Teal people found: Caucasians!

[epoch]

Very true. What man doesn't want his ancestors to be badass horse riding warriors and random hot women they threw onto their horse? Tomenable doesn't do this though.

Count the percentage of women that post on genetic-forums and how often when talking about ancestors the women are mentioned? And think about it, you never read about Yamnaya women. To be honest when I think of Anatolia Neolithic or WHG or Yamnaya or Sumerians or whatever, I never think of women.

I do.

There appears to be a difference between people who came to enjoy the scientific field of paleogenetics to track their Y-DNA and those that jumped in out of love of archaeology. I am the latter. I remember how hard it was for archaeologists to be able to say something about the peoples related to their finds. To me this is an unbelievable trip: We can now see who those people were. And that goes so much farther than PIE: There seems to be a 10% admixture in Denisova that suggests it was split off 1.5 million years ago. That can't hardly be anything else but Homo Erectus or possibly Homo Antecessor. In either case we can now see for a million years.

So currently I don't care all that much about my Y-DNA: I don't even know it. And thus I do take note of the women.

 

[Tomenable]

Love that logic of Tomenable and yours. J could have been native to many places because it is so old. But R1a or R1b couldn't have been so widespred because R1a1 and R1b1 (not even basal R1a and R1b) was found in Karelia?

R1a is a very old haplogroup - formed 20,000 years BC, TMRCA 15,700 BC.

But 99% of all people alive today with R1a, belong to young M198/M417 subclade (formed 6,000 BC TMRCA 3,500 BC per YFull).

Only 1% of R1a belongs to all other subclades which are not under M198/M417.

This is also the case with a few other haplogroups, such as of course R1b.

A few very successful lineages fathered so many children, while most of other lineages fathered a few or got extinct entirely.

In times of Khvalynsk culture some of those lineages of R1a and R1b could be represented by just ONE INDIVIDUAL MALE each.

Only later those males became chieftains of SOME groups of Indo-Europeans, and fathered most of children in those groups.

 

[Rethel]

Let's better come back to discussing Teal people.

How and when did those genes (or peoples) enter the steppe.

To me it looks like a steady gene flow, not like some rapid immigration.

1) Samara HG sample (5650-5555 BC) had ~0% Teal admixture,
2) Khvalynsk samples (4700-4000 BC) had ~25% Teal admixture,
3) Yamnaya_Samara (3340-2620 BC) had ~48% Teal admixture,

Between 1) and 2) there were 1250 years, between 2) and 3) some 1370 years.

This means that Teal admixture was increasing by 1% every 50-60 years.

So it was increasing by 0,5% every single generation (on average).

This looks like a steady gene flow, if it was indeed such a "fluent" process.

So I would prefer in this case female theory
Male theory would have sense only in Samara
and early-Chwałyńsk period.

 

[Tomenable]

Rethel,

As I wrote I would like to see if there was EHG admixture among "Teal people".

Because it could be bride exchanging, and EHGs could be becoming Teal-admixed, while Teals could be becoming EHG-admixed.

It was not necessarily a one-sided gene flow Teal -> EHG without any backflow.

Modern inhabitants of Caucasus are definitely admixed by people from the north of Caucasus (and by those from the south too).

 

[Tomenable]

J could have been native to many places because it is so old.

It seems that Karelian J was J1(xJ1a) and Georgian J was J1b - both are very rare today:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...rasians-data-analysis-(Mathieson-Reich-Haak-)

 

[Rethel]

This isn't the first time we've discussed this issue. It all depends on how you are defining the term "Indo-Europeans", doesn't it? I was talking about the "Indo-European" culture which developed on the steppe per Anthony and Mallory in the period from about 4200 BC to 3000 BC. after they had adopted animal herding, agriculture, copper metallurgy etc. as the lexicon of their language would indicate.

So you should define your terminology.

