Jean-François Jarrige
None of the transformations can be explained in the context of invasions of semi-nomadic peoples coming from the Central Asian steppes. … How could this series of transformations be seriously attributed to Indo-Aryan invaders? … Nothing, in the present state of archaeological research … enables us to reconstruct convincingly invasions that could be clearly attributed to Aryan groups.
Nothing, in the present state of archaeological research ... enables us to reconstruct convincingly invasions that could be clearly attributed to Aryan groups.
About Jhukar phase
The migration of these [seminomadic] groups [coming from central Asia] would sometimes be traced on maps based on the accidental discovery of certain types of artifacts—principally metal objects and seals—which could be stylistically associated with the Hissar III C complex.
Thus most of these finds must be interpreted in the context of international exchange covering the whole of the Middle East and cannot be interpreted as reflecting the invasion of pastoralists in the mid-2nd millennium BC (42).
a problem which is further complicated when, by attempting to harmonize the archaeological data with philological arguments, people have developed the habit of attributing to the Jhukar culture all discoveries amenable of offering some correlation with the Iranian world and Central Asia" (263).
Just the opposite of that which has been presumed on the basis of negative evidence (46).