China is redefining hominin evolution

A paywalled paper published three days ago (Feb. 24, 2026) in Nature (Yang, SX., Martinón-Torres, M. & Petraglia, M. Palaeoanthropological evidence from China is changing the picture of hominin evolutionary history. Nat Ecol Evol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-02983-w) reports on the recent research, datings and findings in China that have upended conventional beliefs about the evolution of our species.

"Abstract
Recent palaeoanthropological discoveries in China indicate that eastern Asia had an important role in the evolutionary history of the genus Homo over the past 2 million years. New taxonomic proposals have been made to re-group archaic human fossils, including those considered to be Denisovans, as Homo juluensis and Homo longi. The hypothesis that the affinities of Yunxian 2, dated to about 1 million years ago, also infer an early divergence of the Homo sapiens lineage further underscores China’s pivotal role in global evolutionary narratives. Here we explore key biological and cultural evidence emerging from the Chinese record and its evolutionary implications, raising questions about the relationships between ‘transitional’ clades and their differing adaptive capabilities. Rather than an evolutionary cul-de-sac, China now appears as a dynamic evolutionary crossroad where multiple Homo lineages may have arisen, interacted and adapted to shifting environments. The growing fossil and genetic evidence point to a diversity of populations whose demographic history and gene flow exchange helped to shape the broader mosaic of our species."

In my next two posts I will look into two very papers that report two remarkable findings: an earlier age for the first Out Of Africa event that saw Homo erectus enter Asia (or possibly, even an australopithecine) leave Africa 1.95 million years ago, and also a much older date for erectus' arrival in China. Plus two other papers mentioning sites that are possibly over 2 million years old in China.

I am not a Sinophile, and not because I dislike the Chinese people or their culture, quite the opposite. I have visited China many times before I retired as I worked for several years with companies there, visited customers, traveled the country extensively. I spent vacations there, with my wife, and I also have Chinese friends. I enjoy the food, the rich history, the diverse culture, and its natural sights. I am reluctant to embrace China because I am at odds with the system that governs that great nation. The Chinese Communist party, allied with the People's Liberation Army, is a one-party system that perpetuates a caste, an elite, living in luxury, backed by force that has, for the past 77 years destroyed and ignored the human rights (as we see them with our Western eyes) of its people, jailed opposition, suppressed free press, and supported dictators (like the ones who govern Iran, North Korea, and Russia). Then there are the territorial claims in the South China Sea (Spratly Islands), and its heavy handed attitude with South Korea, and Japan. Add to that the official silence over the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, and how it has gradually eroded the rights agreed upon with Britain for Hong Kong ("One country, two systems", for 50 years) and is slowly but surely imposing its totalitarian views and police-state grip there. The increasingly aggressive stance with Taiwan, the Republic of China, a thriving democracy, is also troubling.

Nevertheless, I am glad that research is uncovering new findings in China. This will help us understand how our ancestors peopled Asia, America, and the interplay between the different branches of hominins.

---

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

Asian vs. African origin of Humans and the "inverted" phylogenetic tree of Shi Huang

I have mentioned Shi Huang in two previous posts (Out of China? in 2019 and On Neanderthals in America and the Out of China Hypothesis in 2025).

I love how he inverts the phylogenetic trees, from a root in Africa and youngest brances in East Asia, Europe, and America, to one rooted in Asia, with a youngest African branch, going against the consensus of the Out of Africa theory.

This posture is similar to what I suggested in a post nearly 8 years ago, "On the direction and root of phylogenetic trees" (April 2018): "When I see a phylogenetic tree (also known as an evolutionary tree), I always wonder why do we believe that those branches, trunk and the root which anchors it, are correct. I ask myself why is it assumed that the mutation took place in one direction and not the other. And this trivial question is fundamental because the branches open up from other branches based on the differences between the DNA as you move along them." (sorry for quoting myself). The post included the image below.