Indoeuropeans - BIG capital first letter "I", and plural - means PEOPLE. And I mean always that - as probably 90% of people.

indoeuropean (adj) culture - it is a culture. some Indoeuropeans lived in that culture, some not, and some not-Indeuropeans could lived in that culture. Japanese in USA (and in Japan also) lived in western or even american culture, but they are not Americans. Some Khoisa in SAR are living in western/american/british culture but it not makes them Afrikanes, British or Americans.

proto-indoeuropean (adj) language - it is language. Some Indoeuropeans are speking that language, some not. Some not Indoeuropeans are speaking that language. Negros in subsaharian Africa are usually speaking in english. In Nigeria is even a community, for which english is the first language. But this not make them Englishmen - or maybe makes? By definition of some people here, it makes them Englishmen. This is absurd.

But for you, this is an agenda and racism
So you must be incoherant so you are talking about something els, than someone else.

The people to the north of them, who developed into the Corded Ware people, were not "Indo-Europeans" in that cultural sense even if they were related to them genetically. Certainly the forest steppe people didn't possess any of the hallmarks of that culture.

So culturally they were cordeds and yamna. Why do you need make only one of them Indoeuropeans?

I live in a different culture than some guy from Bosna, but it not mean, that we are not Slaves.
Ba! I live in totaly different culture than Goral, Silesian or Kashub, but it not mean thet they are
not Poles. Differences are even bigger than difference between you and me.

So, corded and yanmna they can be both indoeuropean and created by Indoeuropeans.

To be an Indoeuropean it is not a matter of a shape of some beaker!!!

If you push the definition back in time to include fisher hunters living in some yurt or cave without any of those developments then the term loses all meaning, in my opinion. These hunters contributed their genes to the "Indo-Europeans", but they were not yet Indo-Europeans. At least that's how I see it.

Arent they still the same people?
Did Leonardo da Vinci is different nation than you? etrified:
Did your paternal grandpaaaaaa from XIII century
wasn't from the same house than you are? etrified:

I also must ask, have you lost your sense of irony, Tomenable? All of your many posts could be interpreted to be an attempt to prove that the Indo-Europeans were "pure" EHG

The first could be. But it doesn;t matter so much, becasue this whole persentages
don't even guarantee how guy looks like... so this is only a mater for showing how
different population were infuencing on each other... thats all... and I am affraind
that even point of defaine autisinak mixture is totaly coincidental, like east, west.

whose closest living descendants, and therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs. Of course, there's that bothersome "teal" component, but apparently if it was acquired through wife stealing it's acceptable, but if some R1b "teal" men brought it, it's not. Do I have that right?

Because this is the whole point!

(Of course if someone do not want change the thing to fit to himself. This is the reasn why I am
censecuently difaining IEa as R1 even if he will be a nego, because as you tataly rightly mention
the whole point is in patrylinear heritage, not in percentage of aDNA. But if you want to cultivate
some kind of genetical/rasist usurpers, then still claim that only you have not agenda, and define
ethnicity by language, beakers and percentage of aDNA, to argue, who is more whiter than white)

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a lot of people interested in and discussing this topic are influenced by some sort of "ethnic" agenda.

Because this is a natural goal, and it is not bad, if is not depending on selfwishes.
Your proposing of lacking any agenda and abcense of clear rules who is who in the
result are giving not only false agenda, but also stupid fights abaut who is cleaner.
It has no sense at all... but your misinformational attitude to further this behavior.
Maybe you not see this, but this is as it is...

More worrisome for me is the fact that posters seem to be claiming as an authority on matters anthropological a notorious racist of who knows what academic background, if any, (is he in prison, btw?) and proudly claiming as well an eight year long association with him. Really? How disappointing.

For you and Le, everyone is a rasyct exept you both

 

[Rethel]

I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

No, from more than 150 years it isn't.
You know probably lithuanian, but you are not a Lithuanian.
You know english, but you are not Englishman.

So in this case, I must agree with LeBrok.
Partialy - becasue he as always mised the people.
Package is a good idea, but the people must be in
the first place, because without people there is no
language, no culture, no beakers, no IE studies, no
bind feel heritage at all - no sense at all of course.

Only some guys who were fishing and now are dead

Khvalynsk culture is not in the forest steppe, R1a sample from that culture is from the steppe.

But Samara it was in at that time forrest zone?

 

[Angela]

I do.

