Central and South Asian DNA Paper

[Ygorcs]

When i say bigotry, i talk about Eupedia users not Reich or Krause... And you past the last months fighting with Olympus Mons about why a steppe origin is more likely than his south caucasus hypothesis. So dont turn like a hero, with the argument that a single sample from a single study, completely open your eyes about your previous mistakes.

Well, I didn't. I still disagree with him that the dispersal of IE languages happened as he proposes. I always said Olympus Mons' hypothesis was likely but ONLY as a source for the pre-PIE stage, because all evidences point to the fact that the expansion of IE languages happened much later than "his" Shulaveri-Shomu culture and is a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age phenomenon. So at best Shulaveri Shomu were the Proto-Italic of PIE's Spanish. I just opened my mind to the possibility that PIE didn't just get heavy genetic admixture from the South Caucasus, but also maybe its language. You probably missed what I was really saying.

Besides, I'm totally open to making mistakes, so that's why I prefer to follow what the evidences suggest and, particularly, I take what real scientists who have much more knowledge and more access to data than me are proposing. I have no problem at all believing this and then changing my opinion if and when I'm starting to be proven wrong. Why not? I'm not attached to any geographic direction, genetic admixture or culture that existed many thousands of years ago. I don't even care that much to know about what MY OWN ancient origins are. My interest is in the history of peoples and the origins of cultures anywhere, from Chile to Japan, there is nothing personal about that.

 

[Cpluskx]

Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...

It seems you didn't recover from it at all.

 

[halfalp]

The thing is that the source of "southern" ancestry in Yamnaya is not proved to be directly from CHG. Lazaridis for example thought it was closely related to, but distinctive from CHG, and probably more something Neolithic Iranian-like. Besides, whether you like it or not, people pointing a psosible South Caucasus origin of the earliest PIE are discussing the geographic roots, the genetic part of this conundrum is much more complex and mixed, and, well, CHG did exist south of the Caucasus, so pretty much it was a West Asian mix since many thousands before the early Bronze Age. Your point is more or less like "the Iran_Neo admixture is not Iranian at all, because much of it had affinity with ANE, so deep down it was a North Asian admixture" or "EEF in Europeans must be considered Middle Eastern, it isn't a typical European admixture" (maybe you think that, they were "tainted" by their Anatolian origins with ancestral links even to Levantines, or something like that). That's just unreasonable. In any case those possible mixtures that led to those Neolithic admixtures (CHG in fact dates back to the Mesolithic AFAIK) had happened many thousands of years earlier, so they were pretty much part of the socio-cultural milieu of the Near Eastern social milieu and incipient Near Eastern civilizations. If we deny that CHG is fully Near Eastern because it has some EHG-related ancestry (which we don't even know if it came really from the north, considering that the ancestors of WHG/EHG originally came possibly from Anatolia, too) would be like denying that the IE expansion came from the steppes just because much of the ancestry of Yamna/Sredny Stog came from the south (CHG - that's geography, no "offense intended" in pointing out their relative geographic location with this dreaded "southern" word. LOL)

Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.

 

[halfalp]

It seems you didn't recover from it at all.

Are you actually a fake account ?

 

[Ygorcs]

Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.

I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.

 

[halfalp]

I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.

I'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.

 

[Ygorcs]

I'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.

I don't know, I think you (and possibly also the left-wing people who also politicize ancient history) are projecting modern conceptions into the past, especially a supposed pan-European racial/cultural unity which wasn't necessarily perceived as such along history. Until very recently, Russia/Ukraine were considered "fundamentally different" from the European (mainly Western European) mindset and culture. They were certainly not perceived as natural brothers, and in fact still aren't by many people. I wonder if people became a bit paranoid about the Russian/Soviet imperialism because of the fact that, actually, the evidences started to suggest that IE expansion was not a phenomenon happening from the "core" of Europe, but from a rather fringe, very eastern part of Europe from those "primitive" lands (to many Western Europeans up to the 20th century) Slavs and Turks, e.g. Ukraine and Russia? People seem to read the events of long gone history through the lens of their modern perceptions. This was always like that. Regardless of that, what is the truth must be investigated and found, no matter if it will please the leftists, rightists or whatever.

