CAVALLI-SFORZA'S ARTICLE ON THE genetic and cultural diversity in Europe represents the summary of his long-standing interpretation of the genetic history of European populations, dating back to at least the beginning of the Neolithic period (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 1984; Cavalli-Sforza 1991; CavalliSforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, etc.). This interpretation is based on the belief that most of the populations of European stock arrived in Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic and gradually colonized the continent through the process of demic diffusion, thereby planting their genes, as well as farming practices, over the most of the continent. The earlier hunter-gatherer communities were absorbed, and on the whole their contribution to the subsequent development of the genetic and cultural history of Europe was insignificant. The later, post-Neolithic population movements into Europe, though regionally important, did not significantly alter the basic structure and pattern of genetic and cultural development set by the Neolithic colonization of Europe. This is a clearly presented, elegant, and convincing argument. It is also a deeply flawed argument. Its assumptions, methodological problems, and theoretical misapprehensions have been challenged, time and again, by archaeologists and geneticists (Zvelebil 1986, 1995 with references; Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988; Pluciennik 1996; Bateman et al. 1990; Richards et al. 1996, 1997; Harding, Rosing, and Sokol 1990), and even Cavalli-Sforza's coworkers have expressed ambivalent opinions and changed their views regarding key issues in the argument (e.g., compare Sokal et al. 1989; Sokol, Oden, and Wilson 1991; Sokol, Oden, and Thompson 1992; Sokal and Livshits 1993; Roberts 1992). In the current article, Cavalli-Sforza ignores most of the criticism leveled against his theory (Richards et al. 1996 being one singular exception), although he is clearly aware of the debate. Given this situation, one can only wonder whether Cavalli-Sforza's article, elegantly argued as it is, is not an exercise in controlled deception. Here, I can focus only on three main issues, setting aside questions of the Paleolithic origin of the modern Europeans (see comment by Otte) and of the linguistic implications (see Renfrew 1987, 1992; Bateman et al. 1990; Zvelebil 1995). THE PEOPLINGS OF EUROPE 411