PDA

View Full Version : E-V13 in Bulgarian Iron Age



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Hawk
12-20-2020, 11:19 AM
There is only one person in the Bulgarian DNA project, who is proven L241 by SNP testing, but there are a few strongly predicted. DYS464a,b = 16,16 is a strong indicator for this branch. Just now came the 111 STR for another person, who is waiting Big Y. He is very close to this branch:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7065/
There are also a couple of Bulgarians in the Balkan Mountain project proven FGC76265*.

There is a new Bulgarian belonging to this, let's see what's his deeper clade.

He was tested with FTDNA.

eastara
12-21-2020, 02:38 AM
I have found also one with Bulgarian flag on FTDNA tree under BY5650/BY150229. However, I could not find him in any project, could be also Bulgarian Turk.

Hawk
12-21-2020, 07:55 AM
Nah, the one i am saying is ethnic Bulgarian. I have talked with him personally. :)

Aspar
12-21-2020, 08:04 AM
There is only one person in the Bulgarian DNA project, who is proven L241 by SNP testing, but there are a few strongly predicted. DYS464a,b = 16,16 is a strong indicator for this branch. Just now came the 111 STR for another person, who is waiting Big Y. He is very close to this branch:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7065/
There are also a couple of Bulgarians in the Balkan Mountain project proven FGC76265*.

There is also a person, an ethnic Macedonian from the ethnographic region of western North Macedonia where people called Mijaci live, who belongs to E-A7065 from what I've heard. However I'm not sure where the guy in question was tested. The rumors I believe were licking by some guys in close connection with the Serbian DNA Project Poreklo.
If I were to guess, this clade and probably whiole E-L241 is in close connection with people known by the Romans and the Ancient Greeks as Dacians, Getae and other related tribes who lived on the territory of modern Romania. I've heard that E-L241 is probably the most diverse subclade of E-V13 among the Serbs. Probably played a major part in the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs.

Aspar
12-21-2020, 08:14 AM
Also with the new update of YFULL tree, there are major changes in the dating of TMRCA for E-V13 and it's downstream. I don't know if this is final or just temporary, as some say it might be bug however the new TMRCA would explain quite well why E-V13 is so suspiciously missing in the EBA Bulgaria and Pannonia. The TMRCA of E-V13 is now 4300 ybp, which is at the end of EBA.

Hawk
12-21-2020, 08:47 AM
There must be some error with their algorithm, since it looks most of Y-DNA clades were afffected. They are probably working on finding the bug.

Otherwise i think, we still don't have enough data, it's logically to expect somewhere near East Alps - Carpathian Mountains to be found. I don't see other explanations.

Or, it is as Aspurg was mentioning: Initially Cetina Culture who migrated into Central Balkans: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/radiocarbon-dating-the-3rd-millennium-bc-in-the-central-balkans-a-reexamination-of-the-early-bronze-age-sequence/EEE00CA20809AB9D0BCE858DA8E407B2 then spread out. But this doesn't explain the earlier splits further North.

Worth to note it: Kapitan Andreevo and related Svilengrad cultures didn't practice cremation but rather inhumation.

Aspar
12-21-2020, 09:15 AM
We need MBA aDNA from countries around the Carpathians and the Carpathian Basin. It's obvious the huge diversity of CTS1273 clades in the region of Hungary and Slovakia. There is diversity in almost any downstream of CTS1273, such as E-L540, E-Y35953, E-BY3880. Even E-FT7781 and some basal E-CTS9320 found in modern Ossetians are complementing the theory of E-V13 dwelling around the Carpathians as these clades could have been absorbed by steppe cultures such as Srubna, Noua, Coslogeni that were in close proximity to the Carpathians.
But yeah, probably we are dealing with mountain dwellers who survived the EBA Indo-European intrusion up in the mountains. So the communication line between the East Alps and the Carpathians it's a possibility.
However, bug or not, the new dates are more in line with our idea of LBA-EIA introduction of E-V13 in the Balkans.

