I assume that the parenthentical material was inserted yourself?
If so, you TOTALLY misunderstood the article and actually the parenthetical inserts are COMPETELY contradictory to the immediately preceeding text.
The Inuit and Aleut are Eskimos. Na-Dene peoples are a small portion of current American Indians (Navajos are the largest group, I believe.) The author is ACTUALLY saying MOST of the current American Indians, based on his study, came here 15,000 years ago and are more closely related to the Ainu, etc.
Yes.
The article is a little consfusing and I admit I have a pre-disposition to read it the way I've described it...based on loads of other articles I've read.
"The ancestors of linguistically distinct peoples including the Inuit, Aleut, and Na-Dene speakers made the watery crossing from Asia about 5,000 years ago."
Doesn't this statement confirm my 'reading' of the article? If I'm wrong...I'll be the first to admit it. I don't presently think I'm wrong.
Seriously, folks, see the thesis of the late Joseph H. Greenberg's "Indo-European and its Closest Relatives," positing a Eurasiatic super-language family, encompassing Indo-European, Finno-Ugric (Uralic), Altaic (Turkic etc.), Nivkh (Gilyak), Chukchi-Koryak-Kamchadal, Japanese-Korean, and Eskimo-Aleut. The Amerind languages (first wave of migrants as opposed to second) are in turn the languages most closely related to the languages of this "Eurasiatic superfamily," according to Greenberg.