Just a few days ago I came across an article titled, “How Kennewick Man has Impaled Rodney Meldrum’s Heartlanders” by Simon Southerton in October 2020. I am saddened by the tone of the article.
I believe when Simon says demeaning things about Rod, Wayne, Jonathan, and now David, that is sad and has no place in the discussion. It’s fine to make your point about DNA that is contrary to Rod’s and David’s, but the words, “Snake Oil Salesmen”, saying people lie, making fun of people, is all cover for perhaps the weakness of Simon’s points. David has prepared a response to Simon’s article. As with anything, please read both and then you decide what to believe. David’s position to me is fantastic and I support it.
David Read Responds to Anti-Mormon Attack on Haplogroup X and Kennewick Man
By David Read
Simon Southerton is a former member of the Church who has written several articles and blog posts attacking the church. He has particularly focused on dismissing DNA evidence related to the Book of Mormon.
Many of you know that I (David Read) recently published an exciting new evaluation of DNA evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, called Face of a Nephite.
NEW Purchase Now!
One of the most interesting findings discussed in Face of a Nephite is that Kennewick Man (an ancient Native American skeleton found in Washington) has DNA tested as Haplogroup X, which is related to the Middle East. He also has a surprising Caucasian appearance, as shown in the Smithsonian’s facial reconstruction (seen on the book cover). Kennewick Man provides a unique look at one ancient Native American with this DNA type.
Southerton’s blog post is entitled “How Kennewick Man has Impaled Rodney Meldrum’s Heartlanders,” October 2020, at simonsoutherton.com. Southerton’s principal claim is that Kennewick Man must have lived before Book of Mormon times instead of during Book of Mormon times, and thus Haplogroup X was in America before the Book of Mormon and can’t relate to the Book of Mormon. The key question, therefore, for Haplogroup X is whether Kennewick Man properly dates to about 2,000 years ago (as I argue) or 9,000 years ago (as Southerton argues).
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE TO SOUTHERTON’S POST
I have reviewed Southerton’s attacks and his arguments are incorrect. He ignores important evidence and then claims other things as evidence that simply haven’t been proven.
In order to make the arguments easier to follow, I have created below a table briefly summarizing the main arguments and evidence for the two competing dates, which I will then discuss in detail for those interested in further investigation of the science:
| My Evidence that Kennewick Man Lived About 2,000 years ago | Southerton’s Evidence that Kennewick Man Lived About 9,000 years ago |
1. Several carbon tests (admittedly a minority) date Kennewick Man about 2,000-2,700 years ago, which reasonably fits Book of Mormon timeframes. 2. The depth of Kennewick Man’s burial in the soil is logically inconsistent with an 8,000+ year old date but is consistent with the more recent (2,000+ year old) alternative date. 3. A small amount of weathered volcanic ash from the Mt. Mazama explosion (generally dated as about 7,000 years ago) was found on Kennewick Man’s skeleton, which indicates that Kennewick Man lived more recently than the volcanic event and likely came into contact with the ash through the burial process. This evidence is again inconsistent with an 8,000+ year old date. |
1. The majority of carbon date tests date him around 8,000-9,000 years ago, so that is the age generally accepted by scientists. [Note: In Face of a Nephite, I explain how these older dates are likely the result of “artificial aging” — as was proven to occur elsewhere in sediment samples taken near Kennewick Man’s burial site.] 2. A stone point (from a spear or arrowhead) lodged in Kennewick Man’s hip could be a Cascade Point which is generally believed to have been made and used 5,000-10,000 years ago. [Note: In Face of a Nephite, I point out that there is a scientific dispute as to whether the point is really a Cascade Point. Even if it is a Cascade Point, sometimes old arrowheads are reused at later dates, so there is also a possibility that it is an old spear point or arrowhead that was reused more recently.] |
In his post, Southerton primarily attempts to attack my 1st and 3rd pieces of evidence above and claims that those attacks are fatal to my arguments. His attacks have already been considered and addressed in my book. However, he mostly ignores my 2nd piece of evidence about the burial depth, and he ignores my responses to his evidence (on the right above).
Contrary to Southerton’s arguments, the scientific evidence still supports a potential DNA connection between Native Americans and the Book of Mormon.