Riverman
12-21-2020, 10:06 AM
There is also a person, an ethnic Macedonian from the ethnographic region of western North Macedonia where people called Mijaci live, who belongs to E-A7065 from what I've heard. However I'm not sure where the guy in question was tested. The rumors I believe were licking by some guys in close connection with the Serbian DNA Project Poreklo.
If I were to guess, this clade and probably whiole E-L241 is in close connection with people known by the Romans and the Ancient Greeks as Dacians, Getae and other related tribes who lived on the territory of modern Romania. I've heard that E-L241 is probably the most diverse subclade of E-V13 among the Serbs. Probably played a major part in the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs.

That's what Poreklo says about haplogroup E, but the text wasn't changed for over a year now:

Paternal Haplogroup E is among Serbs represented predominantly by its subclade V13. It is relatively uniformly distributed across Serb population in different regions, with slightly greater frequency in southern regions, like southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohiјa. Highest frequency of V13 in Serb population (over 50%) is recorded in eastern part of Montenegro known as Brda (“Hills”), the home of three largest Serb clans that belong to different subclades of V13: Vasojevici (PH1246>BY14151), Kuci (CTS5856>Z5018>Z16661>BY165837) and Bjelopavlici (CTS5856>Z5017>Z16988>BY155589). Another frequent subclade of V13 among Serbs that also originates from single bloodline from Montenegro is CTS5856>Z5017>Z19851>A18833. However, most diverse subclade of V13 in Serb population is CTS5856>Z5018>L241 which is distributed in all regions settled by Serbs, and unlike previously mentioned subclades, it’s represented by large number of not so numerous bloodlines. Other E subclades like V22, M84 and Z841 are represented in small percentages.

https://www.poreklo.rs/2019/06/12/y-dna-haplogroups-of-ethnic-serbs/

What matters most is always the TMRCA, what the last point in time was, that the ancestors lived together. If it was still in the Bronze Age, then, even if its about minor subclades, we have no prove of a common Iron Age ethnicity which harboured all the ancestors. Like a Greek, Roman or Celtic spread would from one macro-region to another, like from Gallia to Serbia, or vice versa, would always imply something younger than 800 BC, best something like 400 BC-500 AD. If we don't have that, we can't pin it down.

Aspar
12-21-2020, 10:34 AM
That's what Poreklo says about haplogroup E, but the text wasn't changed for over a year now:


https://www.poreklo.rs/2019/06/12/y-dna-haplogroups-of-ethnic-serbs/

What matters most is always the TMRCA, what the last point in time was, that the ancestors lived together. If it was still in the Bronze Age, then, even if its about minor subclades, we have no prove of a common Iron Age ethnicity which harboured all the ancestors. Like a Greek, Roman or Celtic spread would from one macro-region to another, like from Gallia to Serbia, or vice versa, would always imply something younger than 800 BC, best something like 400 BC-500 AD. If we don't have that, we can't pin it down.

Of course, I must have said the starting point or progenitor of the clade lived on territories inhabited by the people known as Dacians, Getae, Moesians etc. However with the new update, the TMRCA of E-L241 is only 2200 ybp., So not even IA but the Imperial Roman period. Of course, with these fluctuations regarding TMRCA there are no spaces for being quite sure or leaving no space for other scenario. And if we blindly follow the new circumstances, it's very tempting to place this clade under Moeasian, Dacian label having in mind that it's diverse in Romania and Ukraine but also Serbia. Also the late antiquity sample from Rome is in a clade with a person from Ukraine. There are English people as well but no one thinking rationally will place the starting point of E-L241 in England.

Riverman
12-21-2020, 11:13 AM
Of course, I must have said the starting point or progenitor of the clade lived on territories inhabited by the people known as Dacians, Getae, Moesians etc. However with the new update, the TMRCA of E-L241 is only 2200 ybp., So not even IA but the Imperial Roman period. Of course, with these fluctuations regarding TMRCA there are no spaces for being quite sure or leaving no space for other scenario. And if we blindly follow the new circumstances, it's very tempting to place this clade under Moeasian, Dacian label having in mind that it's diverse in Romania and Ukraine but also Serbia. Also the late antiquity sample from Rome is in a clade with a person from Ukraine. There are English people as well but no one thinking rationally will place the starting point of E-L241 in England.

