Sample from Nalchik splits R1b1a2-V1636

[old europe]

The Don samples' Euro-HG ancestry was less ANE-rich than EHG correct? More like Ukraine-HG?

Yes they were more WHG shifted than round of the mill EHG samples.

[rmstevens2]

So, apparently what this new Nalchik sample actually does is splits a new branch off of L389 characterized by R1b-BY15337, with V1636 underneath it, as seen in this screenshot Göran Runström posted at the FTDNA R1b Project Facebook group. So now, instead of P297 and V1636 as the two sibling branches under L389, they are P297 and BY15337. 

[Kale]

V1636 is a pretty hefty block of snps, can Pribislav or someone else work their magic and see how many snps Nalchik is derived vs ancestral for?
It would be interesting to see how close or far this fella is from the eventual source of V1636.

[old europe]

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 3.0665% / 0.03066532
42.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
42.4 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
8.2 ROU_Trestiana_N
7.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N

If your model is correct I think that is a very precious piece of the puzzle  of the PIE issue. We alredy know Golubaya Krinitsa was alredy packed with R1a and I2. a R1b sample which is V1636 stricly connected with  R1b M269 came from the middle Don which was mostly Dneper Neolithic like. This would make the middle don the perfect region in which PIE could have developed. In fact the middel don samples are in fact ancestral to Yamnaya. I do not know why continue to push the middle Volga agenda. From Allentoft:


We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as amixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle DonRiver region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP)"

[old europe]

from eurogenes:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/02/t...prise.html




We now have a human sample from the Eneolithic site of Nalchik in the North Caucasus, labeled NL122, that packs well over a quarter of this type of ancestry (see here). Below is a quick G25/Vahaduo model to illustrate the point (please note that Turkey_N = early Anatolian farmers).

Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 2.1934% / 0.02193447
60.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
26.2 Turkey_N
13.0 Georgia_Kotias


On the other hand, if, again like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Indo-European language spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus in association with this early Anatolian farmer-related admixture, then I've got terrible news for you.

That's because NL122 is apparently dated to a whopping 5197-4850 BCE (see here). This dating might be somewhat bloated, possibly due to what's known as the reservoir effect, because the Nalchik archeological site is generally carbon dated to 4840–4820 BCE.

However, even with the younger dating, this would still mean that early Anatolian farmer-related ancestry arrived in the North Caucasus, and thus in Eastern Europe, around 4,800 BCE at the latest. That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus.

This means that NL122 effectively debunks Iosif Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Unless, that is, Iosif can provide evidence for a more convoluted scenario, in which there are at least two early Anatolian farmer-related expansions into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, and the expansion relevant to the arrival of Indo-European speech came well after 5,000 BCE.


I haven't done any detailed analyses of NL122 with formal stats and qpAdm. But my G25/Vahaduo runs suggest that it might be possible to model the ancestry of the Yamnaya people with around 10% admixture from a population similar to NL122.

Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.4123% / 0.03412328
72.6 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
18.2 Ukraine_N
9.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic


However, I don't subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus. Based on basic logic and a wide range of my own analyses, I believe that they acquired this type of ancestry from early European farmers, probably associated with the Trypillia culture. For instance...

Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.2481% / 0.03248061
80.2 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
13.6 Ukraine_Neolithic
6.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
0.0 Nalchik_Eneolithic


Another way to show this is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that highlights a Yamnaya cline made up of the Yamnaya, Steppe Eneolithic and Ukraine Neolithic samples. As you can see, dear reader, there's no special relationship between the Yamnaya cline and Nalchik_Eneolithic. The Yamnaya samples, which are sitting near the eastern end of the Yamnaya cline, instead seem to show a subtle shift towards the Trypillian farmers.

Indeed, I also don't exactly understand the recent infatuation from many academics, especially Iosif Lazaridis and his colleagues, with trying to put the Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus. Considering all of the available multidisciplinary data, I'd say it still makes perfect sense to put it in the Sredny Stog culture of the North Pontic steppe, in what is now Ukraine.

Please note that all of the G25 coordinates used in my models and the PCA are available HERE.

[Riverman]

from eurogenes:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/02/t...prise.html




We now have a human sample from the Eneolithic site of Nalchik in the North Caucasus, labeled NL122, that packs well over a quarter of this type of ancestry (see here). Below is a quick G25/Vahaduo model to illustrate the point (please note that Turkey_N = early Anatolian farmers).

    Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
    Distance: 2.1934% / 0.02193447
    60.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
    26.2 Turkey_N
    13.0 Georgia_Kotias


On the other hand, if, again like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Indo-European language spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus in association with this early Anatolian farmer-related admixture, then I've got terrible news for you.

That's because NL122 is apparently dated to a whopping 5197-4850 BCE (see here). This dating might be somewhat bloated, possibly due to what's known as the reservoir effect, because the Nalchik archeological site is generally carbon dated to 4840–4820 BCE.

