A key to understanding the Indo-Gangetic cultural tradition's structure is its economic and cultural focus on cattle. - Jim G. Shaffer

Nineteenth century philologists (Bowler 1989; Ölender 1992; Poliakov 1974; Shaffer 1984) also invoked invasion as a primary explanation for ling­uistic and cultural change. Indeed, the Aryan invasion(s) into South Asia became the foundation o f philological studies. The Aryan invasion(s) depicted in Vedic oral traditions, and its later literature, had by the mid-twentieth century evolved, thanks to European philology, into an unquestioned historical fact.

Unfortunately, there is an “academic status” associated with studying ancient states. Therefore, it is likely that either the “state” will be rede­fined to fit the “mature” Harappan pattern, or that “mature “Harappan culture will be moulded to the contours o f existing definitions, at the expense of exploring alternative explanations.

The Indo-Aryan invasion(s) as an academic concept in 18th- and 19th-century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of that period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in tum was used to interpret archaeological and anthropological data. What was theory became unquestioned fact that was used to interpret and organize all subsequent data. It is time to end the "linguistic tyranny" that has prescribed interpretative frameworks of pre- and protohistoric cultural development in South Asia.