Much Older divergence dates for Denisovans, Humans, and Neanderthals: Implications

I have already posted about this, reporting it last October: The dates for the splits between the different archaic groups has revised in a paper published in Science last September. Research by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025 suggests that a skull unearthed in China known as Yunxian 2 belongs to an Asian group of hominins known as Homo longi, which encompasses the Denisovans (the clade's name is relatively new and was created to formalize the diverse remains from the Middle Pleistocene of East Asia, including Denisovans). It places the split between humans and Denisovans at 1.32 million years ago (Ma) and proposes that Neanderthals split even earlier: 1.38 Ma. The Homo sapiens are much older than previously assumed: 1.02 Ma.

This is the article: 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.

Today's post will look into the implications of these earlier dates for our lineage.

A very early split with a different sequence to it

The accepted view is that the ancestor of modern humans and the group leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans split first, and then, Neanderthals and Denisovans separated into two different groups in Eurasia, Neanderthals heading west, into Europe and the Caucasus while Denisovans headed east into Siberia, Tibet, Southern, Southeastern and Eastern Asia. This paper upends that notion. The Neanderthals split first, then humans and Denisovans (called Longi clade in this article) split.

The authors, considering the very old age of Yunxian2 (~1 million years old) push the roots of Human-Neanderthal/Denisovan split further back ("deeper"): "Both the H. sapiens and H. longi clades have deep roots extending beyond the Middle Pleistocene and probably experienced rapid early diversification." The current dates for the Human - Neandersovan split is around 500,000 to 700,000 years ago, this paper suggests it is older: ".The origin of the longi clade can be inferred to be about 1.2 Ma, slightly older than the Yunxian fossils. The origin of the sapiens clade is estimated to be about 1.02 Ma, also close to the age of Yunxian. The divergence between the longi clade and the sapiens clade is at about 1.32 Ma. The monophyletic Neanderthal clade, widely thought to be sister to H. sapiens, diverged from the longi and sapiens clades at about 1.38 Ma in our analysis."

The paper includes the following dated phylogenetic tree (click here for full size image or click on the image below to enlarge it):

Fig. 4. Phylogeny and divergence time of the 57 selected fossil operational taxonomic units from the genus Homo.
The topology of the tree was the majority consensus of the most parsimonious trees from the parsimony analysis in TNT (34). The divergence time was inferred from the Bayesian tip-dating analysis in MrBayes 3.2 (35). Branch lengths are proportional to the division age in thousands of years (Ka). Numbers at the internal nodes are the median ages, and the blue bars indicate the 95% highest posterior density interval of the node ages. The red half-brackets on the right indicate the ranges of the Neanderthal, longi, and sapiens clades. The numbers in red highlight the ages of division of the three clades. Yunxian is also highlighted in red. Xiabo Feng et al., 2025

The shape of the skull is interpreted by this paper as having a "mosaic morphology, which retains plesiomorphies seen in H. erectus/H. ergaster, Kabwe, and Petralona while developing apomorphies shared with H. longi and H. sapiens" Indeed, Homo erectus present in Eurasia since ~2 million years ago is surely linked to the root of the Denisovan (Longi) clade.

Implications

Neanderthal Dispersal

By having Neanderthal split first, 1.38 Ma, we can imagine the pre-longi/sapiens group remaining in Africa and the Neanderthals heading out of Africa into Eurasia. This clade includes the Sima de los Huesos (SH in the phylogenetic tree, above) specimen, which is old, and linked to Neanderthals, and places it as an early split of that clade. Mainstream Neanderthals appear 781 to 600 kya.

Adopting a position embraced by Chinese scholars (and government), they move Neanderthals further away from modern humans, and place Denisovans (H. longi) closer to us; after all, Neanderthals are Western Eurasians, and Longi are East Asian (Chinese!).

See Qiang Ji, 2021 version for Western consumption, and the Chinese version in The Innovation, Qiang Ji et al., 2021 from which the following image was taken, showing the Neanderthals displaced by Longi as our sister clade:

Graphical abstract . Qiang Ji et al., 2021

However Qiang Ji et al., (2021) in their detailed phylogenetic, dated tree (Fig. 4), give later dates than >Xiabo Feng et al., 2025: ~1 Ma for the Neanderthal split, 949 kya for the Denisovan-Human split, and 770 ky for the root of H. sapiens. See below, highlight is mine. Note: OTU = operational taxonomic unit, a name used for genetically similar creatures, analog to a species definition.

