Bulgarians 40% Slav on average

[Coolguy1]

Pre-Slavic inhabitants of Bulgaria were certainly not Cypriot like. More proximate samples are needed before any assumptions are made.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

There is Lithuanians who are purer than Belarusians

You said it also 40% should be counted "Slavic" of possible 46-59% admixture

Belarusians vary alot, some are like southern Ukrainians like me relocated after war my cousins, others are like Balts. There is big differences in that nation most people don't realize because Belarus was conquered by Soviet Union during war and has remained Communist satellite state until now, and there is not enough access to proper statistics of region. In regards to I2 prevalence in Belarus many people were brought from Ukraine after war that has never lived there at any point before the war.

There is a Russian dude who is well versed in genetics, I forwarded him this thread. His estimation of early Slav ancestry in Bulgarians is 50%

[Aspar]

Is there a study about it ?

There is no study about it, no study can tell you how much of an ancient population you are.
It's just my own opinion.
What that study did which you've cited is that it underlined the northern European versus southern European genes in the Bulgarians.
But that doesn't mean that the Bulgarians are only Thracian-Slavic mix...

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

There is no study about it, no study can tell you how much of an ancient population you are.
It's just my own opinion.
What that study did which you've cited is that it underlined the northern European versus southern European genes in the Bulgarians.
But that doesn't mean that the Bulgarians are only Thracian-Slavic mix...

We got early Slav samples from Bohemia and Avar-Slavic ones, also Iron Age Bulgarian so it shouldn't be too hard to make nMonte model. Add Bulgars and Myceneans in the mix if they are available.

[Livin]

Bulgars neolithic was not cypriot or east med like.

[Peterski]

Well, can't think of better proxy for Slav input than Belarus

AFAIK, nearly all of Belarus has ancient Baltic hydronymy.

Belarus was probably originally Baltic, Slavs settled it later.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

For Bulgarians the prevailing donor group in admixture with up to more than 40% are a northeastern group, consistent with the medieval Slav expansion, the date of the admixture event is set at 900-1300 CE.
The Slavic frequency of the Bulgarians is determined lower than that of Poles and Hungarians, higher than that of Greeks and roughly the same as Romanians.

In the publication by Hellenthal et al., based on a database of 94 modern populations, the authors inferred over 40% of the total autosomal make-up of the Bulgarians to a legacy of the "Slavic (500-900CE)" expansion. The same publication provided the following two analyses on oneway admixture of the Bulgarian autosomal makeup:

1) 46.0% Belorussian-like (including 23.2% Lithuanian, 19.3% Polish, 2.3% Finnish) and 54.0% Cypriot-like (including 14.8% Greek, 12.7% Cypriot, 11.9% Arab, 4.1% Italian, 3.3% Georgian, 2.0% Sardinian, 2.8% Iranian)
2) 59.0% Polish-like (including 54.5% Polish, 4.0% English) and 40.9% Cypriot-like (including 15.3% Cypriot, 14.9% Arab, 3.5% Georgian, 2.4% Sardinian, 1.4% Hezhen, 1.3% Greek).

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

AFAIK, nearly all of Belarus has ancient Baltic hydronymy.

Belarus was probably originally Baltic, Slavs settled it later.

Balto-Slavs were probably originally the same. Look up my last post, I would much rather trust actual scientists than some TA amateurs.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Interesting study say Hungarians have more Slavic ancestry than Bulgarians (where is Kis Kocos ) and Romanians equal amount.

[Peterski]

We got early Slav samples from Bohemia

Bohemian Slav RISE569 was partially Celto-Germanic (admixture from Pre-Slavic population of Bohemia assimilated by Slavs) and RISE568 is a low quality sample.

There are no any good Early Slavic samples so far.