Friday, 19 June 2015

Kennewick Man breaks Heartland hearts


Over the last decade Rodney Meldrum has been heavily promoting his Heartland Theory, which argues that the epicentre of Book of Mormon civilisations was the Ohio Valley of North America. The principal, and most controversial, claim made by Meldrum is that the mitochondrial X2a lineage found among a small percentage of Native North American tribes is derived from Israel, and was brought to the Americas by ancient maritime Jews. The Heartland model has rapidly established itself as arguably the most popular model of where Book of Mormon events occurred. 

A report in the June 18th 2015 issue of Nature has dealt a heavy blow to the foundational DNA claims of Meldrum's Heartland movement. The genomic study published in Nature by Rasmussen and others has revealed one of the most famous and ancient Paleoindian skeletons, known as Kennewick Man, has mitochondrial DNA belonging to lineage X2a. More importantly, Kennewick Man lived in what is now Washington state about 9,000 years ago; meaning X2a DNA did not arrive with recent Jewish sailors.

These are three key lines of evidence that conclusively show the X2a lineage has nothing to do with Hebrew migrations to the Americas

1. The X2a lineage has been found in one of the oldest Native American skeletons ever discovered. Data from a range of scientific fields shows this individual lived about 9,000 years ago, pre-dating the Jaredite arrival by about 5,000 years.

2. The X2a mitochondrial DNA lineage of this individual is directly ancestral to all other X2a lineages found among contemporary or ancient Native Americans.

3. There is a diverse family tree of Native American X2a lineages that descend from a common ancestor. The amount of variation in that family tree is about the same as is found in each of the A, B, C and D lineage family trees. 

These three lines of evidence confirm the X2a lineage has been present in the New World for about 15,000 years.

The Kennewick Man story

Kennewick Man is the name given to the skeletal remains of a prehistoric Paleoamerican male found on the banks of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, in 1996. It is one of the most complete ancient skeletons ever found. The discovery of the remains led to considerable controversy. Local Native American tribes wanted the remains returned to them for reburial. However, anthropological analysis of the skull showed it to be unlike contemporary American Indians and Europeans. Detailed study of the ancient skeleton commenced after a court ruling in 2004 gave access to the skeleton for scientists.

Few Native Americans remains have been as intensively studied as Kennewick Man. Radiocarbon tests on Kennewick Man bone fragments have shown it to date from 8.9k to 9k cal years before present. However, a wide variety of other scientific information supports the conclusion that Kennewick Man lived well over 7,000 years ago.

“Geomorphologic and sedimentary investigations of the river bank near the discovery site (Wakeley et al. 1998; Huckleberry et al. 1998) indicate that sediment layers consistent with these dates exist in the alluvial terrace where we believe the remains were buried originally. The documentation, examination, and analysis of the skeletal remains themselves (Powell and Rose 1999) suggest a pre-Columbian context for the remains. Comparison of sediments adhering to the skeletal remains and sediments from the river bank profile are consistent with the skeletal remains having been buried in sediments stratigraphically dated pre-7000 BP (Huckleberry and Stein 1999). Information from the analysis of the lithic artifact lodged in the ilium of the skeletal remains also is consistent with an ancient date for the remains themselves (Fagan 1999). In all, information derived using the methods and techniques of archeology, geomorphology, physical anthropology, sedimentology, and other scientific disciplines support this determination.”
Letter from Donald Barry, Secretary of the Interior, 1/11/2000

Mitochondrial DNA and lineage X

Scientists studying the ancestry of Native American populations have focussed most of their attention on mitochondrial DNA. The majority of our DNA (carried on our chromosomes) is passed from generation to generation as complex rearrangements of parental DNA. In contrast mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) remains largely intact and is passed along maternal lines from mothers to their offspring. Over the years unique mutations in the mtDNA sequence accumulate in separated populations, leading to a branching tree of mtDNA lineages. Closely related populations share many of these mutations while distantly related populations have many more differences in their mtDNA sequences.

The earliest immigrants to the Americas brought with them a subset of the DNA present in their Asian source populations. Mitochondrial DNA variation in the Americas indicates unambiguously that the ancestors of Native Americans originated in Asia. Virtually all modern Native Americans possess an mtDNA lineage that belongs to one of five founding lineage families or haplogroups. These maternal lineages have now been designated A, B, C, D and X. Of these haplogroups, only X is found in European populations; however, the X haplogroup is large and diverse, and the particular X lineage found in Native American populations (the X2a lineage) represents a distinct branch on the Eurasian X lineage tree.

