Asian evolution of Hominins (2024 paper)

Today's post shares a paper on the dispersal and evolution of hominins in Eastern and Southeastern Asia. It has plenty of interesting insights on the time line and geographic dispersal of our ancient ancestors in Asia.

The paper is the following: Rikai Sawafuji, Takumi Tsutaya, Naoyuki Takahata, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Hajime Ishida, (2024). East and Southeast Asian hominin dispersal and evolution: A review. Quaternary Science Reviews. Volume 333, 1 June 2024, 108669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108669.

It summarizes current knowledge, and theories, as well as suggesting some future research avenues. A very good paper!

I enjoyed the description of Homo erectus. This hominin has always fascinated me since I was a teen, when I read about it in my elder sister's highschool biology book (no internet in the 1970s). At that time there was the Peking Man, and the Java Man from Solo Rivr, and no African erectus. I also read about the Rhodesia Man, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, and the Australopithecines in Africa, more primitive and smaller. It seemed a complex mixture of different people. Now, over 50 years later, the panorama is still obscure!

"There are various views on the classification of H. erectus, e.g., H. erectus from Africa as a separate species called H. ergaster (Tattersall et al., 2015). In this review, we use the broader definition of H. erectus (H. erectus sensu lato) and consider the African H. erectus as part of the same taxon.
H. erectus is currently recognized as the first hominin to spread out of Africa and is thought to have migrated eastward across Eurasia and then southward into Southeast Asia. The fossil records are concentrated in Europe, China, and Java, with little data available for the intermediate areas.
Some of the earliest probable fossils of H. erectus are the ∼2.04 Ma cranium found at Drimolen, South Africa (Herries et al., 2020) and ∼2 Ma mandible at Melka Kunture, Ethiopia (Mussi et al., 2023), while the earliest generally accepted evidence of their presence out of Africa was discovered at Dmanisi, Georgia, and dated to ∼1.8 Ma (Ferring et al., 2011; Lordkipanidze et al., 2013).
In China, recent findings have suggested an earlier hominin presence although the evidence is scarce and primarily based on stone tools found at Shangchen, dated to ∼2.1 Ma (Zhu et al., 2018), and on hominin teeth dated between 2.42–1.8 Ma at Jianshi-Longgu Cave (Li et al., 2017a). These findings, which might predate the Dmanisi fossils, suggest the intriguing possibility that either H. erectus or another hominin arrived in China earlier than the time of Dmanisi (Cartmill and Smith, 2022). However, due to the scarcity of comprehensive fossil records, these conclusions must be approached with caution, as definitive identification of these early hominins in China remains challenging.
Fossils and lithics of likely H. erectus found in China include ∼1.66 Ma stone tools from Majuangou III in the Nihewan Basin (Zhu et al., 2004) and 1.7–1.6 Ma stone tools from Shangshazui (Ao et al., 2013), and a ∼1.63 Ma cranium from Lantian-Gongwangling, near Shang Chen (Zhu et al., 2015). Two ∼1.7 Ma incisors have also been found in Yuanmou, South China (Zhu et al., 2008), though their age determination remains questioned (Bae, 2010). Taken together with the fossil and lithic evidence, the conservative age of the emergence of H. erectus in China is about 1.7–1.6 Ma."

The interesting part is the suggrestion of hominin presence in China ~2.4 to 2.1 Ma, older than the earliest South African fossils (~2.04 Ma), also that they were not Homo erectus but "...another hominin arrived in China earlier than ... Dmanisi." This could imply the presence of Homo habilis or even Australopithecines in Asia.

The following image shows how the different lineages of hominins coexisted in Asia during the past 2 million years.

Chronology of the genus Homo in EA/SEA.. Source

The image below shows the distribution of hominins in Eastern and Southeastern Asia/p>.

The Story and Timeline of Hominins in Asia

The paper gives a brilliant description of the dispersal of hominins in East Asia and Southeast Asia.

"As more and more pieces are continuously added to our understanding of hominins, their geographical distribution and persistence, new questions arise, and details about how the different hominins dispersed and why they went extinct still remain unclear. From current fossil records and genetic evidence, one plausible and coherent scenario of hominin dispersal is the following: H. erectus emerged in Africa and expanded into the Eurasian continent around 2 Ma, later occupying Europe, East Asia (China) and Southeast Asia (Java).
Subsequently, the common ancestor of H. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans split into two groups: one was in Africa (later leading to H. sapiens) and the other settled around the Middle East at some point. The latter interbred with a super-archaic hominin group (possibly H. erectus) around 700–600 ka.
The Eurasian hominin group then split into two groups. One settled in the West (Europe and Western Asia) leading to Neanderthals, while the other settled in Asia leading to Denisovans. Denisovans interbred with H. erectus in Eurasia, occupying their niche. At some point, Denisovans also expanded into East and Southeast Asia, where the groups diverged into different subgroups (D0, D1, D2, D3, the details are in the chapter of Denisovans). Meanwhile, H. erectus may have become extinct around 400 ka in East Asia and 100 ka in Southeast Asia. Denisovans reached the Altai region, eventually meeting and interbreeding with Neanderthals several times around 140–80 ka. Meanwhile, some H. sapiens left Africa before 200 ka. This initial migration was unsuccessful, but interbreeding with Neanderthals at this time left traces in their genome (Peyrégne et al., 2023). There were several subsequent out-of-Africa events, which might have reached Asia, but the populations that led to our ancestors left Africa around 55 ka. They interbred with Neanderthals in West Asia and with Denisovans in EA/SEA. Note that we consider the super-archaic hominin contributing to the Denisovan genome to be H. erectus. While there is a possibility that hominins other than H. erectus and Denisovans migrated into Asia or evolved from H. erectus, this is not considered here due to the lack of evidence."

The suggestion that (no date given for this event) the ancestor of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans moved out of Africa, settled in the Middle East and some 700-600 ya mating there with H. erectus is very interesting!

The further admixing of Denisovans with erectus as they moved across Eurasia is not often mentioned. And the final comment that "... there is a possibility that hominins other than H. erectus... migrated into Asia or evolved from H. erectus," is worth exploring as there is no evidence to prove it happened. But, it is possible and likely.

The paper also has some interesting comments on the four lineages of Denisovans (with a neat map), and their history:

Denisovans

"The common ancestor of Denisovans and Neanderthals which occupied around the Middle East interbred with a super-archaic hominin, and afterwards the Denisovan ancestors diverged from the Neanderthal ancestral group and moved into Asia. Some of them spread towards Papua and settled in Island Southeast Asia (D1). Another group remained in South or Southeast Asia (D2), and from there, another group moved further north into East Asia (D0, D3). During the early phase of this migration, they encountered a super-archaic hominin population and interbred. The D0 group settled somewhere in East Asia. The D3 group reached the Altai in Siberia (D3), where they met and interbred with Neanderthals."

The section dedicated to small-sized hominins Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis is great, I learned that the latter's "finger and toe bones are elongated and curved, a feature similar to australopithecines". Nevertheless, evidence suggests both "tiny" hominins may descend from H. erectus.

Ancient Mariners

It is remarkable that these two groups of people (and a third responsible for stone tools found in Sulawesi) crossed open sea, settled in islands, and lived there in isolation until their demise when modern humans reachd the area. Navigating abilities is something seldom discussed in any paper, including this one, which only says "Although it is unclear how each hominin crossed the sea, they succeeded intentionally or accidently"

It is evident that even archaic forms of hominins like erectus crossed open sea. Could they have reached America? (See my post about their navigating skills, and this post on Neanderthal "sailors").

