News about bulgarian ethnogenesis

[andre]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.02.446576v1

Svetoslav Stamov
Abstract
We report the presence of significant Central Asian ancestry in both contemporary Bulgarians and in early medieval population from SMC (Saltovo Mayaky Culture).

The existence of Chalcolithic-Iran (Hajj-Fruz) and Wusun related ancestral component in contemporary Bulgarians comes as a surprise and sheds light on both migration route and ethnic origins of Proto-Bulgarians. We interpret these results as an evidence for a Central –Asian connection for the tribes, constituting the population of SMC and Kubrat’s Old Great Bulgaria in Pontic steppe from 6th-7th century AD.

We identify Central Asian Wusun tribes as carriers of this component on the base from the results from f3 and f4 statistics. We suggest that Wusun-related tribes must have played role (or might have even been the backbone) in what became known as the Hunnic migration to Europe during 3rd-5th century AD. Same population must have taken part in the formation of the SMC (Saltovo-Mayaki Culture) and Great Old Bulgarian during 6th-9th century AD in Pontic – Caspian steppe.

We also explore the genomic origins of Thracians and their relations to contemporary Europeans. We conclude that contemporary Bulgarians do not harbor Thracian-specific ancestry, since ancient Thracian samples share more SNPs with contemporary Greeks and even contemporary Icelanders than with contemporary Bulgarians.

[andre]

“Very surprisingly, in our test Wusun samples outcompeted early Slav
samples from Central Europe we had available. While results confirm ancestral
contribution from Early Slavs, the evidence for Wusun admixture seem more
convincing (Z-score |-5.1| versus Z-scores |-1.03|.”


“The results suggest that ancient Thracians do not share more genetic drift with contemporary Bulgarians than with contemporary Icelanders, which we used as a referent population. On this ground, the results exclude substantial contribution to contemporary Bulgarians, coming from ancient Thracians.”

[Dick]

Well no shit. If it talks like a duck...

[Ion Basescul]

"Contemporary Bulgarians are admixture of Slavs, Proto-Bulgarians and Latinized Balkan populations from late antiquity that came into being after the establishment of FBK (First Bulgarian Kingdom) in 7th century AD."


A melting pot of Slavs, Bulgars and pre-Slavic admixed Romanians basically
But Bulgarians on average don't even reach 2% of East Asian + Siberian + Amerindian, so I am not sure how true their thesis of Wusun admixture is. They score about the same as Serbs in these components.

<google-sheets-html-origin style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;">
<tbody>
Name
Number of Samples
East_Asian
Siberian
Amerindian
Sum


Bulgaria_Northeastern
9
0.32
0.49
0.24
1.06


Bulgaria_Northcentral
15
0.28
0.99
0.37
1.63


Bulgaria_Northwestern
27
0.52
0.70
0.51
1.73


Bulgaria_Southeastern
12
0.30
0.48
0.44
1.21


Bulgaria_Southcentral
33
0.36
0.90
0.35
1.60


Bulgaria_Southwestern
31
0.54
0.85
0.39
1.78


Bulgaria_average
127
0.44
0.80
0.41
1.65

</tbody>
</google-sheets-html-origin>

[Kaspias]

Funded Propagandaspreaderov. He was trying to show G25 models until 3 months ago, good that he was able to come up with admixture results. He still didn't share, though. I had stated in the forum this conclusion was coming right away he announced this project.

1- The presence of Haji Firuz ChL like admixture is a fact, so do Saltovo Mayaki. However, he tries to manipulate the results by claiming relativity with Wusun. He will receive a greater pass model if he replaces Haji Firuz with Anatolia MLBA, which indicates Haji Firuz actually sources from Middle-Easterner-like ancestry rather than BMAC-like.

2- If he would put Wusun and run f4 against Croatians and Albanians, for example, Albanians will receive higher Wusun input. A similar case goes for straightforward SMC admixture since Wusun is made up by him in this case. What made Bulgarians special in this case will make us think about Proto Bulgar presence?

