A genetic history of the pre-contact Caribbean

Humans settled the Caribbean about 6,000 years ago, and ceramic use and intensified agriculture mark a shift from the Archaic to the Ceramic Age at around 2,500 years ago1,2,3. Here we report genome-wide data from 174 ancient individuals from The Bahamas, Haiti and the Dominican Republic (collectively, Hispaniola), Puerto Rico, Curaçao and Venezuela, which we co-analysed with 89 previously published ancient individuals. Stone-tool-using Caribbean people, who first entered the Caribbean during the Archaic Age, derive from a deeply divergent population that is closest to Central and northern South American individuals; contrary to previous work4, we find no support for ancestry contributed by a population related to North American individuals. Archaic-related lineages were >98% replaced by a genetically homogeneous ceramic-using population related to speakers of languages in the Arawak family from northeast South America; these people moved through the Lesser Antilles and into the Greater Antilles at least 1,700 years ago, introducing ancestry that is still present. Ancient Caribbean people avoided close kin unions despite limited mate pools that reflect small effective population sizes, which we estimate to be a minimum of 500–1,500 and a maximum of 1,530–8,150 individuals on the combined islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola in the dozens of generations before the individuals who we analysed lived. Census sizes are unlikely to be more than tenfold larger than effective population sizes, so previous pan-Caribbean estimates of hundreds of thousands of people are too large5,6. Confirming a small and interconnected Ceramic Age population7, we detect 19 pairs of cross-island cousins, close relatives buried around 75 km apart in Hispaniola and low genetic differentiation across islands. Genetic continuity across transitions in pottery styles reveals that cultural changes during the Ceramic Age were not driven by migration of genetically differentiated groups from the mainland, but instead reflected interactions within an interconnected Caribbean world1,8.This work was supported by a grant from the National Geographic Society to M. Pateman to facilitate analysis of skeletal material from The Bahamas and by a grant from the Italian ‘Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation’ (Italian archaeological, anthropological and ethnological missions abroad, DGPSP Ufficio VI). D.R. was funded by NSF HOMINID grant BCS-1032255, NIH (NIGMS) grant GM100233, the Paul Allen Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation grant 61220 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.Peer reviewe

Genomic Insights into the Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

厦门大学人类学研究所、厦门大学生命科学学院细胞应激生物学国家重点实验室王传超教授课题组与哈佛医学院David Reich教授团队合作，联合全球43个单位的85位共同作者组成的国际合作团队通过古DNA精细解析东亚人群形成历史。研究人员利用古DNA数据检验了东亚地区农业和语言共扩散理论，综合考古学、语言学等证据，该研究系统性地重构了东亚人群的形成、迁徙和混合历史。这是目前国内开展的东亚地区最大规模的考古基因组学研究，此次所报道的东亚地区古人基因组样本量是以往国内研究机构所发表的样本量总和的两倍，改变了东亚地区尤其是中国境内考古基因组学研究长期滞后的局面。 该研究是由王传超教授团队与哈佛医学院（David Reich教授）、德国马普人类历史科学研究所（Johannes Krause教授）、复旦大学现代人类学教育部重点实验室（李辉教授和金力院士）、维也纳大学进化人类学系（Ron Pinhasi副教授）、南洋理工大学人文学院（Hui-Yuan Yeh助理教授）、俄罗斯远东联邦大学科学博物馆（Alexander N Popov研究员）、西安交通大学（张虎勤教授）、蒙古国国家博物馆研究中心、乌兰巴托国立大学考古系、华盛顿大学人类学系、台湾成功大学考古所、加州大学人类学系等全球43个单位的85位共同作者组成的国际合作团队联合完成的。厦门大学人类学研究所、厦门大学生命科学学院细胞应激生物学国家重点实验室为论文第一完成单位。厦门大学人类学研究所韦兰海副教授、胡荣助理教授、郭健新博士后、何光林博士后和杨晓敏硕士参与了研究工作。The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people1,2. We report genome-wide data from 166 East Asians dating to 6000 BCE-1000 CE and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan plateau are linked by a deeply-splitting lineage likely reflecting a Late Pleistocene coastal migration. We follow Holocene expansions from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages. Second, Yellow River Basin farmers at ～3000 BCE likely spread Sino-Tibetan languages as their ancestry dispersed both to Tibet where it forms up ～84% to some groups and to the Central Plain where it contributed ～59-84% to Han Chinese. Third, people from Taiwan ～1300 BCE to 800 CE derived ～75% ancestry from a lineage also common in modern Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic speakers likely deriving from Yangtze River Valley farmers; ancient Taiwan people also derived ～25% ancestry from a northern lineage related to but different from Yellow River farmers implying an additional north-to-south expansion. Fourth, Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived in western Mongolia after ～3000 BCE but was displaced by previously established lineages even while it persisted in western China as expected if it spread the ancestor of Tocharian Indo-European languages. Two later gene flows affected western Mongolia: after ～2000 BCE migrants with Yamnaya and European farmer ancestry, and episodic impacts of later groups with ancestry from Turan.We thank David Anthony, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Katherine Brunson, Rowan Flad, Pavel Flegontov,Qiaomei Fu, Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Mark Lipson, Iain Mathieson, Richard Meadow,Inigo Olalde, Nick Patterson, Pontus Skoglund, Dan Xu, and the four reviewers for valuable comments. We thank Naruya Saitou and the Asian DNA Repository Consortium for sharing genotype data from present-day Japanese groups. We thank Toyohiro Nishimoto and Takashi Fujisawa from the Rebun Town Board of Education for sharing the Funadomari Jomon samples, and Hideyo Tanaka and Watru Nagahara from the Archeological Center of Chiba City who are excavators of the Rokutsu Jomon site. The excavations at Boisman-2 site (Boisman culture), the Pospelovo-1 site (Yankovsky culture), and the Roshino-4 site (Heishui Mohe culture) were funded by the Far Eastern Federal University and the Institute of History,Archaeology and Ethnology Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; research on Pospelovo-1 is funded by RFBR project number 18-09-40101. C.C.W was funded by the Max Planck Society, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 31801040), the Nanqiang Outstanding Young Talents Program of Xiamen University (X2123302), the Major project of National Social Science Foundation of China (20&ZD248), a European Research Council (ERC) grant to Dan Xu (ERC-2019-ADG-883700-TRAM) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (ZK1144). O.B. and Y.B. were funded by Russian Scientific Foundation grant 17-14-01345. H.M. was supported by the grant JSPS 16H02527. M.R. and C.C.W received funding from the ERC under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant No 646612) to M.R. The research of C.S. is supported 30 by the Calleva Foundation and the Human Origins Research Fund. H.L was funded NSFC (91731303, 31671297), B&R International Joint Laboratory of Eurasian Anthropology (18490750300). J.K. was funded by DFG grant KR 4015/1-1, the Baden Württemberg Foundation, and the Max Planck Institute. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry radiocarbon dating work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (BCS-1460369) to D.J.K. and B.J.C. D.R. was funded by NSF grant BCS-1032255, NIH (NIGMS) grant GM100233, the Paul M. Allen Frontiers Group, John Templeton Foundation grant 61220, a gift from Jean-Francois Clin, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 该研究得到了国家自然科学基金“中国东南各族群的遗传混合”、国家社科基金重大项目“多学科视角下的南岛语族的起源和形成研究”、厦门大学南强青年拔尖人才支持计划A类、中央高校基本科研业务费等资助

