How far is Rome

Author: Su San
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-09-01
Features: Regarding the regional continuity evolution theory held by some in China's scientific community that modern Chinese evolved from local "Peking Man" and other, the author Spence Wells believes there is no genetic evidence to support this theory. Instead, sampling surveys of 12,000 men across various regions in East Asia show that each individual can trace their ancestry back to African ancestors 50,000 years ago. Modern humans entered China from both northern and southern directions tens of thousands of years ago (page 29).
I happened to come across the lecture transcripts of two Chinese prehistoric scholars in 2005 during two separate public events—one of which was even non-public, but somehow ended up in my hands. In their speeches, they repeatedly emphasized the theory of the independent origin of the Chinese race, completely ignoring the findings of modern genetic research. An audience member after one speech challenged the theory of "common origin" and genetic research's implications for the independent origin of the Chinese race. The scholar responded vaguely to the "common origin" theory but claimed that the continuity suggested by fossils also had merit—I would argue that's naive, or perhaps he was unaware that the issue of fossil discontinuities had already been raised, which undermines the "sequences" established by fossils (see my work "Incredible").
In short, traditional Chinese scholars seem determined to reject the conclusion of genetic "independent origin." This actually reassured me, as I now knew their cards. What made me happier was that while reviewing the entire book, I realized some of my own inferences align with the macro-level findings of DNA, and I may be able to reference genetic research more broadly in the future. I believe genetic conclusions may not reveal absolute truth, but they are undeniably the most widely recognized discipline and technology in the world today. The refusal of some Chinese to apply genetic technology in archaeology is an abnormal and strange phenomenon that all Chinese culture scholars and researchers should take note of.
For now, let's set aside the absolute scientific validity of fossils versus genes. I think prehistoric research actually has a "pendulum" or "swing" effect—whichever period's conclusions lean toward one side, we must acknowledge it openly. The study of prehistory swaying between two or more different hypotheses is normal and rational, determined by the nature of prehistoric research. Researchers must "play by the rules," meaning they must remain objective, neutral, and rational. They cannot cling to one side once the "pendulum" swings in their favor and prevent it from continuing its natural movement.
Just as the "pendulum" once swung toward the theory of "Western Origin of Chinese Civilization," but later, with the discovery of "sufficient" evidence, it swung back to the "independent origin" theory. These shifts may be natural rather than, but now, the "pendulum" has swung again toward the "common origin" theory due to new genetic technologies, and researchers should happily accept the conclusion. Unfortunately, this time I see many Chinese scholars clinging to the "pendulum" tightly. If you believe genetics is wrong, you can criticize and improve it, but what I observe is a strange avoidance. P9