3- Someone who has a little bit of knowledge of history would know that Proto Bulgars are disappeared even until the founding of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, in which the Vlachs were elite but converted themselves to Bulgaro-Slavs(by enhancing military with Cumans) in order to legitimate their claim in the region. However, Mr. Propagandaspreaderov is desperate enough to claim that Huns were predominantly Wusuns, because his finding on contemporary Slavic speaker Bulgarian population suggests this. However, even this finding is baseless since it is not a separative factor that makes Bulgarians isolated in the Balkans.

4- Thracian claim is also wrong. Greeks receive higher Thracian-like admixture in admixture due to you can not combine Mycenaean and Thracian admixture together which will prevent you to receive a passing score because of overfitting. Instead, he tries to model Greeks straightforward with Thracians, and expectedly they get higher scores. In fact, due to Greeks having multiple origins(Thrace, Southern Greece, Asia Minor), exact Thracian input can not be measured in the Greek population.

Shame for the science.

[Jana]

Funded Propagandaspreaderov. He was trying to show G25 models until 3 months ago, good that he was able to come up with admixture results. He still didn't share, though. I had stated in the forum this conclusion was coming right away he announced this project.

1- The presence of Haji Firuz ChL like admixture is a fact, so do Saltovo Mayaki. However, he tries to manipulate the results by claiming relativity with Wusun. He will receive a greater pass model if he replaces Haji Firuz with Anatolia MLBA, which indicates Haji Firuz actually sources from Middle-Easterner-like ancestry rather than BMAC-like.

2- If he would put Wusun and run f4 against Croatians and Albanians, for example, Albanians will receive higher Wusun input. A similar case goes for straightforward SMC admixture since Wusun is made up by him in this case. What made Bulgarians special in this case will make us think about Proto Bulgar presence?

3- Someone who has a little bit of knowledge of history would know that Proto Bulgars are disappeared even until the founding of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, in which the Vlachs were elite but converted themselves to Bulgaro-Slavs(by enhancing military with Cumans) in order to legitimate their claim in the region. However, Mr. Propagandaspreaderov is desperate enough to claim that Huns were predominantly Wusuns, because his finding on contemporary Slavic speaker Bulgarian population suggests this. However, even this finding is baseless since it is not a separative factor that makes Bulgarians isolated in the Balkans.

4- Thracian claim is also wrong. Greeks receive higher Thracian-like admixture in admixture due to you can not combine Mycenaean and Thracian admixture together which will prevent you to receive a passing score because of overfitting. Instead, he tries to model Greeks straightforward with Thracians, and expectedly they get higher scores. In fact, due to Greeks having multiple origins(Thrace, Southern Greece, Asia Minor), exact Thracian input can not be measured in the Greek population.

Shame for the science.

Yes, looks like ridiculously bad propaganda project. I can't believe things like this get published, I tought there is quality control in academic circles but seems not.

[Lucas]

Yes, looks like ridiculously bad propaganda project. I can't believe things like this get published, I tought there is quality control in academic circles but seems not.

Guys, calm down. On Biorxiv you can practically upload everything which is not obvious idiocy. But if someone puts many sophisticated examples of genetic statistics it is treated as legit and allowed for publishing (for free which is also important). Not matter how wrong are the conclusions.

Read rules https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-manuscript


An article may be deposited in bioRxiv in draft or final form, provided that it concerns a relevant scientific field, the content is unpublished at the time of submission, and all its authors have consented to its deposition. Authors wishing to deposit manuscripts must first register on the site. There is no charge for registration or article deposition.

All articles uploaded to bioRxiv undergo a basic screening process for offensive and/or non-scientific content and for material that might pose a health or biosecurity risk. Articles are not peer-reviewed before being posted online. No endorsement of their methods, assumptions, conclusions or scientific quality by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is implied by their appearance in bioRxiv.



So quality control is only for offensive, biosecurity or non-scientifc content. You don't even have school finished to publish there.

[Arūnas]

how much of Atlantic/North Sea in these "Paleos"?