There appears to be a difference between people who came to enjoy the scientific field of paleogenetics to track their Y-DNA and those that jumped in out of love of archaeology. I am the latter. I remember how hard it was for archaeologists to be able to say something about the peoples related to their finds. To me this is an unbelievable trip: We can now see who those people were. And that goes so much farther than PIE: There seems to be a 10% admixture in Denisova that suggests it was split off 1.5 million years ago. That can't hardly be anything else but Homo Erectus or possibly Homo Antecessor. In either case we can now see for a million years.

So currently I don't care all that much about my Y-DNA: I don't even know it. And thus I do take note of the women.

There's a third group, perhaps the most numerous group, and that's made up of ultra "nationalist" often racialist people with an agenda to prove the superiority of their group because of their closer connection to the "Indo-Europeans". They infest certain anthrofora. The profile seems to be that of a largely male, quite young, and not very socially well adjusted group. Some have tried to go "legit", and prove their claims through some computer savvy, but that is their natural milieu. Their fantasy world seems to be peopled by visions of themselves as Conan the Barbarian or "blonde cowboys" of the steppe. I'm no trained psychiatrist, but I have usually found that the prevalence of that kind of fantasy life is sort of inversely proportional with the actual experience these "men" have with women.

This makes it very difficult for people who indeed were drawn to this topic through their interests in history and archaeology to wade through all the "drek". A certain amount of holding one's nose is often necessary.

Still, there are compensations. I have quite enjoyed watching as ancient dna has steadily but surely shredded all their certainties.

 

[bicicleur 2]

R1a is a very old haplogroup - formed 20,000 years BC, TMRCA 15,700 BC.

But 99% of all people alive today with R1a, belong to young M198/M417 subclade (formed 6,000 BC TMRCA 3,500 BC per YFull).

Only 1% of R1a belongs to all other subclades which are not under M198/M417.

This is also the case with a few other haplogroups, such as of course R1b.

A few very successful lineages fathered so many children, while most of other lineages fathered a few or got extinct entirely.

In times of Khvalynsk culture some of those lineages of R1a and R1b could be represented by just ONE INDIVIDUAL MALE each.

Only later those males became chieftains of SOME groups of Indo-Europeans, and fathered most of children in those groups.

put just 1 healthy male together with just 1 healthy female on planet earth
make sure they have plenty of food, but no condoms of pills
let them have lots of pleasure
within 500 years planet earth will be overpopulated as it is now
if they want to continue the same way they will have to start eliminating each other
that is what happened
you estimated a few posts ago there are only 30 male Khvalynsk lines alive today
I think it is an overestimation

 

[Rethel]

Khvalynsk was not pure EHG but mixed EHG + Teal, and I claimed that Khvalynsk were Proto-Indo-Europeans (as did Gimbutas).By the way - how did you come up with an idea, that Balto-Slavs are the closest living descendants of EHGs ??? Most of EHGs have NO living paternal descendants, because they got nearly extinct (only 1% of R1a in the world is not under M198/M417).

Tomenable, it is not, that they are all dead, some of them of course yes, but others had
simply less sons and grandsons or they were relate in different combination as genetians
think. Did you never see through all this 15 yeras, like "brothers" becoming "fathers" even
"uncles" or "graaandsons" But if is creating to much time, then they must be dead..


Btw, did even 1%o of people were tested? No. From archeological
material probably 1/1000.000 So, everything can yet happend...

And I don't need to remind, that EHGs were both R1a and R1b (see the Samara HG), not just R1a.

Amen.
But not becasue they were supermans like Angela thinks, but becasue
this is a proof for unbelivers who were laughing and banning people for
claiming that R1a and R1b are one and the same tribe.

When I check Fig. 3 from Haak 2015, it shows that Eastern and Northern Euros are autosomally largely descended from Yamnaya.
And Yamnaya were 52% EHG + 48% Teal so we are autosomally largely Teal / Caucasus HG as well, not just EHG.

So this shows me, that aDNA has nothing or not so to
much to do with features, as some people like to think.