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Colombian Natives and their Transpacific origin (2025 paper)

Ijust came across a paper published nearly one year ago (February 2025) with a suggestive title: The Origin of Amerindians: A Case Study of Secluded Colombian Chimila, Wiwa, and Wayúu Ethnic Groups and Their Trans-Pacific Gene Flow by Arnaiz-Villena A, Lledo T, Silvera-Redondo C, Juarez I, Vaquero-Yuste C, Martin-Villa JM, Suarez-Trujillo F.. published in Genes. 2025; 16(3):286. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16030286)

I have mentioned the Wayúu, in a post many years ago which dealt with Y-chromosome haplogroup C, and a probable transpacific origin of these natives! The 2025 paper looks at their HLA.

Arnaiz-Villena et al. wrote the following (I underlined the relevant text to highlight it):

"Results: The results obtained place the Chimila, Wayúu, and Wiwa populations phylogenetically close to the other North and South Amerindian populations included in this study. Amerindians are genetically separated from the rest of the world’s populations. Chimila, Wayúu, and Wiwa present unique extended HLA haplotypes and specific alleles, such as HLA-B*48 or HLA-A*24:01, shared with Oceanian populations. Conclusions: These genetic results and anthropological data support prehistorical trans-Pacific (bidirectional) contacts that contributed to the settlement of America and also suggest that the effects of ancient European gene flow cannot be discarded"

The paper mentions the HLA peculiarities and its similarity with Polynesian variants:

"The Chimila, Wayúu, and Wiwa samples studied in the present work revealed the presence of HLA-A*24 (A*24:02) and - B*48 alleles in their genetic profile at varying frequencies. Noteworthily, these alleles are characteristic of populations inhabiting Southeast Asia and the Asian and Pacific islands; they are found in Polynesian and Easter Islander genetic profiles, even in some sites located over 4000 km from the Pacific coast of South America...
If these alleles had been introduced via the Beringian migration route, they would likely be more evenly distributed across the continent rather than being concentrated along or near the Pacific coastline. This suggests the existence of direct genetic and population exchanges between Pacific Islanders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, though it remains unclear whether these interactions were bidirectional or one-way.... [transpacific contact] could explain why the HLA-A*24(:02) and -B*48 alleles are in the Amerindian populations studied in the present work and also in others distributed along or close to the Pacific coast of America, such as Quechua (Peru and Bolivia, Aymara (Peru and Bolivia), Mayo (Mexico), and Mapuche (Chile), among others. This distribution supports the hypothesis that the settlement of America did not occur only from Asia (through the Bering Strait) but that the peoples of the continent had Pacific transoceanic contacts with other populations.

I am surprised at the remark about HLA-B*48, because in a recent post I included data about the global distribution of this variant and it was not high among Polynesians.

For HLA-A*24 the situation is different, it has a clear distribution that is trans-pacific: Japan, Taiwan, Melanesia, Polynesia, and some spots in America, as you can see in the following map (red circles mark higher frequency in the population, blue is lowest).

HLA-A*24 distribution map. Source

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Australopiths and Homo may have coexisted in Dmanisi 1.8 My ago

The Dmanisi site in Georgia, in the Caucasus region has produced many fossil remains whose exact position in our ancestral tree is still being debated. These are the oldest hominin remains discovered out of Africa, and reveal that our ancestors left Africa as soon as they could.

A paper published on Dec. 3, 2025 (Nery V, Neves W, Valota L, Hubbe M (2025) Testing the taxonomy of Dmanisi hominin fossils through dental crown area. PLoS One 20(12): e0336484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336484) studied the teeth of the Dmanisi hominin remains (H. Georgicus), and suggests that more than one species of hominins lived in Dmanisi, Georgia.

After analyzing teeth shapes the authors found that one specimen (D4500-D2600) shows strong affinities with australopiths, while others (D2282-D211 and D2700-D2735) are associated to Homo species. Based on this the paper suggests that "two distinct taxa coexist[ed] at the Dmanisi site, previously proposed to be Homo georgicus and Homo caucasi."

This conclusion has interesting implications regarding the first Out Of Africa migrations which until now have been attributed to our ancient ancestor, Homo erectus. The authors of this paper state the following:

"Although our analyses did not formally test the phylogenetic history of the Pleistocene Georgian hominins, the proposal of more than one species in the Dmanisi fossil assemblage has implications for the dispersal of the genus Homo out of Africa in the beginning of the Pleistocene. It is traditionally accepted that the Homo erectus migration started in Kenya (Turkana) around 1.89 Ma, reached Georgia (Dmanisi) around 1.77 Ma, continued into eastern Eurasia (Yuanmou) around 1.7 Ma, and finally arrived to Indonesia (Sangiran) by ~1.57 Ma. However, the speciation events that led to the evolution of more than one species in Dmanisi requires that lineages were separated for long periods after leaving Africa, and were likely also evolving in response to different selective environments.
...
If the Dmanisi specimens cannot be taxonomically grouped with Homo erectus, it raises the possibility that early Homo evolution had multiple episodes of cladogenesis, where some of them may have started in Africa, and others outside Africa. Of particular interest to this discussion is the high similarity between the D4500-D2600 specimen and australopiths, which suggests either a retention of the ancestral dental proportions of australopiths in Dmanisi, or an evolutionary convergence after the initial differentiation of early Homo. With the evidence available, it is not possible to properly evaluate if Homo georgicus and Homo caucasi evolved from Homo erectus ancestors, or if they evolved from australopith-like ancestors, but alternative scenarios are worth exploring and considering as new early Homo fossils are discovered in Asia."

The paper also mentions evidence of an earlier expansion out of Africa, signalled by more primitive stone technology, the Oldowan, which is older than the Acheulean tool kit of the H. erectus: "Recent discoveries of Oldowan tools and associated cut marks in Jordan and Romania, respectively, predate the arrival of Homo erectus to these regions, offering further support for the presence of earlier hominin species in the north of or even outside of Africa [16,56,57]"

The citations 16, 56, and 57 are the following:

16.Neves W, Senger MH, Valota L, Hubbe M. Revisiting the cranial variability of the Dmanisi hominins. Anthropol Rev. 2024;87(2):113–25.

56.Parenti F, Varejao FG, Scardia G, Okumura M, Araujo A, Ferreira Guedes CC, et al. The Oldowan of Zarqa Valley, Northern Jordan. J Paleolit Archaeol. 2024;7(1):3.

57.Curran SC, Dragusin V, Pobiner B, Pante M, Hellstrom J, Woodhead J, et al. Hominin presence in Eurasia by at least 1.95 million years ago. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):836. pmid:39833162

Consequences of Australopithecines in Georgia

An earlier presence of archaic Australopith hominins in Eurasia opens the door to the evolution (outside of Africa) of Homo erectus there from an earlier wave who peopled the area. H. erectus probably originated in Eurasia and later moved "into Africa", as well as moving "around Eurasia", possibly following the steps of these Australopithecines (why would they have only trekked to Georgia? They could have even reached East Asia or Sunda, Sahul... and America). If the Australopiths were part of the first migration out of Africa, maybe 2 Million years ago, it opens up many new, unexpected options for the peopling of the world, and the origin of "Homo".

My previous posts on Dmanisi and H. Georgicus:

The First Asians were not H. erectus

Homo habilis left Africa 2.4 million years ago

H. erectus in Georgia 1.8 Ma (Kvemo Orozmani site). Aug. 2025 discovery

Homo georgicus revisited: An ancient peopling of Eurasia

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Prehispanic Leprosy back in the 1890s

In yesterday's post I mentioned some studies that investigated the "American" strain of leprosy, which dates back to pre-Columbian times. It is caused by a bacteria called Mycobacterium lepromatosis. Today's post shows that over 135 years ago, some scientists suspected that there had been cases of pre-Columbian leprosy in America.

