He's a geochemist, not an archaeologist. Racial issues aside, there have been many instances where a scientist in one field tries to make sweeping statements about another field. In most cases they lack a deep understanding of the other field and are unaware of mountains of evidence that otherwise contradict what they say.

As far as I can tell, their is not much evidence either way on whether written language moved from Mesopotamia or Egypt to China, and there definitely isn't a prepondance of evidence. Heck, we still aren't sure if Egyptian language came from Mesopotamia or not. There is also the chance that the concept of written language came from the Middle East but was re-implemented independently (after knowing it was possible and useful) from whatever proto writing existed at the time (e.g. oracle bone script).

> the concept of written language came from the Middle East but was re-implemented independently from whatever proto writing existed at the time

This seems the most likely because it only takes one person in ancient times moving from one society to another to impart such knowledge. Anyone supporting that idea doesn't have to offer any evidence -- it's up to the person disagreeing to disprove it because their position is far less likely.

Given that both Chinese and hieroglyphs both have radicals (in Chinese, as part of a character, and in hieroglyphs, trailing the character), the concept of radicals may also have spread the same way.

That doesn't change critique of Foreign Policy mag, it's not their theory, they're just reporting a somewhat interesting discussion happening in another country, the Economist does this all the time.