It's actually simple, no one wastes so much time on digging a 2000 to 3000 bc evidence to attack the roots of Hindu beliefs other than the one who has a personal agenda attached to it. Did the author actually an archaeologist and dug the proof himself? Or he's merely mentioning some remote to unknown evidence only he magically came across when the whole world is believing the opposite till now?1
In the article, the author clearly provides clickable references in the form of hyperlinked text. I don't think he claims "he dug the proof himself".
- in which the last paragraphs clearly highlights his intentions.
That's called academic skepticism. Maybe you're unfamiliar with it.
I understand that & I did that too for my dissertation, but the author made some sarcastic and furious wording in the last paragraphs in his old article giving a unambiguous peeking into his actual intentions on his view of people whose beliefs he's attacking.
I think you're reading way too much into this. If the author has an opinion on the subject that doesn't mean they're wrong. You can be completely correct and also a dick.