“Any acceptance that all this was the handiwork of Indo-Aryans will entail abandoning certain stereotypes such as that the Indo-Aryans knew no urban centers or temples and that the failure of archaeologists to uncover horse bones equals the real-life absence of horses in a society. Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky disagree with Sarianidi concerning the external origin (from southeastern Iran) of the BMAC, preferring to consider it "the development of a new type of social structure within an ongoing culture, rather than migration or invasion" (Hiebert 1995, 200). This position has been accepted by Tosi (1988), albeit in conjunction with a "massive immigration of external elements" (62). Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky note that there is no site in southeastern Iran providing any evidence for such a claim, and that any BMAC material found on sites from that area is intrusive in nature. In other words, if there is a movement, it is from east to west. These scholars are prepared to consider, however, that the BMAC culture is Indo-Aryan. Of particular relevance is the intrusion of burial assemblages with artifacts typical of the BMAC culture into the Iranian plateau and the western borders of the Indus Valley in the sites of Mehrgarh VII and Sibri in Baluchistan, which "may be correlated with the introduction of the Indo-European language" (Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992, 1).”