Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature
  • Article
  • Published:

Ancient DNA reveals the prehistory of the Uralic and Yeniseian peoples

Naturevolume 644, pages122–132 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The North Eurasian forest and forest-steppe zones have sustained millennia of sociocultural connections among northern peoples, but much of their history is poorly understood. In particular, the genomic formation of populations that speak Uralic and Yeniseian languages today is unknown. Here, by generating genome-wide data for 180 ancient individuals spanning this region, we show that the Early-to-Mid-Holocene hunter-gatherers harboured a continuous gradient of ancestry from fully European-related in the Baltic, to fully East Asian-related in the Transbaikal. Contemporaneous groups in Northeast Siberia were off-gradient and descended from a population that was the primary source for Native Americans, which then mixed with populations of Inland East Asia and the Amur River Basin to produce two populations whose expansion coincided with the collapse of pre-Bronze Age population structure. Ancestry from the first population, Cis-Baikal Late Neolithic–Bronze Age (Cisbaikal_LNBA), is associated with Yeniseian-speaking groups and those that admixed with them, and ancestry from the second, Yakutia Late Neolithic–Bronze Age (Yakutia_LNBA), is associated with migrations of prehistoric Uralic speakers. We show that Yakutia_LNBA first dispersed westwards from the Lena River Basin around 4,000 years ago into the Altai-Sayan region and into West Siberian communities associated with Seima-Turbino metallurgy—a suite of advanced bronze casting techniques that expanded explosively from the Altai1. The 16 Seima-Turbino period individuals were diverse in their ancestry, also harbouring DNA from Indo-Iranian-associated pastoralists and from a range of hunter-gatherer groups. Thus, both cultural transmission and migration were key to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, which was involved in the initial spread of early Uralic-speaking communities.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

9,800 Yen / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

￥ 4,980

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The NEAHG cline and its legacy through admixture in ancient northern Eurasia.
Fig. 2: Middle Holocene populations and admixture events that formed them.
Fig. 3: Contribution of Yakutia_LNBA and Cisbaikal_LNBA to AIEAs.
Fig. 4: Genetics of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The newly reported data in this study can be obtained from the European Nucleotide Archive under accession numberPRJEB86428. Bam files of aligned reads for the 180 newly published ancient individuals and 15 newly reported whole-genome sequences from a subset of these individuals can be found at secondary accessionERP169776, and the genotypes that we used for analysis can be found at secondary accessionERZ25719453. Genotype files in PLINK format for the 229 modern individuals for whom we newly report SNP array can be found at secondary accessionERZ26790638. All maps in the main text and in the Supplementary Information were created using ArcGIS 10.6.1 and QGIS 3.40.6. Figures presenting genetic data were created using Rstudio running R version 4.4.1, and further edited in Adobe Illustrator version 28. Archaeological images in Supplementary Information, section 3 were edited in Adobe Photoshop 25.12.2 and Adobe Acrobat 2025.001.20458.

References

  1. Janhunen, J. Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when?Quasquicentennial Finno Ugrian Soc.258, 57–78 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tambets, K. et al. Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations.Genome Biol.19, 139 (2018).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lamnidis, T. C. et al. Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe.Nat. Commun.9, 5018 (2018).

    Article PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saag, L. et al. The arrival of Siberian ancestry connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic speakers further east.Curr. Biol.29, 1701–1711.e16 (2019).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vajda, E. Dene-Yeniseian.Diachronica35, 277–295 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reich, D. et al. Reconstructing Native American population history.Nature488, 370–374 (2012).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Flegontov, P. et al. Palaeo-Eskimo genetic ancestry and the peopling of Chukotka and North America.Nature570, 236–240 (2019).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sikora, M. et al. The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene.Nature570, 182–188 (2019).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nielsen, S. V. et al. Bayesian inference of admixture graphs on Native American and Arctic populations.PLoS Genet.19, e1010410 (2023).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flegontov, P. et al. Genomic study of the Ket: a Paleo-Eskimo-related ethnic group with significant ancient North Eurasian ancestry.Sci. Rep.6, 20768 (2016).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeong, C. et al. The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia.Nat Ecol. Evol.3, 966–976 (2019).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kidd, K. K. et al. North Asian population relationships in a global context.Sci. Rep.12, 7214 (2022).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Svyatko, S. V. et al. Freshwater reservoir effects in archaeological contexts of Siberia and the Eurasian Steppe.Radiocarbon64, 377–388 (2022).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang, F. et al. The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies.Nature599, 256–261 (2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kılınç, G. M. et al. Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia.Sci. Adv.7, eabc4587 (2021).

    Article PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu, H. et al. Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians reveal connections with first Americans and across Eurasia.Cell181, 1232–1245.e20 (2020).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harney, É., Patterson, N., Reich, D. & Wakeley, J. Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture.Genetics217, iyaa045 (2021).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Flegontova, O. et al. Performance ofqpAdm-based screens for genetic admixture on graph-shaped histories and stepping-stone landscapes.Genetics230, iyaf047 (2025).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Davidson, R. et al. Allelic bias when performing in-solution enrichment of ancient human DNA.Mol. Ecol. Resour.23, 1823–1840 (2023).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grebenyuk, P. S., Fedorchenko, A. Y., Dyakonov, V. M., Lebedintsev, A. I. & Malyarchuk, B. A. inHumans in the Siberian Landscapes: Ethnocultural Dynamics and Interaction with Nature and Space (eds Bocharnikov, V. N. & Steblyanskaya, A. N.) 89–133 (Springer, 2022).

