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
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