Nineteenth century philologists (Bowler 1989; Ölender 1992; Poliakov 1974; Shaffer 1984) also invoked invasion as a primary explanation for ling­uist… - Jim G. Shaffer

However, he also emphasizes that between material and nonmaterial aspects of “mature” Harappan culture a sense o f “oneness” exists, and striking similarities are found at sites, exemplified by the stamp seals. This “oneness” is very significant since “mature” Harappan sites are distributed over an area of 800,000 km 2 , a region larger than any contemporary state or non-state culture.

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.

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.