The Uneven Landscape of China’s Ancient Human Remains

The study of late Paleolithic and Neolithic human skeletal remains in China reveals striking geographical imbalances. While regions like the Yangtze River basin and southeastern coast have yielded some materials, vast areas—particularly the northeast and southwest—remain archaeological blank spots. Even where discoveries exist, challenges persist: few intact skulls survive for measurement, sample sizes are statistically insignificant, and dating discrepancies spanning millennia complicate comparisons.

These limitations make systematic analysis of Neolithic population relationships and morphological traits exceptionally difficult. Yet preliminary patterns emerge, hinting at deep-rooted regional variations that shaped modern East Asian populations.

Paleolithic Foundations: Tracing the Roots of Mongoloid Traits

### Regional Divergence in Late Pleistocene Fossils

Upper Cave (Shandingdong) specimens from northern China display clear proto-Mongoloid characteristics, sharing features with modern northern Chinese, Arctic Mongoloids, and Native Americans. Meanwhile, Liujiang Man from the south exhibits morphological links to Australo-Melanesian populations, suggesting two distinct proto-Mongoloid variants existed during China’s late Paleolithic:

– Northern Group: Transitional toward Pacific Mongoloids (East/Northeast Asian types)
– Southern Group: Exhibiting Australo-Mongoloid blended characteristics

This north-south divergence implies early Mongoloid populations already displayed significant polymorphism during their formative stages.

### Controversies in Mongoloid Origins

Debates persist between competing theories:

1. Multiregional Continuity: Supported by dental anthropology (Turner’s Sinodonty/Sundadonty patterns) and morphological links between Chinese Homo erectus and later populations
2. Replacement Models: Including the “Out of Africa” hypothesis contradicted by regional continuity in East Asian fossils

Notably, Zhoukoudian Homo erectus fossils show traits anticipating later Mongoloid features, supporting Weidenreich’s early proposal of local evolutionary continuity.

Neolithic Transformations: The Mosaic of Regional Populations

### The Yellow River Crucible

Two major Neolithic cultures reveal complex population dynamics:

1. Yangshao Culture (Middle Yellow River)
Early studies (Yan Yin) emphasized southern Mongoloid affinities, but subsequent analyses of Miaodigou, Jiangzhai, and Hengzhen remains show stronger ties to modern East Asian types. The “southern” traits (broad noses, low orbits) likely represent retained archaic features rather than Australo-Mongoloid ancestry.

2. Dawenkou Culture (Lower Yellow River)
Initially linked to Polynesians, advanced multivariate analyses demonstrate closer kinship to Yangshao groups than to Pacific populations. Both cultures predominantly align with proto-East Asian Mongoloids.

### The Northwest Enigma

Gansu prehistoric skulls exhibit hyper-leptorrhine (narrow) features distinct from central Yellow River populations. Explanations range from:
– Late-period admixture with western Eurasian groups
– Retention of Paleoamerican-like traits
– Chronological discrepancies in dating

Current evidence suggests localized variation within East Asian Mongoloids rather than major external influences during the Neolithic.

### The Southern Puzzle

Neolithic southern Chinese remains (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi) consistently show:
– Dolichocranic (long) skulls
– Chamaerrhine (broad) noses
– Reduced facial flatness
– Shorter stature

These contrast sharply with northern patterns but maintain detectable Mongoloid traits, indicating an ancient south-nouth divergence rather than significant Australo-Melanesian admixture.

The Morphological Divide: North-South Patterns Through Time

Cluster analyses of 21 Neolithic groups reveal persistent dichotomies:

Northern Complex
– Mesocranic/hypsicranic skulls
– Leptoprosopic (tall/narrow) faces
– Increased facial flatness
– Taller stature

Southern Complex
– Dolichocranic trends
– Euryprosopic (broad) faces
– Strong chamaerrhiny
– Reduced stature

Remarkably, these patterns mirror modern Chinese population genetics (Gm blood factors, cranial metrics), suggesting ecological adaptation and long-term reproductive isolation rather than population replacement.

The Emergence of “Chinese” Physical Types

### Core Formation in the Yellow River

By the Neolithic, populations from Qinghai to Shandong already exhibited:
– Clear East Asian Mongoloid traits
– Homogeneity suggesting local development
– Continuity with Bronze Age and modern northern Chinese

Howells’ designation of these groups as “First Chinese” finds support in their morphological proximity to modern populations.

### Southern Contributions

Modern southern Chinese show:
– Genetic links to Austroasiatic and Austronesian groups
– Physiological adaptations matching tropical Mongoloids
– Deep roots in Neolithic southern populations

This north-south cline—echoing zoogeographic boundaries—implies separate but ancient origins for China’s two major population complexes.

Conclusion: Threads of Continuity in a Tapestry of Diversity

China’s human remains reveal no single origin point, but rather multiple interacting lineages:
1. Northern East Asian types crystallizing in the Yellow River Neolithic
2. Southern Australo-Mongoloid types persisting in coastal regions
3. Northwestern variants showing specialized adaptations

The remarkable consistency of morphological patterns from Paleolithic to modern times argues strongly for in situ development of China’s major population groups, with their roots reaching back to the earliest Homo sapiens settlements—and perhaps even to regional Homo erectus ancestors. As research continues, particularly in understudied regions like the southwest and northeast, our understanding of this complex bio-cultural mosaic will undoubtedly grow richer still.