Wikipedia

Ghaggar-Hakra River: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Solu61 (talk | contribs)
18 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted blanking Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 141:
{{reflist|group=note|2|refs=
<!-- Drying-up -->
{{refn|group=note|name=Drying-up|{{harvtxt|Mughal|1997}} concludes that during the Bronze Age the Ghaggar-Hakra sometimes carried more, sometimes less water. {{harvtxt|Mughal|1997}} states that satellite photography has shown that the Ghaggar-Hakra was a large river that dried up several times, as corroborated by an isotope study by {{harvtxt|Tripathi et al.|2004}}<ref group=web>{{cite web |url=http://hakra.totallyexplained.com/ |title=Hakra |website=Totally Explained |access-date=2009-08-20 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120712174106/http://hakra.totallyexplained.com/ |archive-date=12 July 2012 |df=dmy-all}}</ref> According to [[M. R. Mughal]], the Hakra dried-up at the latest in 1900&nbsp;BCE,{{sfn|Mughal|1997}} but {{harvtxt|Tripathi et al.|2004}} conclude that it took place much earlier. [[Henri-Paul Francfort]], utilising images from the [[SPOT (satellites)|French satellite SPOT]] two decades ago, found that the large river Sarasvati is pre-Harappan altogether, and started drying up already in the middle of the 4th&nbsp;millennium&nbsp;BCE; during Harappan times only a complex irrigation-canal network was being used. The date should therefore be pushed back to {{circa}}&nbsp;3800&nbsp;BCE.}}
<!-- Giosan.2012 -->
{{refn|group=note|name=Giosan.2012|{{harvtxt|Giosan et al.|2012}}:
*{{harvtxt|Giosan et al.|2012|p=1688}}: "Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed Himalayan river, identified by some with the mythical Sarasvati, watered the Harappan heartland on the interfluve between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers were active there during the Holocene."
*{{harvtxt|Giosan et al.|2012|p=1689}}: "Numerous speculations have advanced the idea that the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system, at times identified with the lost mythical river of Sarasvati (e.g., 4, 5, 7, 19), was a large glacier-fed Himalayan river. Potential sources for this river include the Yamuna River, the Sutlej River, or both rivers. However, the lack of large-scale incision on the interfluve demonstrates that large, glacier-fed rivers did not flow across the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene."
*"Numerous speculations have advanced the idea that the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system, at times identified with the lost mythical river of Sarasvati (e.g., 4, 5, 7, 19), was a large glacier fed Himalayan river. Potential sources for this river include the Yamuna River, the Sutlej River, or both rivers. However, the lack of large-scale incision on the interfluve demonstrates that large, glacier-fed rivers did not flow across the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene.
*The present Ghaggar-Hakra valley and its tributary rivers are currently dry or have seasonal flows. Yet rivers were undoubtedly active in this region during the Urban Harappan Phase. We recovered sandy fluvial deposits approximately 5;400 y old at Fort Abbas in Pakistan (SI Text), and recent work (33) on the upper Ghaggar-Hakra interfluve in India also documented Holocene channel sands that are approximately 4;300 y old. On the upper interfluve, fine-grained floodplain deposition continued until the end of the Late Harappan Phase, as recent as 2,900 y ago (33) (Fig. 2B). This widespread fluvial redistribution of sediment suggests that reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene and explains why Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-Hakra system without access to a glacier-fed river."
{{harvtxt|Valdiya|2013}} dispute this, arguing that it was a large perennial river draining the high mountains as late as 3700–2500 years ago. {{harvtxt|Giosan|Clift|Macklin|Fuller|2013}} have responded to, and rejected Valdiya's arguments.}}
<!-- "Number of sites" -->
{{refn|group=note|name="Number of sites"|In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, as cited in {{harvtxt|Gupta|1995}}, over 400&nbsp;sites were mapped along 300&nbsp;miles of the Hakra river. According to {{harvtxt|Bryant|2001}}, the majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium&nbsp;BCE. S.P. Gupta, in {{harvtxt|Gupta|1995|p=183}}, {{harvtxt|Gupta|1999}}, counts over 600&nbsp;sites of the Indus civilization on the [[Ghaggar]]-[[Hakra]] river and its tributaries. V.N. Misra, as cited in {{harvtxt|Gupta|1999|p=144}}, states that over 530&nbsp;Harappan sites (of the more than 800&nbsp;known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Ghaggar-Hakra. According to {{harvtxt|Misra|1992}}, only 90–96&nbsp;Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the [[Indus]] and its tributaries; about 36&nbsp;sites on the Indus river itself. The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200&nbsp;sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70&nbsp;late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100&nbsp;sites).<br><br>{{harvtxt|Sindhav|2016|p=103}} notes that these claims of a large number of Ghaggar-Hakra sites are politically motivated and exaggerated. While the Indus remained an active river, the Ghaggar-Hakra dried-up, leaving many sites undisturbed. Sidhav further notes that the Ghaggar-Hakra was a tributary of the Indus, so the proposed Sarasvati nomenclature is redundant.}}
}}
 
== References ==
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River"