Two different trees built from the same genome samples. Copyright © 2018 by Austin Whittall

In today's post I mention another paper co-authored by Shi Huang: Ancient Y chromosomes confirm origin of modern human paternal lineages in Asia rather than Africa, Hongyao Chen, Ye Zhang, Shi Huang. bioRxiv 2020.03.10.986042; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.10.986042

The paper includes the following figure, which, as you can see, inverts the root of the Y-chromosome tree, from Africa to Asia, and places Africa in the newest branch.

Figure 1. Y chromosome phylogenetic trees of modern humans. Only major branches and representative SNPs are shown with branch lengths not to scale. The tree topology was built without making use of any ancient DNAs. A. The Out of East Asia model. B. The Out of Africa model.. Source

They argue in this paper that "The mutation pattern in the ancient Y chromosomes as revealed here confirms the expectation that ancient haplogroups should mutate in only a fraction of the sites that define a haplogroup they belonged to. Two observations here confirm the Asia model and invalidate the Africa model. First, only haplogroups specific to the Asia model showed the expected mutation pattern in ancient samples. Second, the genetic reality that a haplogroup, be it ancient or present, should not carry mutations found in basal haplogroups to which they do not belong is only met by the Asia model but not the Africa model."

Interesting and controversial, and also, not peer reviewed either.

By the way, Shi Huang expands this idea in a paper published one year ago: Examining models of modern human origins through the analysis of 43 fully sequenced human Y chromosomes, Shi Huang. bioRxiv 2023.11.09.566475; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.09.566475. In it he uses the same inverted trees to argue against the Out of Africa theory and support his Out of East Asia theory.

---

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

On Neanderthals in America and the Out of China Hypothesis

A very interesting paper by the controversial Shi Huang, published in 2017 (On the peopling of the Americas: molecular evidence for the Paleoamerican and the Solutrean models. Dejian Yuan, Shi Huang. bioRxiv 130989; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/130989).

Shi proposed the Maximum Genetic Diversity (MGD) theory to explain evolution and how species diversify. It addresses the concerns raised by the "molecular clock" and also concepts like "junk DNA", "neutral mutations", epigenetic effects, etc.

In this paper he looks into the origin of Native Americans, and does so with his "Out of Asia" outlook.

Shi suggests an old date, earlier than currently accepted, and even hints at the feasibility of Neanderthals entering America before modern humans!

"The timing of first entry into America by humans remains to be estimated by future DNA studies. Several human sites in America, including the Topper site in South Carolina United States, the Burnham site in Oklahoma United States, sites in Brazil and Chile, suggest that humans were in the New world as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000 56. This old age for the first settlement is consistent with the findings here that ancient Amerindians had more ancestry from Southern Chinese (Hunan) relative to Northern Chinese (Fujian), the recent finding of modern humans originating in South East Asia, and the African or Australo-Melanesian like genome in Paleoamericans or Native Americans that could only have come from Neanderthals (30). Also compatible with results here is the recent discovery of a ∼130000 year old human site in North America (60), indicating that admixture of Neanderthals and modern humans might have happened in America, which appears to be the more likely model given the absence of Amerindian mtDNA C1, C4c and D1 haplotypes in North East Asia and Siberia that shared more informative alleles with Neanderthals than their respective sister haplotypes in North East Asia and Siberia (30). If Neanderthals were present in North East Asia and Siberia, there seems a priori no reason that they could not find their way through the Bering Strait."

The paper he cites as "(30)" is: Yuan, D. et al. Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA. bioRxiv, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/106864 (2017).Google Scholar, where Shi is a coauthor.

This paper has boldly proclaims in its abstract "We found evidence of modern Y and mtDNA originating in East Asia and dispersing via hybridization with archaic humans. Analyses of autosomes, Y and mtDNA all suggest that Denisovan and Neanderthal were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. Verifying our model, we found more ancestry of Southern Chinese from Hunan in Africans relative to other East Asian groups examined. These results suggest multiregional evolution of autosomes and replacements of archaic Y and mtDNA by modern ones originating in East Asia, thereby leading to a coherent account of modern human origins."

