Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Scientists Think They've Solved Why One of History's Most Advanced Civilizations Vanished 89

Posted by msmash from the adapt-migrate-or-collapse dept.
A new study published in Communications Earth & Environment has reconstructed the climate conditions of the ancient Indus River Valley civilization between 3000 and 1000 B.C., finding that four intense droughts -- each lasting more than 85 years -- likely drove the gradual decline of one of the world's earliest advanced societies.

The research team, led by Hiren Solanki at the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, combined paleoclimate data from cave formations and lake records with computer models to determine that the region shifted from wetter-than-present monsoon conditions to prolonged dry spells as the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed. The third drought, peaking around 1733 B.C., proved the most severe: it lasted 164 years, reduced annual rainfall by 13%, and affected nearly the entire region.

Overall temperatures rose by 0.5 degrees Celsius and rainfall dropped between 10 and 20%. These changes shrank lakes and rivers, dried soils, and made agriculture increasingly difficult in areas away from major waterways. Harappan settlements progressively relocated eastward toward the Indus River over roughly 2,000 years. The civilization's long survival under repeated climate stress -- through crop switching, trade diversification, and settlement relocation -- offers lessons for modern communities facing environmental pressures, the researchers said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Think They've Solved Why One of History's Most Advanced Civilizations Vanished More

Scientists Think They've Solved Why One of History's Most Advanced Civilizations Vanished

Comments Filter:

  • Anything as complex as history, has many, many inputs. I accept that the droughts might have contributed. But if the droughts hadn't happened, can the researchers really say with confidence that the civilization would still be with us today?

    • Of course not. None of the other contemporary civilizations are still with us. The difference is that they all left a record of what became of them, either being destroyed by outside forces or evolving into something else. What became of the Indus civilization and why it disappeared so completely has always been something of mystery, although climatic shift has always been a common explanation. The other part about their moving in response and how it has a lesson for modern civilizations is a bit weak t

      • That makes sense, though we still don't know why this particular civilization disappeared without a record of what happened. Long droughts would not prevent records from being recorded and preserved.

        It's easy to think that the world is "full" now. But the reality is that only a small percentage of the earth's surface has been "modified" by humans. https://www.weforum.org/storie... [weforum.org] If we needed to move, there are still vast untouched tracts of land that could be tamed.

        • They've associated changes in the civilization with the changing climate conditions, it's likely not 100% certain, but it looks like a pretty likely cause.

          It's easy to think that the world is "full" now. But the reality is that only a small percentage of the earth's surface has been "modified" by humans. https://www.weforum.org/storie [weforum.org]... If we needed to move, there are still vast untouched tracts of land that could be tamed.

          That is a very weird take. The bits we modified are the best land, temperate zones, river banks, grasslands. You really want to move to some of that "untamed land" in the Sahara, Siberia, or Greenland?

          And honestly, that map looks like a massive underestimate. I'm seeing big black regions in what I know to be largely unbroken crop land.

          • I don't dispute that the droughts may have been a significant factor in the disappearance of the civilization. What remains a mystery, and is not answered by this study, is why it wasn't recorded.

            As for unmodified lands being "only" in the "worst" places, makes me think you live in a big city and don't go out into the wilderness much. The US alone has vast areas of wilderness and untamed land. I live in Texas, where you can drive for hours without seeing a single structure or plowed field. The land isn't ba

            • It was not recorded (to our knowledge) because they either left no surviving written records or we cannot read them. There are a number of ancient written languages, that can no longer be read. Yes, there are a lot of empty looking lands out there. In reality most of them are either farms (which we need so we can eat) or otherwise undesirable for human use (two rough, too poor soil, etc.). The world is not full, we could squeeze its whole population on a smallish island, but the amount of resources that

              • Your surmises seem reasonable, although you left out the possibility that we simply haven't found the records yet.