However, even with the younger dating, this would still mean that early Anatolian farmer-related ancestry arrived in the North Caucasus, and thus in Eastern Europe, around 4,800 BCE at the latest. That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus.

This means that NL122 effectively debunks Iosif Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Unless, that is, Iosif can provide evidence for a more convoluted scenario, in which there are at least two early Anatolian farmer-related expansions into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, and the expansion relevant to the arrival of Indo-European speech came well after 5,000 BCE.


I haven't done any detailed analyses of NL122 with formal stats and qpAdm. But my G25/Vahaduo runs suggest that it might be possible to model the ancestry of the Yamnaya people with around 10% admixture from a population similar to NL122.

    Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
    Distance: 3.4123% / 0.03412328
    72.6 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
    18.2 Ukraine_N
    9.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic


However, I don't subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus. Based on basic logic and a wide range of my own analyses, I believe that they acquired this type of ancestry from early European farmers, probably associated with the Trypillia culture. For instance...

    Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
    Distance: 3.2481% / 0.03248061
    80.2 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
    13.6 Ukraine_Neolithic
    6.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
    0.0 Nalchik_Eneolithic


Another way to show this is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that highlights a Yamnaya cline made up of the Yamnaya, Steppe Eneolithic and Ukraine Neolithic samples. As you can see, dear reader, there's no special relationship between the Yamnaya cline and Nalchik_Eneolithic. The Yamnaya samples, which are sitting near the eastern end of the Yamnaya cline, instead seem to show a subtle shift towards the Trypillian farmers.

Indeed, I also don't exactly understand the recent infatuation from many academics, especially Iosif Lazaridis and his colleagues, with trying to put the Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus. Considering all of the available multidisciplinary data, I'd say it still makes perfect sense to put it in the Sredny Stog culture of the North Pontic steppe, in what is now Ukraine.

Please note that all of the G25 coordinates used in my models and the PCA are available HERE.

Its also pretty obvious that the haplogroup came with the steppe ancestry and not vice versa. And for a people so clearly patriarchal as the Indoeuropeans, to the point of being agnatic, this means a lot.
I think people shouid, in this as in other cases, concentrate more on the uniparentals and IBD sharing, especially yDNA, but mtDNA and IBD also, because those results are unamibigous, unlike autosomal results can often be.

We see a rising percentage of autosomal and uniparental contribution from European Copper Age populations from East to West in the steppe groups. That's a very clear pattern, whereas the distinctively Caucasian admixture goes the opposite way, obviously, and never reaches the evenly distributed impact we would expect if that admixture would have been formative.

[RCO]

The most important fact is the CHG-IRAN arrival in the steppe where a previously EHG lived for a good time and the production of a new completely admixed population there replacing the local EHG - the Southern CHG-IRAN invasion and conquest of Europe with Indo-European language. In the case of the Y-DNA we can observe a succession of different local clades related to the local archaeological cultures no more existent in the region just like in Khvalysnk, Yamnaya, Afanasievo. We just need more samples to understand the CHG-IRAN proportions in the invasion and Conquista.

[Mithra]

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 3.0665% / 0.03066532
42.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
42.4 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
8.2 ROU_Trestiana_N
7.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N

If your model is correct I think that is a very precious piece of the puzzle  of the PIE issue. We alredy know Golubaya Krinitsa was alredy packed with R1a and I2. a R1b sample which is V1636 stricly connected with  R1b M269 came from the middle Don which was mostly Dneper Neolithic like. This would make the middle don the perfect region in which PIE could have developed. In fact the middel don samples are in fact ancestral to Yamnaya. I do not know why continue to push the middle Volga agenda. From Allentoft:


We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as amixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle DonRiver region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP)"

Middle Don HGs aren’t really ancestral to anyone. Yamnaya/Steppe is ~80% Steppe Eneolithic + ~15% Ukraine HG + ~5% EEF. The big question is, what is Steppe Eneolithic. Is it Nalchik+EHG?

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Code:

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0235% / 0.02352973 | R3P
62.3    RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.8    DEU_LBK_HBS:HBS009.B0101__BC_5025
13.9    GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728

Code:

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0212% / 0.02123730 | R4P
43.5    RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
29.5    ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
19.0    GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
8.0    ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884

Code:

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0187% / 0.01866686 | R5P
26.2    RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
24.1    RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.2    ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
13.7    GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
12.8    ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884

Code:

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0184% / 0.01841440 | R6P
24.1    RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.8    ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
22.8    RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
14.1    GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
12.5    ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884
2.7    UKR_Meso_Voloshskoe:NEO527__BC_8974

Code:

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0178% / 0.01783225 | R7P
28.2    RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
17.2    GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
15.2    RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
14.4    AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:MTT001__BC_5688
13.3    DEU_LBK_HBS:HBS009.B0101__BC_5025
7.7    RUS_Meso_Minino:NEO537__BC_6102
4.0    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954__BC_8212

Samples used

Code:

ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908,0.099026,0.127957,-0.07995,-0.059432,-0.047393,-0.009203,0.0094,-0.004154,-0.051335,-0.014943,0.006333,0.003297,-0.009514,-0.003441,-0.001764,0.014585,0.027902,0.002787,0.009427,-0.006128,0.013476,0.003833,-0.003944,0.002892,0.004311
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:MTT001__BC_5688,0.100164,0.146236,-0.060339,-0.072029,-0.018157,-0.026216,0.005405,-0.010615,-0.026384,0.010023,-0.002761,0.003447,-0.007284,0.001514,-0.016694,-0.015778,-0.00013,0.011402,0.004399,-0.000125,-0.00025,0.008532,-0.005176,0.000602,0.004071
DEU_LBK_HBS:HBS009.B0101__BC_5025,0.1161,0.19092,0.010182,-0.085918,0.057241,-0.043786,-0.005405,0.010615,0.051131,0.087109,0.008444,0.007943,-0.015609,0.01156,-0.044923,-0.003447,0.026468,0.013556,0.004148,-0.018759,-0.002496,0.006925,-0.001849,0.001446,-0.001557
GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954__BC_8212,0.053497,0.072103,-0.150848,0.004199,-0.126177,0.024542,0.022091,0.000462,-0.086514,-0.05376,-0.00341,-0.005395,0.008176,-0.000963,0.02823,0.043755,-0.01356,0.006334,0.011816,-0.04127,0.003494,-0.030048,-0.005669,-0.036391,0.025866
ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884,0.130897,0.166547,0.038089,-0.060401,0.060934,-0.026495,0.001175,0.005077,0.033337,0.071983,0.01429,0.000899,-0.026908,0.011285,-0.024158,-0.021214,-0.006389,0.003927,0.005279,-0.007379,-0.002995,0.014715,0.003081,-0.009278,-0.005269
RUS_Meso_Minino:NEO537__BC_6102,0.105855,0.043668,0.12181,0.182173,0.011079,0.060519,-0.013161,0.003231,-0.019839,-0.081277,0.016726,-0.017684,0.026164,-0.034268,0.02253,0.0118,-0.014212,0.000887,-0.005531,0.012881,-0.001497,0.012736,0.015159,-0.023979,-0.011496
RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346,0.099026,0.091398,0.082212,0.145351,-0.017849,0.058567,-0.00987,-0.004615,-0.026179,-0.067427,0.01088,0.006444,0.008325,-0.027525,0.019815,0.002652,-0.035204,-0.003927,0.000503,-0.004502,0.002246,-0.002968,0.012202,-0.005422,-0.005029
RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900,0.112685,0.079211,0.008674,0.105299,-0.055087,0.044344,0.00376,-0.007154,-0.077719,-0.076904,0.00682,-0.001049,-0.006095,-0.025735,0.030809,0.000796,-0.009648,-0.004941,-0.004022,0.006253,-0.011105,0.000989,0.005916,0.003735,-0.008502
UKR_Meso_Voloshskoe:NEO527__BC_8974,0.117238,0.067025,0.14406,0.194447,0.035699,0.0502,-0.000235,-0.011076,0.01084,-0.082188,0.000974,-0.032671,0.041625,-0.013625,0.027144,0.016839,-0.001565,0.005701,-0.010056,0.014757,0.023708,0.002597,-0.017748,-0.041572,-0.000359

[VladMC]

I checked the provenance of Chalcolithic specimens from the period 5000-4000 BC. and took as their sources all the samples from the period 8000-5000 BC. without Nalchik and with Nalchik, we got the following picture:
without Nalchik:

Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 3.0639% / 0.03063854 | R5P
49.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
37.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
10.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

Target: Ukraine_Eneolithic_CernavodăI_KartalA:KTL001.merge
Distance: 3.9577% / 0.03957715 | R5P
39.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
21.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
21.2 Baltic_LTU_meso
10.8 BGR_MP_N
7.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso

Target: UKR_Deriivka_En:ukr104
Distance: 1.7624% / 0.01762434 | R5P
63.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
14.2 UKR_Deriivka_N
8.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_Meso
7.8 Hungary_N
6.4 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso

Target: UKR_LN_Sredni_Stog_En_Igren_Dnepr-4200BC
Distance: 3.6107% / 0.03610693 | R5P
69.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
13.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
4.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
3.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: Ukraine_LN_Usatovo_Majaky:MAJ023.merge
Distance: 1.9711% / 0.01971095 | R5P
39.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
25.2 BGR_MP_N
15.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
14.6 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
5.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_LN:VJ1001
Distance: 5.2306% / 0.05230616 | R5P
57.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
24.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
10.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
7.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2004
Distance: 4.8991% / 0.04899101 | R5P
58.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
23.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
8.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2001
Distance: 5.0216% / 0.05021556 | R5P
48.2 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
22.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
21.2 ARM_Aknashen_N
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_LN:I1722
Distance: 7.8864% / 0.07886429 | R5P
41.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
41.4 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N
10.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
6.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_LN:I11837
Distance: 3.3479% / 0.03347887 | R5P
49.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
15.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
15.0 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
13.2 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
6.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

the same samples with Nalchik:

Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_LN:I11837
Distance: 3.0548% / 0.03054816 | R5P
26.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
25.0 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
21.6 Nalchik_Eneolithic
17.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
10.0 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_LN:I1722
Distance: 7.4968% / 0.07496825 | R5P
34.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N
30.8 ARM_Aknashen_N
27.8 Nalchik_Eneolithic
6.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2001
Distance: 4.0104% / 0.04010420 | R5P
54.6 Nalchik_Eneolithic
27.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
16.4 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
1.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2004
Distance: 4.3994% / 0.04399362 | R5P
35.2 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
34.8 Nalchik_Eneolithic
28.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
1.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso


Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_LN:VJ1001
Distance: 4.7864% / 0.04786396 | R5P
35.8 Nalchik_Eneolithic
32.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
16.0 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
15.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
0.6 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso

Target: Ukraine_LN_Usatovo_Majaky:MAJ023.merge
Distance: 1.6695% / 0.01669485 | R5P
37.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic
22.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
18.8 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
11.2 BGR_MP_N
10.8 BGR_Ohoden_N

Target: UKR_Deriivka_En:ukr104
Distance: 1.7624% / 0.01762434 | R5P
63.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
14.2 UKR_Deriivka_N
8.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_Meso
7.8 Hungary_N
6.4 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso

Target: Ukraine_Eneolithic_CernavodăI_KartalA:KTL001.merge
Distance: 3.8699% / 0.03869873 | R5P
37.6 Nalchik_Eneolithic
26.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
16.4 BGR_MP_N
12.2 Baltic_LTU_meso
7.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso

[VladMC]

In general, depending on whether Nalchik is the ancestor of Progress or Progress is the ancestor of Nalchik, the situation changes significantly

[Riverman]

Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 3.0665% / 0.03066532
42.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
42.4 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
8.2 ROU_Trestiana_N
7.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N

If your model is correct I think that is a very precious piece of the puzzle  of the PIE issue. We alredy know Golubaya Krinitsa was alredy packed with R1a and I2. a R1b sample which is V1636 stricly connected with  R1b M269 came from the middle Don which was mostly Dneper Neolithic like. This would make the middle don the perfect region in which PIE could have developed. In fact the middel don samples are in fact ancestral to Yamnaya. I do not know why continue to push the middle Volga agenda. From Allentoft:


We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as amixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle DonRiver region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP)"

Middle Don HGs aren’t really ancestral to anyone. Yamnaya/Steppe is ~80% Steppe Eneolithic + ~15% Ukraine HG + ~5% EEF. The big question is, what is Steppe Eneolithic. Is it Nalchik+EHG?

In general, depending on whether Nalchik is the ancestor of Progress or Progress is the ancestor of Nalchik, the situation changes significantly

Is that even a question? I think that Progress and Nalchik had both an ancestor from which they branched from, but Progress being closer to this ancestor autosomally, while Nalchik had mixed with additional, more Anatolian farmer shifted Caucasian settlers.
The origin of the steppe component with CHG is more likely from the Lower Don and coastal Pontic area, and even older than both, clearly so.

[VladMC]

Then this scheme is the main one. Their steppe share is about the same 50-60%. The other components are either completely different or have different proportions.

Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 3.0639% / 0.03063854 | R5P
49.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
37.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
10.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso


Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_LN:VJ1001
Distance: 5.2306% / 0.05230616 | R5P
57.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
24.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
10.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
7.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2004
Distance: 4.8991% / 0.04899101 | R5P
58.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
23.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
8.4 ARM_Aknashen_N

Target: RUS_Progress_LN: PG2001
Distance: 5.0216% / 0.05021556 | R5P
48.2 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
22.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
21.2 ARM_Aknashen_N
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso

[Chad]

Do these models include West Siberia N as a source? If not, I think that'll prove important. You clearly need a high ANE source which we see develop towards Steppe Maykop 1000 years later.

[VladMC]

Do these models include West Siberia N as a source? If not, I think that'll prove important.  You clearly need a high ANE source which we see develop towards Steppe Maykop 1000 years later.

There is no such thing in Nalchik. In Progress, it is presented TJK Tutkaul.meso