Positioning Kennewick Man in the X family tree

The X lineage haplogroup is an ancient and highly divergent mitochondrial DNA lineage family. It is divided into two subgroups, X1 and X2, which diverged about 30,000 years ago. Subgroup X1 is rare, and restricted to Africa and the Near East. Subgroup X2 is more common in the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe.

Within the X2 subgroup there are distinct subclades that are found in particular populations. Subclades X2a and X2g are found exclusively in North America, and have not been observed in Eurasia, Mesoamerica or South America. Likewise, subclades X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f are absent in the New World but present in Eurasia. The tree below is based on a comprehensive database of entire mitochondrial genome sequences which can be accessed at the website.

The circled numbers in the tree indicate the number of DNA sequence changes (or mutations) that are found between adjacent lineages on a particular branch. All but one Native American X2 lineage belongs to the X2a subclade, the other belongs to the rare X2g subclade. All X2a lineages share 6 mutations that distinguish them from all other X2 lineages. 

The position of Kennewick Man's X2a lineage in the family tree is indicated by the red arrow. He carries the 6 DNA mutations that distinguish Native American X2a lineages from all other X lineages. But he doesn't carry any of the newer mutations that have occurred over thousands of years since he lived. This is consistent with Kennewick Man living before all existing Native American X2a lineages diverged from each other many thousands of years ago.

Rodney Meldrum's response

We already know how Rodney Meldrum will respond to the devastating evidence in the Nature study. Meldrum will dismiss the 9,000-year-old radiocarbon age because it doesn't fit with his already fixed conclusions about the age of the earth. This is because Meldrum is a young earth creationist. Rodney knows the earth is roughly 6,000 years old, the Flood killed most living things about 4,500 years ago and all continents were colonised by the descendants of Noah within the last 4,000 years. 

However, Meldrum isn't prepared to completely rule out carbon-dating when it suits his purposes. He has previously used radiocarbon data that proves the X lineage was in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus. This is because that evidence helps prove the X lineage arrived in the Americas before Columbus, a fact that is necessary for his X claims to be valid. 

But Meldrum doesn't like radiocarbon dates that pre-date his scripture-based fixed beliefs. This is Meldrum's response to questions about the DNA lineage work done on the remains of "On Your Knees Cave Man" from Alaska, which were carbon-dated to 10,300 years ago.

"Carbon dates going back to about the time of Noah’s flood are generally relatively accurate depending on many parameters, but the dating pre-flood is problematic because of the disturbance in the global C14/C13 ratio’s at that time. The same goes with the Canadian dating of 5,000 year old remains."— Rodney Meldrum,

In Meldrum's view carbon dating is accurate within the last few thousand years because he can use that to support his predetermined X lineage claims but the moment it is used to date material that doesn't fit within his creationist, 4,500-year, post-flood timescale its reliability disappears completely. Scientist know that C14/C13 ratios have changed historically, but because we have anchored tree ring carbon dates we know pretty much exactly how much those ratios have changed and when they have changed. The ratio changes are related to fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field and they generally affect the accuracy by much less than 10%. They have nothing to do with imaginary global flood events.

Meldrum is equally dismissive of mainstream views about how the Americas were colonized. There is a broad consensus view among archaeologists, geologists and biologists that the ancestors of Native Americans entered the New World via a wide expanse of land—called Beringia—which connected Asia with North America during ice ages when sea levels were lower. In Meldrum's mind this is just conjecture and is wrong because it doesn't fit with what Mormon scripture says. 

"First, the Book of Mormon does not describe an overland migration into the Americas from Asia, but rather a transoceanic voyage from the Mediterranean area. Second, Lehi’s lineage stems from the descendants of Noah’s son Shem, and not Japheth, the father of the Asiatic peoples."
— Rodney Meldrum, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA, Page 7


The discovery of an ancestral X2a lineage in a Paleoindian skeleton lays waste to a central claim of the Heartland theory. Kennewick Man lived 9,000 years ago on the other side of the Rockies, thousands of miles away from the Ohio valley where the Heartland theory is centred. This finding conclusively proves the X2a lineage was present in the Americas at least 5,000 years before the Book of Mormon period

If the Heartland apologists are going to continue in the business of using science to back up their religious beliefs, they need to do better. You cannot  use your religion's scriptures as evidence that the science is wrong. You might as well use your scripture to prove your scriptures true. It offends believers who are honest seekers of all truth and  scientists who are drawing the most plausible conclusions from the discoveries they make. 


