Posth et al (2017) in their genetic study noted that “ Genome-wide analysis of 49 Central and South Americans up to 11,000 years old d Two previously unknown genetic exchanges between North and South America d Distinct link between a Clovis culture-associated genome and the oldest South Americans d Continent-wide replacement of Clovis-associated ancestry beginning at least 9,000 years ago “.
Some researchers have used this article to claim that the Paleoamericans, the most ancient Native Americans are related to contemporary mongoloid Indians. This view is false. Posth et al, in their study supported the view that Anzick child and Luzia culture folk were related.
Posth et al (2018), did not make this finding. The researchers reported that “The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (from the site of Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Cone individuals. In Belize, individuals from two sites dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP (Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul) do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America. In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1)”.. The authors added, “The distribution of this statistic f4(Mbuti, Test; USR1, Anzick-1) confirms previous findings that Anzick-1 relatedness is greatest in Central and South Americans and lowest in North American groups” noted that “(Posth et al, 2018).
As a result, there was no continuity between Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans. Posth et al (2018) noted that “ However, the fact that the great majority of ancestry of later South Americans lacks specific affinity to Anzick-1 rules out the hypothesis of a homogeneous founding population”.
Paleoamericans are related to Australians, Africans or Melanesian, in other words a cranial morphology of the Negro/Black people.
This view was supported by the Posth et al (2018) who noted that ” Our finding of no excess allele sharing with non-Native American populations in the ancient samples is also striking as many of these individuals—including those at Lapa do Santo—have a “Paleoamerican” cranial morphology that has been suggested to be evidence of the spread of a substructured population of at least two different Native American source populations from Asia to the Americas”.
Although, some researchers claim that the Paleoamericans came from Asia, this finding is not supported by the genetic evidence that make it clear that the oldest inhabtants of East Asia are not related to the Paleoamericans. Posth et al (2018) wrote “Our failure to find significant evidence of Australasian or Paleolithic East Asian affinities in any of the ancient Central and South American individuals raises the question of what ancient populations could have contributed the Population Y signal in Surui and other Amazonian groups and increases the previously small chance that this signal—despite the strong statistical evidence for it—was a false-positive.”.
Posth C, Nakatsuka N, Lazaridi I, et al. (2018) Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2818%2931380-1