A recent study by Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy (1991) supports the thesis that ancient Gandhärans and Harappans share significant similarities in cra… - Kenneth A. R. Kennedy

With closest biological affinities outside the Indus Valley to the inhabitants of Tepe Hissar 3 (3000–2000 BC), these biological data can be interpreted to suggest that peoples to the west interacted with those in the Indus Valley during this and the preceding proto-Elamite period and thus may have influenced the development of the Harappan civilization. The second biological discontinuity exists between the inhabitants of Harappa, Chalcolithic Mehrgarh, and post-Harappa Timarghara on one hand and the Early Iron Age inhabitants of Sarai Khola on the other... The Harappan Civilization does indeed represent an indigenous development within the Indus Valley, but this does not indicate isolation extending back to Neolithic times. Rather, this development represents internal continuity for only 2000 years, combined with interactions with the West and specifically with the Iranian Plateau.

K. Kennedy (1984), however, who was able to examine all three hundred skeletons that had been retrieved from the Indus Valley Civilization, found that the ancient Harappans "are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan" (102). He considers any physical variations in the skeletal record to be perfectly normal for a metropolitan setting and consistent with any urban population past or present (103). As far as he is concerned, the polytypism in the South Asian record represents an "overlap of relatively homogeneous tribal and outcaste groups and their penetration into villages, then into urban environments of more heterogeneous people." There is no need to defer to intruding aliens for any of this: "This dynamic rather than mass migration and invasions of nomadic and warlike peoples better accounts for the biological constitutions of those earlier urban populations in the Indus valley." Here, again, we encounter the same objections raised repeatedly by South Asian archaeologists: "Of the Aryans, we must defer to literary and linguistic scholars in whose province lies the determination of the arrival and nature of the linguistic phenomenon we call the Aryans. . . . But archaeological evidence of Aryan- speaking peoples is questionable and the skeletal evidence is nil" (104).

How could one recognize an Aryan, living or dead, when the biological criteria for Aryanness are non- existent? (Kennedy 1995: 61)... Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites.... All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture. (Kennedy 1995: 60, 54)