  21. Yang, M. A. et al. Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China.Science369, 282–288 (2020).

    Article CAS ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mao, X. et al. The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene.Cell184, 3256–3266.e13 (2021).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moreno-Mayar, J. V. et al. Terminal Pleistocene Alaskan genome reveals first founding population of Native Americans.Nature553, 203–207 (2018).

    Article CAS ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mathieson, I. et al. The genomic history of southeastern Europe.Nature555, 197–203 (2018).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haak, W. et al. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.Nature522, 207–211 (2015).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Raghavan, M. et al. Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans.Nature505, 87–91 (2014).

    Article ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Barros Damgaard, P. et al. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia.Science360, eaar7711 (2018).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Saag, L. et al. Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain.Sci. Adv.7, eabd6535 (2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Narasimhan, V. M. et al. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia.Science365, eaat7487 (2019).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Posth, C. et al. Palaeogenomics of Upper Palaeolithic to Neolithic European hunter-gatherers.Nature615, 117–126 (2023).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Allentoft, M. E. et al. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia.Nature522, 167–172 (2015).

    Article CAS ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Barros Damgaard, P. et al. 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes.Nature557, 369–374 (2018).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Krzewińska, M. et al. Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads.Sci. Adv.4, eaat4457 (2018).

    Article PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Järve, M. et al. Shifts in the genetic landscape of the Western Eurasian Steppe associated with the beginning and end of the Scythian dominance.Curr. Biol.29, 2430–2441.e10 (2019).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wei, L.-H. et al. Paternal origin of Paleo-Indians in Siberia: insights from Y-chromosome sequences.Eur. J. Hum. Genet.26, 1687–1696 (2018).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Karmin, M. et al. A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture.Genome Res.25, 459–466 (2015).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. YFull.ISOGG Wikihttps://isogg.org/wiki/YFull (2024).

  38. Pakendorf, B. et al. Investigating the effects of prehistoric migrations in Siberia: genetic variation and the origins of Yakuts.Hum. Genet.120, 334–353 (2006).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chernykh, E. N. & Kuz’minykh, S. V. Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoy Evrazii (Seiminsko-Turbinskiy fenomen) (Nauka, 1989).

  40. Marchenko, Z. V., Svyatko, S. V., Molodin, V. I., Grishin, A. E. & Rykun, M. P. Radiocarbon chronology of complexes with Seima-Turbino type objects (Bronze Age) in Southwestern Siberia.Radiocarbon59, 1381–1397 (2017).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Chernykh, E. N. Formation of the Eurasian ‘Steppe Belt’ of stockbreeding cultures: viewed through the prism of archaeometallurgy and radiocarbon dating.Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia35, 36–53 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meicun, L. & Liu, X. The origins of metallurgy in China.Antiquity91, e6 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chernykh, E. N. in Nomadic Cultures in the Mega-Structure of the Eurasian World (eds Savinetskaya, I & Hommel, P. N.) 234–249 (Academic Studies, 2017).

  44. Molodin, V. I., Durakov, I. A., Mylnikova, L. N. & Nesterova, M. S. The adaptation of the Seima-Turbino tradition to the Bronze Age cultures in the south of the West Siberian plain.Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia46, 49–58 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ilumäe, A.-M. et al. Human Y chromosome haplogroup N: a non-trivial time-resolved phylogeography that cuts across language families.Am. J. Hum. Genet.99, 163–173 (2016).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kuzminykh, S. V. Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon: migration or diffusion of technology. InMobility and Migration: Concepts, Methods, Results: Programme and Abstracts of the V International Scientific Symposium (eds Molodin, V. I. & Hansen, S.) 52–56 (2019).

  47. Makarov, N. P. Khronologiya i periodizatsiya epokhi Neolita i Bronzy Krasnoyarskoy lesostepi [The chronology and periodization of the Neolithic and Bronze Krasnoyarsk forest]. Izv. Lab. Drevn. Tekhnol.1, 149–171 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Childebayeva, A. et al. Bronze age Northern Eurasian genetics in the context of development of metallurgy and Siberian ancestry.Commun. Biol.7, 723 (2024).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kristiansen, K.The Rise of Bronze Age Peripheries and the Expansion of International Trade 1950–1100bc. Trade and Civilisation Cambridge (eds Kristiansen, K. et al.) 87–112 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  50. Powell, W. et al. Tin from Uluburun shipwreck shows small-scale commodity exchange fueled continental tin supply across Late Bronze Age Eurasia.Sci. Adv.8, eabq3766 (2022).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Singh, M. & Glowacki, L. Human social organization during the Late Pleistocene: Beyond the nomadic-egalitarian model.Evol. Hum. Behav.43, 418–431 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tarasov, A. & Nordqvist, K. Made for exchange: the Russian Karelian lithic industry and hunter-fisher-gatherer exchange networks in prehistoric north-eastern Europe.Antiquity96, 34–50 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Piezonka, H. et al. The world’s oldest-known promontory fort: Amnya and the acceleration of hunter-gatherer diversity in Siberia 8000 years ago.Antiquity97, 1381–1401 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Holopainen, S.Indo-Iranian Borrowings in Uralic: Critical Overview of Sound Substitutions and Distribution Criterion. Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Helsinki (2019).