  1. Thank you, Simon. Your article is very informative.

  2. As usual, this is a clear and concise summary of the evidence and conclusions. If only the apologists could be as parsimonious. But, that's not really the point of what they do, is it?

    Thanks for your observations,
    Zack Tacorin

  3. How do you explain the longevity of those in the pre-flood era as compared to after? Obviously something changed to make people not live as long. It could affect our dating methods as we have figured things out based on current aging, but we have no foundation for figuring out the pre-flood aging. Sorry, not a scientist, only understand the concepts, not the vocabulary. And what about this find?
    Do you really think it is wise to scoff at others when not all the evidence is in? There is that saying, he who laughs last, laughs best. It is all theory. We wouldn't convict a man on the evidence you have cited. It may be all nice and convincing until the cross-examination gets a hold of it and then it is just too flimsy to make any more than a theory out of. It is a "best guess" based on what we have. But it is obvious to anyone that we really don't have much. The skeleton of one man. Really? Why do you waste your time fighting something that is unprovable? No one can prove to another person the Book of Mormon is true so it isn't really worth fighting about. What are you really trying to prove? If you want to prove the Mormon church is a fraud, then the best way to do that is to believe the Book of Mormon is true. Because it describes in its pages the Mormon church and calls those churches that fit that description the great and abominable church of the devil. It warns about the pride, lying, deceiving, envying, strife, malice, murders, whoredoms, priestcrafts, works of darkness, secret combinations, false doctrines, etc. that will exist in this church. We have it before our eyes. Hidden in plain sight, the condemnation of the Mormon church written in its own book.. Overlooked because of the pride of the readership who believe they are beyond rebuke, privileged, favored, righteous. They need to be awakened to a sense of their awful situation. Sort of like the Zoramites with their Rameumpton, (O God we thank thee that we are elected to be saved while all around us are cast down to hell. And we know there is no Christ, we've got priesthood to save us) and the people of King Noah (no one reviles the king!! or speaks evil of the Lord's anointed or we burn them at the stake. We are a prosperous people so we know God favors us. And, plural wives, of course, how else we gonna have enough population to rival the Lamanites?). It's hilarious how much the LDS membership sound like those apostates. I wonder who could have known in 1830 that the Mormon Church would come to look so much like the Book of Mormon apostates? Its uncanny.

  4. Hello Anonymous 10 July

    You asked...And what about this find?

    See my other post where I directly respond to the article you link to.

    Not really sure what to think of the rest of your comment.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Simon excuse my ignorance, but is there an ancestral link between Kennewick man and the Siberian arm bone youth from

  7. Off the top of my head (I'm a bit of a "science journalist," and Simon is familiar with my work; he may elect to elaborate, of course, and I always welcome his fact checking), KM and the Siberian youth had a common ancestor, perhaps on the order of 25-40 kya. What that says is there's a population of H. sapiens that migrated into Eastern Europe from Central Siberia that was ancestral to both the Siberian youth and today's Native Americans. It also looks like the group that migrated to this hemisphere may have "merged" with another group of Siberians, and some of the descendants of those people came to North America (my guess is following reindeer herds) via a northerly route. That would explain why "East Asians" are less closely related to Native Americans; the population genetics pretty much establishes the ancestors of Native Americans migrated from the Lake Baikal region--and in the southern part of that area--and moved north and then across the Berengia land bridge ~15-18 kya.

  8. What is the significance of the recent dna analysis that found a link between certain south american tribes and native australians? Why was this link not discovered previously?

    Much Thanks

  9. Hi Petey,

    Good question. The reason the link has been found is because the scientists doing the study were using the latest technology to study the entire genome. This allows them to detect evidence of very ancient admixture events. Scientists have used this technology in several Native American tribes from North, Central and South America but they have never detected Australian aboriginal DNA before. I mention this in another post on my blog.

    1. So it provides even more evidence against the Book of Mormon stories regarding Native American origins, since no Lamanite DNA was detected, right?

  10. Hi Simon. I'm not an apologist. In fact, I am very disappointed because a lot of information I have found out about the lds church history not told but the only one explanation about the DNA discrepancy I have found is the curse that Lamanites suffered. It suposed that before the curse they were not a dark skin people so could the curse have changed the genetic?

