Although I believe that there is good and insights to be reaped from discussions between enthusiasts, and something to be true doesn't need be read or proven in an accademic paper, from my experience I hold that up to 99% of the things that come out of anthropology fora are useless and best to overlook; the obsession with south Italians and Greeks in anthrogenica is a perfect example of that: being them a convergent interest of both the two groups that most use that forum ( as far as I can tell ), jewish and nordicist, albeit for very different reasons ( the former wants to claim their kind of "purity" by holding that the greek-like component in Ashkenazi was already present in the Levant before their ancestor migrated into Europe, and explain the overlap in a PCA with them and south Italians and Greeks by postulating ghost migrations from the Levant to those regions; the latter wants to revive the defunct myth of the downfall of the classical civilizations because of miscegeneation. ), these groups model them in ways that are contradicted by almost every archeogenetic paper on the matter, defending their "findings" with their own model or by citing extracts from papers that, if read wholly, contradict their own interpretations. When these groups persist in modelling south Italians and Greeks with at least 20% recent Levantine admixture ( after the bronze age. ),while it isn't even a component used in modelling modern or ancient populations of those regions, it ought to be obvious that you can't expect either trustworthiness in anything they "find" or any possibility of rational discussion, given that it presupposes the ability of all parties involved to admit when they are wrong. Not that there would be anything wrong in south Italians or Greeks if such component were to be found, but the problem is that Italians are one of the most studied populations in the world and it has not been found. Given the evidence we have, south/central (maybe?) was inhabitated with farmers that were similar to the ones that inhabited south-east Europe, and then there were likely more than one migration of peoples that carried some steppe-related admixture and the last one was the migration of proto-italics ( the proper Italic populations of classical times were most likely the outcome of the mixing of proto-Italics with natives, given that it is usually what happened. ) from the Po valley. Surely there was also significant genetic input from the Greeks in Magna Graecia, but it's almost demented to think that all Italy was north-Italy-like and then the Greeks almost wiped out all the natives in the mezzogiorno, given what we have(leaving the less plausible ghost migration from the middle-east aside. ).