  55. Grünthal, R. et al. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread.Diachronica39, 490–524 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gnecchi-Ruscone, G. A. et al. Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians.Sci. Adv.7, eabe4414 (2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kumar, V. et al. Genetic continuity of Bronze Age ancestry with increased Steppe-related ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan.Mol. Biol. Evol.38, 4908–4917 (2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Guarino-Vignon, P., Marchi, N., Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., Heyer, E. & Bon, C. Genetic continuity of Indo-Iranian speakers since the Iron Age in southern Central Asia.Sci. Rep.12, 733 (2022).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kovtun, I. V.Predystoriya Indoariyskoy Mifologii (Aziya-Print, 2013).

  60. Häkkinen, J. inIter Polyphonicum Multilinguae (eds Hyytiäinen, T. et al.) 91–101 (2012).

  61. Buchhorn, M. et al. Copernicus Global Land Service: land cover 100m: collection 3: epoch 2019: Globe (V3.0.1) [Data set].Zenodohttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3939050 (2020).

  62. Rohland, N., Glocke, I., Aximu-Petri, A. & Meyer, M. Extraction of highly degraded DNA from ancient bones, teeth and sediments for high-throughput sequencing.Nat. Protoc.13, 2447–2461 (2018).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Dabney, J. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a Middle Pleistocene cave bear reconstructed from ultrashort DNA fragments.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA110, 15758–15763 (2013).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Briggs, A. W. & Heyn, P. inAncient DNA. Methods in Mol. Biol. (eds Shapiro, B. & Hofreiter, M.)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-516-9_18 (2012).

  65. Rohland, N., Harney, E., Mallick, S., Nordenfelt, S. & Reich, D. Partial uracil–DNA–glycosylase treatment for screening of ancient DNA.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B370, 20130624 (2015).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gansauge, M.-T., Aximu-Petri, A., Nagel, S. & M MEYER, Manual and automated preparation of single-stranded DNA libraries for the sequencing of DNA from ancient biological remains and other sources of highly degraded DNA.Nat. Protoc.15, 2279–2300 (2020).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fu, Q. et al. An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor.Nature524, 216–219 (2015).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Maricic, T., Whitten, M. & Pääbo, S. Multiplexed DNA sequence capture of mitochondrial genomes using PCR products.PLoS ONE5, e14004 (2010).

    Article PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Speir, M. L. et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: 2016 update.Nucleic Acids Res.44, D717–D725 (2016).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform.Bioinformatics26, 589–595 (2010).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Behar, D. M. et al. A “Copernican” reassessment of the human mitochondrial DNA tree from its root.Am. J. Hum. Genet.90, 675–684 (2012).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Fu, Q. et al. A revised timescale for human evolution based on ancient mitochondrial genomes.Curr. Biol.23, 553–559 (2013).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Korneliussen, T. S., Albrechtsen, A. & Nielsen, R. ANGSD: analysis of next generation sequencing data.BMC Bioinformatics15, 356 (2014).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Weissensteiner, H. et al. HaploGrep 2: mitochondrial haplogroup classification in the era of high-throughput sequencing.Nucleic Acids Res.44, W58–W63 (2016).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Lazaridis, I. et al. The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe.Science377, eabm4247 (2022).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Alexander, D. H., Novembre, J. & Lange, K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals.Genome Res.19, 1655–1664 (2009).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses.Am. J. Hum. Genet.81, 559–575 (2007).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Patterson, N., Price, A. L. & Reich, D. Population structure and eigenanalysis.PLoS Genet.2, e190 (2006).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Patterson, N. et al. Ancient admixture in human history.Genetics192, 1065–1093 (2012).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Maier, R., Flegontov, P., Flegontova, O., Işıldak, U., Changmai, P. & Reich, D. On the limits of fitting complex models of population history tof-statistics.eLife12, e85492 (2023).

    Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kennett, D. J. et al. Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty.Nat. Commun.8, 14115 (2017).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Van de Loosdrecht, M. et al. Pleistocene North African genomes link near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations.Science360, 548–552 (2018).

    Article ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Olalde, I. et al. The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years.Science363, 1230–1234 (2019).

    Article CAS PubMed Central ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Monroy Kuhn, J. M., Jakobsson, M. & Günther, T. Estimating genetic kin relationships in prehistoric populations.PLoS ONE13, e0195491 (2018).