I must confess that I find the arguments rather vague, and some explanation regarding "slow" and "fast" SNPs would come in handy. I am no expert in this field and I guess most scholars don't consider his maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis seriously. The authors could have added more context to interpret their findings, which to them seem obvious, but not to me. Shi's X (Twitter) profile has a link to the MGD website, where he explains how it works (and includes a list with all of his publications).

Nevertheless, I do give them credit for this paper that boldly goes against the current prevailing consensus and pushes against the Out Of Africa hypothesis with strong arguments.

---

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

All Y-chromosome haplogroups outside of Africa originated in East Asia

A paper published in December 2019 (Early replacement of West Eurasian male Y chromosomes from the east. Pille Hallast, Anastasia Agdzhoyan, Oleg Balanovsky, Yali Xue, Chris Tyler-Smith bioRxiv 867317; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/867317) suggested that the Y chromosome of ALL non-Africans was replaced by lineages that originated in East Asia!

Published in bioRxiv it hasn't been peer reviewed and can be read in full. The summary of this idea is given in the abstract:

"phylogenetic analyses of haplogroup C, D and FT sequences, including very rare deep-rooting lineages, together with phylogeographic analyses of ancient and present-day non-African Y-chromosomes, all point to East/South-east Asia as the origin 50,000-55,000 years ago of all known non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants). This implies that the initial Y lineages in populations between Africa and eastern Asia have been entirely replaced by lineages from the east, contrasting with the expectations of the serial-founder model."

So, this paper says that instead of splitting into different haplotypes close to Africa, say in the Middle East after leaving it, human Y-chromosomes began diversifying in Eastern Asia. Then these haplogroups replaced any others that may have appeared to the west of them.

Below is the map shown in this paper's Figure 3, mentioned in the following quote from the same paper.

"In a simple model of gradual human expansion from Africa to Asia and Oceania without subsequent continental-scale reshaping, we would expect the initial divergences in the Y-chromosomal phylogeny to have occurred in geographical locations close to Africa, and the present-day Y-chromosomal phylogeography to reflect this history by showing the presence of the early-diverging lineages within C, D and FT now being located geographically in Central/West Asia (Figure 3a). In stark contrast, the observed distributions of these lineages all lie further to the East, suggesting that their early divergences occurred in the East...
How then can the present-day Y-chromosomal phylogeography be reconciled with an out-of-Africa expansion? The simplest explanation is that initial western Y chromosomes have been entirely replaced by lineages from further east, perhaps on more than one occasion. "

Interesting version of an "Out of China" theory. Yet, it retains the original notion of H. sapiens leaving Africa and originating there.

---

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

Ancient split between Homo sapiens and Homo Longi clades: 1.325 Ma

Today's post looks into a new paper published a few days ago, on September 25, 2015 in Science, (Xiaobo Feng et al., The phylogenetic position of the Yunxian cranium elucidates the origin of Homo longi and the Denisovans. Science 389, 1320-1324 (2025). doi:10.1126/science.ado9202)

Th Yunkian 2 skull, Hubei Provincial Museum. Image credit Gary Todd

The authors restored and rebuilt an ancient skull, the Yunxian 2 cranium that had been distorted and compressed. They found that this cranium shows a mosaic of archaic features that " suggest that it is an early member of the Asian H. longi clade, which includes the Denisovans and is the main part of the sister group to the H. sapiens clade. Both the H. sapiens and H. longi clades have deep roots extending beyond the Middle Pleistocene and probably experienced rapid early diversification. Yunxian 2 may preserve transitional features close to the origins of the two clades."

The Yunxian 2 cranium is ancient -0.94 to 1.10 million years (Ma)- and the authors suggest it is close to the last common ancestor to the Homo sapiens and the Homo longi clades, one in Africa and the other in Asia.

This is a major shift in our current knowledge. This specimen pushes the split between modern humans and other hominins further back in time to 1.325 million years ago. The split between these two clades and Neanderthals is also pushed back in this paper to 1.379 Ma.