  11. The DNA markers used to show relationships between Native Americans and Asians don't affect skin colour. I don't believe for a moment that God changed DNA or he cursed someone with a dark skin. That is racist nonsense that needs to be left behind.

    1. So, this is other reason to think how much imagination Joseph Smith had. Thanks

    2. So what was the curse placed upon Cain then? "Lest any finding him should kill him," (Genesis 4:15)! Such a mark would have to have been so clear as a warning to others. It makes total sense to me. It has nothing to do with a current persons value or worthiness, but is just the way it is, and it is certainly NOT 'racist.' Oh do people love to throw that word around. Devaluing a human being so marked would be racist. We do not know all the workings of God, but I have faith in following HIS appointed Prophets, who lead us towards Christ.
      I would go with the Prophets any day, as opposed to some faithless antagonist of the Restored Church!

  12. Wow, talk about seeing things differently! As someone interested in Kennewick Man and in Meldrum's Heartland theory, I have to say I had the complete opposite interpretation as you did. So, although I'm not Meldrum, the following is what I think his ACTUAL response would be (not the lame strawman argument you suppose):
    1. Kennewick Man is evidence that Haplogroup X corrrelates with Caucasian features, including a square, prominent bilateral chin, European-like jaw and cheekbones, and bone measurements that correlate more closely with Europeans than with most Native Americans. See, e.g., Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton (2015) ("Kennewick Man"), at Chapter 27. This supports Meldrum's theory more than the previously-accepted theories of migration.
    2. Kennewick Man was carbon dated multiple times, producing very different results. He tested variously as 8360, 8140, 8095, 6940, 6840, 5750, 2660, 2340, 2285 and 2170 years before present. See, e.g., Kennewick Man, at Chapter 3. So the carbon dating is unclear. Only one of the dates can be right, and the last few dates fit Book of Mormon timelines.
    3. The "other lines of scientific evidence" that supposedly back up an 8000 year old date are also pretty weak. The two you cite are (i) carbon dating of the sediment around the Kennewick skeleton and (ii) evaluation of the spear point embedded in Kennewick Man's hips. The dating of the sediment around the skeleton is a joke, considering other evidence proving that Kennewick Man was intentionally buried (see the Kennewick Man book, at Chapter 17) -- it's like you burying me and saying that proves I'm as old as the dirt you buried me in! In addition, three of the four carbon date tests (15330, 14560, 12460, and 9010 years old, respectively) for the sediment produced dates that were impossibly old, as the sediment was located above volcanic ash that elsewhere as shown as 11,600 years old. See, e.g., Kennewick Man, at Chapter 3. This indicates "artificial aging" of the sediment which also could have caused artificial aging of Kennewick Man skeleton in the sediment. Regarding the spear point, its assumed age was based on the initial conclusion that it was a Cascade point, which is thought to have been used 5,000-10,000 years ago. However, that conclusion has since been shown to be incorrect, and the point type is unknown. See, e.g., Kennewick Man, at Chapter 23.
    In short, I think you should retract your post, as it is far too conclusory and misleading about the evidence.

    1. "1. Kennewick Man is evidence that Haplogroup X corrrelates with Caucasian features, including a square, prominent bilateral chin, European-like jaw and cheekbones, and bone measurements that correlate more closely with Europeans than with most Native Americans."

      Do you realize that Dr. Chatters, who was the first to say that Kennewick man was Caucasian, has changed his mind? His studies in Mexico confirmed that skull shapes of ancient Americans do not indicate separate peoples or migrations from Europe.

    2. Hi Anonymous person,

      I would be happy to remove my post if Rodney Meldrum would stop making his conclusory and misleading claims based on the evidence.

  13. "Kennewick Man is evidence that Haplogroup X corrrelates with Caucasian features"

    More published research further weakens that claim. See:

    Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation

    Anonymous said "2. Kennewick Man was carbon dated multiple times, producing very different results. He tested variously as 8360, 8140, 8095, 6940, 6840, 5750, 2660, 2340, 2285 and 2170 years before present. See, e.g., Kennewick Man, at Chapter 3. So the carbon dating is unclear. Only one of the dates can be right, and the last few dates fit Book of Mormon timelines."