Muñiz and Ashmead

According to Máximo Farro and Irina Podgorni (2015) ("Pre-Columbian Moulages" Huacos, mummies and photograps in the International controversy over precolumbian diseases 1894-1910a Medicine nei secoli arte e scienza, 27/2 (2015) 631-654), it was Manuel Antonio Muñiz (1861-1897), a physician who had studied medicine in the San Marcos University in Lima, who in 1886 published the first article on pre-Hispanic leprosy. He mentioned that the Spanish conquistador, Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada (1509-1579), who had founded Bogotáa (now the capital of Colombia) in 1538, had become infected with leprosy in America.

Muñiz also collected native artifacts and skeletal remains, some of which he interpreted showed signs of the deformation caused by leprosy. He shared his collection with during different international medical and anthropological meetings, and in 1895 published a formal paper on his findings about leprosy in America.

Muñiz startled the scientific world, if there was leprosy in America before the arrival of Europeans, it meant that either it was taken there by previous, unknown voyagers to the New World, or, it had an independent origin there.

At that same time, an American physician who had specialized in leprology, Albert Sydney Ashmead (1850-1911), also published on this subject. Ashmead was one of the founders of the International Leprosy Congress, and defended these ancient American cases of leprosy againts the critics who suggested that the lesions were not leprous, but syphilitic or caused by leishmaniasis .

Latcham's paper.

The image above shows the title of the paper by Robert Lehmann-Nitsche (1899) "Lepra Precolombina ensayo crítico" (Pre-Columbian Leprosy, critical essay) Revsta Museo de La Plata Vol. 9, p.337. In it, he reviews the history and evidence supporting or disproving an endemic leprosy in america. The author concludes that there was a disease that caused the lesions reported by Ashmead and Muñiz, but that he didn't believe it was leprosy.

The outcome of endless scholarly discussions was that there had been no leprosy in America before the Europeans brought the Old World strain of leprosy to the continent after 1492.

As we now know, Muñiz and Ashmead were right. There was an American strain that caused leprosy, an ancient one, distinct from the Old World variety.

Further Reading

Pre-Columbian leprosy, Albert S. Ashmead. American Medical Association, 1895.

Pre-Columbian Leprosy. Albert S. Ashmead, M.D., JAMA, February 10, 1900 1900;XXXIV;(6):379. doi:10.1001/jama.1900.02460060063020

Regarding Pre Columbian Leprosy, Dr. H. Polakowsky, Berlin p.260 May 1900. The St. Louis Medican and Surgical Journal. 78.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Leprosy in America - Revisited

There are two microbes that produce leprosy in humans, one is Mycobacterium leprae, with a global dispersion, the other is Mycobacterium lepromatosis, the latter was first found in humans in America, suggesting a New World origin.

The M. lepromatosis is also found among the red squirrels found in Britain, which seems odd, but has an interesting explanation.

Red Squirrels and Leprosy

Charlotte Avanzi et al., (2016) (Red squirrels in the British Isles are infected with leprosy bacilli. Science 354, 744-747 DOI:10.1126/science.aah3783) investigated the matter.

Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) is a Eurasian species, and spans the vast land mass from Ireland to Eastern Siberia, as shown in the map below.

Red squirrel distribution map.

They also lived in the United Kingdom, where they became extinct in the 1700s. They were reintroduced from surviving popualtions in Ireland. Now, in England, Scotland, and Wales they are protected as an endangered species because humans have been putting pressure on their habitat and also, the gray squirrel, imported from North America, (Sciurus carolinensis) has invaded their territory adapting to it and competing with them. To make matters worse, they are infected with a poxvirus and leprosy of the M. leprae variant and, surprisingly, the "American" M. lepromatosis.

The authors analyzed the DNA of the bacteria and calculated the date when these strains originated. The M. leprae variant seems to have passed from humans to squirrels in the Middle Ages, when it was prevalent among people, who also interacted with them, as pets and also bred them for food.

The other (M. lepromatosis) strain diverged from the strain currently found in human beings in America (Mexico), a long time ago. Their phylogenetic tree shows that 26,859 years ago the human and squirrel variants shared their last common ancestor. The paper states that:

"we estimated that the British Isles and Mexican strains diverged from their most recent common ancestor around 27,000 years ago, whereas the Irish and British strains diverged as recently as 200 years ago (Fig. 3A). The latter estimate is consistent with the date of the first campaign to reintroduce the red squirrel into Ireland from England between 1820 and 1856, following its extinction in the 17th century. This suggests that these animals may already have been infected with M. lepromatosis when they were reintroduced."

But where did these Irish red squirrels catch their infection?

They didn't get it from the mainland, a paper published in 2019 analyzed red squirrels captured in Belgium and the Netherlands, and did not find traces of leprosy in them. The source of the bacteria does not seem to have originated in NW Europe. They confirmed that the squirrels in the British Isles are the only known rodents carrying leprosy bacilli.

Did they arrive in infected gray squirrels brought from America?

M. lepromatosis in Ancient Native Americans

Ramirez et al, (2025) found genetic traces in the remains of two adult men who lived 4,000 years ago in Chile, close to what is now the city of Coquimbo (Ramirez, D.A., Sitter, T.L., Översti, S. et al. 4,000-year-old Mycobacterium lepromatosis genomes from Chile reveal long establishment of Hansen’s disease in the Americas. Nat Ecol Evol 9, 1685–1693 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02771-y June 2025).

They built a phylogenetic tree and also used the British red squirrel genetic data. Their tree shows the red squirrels on a separate branch from the human one, which split from it 26,794 years ago. Within the human branch, the ancient Chilean remains sit on a fork, and the modern human cases from North America sit on another, see Fig. 3 d in the paper, shown below.

M. lepromatosis phylo tree. Ramirez et al., (2025)

The paper found a similar split date between the human and red squirrel variants: "we estimate the median time for the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of M. lepromatosis to be ~26,800 years ago (95% HPDI range of 4,206 to 115,340 yr bp). Genomes obtained from human hosts yield a divergence estimate of ~12,600 years (95% HPDI: 5,304 to 49,659 yr bp), while the tMRCA for the red squirrel clade is ~440 years (95% HPDI: 73 to 2,063 yr bp)."

This is interesting, however the confidence intervals are very large: the haplotype found in ancient Chileans and the one found in contemporary leprosy patients in Mexico split between ~5,300 and ~50,000 years ago! (mean of ~12,600). The latter number makes me wonder if it was adopted because it falls neatly within the acceptable dates for human presence in America. Nevertheless, if we take the 50,000 year date for a split between the bacteria living in South American paleoindinans and those that remained in Mexico (causing the modern infections), we would have a very old date for people migrating across America.

The same could be said about the split between squirrel and human variants: ~4,200 to ~115,000 years bp. The older figure would imply Neanderthals or even Denisovans passing it on to squirrels or getting it from them!

Regarding the British squirrels, the dates are ~73 to ~2.000 years. The older date could suggest an ancient transatlantic contact c. 1AD, Romans, or navigators fishing cod in Terranova brought some gray squirrel infected with this American leprosy?

Gray squirrels, imported into Britain in the 1870s, are originally an East Coast creature (see map below). Did they harbor the infection? If so, why aren't any gray squirrels reported as carriers in these studies?

Gray squirrel distribution map.

Ramirez et al suggests that "finding of two M. lepromatosis infections in South America, before the periods of known contact with either Oceanian or European populations, implies either movement of the pathogen within human groups during an early peopling event or its previously established endemicity in the continent in a separate reservoir species eventually acquired by humans. The latter would imply that its current distribution arises from a postcolonial dissemination, and would make it one of the few global diseases known to have emerged in the Americas." In other words: the first Americans c.12,600 y BP brought it with them, or the got infected from a local "reservoir species" and, the North American (Mexican) variants were due to its spread during the Spanish Colonial period.