" Harbin cranium and H. sapiens shared a common ancestor at ∼949 ka (1,041.41–875.25 ka). The Neanderthal-H. sapiens divergence time in our analysis was ∼1,007 ka (1,114–919 ka). This estimation falls in the range based on mtDNAs for the split between the basal Neanderthal (Sima de los Huesos) and the H. sapiens lineage, but is much older than the estimation based on nuclear DNAs for the splits between the Neanderthal and H. sapiens lineages. However, it is possible that this younger estimated divergence date is an artifact of statistical averaging between “super-archaic” and “recent gene flow” events. The common ancestor of the H. sapiens OTUs included in our analysis is as old as ∼770 ka (922–622 ka), suggesting that the H. sapiens clade has a much deeper origin time than previously estimated. The Eurasian H. sapiens OTUs share a common ancestor ∼416 ka (534–305 ka) old. Outside of Africa, however, the earliest known H. sapiens fossil is only ∼210 ka."

Qiang Ji et al., 2021 suggest that "Sympatric isolation of small populations combined with stochastic long-distance dispersals is the best fitting biogeographical model for interpreting the evolution of the Homo genus...multi-lineages of Homo coexisted in Africa, Europe, and Asia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. These Homo lineages probably had a strong capability of dispersing for long distances, but remained in relatively small and isolated populations." Sympatric isolation means that even though they shared the same overlapping territory, they evolved separately, not because of physical barriers, but by other ones (genetic, environmental, adaptative, reproductive, specializations), that keep them apart.

What would keep Neanderthals, who during the later period 120-50 kya spanned Western Eurasia from Altai to Portugal, from moving on into America. They could have skirted the Denisovans (who seem to be more adapted to temperate and tropical climates) by living in colder, glacial spots, in Europe and Asia. They could have gone across West-Central Siberia, Northern Siberia and Northeastern Siberia to Bering, and into America. Nobody digs deep enough to find remains 1.3 million years old!. I am not joking, sediments deposit at a rate of 0.10 to 0.12 mm/year (Source) that is 14 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Over one million years it represents 120 m of sediment (393 feet). Archaeologists have only scraped the surface (of course, when digging in areas scoured by previous erosion, or by river banks, other elements factor in, recucing sediment buildup.

Neanderthals, well adapted to ice-cold climates, could have easily reached America 1.38 Ma.

Denisovans

The phylo tree built by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025, follows the line set by Qiang Ji. It has older dates, and places the Homo Antecessor at the base of the Denisovan tree, H. antecessor is a Western European specimen, discovered in Atapuerca, Spain. This suggests a very wide territory for Denisovans.

Although their presence has been described in the temperate and tropical parts of Asia, like the Philippines, Sunda, Southern and Southeastern Asia, they also lived in Tibet, and overlapped Neanderthals in Denisova Cave, Altai, Russia, further north, in colder climes, ~200 kya. The Harbin individual, ~146 kya lived in Northeastern China which even nowadays is cold. Xijung Ni et al., 2021, state, regarding the Harbin remains that "the northerly location of the Harbin site also has implications for Middle Pleistocene human adaptive capabilities, since, even in the present interglacial, this region has winter temperatures averaging more than 16°C below zero [3.2°F] The very large size of the Harbin individual (as judged from the size of the cranium) may indicate physical adaptation to such conditions."

This suggests that they too could have moved northeast towards Beringia. Did they reach America 1.32 Ma?

Humans

Homo sapiens is pushed back 700,000 years, from the commonly accepted date of 300 kya to one million years ago. In Africa, alone, isolated from the Denisovans and Neanderthals who left them for Eurasia.

The Gap in the fossil record

The oldest members of the human branches are the Irhoud, the 300 ky old human from Morocco, the Tabun 2 person from Israel, and Florisbad a H. Heidelbergensis from South Africa. But there is a gap of 700,000 years between them and the split date with Denisovans!

