The archaeological and the anthropological evidences, represented by the various culture- groups of the second millennium B.C., are inconsistent with the philological evidence. Even the archaeological and anthropological evidences have been found to vary from region to region—Anatolia, northern Iraq, northern Iran, Soviet Central Russia, Swat valley and Gandhara region or Pakistan and Ganga-Yamuna doab. . . . It is obvious, therefore, that there was no single culture associated with the Aryans in all these regions. . . . Are we to assume that the Aryans were migrants with no defined culture but with adherence to a linguistic equipment?

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "The archaeological and the anthropological evidences, represented by the various culture- groups of the second millennium B.C., are inconsistent with the philological evidence. Even the archaeological and anthropological evidences have been found to vary from region to region—Anatolia, northern Iraq, northern Iran, Soviet Central Russia, Swat valley and Gandhara region or Pakistan and Ganga-Yamuna doab. . . . It is obvious, therefore, that there was no single culture associated with the Aryans in all these regions. . . . Are we to assume that the Aryans were migrants with no defined culture but with adherence to a linguistic equipment?" in the context of "B. K. Thapar (1970), 160, in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 10" to mean that wisdom is timeless.