                As for "straining the world's land use" this is actually false. Despite the world's increasing population, our need for agricultural land is actually decreasing, not increasing. https://ourworldindata.org/pea... [ourworldindata.org] And, the world's human population is expected to peak in the 2080s and then start to decline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Given those trends, it's likely we will *not* run out of l

                • Having spent most of my adult life working in the ag industry, I have to agree that there is still room for improvement, particularly in countries like India, where social factors have kept the use of advanced agricultural technology from being fully exploited. We will only run of land, if we succeed in making large parts of the earth uninhabitable. Unfortunately, we seem to be doing a good job of that at the moment.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jythie ( 914043 )
              A key word there is 'drive', and what 'best' really entails. If a place does not have easy access to major waterways for shipping, its ability to grow is going to be pretty limited. If you look at a map of the US, where the population is and is not, it mostly comes down to 'can barges get there'.

              • Some major US cities that are not accessible by barges:
                - Indianapolis
                - Denver
                - Salt Lake City
                - Phoenix
                - Las Vegas

                Perhaps access by barges is a factor, but it clearly isn't decisive.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by jythie ( 914043 )
                  Not saying that it can't happen, but it increases the cost and limits growth. You do get a few special cases, but if you look at population heatmaps, they drop off rapidly once you cross that line unless there is some reason for a dense population center to be somewhere.

                  • quantaman was implying that humans would not be able to again move because all the good lands were already taken. It might not be as easy to farm in west Texas as it is in east Texas, but it's very possible.

        • Long droughts would not prevent records from being recorded and preserved.

          It most certainly would. Records are kept and maintained by academics and bureaucrats, professions that can only be supported in societies that enjoy a sufficient surplus to allow non productive workers to exist

          • In the course of an 85-year drought, these academics and bureaucrats would have at least a *few* years before total collapse, to write their observations. The civilization didn't collapse in a day.

        • we still don't know why this particular civilization disappeared without a record of what happened.

          We do have records. We just can't read them. The Harappan language has never been deciphered [wikipedia.org]. There are about 5000 inscriptions known.

          That droughts led to the end of Indus Valley Civilization has been surmised for decades, this study provided a much more detailed account of the process.

          For people to settle in "untouched tracts of land" you need to have water to irrigate it. Large empty areas on Earth require water for them to be "tamed".

      • "They could move because, there were large areas nearby that were not heavily inhabited, hardly an option for most places now"

        How about Greenland? With modern transport technology, is it as "nearby" in terms of time?

        • Despite what it looks like on a flat map, Greenland is not very large and it also mostly mountains. It could hardly support more than a few people even if it was tropical.

          • How about northern Canada? Siberia?

            • Very poor soil quality and other issues. Yes, if the climate continues to warm people will move into those areas, but there is not anywhere near enough room for the displaced people. In the past war was the usual solution, but that does not seem to practical now.

              • IDK, some of these island nations have a lot of people per square kilometer. Japan isn't a very large country but it's population is around 120 million. You can fit about 1.8 Japans into Texas, for instance. Texas only has 30 million people. So clearly, there is room for at least 200 million people. USA is only 330 million. You could easily fit the entire population into Texas and California and the rest of the country would be spare land.

                Not purposing we do this and I have zero interest in living stacked o

    • "can the researchers really say with confidence that the civilization would still be with us today?"

      What if they were Jain?

      • I wish more would choose Jainism over Islam and Christianity. Many crave some kind of religion, and if such people picked the more peaceful religions there would be fewer busybodies trying to force their beliefs on others.

        • Every Jain wishes more people were Jain. Maybe you should become one. You might not like the dietary restrictions, but go for it.

          Attributing human strife to religion, is getting it backwards. People are religious and hold different views and fight with each other, because that is the nature of humans, not because they are religious. Nations and rulers that are atheistic, such as Marxism, have not been less warlike than those who are religious. So let's place the blame where it belongs, on the *human* desire

          • As one who tries to stick to the dietary restrictions, may I note that I was in a Dollar General the other day and only bought frozen broccoli because most everything else had meat, cheese, onions, garlic, potato etc.?

