Upcoming paper on Balkan Neolithic

[Angela]

This is the ASHG conference (October) abstract of a new paper on ancient dna from the Balkan Neolithic from the Reich group. Again, we will be in for some surprises.

Genome-wide ancient DNA from Europe’s first encounter of farmers and hunter-gatherers. Mathieson et al


https://ep70.eventpilot.us/web/page....6&id=160122024

"Abstract:
The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region.

We generated new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. The population admixture was patchy across both space and time, varying in magnitude between 0% and 30% for different early Balkan farming populations. The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

We also analyze the data to generate new insights about natural selection. The first farmers of the Balkans were in the initial stages of adaptation to environments that were dramatically different from those that their ancestors had encountered. We show that many of the adaptations related to diet and immunity that later become common in Europe were already present in early Balkan farmer populations, but not at high frequency. Thus, the adaptation of the first European farmers to their local environment was driven to a substantial extent by pre-existing variantion.



So, these hunter-gatherers were related to EHG and SHG? I wonder what yDna they carried?

Why wouldn't most Europeans have ancestry from this admixture event? Did the main EEF group just move on into central and northern Europe? Did the admixed group die out? Or is it that the very first wave of farmers wasn't very successful and it's a later wave(s) from which Europeans are descended?

They're not saying no ancestry, so it wasn't a wipe out, but our understanding of this process was obviously too simple.

[berun]

I dont' understand the logics behind such statement, maybe reading the paper I will, but now it is quite logic that if the Balkan farmers mixed with Balkan HG, let's say to 10%, when they spread to the north and the west they would mix again there, getting a major percent of admixture.

[bicicleur]

They don't say those Balkan HG had other Y-DNA than 'modern European HG DNA', but at least different autosomal.
But mayby these Balkan HG descend from the Anatolians who brougth obsidian from Melos and seeds from Anatolia to the Peloponesos 13 ka, 1000 year after the Villabruna people. Them my guess would be G2a2.
I hope they have DNA from the Danube Gorge HG with their strange huts and plastered floors and their fish-Gods

My guess is that there were 2 waves of neolithisation into Europe. The first wave did not get any further then LBK and Carded/Impressed Ware.
They were replaced by a 2nd wave getting as far as the British Isles, TRB and Cucuteni-Tripolye.

But it is better to wait and see what the paper will say.

[Angela]

How could hunter-gatherers from Anatolia with G2a be "related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe", though.

It's very confusing.

Someone just told me that Eurogenes says it might be R1b and claims Villabruna, who was also R1b, had evidence of that ancestry.

Villabruna is sort of THE hunter-gatherer template for the hunter-gatherers in central Europe who admixed with the farmers, isn't he? He and Bichon from Switzerland? Maybe I haven't followed this enough, lately, but wasn't the "eastern" ancestry in the other WHG, not Villabruna, or not as much in Villabruna?

After Villabruna, I did sort of think R1b might be in the Balkan hunter-gatherers, but now with them saying they're not very related to WHG, I don't know.

[Maciamo]

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna. The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.

[berun]

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

If the question is about atosomals and not about percentages I don't see also the problem. If the farmer expansion was quick with not enough time to mix too much with Balkan HG of course the admixture of the north and western farmers would be different (if the local HG had different autosomals)

[bicicleur]

If the question is about atosomals and not about percentages I don't see also the problem. If the farmer expansion was quick with not enough time to mix too much with Balkan HG of course the admixture of the north and western farmers would be different (if the local HG had different autosomals)

there was a lot of time to mix with HG during Kris-Starcevo-Körös period when the Carpathian Basin was not densely popultated by farmers
furthermore the Danube Gorge HG had intense trading relations with the neolithic tribes from the Aegean and took farmers daughters as theri wives

[bicicleur]

but aren't Europeans supposed to be a WHG - EEF - ANE mixture
and isn't EEF Stutgart LBK who came from the Balkans?

[Angela]

but aren't Europeans supposed to be a WHG - EEF - ANE mixture
and isn't EEF Stutgart LBK who came from the Balkans?

Yes, exactly. The EEF is based on Stuttgart, and the WHG data originally was Loschbour, if I remember correctly. Villabruna is also WHG. He and Bichon are the most alike, again, if I remember correctly, but they are in the same group as Loschbour.

The hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, around the Danube Gates, are of a different type, related to Scandinavian and Eastern European foragers, and yet we're not descended from them.

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Perhaps this is just badly worded, but that would seem to mean they can't be all that related to the EHG and SHG, or how could the authors say that we're not descended from them. After all, we're descended from the EHG.

They don't seem to be saying that the first farmers didn't contribute to Northern and Western Europeans even if there were succeeding waves, but that those particular hunter-gatherers didn't contribute much to modern Europeans.

I think I remember things from the "modelers" where the best hunter-gatherer for the mixture in the MN people of Central and northwestern Europe was the Koros hunter-gatherer.

That still leaves the open question of what happened to that mixed group?