Xijung Ni et al., 2021 who proposed an older than the commonly accepted date for the split "(∼416 ka (534–305 ka) old", yet much shorter than the 1 million years proposed by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025, wonder why there is such a gap between the first fossils and the split date. The team favors an African origin for Homo sapiens offers the following explanation:

"There is a large time gap between the hypothetical common ancestor of Eurasian H. sapiens and the actual fossil record, from the Bayesian tip-dating analysis. One plausible hypothesis is that the ancestral population of Eurasian H. sapiens may have diversified in Africa for many millennia before they dispersed into Eurasia. Genetic studies on ancient DNA suggest that the initial genetic exchanges between Neanderthals and H. sapiens occurred between 468 and 219 ka, or between ∼370 and 100 ka, and the introgression may have originated through gene flow from an African source. Interestingly, not only does the estimated time of the introgression event between Neanderthals and H. sapiens roughly overlap our prediction for the age of the common ancestor of Eurasian H. sapiens, but the African origin of the introgression is also consistent with our African ancestral population hypothesis."

Perhaps the fossil record is incomplete because we haven't found the specimens. Humans are intelligent so they were not easy prey or caught in quicksand, they were surely buried. So, unless we dig deep enough in the right places and find burials, we won't find them.

I believe that there was "diversification" within Africa as ancient archaics that indeed lived in Africa (H. naledi) and others admixed with Africans not too long ago, providing them with divergent alleles. But, why imagine an African origin at all?

Middle Eastern Origin of Modern Humans

Below is a possible and probable sequence for the origin of modern humans outside of Africa following the timeline given further up.

The first to enter Eurasia were H. erectus, from the Horn of Africa in Ethiopia, across the Middle East to the Caucasus where we find them in Dmanisi, Georgia. The map below (Map 1) shows the source and the destination, as well as a tentative migration route (red arrow). I deliberately painted their territories in different colors, they would become isolated and mutations would differentiate African from Eurasian erectus.

Map 1. Erectus leaves Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

Then, 1.9 to 1.7 Ma., H. erectus migrated westwards into Europe, and east, along southern Asia into Southeast Asia, Sunda, and China. Their remains have been found in Eurasia. In Africa, they must have also migrated though we have no evidence (poor fossilizing conditions in tropical Africa). Map 2 reflects these migrations and the color changes denote evolving differences between the groups. Ice and mountain ranges guide their migration

Map 2. Erectus migrates across Eurasia and Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

Map 3 shows separate evolution of the H. erectus clades ~1.5 Ma., splitting in smaller groups, losing territory in the north as the Ice Ages progress, living in more isolation, and moving to better regions (arrows). Some groups become extinct. All differentiate and diverge. Asian, European, and Africans remain isolated, perhaps some interchange in Gibraltar between North Africa and Spain. Erectus people move into Northern China. The group in the Middle East will become relevant in the following phase.

Map 3. Erectus diversify, and evolve across Eurasia and Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

In Map 4 the evolved Eurasian ancestors of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans located in the Middle East (yellow-black star) see the Neanderthals move out, north and west into Europe and the Caucasus and replacing the other descendants of erectus there, possibly leading to the Sima de Los Huesos individual. Their territories are colored yellow.

The H. erectus in the Far East have modified their territories, becoming extinct in some sites, and evolving. The African descent of the erectus are still living in small groups, moving around the continent, diversifying, evolving. Color changes imply changes in the populations.

Map 4. Neanderthal dispersal (their territory in yellow). A. Whittall ©2026

Map 5 below shows the split that took place 1.38 Ma, centered in the Middle East (star) with Denisovans heading west along a southern coastal route into Asia, the same followed by erectus over 600 ky before them, and their inroads into erectus territories in Sunda and East Asia. They also crossed Neanderthal regions heading towards Central Asia (Altai) mingling with them. The pink color marks Denisovan areas. Africans continue splitting into isolated groups, some very archaic, exchanging genes occasionally. They are many very divergent groups, some are more archaic than the rest.

Map 5. Denisovan dispersal (their territory in pink). A. Whittall ©2026

The final move is the one involving modern humans (Map 6, below) shows how modern humans spread, 1 million years ago, from the Levant, into Africa, admixing with the until then isolated, separated, divergent, archaics there. Into Europe admixing and replacing Neanderthals, and west into Asia. The orange color marks their initial territory as they advance on Neanderthals (yellows) and Denisovans (pink) admixing along the way.

Map 6. Modern Humans dispersal into Africa and across Eurasia (their initial territory is colored orange). A. Whittall ©2026

This, at least, is my take on the subject. Of course, fossils are needed to validate it, and further (improved) genetic tools and models are necessary too.