Another paper published last year by Maria Lopopolo et al., (2025) (Pre-European contact leprosy in the Americas and its current persistence. Science 389, eadu7144 .DOI:10.1126/science.adu7144) reported that the M. lepromatosis cases have been "mostly reported in the Americas, with a few sporadic cases in Asia..." (two cases in Singapore, and two in Myanmar). I guess that the Asian cases are post-Discovery dispersal due to transpacific trade from America.

Lopopolo found more ancient samples in America, one from Canada and two from Argentina, their dates are 1,310 to 860 BP.

The phylo tree built by this team (see below) finds five clades: two of them contain the ancient variants (North America, South America), another has the red squirrel variant, and there are two more that hold the modern cases in North America (not only Mexico, but also, Costa Rica, and the U.S.). Interestingly one of these contemporary branches "represented by two present-day US strains, forms a basal clade that diverged from all others around 10 millennia ago." This basal clade 10 ky old, is, again, in my opinion someting forced into the data to coincide with the accepted dates for the peopling of America ~15 ky. How could they justify a date of 50 ky? They'd have to explain how human beings in Siberia or East Asia carried this leprosy strain into America but, at the same time, leave no trace of it in Asia.

Lopopolo also suggests that the other modern clade is recent, dating from the postcontact (after 1492) period. They also found that the split between the two varieties of leprosy Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis took place later than previously estimated, 2 million to 700 ka vs. ~14 million years ago.

Since armadillos and humans are the carriers of the Old World leprosy, and armadillos only live in the Americas, the split between both types of leprosy requires hominins 2,000,0000 to 700,000 years ago carrying both variants. It also requires an explanation on why there are no traces of the "American" leprosy in Eurasia or Africa.

This, in my opinion, allows for an archaic hominid to have been the vector carrying the old world strain in Eurasia, Africa and Oceania, and some other group within that population, carrying the New World strain. This period spans manhy ancient hominins H. erectus, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, Neanderhtals, and Denisovans! Could one of these groups have carried the strain into America. Where it jumped species to the squirrels?

M. lepromatosis phylo tree. Fig 2 A. in Lopopolo et al., (2025)

There is one final, and very recent paper by S. Souguel, T. Oueslati, G. Grine, M. Drancourt published in December ( The role of red squirrels in leprosy dynamics in the United Kingdom: a critical review, One Health, Vol 21, 101114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2025.101114).

The authors propose that "M. lepromatosis was imported into the United Kingdom following the progressive expansion of the British Empire, starting from the 16th century expansion into Canada through to the 19th century expansion" of the Empire that were "most probably imported from British colonies for their fur."

The authors indicate but do not provide a bibliographic reference that "lepromatosis has been further reported in red squirrels in a geographical belt limited by the 55th parallel north (in Scotland) and the 25th parallel south (in Paraguay), indicating the geographical source of its introduction." There are other species of squirrels in the Amazon, in Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Paraguay. But they are not red squirrels. There are also native squirrels in Argentina in the Yungas jungles in the Northwest, also in Bolivia. But, as I mentioned, the authors don't provide a source for this information (M. lepromatosis in squirrels outside of the UK). I searched online for references, and didn't find any.

The paper concludes with a teaser, "The predominance of M. lepromatosis—until recently undocumented in medieval human remains but frequently found in contemporary red squirrels— challenged the notion of direct historical zoonotic transmission. However, forthcoming research suggesting the presence of M. lepromatosis in human remains from the medieval era may significantly alter this narrative and restore plausibility to a broader zoonotic hypothesis."

Are the authors preparing a paper on European M. lepromatosis from the Middle Ages?

We will wait for it!

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

HHV6 - Human betaherpesviruses and the peopling of America

Human herpesvirus (HHV-6) has to haplotypes, A-6 and B-6, interestingly the virus can merge into human genes, blending into our DNA (the scientific term is that it "can integrate into the germline"). Roughly 1% of the global population (around 80 million people) carry the DNA of this virus inside one of their chromosomes, in each of the cells of their bodies. Scientists have asked themselves if this "integration" is ancient, or recent, and if it is still happening as people get infected with the virus.

Roughly 90% of humans are seropositive to HHV-6B, because as infants we are exposed to the virus (Roseola Infantum, also known as the Sixth Disease).

Research by Aswad A, et al. (2021) (Evolutionary History of Endogenous Human Herpesvirus 6 Reflects Human Migration out of Africa. Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Jan 4;38(1):96-107. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa190. PMID: 32722766; PMCID: PMC7782865.) explored the history of the virus and its "integration".

The "integrated" virus, which forms part of the chromosome, is passed on to the offspring of carriers, and this inherited chromosomally integrated HHV-6 (iciHHV-6). If the integration was ancient, it was passed down along thousands of generations in a parents-to-children line.

The inherited-integrated iciHHV-6 has been found in several chromosomes like number 17 and 22.

Aswad et al., built a phylogenetic tree of the circulating HHV-6 variants A and B (that cause Roseola) and the integrated virus snips inside human chromosomes. The authors state that "the ancestral circulating strains that resulted in these particular independent integration events are not among the known currently circulating strains sampled here. Similarly, the integrated HHV-6A is not acting as a reservoir for ongoing production of circulating strains... In contrast to HHV-6A, the tree for HHV-6B revealed a more entangled topology between circulating and endogenous genomes..."

They found that some clades mirror geographic origin: "among the iciHHV-6A sequences, we observed that individuals from clades A2 and A4 are exclusively European or North American... HHV-6B clades B3–6 and B8 are similarly homogenous and likely represent orthologous integrations in white Europeans and North Americans (and one Australian). This suggests that for each of these clades, those now carrying the virus share a common ancestor who was also European, and thus the virus integration event occurred prior to the diaspora of ancestors of these individuals; the virus thus likely integrated before the colonial era."

"our analysis also revealed a previously unidentified Native American carrier of iciHHV-6B, who possesses an HHV-6B sequence distinct from the other North American samples. Instead, this sequence is almost identical to the iciHHV-6B genome of a Maasai Kenyan sequence uncovered through our SRA mining, and a previously identified Pakistani sample (Zhang et al. 2017) (figs. 2 and 4)."

They then explain how this rare shared variant appeared in America, Asia, and Africa, a Native American who shares "integrated" sequence with a Kenyan and a Pakistani!:

"Unlike the ancestral European integrations, the last common ancestor of these individuals would have been before humans migrated out of Africa (50–100,000 years ago). The observation that they also resolve near the base of the tree further supports this interpretation, as does the fact that the most closely related sequence outside this clade is a circulating strain isolated from a Ugandan patient..."

By "resolve near the base of the tree" they mean that this specific branch is close to the root, and therefold, older than the other branches. As it is similar to the strain of an African (Ugandan), the Out of Africa logic suggests that the root of the tree is based in Africa. Below is the tree and this branch is highlighted.

HHV-6B phylogenetic tree (detail). Fig 2. in Aswad et al.

However, as you can see in the image, not only is a "similar African" strain located at the root, there are three other Ugandan and three D.R.Congo subjects there too, all black-Africans but... one, closest to the root, is a WHITE NY U.S.A. sample!

The authors propose that an ancient ancestor in the distant past (~100 ky ago) before humans left Africa, underwent this "integration" of the virus into one of his or her chromosomes, and this bit of DNA passed on, unscathed, through countless generations, ending up in a Native American, a Pakistani, and a Kenyan Maasai. The tree below is Fig. 4 B, in their paper:

The age of this "integration" was estimated "to be ∼85,000–342,000 years old (depending on the mutation rate used)." Then it says "The Native American is a reference individual used in a South American study on the influences on physical appearance (Chacon-Duque et al. 2018)" Chacón-Duque's paper says that they "examined data for over 500,000 autosomal SNPs typed in more than 6,500 individuals born in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru." So, it does include Mexicans, from North America, and the rest of the samples are from South America. Notice that there was only one (1) sample in 6,500 who carried this integrated variant of HHV-6B. A very low frequency indeed!

