"A great difficulty is the fact that archaeology offers no firm evidence either for the Aryan invasion theory or for the Aryan emigration theory, or even for the historically attested multiple later immigrations or invasions into South Asia - at least if we restrict ourselves to the evidence of skeletal types and general cultural tradition. As already indicated earlier, invasions of this kind probably do not leave the kind of traces that traditional archaeology would expect. (246)... We can therefore conclude that the Aryan invasion theory is preferable to the emigration theory. But this conclusion is only valid as long as our knowledge of Indo-European culture and expansion or of the Indus culture remains unchanged... If, on the basis of this decipherment, the language of the Indus culture should clearly prove to be Indo-Aryan, then our conclusion would of course have to be revised fundamentally. (246-7)... All existing interpretations of the early and prehistory of South Asia are at best scientific hypotheses, hypotheses that differ only in their degree of probability. In view of the often tense political situation in India with regard to the Hindutva and Dravida self-image, it is in my opinion appropriate to remember the hypothetical nature of these hypotheses. There is no such thing as complete certainty and there cannot be. Why should people then be hostile, heretical or even beat each other up over these hypotheses? (247)"