To me it rather looks like a glitch, because of this:


SNPs mutate far less often than STRs. Back mutations are extremely uncommon. Most authorities consider the average time of a SNP mutation to be 150 years although Yfull.com uses 144 years plus 60 (as the age of the man tested) . Like STR mutations are handed down from father to son.

https://sites.google.com/site/ydnasnpsandgenealogy/using-snps-for-genealogy

If they calculate like that, how can the age estimate shrink by one third or more out of a sudden? That's obviously an error. If its no error, they must have changed the age estimates for all, and count the SNP's differently than so far, which is rather unlikely everything considered.

Aspar
12-21-2020, 11:26 AM
To me it rather looks like a glitch, because of this:



https://sites.google.com/site/ydnasnpsandgenealogy/using-snps-for-genealogy

If they calculate like that, how can the age estimate shrink by one third or more out of a sudden? That's obviously an error. If its no error, they must have changed the age estimates for all, and count the SNP's differently than so far, which is rather unlikely everything considered.

Could be.
For me it's interesting because the new TMRCA of E-V13 can explaine quite well why there is no any E-V13 in aDNA record from EBA Europe thus far if around 4300 ybp there was only one man carrying this mutation. Also with this new dating RafC's idea of Roman involvement in spreading many E-V13 clades gets more weight as TMRCA gets younger and younger. But let's see...

Riverman
12-21-2020, 11:35 AM
Could be.
For me it's interesting because the new TMRCA of E-V13 can explaine quite well why there is no any E-V13 in aDNA record from EBA Europe thus far if around 4300 ybp there was only one man carrying this mutation. Also with this new dating RafC's idea of Roman involvement in spreading many E-V13 clades gets more weight as TMRCA gets younger and younger. But let's see...

Its not possible. I did check for some clades, it would press the mutation rate below 100 years per generation for E-V13, for a whole bunch of clades and subclades. That's not real. If it would be real, it would be sensational, but it doesn't look to be.


The second formula uses an assumed mutation rate of 144.41 years (0.8178*10-9, which is the average of the mutation rates of the ancient Anzick-1 sample and of a group of known genealogies, and an assumed age of 60 years for living providers of YFull samples.

https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/

Hawk
12-21-2020, 11:36 AM
Its not possible. I did check for some clades, it would press the mutation rate below 100 years per generation for E-V13, for a whole bunch of clades and subclades. That's not real. If it would be real, it would be sensational, but it doesn't look to be.

Previous Late Bronze Age/Iron Age TMRCA was fitting like gloves. That's the most important event in Mediterranean, a total chaos.

Riverman
12-21-2020, 11:41 AM
Previous Late Bronze Age/Iron Age TMRCA was fitting like gloves. That's the most important event in Mediterranean, a total chaos.

Even more important, the Roman Age spread might fit for some clades, and we don't know for which, but definitely not for all, that's not possible. The erroneous timing would force all clades into that historical time frame, so its not realistic. And again, one can't just change the mutation rate like that. I mean what should that mean, that E-V13 mutated faster than all the other haplogroups? Definitely a glitch.

Ruderico
12-21-2020, 11:42 AM
Ignore the current TMRCA update, yfull is having issues and they'll fix things soon.

Hawk
12-21-2020, 12:02 PM
The absence in ancient DNA can be explained that during the big genocide of Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age we were chilling somewhere in East Alps/Carpathian mountains, taking fresh air, meditating then during Middle to Late Bronze Age joined the party.

Riverman
12-21-2020, 12:50 PM
The absence in ancient DNA can be explained that during the big genocide of Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age we were chilling somewhere in East Alps/Carpathian mountains, taking fresh air, meditating then during Middle to Late Bronze Age joined the party.

