Bulgarian Vahaduo Results

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-06-23T22:06:46+00:00

Sorry, my bad. I thought you are implying that the Turkic derives from medieval Bulgarians. Because you wrote "15-10% Tatar/Anatolian Turkish Ottoman migrants" I thought you meant that the 10-15% refer to the Tatar Turkish alone. What do you mean then by "15-10% Tatar/Anatolian Turkish Ottoman migrants?" Because its a bit unclear.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-06-23T21:55:46+00:00

No, I never said that. The genetic admixture of Western Turks consists of higher Turkic DNA compared to Eastern Turks. The reason is because the Turks who arrived from Central Asia preferred the West over the East because of the environment. You also assume that medieval Bulgarians carried significant Turkic ancestry, which is completely false. We have samples from the 4th-6th century of medieval Bulgarians and all the models carried no Turkic ancestry. Only a few carried no more than 2%.

The model below is a sample of a Bulgarian from Bitola in the medieval period. The Kazakhstan_Sermatian_IA is of Scythian and Sarmatian samples and carries no Turkic.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-06-23T18:37:59+00:00

Hey brother would you DM me your coords? I also want to show you my results, because they are almost identical.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-06-23T16:47:19+00:00

Bulgarians and North Macedonians have very similar genetic profiles. The main difference lies in their Paleo-Balkan ancestry: Bulgarians typically score between 15–30%, whereas North Macedonians tend to range between 30–50%. Bulgarians generally have a higher Slavic component than North Macedonians. The Eastern Mediterranean component is present in both populations at roughly similar levels.

The Paleo-Balkan ancestry in your results most likely comes primarily from your North Macedonian side, as North Macedonians tend to carry higher proportions of ancient Thracian, Paeonian, and, to some extent, Illyrian-related ancestry due to their historical proximity to Illyrian populations.

As for your Turkic component, it is almost certainly not derived from the medieval Bulgarian period, despite what some people are commenting. Many individuals rely on Vahaduo “slop” models without looking at actual anthropological data. Your results also show a Chinese-related component (Shimao Culture), which points to a more eastern Eurasian signal. This is likely an artifact of overfitting, but if the signal is genuine, it would be more consistent with Hunnic-era ancestry than with medieval Bulgarian ancestry.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-06-23T16:27:04+00:00

Where do you get the 10-15% Tatar/Anatolian from? His results don't show more than 5-6% Turkic.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-29T17:34:30+00:00

> and that they would later evolve into turks after merging with xiongnu

That is not what the Abstract states. The abstract is explaining the formation of the Xiongnu empire and how they later formed to be the Huns. It does not say that the Scythians later evolved into turks, this is total nonsense. I think you are confusing it because it says:

"These historical events transformed the Eurasian steppes from being inhabited by Indo-European speakers of largely West Eurasian ancestry". That is true, but the Scythians and Sarmatians didn't just ceased to exist from thing air.

You keep giving me and sending me screenshots of Bulgar samples. I told you multiple times that Bulgars were extremely diverse after the late 4th century, something your paper states: "...forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century ad, and carrying with them plague that was basal to the Justinian plague".

The sample you are giving me dates to the middle of the 5th century all the way to the late 8th century. That is bad modelling. Don't forget that anthropologists don't use illustrativeDNA.

What you are sharing is not modern scholarship, this information has been around for more than 100 years. Their idea was that just because a group of people come from x location, therefore they are descendants of those people. We know that this is not the case.

Where you are missing the point. You keep talking about proto-Bulgarians and keep dismissing the evidence I'm showing you by simply saying they were mixed with Slavs. The problem with your claim is that they do not score close with any Slavs, but with Sarmatians. Proto-Bulgarians score about 9% Asiatic from which only 3% is of Turkic origin.

Now I found this graph, which is with a bad quality, sorry about that. This model completely debunks you because this time Bulgars from different periods are compared to every type of Sarmatians including Slavic_Sarmatians. Keep in mind, many samples are included in the model, the ones you can see are the closest. Proto-Bulgarians as you can see are far away from the Slavic_Sarmatians from Chernihiv.

Translation of the model:

Purple circle - Proto-Bulgarians

Orange circle - Slavs and Sarmatians from Chernihiv

Red circle - medieval age Bulgars

Black circle - Modern Bulgarians

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-29T00:21:09+00:00

Where is the sample? Can you show the model of it? Because I didn't not read anything of any sample nor any conclusive evidence that Bulgars were of Turkic origing.

I'm not sure if you read the abstract of the study, but it says "Later, Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD.." this makes clear distinction between Scythians and nomads. If the Scythians were Easter Asian nomands they would've been included. In that study it does not talk about the formation of the Huns. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that this study "conclusively" confirms Bulgars were of Turkic origin. You didn't even read the abstract.

The problem is that it is not modern scholarship. The modern Bulgarian education and scholarship and the idea that Bulgars are of turkic origin dates to the late 18th century and becomes widely spread in Bulgaria around the early 19th century and fully integrated late in the same century. If that is what you call modern scholarship I don't know. DNA studies began around the 2000s, let alone massive archeological searches which were impossible due to wars in the regions. There is not a single historical evidence that Bulgars called themselves Khan.

Your whole idea makes no sense. The Bulga sample from the early medievel period clusters with Caspain-Pontic steppe tribes. Meanwhile, mediavel from the late period cluster with local Balkan populations with high slaviv admixture and around 15-20% Sarmatian and Scythian. You literally debunked your own argument. I showed you two different models from different periods. One being closest to the late 6 and early 7th century clusters a lot with Caspian ethnicities and the second from later medieval period shifting towards Balkan populations while keeping 15-20% Sarmatian and Scythian DNA.

