UNREASON AND ARCHAEOLOGY ; the other/in the LH/PGW Overlap (IB); and this particularly satisfies him for "'The Satpatha Brahmana also mentions two floods" (Excavation at tihagwanpura, p.21). So the LH/PGW, overlap with its bottom-line imagined at 1000 B.C. (as against 484 BC by TL dating) becomes late Vedic, just as the PGW period at Hastinapur, set in similar indifference to 14C-dating, has been recognised by Lal and his followers as belonging to the "Epic Period", that is, 'the Mahabharata Age*. All this has served as a prelude to the Aryan appropriation of the Indus culture, which has increasingly become a preoccupation with many Indian archaeologists, with S.R. Rao in the van. Already ir\ the Hastinapur Report, pJ51n, Lal had fired a salvo against Wheeler^or his famous suggestion that the 'Cemetery-H' people had immediately followed and, therefore, probably supplanted Harappan/ culture. Assuming the people of Cemetery H to be Aryans, Wheeler had pronounced the judgement on the guilt for the destruction of the Indus ciritization: "Indra stands accused" (Ancient India, 3 (1947), p.82). In view of Wheeler's clear report on the relationship between Harappan Cemetery R37 and Cemetery H on p.85, describing the gap as consisting of potsherds^ debris, etc., LaPs assertion of a large time-gap between the two cemeteries was hardly well taken (cf. Gordon, Prehistoric Background, p.83). So was his assertion that Cemetery-H pottery is not found in the Sarasvati valley (p. 15In.) and so its users could not be Aryans. But the pottery has in fact been found at Mitathal as well as Bhagwanpura. At the latter site it is found in both 'Late Harappan' and 'LH/PGW Overlap* phases (Excavations at Bhagwanpura, pp.17,23,45,47). Seeing that at Bhagwanpura in the , overlap phase, PGW at the various layers ranges from a mere .09% to .49% of the pottery (ibid, p.47), it is to be considered whether on account of a similar or more significant presence of Cemetery-H pottery, much of what goes by the name 'Late Harappan' on the Indian side of the international border should not be identified with the 'Cemetery-H culture' on the Pakistan side (See Bridget and Raymond Allchin, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge, 1983, pp.251-2). Despite the urgings of the Allchins and others, enquiry into links with the Cemetery-H culture does not seem to be pursued with any seriousness by official archaeology, perhaps because with the kind of linguistic and archaeological evidence summarized by R.S. Sharma, Looking for the Aryans, Hyderabad, 1995, and by J. Harmatta in UNESCO's History of Civilizations of Central Asia, I, pp.357-78, about Indo-Aryan language shifts and migrations, such enquiry may lead to a Cemetery-H appropriation of the Aryans! How undesirable, indeed, the culture of Cemetery-H and its possible affiliations look to mainstream archaeology can be judged from the contribution of a former Joint-Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, published in the JTimes of India, 5 June 1996, p. 10, under ^thc heading Invasion Invention'. As an