Either that, or there was an early Corded Ware-TCC/Lengyel related hybrid group. If Nitra had indeed one of the first E-V13 in ancient DNA, and it showed increased farmer ancestry, but still a solid CWC base, this means it could have been the Western end of a mixed sphere. Further to the East more is to be assumed. Also, like I wrote before, its remarkable how many E-lineages survived in Central Europe. Its not just E-V13, but it was just the most successful, riding on a wave, on a dispersion event and that's most likely connected to Southern Urnfield, which is the point.

Hawk
12-22-2020, 12:38 PM
What do you guys think of this, makes sense?


Abstract:Burials in settlements are a particular funerary phenomenon, documented worldwide, in different ages and contexts. Archaeologically speaking, burials consist of skeletons or parts of human skeletons, in or not in anatomical position, deposited in disused habitat structures (pits, dwellings). In this article we have catalogued the finds in the area between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza Rivers from 53 EIA sites (broadly 12th-8th c. BC) with 226 contexts for human bones from at least 512 individuals. All this data reveals the existence of common funerary conduct(s) whose final result was deposition of the dead in settlements. Such conduct exhibits some similarities and even somewhat the intersects with the standard ritual of burials in actual cemeteries. According to the same data, the selection of these individuals does not seem to have relied on malformations, diseases, age or sex.





In the northern Balkans, at the end of the 2nd millennium and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, classic cultural manifestations of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Monteoru, Noua, Coslogeni, Suciu de Sus, Žuto-Brdo–Gârla Mare, Cruceni-Belegiš, Zimnicea-Plovdiv etc.) come to an end and new ones take shape. Despite the emergence of the first iron artefacts, this is the peak of bronze metallurgy and of the deposition of bronze artefacts in ritual contexts. The area we’ve selected for the study of this category of findings corresponds to the dissemina-tion of several early Hallstattian archaeological cultures with grooved pottery (Bistreţ-Işalniţa, Gáva-Hol idrad y, C hiş inău-Corl ăteni etc .), but a lso wit h st amp ed and incised pottery (Pšeničevo, Babadag, Insula Banului, Gornea-Kalakača, Belozerka, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni), which are a variation of the funerary ritual (Vulpe 2008). Nevertheles, in the entire area, in various proportions, probably due to the extent of the investigations in the settlements, intramuros graves were also found.




rom the catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from r ather re cent f inds i n the i ntr a-Carpathi an reg ion, up t o Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (see Ailincăiet alii 2014) (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Nov i Sad wer e included in the are al of K ala kač a cu ltur e, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery (Graphic 1).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308904470_Living_with_the_dead_Burial_in_Early_Iro n_Age_settlements_between_the_Balkans_Tisza_and_Dn estr

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321539476/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png

Riverman
12-22-2020, 12:54 PM
The carriers of Basarabi, in my opinion, must have been heavy in E-V13. Not exclusively so, especially because of the steppe influences which they had too, and the assimilation of locals, but a high frequency. The question was always rather how it got into it and when, and the pottery styles and spread of Urnfield-related groups like Gava are just the logical consequence from my point of view. From there on there is too much continuity in the macroregion to explain that kind of spread in the later Iron Age, again from my current point of view.

Hawk
12-23-2020, 12:28 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-someone-know-Central-European-Late-Bronze-Age-burials-in-pits-laying-in-order-position-N-S-or-E-W-and-equipped-with-artifacts

Knovitz Culture from Late Bronze Age Czech, part of Urnfield complex.

These ritual pits burials look similar to Kapitan Andreevo.

https://i.imgur.com/Foipuwa.jpg

Hawk
12-25-2020, 07:45 PM
If this turns out to be true, then original IE proto-Illyrians were some Y-DNA R1a people or Corded Ware R1b?

A lot of things are unclear.

This is from Maria Gimbutas.

https://i.imgur.com/MFdKEAx.png

Source Link (https://books.google.de/books?id=BvtRdigDtFoC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=knoviz+culture+balkans&source=bl&ots=M4rM9qTOZr&sig=ACfU3U3MdRjVulQtQZR4XE6CC7S-vRuzHw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW6amd8OntAhXKPOwKHf3yB_0Q6AEwB3oECAoQA g#v=onepage&q=knoviz%20culture%20balkans&f=false)

Riverman
12-25-2020, 09:11 PM
Unetice had already a more complex mixture of BB, CW and more SEE, Carparthian, farmer shifted ancestry. It was a complex phenomenon which is hard to pin down and I even thought about it spreading I1 and a kind of pre-Germanic dialect to the Nordic Bronze Age shortly before it collapsed.

