Jim G. Shaffer

“Academic discourse in philology, ethnology, archaeology, paleontology, biology, and religion was plumbed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to substantiate a sense of self and shared identity in a newly expanded view of the known geographic world and in a reassessment of a chronology of human antiquity beyond a Biblical interpretation of human origins.”

“The academic investment in this hypothesis [i.e. AIT] is so great that the distinguished scholar Colin Renfrew (1987) opts to distort the archaeological record rather than to challenge it... The South Asian archaeological record reviewed here does not support Renfrew's position or any version of the migration / invasion hypothesis. Rather, the physical distribution of sites and artifacts, stratigraphic data, radiometric dates and geological data can account for the Vedic oral tradition describing an internal cultural discontinuity of indigenous population movement.”

“[the demographic eastward shift of the Harappan population during the decline of their cities, i.e. an intra-Indian movement from Indus to Ganga,] “is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium BC”, while the archaeological record shows “no significant discontinuities” for the period when the Aryan invasion should have made its mark.”

“Most prior interpretations attributed significant cultural developments, except early hunting-gathering adaptations, to external factors such as ethnic intrusions or invasions, diffusing ideas and technologies developed outside the region, usually in the West. Current information, however, suggests that these earlier, still persisting interpretations cannot explain the cultural complexities now found in the archaeological record.”