The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people 1 , 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.

The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people. We report genome-wide data from 191 individuals from Mongolia, northern China, Taiwan, the Amur River Basin and Japan dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE, many from contexts never previously analyzed with ancient DNA. We also report 383 present-day individuals from 46 groups mostly from the Tibetan Plateau and southern China. We document how 6000-3600 BCE people of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin were from populations that expanded over Northeast Asia, likely dispersing the ancestors of Mongolic and Tungusic languages. In a time transect of 89 Mongolians, we reveal how Yamnaya steppe pastoralist spread from the west by 3300-2900 BCE in association with the Afanasievo culture, although we also document a boy buried in an Afanasievo barrow with ancestry entirely from local Mongolian hunter-gatherers, representing a unique case of someone of entirely non-Yamnaya ancestry interred in this way. The second spread of Yamnaya-derived ancestry came via groups that harbored about a third of their ancestry from European farmers, which nearly completely displaced unmixed Yamnaya-related lineages in Mongolia in the second millennium BCE, but did not replace Afanasievo lineages in western China where Afanasievo ancestry persisted, plausibly acting as the source of the early-splitting Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages. Analyzing 20 Yellow River Basin farmers dating to ∼3000 BCE, we document a population that was a plausible vector for the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages both to the Tibetan Plateau and to the central plain where they mixed with southern agriculturalists to form the ancestors of Han Chinese. We show that the individuals in a time transect of 52 ancient Taiwan individuals spanning at least 1400 BCE to 600 CE were consistent with being nearly direct descendants of Yangtze Valley first farmers who likely spread Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages across Southeast and South Asia and mixing with the people they encountered, contributing to a four-fold reduction of genetic differentiation during the emergence of complex societies. We finally report data from Jomon hunter-gatherers from Japan who harbored one of the earliest splitting branches of East Eurasian variation, and show an affinity among Jomon, Amur River Basin, ancient Taiwan, and Austronesian-speakers, as expected for ancestry if they all had contributions from a Late Pleistocene coastal route migration to East Asia.

Hainan Island, located between East Asia and Southeast Asia, represents an ideal region for the study of the genetic architecture of geographically isolated populations. However, the genetic structure and demographic history of the indigenous Tai-Kadai-speaking Hlai people and recent expanded southernmost Han Chinese on this island are poorly characterized due to a lack of genetic data. Thus, we collected and genotyped 36 Qiongzhong Hlai and 48 Haikou Han individuals at 497,637 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We applied principal component analysis, ADMIXTURE, symmetrical D-statistics, admixture-f 3 statistics, qpWave, and qpAdm analysis to infer the population history. Our results revealed the East Asian populations are characterized by a north-south genetic cline with Hlai at the southernmost end. We have not detected recent gene flow from neighboring populations into Hlai, therefore, we used Hlai as an unadmixed proxy to model the admixture history of mainland Tai-Kadai-speaking populations and southern Han Chinese. The mainland Tai-Kadai-speaking populations are suggested deriving a larger number of their ancestry from Hlai-related lineage, but also having admixture from South Asian-related or other neighboring populations. The Hlai group is also suggested to contribute about half of the ancestry to Han Chinese in Hainan. The complex patterns of genetic structure in East Asia were shaped via language categories, geographical boundaries, and large southward population movements with language dispersal and agriculture propagation.

The ancestral origin and genomic history of Chinese Hui people remain to be explored due to the paucity of genome-wide data. Some evidence argues that an eastward migration of Central Asians gave rise to modern Hui people, which is referred to as the demic diffusion hypothesis; other evidence favors the cultural diffusion hypothesis, which posits that East Asians adopted Muslim culture to form the modern culturally distinct populations. However, the extent to which the observed genetic structure of the Huis was mediated by the movement of people or the assimilation of Muslim culture also remains highly contentious. Analyses of over 700 K SNPs in 109 western Chinese individuals (49 Sichuan Huis and 60 geographically close Nanchong Hans) together with the available ancient and modern Eurasian sequences allowed us to fully explore the genomic makeup and origin of Hui and neighboring Han populations. The results from PCA, ADMIXTURE, and allele-sharing-based f-statistics revealed a strong genomic affinity between Sichuan Huis and Neolithic-to-modern Northern East Asians, which suggested a massive gene influx from East Asians into the Sichuan Hui people. Three-way admixture models in the qpWave/qpAdm analyses further revealed a small stream of gene influx from western Eurasians into the Sichuan Hui people, which was further directly confirmed via the admixture event from the temporally distinct Western sources to Sichuan Hui people in the qpGraph-based phylogenetic model, suggesting the key role of the cultural diffusion model in the genetic formation of the Sichuan Huis. ALDER-based admixture date estimation showed that this observed western Eurasian admixture signal was introduced into the Sichuan Huis during the historic periods, which was concordant with the extensive western–eastern communication along the Silk Road and historically documented Huis' migration history. In summary, although significant cultural differentiation exists between Hui people and their neighbors, our genomic analysis showed their strong genetic affinity with modern and ancient Northern East Asians. Our results support the hypothesis that the Sichuan Huis arose from a mixture of minor western Eurasian ancestry and predominant East Asian ancestry.

The Han Chinese are the world's largest ethnic group residing across China. Shaanxi province in northern China was a pastoral–agricultural interlacing region sensitive to climate change since Neolithic times, which makes it a vital place for studying population dynamics. However, genetic studies of Shaanxi Han are underrepresented due to the lack of high‐density sampling and genome‐wide data. Here, we genotyped 700 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 200 Han individuals from nine populations in Shaanxi and compared with available modern and ancient Eurasian individuals. We revealed a north–south genetic cline in Han Chinese with Shaanxi Han locating at the northern side of the cline. We detected the western Eurasian‐related admixture in Shaanxi populations, especially in Guanzhong and Shanbei Han Chinese in proportions of 2%–4.6%. Shaanxi Han were suggested to derive a large part of ancestry (39%–69%) from a lineage that also contributed largely to ancient and present‐day Tibetans (85%) as well as southern Han, supporting the common northern China origin of modern Sino‐Tibetan‐speaking populations and southwestward expansion of millet farmers from the middle‐upper Yellow River Basin to the Tibetan Plateau and to southern China. The rest of the ancestry of Shaanxi Han was from a lineage closely related to ancient and present‐day Austronesian and Tai‐Kadai speaking populations in southern China and Southeast Asia. We also observed a genetic substructure in Shaanxi Han in terms of north–south‐related ancestry corresponding well to the latitudes. Maternal mitochondrial DNA and paternal Y‐chromosome lineages further demonstrated the aforementioned admixture pattern of Han Chinese in Shaanxi province.

Ancestry inference based on SNPs with marked allele frequency differences in diverse populations (called ancestry-informative SNP (AISNP)) is rapidly developed with the technology advancements of massively parallel sequencing. Despite the decade of exploration and broad public interest in the peopling of East-Asians, the genetic landscape of Chinese Silk Road populations based on the AISNPs is still little known. In this work, 206 unrelated individuals from Chinese Uyghur and Hui populations were firstly genotyped by 165 AISNPs (The Precision ID Ancestry Panel) using the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine system. The ethnic origin of two investigated populations and population structures and genetic relationships were subsequently investigated. The 165 AISNPs panel not only can differentiate Uyghur and Hui populations but also has potential applications in individual identification. Comprehensive population comparisons and admixture estimates demonstrated a predominantly higher European-related ancestry (36.30%) in Uyghurs than Huis (3.66%). Overall, the Precision ID Ancestry Panel can provide good resolution at the intercontinental level, but has limitations on the genetic homogeneous populations, such as the Hui and Han. Additional population-specific AISNPs remain necessary to get better-scale resolution within geographically proximate populations in East Asia.

Archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence has supported the idea that northern China is the original center of modern Sino‐Tibetan‐speaking populations. However, the demographic history of subsequent southward migration and genetic admixture of Han Chinese with surrounding indigenous populations remain uncharacterized, and the language shifts and assimilations accompanied by movement of people, or just an adaptation of cultural ideas among populations in central China is still unclear, especially for Tibeto‐Burman‐speaking Tujia and central Han Chinese populations. To resolve this, we genotyped over 60K genome‐wide markers in 505 unrelated individuals from 63 indigenous populations. Our results showed both studied Han and Tujia were at the intermediate position in the modern East Asian North–South genetic cline and there was a correlation between the genetic composition and the latitude. We observed the strong genetic assimilation between Tujia people and central Han Chinese, which suggested massive population movements and genetic admixture under language borrowing. Tujia and central Han Chinese could be modeled as a two‐way admixture deriving primary ancestry from a northern ancestral population closely related to the ancient DevilsCave and present‐day Tibetans and a southern ancestral population closely related to the present‐day Tai‐Kadai and Austronesian‐speaking groups. The ancestral northern population we suspect to be related to the Neolithic millet farming groups in the Yellow River Basin or central China. We showed that the newly genotyped populations in Hubei Province had a higher proportion of DevilsCave or modern Tungusic/Mongolic‐related northern ancestries, while the Hunan populations harbored a higher proportion of Austronesian/Tai‐Kadai‐related southern ancestries.

No abstract