A Comment and an Answer

January 1, 2006 at 5:42 pm (Historical) (, , , , )

I got a comment on the post on Indus Valley Civilization from cyavhn. The comment was: “Indus valley civilization didn`t die…it evolved into classical Indian culture…”

Thanks for the comment on Indus Civilization. Actually I didn’t mean that Indus Valley Civilization ‘died’. None of the great civilizations ever really die. They just go into a prolonged old age. Some recuperate from this senility and bounce back with all the old vigor that made them great in their best days. Others drag on. But all the civilizations I have mentioned are still alive.

The point or rather the points, I was trying to get across is that
1. Civilizations appear to have a sort of exponential decay
2. The rapid development of modern age has shortened the half life of the civilizations.

I have taken the approximate period from which recognizable, centralized governments evolved in these cradles of ancient human society. Going further back into the pre-agrarian age doesn’t figure here. Starting from the centralized age, so to say, there is a upward peak lasting some centuries, followed by a crest of glory, and then a slow decay. This is rather like a skewed distributionb curve with the skewness to the left.

So is there some way in which we can develop a formula for predicting how long a culture will last. Why is this important? The answer should be obvious. More of this in subsequent posts.

I am sorry about deleting your comment. But it appeared just as I had deleted the entry in order to combine the three posts. I will post this reply in my blog.

(PS: I did warn you. I can get quite ponderous at times)

Advertisements

Permalink 1 Comment