Proto-Bulgars were an Irano-Caucasian people(?)

[Kaspias]

Ok but my question still exists. If Proto-Bulgars were Turkic even a 10-15% input to modern Bulgarians would make them plotting with Balkan Turks, right?
I find more possible they were a Western Iranic group. Such admixture existed already in Balkans.

Well, even if Turkic admixture had preserved in Bulgaria, it is among Balkan Turks now. There were no Bulgarians in the Eastern Bulgaria 150 years before.

So, it is not sensible to search Proto-Bulgarian admixture in modern Bulgarians. They are a continuum of Serbs in genetic meaning.

[Crn Volk]

Well, if Turkic admixture preserved in Bulgaria, it is among Balkan Turks now. There were no Bulgarians in the Eastern Bulgaria 150 years before.

So, it is not sensible to search Proto-Bulgarian admixture in modern Bulgarians. They are a continuum of Serbs in genetic meaning.

Ouch!

[bained]

Well, even if Turkic admixture had preserved in Bulgaria, it is among Balkan Turks now. There were no Bulgarians in the Eastern Bulgaria 150 years before.

So, it is not sensible to search Proto-Bulgarian admixture in modern Bulgarians. They are a continuum of Serbs in genetic meaning.

Stop the drugs kid.

[Chelubey]

Ok but my question still exists. If Proto-Bulgars were Turkic even a 10-15% input to modern Bulgarians would make them plotting with Balkan Turks, right?

Wrong. This means that the modern Balkan Slavic people (called "Bulgars") have no genetic relationship with the Turkic proto-Bulgars.
I think that even modern Kazan Tatars have no more than 25-30% of genetics of the Proto-Bulgarians. The rest part of their genetics are other Turkic and non-Turkic groups.
We must also reasonably assume that the "Proto-Bulgars" were not a monolithic genetic group, since we do not know exactly when and how this ethnos arose.

[Dick]

Well, even if Turkic admixture had preserved in Bulgaria, it is among Balkan Turks now. There were no Bulgarians in the Eastern Bulgaria 150 years before.

So, it is not sensible to search Proto-Bulgarian admixture in modern Bulgarians. They are a continuum of Serbs in genetic meaning.

+1

[PAGANE]

This is nonsense. Not only are there Bulgarians, but most of the liberation movements start from central and eastern Bulgaria.

[PAGANE]

Again, I ask on what basis are your allegations. Only for information - genetic research of proto-Bulgarians is not yet available. Only now is Harvard's study beginning. Not only is it not known when they originated, but also where. So please stop speculating. Let the research of proto-Bulgarians come out. Let these studies be compared with modern Bulgarians and then to comment and make assumptions

[Chelubey]

Again, I ask on what basis are your allegations. Only for information - genetic research of proto-Bulgarians is not yet available. Only now is Harvard's study beginning. Not only is it not known when they originated, but also where. So please stop speculating. Let the research of proto-Bulgarians come out. Let these studies be compared with modern Bulgarians and then to comment and make assumptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar...y_and_genetics

The paleoanthropological material from all sites in Volga region, Ukraine and Moldova attributed to the Bulgars testify complex ethno-cultural processes.[213] The material shows the assimilation between the local population and the migrating newcomers.[204] In all sites can be traced the anthropological type found in the Zlivka necropolis near the village of Ilichevki, the district of Donetsk, of brachiocranic Caucasoid with small East Asian admixtures but with Bulgar males being more Mongoloid than females.[214][204][213] Despite the morphological proximity, there is a visible impact of the local population, in the Volga region of Finno-Ugric and ancient Turkic, in Ukraine of Sarmatian-Alans, and in Moldova of Slavic people.[213] The comparative analysis showed large morphological proximity between the medieval and modern population of the Volga region.[213] The examined graves in Northern Bulgaria and Southern Romania showed different somatic types, including Caucasoid-Mediterranean and less often East Asian.[167]

[Kaspias]

Well, even if Turkic admixture had preserved in Bulgaria, it is among Balkan Turks now. There were no Bulgarians in the Eastern Bulgaria 150 years before.

So, it is not sensible to search Proto-Bulgarian admixture in modern Bulgarians. They are a continuum of Serbs in genetic meaning.

Eastern Bulgaria has a definitive Turkish majority with a ratio of 80% to 20%. IRO was present in regions such as Dobruja and Edirne because Bulgarian officers were well organized and trained by Russians, while Turks were a bunch of villagers.


Also, just to prove what I had stated:




Dodecad K12b comparison of two populations:



And let's look at the newly coming Proto-Bulgar article by Stamov that PAGANE mentions:

-Proto-Bulgarians "late Sarmatic people with distinct Caucasus signal", "closest to Moldova Scythians" .

1- What is "a distinct Caucasus signal?" He uses Vahaduo(this is also funny btw) to make such conclusions, what did he see? 10 Distance to Alans or something?
2- How Proto-Bulgarians can be close to the THRACIANS?
3- How you concluded they are Sarmatians?

-The military leader Q-sample is Paleo-Siberian, found among Ket people."Autosomally connected to Scythians and Alan-Sarmatians...with native Caucasus admix".Reburial in a Neolithic site actually, around Tarnovo.

Well, it is Q-L330, which is Hunnic.

The Alan L330 which I posted before in this forum was an outlier, and his admixture was actually Bashkir-like. So, it has nothing to do with Sarmatians or actual Alans.

-No Neolithic or appreciable Thracian autos. (0-10%) component in contemporary Bulgarians.

Interesting... Claiming Eastern Roman heritage up to 30%, yet 0-10% Thracian at the same time. That's probably because he considered Scythian Moldovans as Proto-Bulgars, while they are Thracians.

I mean, me, being all of my ancestors are from Thrace, have only 0-10% Thracian?


You can check all the notes from the work here

---

So yes, what we see here is this research was done by someone who is highly biased or not qualified enough to carry out it. In this sense, it is also wrong to expect that this article will make a contribution to what we know. Perhaps it can work if he decides to share all the data publicly yet what he will write in the article already will manipulate people.

[Crn Volk]

Eastern Bulgaria has a definitive Turkish majority with a ratio of 80% to 20%. IRO was present in regions such as Dobruja and Edirne because Bulgarian officers were well organized and trained by Russians, while Turks were a bunch of villagers.


Also, just to prove what I had stated:




Dodecad K12b comparison of two populations:



And let's look at the newly coming Proto-Bulgar article by Stamov that PAGANE mentions:



1- What is "a distinct Caucasus signal?" He uses Vahaduo(this is also funny btw) to make such conclusions, what did he see? 10 Distance to Alans or something?
2- How Proto-Bulgarians can be close to the THRACIANS?
3- How you concluded they are Sarmatians?



Well, it is Q-L330, which is Hunnic.

The Alan L330 which I posted before in this forum was an outlier, and his admixture was actually Bashkir-like. So, it has nothing to do with Sarmatians or actual Alans.



Interesting... Claiming Eastern Roman heritage up to 30%, yet 0-10% Thracian at the same time. That's probably because he considered Scythian Moldovans as Proto-Bulgars, while they are Thracians.

I mean, me, being all of my ancestors are from Thrace, have only 0-10% Thracian?


You can check all the notes from the work here

---

So yes, what we see here is this research was done by someone who is highly biased or not qualified enough to carry out it. In this sense, it is also wrong to expect that this article will make a contribution to what we know. Perhaps it can work if he decides to share all the data publicly yet what he will write in the article already will manipulate people.

Sounds more like a politically motivated study trying to prove a point.