The data used by Chacon-Duque also noted a high prevalence of African genes (slave trade) in Latin Americans: "~22% of the individuals studied show more than 5% sub-Saharan African ancestry." Which backs my suggestion of African introgression in the Native American sample of "integrated" HHV-6B .

Discussion

The Native American sample's origin isnt' clear in the paper, in one part it says that this sample differs from "the other North American samples", implying that it is North American.

The idea is interesting. However, considering all the bottlenecks that Amerindians have gone through including the founding effect of Beringia, and the loss of 90% of the Native American DNA due to disease, and strife during the conquest and discovery period 1492-1700s, it is difficult to believe that a trait that is now only found in 1% of human beings, managed to survive among Native Americans.

That it is shared by Old World people like the Maasai and the Pakistani could be possible, but the Amerindian carrying this genetic material seems to stretch the odds. Furthermore, no signs of this unique integration is found in Europe or the rest of Asia. What happened to those who carried the gene into Pakistan, and across Asia into America? They left no descent?

Could it be possible that an escaped African slave brought by the Portuguese or Spaniards to South America admixed with natives and passed on this chunk of HHV "integrated" into one of his genes?

It seems a more reasonable explanation.

The tree branch that holds all three samples shows that the closest to the root is the Pakistani, followed by the Amerindian and then, the Kenyan. Shouldn't the Kenyan be closer to the African root?

What is interesting is how the data is "adapted" to the preconceptions of an OOA move some 50-100 kya. Shouldn't the data independently show if that date is correct? Notice the wide window they calculated, a four-fould spread between lower and upper limits" ∼85,000–342,000 years old (depending on the mutation rate used).

It could have originated outside of Africa: We could also imagine a scenario where a Homo antecessor living in Eurasia 700,000 years ago, picked up the virus and it "integrated" into one of its chromosomes, his descent spread Denisovans and Neanderthals, and from there admixing with a modern humans ended up in Pakistan and America, and others crossing Gibraltar (see this post) reintroduced it into Africa. Somehow it didn't survive among those who would later become Europeans, and if these migrants took a northern route, it could have also avoided Eastern and Southern Asians, leaving no trace there.

It could have originated earlier among H. erectus and spread back into Africa with them, and possibly into America in an ancient peopling wave 500,000 years ago. Much later, once modern humans left Africa they could have intermixed in Pakistan, and (no need for them to carry it across Beringia), mated with H. erectus who carried the "integrated" virus, in America.

There are no records of "integrated" virus in ancient Amerindian (or Old World) samples. These would be important as they could help clarify the migration patterns of the virus inside our ancestors' chromosomes.

Let's see what future research discovers.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Bark Cloth - Conclusion

I will try to wrap up the series of posts on bark-cloth in the Pacific region.

I have given examples and mentioned the different bark-cloth traditions found in Indonesia (Sualwesi - Celebes), Polynesia, Mesoamerica (Mayas and Aztecs), Northwestern Pacific coast of North America (British Columbia and Canda). The use of bark cloth was frequent in these societies before the arrival of Europeans, who replaced them with linnen, and cotton garments (Polynesia, Asia and NW North America - in Mesoamerica cotton was used in textiles by the upper classes) and with European paper.

Non woven textiles: Beaten Bark cloth

Beating bark to produce a fine and soft non-woven fiber which is shaped to produce barkcloth has been a common practice in many cultures around the world.

It is ancient, and predates weaving (interlacing threads in a crisscross pattern). The discovery of beaten bark may be very ancient, and originate in different places in a convergent independent discovery process, or, perhaps, a shared ancient knowledge like fire-making, or fish hook making, stone knapping, part of the survival kit of our ancestors.

Africa

The Mbuti pygmies of the D.R. of Congo in Africa have made and used barkcloth since antiquity (known as "pongo" in Kimbuti language and "molumba" in Kiswahili), they used it for their loincloths and traded it with farmers for food. They are made from bark of different trees, pounded with ivory hammers and painted by the women (Learn more: Barkcloth Designs of Mbuti Women, Barry S. Hewlett and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza (1991) Human Mossaic, Vol. 25, Nos. 1-2).

Southeast China and into Polynesia

The Southeastern China barkcloth beaters dating back almost 8,000 years were found in Dingmo, Guangxi (Dawei Li, Wei Wang, Feng Tian, Wei Liao, Christopher J. Bae, (2014). The oldest bark cloth beater in southern China (Dingmo, Bubing basin, Guangxi), Quaternary International, Vol 354, 15 December 2014, ps 184-189.) Dingmo site is SW China (see Google Map) produced a beater excavated from a layer dated to 7898 ± 34 BP. This is roughly 1,300 years older than the previous oldest beater, found at the Xiantouling Site in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, China (close to Hong Kong).

These were neolithic modern humans, who spoke an Austric language (this was long before the current Han-Chinese appeared). They originated the proto-Austronesian people and language, which later spread south across Indonesia, Melanesia, and Poloynesia.

Current consensus (Source) is that the bark cloth technology that originated in SE China, spread from there to Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and with the outflow of Austronesians, into Papua New Guinea, and the near Pacific Islands Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, and then into Polynesia, Niue, Cook Islands, Salomon Islands, Hawaii, and New Zealand. These peoiple made "Tapa cloth" and used the bark of paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) of the Moraceae family. Surprisingly, Africans also use ficus trees from the Moraceae family like Ficus natalensis (Mutuba) and Antiaris toxicaria (Kilundu).

A paper published in 2015 used DNA to track the trees used in barkcloth across SE Asia, Melanesia and Polynesia, suggesting that the migrants who moved from Taiwan into this region, took the paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) with them together with their dogs, chickens, and pigs (C. Chang,H. Liu,X. Moncada,A. Seelenfreund,D. Seelenfreund, & K. Chung, (2015). A holistic picture of Austronesian migrations revealed by phylogeography of Pacific paper mulberry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 (44) 13537-13542, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503205112.)

The study reported that "Using chloroplast DNA sequences, we demonstrate a tight genealogical link between its populations in South China and North Taiwan, and South Taiwan and Remote Oceania by way of Sulawesi and New Guinea, presenting the first study, to our knowledge, of a commensal plant species transported to Polynesia whose phylogeographic structure concurs with expectations of the “out of Taiwan” hypothesis of Austronesian expansion..."

But barkcloth didn't catch on in New Zealand. (Source) the ancestors of the Maoris brought their paper mulberry with them, which they called "aute" but it didn't gro well there, and bark cloth which was suitable in a Tropical climate didn't stand up to the colder and wetter New Zealand weather.

The Maori used local species like houhi, whauwhi, or houhere to replace the aute, but eventually they plaited and knitted strips of bark, and fiber from different vines and grasses to knit their skirts and capes-

Bark cloth in Mesoamerica

The Maya used different ficus species to make bark paper (Source). The main source for bark paper was the amate tree. Paper which they used for codices (books) and clothing for the poor. They also used bark from non-ficus trees for this purpose.

The Aztec people also used ficus and jonote, as well as a species of yucca, and maguey fiber. For paper and also for fiber which, they wove into mats and clothes for the lower classes. Notice the emphasis in the word "wove". The Aztecs had deep textile knowledge, and weaved cloth using not only maguey fiber, but also cotton, and wool. This wasn't beaten bark, it was a fiber fashioned from beaten plant fiber (maguey). Their paper was indeed beaten bark. But not used for clothes amont the Aztecs.