A very early appearance of humans, would imply that mutation rates are slower than currently estimated, only 1/3 of the accepted rate (because it would have taken 1 My instead of 0.3 My for our species to evolve. With modern humans around 1 My ago, they could have also moved on, into America at any time over the past million years. The problem is, that nobody is looking for such ancient signs.

---

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

Chinese Adam

A brand new paper (Wu, Crevecoeur, Liu, Xing and Trinkaus, 2014) [1], looks into the shape of the internal ear in ancient humans from China and the fact that the labyrinths in one of the specimens (Xujiayao 15) is quite similar to those of Neanderthals. The paper's objective however is not to prove admixture between Neanderthals and archaic Chinese humans (these remains are 100 ky old!). To the contrary, its purpose is to downplay the similarity and suggest that it is not due to admixture but to shared ancestral Homo features and that "many of the purported 'Neandertal' features were widespread during the Pleistocene, albeit often occurring in higher frequencies among the Neandertals" [1].

I am surprised at the efforts of the authors to separate these Chinese remains from the Neanderthals and to link them to "ancestral " non-Neanderthal archaic humans, this post describes these efforts and tries to explain possible reasons for this unusual position.

The Chinese origin of mankind

Yes, that is what is behind the attempt to de-Neanderthalize the Xujiayao 15 remains: support a Chinese origin of mankind.

Let's quote Xiu-Jie Wu and team: [1]

"Regardless of the ultimate populational and morphofunctional implications of the Xujiayao 15 and the other East Asian labyrinthine configurations, they serve to further confirm the general modern human pattern as the ancestral Homo one and to document that the apparently derived Neandertal configuration was not unique to western Eurasia. Given its presence in Europe, southwest Asia, central Asia, and now eastern Asia, it may well have been present across Eurasia during the later Pleistocene among archaic humans. As such, whether a discrete feature in itself or a secondary consequence of other aspects of morphological variation, it becomes less of a “Neandertal” marker and of broader relevance to the paleobiology of later Pleistocene Homo." [1]

The fact is that the inner ear morphology in Neanderthals is slightly different to that of modern humans. This particular shape is not present in modern humans or among the Pleistocene hominids outside of East Asia. The paper however reports that they detected the Neanderthal inner ear shape in one (1) out of four (4) East Asian crania that they studied: it appeared in the Xujaiyao 15 skull. The chart they include in their paper (see Fig. 2. in [1]) clearly shows the Xujiayao 15 skull grouped together with all the Neanderthal skulls in a neat cluster.

The authors grudgingly admit this link: "Xujiayao 15 [...] falls entirely with the Late Pleistocene Neandertals, distinct from the early and recent modern humans and from the Early and Middle Pleistocene Homo." [1]

It is of course significant because it is "the first documentation of this pattern among Pleistocene Homo outisde the Neanderthal geographical range" [1], that is, outside of the Western Eurasian territory that is well known to have been occupied by Neanderthals, which spanned the continent from Spain and France in the West to Altai, Siberia in the East.

But, as I mentioned above, they downplay this clear evidence of Neanderthal admixture and try to attribute it to other causes:

• The "External morphology [of the labyrinth] bears little affinity to that of the Neanderthals. It shares ancestral Homo features with the Neanderthals". Of course it does, it is what you would expect because Neanderthals predate modern humans and would have "ancestral features", but as we will see below, the authors use the "ancestral features" with another meaning: Neanderthals and the Xujiayao 15 man share this ancient trait because they both got it from an even older ancestor.
• They list some anatomical elements that are absent or different but must admit that "these aspects of Xujiayao 15 can be found on individual Neanderthal specimens..."
• The write that "A couple of [Xujiayao] features are common among the Neanderthals but not unique to them" [1] as if this would make Xujiayao less Neanderthal-like. And then, to support this, they analyse the remains of Other Xujiayao specimens which seem different to Neanderthals, ignoring specimen #15 (which is not mentioned, making me wonder if it differs or is it similar to Neanderthals in these traits?)
• They mention a specimen from Uzbekistan which was classed by its teeth as a Neanderthal, which also has a similar inner ear morphology but point out that it has "an apparent mix of morphological features in other aspects"[1] which are not Neanderthal. I believe that the reason for bringing up this specimen is that if remains closer to the Neanderthal homeland are not so Neanderthal-like, then why should a Chinese specimen be expected to have admixed with Neanderthals.

