I don't buy it, at least not on such slim evidence. The admixture hypothesis presumes that humans moving out of Africa bred with Asian hominids at least 2 million years removed from those in Africa. If so, the genetic imprint should be much more dramatic and evident ("what you need is 10 or 50 loci--one or two is not sufficient"). I can see interbreeding with Neanderthals, but not with Homo erecti based on this slight evidence.
It's also worth noting that "vanishingly rare" is not the same as nonexistent. That a haplotype appears in 53% of Chinese but only 0.5% of Africans (in a survey with 7.37% margin of error) does not necessarily signify as much as it may appear. To state this differently, there are tens of millions of Asians today descended in some part from a literal handful of Ghengis Khan's comrades - and their gene dissemination was much more recent and diluted in a far larger population.
In other words, all this means so far is that some Southeast Asian alpha male was descended from a "vanishingly rare" African...
However, you should be able to tell roughly how recently that "common ancestor" lived, by comparing the amount of silent mutations (among other markers) which had accumulated in those "regional" genes. It should be pretty easy to tell apart a gene that was "foundered" into a population from the time of Genghis Khan (800 years ago) from one that entered the population a million years ago.
Note that although the article doesn't explain the methods, it does say that one of the identified haplotypes arose "1 million years ago" and another was a "2-million-year-old" genetic sequence -- they probably used methods like the ones I described to determine the approximate "age" of those sequences (which in cases like this, would be the time of the last common ancestor before it spread into a population, not necessarily the date that the sequence actually originated).
But once you've had a taste of non-Sapiens, there's no place to draw the line. In for a dime ...