Weren't you just underlining the importance of autosomal DNA (compared to Y-DNA) in your last post ??? :wink:

Yes, she was. :cool-v:

Some ethnic groups with high frequency of R1b are at the same time not very much "Steppe" autosomally, indicating that R1b increased to high frequencies due to elite dominance by a small group of steppe males over large native populations.

What is more important for this encreasing in number and making
many new subklades wasnt needed tens of thousands of years.

While Eastern Europeans and some Northern Europeans (like Norwegians) are largely "Steppe" autosomally, so here it was a mass migration rather than just elite dominance with foreign Y-DNA transmitted with local autosomes.

In case of Scandinavia and Germany, there was simply almost replacment.
Small number of locals, and probably decimating some part of them, I guess.
But it was obviuos from long time ago, before autosomal.

Thanks to founder effects, steppe Y-DNA increased in frequency, but autosomal DNA remained mostly local.

Yamnaya autosomal ancestry decreases in Europe as you go from north-east to south-west!

What is funny, it is mostly becasue of R1a.

What glory ??? According to Gimbutas Indo-Europeans were the "bad guys", not the "good guys" !!! :wink:
According to Gimbutas, those evil Indo-Europeans came and ruined the superb Neolithic civilization.
We must accept our heritage with all its glory and all its horror - not just glory alone. :wink:
Not to mention that those IE brutes probably even destroyed the flourishing Indus Valley Civilization.

You must understand, that if someone is living in cospire world were racist are everywhere and everyone who isn't noone and
from nowhere is perseived as a some kind of nazi, he/she will know better than you what you are looking for, and always it'll
be a baaaad things, and you never ever explain, that this is not true or something like that. Even if you would like this glory
of your ancestors - who ever they are - what is wrong with that? etrified: Some people are members of brotherhoods of knights
because they like it, or becasue of that they feel conected whith their medieval forefathers... But someone who is from the
whole planet, and has no ancestors (or has them in some place) will be accusing this people or will try to make them funny.

Problem is, when some one what to be R1, if he isn't. This is a problem, which are supporting by so called
non agenda people - becasue non agenda menas for anotgher people, that I can be, whoever I like to be.

Why is it that everyone wants to be descended from the "bad guys"?

Maybe becasue this is more interesting than doing nothing neighbours of that guys.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

Small numbers of men fathered lots of children, most of men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

this same model could be used to calculate and visualise which haplogroup was most succesfull over time

 

[Rethel]

I have no special attachment to "R1b", Italic or otherwise. I don't even know my father's y dna line, nor do I care. I leave this kind of atavistic nonsense to you guys.

If this is a nonsens why are you occupying yourself by this stuff?

But only becasue of that nonsense, you can know such
things, becasue nonsens was a reason and still is, to begin
making reaserch in this subspace of genetics.

If every haplogroup and every subhaplotype would be
spreding in similar persentage on the whole earth - no
one would be interested in that knoledge - exactly as
no one is interested, about haplogroups of the gen of
the smallest toe on the left leg, and this is the reason
also, why mt are much more useless than Y especially
that there is no certain, that mt is in strait female line.
Also noone is claiming that becasue of his mtDNA he is
someone, becasue with mt is not biding any tradition,
tribe, language or even attitude (as your as example).

I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans.

And this is the reason, why we are talking about Indoeuropeans.
Females don't care, and they never created such thing similar to
Indo-European even in relatuvely smaller size. Why they do not
care? Becasue they must be elastic to fit to the clan of husband.

I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive,

No one (ey least I) is claiming, that everything what IEs did was wonderfull.
This is rather a matter of identity. You cannot be noone... But you cannot
also be someone who you are not. So if some one is I1, he cannot claim that
he is R1, and this who is R1 cannot claim that he is E1. He can be interestet
in that stuff, learn language, culture, aso - but - be - cannot, one of.

and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell.

It was just the most wonderfull thing which IEs could do for humankind!
It was awefull and disguesting civilisation... on the level of pornopeasants.

Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history.

This is evolution in which you claim to belive - as always hypocriticly
Bad civilisations must fall, and on their place must be created better one.

So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.