DETAILED DISCUSSION OF SOUTHERTON’S SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
For those interested in detailed scientific responses to Southerton’s claims, I have repeated below his specific quotes in his blog post, and my detailed responses thereto. For a full understanding of the evidence, the best resource is the Face of a Nephite book, available at: https://www.digitalegend.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=357
| Simon Southerton’s Arguments | My Responses |
| Claim 1: “The continual misrepresentation of the X2a science (described below) by Heartland apologists has now escalated further. … In Face of a Nephite, patent attorney David Read, misrepresents critical aspects of the scientific research on Kennewick Man in order to defend Meldrum’s X2a lineage claims …” | Response: In my book I have been very careful to correctly portray the science, citing facts to the best available resources so that the reader can check and verify the claims made. I clearly note the points where my conclusions differ from the general consensus. My goal was to present the truth, which supports the Book of Mormon; my intent was not about defending Rod Meldrum (although the evidence does support his central haplogroup X claims). |
| Claim 2: “The study of Kennewick Man is the most comprehensive forensic analysis of an ancient skeleton in American history. Inadvertently, this research has provided conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon Heartland movement is based on falsehoods. Clearly, Kennewick Man lived well over 8,000 years ago. This research provides irrefutable evidence the X2a lineage was not brought to the Americas by Hebrew sailors in 600BC.” | Response: As explained in Face of a Nephite, the available evidence instead points to Kennewick Man living a little over 2,000 years ago, consistent with Book of Mormon timeframes. |
| Claim 3: “To understand how David Read could misrepresent the Kennewick Man research so badly, I contacted the scientists who did the original work. I was disturbed to discover that Jim Chatters, the forensic scientist who collected Kennewick Man’s remains, had already pointed out these exact same mistakes to David Read. Chatters was intimately involved in the soil analysis and collection of samples for radiocarbon analysis; however, Read chose to completely ignore Chatters’ criticism.” | Response: I have correctly represented the evidence related to Kennewick Man. I did exchange some emails with Dr. Jim Chatters regarding my Kennewick Man research. It is true that Dr. Chatters is not a member of our church and was not a fan of my conclusions about Kennewick Man. The arguments Dr. Chatters presented (which Southerton repeats below) have already been covered in my book in the sections where I consider and address questions and counterarguments about the research. Dr. Chatters’ comments were addressed, not ignored. |
| Claim 4: “The discovery of Kennewick Man has provided the latest and most compelling evidence that Rodney Meldrum’s claims cannot be trusted. You would think, faced with such comprehensive evidence, the Heartland team would withdraw its claims, but alas, the blizzard of falsehoods has escalated. In Face of a Nephite, David Read takes Heartland pseudoscience to the next level. With his conclusions locked in, Read attempts to undermine the research on Kennewick Man based on two key falsehoods. In Face of a Nephite, David Read claims:Mazama ash was attached to Kennewick Man’s bones and this proves he was buried after the Mazama eruption.The carbonate dates (@ 2000 years ago) are the more reliable estimates of Kennewick Man’s age.” |
Response: Contrary to Southerton’s claims, I have been careful to correctly portray the science. In addition, Southerton focuses on 2 of my pieces of evidence, avoiding evidence related to Kennewick Man’s burial depth. As explained in Face of a Nephite, the depth at which he was buried, combined with the preservation and lack of animal scavenging of the skeleton, show that Kennewick Man must have been buried much more recently than the 7,000 year old Mazama volcanic eruption, and excludes the 8,000+ year old dates. See Face of a Nephite for further explanation of this evidence. A clarification to Southerton’s paraphrasing of my claims: over time the weathering of volcanic ash can turn the ash into an aluminosilicate mineral called allophane, and it is allophane that was attached to Kennewick Man’s bones, as explained in the book. See Wada, “Minerals formed and mineral formation from volcanic ash by weathering,” Chemical Geology Vol. 60, Issues 1-4, pgs 17-28 (1987). |
| Claim 5: “False claim 1: Mazama ash attached to bones“No Mazama ash was found in sediment around the skeleton, and believe me it is ubiquitous in younger sediments. Therefore, the skeleton if buried, went into a pit dug before the ash fell.” — Jim Chatters, June 10, 2020 Read is confusing Mazama ash with allophane, the weathered products of the ash which had washed down the soil profile (See Figure 4). Chatters’ clearly told Read Mazama ash was not attached to the bones. Allophane, a clay breakdown product derived from the weathering of Mazama ash, had washed down the soil profile from the Mazama layer and was found in the carbonate soil layer and some was still attached to the bones. However, this type of weathering happens wherever Mazama ash is found. It is a normal weathering process that occurs during soil formation the world over. It’s the reason why the clay content in soil goes up the