@thltd_: In 2015 geneticists proved tha...

In 2015 geneticists proved that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Europe, had light skin, and were most closely related to modern Northern Europeans. Since then, academics (including the people who originally made the discovery) have scrambled to disprove this any way they can.

OP's study is without a doubt the worst paper ever published in Indo-European studies. It's so bad that even the authors of the terrible paper they cite as genetic "evidence" (see:

View Tweet

) are saying "I think you went a little too crazy here, folks."

To "prove" the Proto-Indo-Europeans were Middle Eastern, these libtards are arguing against 100+ years of linguistic, historical, and archaeological evidence while ignoring all modern genetic evidence except the one (suspect) study that agrees with them. And even with that study

they just ignored the parts that they didn't like. There's too much insane stuff in this paper to list it all but here's a few examples:

- Their dates don't match longstanding consensus, e.g. they claim Late PIE Corded Ware had already diverged into different European languages.

- Iran, BMAC, and Indus Valley Civilization spoke IE languages (again, already diverged) that came from the Fertile Crescent, totally ignoring all genetic and archaeological evidence, and that we already know what languages people spoke in all of these regions (not IE languages).

- Greek, Albanian, Armenian are archaic PIE languages that also came from Fertile Crescent. Again totally ignoring genetic and cultural links to the steppe-based post-Yamnaya 'Catacomb Culture' and all preexisting linguistic evidence. Albanians in 5000 BC Mesopotamia, ridiculous.

The Southern Arc genetic study that posited the "Indo-Anatolian" theory was already bad, but this paper is a disaster. The only reason it got published is because scientific journals are run by ideologically-driven libtards who are obsessed with "diversifying" history.