You know, perhaps it does have something to do with the steppe people. They may have moved into parts of the Balkans early, although the Baden results tell us that they did not make it into Central Europe in the Copper Age. Perhaps they wiped out all the MN groups in the Balkans? Their culture, helped by the plague, might have been able to accomplish it, yes? The Central European MN people might have survived better because the waves reached them later?

Otherwise, since descent from the admixed farmer culture in that area would necessitate admixture from these hunter-gatherers, why don't we get any of their genes?

[berun]

@bicicleur
Do you know demographics for such area and period? If per example there was one HG for 100 farmers... it would be necessary a lot of time to reach per example a 10% admixture. Instead, in north Europe HG demography was "high" thanks to the maritime resources.

[bicicleur]

berun,
afaik there were practically no mesolithic HG south of the Danube, except in coastal areas
but the Carpathian Basin was populated by HG
for farmers, I have my info from the book 'Europe between the oceans' by Barry Cunliffe
contrary to LBK, in the Carpathian Basin farmers lived just in a few remote floodplains and apart from farming they were also engaged in hunting and fishing, their economy was mixed
there was lots of empty space in between the farmer settlements

[berun]

If south of the Danube was almost devoid of HG it would explain a scanty admixture there and provide a reason for the difference in regional admixtures. The Carpatian Bassin is much like the Pannonian steppe, few natural resorces, so also HG would have even less presence.

[Yetos]

Ha?

[A. Papadimitriou]

Yes, exactly. The EEF is based on Stuttgart, and the WHG data originally was Loschbour, if I remember correctly. Villabruna is also WHG. He and Bichon are the most alike, again, if I remember correctly, but they are in the same group as Loschbour.

The hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, around the Danube Gates, are of a different type, related to Scandinavian and Eastern European foragers, and yet we're not descended from them.

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Perhaps this is just badly worded, but that would seem to mean they can't be all that related to the EHG and SHG, or how could the authors say that we're not descended from them. After all, we're descended from the EHG.

They don't seem to be saying that the first farmers didn't contribute to Northern and Western Europeans even if there were succeeding waves, but that those particular hunter-gatherers didn't contribute much to modern Europeans.

I think I remember things from the "modelers" where the best hunter-gatherer for the mixture in the MN people of Central and northwestern Europe was the Koros hunter-gatherer.

That still leaves the open question of what happened to that mixed group?

You know, perhaps it does have something to do with the steppe people. They may have moved into parts of the Balkans early, although the Baden results tell us that they did not make it into Central Europe in the Copper Age. Perhaps they wiped out all the MN groups in the Balkans? Their culture, helped by the plague, might have been able to accomplish it, yes? The Central European MN people might have survived better because the waves reached them later?

Otherwise, since descent from the admixed farmer culture in that area would necessitate admixture from these hunter-gatherers, why don't we get any of their genes?

It says that the farmers who contributed most of the migrants to Northern and Western Europe were not mixed substantially with the local Balkan HGs.
The farmers who contributed to the rest of the Europe may haven been admixed with them though.

[Tomenable]

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

[bicicleur]

If south of the Danube was almost devoid of HG it would explain a scanty admixture there and provide a reason for the difference in regional admixtures. The Carpatian Bassin is much like the Pannonian steppe, few natural resorces, so also HG would have even less presence.

only 1 mesolithic site south of the Danube is known, and it is inland from Varna in Bulgaria
all other sites are in Greece or coastal Albania or furhter north along the Dalmatian coast

[bicicleur]

^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

Globular Amphora could be Cucuteni-derived, but I don't think TRB or British neolithic or Fraench Chasséen.
A possibility is a common source fro all 4 of these neolithic groups.

[holderlin]

[/B]This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna. The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.

More and more signs pointing to early departure of European IE lineages.

[holderlin]

^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

[/B]This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna. The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.

Yep, look closely at the archaeology of Bug-Dniester and Sredny Stog in relation to their Western Neighbors. It fits perfectly.

[halfalp]

And if, R1b was just the original european farmer... Later replaced by G, coming from North Iran or Far East Anatolia, with the modern distribution of G1 and G2 i never believe that G haplogroup was in a goulot d'étranglement in anatolia... R1b Epipaleolithc / Mesolithic balkans and west asia minor, can have take farming for G East Anatolia.

[Angela]

And if, R1b was just the original european farmer... Later replaced by G, coming from North Iran or Far East Anatolia, with the modern distribution of G1 and G2 i never believe that G haplogroup was in a goulot d'étranglement in anatolia... R1b Epipaleolithc / Mesolithic balkans and west asia minor, can have take farming for G East Anatolia.

No R1b Neolithic farmers have been discovered in the Near East to date, although I would expect that at some point an R1b V88 farmer or herder should show up. There's a typically Neolithic farmer R1b sample in Iberia as well.

However, people on this Board are primarily discussing the downstream clades of R1b, and preferably of the P312 variety when they're talking about tracking it to steppe groups.

That does seem the best bet at present, although it may have happened before the movement of the Yamnaya "eastern" clades.