Hominin phylogenetic tree. From the article in Science

The tree above shows archaic hominins (top) followed by the Neandrthal, H. longi and H. sapiens clades.

Over the next few days we will be posting about the complex panorama of ancient humans in Southern, Eastern and Southeastern Asia.

---

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

D4h3a mtDNA revisited

Yu-Chun, lI et al. published a paper in 2023, that looked into the link between Native Americans (NAs) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage D4h3a and the variant D4h3b which until now has been found only in East China and Thailand.

The authors noted that "D4h3 and its ancestor type D4h are relatively rare in contemporary populations (∼0.5%)" and estimated the age of the NA variant at 19,400 years (15.11 - 24.05 ky).

The interesting part is that they suggest that this haplogroup took a coastal route by sea from China to America, going through Japan's Islands. It didn't cross from Siberia and Beringia into America, walking.

"The coastal distributions of the NA (D4h3a) and Japanese lineages (D4h1a and D4h2), in combination with the Paleolithic archaeological similarities among Northern China, the Americas, and Japan, lend support to the coastal dispersal scenario of early NAs."

The authors highlight that this is a genetic source that is outside of Siberia, which provided mtDNA (a matrilineal lineage) to Native Americans. They stress that it is an "additional ancestral source for the ancestors of NAs beyond Siberia", and that "although only contributed to a small proportion of the mtDNA gene pool of NAs (D4h3a) [it] would be important in complementing the whole picture of origination histories of early NAs."

Below is an image from this paper:

Given the location of the original D4h variant, on the coast of Northern China, the authors suggest that it could have dispersed along the Pacific coastal rim: "we speculate that D4h would have documented LGM and post-LGM dispersals along the eastern Pacific coast. This echoes well with the dispersal D4h3a along the Pacific coastal path when the ice-free corridor was closed. Similarly, Y chromosome C-L1373, which probably radiated in parallel with mtDNA D4h, has also been reported in South Koreans (http://koreangenome.org/) and the Nivkh, thus lending support to a coastal population expansion scenario initiated from northern coastal China. This, together with the Paleolithic cultural affinities along the Pacific, e.g., stemmed points, and the palaeoecological feasibility of maritime dispersals (e.g., kelp highway hypothesis) lends further support to the coastal route hypothesis of early NAs."

It is also found along the coastal people in South America. Stuart J. Fiedel (source) in 2017 wrote that "D4h3a is a relatively rare clade of haplogroup D... it was reported mainly from coastal peoples, including the Fuegians of southernmost Chile, the Chumash of southern California, and the Cayapa of Ecuador The 10,300-year–old skeletal remains from On Your Knees Cave in coastal Alaska belonged to a derived clade of D4h3a."

However, Fiedel says that "the recent distribution of this clade is “deceptive” and has nothing to do with a hypothetical coastal migration".

He bases this argument on the fact that the Anzick baby had D4h3a mt DNA, and is roughly 12,900 years old, but it was found in south-central Montana, far from the Pacific coast, and that other remains are also from the interior of the continent like the Hopewell remains found in the Klunk Mounds in Illinois, and that this variant has been found in extant people of Native American origin in Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, and Mexico.

I had posted about D4h3a back in 2014 and pointed out the same idea:

"We see that the D4h3a tends to have a coastal distribution along the Pacific Ocean from Canada to Tierra del Fuego: Canada, California, Ecuador, Southern Chile and Argentina.
The Yaghan, Alakaluf, Chono, Cayapa, Chumash and the man from On Your Knees Cave, all had this haplogroup.
They all built sea-going craft: rafts, dugout canoes, bark canoes and "sewn plank" canoes.
Other groups also built canoes or rafts; the Changos in Northern Chile, the Pericú, and the Aleuts, though we cannot tell if they also carried this rare haplogroup.
But, as we will see in our next post, it is also found quite far from the Western Coast: as it was detected in ancient remains from the Klunk Mound (Illinois) and in Shandong, China.
Furthermore, the Ainu people of Japan also built "lashed-canoes" -like the Chono and the Chumash (as well as dugouts), and they may have a link with the Amerindians."