It really dosn't matter where - it could be even in New Zealand.
I can;t understand, why some want the homland in their place?
Originating of IE in their county doesn't make them Indoeuropeans,
the same, as lthe fact, that neanderthals were living in France,
does not make the Aquitanians a neandertals...

eird combination of "ethnic" or "racialist" ideology combined with macho posturing some of you guys do.

And again... it is really some beg problem for you, becasue you see this everywhere...

As to culture, it's clear to me that other than the domestication of the horse and the marrying of wheeled vehicles and pastoralism, everything else was borrowed either from the Balkans or from Maykop. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually admire the Indo-Europeans for their ability to take technology from other, more advanced cultures, adapt it to their own particular environment and then make further developments on their own.

At least something in wich we can agree...
But if they borrow something, they did better use from this things.
for example Europe borrowed paper and gunpowder from China, and
numerals from India, but europeans made better use from this things.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your own world view, prejudices, agenda, and inability to be objective about history onto other people. I'd also advise using less emotion and more reason when attempting to understand pre-history.

:banghead:

Tomenable is the one, who is very resonable, but not careless like you, and yet to
little focused on his IE identity, what - I hope - he will change after his Y results

early graves were communal,

No, they were rather some kind of cementarym. Communal
burial in gimbuts OE it is amassburial. Cementery - this are
individual graves in close space, but it is not communal mass
burial in one huge pit like in one womb of (tfu) Godess Earth...

Perhaps they hadn't imported enough "Teal" wives yet, with their superior culture?

Perhabs.
But this superior culture was not good enaugh.
Principles are more important than beakers.
IE had better principles, so they won, and
made a good use from this superior beakers.

As for their language, according to Anthony, perhaps by 4,000 BC people in the western steppe tribes were speaking "archaic" dialects of "proto Indo-European" similar to "Anatolian".

They could even speak in some dead language - it does not change the
thing, that they were the same people, whatever language they spoke...

 

[Tomenable]

There's a third group, perhaps the most numerous group, and that's made up of ultra "nationalist" often racialist people with an agenda to prove the superiority of their group because of their closer connection to the "Indo-Europeans". (...)

Are you now talking about yourself and your own group (whatever group you identify with), Angela ???

Because you seem to be claiming that Italians have a closer connection to PIE than Balto-Slavs. Though back in times when it was believed that there is Paleolithic Continuity of R1b in Western Europe, superiority was claimed on the basis on Continuity. So it just shows that if someone wants to claim some sort of superiority, he/she can use any, even just moderately good, excuse to do so.

Another thing is that Indo-Europeans have been romanticized and mythologized to make them look like some supermen. The same applies to Vikings etc., but not to some other conquerors (for example Arabs of Khalid ibn Valid, Turkic warriors or Mongols of Genghis Khan have not been romanticized, at least not in Western Europe - perhaps in Mongolia, Arab countries and in Turkic countries they have been romanticized - you know people want their ancestors to be perceived in a good light, but not ancestors of others).

Still, there are compensations. I have quite enjoyed watching as ancient dna has steadily but surely shredded all their certainties.

Yes that's quite enjoyable indeed - for example new findings about CHG or Khvalynsk are enjoyable to me. And by the way, it wasn't me who was certain about anything until recently. I lost my irony because I got convinced about certain things only recently.

I try to work with evidence, not with presumptions. Of course I use my own interpretations, but IMO they are logically coherent.

And please show me which of my claims are not backed up with evidence. Then I will gladly revise them. I noticed that some other people instead are twisting evidence to fit their agenda, for example by claiming that Yamnaya autosomal admixture in Corded Ware is not really from Yamnaya, or that Teal people were not really CHG (even though Lazaridis thinks they were), and so on.

And you haven't answered my question about Teal people and why do you think they were R1b (and not for example J or R1a).

As for "blonde cowboys" - that Samara EHG (pre-Teal admixture times) with R1b was actually blonde. That's a fact.

That's rather irrelevant but you started to drag hair colours, racism and modern politics into this discussion, not me.

BTW - Yamnaya and Catacomb were mostly dark-haired (in a sample of 17 there were 2 blondes - so 12%). Karelian hunter was dark-haired, but various predominantly R1a steppe groups had high frequencies of blonde. Hair colour is not inherited with Y-DNA.