            • Yeah. You lost me at no onion, garlic or potatoes. Like, I get no meat or animal by products, but then you are going to try and restrict the veggies as well? Sorry, but no.

              • If your goal is to use the least amount of violence, does it make sense to avoid killing plants by uprooting them for their underground food value? Is it more violent to rip a carrot up or pick up an apple fallen from a tree?

          • You don't go far enough. Fighting and control to what end? Much of the fighting is sheer competition to grab more. More land and resources, to support more children. As for fighting, no, most people have the sense not to willingly risk their lives in deadly combat. Most would rather move into empty lands, or failing that, clear out the current occupants through genocide. If easy genocide is not possible either because the occupants can and will fight back, some will choose war, but only if it looks ea

    • Here is how the researchers themselves say it:

      We contend that reduced water availability, accompanied by substantially drier conditions, may have led to population dispersal from major Harappan centers, while acknowledging that societal transformation was shaped by a complex interplay of climatic, social, and economic pressures.

      Don't conflate the arrogant headline with knowledgeable researchers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      can the researchers really say with confidence that the civilization would still be with us today?

      Nobody claimed it would otherwise still be around. You are putting words in their mouths. It only solved, or at least partly solves a mystery. Usually declines of ancient cities can be traced to invaders, civil war, damaged soil, plagues, etc. This one had no known comparable cause.

  • They ran out of stuff to watch on Netflix (etc.)

  • Is it possible the smoke & soot from the city changed the local weather?

  • Headline: "One of History's Most Advanced Civilizations"

    Summary: "one of the world's earliest advanced societies."

    Can a native English speaker please explain to the "editors" the difference between "most" and "earliest".

  • is if our civilisation will survive the next few hundred years and, if it does not, what will be the causes of our decline:
    * climate change (the effects will not be evenly felt)
    * nuclear (or other) war
    * rise of AI that takes control
    * grey goo (molecular nanotechnology)
    * strike from deep space asteroid

    Feel free to reply with other possible causes.

    • That's not the most appropriate scope to evaluate. The species and life will find a way to survive, but it's what possible form and at what level of productivity and organization will endure. The idiot billionaire plutocrats the brainwashed masses voted for are killing 1k's-100k's of species, billions of future humans, creating a lot of future suffering, and destroying tens of trillions of future productive value... all of these things took centuries/1000's of years to organize but only a decade or so to de

    • > * rise of AI that takes control

      I think that's unlikely, but I think the AI crap we're currently following suggests a different path.

      The LLM fad is most probably going to eat itself, but take down a lot of things with it.

      Let's take a look at it: We had the World Wide Web.

      The web was built over a period of a couple of decades maybe (by the mid-2000s it could be considered the primary source of knowledge for everyone in the developed world), with virtually everyone switching to it en-mass. Newspapers went

  • A mixture of "Sea peoples" (pirates) went around plundering early city-states that lacked sufficient military defenses, and even attacking some of Ramesses the Great's ancient Egypt.

  • Wow. Isn't it remarkable how they know they temperature to half of a degree over 2000 years ago.

    • If you are interested learning about actual science you can read the actual paper. It is not paywalled. Look up "speleothem isotopes" to learn about specific climatologic techniques for this study.

      • Speleothem isotopes, primarily of oxygen (\({}^{18}O\)) and carbon (\({}^{13}C\)), are used as paleoclimatological proxies to reconstruct past climate conditions above and within caves.

        I find it very hard to believe that this can be used in any way other than to get rough estimates. But, this is "climate science", and in climate science there are no error bars.

  • At what point does a "drought" stop being a drought and become the "norm"? I've been listening to Ca officials and farmers talk about the "drought" for more than a decade with wet years popping up hear and there. I have to ask "is it a drought, or is Ca just becoming more desert?" 164 years seems like change not drought. And yes, yes, the climate changes, we all know that, lets not get into that here.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Close