 

[Promenade]

For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of the formation of ASI (But it seems like they are actually referring to Indus_Periphery)

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984885772879847434

Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.


This is from a yet to be published study on Y-Dna in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984913652460544011

The Tonali, Jadoon and Yousafzai are all ethnic Pashtun tribes from the same region, yet each is dominated by a different haplogroup which is not completely unexpected in such a mountainous area. Unsurprisingly the Yousafzai are over 3/4's R1a, yet more curiously the Tonali are over 80 percent R1b and the Jadoon appear to be over 80 percent O3. Kim raises the possibility that the O3 in the Jadoon are actually ancestral to that in east and south east Asia, but we will have to wait until the study is published. My knowledge of these tribes are nil, so if anyone is informed about the known or suspected history of these groups feel free to share.

 

[Ygorcs]

For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of formation of the ASI component found in Indus Periphery.

Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...

Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.

It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.

 

[Promenade]

Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...




It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.

ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.

 

[Ygorcs]

ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.

That's clearer for me now. But IVC being mostly AASI, really? That would be a big surprise for me, because this was as developed an agricultural civilization as it could get in that part of the world (or any other, in fact), and would it be mostly of native hunter-gatherer stock, with no parallel with the fate of hunter-gatherers in most of Europe? I can't help but find that unlikely. I think it's possible that the source of Iran_Neo in IVC was slightly different (there must've been genetic structure in such a big area as Iran, which is more than 1.5 million sq kilometers, right?) from the Iranian-related admixtures in Indus_Periphery. I still think they haven't been most clear about what really differentiates the IVC (what they suppose it was) from the new "Indus_Periphery" admixture. Or maybe it is all so entangled and intricate that it's really difficult to understand at first.

 

[holderlin]

There is no way PIE, even at the Indo-Hittite stage, dates to before 5000 BC. Its mother language, a sort of pre-PIE, certainly did, but the expansion of a certain language (which we call PIE) that was originally unified was most definitely a later event, from the Late Neolithic onwards - and it is quite likely it did not happen straight from the first Urheimat of that language (much like the expansion of Romance languages to Latin America didn't come from Italy).

This is something I didn't bring up but it's another solid point. 5000BC is definitely possible, but it's a the very bottom end of the range for PIE.

Maybe I'm just a Sredny stog, Mikhaylovka fan boi

 

[holderlin]

Dayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

I think I might just go train some submission grappling in Azerbaijian.

 

[Ygorcs]

I think this piece in Science Magazine clarifies what exactly the researches meant. So basically Indus_Periphery is seen as probably very similar to IVC, ASI is a later mix of the "Mesolithic relics" AASI in South India with the Indus_Periphery people, ANI is a mix of the steppe herders with Indus_Periphery, and later still, finally, ANI and ASI mixed extensively.

Between 4700 and 3000 B.C.E., farmers from Iran mixed with hunter-gatherers indigenous to South Asia, Moorjani said. This combination of ancestries was found in the DNA of skeletal remains from sites in Turkmenistan and Iran known to have been in contact with the Indus Valley civilization, which thrived in Pakistan and northwest India starting around 3300 B.C.E. The researchers dub this population “Indus periphery.” The 65 ancient people from Pakistan also show this combination, although they all lived after the Indus civilization declined. The researchers suspect that “Indus periphery” people actually may have been the founders of Indus society, although without ancient DNA from Indus Valley burials, they can’t be sure.

Still, Moorjani’s team sees this ancient mixture of Iranian farmers and South Asian hunter-gatherers all over South Asia today. As the Indus Valley civilization declined after 1300 B.C.E., some Indus periphery individuals moved south to mix with indigenous populations there, forming the Ancestral South Indian population, which today is more prominent in people who speak Dravidian languages such as Tamil and Kannada, and in those belonging to lower castes.

