Sao Paulo Reconstruction of Luzia is a fake

 The phenotype of Luzia was described as Melanesian, African or Australian.  Although this is the case a team of researchers at Sao Paulo decided to make a new reconstruction of Luzia and make this PaleoAmerican Caucasian looking

In 2018 Researchers from the University of Sao Paulo claimed that they made a new reconstruction of Luzia based on a new study. The University of Sao Paulo did not release a new study, the study , they used was a paper published by von Cramon-Taubadel N., Strauss A., Hubbe M. (2017) . 

The researchers at Sao Paulo made Luzia Caucasian looking eventhough the original model for the new reconstruction had negroid features. This is obvious when we compare the model to the final reconstruction This comparison shows that the eyes, lips and nose of the model were changed when the new reconstruction was popularized by the Sao Paulo team. 

The study by the Harvard researchers did not contradict the craniometric evidence that Luzia was Negroid/African .This is why von Cramon-Taubadel N., Strauss A., Hubbe M. (2017) wrote "There is mounting genetic and morphological evidence for at least two major waves of dispersal into Asia from Africa, with Australomelanesians representing modern descendants of the earlier migration (52, 53) ". If the Paleoamericans were Australomelanesians they were Negroid. Negroes came from Africa so Luzia was African, just like the Caucasians in america came from Europe and are thusly Europeans. von Cramon-Taubadel N., Strauss A., Hubbe M. (2017) Evolutionary population history of early Paleoamerican cranial morphology, Science Advances, 3 (2) , https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1602289.full…

Chatters said the Paleo-Americans were Negroid

The Paleo Americans were Blacks. Chatters presented no archaeological, ancient DNA or skeletal remains to support his theory there was continuity between paleoamericans and modern mongoloid native Americans or Beringa DNA.

Chatters noted that: “. Paleoamericans exhibit longer, narrower crania and smaller, shorter, more projecting faces than later Native Americans (7). In nearly all cases, they are morphologically most similar to modern peoples of Africa, Australia, and the southern Pacific Rim (7–9). Polymorphic dental traits currently found in East Asia also distinguish later Native Americans (10), who tend to exhibit such specialized (Sinodont) traits as winged, shovel-shaped upper incisors, three rooted lower first molars, and small or absent third molars; from Paleoamericans, who exhibit a less specialized (Sundadont) morphology (7). These differences suggest that America was colonized by separate migration events from different parts ofEurasia (11) or by multiple colonization events from Beringia (12), or that evolutionary changes occurred in the Americas after colonization (13). ”

Chatters continued that, “HN5/48 is among the small group of Paleoamerican skeletons, a group that is morphologically distinct from Native Americans. We extracted DNA from the skeleton’s upper right third molar and analyzed the mtDNA using methods developed for poorly preserved skeletal elements, with independent replication. The mtDNA haplogroup for the HN skeletal remains was determined through restriction fragment analysis, direct Sanger sequencing, and second-generation sequencing after target enrichment. The AluI 5176 site loss, in combination with Sanger and Illumina sequence data, confirm its placement in haplogroup D, subhaplogroup D1 (Fig. 3). Subhaplogroup D1 is derived from an Asian lineage but occurs only in the Americas, having probably developed in Beringia after divergence from other Asian populations (1).D1 is one of the founding lineages in the Americas (1). Subhaplogroup D1 occurs in 10.5% of extant Native Americans (23), with a high frequency of 29% in indigenous people from Chile and Argentina (24). This suggests that HN5/48 descended from the population that carried the D1 lineage to South America. The discovery of a member of subhaplogroup D1 in Central America, ~4000 km southeast of any other pre–10-ka DNA in the Americas, greatly extends the geographic distribution of Pleistocene-age Beringian mtDNA in the Western Hemisphere.”

Here we see that Chatters says that D1 is only found in America. If it is only found in America it can not be an Asian haplogroup. Chatters is just making a guess. He can not support this guess because there is no skeletons from Beringa that carry D1 nor is D1 found in Asia.

See: http://asmerom.unm.edu/Research/Papers/Chatters%20et%20al%20Naia%20story%20%20Science%20Manuscript.pdf