Quite frankly, Harvard and the Max Planck scholars appear to be also obsessed with PIE and IE since they spent a lot of time and effort to prove or disprove the Steppe as the Urheimat of the PIE. Hence we get one genetic paper about the PIE and IE after the other. For instance, I‘m still waiting for a major genetic study on the Ancient Egyptians, Italic folks, Classical Greeks, Southern Mesopotamians, etc. I'd like to see Ancient DNA evidence for the original homeland of Proto-Afro-Asiatic for a change.
It's true that many members in the archaeogenetic community that are Northern or Eastern Europeans are emotionally very much attached to the Steppe folks. However, Indians and even some Iranians and Southern Europeans appear to be fixated on or infatuated with the PIE, and IE too.
The only Southern Europeans I've ever seen, and they are few, who are emotionally attached to the issue are pseudo Nazis who hate their own people, and so no longer count as Southern Europeans as far as I'm concerned. As for the Italians among them, I don't know them, or want to know them. If or when I discover that an Italian on the internet has those kinds of beliefs I cut them off.
Of course, the whole thing is an absurdity. Italians, certainly north and central Italians like me, are about 25% steppe and some southerners are close to that. My dad carried U-152, and my mother U2e. I don't hate the steppe people, as they're a part of me, but I don't give a damn that northerners might be 50% steppe. Anyone who does is an idiot, imo. Nor, to be clear, do I think their arrival was a good thing for Europe. I'm always for the civilized core, never the barbarians from the periphery. That's the case even if it turns out to be true that some of the mercenaries who might have brought down Bronze Age Greece were from Italy. I don't play those kinds of games with ethnicity. Principles come first.
As for Reich, you obviously don't pay much attention to the many papers on which he has worked which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the origin of IE.
People often note only the things in which they themselves are interested. I post papers on Near Eastern Genetics, African genetics, Native American genetics etc. It all interests me, although of course I'm particularly interested in Italian genetics. I've studied Italian history and pre-history for decades. That naturally led to an interest in genetics to help explain that pre-history. Doesn't mean I would compromise my integrity out of some agenda. I've spent my life searching for verifiable proof and holding myself to the highest standards of logic and objectivity. I'm not going to change my methods or morality just because Italy is involved.
That said, yes of course, his Lab would like to solve the puzzle. It's interesting. It doesn't mean he gives a damn what the data shows. Someone who disagrees with you doesn't necessarily do so out of some agenda. When people do that it's glaringly obvious, because the data doesn't support them. When someone keeps being proven wrong by new data it should tell you their predictions stem from what they wish to be true, not to what the data is hinting.
I once told Polako, when he came here spoiling for a fight and got his hat handed to him, that his mistakes would fill the pages of an old fashioned telephone directory for a small city. He's only gotten worse with time. I, on the other hand, if I may toot my own horn for a moment, have a pretty damn good record, which you would know if you had come here occasionally instead of always listening to the "click" on anthrogenica and eurogenes.com.
As for Indians, the only Indian who loves them, to my knowledge, is Razib Khan. It's one of the reasons I unsubscribed from his substack. Writing a paper about their influence in India doesn't mean someone has an emotional attachment to that ancestry. The emotional reaction I see is the hatred most Indians who express an opinion have of the whole idea.