It pointed out the Chinese connection, the coastal route, and the original Japanese people, the Ainus. The second post in that 2014 series reported the Klunk Mound remains with this haplogroup variant and proposed that "This haplogroup was widespread across America (Pacific coast and well across the Rockies) and became extinct among all native groups being replaced by the other more common haplogroups now found in those groups (A, B, C, D). These surely migrated later into America." It also suggested a back-migration from America to Asia.

Let's see what future investigations find.

My nest post will be about the Cayapa people of Ecuador.

---

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

Hualongdong skull from China supports pre-OOA Homo sapiens evolution in Asia

A paper published last April (Archaic human remains from Hualongdong, China, and Middle Pleistocene human continuity and variation by Xiu-Jie Wu et al., PNAS May 14, 2019 116 (20) 9820-9824; first published April 29, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902396116) challenges the commonly accepted viewpoint on human evolution: a skull that is 300,000 years old shows a mixture of ancient Asian and anatomically modern human (AMH) features.

The skull - Hualongdong 6 or HLD 6 for short- is one of a growing group of Asian, and specially Chinese crania displaying a mosaic of archaic and AMH features.

A virtual reconstruction HLD6 with the actual parts (yellow) and the mirror-images of the missing pieces (gray). The image also shows some stone tools found at the site

Why is HLD 6 important? Because it questions the Out of Africa model (AMH originated in Africa and spread across the world 60 Kya). It is clear evidence that shows the legacy of Homo erectus in Asia: they were successful, and evolved into Asian populations of Homo sapiens long beore African Homo sapiens left their homeland.

The abstract of this paywalled paper says:

"Newly found ∼300,000-y-old human remains from Hualongdong (HLD), China, including a largely complete skull (HLD 6), share East Asian Middle Pleistocene (MPl) human traits of a low vault with a frontal keel (but no parietal sagittal keel or angular torus), a low and wide nasal aperture, a pronounced supraorbital torus (especially medially), a nonlevel nasal floor, and small or absent third molars. It lacks a malar incisure but has a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. HLD 6 also exhibits a relatively flat superior face, a more vertical mandibular symphysis, a pronounced mental trigone, and simple occlusal morphology, foreshadowing modern human morphology. The HLD human fossils thus variably resemble other later MPl East Asian remains, but add to the overall variation in the sample. Their configurations, with those of other Middle and early Late Pleistocene East Asian remains, support archaic human regional continuity and provide a background to the subsequent archaic-to-modern human transition in the region."

So despite my reservations on Chinese science and the state promoted Sino-centric view (akin to the deplorable Aryanism promoted by India's Hindu nationalist BJP party), I must acknowledge science and proof. HLD 6 is proof of human multiregional evolution.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Another paper on "Out of China" (H sapiens originated in China)

A few days ago I wrote a post about an Asian origin for modern humans, written by Shi Huang. Today I found an earlier paper where Huang is one of the authors Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA (Dejian Yuan et al., 2018). As expected mankind originated in China and spread across the globe (into Africa too!).

The paper is quite interesting as it details its objections to the current Out of Africa theory and also highlights some interesting points:

On Negritos and Australian Aboriginals: "Analyses of autosomes, Y and mtDNA all suggest that Denisovan like humans were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians.".

"Origins of Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. The Andamanese and the African pygmies seem obviously related in multiple aspects, including traits, Y relationship with the African megahaplogroup ABDE, and mtDNA haplotype M being closely related to African L.
... Using the published genomes of 10 individuals from the Jarawa (JAR) and Onge (ONG) populations in the Andaman Islands (19), we found that Andamanese are relatively closer to Africans...
We also examined the Aboriginal Australian (AUA) samples ... These results showed similarity between AUA and Negritos, indicating similar ancestry in Neanderthals and Denisovans."

