Since it is the necessity of such a migration which is the ultimate argument of its advocates, this can no more be regarded as conclusive.

Cleuziou expresses frustration that the appearance of the grayware is typically accepted as heralding Indo-European invaders (with some scholars promoting an eastern movement, others a western movement, and still others a movement in both directions), and then its disappearance is also considered to be due to Indo-European invaders! He echoes objections to such reconstructions that are by now quite standard: "Migrationists consider that movement of people is responsible for the movement of pottery assemblages, and they think that it suffices to demonstrate that potteries have moved to demonstrate the migrations" (Cleziou 1986, 244). He notes that no one has yet come up with an archaeological origin for these hypothetical Grayware people. This "remains a challenge for the advocates of the migratory hypothesis" and prohibits confirmation of "the hypothetical reconstructions of philologists" (232-233). As far as he is concerned, "No migration from outside is necessary to explain its [the

(Cleziou 1986, 236).in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 10 | Cleuziou, Serge. 1986. "Tureng Tepe and Burnished Grey Ware: A Question of 'Frontier'?" Oriens Antiquus 25:221 -256.