However, all this certainty is misplaced in my opinion. This is all highly speculative.

[halfalp]

No but, if the EHG component of R1b is in fact primary farmers or herders from balkans who is going in the steppe with Bug-Dniester herding culture and Khvalynsk / Samara herders pushing by the second wave of the Danubian Neolithic, like we dont really know exactly how the neolithic scheme work, maybe that the first farmers / herders were quite nomadics. In mouvement of population, and haplogroups, we always seen an origin and a replacement, like r1a and r1b must have being somehwat neighbourg, like O and N where, or R and Q, I in europe and J in eastern europe / caucasus L and T... How can G following H, wich is found in india, being in anatolia and R1b in actual armenia, like, its just dont have any sens. Its more plausible that G is originaly iranian marker, and follow migrations from other tribes, make is road in mesopotamia / anatolia.

[halfalp]

Like just think about that, We've got the Villabruna cluster, epipaleolithic wich is correlate with the epigravettian, epigravettian is an central, eastern perhaps circum-black sea cultural component. This guy is R1b, so you all think R1b was in Iran / Armenia in neolithic, and so what, was in afghanistan in paleolithic ? LUL, And so this R1b found in North Italia, manage to make is way among different population and component from Afghanistan / Iran in paleolithic, arrived in central europe and become an 100% WHG... That paper and the previous about the Villabruna cluster, just tell us that coming from the steppe, R1b is become a south circum black sea component comprise in Blakans, Asia minor, perhaps heaven transcaucasus. So, now, weve got the Danubian Neolithic, that we know was exclusively G2a. The only explanation is that, G2a farmer coming from middle east / north iran replaced, R1b Asia minor and Balkans culture, wich go on the steppe and replaced R1a further north. Maybe r1b people already had little farming experience when they coming to the steppe. + Those south european but already continental climat, people, who early take from their middle eastern neighbourg farming, can be the perfect reason from an early skin and hair mutation who's gonna give lightning mutation after.

[LeBrok]

^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

You go where your heart wants to lead you, and not your brain.

I mentioned few times that the perfect North European farmer came from mixture of Neolithic Farmer with hunter gatherers (EHG) somewhere in West Yamnaya. They could farm and produce a lot of food and they could hunt to supplement their diet when climate cooled down. That only goes for Northern Europe as South remained in better climatic condition and was always heavily populated by Farmers. South was never depopulated not allowing IE newcomers to conquer it quickly, but the North was. CW success was based on this, the excellent genetic mix for farming/hunting in North and depopulation of Neolithic Farmers during cold spells. Looking at genetics of today's Northern Europeans, I think the mixing was 3 to 1. For 3 IE newcomers to 1 Neolithic Farmer. The scale of mixing must have been similar to NW Europe too.

I don't think Cucuteni were heavily mixed with hunter gatherers. If they were they would have survived the failed corps spell and we would have seen their cultural achievements to continue. It might be a case that very Northern Cucuteni mixed enough with EHG to survive and create a new culture of IE type. However, most likely CW was from somewhere in NW Yamnaya. Very heavy in EHG and R1a and low on farmer gene.

If Cucuteni indeed would have turned to be heavily mixed with hunter gatherers, I would think it was the R1b type, and coming late from South West Yamnaya. Or somehow Cucuteni farmers got "infected" with neighboring R1b subclades, which spread to high proportions through couple of thousand of years, in spite of low hunter gatherer admixture. There was enough time for this to happen.

[holderlin]

You go where your heart wants to lead you, and not your brain.
I mentioned few times that the perfect North European farmer came from mixture of Neolithic Farmer with hunter gatherers (EHG) somewhere in West Yamnaya. They could farm and produce a lot of food and they could hunt to supplement their diet when climate cooled down. That only goes for Northern Europe as South remained in better climatic condition and was always heavily populated by Farmers. South was never depopulated not allowing IE newcomers to conquer it quickly, but the North was. CW success was based on this, the excellent genetic mix for farming/hunting in North and depopulation of Neolithic Farmers during cold spells. Looking at genetics of today's Northern Europeans, I think the mixing was 3 to 1. For 3 IE newcomers to 1 Neolithic Farmer. The scale of mixing must have been similar to NW Europe too.

I don't think Cucuteni were heavily mixed with hunter gatherers. If they were they would have survived the failed corps spell and we would have seen their cultural achievements to continue. It might be a case that very Northern Cucuteni mixed enough with EHG to survive and create a new culture of IE type. However, most likely CW was from somewhere in NW Yamnaya. Very heavy in EHG and R1a and low on farmer gene.

If Cucuteni indeed would have turned to be heavily mixed with hunter gatherers, I would think it was the R1b type, and coming late from South West Yamnaya. Or somehow Cucuteni farmers got "infected" with neighboring R1b subclades, which spread to high proportions through couple of thousand of years, in spite of low hunter gatherer admixture. There was enough time for this to happen.

I don't know how you think that your sweeping conclusions are any more valid than Tomenable's.