STEPPED.com

I am quite skeptical about anything anyone claims about Central Asia for a number of reasons:

• Much of this is still based on pseudoscience like linguistics in turn has its basis in German Romanticism and their desire to find an excuse to invade Denmark in the 1800s. Or archaeology, which is not a science. It's a branch of art history.

• Radiocarbon dating of the recent past is way more of an art than a science. I stumbled across a research paper once where somebody was seriously doing it and there's an astonishing number of complications: Was the material ever immersed in water, what season was it (carbon-14 levels change between seasons)? How do you know the sample isn't contaminated? (It's usual practice to just discard results they don't like.)

• Most importantly: This misses a basic understanding of how the world works. You can't neurodivergently try to put everyone on the Eurasian steppe in 3000 BC into these simple categories. These people were marrying each other all the time. (I mean have you seen some of these Central Asian chicks?) You have to be literally r-slurred to not understand that by 3000 BC so much mixing has gone on that these people have no relation to any groups recognized in historical times.

!historychads Either butter me up telling me I'm really smart or start a fight with me. As long as it's attention, I don't care.