On Africans, Chimpanzees, Denisovans and Neanderthals: "... previous studies have found Neanderthals to be outgroup to AMH and used D-statistics to show Neanderthal gene flow into non-Africans but oddly not Africans (9, 10).
The assumption of D-statistics is that all modern groups are equidistant to chimpanzees so that presence of derived alleles (different from chimpanzees) was due to gene flow from Neanderthal. If in fact Africans are closer to chimpanzees or carrying more ancestral alleles in general, the conclusion of gene flow into non-Africans would become invalid. We examined this by measuring genetic distance between 1000 genomes and 10 previously sequenced chimpanzee genomes (49). Using the random 255K SNPs set, we found closer hom distance between Africans and chimpanzees than between non-Africans and chimpanzees....
Making use of the published Neanderthal genomes (9, 10, 50), we calculated the genetic distance in slow SNPs between 1000 genomes and Neanderthals (Altai, Vindija 33.16, 33.25, 33.26, and Mezmaiskaya) or Denisovan (Fig. 4A). These ancient genomes showed closer distance to Africans except Vi33.25 to ASN and Vi33.26 to AMR. Denisovan was closer to Africans than Neanderthals were..."

The previous conclusions are completely opposite to current prevailing theories (Africans lack links to both Denisovans and Neanderthals as any admixture with these groups took place in Eurasia with Eurasian people that migrated out of Africa).

On SE Asian features in Africa: "Fossils or traits indicating AMH migration from East Asia into Africa or Europe have been noted before. First, native Africans such as Khoisans are well known to have certain East Asian features such as shoveling teeth, epicanthic fold, and lighter skins. Mbuti pygmies look very much like the Andamanese. The much lower frequency of shoveling teeth in African fossils and Khoisan relative to ancient and modern Chinese suggests that this type of teeth could only originate in China with its African presence due to migration. The type of shoveling teeth found in Neanderthals and Pleistocene Homo from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos may either be a different type from that of Asians and Africans or come from early disposal of Homo from Asia to Europe (81, 82)...".

I found the article amusing and their arguments against the "Out of Africa" theory worth investigating in depth.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Out of China?

Ye Zhang and Shi Huang ( The Out of East Asia model versus the African Eve model of modern human origins in light of ancient mtDNA findings, bioRxiv, Feb, 10, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/546234) have proposed that an "Out of East Asia" (read that as "China") is a better model to explain human origin than the current "Out of Africa" theory.

I invite you to read the paper, which finds fault in the Genetic clock: "...The African Eve model assumes the molecular clock while the Asia model not. Given that the universal molecular clock is widely acknowledged to be unreal" (We have posted about the "clock" several times).

It upholds Huang's Maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis but does not explain it in this paper, however you can read Shi Huang's detailed explanation here (Shi Huang, New thoughts on an old riddle: What determines genetic diversity within and between species? Genomics, Volume 108, Issue 1, July 2016, Pages 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2016.01.008).

It also dismisses the Infinite-Sites Mutation Model or ISM, which states that all mutations that have occurred along the sequences since the most recent common ancestor only affect a new site; therefore no single position can mutate twice.

Out of Africa also requires the "Neutral Theory" to be applicable (Mutations can be harmful, and they take place at random and those that are selectively neutral accumulate while those that are deleterious are removed by natural selection). Huang disagrees with this theory (read more here: Genetic equidistance).

The authors find that "Our model furthermore specifically places the least differentiated haplotype R0 or R* as the ancestor of all mtDNA haplotypes, which is in contrast to the African Eve model that puts R downstream of haplotype N (Figure 1). The R0 haplotype is most common today in the Southern Chinese group in the 1000 genomes project, implicating the origin of the modern mtDNA lineage in Southern China [5]."

This is their Figure 1:

The paper concludes that: " the Out of East Asia mtDNA model is inherently more sound and self-consistent than the African Eve model due to stronger theoretical foundations and far more realistic assumptions. "

Readers of this blog are well aware of my anti-sinocentrism, I usually tend to take claims by Chinese scholars lightly, because of their "China is the center of the world viewpoint", however this paper is quite interesting though lacking more sound evidence to fully convince me.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall ©