in response to a paper (Ajit Singh et. al. 2017) on the paleo-Sutlej river. The study used geochemical analysis to identify ancient channels of the river. Today, the Sutlej flows out of the Himalaya and joins the Indus River. But this study showed that until about 8000 years ago, the Sutlej (or at least a strand of the river) flowed along a different course. Its paleo-channels coincide with the course of the river Ghaggar in Haryana and Rajasthan in northwest India. This topic is of relevance in studying how rivers may have impacted agricultural practices and settlement patterns of the Harappan Civilization. The geography of the river Ghaggar also matches that of the river Saraswati, described in the Rig Ved. There is therefore considerable interest in working out the detailed history of these rivers.
I had pointed out that an earlier paper by Liviu Giosan and colleagues has used topographic criteria to come to a similar conclusion as Ajit Singh and colleagues. Giosan's study stressed that today the Sutlej and Yamuna flow along deeply incised valleys that were cut in the early Holocene (~10,000 to 8700 years ago). The absence of such valleys in the region between the present day Sutlej and Yamuna indicates that the Ghaggar channel was not being fed by glacially sourced rivers since 10,000 -8700 years ago.
The relief rendition below is from Ajit Singh's paper. It shows clearly the incised valleys of the Sutlej and Yamuna. I had overlain the blue line and suggested that if the Sutlej had flowed into the Ghaggar in early Holocene, there should have been an incised valley along the blue line.
As it happens, Sanjeev Gupta, who was the lead scientist of the study by Ajit Singh and colleagues, is a reader of my blog. He emailed me and has provided more insights regarding these paleo-channels.
I am posting his comments below with his permission.
My comment from the earlier post- The modified relief rendition below also shows the course of the abandoned Sutlej incised valley. Note that this valley is much narrower than the Sutlej and Yamuna incised valleys. Also, trace these narrower incised valleys upstream and you can see that they originate in the Siwaliks. There are no deep extensive incised valleys along the route I have marked in blue. The Sutlej would have carved a prominent incised valley roughly along the blue route had it been flowing into the Ghaggar during most of the early and mid Holocene. Its absence suggests to me that the valley annotated as the abandoned Sutlej incised valley was really carved out in the earlier part of the Holocene by the smaller Ghaggar river originating in the Siwaliks.
Sanjeev Gupta's reply - Just to respond... we only see the incised channel in the SRTM where the valley is not completely infilled. Indeed where we see the valley in SRTM it is not the base of the incised valley. but a partially infilled valley. So along the blue line you have drawn there is likely to have been a valley but it is entirely infilled.
My comment (with regards to the 'abandoned Sutlej incised valley' in the above relief rendition) - (it)....was really carved out in the earlier part of the Holocene by the smaller Ghaggar river originating in the Siwaliks.
Sanjeev Gupta's reply- This is not possible because all the geochemistry signature is of the Sutlej - the base of the valley actually occurs in the stratigraphy.
We have some newer data that better constrain the timing of incision but I stress the topographic surface is not the base of the incised valley - that lies in the subsurface.
...end.......
So, Sanjeev Gupta's view is that present day topography is not necessarily a more reliable guide to the course of these ancient rivers. Geochemical fingerprinting is the way to go.
Update July 22 2018:
Liviu Giosan posted a comment which led to an extended exchange with him regarding this topic. I have copied his comments below with his permission.
Me- Hi Liviu- was going to message you about my post when I saw your comment. Regarding Sanjeev Gupta's view, wondering if this is a matter of scale. The subsurface paleo valleys he says exist were much smaller valleys carved by a waning Sutlej and hence got infilled? Not quite the wider incision profile carved later by the river along the present course.
Liviu Giosan - A matter of scale, time since abandonment, and location relative to a sediment source. Maybe I do not see Sanjeev's point. His work confirmed ours for holocene and in adition showed a pre-Holocene channel. A recent paper by Dave et al. showed the same thing for Yamuna.
Me- thanks. Can you send me the link to Dave et. al.?
Liviu Giosan - I can send you the paper. Please elaborate: what is Sanjeev's point?
Me- He hasn't elaborated. Those two short para's i put up was all he emailed. I guess he is saying that there are incised valleys in the interfluve subsurface but are now infilled and so not picked up by SRTM.
Liviu Giosan - That may be true but I doubt they will be all the way in filled unless they are old (preHolocene). After all his work shows a network of holocene streams in the region using SRTM. Further geochemistry we did downstream so far is pretty (Clift et al. not cited by Sanjeev) shows no holocene contribution from Sutlej. Even more Sutlej incised since early Holocene making it almost impossible to feed shallow channels on the interfluve. This needs to be interpreted with all available evidence. Geochem is no silver bullet in isolation.
..end...
Sanjeev Gupta did mention to me that the point about topography is important but they did not have the space to address it in their paper. So, while there are differences in viewpoints about emphasis on techniques, the overall data does point to a switch in the course of the Sutlej around 8-10 thousand years ago.
The paper on the paleo-Yamuna that Liviu Giosan mentioned is by Aditi Krishna Dave and colleagues. They examine detailed lithologs of the Chautang channel near the town of Hisar, Harayana, and with OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminesence which indicates the time of burial of sediment) age constraints propose that the Yamuna, which was flowing westwards and joining the Ghaggar-Hakra downstream of its confluence with the Sutlej, changed course and started flowing eastwards by 24 thousand years ago. I'll put up a short post on that shortly.
