What to say about the last paper of Sarno et al., An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy, PLoS ONE, 2014, which is linked to the previous paper of Boattini et al., and like under the name of Boattini we know these papers?
On Anthrogenica someone said to me that he would have believed to my theory of the "Italian Refugium" when I had published it on a peer reviewed paper, and this is the thought also of the professional geneticists, but I have written about this thousands of letters on many fora, and even though many are deleted, of course by whom dislike my theories, they are running on the web yet.
Which is the meaning of this paper? Let us say it from the authors: "Sicilian genetic diversity revealed to be not structured along the east-west axis of the island; on the contrary both maternal and paternal genetic markers suggest an homogeneous genetic composition both within Sicily, as well as between Sicily and Southern Italy. These results are consistent with the largely shared genetic histories of the Southern Italian populations, and reflect their historical and archaeological role as a major Mediterranean ‘melting pot’ where different peoples and cultures came together over time, albeit with different contributes depending from the source area" (p.11).
What is new in this? That previous researches, that pointed out a difference between Western and Eastern Sicily are disproved, but Boattini confirms his previous research of a difference within Italy, between a North-Western and a South-Eastern part. Which would be the cause: that the Y hg of Sicily would be of Balkan and Levantine origin (little the contribute of North Africa), whereas the North-Western one would be linked to Western Mediterranean countries? But who did come from where?
The analysis is a lot confused, because this presupposed origin from the Balkans and Levant are disproved by other calculations of the MRCA of these haplogroups:
"However, the estimated age for Sicilian and Southern-Italian J1 haplotypes refers to the end of the Bronze Age (3261 +/- 1345 YBP), thus suggesting more ancient contributions
from the East" (p.9); "However, sub-lineages of haplogroup J2 have been also associated with the Neolithic colonization of mainland Greece, Crete and Southern Italy , and our TMRCA estimates for J2-subhaplogroups (ranging from 3271 +/- 1157 YBP to 3767 +/- 1332 YBP) cannot exclude an earlier arrival of at least some of the J2 chromosomes in Sicily and Southern-Italy during Neolithic times" (p.9).
I have to say that I have done a long struggle in favor of this from years, practically against all. And what to say about the calculation done by the authors? I have demonstrated from years that this calculation was wrong (also this practically against all, even though Zhivotowsky used another mutation rate all the hobbyists were against) for my golden principles (mutations happen around the modal, there is a convergence to the modal as time passes, sometime a mutation goes for the tangent, rarely there are multistep mutations). Now the Big Y and Full Genome results are demonstrating that my ideas were right. And what to say about the fact that the authors choose for their calculation only 8 markers after that we have had for years the flaw of the "Cohen Modal Haplotype"?
No one word about what is behind the researches that are done: who does fund them, which interests, political and religious, are behind them? I have spoken a lot, at my risk, also about this. Now it seems that for Sarno/Boattini the Levantine origin of the Sicilian and Southern Italian gene pool stands up. Why?
And didn't realize Sarno/Boattini that one of their haplotypes is an R-L277? Why did they use the SNP M18 and not V88? Did they think that R-V88 wasn't in Italy but only M18? This is what others want Italians think, but I demonstrated that Marchesi, tested by FTDNA like M269, is actually V88. I wrote a letter to Scozzari/Cruciani years ago where I hypothesized that also R-V88 came from the Italian (or Iberian) refugium, and their tested M343 (x M269, M18) is just an R-V88. And all the proofs I carried in these years in favor of R1b1-L389+, R-M269 with the PF SNPs, R-L23 of all the subclades (L277, PF7580, Z2110), R-L51 from the Italian Refugium?
Fortunately that they recognized that there was an Italian Refugium of the mtDNA (beginning from hg. HV, but I demonstrated it also for its ancestor R0a'b through many subclades present in Italy and Tuscany), and it isn't true that only for U5b3 it has been demonstrated, only because that paper was written by scholars.
I apologize with Sarno/Boattini if in the past I broke in pieces many papers of their colleagues. I have to say that they seem to me more serious, and I didn't find in their papers the great mistakes I found in others. But I have to say that the genetics of populations is done now by the said hobbyists: they pay for their tests and the last reliable trees are done by them, also through Big Y and Full Genome, whereas scholars are waiting for their researches to get Geno 2.0 which couldn't say any interesting now, and not many of them had the funds that Francalacci had for his PF SNPs.
I understand that they are now desperate not wives but scholars, but this shouldn't permit them to ignore the researches of others, even though not published on peer reviews (but how many of them are actually reliable?) and not to do what happened to Dienekes Pontikos and to who stole his method: the hidings of the hobbyists hurt.
KInd Regards, Gioiello Tognoni (Gioiello, Maliclavelli, Rathna, Claire)