deeper you dig. The presence of allophane attached to the skeleton, but not Mazama ash, confirms, yet again, the skeleton was buried before the Mazama eruption 7,700 years ago.” | Response: Southerton is incorrect about three things here. First, I stated in the book’s Frequently Asked Questions section that the volcanic material attached to Kennewick Man’s foot bone was allophane, which is weathered volcanic ash. Allophane is what the volcanic ash turns into as it sits in the right conditions. The book is correct. Second, while Dr. Chatters did argue in his email that there was no Mazama ash around the skeleton, that statement was factually incorrect because the evidence instead showed that there was allophane (weathered volcanic ash) attached to the foot bone. In addition, trying to draw a distinction between allophane and ash here makes no sense because either one means the same thing — that Kennewick Man’s skeleton had come into contact with the Mazama volcanic ash layer in the soil, which means that Kennewick Man was born after the Mazama volcanic event. Third, there is no evidence that allophane “washed down the soil profile” as claimed by Southerton. To the contrary, volcanic ash turns into allophane in situ; the volcanic ash (including the weathered ash product allophane) is found in a distinct ash layer in the soil with the rest of the volcanic material (aka tephra). The volcanic material is in a distinct layer and does not migrate through any other soil layers. Allophane is an insoluble product and there is no evidence that it has migrated down through the soil as claimed by Southerton. If he has any citations showing that the allophane migrated down through the soil, I would be interested in seeing them, but I have not seen any research backing that claim. Therefore, the most likely explanation remains that the allophane comes from the same soil layer that has the rest of the volcanic ash and ash products and thus points to a more recent burial date and life for Kennewick Man. One final note on this topic: Even if Southerton were correct on this point and there was no ash from the ash layer on Kennewick Man’s foot, as explained in my book that actually would not have been a surprising result since the soils around the Kennewick Man skeleton had been washed away just prior to his discovery. It would negate one piece of the evidence but the burial evidence together with the carbon dating evidence would still point to the 2,000 year old dates as the most likely date for the skeleton. |
| Claim 6: “False claim 2: The carbonate dates are reliable estimates of Kennewick Man’s age.‘The ca. 2000 year dates you cling to are actually dates on soil carbonate, which deposits continuously from water percolating down from the surface. They are not dates on the skeleton at all.’ — Jim Chatters, June 10, 2020 In a follow-up email Jim Chatters again stressed the unreliability of Kennewick Man’s carbonate dates. ‘Bottom line: The carbonate dates from K-man’s bone are not reliable. There was really no research reason to do them.’ — Jim Chatters, June 12, 2020 You can appreciate why the carbonate dates would be less reliable by examining this image from Owsley and Jantz’s book (Figure 5). Figure 5. Locations and radiocarbon ages of collagen (bottom left) and carbonate samples in bones of Kennewick Man. (drawn from Figure 3.8 in Owsley and Jantz, 2014) They are all measurements from regions of the bone most exposed to deposition of calcium carbonate from water percolating through the soil. The collagen, however, was extracted from the interior of the most well-preserved portions of the bones.” |
Response: These arguments were fully addressed in Face of a Nephite. Chatters and Southerton are factually incorrect. As explained in the book, the 2,000 year old dates were taken to date the skeleton as expressly shown in the cited research. See, e.g., Stafford, “Chronology of the Kennewick Man Skeleton,” Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, Chapter 3, at Table 3.5, pages 68-69 (2014). As explained in Face of a Nephite, the carbon dating for Kennewick Man mainly congregates around two date ranges: (i) 2,000-2,700 years ago, or (ii) 8,000-9,000 years ago. The question is which of the two date ranges is more reliable. Carbon dating can be affected by surrounding conditions that can cause artificial aging or de-aging of tested samples. In Face of a Nephite, I explain that the surrounding conditions for Kennewick Man support the more recent (2,000 year old) dates as being more reliable. The older dates are explained by significant artificial aging which has already been documented in the surrounding sediments. In contrast, there is no evidence of significant artificial de-aging. The Figure 5 picture to the left that Southerton points to actually illustrates the point. Looking at the picture you should notice that the interior portions of the bone (which would be more protected from effects caused by surrounding conditions) test as the younger dates (2,170-2,340 years) while the less protected exterior portions produce older dates, thus pointing to artificial aging, not de-aging, caused by the exterior conditions. The artificial de-aging in the surrounding environment is explained by the fact that the surrounding sediment (with accompanying organic material) was deposited in the context of ancient carbon (either from reworked ancient carbon from upstream or from the very low carbon glacial meltwater water source). See, e.g., Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, at 63, 85,and 318 (2014). |