Meanwhile, herders from the Eurasian steppe moved into the northern part of the subcontinent and mixed with Indus periphery people still there, forming the Ancestral North Indian population. Today, people who belong to higher castes and those who speak Indo-European languages such as Hindi and Urdu tend to have more of this ancestry. Shortly after, these two already mixed groups mixed with each other, giving rise to the populations living in India today.

 

[Ygorcs]

LOL! This girl really looks like she is someone you shouldn't mess up with without some unforgettable consequences! :-D

 

[holderlin]

LOL! This girl really looks like she is someone you shouldn't mess up with without some unforgettable consequences! :-D

 

[holderlin]

I think this piece in Science Magazine clarifies what exactly the researches meant. So basically Indus_Periphery is seen as probably very similar to IVC, ASI is a later mix of the "Mesolithic relics" AASI in South India with the Indus_Periphery people, ANI is a mix of the steppe herders with Indus_Periphery, and later still, finally, ANI and ASI mixed extensively.

Yes, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[johen]

How do we think about discussions in eurogenes and anthrogenica?

Vara said...
Where do you think the Indo-Iranian homeland is? It needs to have fire worship and many other Indo-Iranian features Sintashta and early Andronovo lack.

There is no backbone to these discussions.


A year back all these discussions centered around R1a and how it came from steppe. Now that it is evident all the malta boys and poltavka's turn out to be not relevant to the south asian R1a (L657) the discussions are turning into a autosomal discussion.


Ofcourse it goes without saying the leaders on the steppe studies are themselves to blame for the turn.


L657 is 5500 to 6000 years old. Show L657 in large numbers and entering into South Asia and the discussion is closed, but that seems impossible because after combing through all the samples in the north none has been found. So what does this say about where L657 originated is unknown as of now.




Regarding autosomal studies if they are honest they should estimate the effective population size of the so called MLBA_East and also estimate the population size of IVC and then proceed to show how there is steppe found even in Mala and some tribals.


JUst saying "oh we found steppe in MLBA_East which is the closest and the right fit based on our statistics" and all south asians also have it. So steppe came here. That just sound nuts. This makes one think are there guys really biologists or just statisticians.




Personally i feel the autosomal based conclusion which is again based on just 3 outliers is going to be untenable. Even if the IPE outliers are the real represenation of IVC which spanned half of modern India they have been UNABLE to show how it spread through the whole of the population and the percentage of the steppe component is more or less the same (factoring in strict or loose endogamy depending on their caste).


Sooner or later the conclusion of this paper is going to fall.

However, I am pretty sure that the L657 brought mayan and okunevo culture down there.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...th-Asian-DNA-Paper/page18?p=538890#post538890 (post 448)

even fire worship culture also:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=jr...logical crescent okunevo fire-worship&f=false

And the following things have same concept, maybe connected to inside shape of mushroom (like soma) also.
multi-armed god: each hand seems to be the symbol of regeneration like sunrays. So they can be replaced by snakes.

https://www.metmuseum.org/es/art/collection/search/38341
https://www.ancient.eu/image/2356/

Likewise indo aryan hair mode,sikha also " knotted lock of hair on the crown of the head and the rest of the hair shaved off." Of course scyhtian also had the hair style according to Hippocrates, which I quoted lots of times.

The sikha or shikha (Sanskrit: शिखा; IAST: śikhā; "crest"; Hindi चोटी (choTi)) means flame, powerful, ray of light, peak of a mountain. It is a name of Hindu / Indian origin, and is commonly used for females.

 

[Angela]

This is what David Reich himself states about the sensitivities of German academics. It's from Financial Times:




What on earth are you on about?





One of the silliest things one can do on the internet is thinking one can perceive someones intent. You have no idea how wrong you are.