The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe

By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and its neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age (about 5000 to 1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. Two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, and the Yamnaya pastoralists, formed on the steppe, then spread southward into the Balkans and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra–West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe

The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization's decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia, whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.N.P. carried out this work while a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. P.M. was supported by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund CASI award. N.N. is supported by a NIGMS (GM007753) fellowship. T.C. and A.D. were supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project 14-50-00036). T.M.S. was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 18-09-00779) “Anthropological and archaeological aspects of ethnogenesis of the population of the southern part of Western and Central Siberia in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.” D.P., S.S., and D.L. were supported by European Research Council ERC-2011-AdG 295733 grant (Langelin). O.M. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education and Sciences of the Russian Federation No. 33.1907, 2017/Π4 “Traditional and innovational models of a development of ancient Volga population”. A.E. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education and Sciences of the Russian Federation No. 33.5494, 2017/BP “Borderlands of cultural worlds (Southern Urals from Antiquity to Early Modern period).” Radiocarbon dating work supported by the NSF Archaeometry program BCS-1460369 to D.Ken. and B.J.C. and by the NSF Archaeology program BCS-1725067 to D.Ken. K.Th. was supported by NCP fund (MLP0117) of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of India, New Delhi. N.Bo., A.N., and M.Z. were supported by the Max Planck Society. D.Re. is an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and his ancient DNA laboratory work was supported by National Science Foundation HOMINID grant BCS-1032255, by National Institutes of Health grant GM100233, by an Allen Discovery Center grant, and by grant 61220 from the John Templeton Foundation

A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia

Literary and archaeological sources have preserved a rich history of Southern Europe and West Asia since the Bronze Age that can be complemented by genetics. Mycenaean period elites in Greece did not differ from the general population and included both people with some steppe ancestry and others, like the Griffin Warrior, without it. Similarly, people in the central area of the Urartian Kingdom around Lake Van lacked the steppe ancestry characteristic of the kingdom’s northern provinces. Anatolia exhibited extraordinary continuity down to the Roman and Byzantine periods, with its people serving as the demographic core of much of the Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself. During medieval times, migrations associated with Slavic and Turkic speakers profoundly affected the region

A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia

Literary and archaeological sources have preserved a rich history of Southern Europe and West Asia since the Bronze Age that can be complemented by genetics. Mycenaean period elites in Greece did not differ from the general population and included both people with some steppe ancestry and others, like the Griffin Warrior, without it. Similarly, people in the central area of the Urartian Kingdom around Lake Van lacked the steppe ancestry characteristic of the kingdom's northern provinces. Anatolia exhibited extraordinary continuity down to the Roman and Byzantine periods, with its people serving as the demographic core of much of the Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself. During medieval times, migrations associated with Slavic and Turkic speakers profoundly affected the region

Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia

We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia

Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age

Present-day people from England and Wales harbour more ancestry derived from Early European Farmers (EEF) than people of the Early Bronze Age . To understand this, we generated genome-wide data from 793 individuals, increasing data from the Middle to Late Bronze and Iron Age in Britain by 12-fold, and Western and Central Europe by 3.5-fold. Between 1000 and 875 BC, EEF ancestry increased in southern Britain (England and Wales) but not northern Britain (Scotland) due to incorporation of migrants who arrived at this time and over previous centuries, and who were genetically most similar to ancient individuals from France. These migrants contributed about half the ancestry of Iron Age people of England and Wales, thereby creating a plausible vector for the spread of early Celtic languages into Britain. These patterns are part of a broader trend of EEF ancestry becoming more similar across central and western Europe in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, coincident with archaeological evidence of intensified cultural exchange . There was comparatively less gene flow from continental Europe during the Iron Age, and Britain's independent genetic trajectory is also reflected in the rise of the allele conferring lactase persistence to ~50% by this time compared to ~7% in central Europe where it rose rapidly in frequency only a millennium later. This suggests that dairy products were used in qualitatively different ways in Britain and in central Europe over this period. [Abstract copyright: © 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.