Cato, with all due respect, I think Berun is leading you down a rabbit hole.
Of course names are not necessarily reliable indicators of ethnicity. Natives are often renamed by conquerors, or they're adopted by the lower classes after a certain period of time. In the Middle Ages do you know how many people in Italy were named Matilde and Otto and Erminia and on and on? Would anyone seriously suggest they were all or even partly Gothic, or Langobard, or Frank in actuality? Was the German war leader Arminius Roman because he bore a Roman name? How about all those Balkanite boys who wound up in the Ottoman forces, like Barbarossa? Anyone think this half Albanian, half Greek with a formal Turkish name was Italian?
People who emphasize "names" as proof of substantial admixture usually have some ax to grind, and from what I have seen it's usually for the purpose of t-rolling Italians about all their "Levantine" ancestry, as if that's something of which to be ashamed. Of course, not accusing Berun of that at all. It was merely an observation. To digress, I do find it ironic that t-rolls of the first order like Sikeliot (and all his socks) at anthrogenica express shock that some Europeans (not I clearly) might have a problem with having Levantine ancestry when as Portuguese Princess he spent years vehemently arguing that his mother's people, Spaniards, had none of that tainted ancestry while his detested Sicilian father's people were riddled with it.
Ah well, sorry, back to the point at hand.
We have luckily passed beyond the point where we look for answers to names and the contradictory transcribed legends put down by ancient writers. We now have genetics, and the genetics seem to be telling us certain things although it will be a while before we have clarity.
It seems that some time from the late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, another, slightly different migration came from Anatolia/the Aegean and spread west. I say late Neolithic/Chalcolithic partly from the archaeology, of Sardinia for example, and partly from the Admixture runs based on modern populations so beloved by people. Otzi lived in the Chalcolithic, and yet according to those measures he was about 22% "Caucasus" like. Now, that doesn't mean CHG like, but it does mean a farmer mix with high Iran Neo. Of course, he also had the "dreaded" Southwest Asian, as did the Gok farmers for that matter.
In the Iron Age you have the movement of the Greeks and the Phoenicians west. We know that the Greeks created actual colonies and I don't doubt their genetic impact.
The Phoenicians are a bit different, and their impact, depending on the place, might be much smaller. From the Ibiza paper we see that it was a male migration. That makes sense, because as I've said before, the Phoenicians were more like the East India company than like the Greek colonization.
"[FONT="]The Phoenicians were not an agricultural people, because most of the land was not arable; therefore, they focused on commerce and trading instead. They did, however, raise sheep and sold them and their wool."
[/FONT]The farms they set up were probably like the farms the Dutch East India company established at Cape Town: meant to supply their own people, the passing ships of their fleet, and for sale. Their mating patterns appear to have been the same as well.
So, was there a genetic "presence" on Ibiza of the Phoenicians? Yes, from that genome, incomplete as it is, it seems there was. It seems to be male mediated, with all "native" female input. Also, for our reading comprehension challenged "friends" at anthrogenica, it is essentially no longer present in the people of Ibiza. Everything depends on the size of the "other" lineages present before, during or after the time of an ancient sample, which I thought was obvious.
Now let's turn to Sardinia. What do all the newest papers tell us? They tell us that the Phoenicians were present in the southwest of the island for quite some time. What do we know from the genetics? We know that the percentage of Iran Neo on the island is exceedingly small, even in the southwest. I would again suggest our "friends" at anthrogenica read some PAPERS, like Chiang et al, which looks not only at the HGDP like people of the Gennargentu, but at the coastal cities. Unless, of course, they think these academics are also Nordicist Italians who have distorted the data?
As for the yDna, there's about 9% of the perhaps relevant "J" lineages, but the J2 at least could have come during the Bronze Age, not necessarily with the Phoenicians.
From Alessio Boatini:
J1-0
J1e-2.4
J2a-6.1
J2a2-1.2
Likewise, what looks like the Near Eastern and North African versions of E are present, for a total of about 7%.
E1b1b1b-1.2
E1b1b1c-6.1
So, why is there, according to Chiang's analysis of even southwestern coastal Sardinians, so little "Iran Neo" like ancestry, or Near Eastern heavy, North Africa heavy ancestry, which is what he's really measuring? I suppose for the same reason that 18% R1b results in so little steppe: not very numerous male mediated migration overwhelmed by "local" dna.
I don't see anything either very difficult or very ambiguous about this.