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.

This review of archaeological data demonstrates that a continued division of South Asian cultural history into discrete archaeological “cultures” or “sta­ges” such as non-Harappan, “early” Harappan, “mature” Harappan, Kot Dijian, “late” Harappan, Painted Gray Ware and others masks the existence of a long surviving cultural tradition, and distorts the processes responsible for the cultu­ral changes this variety of designations represents. Archaeological data indicate the existence of a long-term cultural tradition responsive to changing cultural and ecological contexts, with an ability to adjust to rapid, as well as long-term, changes.

It is currently possible to discern cultural continuities linking specific prehistoric social entities in South Asia into one cultural tradition. This is not to propose social isolation nor deny any outside cultural influence. Outside cultural influences did affect South Asian cultural development in later, especially historic, periods, but an identifiable cultural tradition has continued, an Indo-Gangetic Cultural Tradition linking social entities over a time period from the development of food production in the seventh millennium BC to the present.

The modern archaeological record for South Asia indicates a cultural history of continuity rather than the earlier eighteenth through twentieth century scholarly interpretations of discontinuity and South Asian dependence upon Western influences. The cultural and political conditions of Europe's nineteenth and twentieth centuries were strong influences in sustaining this interpretation. It is possible now to discern cultural continuities linking specific social entities in South Asia into one cultural tradition. This is not to propose social isolation nor deny any outside cultural influence. Outside cultural influences did affect South Asian cultural development in later historic periods, but an identifiable cultural tradition has continued, an Indo-Gangetic Tradition linking diverse social entities which span a time period from the development of food production in the seventh millennium BC to the present.

The Pre-Harappan and the Harappa cultures are not two disparate entities but urban and rural aspects of the same cultural phenomenon. The Harappan phase at Kot Diji, Amri and Kalibangan, should not be understood as one culture supplanting another, but like a city corporation taking over a sub-urban village to urbanise.

That the archaeological record and ancient oral and literate traditions of South Asia (ie. the Vedic tradition) are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the 'literature' firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural tradition(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenous discontinuity occurs due to ecological factors (ie. the drying up of the Sarasvati river). This cultural discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus Valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral (ie. Vedic) traditions. As data accumulates to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretive paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed on South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asian studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.

All this clearly shows that, in the process of the formation of the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, which was typically a lowland cultural phenomenon, not one but several regions were directly or indirectly involved, as has been pointed out by Mughal. The usual American perception (of scholars like Possehl) that the highland Baluchi cultures, such as the Quetta culture with roots in Iranian Neolithic cultures of the Zagros mountains, and the Iranian Bronze Age cultures were primarily responsible for the birth and early growth of the Indus- Sarasvati Civilization, therefore, requires serious reconsideration since the pre-4000 BC cultures leading to the 4000 BC settlements are now locally available in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, particularly at Harappa, where a four-metre deposit of handmade black painted red ware with mud-brick houses was found in early 1996.

The archaeological record and ancient oral and literate traditions of South Asia are now converging with significant implications for South Asian cultural history. Some scholars suggest there is nothing in the “literature” firmly locating Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of modern South Asian cultural tradition(s) outside of South Asia, and the archaeological record is now confirming this. Within the chronology of the archaeological data for South Asia describing cultural continuity, however, a significant indigenous discontinuity occurs, but it is one correlated to significant geological and environmental changes in the prehistoric period. This indigenous discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus Valley area to locations east, that is, Gangetic Valley, and to the southeast, that is, Gujarat and beyond. Such an indigenous population movement can be recorded in the ancient oral Vedic traditions as perhaps “the” migration so focused upon in the linguistic reconstructions of a prehistoric chronology for South Asia.

It would therefore, indicate quite clearly that there were at least two phases in the Kot Diji ot the Early Indus-Sarasvati culture : Old (3500-3000 b.c.) and New (3000-2700 B.c.) The period between 3500 B.c. and 3000 B.C. was very crucial— the Early Indus- Civilization was spreading far and wide, informing us that it Was the proto-urban phase in which new townships were getting established in and also beyond the Indus and Sarasvati basins; the large cities of Harappa, Mohenjodaro, etc. were the culmination of the long process of urbanisation and not its beginning.

The residents of Mehrgarh who raised the first mud-brick homes of two or three rooms may not have realized it then, but they were laying the foundation for the first efflorescence of civilization in South Asia, called the Harappan Civilization, or the Indus Valley Civilization. It took about 4500 years or over 150 generations, for those humble mud-brick abodes to turn into the urban structures of a Harappa or a Mohenjo-daro or a Dholavira and there must have been many twists and turns along the way. But once agriculture took root, and modern humans started creating a surplus that they could save and invest, the wheels of history started spinning fast - which would, of course, lead to the invention of the wheel itself!

Sites such as Harappa continued to be inhabited and are still important cities today. . . . Late and post-Harappan settlements are known from surveys in the region of Cholistan, . . . the upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab,. . . and Gujarat. In the Indus Valley itself, post-Harappan settlement patterns are obscure, except for the important sites of Pirak. . . . This may be because the sites were along the newly-stabilized river systems and lie beneath modern villages and towns that flourish along the same rivers.

The modern archaeological record for South Asia indicates a history of significant cultural continuity; an intrepretation at variance with earlier eighteenth through twentieth-century scholarly views of South Asian cultural discontinuity and South Asian cultural dependence on Western culture influences.

If it can be argued that the Harappan culture is in fact Vedic or that the Rigveda is earlier even than the Harappan, then the Vedas continue to be foundational to the subcontinental civilisation of South Asia and also attract the encomium of representing an advanced civilization, superior even to the pastoral-agrarian culture actually described in Vedic texts.

Lacking fullest data, there is, nonetheless, a growing consensus that Harappan culture is the result of indigenous cultural developments, with no “Mesopotamian” people or diffusions of Western inventions, by whatever means, needed to explain it.