    Here is what chapter 3 really says:

    "The carbonate fractions from Kennewick Man bone have 14C "ages" that are 4458 to 6228 RC yr less than the skeleton's 8358 RC yr age. The carbonate 14C measurements are termed "apparent 14C ages" because it is unkown if the CO3 -2 had the same fraction modern (Fm) as the atmosphere when the carbonate was being precipitated. Consequently, the 14C measurements on carbonates do not provide accurate estimates for their time-of-formation."

    1. Tapir Rider, I have reviewed the information you gave above. They have different conclusions, but the evidence has not changed. Kennewick Man has Caucasoid features; what you think that means in terms of his origin depends on what one views as a plausible explanation. The Raff and Bolnick article you cite admits that the evidence allows for more than one interpretation, including a Middle Eastern origin for Haplogroup X, they just give their opinion on what they feel is more plausible to them.
      The information you gave about carbon dating for Kennewick Man is the same. It shows that the carbon dating gave more than one "apparent age" for him. They chose to accept the much older age, not addressing the possibility of artificial aging of the skeleton due to the same factors which were already shown to have caused artificial aging in the sediments surrounding the skeleton. Again an example of preconceptions and bias driving the conclusion that is drawn.

    2. "they just give their opinion on what they feel is more plausible to them."

      No, it is strictly based on the evidence, which is well explained in the sources I have linked for you. I'm afraid that because of your cherry picking it will make it quite impossible to reason with you.

      "Again an example of preconceptions and bias driving the conclusion that is drawn."

      No, it is an example of how science works. The evidence does not support your assertions. Even Dr. Chatters changed his mind about Kennewick man after new evidence convinced him that skull shapes of the past are conclusively tied to living American Indians with different skull shapes.

      LDS members do far more harm than good when they argue against the findings of science. Some even claim that scientists are involved in conspiracies to suppress findings and evidence. From my own experience, that harms faith far more than accepting science. It pits religious belief against the mainstream of scholars. As new evidence increasingly demonstrates the errors of some LDS claims, it further isolates those LDS individuals who try to dispute the evidence and increases the nuttiness of their assertions. Some even go so far as to post anonymous and tell a scientist to retract his post on his own blog.

    3. One should distinguish between scientific fact and opinion. An opinion of a scientist, or even of a group of mainstream scientists, is unreliable if it is based on dubious assumptions. One of my primary points is that the assigned date for Kennewick Man is dubious, which undermines the conclusions Simon and others are drawing about what his dna means. My assertions are not nutty; they are based on the facts.

    4. I was going to bring up how Jim Chatters changed his mind on the "Caucasoid" features of Kennewick Man after reviewing the available data--facts, not opinion, sir--but I see Tapir Rider has already tried to educate you on that reality, and your "denial mechanisms" have remained intact along with your obvious perception distortions. Your "because I said so" claims amount to sheer nonsense, period. Kennewick Man's DNA has been shown to be Haplogroup X2a, a branch that arose early in that lineage, probably splitting off around ~20 thousand years ago or longer. There is no X2a to be found in Arabia or the Holy Land, period (and why would X be the only hg those ancient seafarers introduced?). And realistically there's no way the mythical sea voyage described in the BOM could've taken place, given the immense distances involved and the geography of the oceans as well as the lack of suitable technology extant during that era.
      Rodney Meldrum has proven himself to be a silly snake oil salesman, period. He recently promoted a "show" here, and in order to gain exposure, he included exhibits from right wing fringe Mormon militia,* "survivalist" equipment, costly "network marketing" products with inflated claims--and prices--as well as food storage products. He and his colleagues such as Wayne May have made themselves the laughingstock of reasonable sorts everywhere. But, like the little boy marching hopelessly out of step in the parade, they have their defenders who proclaim, "Look, everyone's out of step but my Rodney."
      BTW, your name's not Dave, is it?

    5. Anonymous

      Another piece of evidence you overlook is the position of Kennewick Man's X2a lineage in the family tree shown in my post above. It sits at the root of all Native American X2a lineages. All other X2a lineages descend from it and have picked up between 4 and 6 new mutations. This is compelling evidence that it is very old.

      Please put a name to your posts or I will delete all Anonymous comments on this subject that appear to come from you.

    6. @Anonymous

      "One should distinguish between scientific fact and opinion. An opinion of a scientist, or even of a group of mainstream scientists, is unreliable if it is based on dubious assumptions."

      It is strictly based on the evidence, not "dubious assumptions".