Hawk
12-26-2020, 11:02 PM
I continued reading the opinion of Marija Gimbutas regarding Late Bronze Age and i must say she had some very interesting theories, especially Vatin related cultures. I think she was right. :)

Granary
12-27-2020, 09:14 AM
Either that, or there was an early Corded Ware-TCC/Lengyel related hybrid group. If Nitra had indeed one of the first E-V13 in ancient DNA, and it showed increased farmer ancestry, but still a solid CWC base, this means it could have been the Western end of a mixed sphere. Further to the East more is to be assumed. Also, like I wrote before, its remarkable how many E-lineages survived in Central Europe. Its not just E-V13, but it was just the most successful, riding on a wave, on a dispersion event and that's most likely connected to Southern Urnfield, which is the point.

What are other sizeable E lineages in Central Europe that derive from farmers?

Riverman
12-27-2020, 11:49 AM
What are other sizeable E lineages in Central Europe that derive from farmers?

Just as an example, from Austrian samples, Upper Austria:

E1b1b M123>M34> M84 1 0.44%
E1b1b M123>M34> Z841 2 0.88%
E1b1b V22 2 0.88%

Tyrol:

E1a M132 1 0.77%
E1b1b > V13 7 5.38%
E1b1b > V134811 1 0.77%
E1b1b L67 1 0.77%
E1b1b L674838 1 0.77%
E1b1b M123>M34> M84 1 0.77%
E1b1b V1515 1 0.77%
E1b1b V257> PF2431 1 0.77%

Reutte:

E1a M132 2 0.77%
E1b1a V38>> M4231 1 0.38%
E1b1b > V13 14 5.36%
E1b1b L67 2 0.77%
E1b1b M123>M34> M84 1 0.38%
E1b1b V1515 1 0.38%
E1b1b V22 4 1.53%

From this thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups

I have to confess, I was rather surprised that E-V13 was not more dominant in Austria.

The situation seems to be pretty similar in the Czech Republic and Hungary. Czech overview: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

An example for an interesting subclade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC2726/

Granary
12-28-2020, 12:55 AM
Just as an example, from Austrian samples, Upper Austria:


Tyrol:


Reutte:


From this thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups

I have to confess, I was rather surprised that E-V13 was not more dominant in Austria.

The situation seems to be pretty similar in the Czech Republic and Hungary. Czech overview: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

An example for an interesting subclade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC2726/

In your experience, what is the ratio between E-V13 and other E lineages(derived from farmers, not later migrations from Africa or the Near East) in Central Europe and the Balkans? Given what you said about Austria it seems that the 1:1 ratio is an extreme.

Riverman
12-28-2020, 11:39 AM
In your experience, what is the ratio between E-V13 and other E lineages(derived from farmers, not later migrations from Africa or the Near East) in Central Europe and the Balkans? Given what you said about Austria it seems that the 1:1 ratio is an extreme.

Definitely not 1:1 in most places and samples, rather 2:1 to 3:1 and a good portion of the other E might be from later migrants from MENA. Rafc is actually more competent on the issue. Closer to 1:1 it is in Southern Italy:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=723433&viewfull=1#post723433

So the ratio of increases and gets more equal from North to South. But the point is, looking at the distribution even up to regions which never were under Roman rule and being Slavic dominated, other clades of E1b1b appear too. How much of this is older or younger is hard to determine without the exact subclades in question.

CyrylBojarski
12-28-2020, 03:30 PM
Anatolian is very easy to score in the Balkans area at a small percentage. Southern Italians also score it, do you think they had any super recent Anatolian admixture?