| Claim 7: [criticizing the burial evidence] “Why would the people who dug Kennewick Man’s grave dig a hole almost a metre deep? This would have been extremely difficult given they only had stone tools. All the evidence suggests he was buried in a shallow pit and covered by about 10cm of alluvial soil and Mount Mazama erupted about 850 years after his burial.” | Response: This is incorrect. First, even if he were only buried just 1 foot deep or more it would still mean that he was buried after the Mazama volcanic event and that the 8,000+ year old carbon dates are impossible. As explained in the book, the remarkable preservation of Kennewick Man’s skeleton and lack of animal scavenging indicate that it was not a shallow burial and likely more than 20 inches deep at least. This means that the 8,000+ year old carbon dates are inconsistent with the surrounding evidence and that the 2,000 year old carbon dates are the more supportable dates. In addition, the relatively even and flat surrounding soil layers are not consistent with Southerton’s “pit burial” idea. The soil where Kennewick Man was buried was relatively flat (“planar”) and formed by slow deposition from low energy overbank flows, as noted in Chatters, “Geography, Paleoecology, and Archaeology,” Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, Chapter 2, at page 44 (2014). There is no evidence to support a pit or pit burial. |
| Claim 8: “The reliable radiocarbon age of K-man, based on both the projectile point in his pelvis and the protein in his bones is around 8400 BP. Again, the embedded point is not of the western stemmed tradition or any exotic form. It is a classic Cascade point of the Olcott form, which dates older than 7600 years in western Washington.” — Jim Chatters, June 12, 2020 | Response: While the projectile point in Kennewick Man’s hip has some features consistent with a Cascade Point, scientists have noted that the features are not exclusive to Cascade Points, and there is a scientific dispute as to whether it is really a Cascade Point. See Fagan, “Analysis of Lithic Artifact,” Report on the Non-Destructive Examination, Description, and Analysis of the Human Remains from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington, National Park Service (1999); Stanford, “The Point of the Story,” Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, Chapter 23, at page 457 (2014). Even if it is a Cascade Point, sometimes old arrowheads are reused at later dates, so there is also a possibility that it is an old spear point or arrowhead that was reused later and does not exclude a more recent date for the skeleton. |
| Claim 9: [Read falsely states that] “… as few as four DNA mutations have occurred for mitochondrial DNA haplogroup X between some of the occurrences in the New World and the Old World,”By the time of the most recent Heartland conference in September 2020, the number of mutations had dropped even further:“Indeed, one recent study found a variety of haplogroup X in Egypt that is just one mutation away from the type found in Native Americans”Read does not understand the science he is writing about. The lowest number of DNA mutation differences between an Old World X lineage (X2j) and modern New World X2a lineages, is 15 and the average is about 19. Figure 6 uses data taken from the Rasmussen paper on Kennewick Man’s genome. The Egyptian haplogroup X David Read is referring to is the X2j lineage found in Arabs from the el-Hayez oasis in western Egypt.Figure 5. Family tree of Native American mitochondrial X2a lineages, including their closest relative in the Middle East, the X2j lineage. Modern X2a lineages in Native Americans are all descended from the X2a lineage possessed by Kennewick Man. Redrawn from Rasmussen et al. (2017) The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man. Nature doi:10.1038/nature14625” | Response: There are only four common DNA mutations that separate the Native American haplogroup X2a branch from its closest known common ancestor (X2a’j) with its closest related DNA branch anywhere in the world (haplogroup X2j found in Egypt and Iran). The question I was addressing was not how many mutations exist in random particular individuals but instead the number of common mutations differentiating the respective DNA branches. Southerton’s Figure 5 to the left actually supports this, as his figure also notes only four mutations (marked with four small blue circles) separating X2a and X2a’j, which is the proposed common ancestor with the Middle Eastern X2j line (which has been found in Egypt and Iran). The reference to only a single mutation was a mistake made earlier in a presentation I had made in April 2020 (misinterpreting a reference) before I had completed the research for the Face of a Nephite book. This was subsequently corrected in the process of completing and checking the research for the book. The most important point for the haplogroup X research is that the closest DNA relative to X2a comes from an area (Egypt and Iran) around the Middle East and is thus consistent with the Book of Mormon. Whether the number of intervening mutations is 4 or 15 is not the main point. Any proposed relatives in Siberia or Asia are even farther away. The key question for the haplogroup X research is whether the haplogroup X2a DNA evidence supports the proposition of a portion of Native American ancestry coming from the Middle East as indicated in the Book of Mormon, and the answer is Yes, it does. |
NEW Purchase Now!