PS: The interview with Reich makes me actually think he doesn't have the bias I mentioned was conceivable. Because that is what we discussed: Is a presumed bias conceivable?

Virtually anything and everything is conceivable. The question is whether it is probable or likely.

You obviously don't understand Jews or anyone, indeed, other than Germans and Eastern Europeans, and even a minority of them.

I've never in my life met a Jewish person who gives a damn about the Indo-Europeans or wants to be descended from them. If anything, they want to be 100% Middle Eastern, identical to the Jews of the first millenium BC. Regardless, the academics among them who study population genetics acknowledge that there is "European" ancestry in the Ashkenazim, although I pick up a faint preference for admixture to be with Southern Europeans rather than Poles. I've never seen any "playing" with the data to make it look that way, however, unlike in your favorite blog. That's also certainly what I get from the Jews I know personally and I know a LOT.

I'll go further. I also don't give a damn about being descended from Indo-Europeans, whatever their autosomal make-up. In fact, I'd prefer not to be descended from them, although I know I am to some degree. It has nothing to do with their genetics. I strongly dislike their culture. As to language, I honestly can't believe that people are emotionally invested in where the first forms of the language were present. WHO CARES? It's hard for me to think of a less important thing about which to feel proprietary. I mean, I don't know, should I start an internet war over who first domesticated olives or something? I'm sure David Reich and any other normal person feels the same way. If anything he would probably be more interested in the development of Semitic. I think there are topics in population genetics about which Jewish researchers might have to tamp down and ignore any minor biases they might have, but this isn't one of them. This is your obsession, not theirs.

People have to stop assuming that everyone looks at the world in the same way.

 

[Ygorcs]

How do we think about discussions in eurogenes and anthrogenica?






However, I am pretty sure that the L657 brought mayan and okunevo culture down there.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...th-Asian-DNA-Paper/page18?p=538890#post538890 (post 448)

even fire worship culture also:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=jr...logical crescent okunevo fire-worship&f=false

And the following things have same concept, maybe connected to inside shape of mushroom (like soma) also.
multi-armed god: each hand seems to be the symbol of regeneration like sunrays. So they can be replaced by snakes.

https://www.metmuseum.org/es/art/collection/search/38341
https://www.ancient.eu/image/2356/

Likewise indo aryan hair mode,sikha also " knotted lock of hair on the crown of the head and the rest of the hair shaved off." Of course scyhtian also had the hair style according to Hippocrates, which I quoted lots of times.

I can only say that IMO these people are all confusing language, culture and genetics way too much, maybe for ethnic/national reasons (I've noticed that those most resisting to rely on the evidences provided by genetics are, coincidentally or not, South Asians). There is no reason for us to believe that typical features of Iranian and Indo-Aryan religion SHOULD be present in the earliest homeland of the people who spoke the undivided Proto-Indo-Iranian language, especially if, as it increasingly seems possible, both languages effectively matured in a Turan-Northwest India corridor with much cultural, economic and even genetic exchange.

As for Mayan culture being derived from a steppe culture in Mesoamerica, several thousands of kilometers away from even Kamchatka, no comments... I'll just say that cultural and, in fact, merely aesthetic similarities and cherry-picking and extremely vague (multi-armed god = sun god's rays, really?) comparisons aren't the stuff science is made of. I also find it, honestly, a bit disrespectful towards the complexity of the development of indigenous cultures and nations within America for many thousands of years. Also, of course, there is simply no genetic sign at all of such an influx of a new culture and, supposedly, population after ~15000 YBP in Mesoamerica (Paleo-Eskimos and Modern Eskimos never went beyond the US Southwest, and they weren't anything like Central Siberians, anyway). I won't even, for obvious reasons, entertain the possibility that two very similar and genetically related cultures would've been preserved for dozens of thousands of years. But hey, that'd actually be a good subject for ANOTHER thread.