    Article PubMed Central PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this paper to Oleg Balanovsky, who had a leading role in the collection of present-day samples newly reported in this study, and who would have been an author had he not died in 2021. The authors thank N. Adamski, R. Bernardos, N. Bradman, A. Chizhevsky, M. Ferry, E. Idrisov, J. Kidd, E. Kostyleva, S. Kuz’minykh, K. Mandl, P. Nymadawa, O. Poshekhonova, H. Ringbauer, L. Saroyants, K. Stewardson, S. Tur, Y. Yusupov and Z. Zhang for wet laboratory or bioinformatic support, providing permission to analyse samples that they shared or critical comments. We acknowledge E. Besprozvanny, T. Chikisheva, A. Chizhevskiy, O. Goryunova, E. Kostyleva, N. Kungurova, D. Maslyuzhenko, A. Polevodov, A. Shalapinin, G. Sinitsyna, Z. Trufanova and V. Zakh for providing permissions to use their previously published figures in thesupplementary information. A.A.T. acknowledges support from the Russian Science Foundation (project 22-18-00470). M.Z. acknowledges support from the Collaborative Research Grants Program 091019CRP2119 to Nazarbayev University. The research of G.G.B. was conducted within the framework of the scientific research programme of the Diamond and Precious Metals Geology Institute, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science (project FUFG-2024-0005). Research by A.D.S., E.N.S. and V.M.D. was carried out within the research programme of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences ‘The Stone Age of Northern Asia: Cultural and Ecological context (FWZG-2025-0010). Research by D.N.E., S.N.S., S.M.S. and K.N.S. was carried out within the State Assignment FWRZ-2021–0006. A.V.F. was supported by the IHMC RAS research programme (FMZF-2025-0008). M.G.T. is supported by ERC Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreements: 951385 (COREX), 865515 (SUSTAIN), 324202 (NeoMilk), 788616 (YMPACT), and by Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship Grant 100719/Z/12/Z. G.H. was supported by BBSRC (BB/L009382/1), Wellcome Trust and Royal Society (098386/Z/12/Z, 224575/Z/21/Z). We thank the Museum of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology UB RAS for sharing samples. P.F. was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (project 21-27624S) and the EU Operational Program Just Transition (‘LERCO—Life Environment Research Center Ostrava’, project CZ.10.03.01/00/22_003/0000003). L.A.V. was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (programme ERC CZ, project LL2103). P.F., R.P. and D.R. were supported by John Templeton Foundation grant 61220. P.F. and D.R. were supported by gifts from Jean-Francois Clin. D.R. was supported by National Institutes of Health grant HG012287 and by the Allen Discovery Center programme, a Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group advised programme of the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, and is an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Tian Chen Zeng, Leonid A. Vyazov, Alexander Kim

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Tian Chen Zeng, Leonid A. Vyazov, Pavel Flegontov, Kendra Sirak, Robert Maier, Iosif Lazaridis, Ali Akbari, Aisling Kearns, Megan Michel, Iñigo Olalde, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland & David Reich

  2. Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Leonid A. Vyazov & Pavel Flegontov

  3. Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Alexander Kim, Kendra Sirak, Robert Maier, Iosif Lazaridis, Ali Akbari, Kim Callan, Lora Iliev, Aisling Kearns, Matthew Mah, Adam Micco, Megan Michel, Fatma Zalzala, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland & David Reich

  4. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Alexander Kim

  5. Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre CAS, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

    Pavel Flegontov

  6. Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA

    Michael Frachetti

  7. Spatial Analysis, Interpretation, and Exploration Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Michael Frachetti

  8. Department of Archaeology, Ethnography and Museology, Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia

    Alexey A. Tishkin, Yaroslav V. Frolov, Sergey P. Grushin & Yurii F. Kiryushin

  9. Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Natalia E. Ryabogina

  10. Historical, Ecological and Cultural Association ‘Povolzhye’, Samara, Russia

    Sergey A. Agapov & Danila S. Agapov

  11. Institute of Studies the Humanities and Problems of Indigenous People of the North, FIC Yakutsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk, Russia

    Anatoliy N. Alekseev & Egor N. Nikolaev

  12. Diamond and Precious Metals Geology Institute, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk, Russia

    Gennady G. Boeskorov

  13. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia

    Anatoly P. Derevianko, Viktor M. Dyakonov, Elena N. Solovyova, Aleksandr D. Stepanov, Aleksei A. Timoshchenko & Anton V. Vybornov

  14. Tyumen Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Problems of Northern Development, Tyumen, Russia

    Dmitry N. Enshin, Svetlana N. Skochina, Sergey M. Slepchenko & Konstantin N. Solodovnikov

  15. Department of Archaeology of Central Asia and the Caucasus, Institute for the History of Material Culture of Russian Academy of Science, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Alexey V. Fribus

  16. Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, Russia

    Alexander A. Khokhlov

  17. Department of Recreational Geography, Service, Tourism and Hospitality, Institute of Geography, Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia

    Kirill Yu. Kiryushin

  18. Center of Human Ecology, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia

    Egor P. Kitov

  19. Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    Pavel Kosintsev

  20. Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    Pavel Kosintsev

  21. Independent Researcher, Kemerovo, Russia

    Igor V. Kovtun

  22. Krasnoyarsk Regional Museum of Local Lore, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

    Nikolai P. Makarov & Aleksandr S. Vdovin

  23. LLC ‘Archaeology of the East European Plain’, Moscow, Russia

    Viktor V. Morozov

  24. National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia

    Marina P. Rykun

  25. V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

    Tatyana M. Savenkova

  26. Institute of Natural Sciences, M. K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University, Yakutsk, Russia

    Marina V. Shchelchkova

  27. Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    Vladimir Shirokov

  28. Siberian State University of Physical Education and Sport, Omsk, Russia

    Olga S. Sherstobitova

  29. Arctic Research Center of Sakha Republic, Yakutia, Russia

    Elena N. Solovyova

  30. Human Population Genetics Laboratory, Research Center for Medical Genetics, Moscow, Russia

    Elena V. Balanovska

  31. Laboratory of Human Molecular Genetics, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SBRAS), Novosibirsk, Russia

    Stanislav Dryomov, Elena Starikovskaya & Rem Sukernik

  32. Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London Genetics Institute (UGI), University College London, London, UK