They emphasize that "It is tempting to use it [the labyringh morphology] as evidence of population contact (gene flow) between central and western Eurasian Neandertals and these eastern archaic humans", but the Xujiayao 15 is "otherwise distinctly 'non-Neanderthal'" (if one ignores the similar inner ear shape).

The paper concludes that despite this apparent resenmblance, the evidence seems to "suggest that many of the purported “Neandertal” features were widespread during the Pleistocene, albeit often occurring in higher frequencies among the Neandertals." [1]

The paper's efforts to ignore the presence of Neanderthals in East Asia during the period of Xujiayao 15 are indeed surprising. But then, there is a logic behind those efforts.

Admixture and its implications

These are old remains, > 100ky and that means an even older date for admixture and Neanderthal presence in the region. And that goes against the theory favored by many Chinese scholars.

Context on the Xujiayao site. The site where these Chinese remains were found is located in Shanxi Province, on the Liyigou River. The remains were discovered in 1974 and were assigned to archaic Homo sapiens.

They are old because some rhino teeth from the site were dated to 104 - 125 kya using Uranium series, but the relationship between Xujiayao bones and the teeth is still unclear.

This dating places these archaic hominins in China long before modern H. sapiens emerged from Africa (that is, if the OoA theory is correct). They could be the easternmost remains of the first Homo sapiens move out of Africa ~ 120 kya., or the result of even more archaic Asian hominins mixing with other archaic Western Eurasian populations such as Neanderthals...

The point is that Neanderthals as a group are far older than the 104 -125 ky age assigned to Xujiayao people since they date back at least 300 ky. Their older origin gave Neanderthal plenty of tieme to have reached China long ago (say 250 kya) and mixed there with late coming humans or even local hominins descended from Asian H. erectus.

In fact this is what Wu Xinzhi proposed over a decade and a half ago:

Continuity with hybridization

Studies on the cranial morphology which compared European Neanderthals and Chinese crania led Wu Xinzhi (1998, 2004)[2][3] to put forth the "continuity with hybridization" model of human evolution in China. Basically Wu Xinzhi's findings suggested that some features found among Neanderthals are also found in Chinese fossils and that this was due to admixture between Neanderthals and Mid-Late Pleistocene hominids.

Wu Xinzhi imagined that the gene flow came from Europe, now we know that Neanderthals were much closer to China (Altai), which in my opinion supports the admixture theory. [2]

The work of Wu Xinzhi was not cited in the paper by Xiu-Jie Wu and team (2014) [1] and the paper itself is against the notion of admixture despite the fact that recent genetic studies support Neander - East Asian admixture: (Wall et al., 2013) "on average the “Neanderthal haplotypes” were [found] at higher frequency in the East Asians than in the Europeans (9.6% vs. 6.4%)" and "that East Asians (Han Chinese and Japanese) are more similar to the published Neanderthal sequence than are Europeans." [7]., making it likely that there was ample admixture in the Far East.

The reason that Chinese scholars now oppose to admixture with Neanderthals is probably due to some current Sinocentric point of view: how could Neanderthal, a Western Eurasian creature (which for over a century and a half was associated with Europe) have admixed with the ancestor of modern Chinese people?

The theory of a Chinese ethno-genesis of mankind is especially attractive to the Chinese; it was supported by Chinese intellectuals from the early 1920s and later by the Communist regime right through to the 1980s.

The symbol above is the first part of the name of China, it is a rectangle struck with a line, it means Center, Middle (Zhong) the second part of the name of China means "country", hence China means "Central country". Chinese are extremely proud of their self percieved uniqueness

Initially the Peking man was proposed as a direct ancestor of Mankind, but with growing support for the Out of Africa theory, the model was later adapted to contemplate interaction and hybridzation between the Peking Man (H. erectus) and other populations, evolving into Homo sapiens in situ, in China, and being the origin of modern Chinese.[4][5]

I believe that Wu Xinzhi's support of a Neanderthal admixture made his paper not suitable for citation in the Xiu-Jie Wu et al. publication [1].

Chinese Adam

Rereading the paper by Xiu-Jie Wu and team I notice not only a reluctance to admit admixture with Neanderthal, but also a lot of emphasis placed on the fact that the alleged Neanderthal trait were actually "present across Eurasia during the later Pleistocene among archaic humans" [1] , in other words it is a local East Asian trait shared with Neanderthals in Western Eurasia.