Northwestern North America

The natives along the Pacific coast of Canada and Alaska used the bark of redwoods (cedar) to make beaten bark textiles. The texts that I found show that they wove it, without using a loom, so it was similar to the Mexican textiles: it was woven, this makes it different to the Polynesian "tapa" wich was a non-woven textile.

Amazon Ashenikas

The Ashenika people who live in the Peruvian Amazon (Google Maps), wear a tunic called cushma. It is their typical dress, and it is made with woven cotton. Perhaps they adopted weaving after their contact with the advanced Inca civilization that lived to the west. But it seems likely that they originally used beaten bark for their clothing.

Sø Hvalkof, a researcher from Copenhagen University acquired a barkcloth cushma made in the Ene region. The natives told him that similar bark cloth cushmas were still used in the remote jungle areas between the Tambo River and the Gran Pajonal.

The Ashéninka Indians produced barkcloth cushmas in the past, and this fact was recorded by John Elick, 1970¹ who reported having seen children in the hills east of the Nevati river wearing rough cushmas of barkcloth in the 1950s. They were made from a ficus the natives called llanchama, (Olmeida aspera), a Moracea They told Hvalkof in the 1980s that they still knew how to make them, but that they lost their shape when the got wet, and preferred woven cotton clothes. Source and Source

¹ Elick, John William. 1970. An ethnography of the Pichis Valley Campa of Eastern Peru. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation. (297pp.).

Conclusion

Human beings are resourceful creatures who learn how to use what nature has to offer. The beaten bark fiber used by Africans, Asians, and Amerindians seems to be either an ancestral knowledge, or one fruit of independent discovery. The Melanesians and Polynesians seem to be the only group who received it as part of the Austronesian culture, as their ancestors moved across Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, into New Guinea, and the South Pacific Islands.

I don't think that the Polynesians took their beaten bark techniques to America.

Bark cloth Pacific rim. Fig. 2. Judith Cameron

As mentioned in my previous post, Judith Cameron (Trans-oceanic transfer of bark-cloth technology from South China-Southeast Asia to Mesoamerica?, 2008, in Islands of inquiry: colonisation, seafaring and the archaeology of maritime landscapes (Terra Australis 29). Editors, Geoffrey Clark, Foss Leach & Sue O'Connor, PublisherANU ePress, pp.203-210. Vol 1.) suggested an independent discovery of barkcloth:

"Notwithstanding the above-mentioned parallels, there is also the possibility that the Meso-american archaeological bark-cloth beaters belong to an independent cultural tradition that has no links with Southeast China or Southeast Asia... An... explanation is that prehistoric groups in Mesoamerica independently developed stone bark-cloth beaters..."

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Bark Cloth among the Mesoamericans (amate)

Today's post is part of the series on paper made from beaten bark in the Americas, Asia, and Polynesia, and the possible common trans-pacific origin for this prehistoric industry.

Yesterday's post looked into the British Columbian and Alaskan beaten bark traditions. This post will explore the Mesoamerican paper.

Maguey

Maguey or agave (Agave americana) is well known because its starches, after processing, become alcohoic beverages like pulque, tequila, and mezcal. The natives used them for many purposes, from construction and food, to medicine and as a source of textile fiber and paper. Below is a picture of a maguey.

During the conquest of the Aztec empire, chroniclers like Francisco López de Gomara (Historia de la Conquista de México, p.449) described the use of maguey fiber. de Gomara wrote in 1552: "Metl is a tree that some call maguey and others call cardón... From the leaves of this plant they make paper, which is used everywhere for sacrifices and painters. They also make espadrilles, mats, blankets, girths, halters, and finally, it is hemp and is spun."

Friar Toribio de Motolinia (1482-1569), in his Memoriales (p. 317) gives a similar account, calling the maguey "metl": "From those maguey leaves, thread for sewing is obtained; they also make cords, ropes, hawsers, girths, and halters, and everything made from hemp is made from metl. They make clothing and footwear from it, because the Indians' footwear is apostolic, for they are properly sandals: the Indians call them cactli. They also make espadrilles like those of Andalusia. They make blankets and capes from this metl... From these agave leaves they make a paper of glued cotton, as thin as a fine veil, and on this paper, resting on top of an agave stalk, they carve all their drawings, and it is one of the principal tools of their trade."

In the 1700s Francisco Javier Clavijero also mentioned the use of maguey for paper manufacture. (Source) on p. 383 and 420. It also provided fiber for clothes (p. 383). He also described the use of paper as garments, and flags in relgious ceremonies and funerals (p.317, 330).

Clavijero describes how they made paper from maguey leaves, and from a palm called iczotl (p. 410) he added that "I have held in my hands many sheets of this Mexican paper. It is quite similar to European cardboard, although much softer and smoother, and one can write on it comfortably. The sheets of this paper were enormous."

Below is a photo of an iczotl, Yucca aloifolia.

Regarding maguey cloth, the image below shows a man selling maguey cloth known as áyatl. The text on the upper side of the image says "maguey thread". The Spanish text captioning the picture is the following: "And the blankets she sells are white, coated with dough, burnished, well-crafted, and have wide or narrow legs, long or elongated, thick or fat, stiff or sturdy; in short, all the maguey blankets that have designs. Some she sells that are very sparse, that look like nothing more than a headscarf, such as the very thin blankets woven with nequén fiber, and those made of twisted thread. And on the contrary, some are thick and very dense, and well-crafted, and others coarse and thick, whether made of pita or maguey thread." This image and text are part of the Florentine Codex (Book 10, folio 53r), compiled in Spanish and Nahuatl languages around 1575.

Ficus Tree paper, Amate or Amal

Other contemporary writers reported paper; Díaz del Castillo (1496-1584), in his True History of the Conquest of New Spain, tells about the conquest of the Aztec empire, in which he took part, and mentions "amal" (p. 160): "I remember that at that time his [Montezuma's] chief steward was a great chieftain, whom we named Tapia, and he kept an account of all the income that was brought to Montezuma with his books, made of their paper, which is called amal, and they had a large house of these books."

Amate paper was used for writing by the Mesoamerican pre-Hispanic civilizations, the Mayas, and the Aztecs its use survived the Spanish conquest and was used well into the 16th century, when European paper-making techniques replaced it.

Amate was made from the bark of trees belonging to the ficus genus, the red and the white jonote (Heliocarpus appendiculatus) called amacuahuitl in the Nahuatl language.

The bark was stripped from the trees, soaked in water and cooked. Then it was rinsed and pressed dry. The bark fiber was placed on a wooden board and beaten with wood or stone beaters called amahuitequini. The bark fiber was flattened and spread, softened and given a relatively smooth texture. Then it was dried. Color of amate ranged from white to pale yellow.

Tro-Cortesiano Codex, AD 1250-1500. Museo de América. Source

Paper manufacturing was an industry, its use was widespread in the Aztec region in the 15th century. Part of the tribute paid by those conquered by the city-states of Texcoco, Tenochtitlan and Tlacopan was in the form of paper, up to 400,000 reams of paper each year, produced in more than 50 villages as detailed in the Mendoza codex, a detail of tax revenue. (see p. 50, 51, 52, 53, etc.)

Amate was used not only in ceremonies, but also for records. The famous "codices", of which roughly 500 have survived the massive burning of books conducted by the Spaniards (the Inquisition and the Catholic church wanted to erradicate all traces of the pagan religions).

The jonote is still used in basket-making. Below is a picture of a man stripping bark from a jonote tree. (Source).

Maguey, Yucca, Jonote and Fusang (T'ung) Tree

Were the maguey or the jonote the trees described in the Fusang account (a mysterious land to the East of China, perhaps America?).