    Garrett Hellenthal & Mark G. Thomas

  33. Department of Genetics, Yale Medical School, New Haven, CT, USA

    Kenneth Kidd

  34. Department of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

    Johannes Krause

  35. Department of Biology, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, USA

    Tatiana Tatarinova

  36. Laboratory of Archaeogenetics, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan

    Maxat Zhabagin

  37. Laboratory of Human Genetics, National Center for Biotechnology, Astana, Kazakhstan

    Maxat Zhabagin

  38. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Kim Callan, Lora Iliev, Matthew Mah, Adam Micco, Megan Michel, Fatma Zalzala, Swapan Mallick & David Reich

  39. Human Evolution and Archaeological Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Olivia Cheronet, Daniel Fernandes & Ron Pinhasi

  40. Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Olivia Cheronet, Kadir Toykan Özdoğan & Ron Pinhasi

  41. CIAS, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Daniel Fernandes

  42. School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Denise Keating

  43. Servizio di Bioarcheologia, Museo delle Civiltà, Rome, Italy

    Francesca Candilio

  44. Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Kadir Toykan Özdoğan

  45. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Matthew Mah, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland & David Reich

  46. BIOMICs Research Group, Department of Zoology and Animal Cell Biology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

    Iñigo Olalde

  47. Ikerbasque-Basque Foundation of Science, Bilbao, Spain

    Iñigo Olalde

  48. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Vagheesh M. Narasimhan

  49. Department of Statistics and Data Science, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Vagheesh M. Narasimhan

Authors
  1. Tian Chen Zeng
  2. Leonid A. Vyazov
  3. Alexander Kim
  4. Pavel Flegontov
  5. Kendra Sirak
  6. Robert Maier
  7. Iosif Lazaridis
  8. Ali Akbari
  9. Michael Frachetti
  10. Alexey A. Tishkin
  11. Natalia E. Ryabogina
  12. Sergey A. Agapov
  13. Danila S. Agapov
  14. Anatoliy N. Alekseev
  15. Gennady G. Boeskorov
  16. Anatoly P. Derevianko
  17. Viktor M. Dyakonov
  18. Dmitry N. Enshin
  19. Alexey V. Fribus
  20. Yaroslav V. Frolov
  21. Sergey P. Grushin
  22. Alexander A. Khokhlov
  23. Kirill Yu. Kiryushin
  24. Yurii F. Kiryushin
  25. Egor P. Kitov
  26. Pavel Kosintsev
  27. Igor V. Kovtun
  28. Nikolai P. Makarov
  29. Viktor V. Morozov
  30. Egor N. Nikolaev
  31. Marina P. Rykun
  32. Tatyana M. Savenkova
  33. Marina V. Shchelchkova
  34. Vladimir Shirokov
  35. Svetlana N. Skochina
  36. Olga S. Sherstobitova
  37. Sergey M. Slepchenko
  38. Konstantin N. Solodovnikov
  39. Elena N. Solovyova
  40. Aleksandr D. Stepanov
  41. Aleksei A. Timoshchenko
  42. Aleksandr S. Vdovin
  43. Anton V. Vybornov
  44. Elena V. Balanovska
  45. Stanislav Dryomov
  46. Garrett Hellenthal
  47. Kenneth Kidd
  48. Johannes Krause
  49. Elena Starikovskaya
  50. Rem Sukernik
  51. Tatiana Tatarinova
  52. Mark G. Thomas
  53. Maxat Zhabagin
  54. Kim Callan
  55. Olivia Cheronet
  56. Daniel Fernandes
  57. Denise Keating
  58. Francesca Candilio
  59. Lora Iliev
  60. Aisling Kearns
  61. Kadir Toykan Özdoğan
  62. Matthew Mah
  63. Adam Micco
  64. Megan Michel
  65. Iñigo Olalde
  66. Fatma Zalzala
  67. Swapan Mallick
  68. Nadin Rohland
  69. Ron Pinhasi
  70. Vagheesh M. Narasimhan
  71. David Reich

Contributions

T.C.Z., L.A.V., A.K. and D.R. wrote the manuscript and supplementary materials with input from all co-authors. S.M., N.R., R.P., V.M.N. and D.R. supervised different aspects of the study. T.C.Z. carried out the main genetic analyses under the supervision of P.F., R.M. and V.M.N. I.O. and I.L. contributed additional genetic analyses. M.F., P.F., V.M.N. and A.A.T. contributed to the framing and interpretation of results. L.A.V. edited archaeological information with input from D.R. and P.F. K.S. and L.A.V. contributed extensively to sample procurement. A.A.T, N.E.R., S.A.A., D.S.A., A.N.A., G.G.B., A.P.D., V.M.D., D.N.E., A.V.F., Y.V.F., S.P.G., A.A.K., K.Y.K., Y.F.K., E.P.K., P.K., I.V.K., N.P.M., V.V.M., E.N.N., M.P.R., T.M.S., M.V.S., V.S., S.N.S., O.S.S., S.M.S., K.N.S., E.N.S., A.D.S., A.A.T., A.S.V., A.V.V. and R.P. contributed anthropological remains and/or contributed to the creation of the archaeological supplement. N.E.R. wrote the ‘geophysical context’ section of the Supplementary Data. E.V.B., S.D., G.H., K.K., J.K., E.S., R.S., T.T., M.G.T. and M.Z. contributed genetic data from present-day people. A.A., M. Mah, A.M. and S.M. carried out bioinformatic data processing. K.C., O.C., D.F., D.K., F.C., L.I., A.K., K.T.Ö., F.Z. and M. Michel carried out wet laboratory work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toTian Chen Zeng,Leonid A. Vyazov,Alexander Kim,Ron Pinhasi,Vagheesh M. Narasimhan orDavid Reich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Henny Piezonka, Edward Vajda and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.Peer review reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Sites with newly-reported samples.