I had pointed out that an earlier paper by Liviu Giosan and colleagues has used topographic criteria to come to a similar conclusion as Ajit Singh and colleagues. Giosan's study stressed that today the Sutlej and Yamuna flow along deeply incised valleys that were cut in the early Holocene (~10,000 to 8700 years ago). The absence of such valleys in the region between the present day Sutlej and Yamuna indicates that the Ghaggar channel was not being fed by glacially sourced rivers since 10,000 -8700 years ago.
The relief rendition below is from Ajit Singh's paper. It shows clearly the incised valleys of the Sutlej and Yamuna. I had overlain the blue line and suggested that if the Sutlej had flowed into the Ghaggar in early Holocene, there should have been an incised valley along the blue line.
As it happens, Sanjeev Gupta, who was the lead scientist of the study by Ajit Singh and colleagues, is a reader of my blog. He emailed me and has provided more insights regarding these paleo-channels.
I am posting his comments below with his permission.
My comment from the earlier post- The modified relief rendition below also shows the course of the abandoned Sutlej incised valley. Note that this valley is much narrower than the Sutlej and Yamuna incised valleys. Also, trace these narrower incised valleys upstream and you can see that they originate in the Siwaliks. There are no deep extensive incised valleys along the route I have marked in blue. The Sutlej would have carved a prominent incised valley roughly along the blue route had it been flowing into the Ghaggar during most of the early and mid Holocene. Its absence suggests to me that the valley annotated as the abandoned Sutlej incised valley was really carved out in the earlier part of the Holocene by the smaller Ghaggar river originating in the Siwaliks.
Sanjeev Gupta's reply - Just to respond... we only see the incised channel in the SRTM where the valley is not completely infilled. Indeed where we see the valley in SRTM it is not the base of the incised valley. but a partially infilled valley. So along the blue line you have drawn there is likely to have been a valley but it is entirely infilled.
My comment (with regards to the 'abandoned Sutlej incised valley' in the above relief rendition) - (it)....was really carved out in the earlier part of the Holocene by the smaller Ghaggar river originating in the Siwaliks.
Sanjeev Gupta's reply- This is not possible because all the geochemistry signature is of the Sutlej - the base of the valley actually occurs in the stratigraphy.
We have some newer data that better constrain the timing of incision but I stress the topographic surface is not the base of the incised valley - that lies in the subsurface.
...end.......
So, Sanjeev Gupta's view is that present day topography is not necessarily a more reliable guide to the course of these ancient rivers. Geochemical fingerprinting is the way to go.
Update July 22 2018:
Liviu Giosan posted a comment which led to an extended exchange with him regarding this topic. I have copied his comments below with his permission.
Me- Hi Liviu- was going to message you about my post when I saw your comment. Regarding Sanjeev Gupta's view, wondering if this is a matter of scale. The subsurface paleo valleys he says exist were much smaller valleys carved by a waning Sutlej and hence got infilled? Not quite the wider incision profile carved later by the river along the present course.
Liviu Giosan - A matter of scale, time since abandonment, and location relative to a sediment source. Maybe I do not see Sanjeev's point. His work confirmed ours for holocene and in adition showed a pre-Holocene channel. A recent paper by Dave et al. showed the same thing for Yamuna.
Me- thanks. Can you send me the link to Dave et. al.?
Liviu Giosan - I can send you the paper. Please elaborate: what is Sanjeev's point?
Me- He hasn't elaborated. Those two short para's i put up was all he emailed. I guess he is saying that there are incised valleys in the interfluve subsurface but are now infilled and so not picked up by SRTM.
Liviu Giosan - That may be true but I doubt they will be all the way in filled unless they are old (preHolocene). After all his work shows a network of holocene streams in the region using SRTM. Further geochemistry we did downstream so far is pretty (Clift et al. not cited by Sanjeev) shows no holocene contribution from Sutlej. Even more Sutlej incised since early Holocene making it almost impossible to feed shallow channels on the interfluve. This needs to be interpreted with all available evidence. Geochem is no silver bullet in isolation.
..end...
Sanjeev Gupta did mention to me that the point about topography is important but they did not have the space to address it in their paper. So, while there are differences in viewpoints about emphasis on techniques, the overall data does point to a switch in the course of the Sutlej around 8-10 thousand years ago.
The paper on the paleo-Yamuna that Liviu Giosan mentioned is by Aditi Krishna Dave and colleagues. They examine detailed lithologs of the Chautang channel near the town of Hisar, Harayana, and with OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminesence which indicates the time of burial of sediment) age constraints propose that the Yamuna, which was flowing westwards and joining the Ghaggar-Hakra downstream of its confluence with the Sutlej, changed course and started flowing eastwards by 24 thousand years ago. I'll put up a short post on that shortly.
The truth is as always in the middle Suvrat. The modern landscape is the continuously degrading reflection of past landscapes. Some features and some areas preserve more of the past at the surface than others. Combined geomorphological analysis, subsurface geophysics/geology and geochemistry fingerprinting is a must.
ReplyDeletethanks Liviu- I have put up your extended comments as an update to this post.
ReplyDelete