That makes no sense. I understand not wanting to take the article at face value, but the link provided doesn't exactly provide any details of their study either.
> How am I supposed to trust that it's not pseudohistory as well?
Because this part of the article is actually verifiable history. The Atharva Veda exists and available to grok.
The science part is up for debate. You can still read an article for its other merits
> How am I supposed to trust that it's not pseudohistory as well?
Because this part of the article is actually verifiable history. The Atharva Veda exists and available to grok. The science part is up for debate. You can still read an article for its other merits