This map displays all the sites which are the sources of the samples in the major populations that are the focus in this paper. These include all sites 1) whose samples fall on the NEAHG cline, 2) whose samples fall in the Cisbaikal_LNBA cluster or are admixed with it, 3) whose samples fall in the Yakutia_LNBA cluster or are admixed with it, 4) whose samples are a part of the ten-population East Siberian transect described in our qpAdm modelling, and 5) whose samples are from Seima-Turbino period individuals. Each site is represented by a pie chart, whose size is proportional to the number of individuals from that site; the white fraction represents previously-published samples, and the black newly-published samples. Our sampling fills geographic and temporal lacunae.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Chronology of sites and cultures in each geographic region.

Temporal and geographic disposition of cultures from the Mesolithic to the Late Bronze and Iron Ages across Northern Eurasia. Sites whose samples are analyzed in our paper are highlighted in darker boxes, within containing boxes indicating archaeological cultures. Sites whose colors are darker are those that we believe are most securely dated (based on radiocarbon, isotopic, and archaeological evidence).

Extended Data Fig. 3 PCA with target populations projected onto ancient populations with an especially high fraction of ANE ancestry.

To illuminate the role that levels ofANE ancestry plays in generating variation among the populations we analyze, we use as a basis for another projection 71 shotgun-sequenced ancient individuals from across Eurasia, of which a large proportion are enriched inANE ancestry and fall outside the range of present-day variation (e.g. individuals from populations likeTyumen_HG.SG orKazakhstan_Botai.SG; for full list, see Supplementary Information section 4). The North Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer cline forms a curved arc stretching fromEHG populations to present-day East Asians; the center of the arc dominated by populations rich inANE ancestry is moved toward the positive direction in PC2. The individual furthest along the positive direction in PC2 is AG3. Clines formed by later Inner Asian populations, such as present-day Uralic, Turkic, and Mongolic speakers, as well as Late Bronze Age and Iron Age steppe populations such as Scythians and Sarmatians, are distinguished from theNEAHG cline by their much lower values along PC2, suggesting a much lower level of ANE ancestry. This PCA shows that populations along the NEAHG cline, remaining stable for many millennia, were substantially outside the range of present-day genetic variation in Northern Eurasia.

Extended Data Fig. 4 PCA focusing on East Eurasian populations.

To further uncover possible structure among the East Asian ancestries within the populations that we analyze, we constructed a third PCA, using as a basis 37 East Asian present-day populations that have minimal West Eurasian admixture, and a single West Eurasian population (Norwegian), all genotyped on the Affymetrix Human Origins array (for a full list of populations analyzed, refer to Supplementary Information section 4). We projected all other shotgun-sequenced and hybridization-captured ancient and present-day individuals onto this basis. Once again, the North Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer cline forms a curved arc stretching from West Eurasian populations to present-day East Asians, with the center of the arc deflected toward the AG3 individual. East Asian populations are now differentiated along PC2, with Southeast Asians and East Asian agriculturalists taking on especially negative values along that dimension; populations from the Amur River Basin taking on intermediate values; then populations on the Mongolian Plateau and surrounding areas. A large gap separates these populations fromYakutia_LNBA and Russia_Tatarka_BA, which take on very positive values along PC2, close to present-day Nganasans and a genetically very similar Iron-Age individual from Yakutia who clusters with Nganasans in the previous two PCAs (Yakutia_IA.SG; also see Extended Data Fig.9). As one moves East along theNEAHG cline, their positions along PC2 tend to converge to the values found among populations of the Mongolian Plateau. In contrast, the Dzhilinda1_M_N_8.4 kya and Kolyma_M_10.1 kya individuals, and the Syalakh_Belkachi,Yakutia_LNBA and Russia_Tatarka_BA populations do not fall on theNEAHG cline and are shifted in the positive direction on PC2, toward the positions occupied by Nganasans, Beringian populations, and Native Americans. Lastly, Uralic populations possess the most positive values among PC2 when compared to Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic populations.

Extended Data Fig. 5 PCA focusing on ancient individuals from Northern Eurasia and the Americas.

To understand structure amongNEAHG populations and non-NEAHG Siberians, we constructed two PCAs with ancient individuals including all individuals from theNEAHG cline, ancient non-NEAHG Siberians, and a selection of ancient Beringians and Native Americans. Notably, all these populations possess combinations of onlyWHG,EHG,ANE and East Asian ancestries. No individuals were projected in these PCAs. The first PCA (Extended Data Fig.6a) includes all individuals in the set, and the second (Extended Data Fig.6b) includes only individuals East of the Altai mountains. (A) In the first PCA we highlight several patterns. 1) the North Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer cline forms a curved arc stretching from West Eurasian populations to East Asian populations along PC1 and PC2. Populations rich in East Asian ancestry are differentiated along PC3, with individuals and populations within or closely related to theCisbaikal_LNBA cluster having the most positive values, followed by those in theTransbaikal_EMN cluster and populations of the Mongolian Plateau, followed by individuals and populations in theYakutia_LNBA cluster, followed by those from the Amur River Basin, followed by populations from the Bering Straits and the Americas. Notably, all individuals along theNEAHG cline, including individuals rich in East Asian ancestry (e.g.Cisbaikal_EN, Transbaikal_EMN, and allNEAHG individuals from the Krasnoyarsk region) form a straight line in PC3, suggesting a constant source of East Asian ancestry at the East Asian terminus of theNEAHG cline. 2)Khaiyrgas_16.7 kya occupies a central position among the other groups rich in East Asian ancestry in East Siberia, Beringia and the Americas, suggesting a lack of shared drift with later populations of the Bering region or the Americas. The situation is different for later populations:Kolyma_M_10.1 kya falls among ancient Beringian populations, while the more East Asian-admixedUst-Kyakhta_14 kya andDzhilinda1_M_N_8.4kya occupy a position in betweenSyalakh-Belkachi and ancient Bering Straits populations, with the even more East Asian-admixedSyalakh-Belkachi population showing even less of this displacement towards ancient Bering Straits populations. (B) We find a similar pattern in the second PCA, except with an opposite ordering of the clusters along PC3. Our results suggest that the distinctions we discover between groupings produced by the clustering analyses in Supplementary Information Section 6 can be recovered in PCA analyses aimed at recovering fine-scale structure, despite underlying similarities in deep ancestry in populations in East Siberia, Beringia, and the Americas—all the products of admixture between ANE and East Asian ancestry.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Graphical Summary of Genetic Changes Taking Place in Northern Eurasia.

Panel A shows the widespread distribution of individuals with Ancient Paleosiberian (APS) ancestry in Siberia before the Holocene, >10 kya. Panel B shows the formation of the NEAHG cline by ~10 kya, and the formation of the population on its eastern terminus (Transbaikal_EMN) through admixture between Amur River and Inland East Asian ancestries. Panel C shows the emergence of Cisbaikal_LNBA and Yakutia_LNBA in genetic turnovers in the Cis-Baikal and Northeastern Siberian regions in the Mid-Holocene, and the genetic diversity of Seima-Turbino period individuals ~4.0 kya. Panel D shows the genetic gradient between West Eurasian ancestry and Yakutia_LNBA formed by present-day Uralic populations, along with all locations from which present-day populations with Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry were sampled (grey dots ringed with black), alongside the geographic locations of two late Bronze Age/early Iron Age individuals (grey dots ringed with yellow) with >90% Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Populations created by genetic grouping procedure applied over Northeast Siberians.

Details of populations created by the grouping procedure applied to individuals in Northeastern Siberia.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Statistics of the form f4(Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, Target, “Route 2” population, Cisbaikal_LNBA).

Central Siberian populations from the Yenisei Basin (including Kets and South Siberian Turks) are highlighted in brown, while Arctic North American and Asian populations on either side of the Bering Straits populations are highlighted in blue. Bering Straits populations that are heavily European-admixed (Aleut and Yukagir_forest) are colored dark blue, while Samoyedic populations (Enets, Selkup, and Nganasan) are colored violet. Despite the similarity of the APS-rich populations in this comparison (all being admixtures between APS ancestry and East Asian ancestry), present-day groups of the Bering Straits are always closer to groups with “Route 2” APS ancestry (i.e., Kolyma_M_10.1 kya → Dzhilinda1_8.4 kya → Syalakh-Belkachi → Yakutia_LNBA), while Central Siberian populations of the Yenisei Basin are always closer to Cisbaikal_LNBA. For the version including a comparison with Ust-Kyakhta, refer to Supplementary Information Section 8; Figs.S94 &S95.

Extended Data Fig. 9 ADMIXTURE results.

For details, refer to Supplementary Information Section 5.

Extended Data Fig. 11 Contribution of Yakutia_LNBA and Cisbaikal_LNBA to Admixed Inner Eurasians (AIEA).

Higher-resolution version of Fig.3, containing the group/population labels. The codes are: ATN, Altaian; ATN_C, Altaian_Chelkan; BSK, Bashkir; BSM, Besermyan; BRY, Buryat; XNB_AR, China_AR_Xianbei_IA; CVS, Chuvash; DUR, Daur; DGN, Dolgan; DGX, Dongxiang; ENT, Enets; EST, Estonian; EVN, Even; EVN_E, Evenk_FarEast; EVN_T, Evenk_Transbaikal; FIN.SG, FIN.SG; LVL, Finland_Levanluhta; SAM, Finland_Saami_Modern.SG; FIN, Finnish; HZN, Hezhen; KLM, Kalmyk; KKP, Karakalpak; KRL, Karelian; KZK, Kazakh; KZK_C, Kazakh_China; BRL, Kazakhstan_Berel_IA; SARM_C, Kazakhstan_CaspianSteppe_Sarmatian; SARM_C.SG, Kazakhstan_CaspianSteppe_Sarmatian.SG; SAKA_K, Kazakhstan_CentralKazakhSteppe_Saka; SARM_K, Kazakhstan_CentralKazakhSteppe_Sarmatian.SG; KRK, Kazakhstan_Karakhanid.SG; KLK_1, Kazakhstan_Karluk_1.SG; KLK_2, Kazakhstan_Karluk_2.SG; KMK, Kazakhstan_Kimak.SG; KPC_1, Kazakhstan_Kipchak1.SG; KPC_2, Kazakhstan_Kipchak2.SG; SAKA_TS, Kazakhstan_Kyrgystan_TianShan_Saka; BRL_P, Kazakhstan_Pazyryk_Berel; TSM, Kazakhstan_Tasmola; SARM_W, Kazakhstan_WesternKazakhSteppe_Sarmatian; KET, Ket; KKS, Khakass; KKS_K, Khakass_Kachin; KMG, Khamnegan; KHT, Khanty; KOM, Komi_Zyrian; KRG_C, Kyrgyz_China; KRG_K, Kyrgyz_Kyrgyzstan; KRG_T, Kyrgyz_Tajikistan; TUR, Kyrgyzstan_Turk.SG; MNS, Mansi; MRI, Mari.SG; SCY, Moldova_Scythian; MGL, Mongol; MGA, Mongola; XNB_M, Mongolia_IA_Xianbei; MDV, Mordovian; NNI, Nanai; NGD, Negidal; NGS, Nganasan; NVH, Nivh; NGI_A, Nogai_Astrakhan; NGI_K, Nogai_Karachay_Cherkessia; NGI_S, Nogai_Stavropol; ORQ, Oroqen; ADB, Russia_Aldy_Bel; BLS, Russia_Bolshoy; MHE_1, Russia_EarlyMedieval_Heshui_Mohe_1; MHE_2, Russia_EarlyMedieval_Heshui_Mohe_2; SARM_S, Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG; KRS_o1, Russia_Karasuk_o1.SG; KRS_o, Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG; KRS, Russia_Karasuk.SG; SARM_L, Russia_LateSarmatian.SG; SARM_S.SG, Russia_MiddleSarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG; SARM, Russia_Sarmatian; SARM.SG, Russia_Sarmatian.SG; TGR, Russia_Tagar.SG; SAM.DG, Saami.DG; SKP, Selkup; SHR_K, Shor_Khakassia; SHR_M, Shor_Mountain; TTR_A, Tatar_Astrakhan; TTR_I, Tatar_Irtysh_Barabinsk.SG; TTR_K, Tatar_Kazan; TTR_M, Tatar_Mishar; TTR_S, Tatar_Siberian; TTR_Z, Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye; TTR_T, Tatar_Tomsk.SG; TTR_V, Tatar_Volga.SG; TDZ, Todzin; TFL, Tofalar; TBL, Tubalar; TKM, Turkmen; TVN, Tuvinian; UDM, Udmurt; SCY_U, Ukraine_Scythian; ULC, Ulchi; UYG, Uyghur; UZB, Uzbek; VPS, Veps; XIB, Xibo; YKT, Yakut; YKG_F, Yukagir_Forest; YKG_T, Yukagir_Tundra; KNY.SG, Russia_Yenisei_Krasnoyarsk_LBA.SG; KNY_o1.SG, Russia_Yenisei_Krasnoyarsk_LBA_o1.SG.

Extended Data Fig. 12 f4 statistics of the form f4(Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, X, Yana.SG, China_Paleolithic) plotted against f4(AG3, X, Yakutia_LNBA, East Eurasian Population).

China_Paleolithic includes the Tianyuan and Amur_River_33K genomes, “East Eurasian Population” is some population grouping in Siberia or Northeast Asia other thanYakutia_LNBA, and X are Admixed Inner Eurasian populations (AIEA populations) including ancient Central Asian nomads from the Late Bronze to Iron Age down to the Scytho-Sarmatian period, as well as modern or ancient populations that speak languages from the Yukaghiric, Yeniseian (Kets), Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and Nivkh language families. Modern Uralic-speaking populations, and ancient putatively Uralic-speaking populations uniformly preferYakutia_LNBA to other East Asian ancestries no matter the other population used in the comparison. Furthermore, at any level of admixture between East and West Eurasian ancestries, the population with the greatest affinity toYakutia_LNBA is always a Uralic-speaking population. f4-statistics therefore highlight the connection between Uralic populations and Yakutia_LNBA ancestry over other sources of East Asian ancestry.

Extended Data Fig. 13 Characteristic Seima-Turbino artifacts.

1. Double-bladed dagger with a ring-shaped pommel, robbery find, unknown provenance (probable Omsk region or Rostovka). 2. Double-bladed dagger with a horse figurine on the pommel, an accidental find near Shemonaikha, East Kazakhstan. 3., 5., 7. Crook-backed knives with figurines on pommels: 3. from Seyma; 5. from Elunino-1, burial 1, 7. from Rostovka, burial 2. 4. Scapula-shaped celt with goat image, Rostovka, cluster of finds near burial 21. 6. double-bladed plate dagger with a double elk-head figurine pommel, an accidental find near Perm’ (probably associated with the Turbino site). 8. Top of staff with a horse figurine, an accidental find near Omsk. 9a. & 9b. Single-ear long spearhead with a relief figurine of aFelidae predator (tiger or mountain leopard) on the socket (9a. the spear tip,10b. the detail of the socket), an accidental find near Omsk.

Extended Data Table 1 Summary of qpAdm analyses

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file includes sections 1–11, Supplementary Figs. 1–101 and Supplementary Tables 1–35. It includes discussion of archaeological context, details of sample preparation, details of population genetic analysis using PCA, ADMIXTURE, qpAdm and other formal methods such asf4-statistics, relatedness analysis, uniparental markers, and also linguistic discussion and archaeological interpretation.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary Data 1–7

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, T.C., Vyazov, L.A., Kim, A.et al. Ancient DNA reveals the prehistory of the Uralic and Yeniseian peoples.Nature644, 122–132 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09189-3

Download citation

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for theNature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2026 Movatter.jp