      "My assertions are not nutty; they are based on the facts."

      The evidence does not support your assertions.

  14. Hi Simon,
    Ex- Mormon here..I quit the church some 30 yrs ago, aged mid 20's..but I like to keep up with the latest developments , as I have many close relatives still active. They still bring up Mormon issues, and I prefer to have an up to date understanding to respond.

    I wonder if you could help me with the latest challenge I have been given... Mormons claim a confirmation of JS being a prophet due to the PoGP Book of Moses giving many, almost identical specs about Enoch, as are in the Book of the Giants, Dead sea scrolls..which was not discovered and translated by modern scholars until the 1990's I believe?...thus, long after the publishing of the PoGP. Are there other sources about Enoch that Smith would had had access to way back then? I guess the answers are out there...but, thought this a relavant topic for your Blog anyway I thought to ask...have you responded to this specific issue before? ....Thanks John

    1. Hi John, I haven't read the Book of Giants, but I understand it believed to have been written after and based off of the Book of Enoch the Prophet which I do have a copy of.

      I understand that the Masons have used the Book of Enoch, and Joseph and his family were very involved in Masonry and their local lodges. I think it's likely Joseph used the Book of Enoch. There is wording/concepts in the Book of Enoch that is also in the LDS temple ceremony. Or it was when I last attended some years ago. The Book of Enoch talks about how after "they" had eaten of the tree of wisdom, they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden. (pg 25) Also, the temple ceremonies were derived from Masonic passion plays.

      I would look at the Book of Enoch for answers and the connection between Joseph and Masonry.

  15. Hi John,
    That's the first time I have heard about Enoch and Smith. Sorry, can't help you on the one.

  16. thanx simon and all who are exposing the rodster's incomplete science

  17. Hey Simon! Somebody posted this article as proof of Jewish ancestry among Cherokees. Have you already, or could you please explain to me how this does or doesn't support Lehi's migration? Thanks for your hard work! :)

    1. This article is about the western Cherokee tribe which is not a real federally recognized Cherokee people. The real Cherokees that removed to Oklahoma with hundreds of other real indian nations . Then there is the Eastern Chetokee Who still live in their ancestral homelands, the real cherokee tribes that were ethnically cleanes from their lands are the descendants of the ancestral cherokee who were already admixed with European, And African DNA, but mostly European. The leadt afmixed of the Cherokee tribes are probably the Eastern Cherokee that still have Native American features and theit language. all others a fake heritage groups just like the The tribe in question , the western Cherokee Nation and all other fake heritage groups are in reality the descendants of the same ancestral European invading immigrants who made sure their government removed the Cherokee and other Nations off their ancestral homelands to Oklahoma , it was pure greed and jealousy on their part, they wanted everything the real Cherokee owned, their lands, crops, their very homes they lived in, down to their furniture, plates, beds, and silverware. These fake heritage clubs are still not happy with what they took from the Cherokee, now they want their very identity, culture and heritage. They want to be the Cherokee and other Nations, they want their status of indigenous people of the Americas. This bunk DNA test supposedly on real Cherokee tested a bunch of wannabe white people, who are a mixture of European, North African., Middle Eastern, and Sub-Saharan African. These people are scammers who want something else that belongs to Native Americans, Federal recognition, treaty rights, and indigenous status. They are a joke and as fake as they get. Heck, only a couple of them had any Jewish Markers in their DNA, and they had absolutely NO DNA from any Native American people. These people are the direct descendants of the homesteaders and the Sooners, that stole Native American Lands. Now they wants The measly treaty rights and benefits that rightfully belong to the Cherokee and other real Native Americans , in exchange for those very lands!!

  18. Hi Adam,
    The story is about a bunch of modern day Cherokee who have a heap of ancestors who are European or African. If you DNA test these people you will of course find a heap of European, Middle Eastern and African DNA. Some untrained people like to believe this proves they have Jewish ancestors.

    Scientists studying the true origins of Native Americans go to a lot of trouble to make sure the subjects on their studies have little or no admixture with white colonizers. Thats why they hardly ever find European DNA in Native Americans.

    1. Thank you! Just one more, if you could. This article tries to suggest that the particular mix of DNA (haplogroups H, X, J, U, and T) present in Cherokees is so uniform that all of this Middle Eastern DNA had to have arrived before Columbus. Donald N. Yates (a friend of Rod Meldrum, apparently) is the author, so I expect there is some bias.