What that means is that the Anatolian category itself has Greek & Balkan inside it, along with Central Asian and actual Anatolian of course. Scoring it doesn't mean you have Turkish admixture, as there are many people without any Central Asian who also score it.

Sorry for late answer.

I analyzed this Anatolian segment I have on 23andme and Gedmatch calculators read it as Turk_DA228, Nomad_Medieval_DA124, Kipchak, AFG_Tajik, Iranian and Turkmen, I do not think it is somehow through non-Central Asian admixture. This segment is clearly of Turkic origin, it has high West Asian, South Asian and some Siberian, maybe ancient Bulgar, I would not be suprised, if it was Turkish/Turkic according to area, where my Bulgarian ancestors lived, even due to confession, which I am sure it was not such important, that there were not even rare cases of intermixing.

I also checked big amount of my Balkan matches and nobody has this category, except my Silistra Bulgarian match has about 15% of it, I think I should not tell you about populations, who live in that province

Huban
01-31-2021, 02:13 AM
Particularly interesting to me is Ligurians, they have like 17.5/18% of E1b1b, and i think most of it is E-V13 (Garibaldi is the most famous Ligurian who supposedly was E-V13). That's quite high. We don't know their subclades, if they are Late Bronze Age Hallstatt comers, like the La Tene sample or earlier migrants. Lots of question marks, and empty spaces, hence wide varieties of hypothesis.

I mentioned this before. Almost all of those Ligurians are E-FGC11450 including the tested Garibaldi. There is no V13 diversity there. The artificially increased V13 percentage is due to bottleneck effect. This is seen at FTDNA, this is seen in another two studies where V13 jumps in percentage there, almost all are FGC11450. Not sure how old is this bottleneck, I suppose it might reach Antiquity.

Hawk
01-31-2021, 01:47 PM
I mentioned this before. Almost all of those Ligurians are E-FGC11450 including the tested Garibaldi. There is no V13 diversity there. The artificially increased V13 percentage is due to bottleneck effect. This is seen at FTDNA, this is seen in another two studies where V13 jumps in percentage there, almost all are FGC11450. Not sure how old is this bottleneck, I suppose it might reach Antiquity.

Apuglians have this FGC11450 as well, it certainly looks a spread within the context of Urnfield.

Huban
01-31-2021, 07:24 PM
Apuglians have this FGC11450 as well, it certainly looks a spread within the context of Urnfield.

Could be. Garibaldi has another cousin from Genoa area whose distance is late Medieval, but also there is another Italian E-FGC11450 from Genoa who is 16/67 with him so very distant. There is 4th Italian FGC11450 from Genoa area but I haven't seen his STR's. One Italian was SNP tested as E-FGC11447 but he has no location.

In one Italian sample from La Spezia (43) 7 were V13, 6 of them seem E-FGC11450 and 4 seem related to Garibaldi through elevated YGATA-A10. La Spezia sample was also present in another study but with different STR's and combined they have 28 STR's.

There is some concentration of FGC11450 around Genoa, that's certain. And 16/67 means distance between them must be 2000, 2500 years if they share an SNP below FGC11450 that is.

Hawk
02-01-2021, 08:44 AM
Could be. Garibaldi has another cousin from Genoa area whose distance is late Medieval, but also there is another Italian E-FGC11450 from Genoa who is 16/67 with him so very distant. There is 4th Italian FGC11450 from Genoa area but I haven't seen his STR's. One Italian was SNP tested as E-FGC11447 but he has no location.

In one Italian sample from La Spezia (43) 7 were V13, 6 of them seem E-FGC11450 and 4 seem related to Garibaldi through elevated YGATA-A10. La Spezia sample was also present in another study but with different STR's and combined they have 28 STR's.

There is some concentration of FGC11450 around Genoa, that's certain. And 16/67 means distance between them must be 2000, 2500 years if they share an SNP below FGC11450 that is.

Maybe worth to note that South Albanian Labs who belong to E-V13 are almost exclusively E-V13 FGC11450 with some rare E-V13 Z5018 clades. E-V13 among Labs reaches 35%. Probably the original Labs had more than 50%.