This ties in neatly with another paper Wu Liu et al., (2010) [6] which includes the following "revealing" phrase in its title: "...modern human emergence in East Asia". This paper has the same point of view as that of Xiu-Jie Wu and team: "...derived aspects of modern human morphology were present in East Asia in the early Late Pleistocene" [6]. It seems that modern humans appeared in East Asia!!

Below I quote from Wu Liu and team's paper [6] which describes a modern like jaw found in an archaic skull in Zhiren Cave, China (bold mine):

"The human remains are securely dated [...] to the initial Late Pleistocene, >100 kya. As such, they are the oldest modern human fossils in East Asia and predate by >60,000 y the oldest previously known modern human remains in the region.
[...]The age and morphology of the Zhiren Cave human remains support a modern human emergence scenario for East Asia involving dispersal with assimilation or populational continuity with gene flow. It also places the Late Pleistocene Asian emergence of modern humans in a pre-Upper Paleolithic context and raises issues concerning the long-term Late Pleistocene coexistence of late archaic and early modern humans across Eurasia.
[...] It is not easily accommodated into any Out-of-Africa with populational replacement scenario.
[...] coexistence of late archaic and early modern humans across portions of Eurasia, and not just between Africa and Eurasia. Those late archaic humans include the Neandertals in western Eurasia until mid-MIS 3. They also encompass MIS 3 archaic humans in central Asia and Siberia and into at least MIS 5 in northern China. This emerging pattern raises the question of what subtle behavioral patterns may have limited genetic exchange between these two morphologically defined groups of human across portions of Eurasia for tens of millennia. [6]

So here is the point, these archaic Chinese hominins over 100,000 years old date back to the MIS 5 period (which began 130 kya), and are therefore older than the Neanderthals which are placed in Western Asia in MIS 3 (from 60 to 24 kya).

This seems to suggest (and I have read about this elsewhere [8]) that Neanderthals originated from East Asian hominins, the "archaic humans" features are not derived from Neanderthal, actually both groups got it from the same source, the Chinese Adam!

This [8] summarizes that theory: "The back migration of H. yunxianensis to western Eurasia, approximately 600,000 ya, is hypothesized to have led to the vicariance of the archaic species clades H. heidelbergensis/neanderthalensis in Europe and H. rhodesiensis/helmei/sapiens in Africa, replacing H. antecessor and H. leakeyi, respectively." [8]. In other words, an Out of China, which must be more appealing to Chinese scientists than an OoA.

Comment

Personally I do not care if modern humans came to be in Africa, Asia, Oceania or America. I am marvelled by the mere fact that humans evolved on our precious planet Earth. However I am surprised at how nationalism influences science (well it has always done that), and manages to twist evidence to conform to certain beliefs.

In any case, and this concerns Patagonian wild men, ogres and giants, it may mean that some ancestral archaic hominin was in Eastern Asia over 150 kya and may have moved on, through Siberia and Beringia into the New World long before modern humans managed to do so. And, when the ancestors of Amerindians reached the New World, it was peopled by these odd people... monsters from which myths are born

Sources

[1] Xiu-Jie Wu, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Wu Liu, Song Xing, and Erik Trinkaus, (2014). Temporal labyrinths of eastern Eurasian Pleistocene humans. PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1410735111. June 09, 2014.
[2] Xinzhi Wu, (2004). On the origin of modern humans in China. Quaternary International Volume 117, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 131–140, DOI: 10.1016/S1040-6182(03)00123-X
[3] Xinzhi Wu, (1998). Origin of modern humans of China viewed from cranio-dental characteristics of late Homo Sapiens in China. Acta Anthropol Sinica 17(4):276-282
[4] Hsiao-pei Yen,(2012). Constructing the Chinese: Paleoanthropology and Anthropology in the Chinese Frontier, 1920-1950. A dissertation presented at Harvard.
[5] Jin ChangZhu, et al., (2009) The Homo sapiens Cave hominin site of Mulan Mountain, Jiangzhou District, Chongzuo, Guangxi with emphasis on its age. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2009, 54(21): ()3848-3856
[6] Wu Liu et al., (2010). Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia, PNAS 19201–19206, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014386107
[7] Jeffrey D. Wall et al., (2013). Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans. Genetics. May 2013; 194(1): 199–209. doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.148213
[8] Dennis A. Etler, LI Tianyuan, (2010). A Multiple Dispersal Hypothesis for Interpreting the Pattern of Hominan Evolution in China. Online.

---

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