The original Fusang text mentions the paper and the tree: "The kingdom of Fusang lies 20,000 li east from Tahan, and directly east from China. The name of the country is derived from the tree of this name (Fusang), which grows there in abundance. Its leaves resembles those of the tree T'ung. The young sprouts are like those of the bamboo, and are eaten. The fruit resembles a pear, and is of a red colour. Cloth is made out of the bark, and paper is also prepared from it" (p. 168).

The T'ung tree is the Paulownia tomentosa (more on the T'ung in this external link), and looks similar to the jonote trees, so maybe the Buddhist monk thought they were the same species.

Tomorrow we will close this series on bark cloth with a final post.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Bark Cloth in British Columbia and Alaska

Continuing with the subject of the bark coloth and beaten bark that seems to be a pan-Pacific industry, found in Indonesia, Polynesia, China, Southeast Asia, Mexico and the Northwestern coast of North America, this post deals with the latter, the beaten bark of the natives of Alaska, British Columbia.

The book Cedar: Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast Indians By Hilary Stewart (see p. 143) shows images of different types of clothes, like aprons, skirts, capes, and blankets fashioned by the natives in cedar bark. It also mentions Captain Cook's and John Jewitt's accounts about these woven bark mats and textiles.

Captain James Cook visited this region during his final (third) voyage (1776-1780). He carried an artist to record the events of his expedition, John Webber, who drew several images, some nicely watercolored, of the expedition's stop in Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island, in what is now Canada. The two ships, Resolution and Discovery anchored there between March 29 and April 26, 1778.

Further down, the illustration of the interior of a Nootka home, shows the natives, wrapped in mats of woven bark, seated on mats, weaving, and cooking. Smoked salmon can be seen under the ceiling. Below is what Cook wrote at that time, as recorded in The Three Voyages of Captain Cook Round the World. Vol. VI. Being the Second of the Third Voyage, by James Cook, p. 298.

"The flaxen and woollen garments, with which they cover themselves, must necessarily engage their first care, and are the most material of those that can be ranked under the head of manufactures. The former of these are made of the bark of a pine-tree, beat into a hempen state. It is not spun, but, after being properly prepared, is spread upon a stick, which is fastened across to two others that stand upright. It is disposed in such a manner that the manufacturer, who sits on her hams at this simple machine, knots it across with small plaited threads, at the distance of half an inch from each other. Though, by this method, it be not so close or firm as cloth that is woven, the bunches between the knots make it sufficiently impervious to the air, by filling the interstices, and it has the additional advantage of being softer and more pliable. The woollen garments, though probably manufactured in the same manner, have the strongest resemblance to woven cloth. But the various figures which are very artificially inserted in them, destroy the supposition of their being wrought in the loom; it being extremely unlikely that these people should be so dexterous as to be able to finish such a complex work, unless immediately by their hands. They are of different degrees of fineness; some resembling our coarsest rugs or blankets, and others almost equal to our finest sorts, or even softer, and certainly warmer. The wool of which they are made, seems to be taken from animals, as the fox and brown lynx; the last of which is by far the finest sort, and, in its natural state, differs little from the colour of our coarser wools; but the hair, with which the animal is also covered, being intermixed, its appearance, when wrought, is somewhat different. The ornamental parts or figures in these garments, which are disposed with great taste, are commonly of a different colour, being dyed, chiefly, either of a deep brown, or of a yellow; the last of which, when it is new, equals the best in our carpets, as to brightness."

The Inside of a House in Nootka Sound. Webber

In the case John Rodgers Jewitt (1783-1821), we have his account, The adventures and sufferings of John R. Jewitt, only survior of the ship Boston, during a captivity of nearly three years among the savages of Nootka Sound. With an account of the manners, mode of living, and religious opinions of the natives (see p. 72 below).

"From bark they likewise make the cloth for their garments, in the following manner : A quantity of this bark is taken and put into fresh water, where it is kept for a fortnight, to give it time to completely soften; it is then taken out and beaten upon a plank, with an instrument made of bone, or some very hard wood, having grooves or hollows on one side of it, care being taken to keep the mass constantly moistened with water, in order to separate, with more ease, the hard and woody from the soft and fibrous parts, which, when completed, they par cel out into skeins, like thread. These they lay in the air to bleach, and afterwards dye them black or red, as suits their fancies, their natural colour being a pale yellow. In order to form the cloth, the women, by whom the whole of this process is performed, take a certain number of these skeins, and twist them together, by rolling them with their hands upon their knees into hard rolls, which are afterwards connected by means of a strong thread, made for the purpose.
Their dress usually consists of but a single garment, which is a loose cloak or mantle (called Kutsack) in one piece, reaching nearly to the feet. This is tied loosely over the right or left shoulder, so as to leave the arms at full liberty.
Those of the common people are painted red with ochre, the better to keep out the rain, but the chiefs wear them of their native colour, which is a pale yellow, ornamenting them with borders of the sea-otter skin, a kind of grey cloth, made of the hair of some animal which they procure from the tribes to the South, or their own cloth wrought or painted with various figures in red or black, representing men’s heads, the sun and moon, fish and animals, which are frequently executed with much skill. They have also a girdle of the same kind, for securing this mantle, or Kutsack, around them, which is in general still more highly ornamented, and serves them to wear their daggers and knives in. In winter, however, they sometimes make use of an additional garment, which is a kind of hood, with a hole in it for the purpose of admitting the head..."

Jewitt had been an armourer and blacksmith on board an American ship, the "Boston" on a trading expedition around the world. The natives attacked the crew in March 1803, sparing Jewitt as they needed his know-how as an armourer. He was held captive for 28 months when he managed to escape aboard another ship that was visiting Nootka Sound.

Ninety years later, the Report on Population and Resources of Alaska at the eleventh census: 1890, by Robert P. Porter, published in 1893 (see p. 57-58), indicated that the natives still continued with this tradition:

" The early visitors to the Alexander archipelago [see Google Maps] found the natives of both sexes wearing conical or truncated hats woven of grass or finely split spruce root, and painted with totem shapes in different colors, generally black and red. From the same material, blankets and mats ornamented with grotesque designs were manufactured and found in general use. They also had a rain coat or rather blanket with a central aperture for inserting the head [like a poncho].
These garments were woven from coarse grass with the shaggy side exposed to the rain. The inhabitants of the southern part of the archipelago substituted the more pliable material obtained from cedar bark for grass and roots. Mats and cloths manufactured in this way are still in general use throughout the Thlingit tribe and they are applied to every imaginable purpose from carpeting a house and lining a canoe to packing cases bags and coverings. In cases of emergency they also serve as garments and bedding while nearly everything the Thlingit brings for sale to the settlement is carefully wrapped in cedar matting."

Below is an image of one of these cedar bark mats

Cedar bark mat, late 1800s–early 1900s from Alaska or British Columbia, Canada. Material+technique: cedar bark; weaving. Dimensions: (Length x Width): 106 x 49.5 cm (19.5 x 41-75 in.). Source

But, they also made sophisticated clothes, as you can see below, and not only coarse mats.

Tunic and leggings, Date: ca. 1890. Alaska, United States. Tlingit, Native American Medium: Cedar bark, mountain sheep wool and dye. Source

Woven Bark and also wool

In their book, The Tlingit Indians, George Thornton Emmons and Frederica De Laguna (see p. 222), describe how the Tlingit wove cedar bark into mats and "cloth". They also used animal wool to weave blankets, like the famous Chilkat blanket (see this online source for more details about the blanket).

Comments

To my non-scholar eyes, these mats and cedar bark mats and rugs of the Tlingit natives seem less sophisticated than the Celebes-Sulawesi paper (the key here is "paper") garments. The Indonesians beat bark into a paper pulp and then fashioned it into clothing. The Tlingit wove (the key here is "weaving") the bark, they used very primitive looms (if the word loom could be used), actually frames onto which they wove the bark. The only similarity is that they used a plant fiber to make clothes. But the processes seem different.