Anyway, there is no (and probably never was) any population that was 100% blonde, or even majority blonde.

 

[Rethel]

I guess the Semitic tribes arrived from Africa into the Levant during 4th mill BC, they were pastors too.

I would say, that it was rather hamitic who came from Africa, than semitic.
Semitic are J1, and I doubt that even the craziest theory claims that they
were form Africa; prasemitic speakers could of course came from Africa but
Semitic peoples were already on the place. So, this is a poority of language
which make some people do not understand what another is talking about.

 

[Rethel]

As you know I'm rather seeing R1a as a bit more than or at least equally Indo-European as R1b.
So Angela can't accuse me of "ethno-genetic chauvinism", as I'm not even R1a myself.

They both are pure indoeuropean. Everything above that, this
are just empty speculations, which will be never ever prooved.

My congratulations, wellcome in the indoeuropean house-clan-tribe
Now everyone can call you with clear conscience an Indoeuropean.

 

[Rethel]

none of my relatives in that line have any interest in testing, which probably shows their great good sense.

But shows lack of tradition and careless for their
past ascendants and future descendants indentity.

Oh, I did learn that I have a variety of mtDna, U2e, which, wherever it originated, is an mtDna common among EHG and then later in the Indo-Europeans.

So, you are right, that this knowledge give
you nothing. I am agree - mts are useless.

 

[Rethel]

The problem is that Bell Beakers never advanced that far east. So who "Indo-Europeanized" us?
And perhaps if Aryans were not IEs but Indo-Europeanized, then it's time to change the name from "Indo-European" to "European".
Because India has no R1b, it is full of R1a, which is not an originally PIE marker according to you.
So why the need to keep "Indo-" there ???

We always can return to very nice name Aryans

 

[bicicleur 2]

I would say, that it was rather hamitic who came from Africa, than semitic.
Semitic are J1, and I doubt that even the craziest theory claims that they
were form Africa; prasemitic speakers could of course came from Africa but
Semitic peoples were already on the place. So, this is a poority of language
which make some people do not understand what another is talking about.

I mean E-M123 tribes.
I was talking about Akkadians and Amorites.
Assyrians were also E-M123.
It is still visible in the distribution map of this clade.

J1-P58 somehow assimilated Semitic language, probably in the Levant before going to West Yemen (+/- 4.3 ka) from where they expanded some 3 ka.

As for Afro-Asiatic IMO origin is somewhere in the Nile valley or Nile delta. It expanded with cattle into Africa.

 

[Rethel]

There was a study by supporters of the Anatolian Hypothesis, which modeled the spread of IE languages as a spread of an epidemic disease, and they also "forgot" to include Balto-Slavic branch in their analysis (as if those were not even IE languages).

There is a "counter-study" discussing that study, I'm now posting it below:

http://historum.com/ancient-history...european-origins.html#post1382412?postcount=1

Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: the Assault On Historical Linguistics:

I loved it! becasue this is one of the most wonderfull examples that scientist are often talking nonsense
but others are biulding upon this their worldview, often beeing missinformed, but blinded by scientyfic
accurate and truth... The second my loviest example came very recently from genetic side. The age
of M-253 is simply the best example of scientific madness which is dominated whole science unfortunatly,
because scientists are more interesting in ideologocal stuff than in real facts and knowledge. Of course,
even if this is obvious they never admitt this. They are always right and correct

 

[Goga]

We always can return to very nice name Aryans

Aryans spoke Iranic and not other Indo-European languages. So Polish people can't ever be Aryans, because they speaak Slavic and not Iranic. Polish people aren't Aryans at all. The Medes were Aryans, the ancient Persians were Aryans. Polish race has nothing to do with the Aryans of Media and Persia or Aryans of BMAC.


When peoples speak about EHG they seem to forget to mention also N1c1 folks? Why? Are they ashamed of their N1c1 ancestors? Original native EHG folks were N1c1 folks.



This topic has become a spam topic, lol. Some even bringing youtube videos of almost 4 years old.

I will try to stay out of it as much as possible...