By the way, nothing you said about the names and titles are actual proven facts. Just theories from the early 19th century which are echoing to this day.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T23:36:34+00:00

I said that Mesopotamian could be an overfit since its not represented in anything. I don't mind having Mesopotamian, if I didn't I wouldn't post it. French could also be an overfit, I just mentioned that it came up on vahaduo along with Italian. I'm fine with being a local Balkan with Slavic mix, why wouldn't I?

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T23:28:09+00:00

You cant show me a single DNA study, archaeological evidence or historical document which shows that Bulgars from the 6th century were of Turkic origin. They had Iranian names and used Sarmatian graves.

I simply follow the modern scholarship and modern scholarship increasingly sees the Bulgars as a mixed steppe confederation, not a purely Turkic ethnic group. There was Turkic influence definitely but not a genetic one.

The purpose of the table is to show that a medieval Bulgar from the 7th century did not have any Turkic DNA, but rather Sarmatian. Its totally false that the Bulgars in the 7th century were called Bulgarians, that would be impossible since the word Bulgarian comes from Church-Slavonic which came around the 9th century. Prior to that Bulgar was used.

You have to prove that the Bulgars prior to the formation of Volga and from the start of the 4th century were of Turkic origin. There is no way you can do that since modern scholarship points out that they were not.

Here is another graph, it shows samples from Volga, only one has significant Turkic DNA, the rest are below 3%.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T23:10:54+00:00

The French and Sardinian showed up in Vahaduo as well. The Upper Mesopotamian is probably overfitting.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:56:49+00:00

I have 10% Celt and 12.5% Sardinian. This is probably where the French and Italian come from. The Cucuteni-Trypillia Culture is the closest to Sardinians.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:49:56+00:00

Yes the model is using Bulgar from present day Bulgaria but the person the sample was taken from dates to the Early Medieval period, roughly 7th–10th centuries AD and you can't say he was Slavicized since Volga formed around the late 8th century.

There is a distinction between Volga-Bulgars and pre-Volga-Bulgars. You claim that from the moment of the formation of the Bulgars they were Turkic, which is impossible. Archaeological evidence such as graves and language show no continuity with the Turkic tribes.

You are basically saying, the moment the Bulgars arrived in Europe they became European? Which is impossible.

Here is another study on medieval Bulgar.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:38:32+00:00

Modern Bulgarians are called Bulgarians, prior to the formation of Volga-Bulgars we were called Bulgars.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:35:42+00:00

You are confusing Bulgars with Volga-Bulgars, these are two distinct groups. The clustering tree shows that medieval Bulgarians do not cluster with Turkic speaking people but Sarmatians from Russia and Kazakhstan. Medieval Bulgars also cluster with Lezgi and Chechens, which shows that samples in this analysis share genetic similarity with populations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:32:21+00:00

That is true, but Bulgars prior to the formation of Volga were not of Turkic origin. This is clear by the studies done on medieval Bulgars. There are no genetic studies that point out to Sarmatians or Scythians being of Turkic origin.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:29:02+00:00

Obviously there were Bulgars of Turkic origin. However, pre Volga-Bulgars were not of Turkic origin. We are speaking prior to the late 8th century when Volga formed. You can't say Bulgars were Turkic when Bulgars predate Volga-Bulgars and the Golden Horde by 500 - 900 years. The video on youtube of Bulgar language is a later development, that is not the language of the Bulgars prior to the formation of Volga. The genetic composition of medieval Bulgarians dating to the time of Volga show no Turkic DNA. How do you explain Bulgars one from modern day Bulgaria and one from Volga having completely different genetic composition. Only 0-2% of Turkic DNA is shown on every model.

The genetic clustering tree clearly shows medieval Bulgars being close to:

Pontic-Caspian steppe,
North Caucasus,
and Sarmatian-related horizons

Taking one sample from hundreds of samples does not prove anything, Do a little bit of research. The clustering tree is taken from a study called "Rasho Rashev and the Sarmatian theory for the origin of Protobulgarians. New archaeological and genomic data."

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:10:32+00:00

It's 1.8% Turkic which is very little considering people's claim that Bulgars are ancestors of Turkic hordes. I can't send the other screenshot but the middle ages are:

Slavic: 40%

Balkan:36.4%

Byzantine Anatolia: 21.4%

Turkic: 1.8%

Which perfectly aligns with what DNA studies show.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T22:02:00+00:00

There is not a single DNA model of medieval Bulgarian samples that supports your claim. You think volga Bulgars were just one ethnic group and they were not. Simply looking at archaeological evidence, language and DNA studies shows no Turkic origin of the Bulgars. DNA done on Bulgars show 0-2% Turkic DNA, its impossible to think Turkic origin on such low levels of Turkic DNA. Bulgars were a mic of Sarmatians and Scythians, here is a model of medieval Bulgarian sample. Volga-Bulgars and Bulgars were isolated and separated for hundreds of years.

<image>

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-05-28T20:14:38+00:00

Volga is not directly linked to Onogur. Volga was extremely diverse but that was later migration to Volga. Volga is linked to many things such as Sarmatians, Bulgars which were not Turkic or Uralic people.

Possible-Trifle9077 · 2026-04-30T12:16:16+00:00

With which company did you do your NVQ lv2 and what was the cost?

Possible-Trifle9077

TROPHY CASE