My next post on the Mesoamerican beaten bark will show that they made paper from the bark. So Mexican bark-cloth is similar to the Indonesian product.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Bark Beaters: Polynesia, Mexico and British Columbia

This is the third post of a series dedicated to the possibile prehistoric links between Polynesians and the Native Americans of Alaska and Britih Columbia, on the NW coast of North America.

My previous post mentioned a text published in 1894 on the similarities between both groups of people.

The first post was an introduction to the subject, mentioning some Hawaiian lore about an Alaskan origin, and online sources.

Beaten Bark

This post will look into a product known as "beaten bark", it is obtained by pounding tree bark (hence its name) into fiber which is then used either as a textile (barkcloth) or, as a product similar to paper. Beaten bark is found in China, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and among some Native American groups in Mexico and NW North America. This suggests the possibilitiy of trans-pacific sharing of know-how in ancient times.

The tools: Bark beaters

Bark is processed by beating the tough fibers and breaking them apart, special tools known as "beaters" are used for this purpose.

An article published in 1900, by Frederick Starr (Mexican Paper, The American Antiquarian, Vol XXII Sept & Oct 1900, No. 5, p. 307) mentions a baton used to hammer bark to make paper. It compares the pre-Hispanic Mexican beater with the Polynesian tapa, notes that beaten bark was used to make cloth or paper in different parts of America. It also mentions the bark beater used by the Tinglit Indians of Alaska, and recognizing that they are also used in other places like "New Guinea and Africa they are usually quite different from these in sectional form and in the mode of grooving. Personally we are inclined to see a significance in the the similarity of the Polynesian - Tlingit - Mexican beaters. Were there no other evidence pointing to relationship or contact between the three populations the argument would be indeed weak; as it is, however this similarity presents evidence which reinforces an argument already made."

Below are some images from this article, comparing Mexican, Alaskan, and Polynesian beaters:

The Aztecs of Mexico beat Maguey (the plant said to give Fusang its name, also used to make paper!), for paper on which they wrote their symbols. They also used bark from different plants for this purpose. This paper was ceremonial.

This similarity in bark beaters was also noted more recently, and a post titled "Indigenous Bark Beaters in Coastal British Columbia" by Grant Keddie, 2024, (online here, with photographs), the similarity between Polynesian and British Columbian (B.C.) beaters is amazing. However, the author is cautious: "There is not enough information, at present, to indicate that bark beaters represent a transfer of an artifact type from Polynesia to the coast of B.C. If the latter were true, one might expect that they would be part of an assemblage of other kinds of artifacts that appeared near the same time. There are a number of candidates for the later that are in need of further examination."

Keddie then quotes Paul Tolstoy, who researched the matter extensively. Tolstoy's work, has a very revealing title:"Paper route: Were the Manufacture and Use of Bark Paper Introduced into Mesoamerica from Asia?" 1991, Natural History, vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 6-8, 10, 12-14. Below is Keddie's quote from Tolstoy:

" My own survey of hundreds of specimens of the club and racquet types [of bark beaters] shows further correspondences in the construction of Mesoamerican and Indonesian examples... My research also reveals a pattern of dates for the archaeological examples. In Mesoamerica, the earliest bark beaters are from the Maya area and its periphery, particularly the Pacific coastal plain of Guatemala and El Salvador, where they appear some 2,500 years ago.
The dating of artifacts from the islands of Southeast Asia is less secure, but both forms [of bark beaters, i.e. club-shaped, and racquet-type] almost certainly go back several hundred years earlier than they do in Mesoamerica. In Taiwan they probably go back one or two thousand years still earlier.
Surveying the manufacturing technologies of bark cloth and early true paper worldwide, I have identified some 300 variable features in the steps that go into producing these materials. They include such elements as the cultivation or care of trees used for their bark; ways of getting at the desired bast layer... [a long list of such features follows here]
In addition, I have recorded some 140 uses of the product, such as mats, blankets, bags, various items of clothing, shrouds, banners, and of course, writing paper. – Finally, there are some 100 specific details of the design of bark beaters, which may be combined in various ways, and a mass of relevant botanical and linguistic information.
Finally, the shared features and innovations suggest a family tree for these industries with a history of common inheritance and local differentiation. In it, Mesoamerican paper technology evolves from a prototype shared with Sulawesi bark cloth and moves toward the threshold of the true papermaking. Evidence from China suggests that this threshold was crossed sometime between 2,500 and 2,000 years ago, possibly in southern China or Indochina. Mesoamerica, however, acquired a version of the technology as it existed just prior to this event, probably from the area that includes Indochina, Taiwan, and the Philippine Islands, where the two beater forms occur together archaeologically."

I have seen several online posts mention that Max Uhle was the first to suggest a similarity between Sulawesi beaten bark (in those days the area was known as the Celebes), and Mayan beaten bark paper. The source given is his work in German: Kultur und Industrie südamerikanischer Völker: nach dem im Besitze des Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig befindlichen Sammlungen, in 2 volumes. I wasn't able to find any mention by Uhler of beaten bark or the Celebes+Sulawesi. If you can find it, I'd appreciate it.

There is an excellent article about the Barkcloth production in Central Sulawesi (Lloraine V. Aragon. Expedition, Vol. 32, No. 1, p.33). And this gallery with descriptions shows sarongs, shirts, vests, hankys, headbands and paintings with dyed designs that are amazing even nowadays. One image is shown below

Tolstoy's books from 1991 and 1963 ("Cultural Parallels between Southeast Asia and Mesoamerica in the Manufacture of Bark Cloth." Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, Vol. 25, No. 6: 646–662. New York.) are behind paywalls, but those who have quoted him¹ say that "Tolstoy (1963, 1991), who rejects any notion that the tapa of Polynesia provides a credible link between Southeast Asia and Mesoamerica, and he argues instead that bark-cloth technology was introduced into Mesoamerica, not island to island, but in a single voyage sailing north of Hawaii along an island-less route to Mesoamerica."

¹Trans-oceanic transfer of bark-cloth technology from South China-Southeast Asia to Mesoamerica? Judith Cameron, 2008, in Islands of inquiry: colonisation, seafaring and the archaeology of maritime landscapes (Terra Australis 29). Editors, Geoffrey Clark, Foss Leach & Sue O'Connor, PublisherANU ePress, pp.203-210. Vol 1.

Independent, convergent discovery?

Judith Cameron suggests that the natives of Central America (Mesoamerica) developed the technique on their own, independently, and discovered details like groves on the beaters, on their own, below is her positiion¹:

"Notwithstanding the above-mentioned parallels, there is also the possibility that the Meso-american archaeological bark-cloth beaters belong to an independent cultural tradition that has no links with Southeast China or Southeast Asia. Although the Southern Chinese and Southeast Asian beaters suggest interaction, parallels are neither necessarily nor exclusively resultant from interaction. An alternative explanation is that prehistoric groups in Mesoamerica independently developed stone bark-cloth beaters. In manufacturing material culture, there is a limited range of raw materials and there could be geological reasons, such as an abundance of river-smoothed pebbles of appropriate size and weight in both regions. The diagnostic features of the beaters in the typology might also be purely functional, rather than stylistic. Grooves on the faces of beaters enhance the maceration of bark fibres and prehistoric groups in Mesoamerica could have realised this quite independently. In the same way, prehistoric groups with hafted beaters on the two continents could have invented hafting independently, as groups in other parts of the world have done. "

To be continued

My next posts will look into the Mesoamerican amate (the Nahuatl name for barkcloth), and the work of the natives of British Columbia, who employed beaten red cedar bark to make mats and garments.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025by Austin Whittall ©