It is now clear that the Oxus Civilisation played a major role in the socio-­economics and politics of the late third and early second millennia bc, … - Jim G. Shaffer

Cattle, like other wealth objects, may be accumulated and inherited; however, like other animal wealth, they must ultimately be spent before becoming a liability or dying. Land and craft items, such as metals, as wealth objects have a longevity and accumulability absent in animal wealth. Given these limita­tions, the focus on cattle as wealth may have fostered a perception of all wealth objects as being ultimately temporary, items that must be spent during life and redistributed after death, like the herd (e.g., Goldschmidt 1969). It is possible that social status symbols were not elaborate tombs or monumental works as in other ancient societies, but, rather the extent and solidarity o f secular and sacred relationships constructed by individuals and larger social units, through astutely spending their live wealth before it died. Social status itself might have been perceived as temporary, waxing and waning with fortunes of the herd, and it was the relationships rather than the physical symbols of such status that were perpetual. Cattle as an important wealth aspect of the Indo-Gangetic cultural tradition's structure constantly posed the problems of how to spend, or divide, live wealth to the maximum of individual and larger social unit advantage, generating a social, political, economic and religious organisation unlike others in the ancient world.

Shaffer (1993) refers to one set of data that undermines this simplistic portrayal of an apparent devolution and re-evolution of urbanization, which "has nearly become a South Asian archaeological axiom" (55). Although there appears to have been a definite shift in settlements from the Indus Valley proper in late and Post-Harappan periods, there is a significant increase in the number of sites in Gujarat, and an "explosion" (300 percent increase) of new settlements in East Punjab to accommodate the transferal of the population.

It is singularly refreshing, against this dogmatic pursuit of what may be an unobtainable goal, to know there are South Asian scholars who “. . . do not believe that the available data are sufficient to establish anything very conclusive about an Indo-European homeland, culture, or people”