What are the ancient origins of Bulgarian DNA? A Thracian-era Balkan base carried through the Roman provinces, plus the early medieval East European layer that the peninsula transect measures at a large minority to roughly half by region. The Turkic Bulgars who named the country register as a small trace. Ancestrify models each era from your raw DNA.
Key facts
Figures as published, one source per row.
| The deep stack | Europe's first farming societies at Karanovo, the Copper Age wealth of the Varna cemetery, and early steppe-derived arrivals across the Danube plain.Source: The genomic history of southeastern Europe (2018), Mathieson et al. |
|---|---|
| Iron Age Thrace | The sampled genomes of the Odrysian world carry the settled Balkan blend of farmer, steppe and local forager legacies, kin to the Daco-Getic north and the palaeo-Balkan west.Source: The genomic history of southeastern Europe (2018), Mathieson et al. |
| The Roman provinces | Thrace and Moesia received continuous Anatolian and eastern Mediterranean inflow through the imperial centuries, over a persistent local base.Source: A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations (2023), Olalde et al. |
| The Slavic-era layer | East European-related ancestry enters the Balkans at scale from the sixth century. In the eastern Balkans it is a large minority of ancestry, with regional values ranging toward half, and the exact figure moves with the proxy.Source: A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations (2023), Olalde et al. |
| The Bulgar layer | Sampled elite burials of the early khanate carry the expected mixed steppe profiles, but their contribution to the broader population reads as small: a ruling minority absorbed within centuries, which here lost its language to the majority. |
| Ottoman centuries and modern position | Regional texture without moving the national centre. The Pomaks read genetically as local Bulgarians rather than as settlers, and modern Bulgarians sit centrally in the Balkan cluster near North Macedonians, Romanians and Serbians. |
| What Ancestrify reports | An era-by-era qpAdm model of your raw DNA against these ancient sources, published with its p-value, every source's standard error and the full right set, from from €29.99.See Ancient Ancestry |
Bulgaria is named for the one founding people who contributed least to its genome. The Bulgars gave the state its name and its first dynasty; the language is Slavic; and the genetic base under both is the old population of Thrace, carried through Rome's Balkan provinces. Ancient DNA — with the Balkans now among Europe's best-sampled regions — can put rough weights on all three.
The short answer: Bulgarian ancestry is the Balkan deep stack — Thracian-era locals shaped by farmer, steppe and provincial-Roman layers — plus the early medieval East European (Slavic- era) addition the peninsula-wide transect measures at a large minority to roughly half by region. The Turkic Bulgars register as a small steppe trace at most. Modern Bulgarians sit centrally in the Balkan cluster, closest to North Macedonians, Romanians and Serbians.
Thrace, and the province#
The territory runs the Balkan deep sequence from the front row: Europe's first farming societies (Karanovo), spectacular Copper Age wealth (the Varna cemetery's gold, the oldest known), early steppe-derived arrivals across the Danube plain. By the Iron Age the land was Thracian — the Odrysian kingdom's world — and its sampled genomes carry the settled Balkan blend of farmer, steppe and local forager legacies, kin to the Daco-Getic north and the palaeo-Balkan west.
Rome made Thrace and Moesia core provinces, and the Balkan transect (Olalde et al. 2023) shows what provincial status meant genetically: continuous Anatolian and eastern-Mediterranean inflow through the imperial centuries — the same cosmopolitan drift measured across the frontier — over a persistent local base.
The two arrivals, weighed#
The early Middle Ages brought both founding arrivals within two generations of each other, and the genetics now separates them cleanly:
- The Slavic-era layer is large. The transect measures East European-related ancestry entering the Balkans at scale from the sixth century — in the eastern Balkans a large minority of ancestry, with regional values ranging toward half. In Bulgarian genomes it is the second pillar, fused with the provincial base — the same proxy-dependent figure every Balkan estimate carries.
- The Bulgar layer is thin. Sampled elite burials associated with the early khanate carry the expected mixed steppe profiles (Turkic-era Central Asian blends), but their contribution to the broader population reads as small — a ruling minority absorbed within centuries, the Hungarian conquerors' story with an earlier date and a linguistic twist: here the newcomers lost their language to the majority.
Ottoman centuries added regional texture (strongest in communities with documented conversion and settlement histories — the Pomaks read genetically as local Bulgarians, incidentally, not as settlers) without moving the national centre. Modern Bulgarian genomes sit centrally Balkan: closest to North Macedonians (near-identical in most panels), then Romanians, Serbians and northern Greeks. Y-DNA carries the balance sheet: E-V13 and J-L283's J2b kin for the palaeo-Balkan share, I2a-Dinaric and R1a for the Slavic-era one, R-Z93-adjacent traces for the steppe visitors.
Reading your own results#
- G25 distances: modern era led by Bulgarian and North Macedonian averages with the Balkan neighbourhood tight behind; expect near-ties — this is one of Europe's most compact regional clusters. Ancient eras: provincial-cosmopolitan company in Antiquity, Thracian- era Balkan samples deeper.
- Admixture fits: the Balkan two-source medieval structure (provincial base
- Slavic-related) is mandatory panel design here; collinear Balkan sources are the standing trap, and a small steppe-nomad component should be treated as noise unless formally tested.
- qpAdm: two crisp questions — what Slavic-era weight does my genome require? and does it need any Bulgar-like steppe source at all? The second usually answers no with a clean rejection, which is itself the historically interesting result.
Frequently asked questions#
Are Bulgarians Slavs or Bulgars genetically?#
Mostly neither-alone: the largest share is the old Balkan provincial base, the Slavic-era layer is the major addition, and the Bulgars are a trace. The name and the language each came from a different pillar than the plurality of the ancestry — the Balkans in one sentence.
How much Thracian ancestry do Bulgarians have?#
A substantial share via the provincial continuum — but "percent Thracian" is not a well-posed number: Thracians were themselves a blend, and later layers fused with theirs. Formal models can weigh era-sources; they cannot resurrect a census.
Are Bulgarians close to Turks genetically?#
Closer than politics suggests and further than geography might: Anatolian Turks carry the old Anatolian pool, Bulgarians the Balkan one — the two share deep Mediterranean-Anatolian layers while differing in the Slavic-era and Central Asian additions respectively.
Terms used here are defined in the glossary.
Sources and further reading#
- Olalde, I. et al. (2023). A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations. Cell, 186, 5472–5485.
- Mathieson, I. et al. (2018). The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature, 555, 197–203.
- Lazaridis, I. et al. (2022). The genetic history of the Southern Arc. Science, 377, eabm4247.