See another blog by David Read called Face of a Nephite Here
Purchase Book Now https://www.digitalegend.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=357
David Read Patent Attorney, JD
See David’s video Presentation called,
“Nephites in North America: New DNA Evidence” Sign up for our Video Streaming Here! Watch over 700 Videos for 3 months. Just $45. Cancel anytime. If you are already a member of our streaming site you can see his presentation now.
David’s Presentation and Bio
Despite popular belief, the currently available DNA evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Critics who attempt to rely on DNA evidence to attack the truth of the Book of Mormon misinterpret or misconstrue what the DNA evidence actually shows. In this presentation, Mr. Read will present more DNA evidence that has recently come to light supporting Book of Mormon claims. As one example, Mr. Read will discuss further scientific studies which again confirm that mitochondrial DNA haplogroup X (previously publicized by Rod Meldrum) is found among Native Americans and originated in the Middle East
Indeed, one recent study found a variety of haplogroup X in Egypt that is just four mutations away from the type found in Native Americans, which undermines the critics’ previous claims that Native American haplotype X2a has “too many mutations” from the haplogroup X haplotypes found in the Middle East to fit a Book of Mormon timeframe for a migration from the Middle East to the Americas. Mr. Read will also present new DNA evidence regarding Y DNA haplogroup R, which is a second non-Asian DNA type found in large numbers among some Native American groups. Mr. Read will present evidence showing that this non-Asian DNA type also predates Columbus and has a distribution pattern in common with haplogroup X. This means that there is now a second and separate line of DNA evidence that corroborates the haplogroup X information and is again consistent with the Book of Mormon. Finally, Mr. Read will explain the significance of recent findings about an ancient Native American skeleton known as Kennewick Man, whose DNA is haplogroup X, but whose carbon dating has been commonly reported as being over 8,000 years old. Because of the reported carbon dating, Kennewick Man is now often used by critics to argue that haplogroup X in the Americas predates Book of Mormon timeframes. However, this again misconstrues the evidence. Mr. Read will demonstrate that a more complete analysis of the carbon dating for Kennewick Man shows that his correct age is within Book of Mormon timeframes and once again supports the DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. David possesses many intellectual interests. Before finishing his juris doctorate in law and becoming a patent attorney and later a judge, he earned undergraduate degrees in chemistry and philosophy. Over the past 10 years, he has completed a considerable amount of research into the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon with a particular emphasis on DNA evidence related to the Book of Mormon. Through this research, he has recently uncovered additional DNA evidence that corroborates and supports the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
David is an accomplished researcher. Over his career as a patent attorney, he has collaborated with inventors in numerous scientific fields. These include pharmaceuticals, medical devices, firearms, computer software, hybrid vehicles, battery technologies, pollution control technologies, textile manufacturing equipment, diesel and gasoline engines, chemical testing equipment, agricultural chemicals, turbocharging systems, fuels, coal gasification, and power plant technologies.
In each of these areas, he researched and came up to speed on the state-of-the-art knowledge in the field to thoroughly understand the new invention and the scientific consensus, interacted with experts in that field, and assessed and argued whether an invention was new or would be obvious to other experts in that scientific field. His work required him to reliably evaluate the state of established scientific knowledge in various scientific fields. He has taken that experience and applied it here to the DNA evidence related to Native Americans.
David lives in Michigan. He and his wife Barbara have five children: Amy, Charlotte, Sarah, Seth, and Matthew. David currently serves as the Sunday School President in his ward.
