Both these theories are debunked since the so called "Aryan race" is just a Mythical race. So who the hell is an Aryan ? Is he a White Caucasian from Mediterranean Europe ? Is he a German as Hitler suggested ? Is he a Uzbek ? Was he from Central Asia ? Did he come from Ural mountains or was he an Ukrainian ? The closest people who can be associated with so called Aryan race is Iranians. In-fact the term "Aryans" usually were used in India to refer royalty and are sometimes associated with civilized group of people. But it's a well known fact that so many group of people immigrated/strayed into India. Some came as invaders occasionally subduing whatever local population it had and some came as immigrants looking for a greener pasture. But these so called immigrants/invaders were never a single tribe/race/group of people. But these people came from different regions. In-fact same can be said about another large nation.
Indians were the first one that used Aryan as a term.Means 'noble' and at that time it was based on the peoples action not race.
The foreigners would be Persians.
Aryans were a mythical group maybe. Who knows.
On a serious note, this does not say anything about Aryans, just that the Sindhu Saraswati Civilization was larger and more evolved than previously thought. Also in fact it does hint that it may have even moved from the East to West. Or perhaps simultaneous (in historical terms). Mohenjodaro, Lothal, Harrapa, Dholavira were not exceptions - but just more examples of the genius of the people that have lived in our land for thousands of years. That's what is clear. Aryans and Dravidians stuff can't be deduced from any of this. Till the DNA results are out.
Well you guys 're right!
Current archaeological data
do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. There's not the slightest trace of it on the ground, and it is unthinkable that the supposed Aryans could have conquered most of India and imposed on it their Vedic culture without leaving any physical evidence of any sort. Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity and let me confirm "
All prehistoric human remains recovered so far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians". @ghoul The proud Indo-Aryan!! This one's for you.
But why did I talk of AMT (aryan migration theory)??
Well there is a stage,somewhere around 900BC, in Sindhu-Saraswati civilisation which happened after a period of desertion, a time period which is usually associated with decline of SSC*. The newcomers who had
migrated to these cities had no knowledge of metallurgy, their houses were not built in conformity to any plan and their tools were primitive (when compared to inhabitants of cities of SSC*).
These ppl I assume were the shepherd Aryans. Completely my assumption!!!
But am not lying about the desertion period and the "newcomers". 
SSC*- Sindhu-Saraswati civilisation
But then archaeologists and anthropologists now reject the old notion of race altogether. To quote from Possehl's book:
“Race as it was used in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has been totally discredited as a useful concept in human biology. [. ..] There is no reason to believe today that there ever was an Aryan race that spoke Indo-European languages and was possessed with a coherent and well-defined set of Aryan or Indo-European cultural features.”
Not enough evidence except to suggest influence was maybe the same. The whole of N.India has no place-names, river-names that are from the "non-Aryan" languages.
Non-Aryan??
So you believe Aryans were the ones to spread the sindhu-saraswati civilisation eastwards?? Did I read it right??
Or are you saying that "Dravidans" were not related to SSC*??
SSC*- sindhu-saraswati civilisation
Well my point was, there's enough evidence down south to prove that inhabitants of SSC* cities had migrated eastwards and southwards.
You recognize these patterns, dont you??
These patterns 're commonly used by the woman down south to make kolams outside their houses.
Starts to get troublesome because vedic history is known to include the Sarasvati's flowing days as well as the time that it was drying up.(the Mahabharata mentions the Sarasvati as a then non-flowing river).
Yes!
But how does that prove there was no migration eastwards???
Recent studies 've increasingly stressed the continuity of Indian civilization from Harappan times in every aspect of life. There is very clear evidence of migration eastwards, like
1) Harappans loved both
mathematics and standardization; for example, the common brick sizes followed a ratio of 1:2:4, which was often found in proportions of rooms, houses, some public buildings. Curiously much of this science and technology survived the urban collapse and resurfaced in the Gangetic cities a thousand years later.
2) Another example that I would like to quote is of the similarities between the cities
Kampilya(in UP) and Dholavira (in Gujarat). Their town planning was exactly the same but the only difference was that Kampilya came 2000 yrs after Dholavira.
This once again proves that the inhabitants of SSC migrated eastwards.
Yes but the Brahui language is dated to more recent times - end of the first millennium beginning of the 2nd millennium A.D..
I read it somewhere that Brahui was the mother of 7000yr old Dravidan languages. I will 've to find the link though (I hope it was not a Pakistani site.Lol )
