Scientists Think They've Solved Why One of History's Most Advanced Civilizations Vanished
- Reference: 0180232203
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/11/28/1721249/scientists-think-theyve-solved-why-one-of-historys-most-advanced-civilizations-vanished
- Source link:
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.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02901-1
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-may-have-solved-why-this-ancient-advanced-civilization-vanished/ar-AA1RhqRG
Blaming a single cause (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. [1]https://www.weforum.org/storie... [weforum.org] If we needed to move, there are still vast untouched tracts of land that could be tamed.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/human-impact-earth-planet-change-development/
Re: (Score:2)
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. [1]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.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/storie
91% of scientists are fake liars plagiarists (Score:1)
Scientists know shit. I know scientists and they just think about how to steal.
Depleted Content (Score:2)
They ran out of stuff to watch on Netflix (etc.)
If only they didn't burn so much fossil fuels (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate change never happened before fossil fuels. True story that AI told me.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, it didn't, and you know it.
You're trying to use the existence of an ever-changing climate ( climate change ) to cast doubt on the existence of anthropogenic climate change. ( Climate Change )
This isn't clever, you're just disgusting.
Re: (Score:1)
Guilty.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't, and I'm not. Though socially, many of my goals align with theirs. Economically, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
And socially needs an asterisk. I agree on the ends, but I don't agree with their Machiavellian horseshit.
Re: (Score:1)
> Climate change never happened before fossil fuels.
It did happened before, but not on this scale and speed.
And not while knowing why it's happening and what to do to at least to mitigate it.
And not with so many people ignoring the problem and betting on doing nothing.
Re: If only they didn't burn so much fossil fuels (Score:2)
Already the planet and economics are aligned for not even that long term.
The problem is that they'll likely never align for extreme short term.
Re: (Score:2)
> It did happened before, but not on this scale and speed.
Check out Meltwater Pulses 1a and 1b.