Chief Joseph and SargonII ties up Book of Mormon DNA

[_Themis]

You stated distantly related the people in Iran with x2a'j is closely related. Outside of North America native Americans it is the only place you can find x2a.

Distantly related in that their common ancestor lived well over 10k years ago and we don't know where that ancestor lived in the old world. Having some similar DNA does not necessarily mean their common ancestor also lived close to their time.

http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/x/x2/x2aj/

[_bomgeography]

You stated distantly related the people in Iran with x2a'j is closely related. Outside of North America native Americans it is the only place you can find x2a.

Distantly related in that their common ancestor lived well over 10k years ago and we don't know where that ancestor lived in the old world. Having some similar DNA does not necessarily mean their common ancestor also lived close to their time.

http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/x/x2/x2aj/

the cultural and dna evidence disagrees with the 10k timeline. Assyrian star of Ashur, cuneiform tablets, Assyrian culture, etc could not have existed 10k years ago.

[_SteelHead]

Which is more likely wrong, the dna evidence, or you theory of an Assyrian connection based on 4th hand accounts and slightly similar geometric designs?

[_Themis]

the cultural and dna evidence disagrees with the 10k timeline. Assyrian star of Ashur, cuneiform tablets, Assyrian culture, etc could not have existed 10k years ago.

Where their DNA branches meet is well over 10k years ago. I'm sure the culture of the group was different then the cultures of these many groups that are related today. You don't have any DNA evidence to support your assertions without disregarding the most important scientific information. You only do that because you started first with the conclusion. There is no cultural evidence, which is why you cannot point to the scientific articles showing a cultural connections from an area in Ancient America to ones in the Middle east.

This tablet to have an origin in ancient America should have a lot of other pieces of evidence like other artifacts like tablets, pottery, etc that can be shown to have a connection to the middle east. If the chief had this artifact then it shows the artifact was in the America's long after European arrival, so it could easily have been brought over from the old world centuries before. Things like this can travel fast and far and don't need Europeans to get it into areas they haven't been into yet if it already had fallen in the hands of native populations. Given all the evidence the only reasonable possibility is that it comes from the old world. No one would argue against this unless they have a bias to believe otherwise like you have.

[_tapirrider]

The only source that Chief Joseph had the tablet and the things he allegedly said about it came from one person who wrote without sources for Chief Joseph’s alleged words to back up her claims. Mary Gindling’s post does not make it so.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100131104 ... orm-tablet

The Smithsonian Magazine of February, 1979 gives very plausible explanations.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2BYkIp ... gzZUU/edit

Just because the tablet is authentic does not prove that Chief Joseph ever even owned it or had it in his possession. Edgar James Banks brought perhaps thousands of those items into the United States and sold them, long after the Battle of Bear Paw. The first time the tablet showed up was at West Point in a box of items labeled as Chief Joseph’s belongings. It is most likely and the best plausible explanation, that the tablet had been purchased in the early 20th Century from Banks and ended up with those other items, either before they were donated or the museum itself screwed up and misplaced and mislabled one of its own artifacts.

When a rational person considers that the DNA claim is flawed and has studied the geometric patterns of American Indian art and beadwork and is familiar with the cultural significance and meanings of the patterns and their uses by the various different tribes, the entire claim collapses with the reality that the tablet was a common item in the early 20th century United States. It is obvious to anyone who is looking for truth without bias that the source of the tablet was from Banks and Chief Joseph never had it.

C. E. S. Wood, “Chief Joseph, the Nez Perce,” The Century: a Popular Quarterly 28, no. 1 (May 1884): 141.
https://books.google.cat/books?id=iDtGA ... &q&f=false

In Red Earth White Lies, originally published 1995, Deloria erroneously claims that Chief Joseph gave the pendant to General Miles.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Pz78t ... &q&f=false

The individual who donated the items to the West Point museum was Stuart Heintzelman, who obtained them from his father Charles Stuart Heintzelman. They were donated in the early 20th century. And just a little bit of thought makes the question scream out, why would Chief Joseph give such a sacred object to General Miles? Deloria’s source was Mary Gindling.

There is no 19th century account of Chief Joseph having that tablet, no account of him giving it to anyone. All of this garbage began with Mary Gindling, based on a mix-up of museum objects. And Mary’s writing was after Barry Fell’s first publication of America BC and he never mentioned it. So in conclusion, just because an artifact is authentic, it does not authenticate pseudo claims. The most plausible explanation is almost always the truth and in this case, it is a common object that was brought in to the United States after the events of the Nez Perce.

[_bomgeography]

The only source that Chief Joseph had the tablet and the things he allegedly said about it came from one person who wrote without sources for Chief Joseph’s alleged words to back up her claims. Mary Gindling’s post does not make it so.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100131104 ... orm-tablet

The Smithsonian Magazine of February, 1979 gives very plausible explanations.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2BYkIp ... gzZUU/edit

Just because the tablet is authentic does not prove that Chief Joseph ever even owned it or had it in his possession. Edgar James Banks brought perhaps thousands of those items into the United States and sold them, long after the Battle of Bear Paw. The first time the tablet showed up was at West Point in a box of items labeled as Chief Joseph’s belongings. It is most likely and the best plausible explanation, that the tablet had been purchased in the early 20th Century from Banks and ended up with those other items, either before they were donated or the museum itself screwed up and misplaced and mislabled one of its own artifacts.

When a rational person considers that the DNA claim is flawed and has studied the geometric patterns of American Indian art and beadwork and is familiar with the cultural significance and meanings of the patterns and their uses by the various different tribes, the entire claim collapses with the reality that the tablet was a common item in the early 20th century United States. It is obvious to anyone who is looking for truth without bias that the source of the tablet was from Banks and Chief Joseph never had it.

C. E. S. Wood, “Chief Joseph, the Nez Perce,” The Century: a Popular Quarterly 28, no. 1 (May 1884): 141.
https://books.google.cat/books?id=iDtGA ... &q&f=false

In Red Earth White Lies, originally published 1995, Deloria erroneously claims that Chief Joseph gave the pendant to General Miles.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Pz78t ... &q&f=false

The individual who donated the items to the West Point museum was Stuart Heintzelman, who obtained them from his father Charles Stuart Heintzelman. They were donated in the early 20th century. And just a little bit of thought makes the question scream out, why would Chief Joseph give such a sacred object to General Miles? Deloria’s source was Mary Gindling.

There is no 19th century account of Chief Joseph having that tablet, no account of him giving it to anyone. All of this garbage began with Mary Gindling, based on a mix-up of museum objects. And Mary’s writing was after Barry Fell’s first publication of America BC and he never mentioned it. So in conclusion, just because an artifact is authentic, it does not authenticate pseudo claims. The most plausible explanation is almost always the truth and in this case, it is a common object that was brought in to the United States after the events of the Nez Perce.

Tapir you are back its so good to see you again where have you been. I also have to disagree with what you said. The nez pierce cultural ties to Assyria back up the claims made by chief joseph having cuneiform

[_tapirrider]

The nez pierce cultural ties to Assyria back up the claims made by chief joseph having cuneiform

First of all, Chief Joseph NEVER made any claims of having that tablet. There are absolutely no 19th century documents, photos, records, letters or any source to tie it to him. And there are no ties to ancient Assyria in ancient America, from any credible source, associated with any American Indians. As for the Nez Perce, even the floral design in the beadwork was recent to them, not even appearing until the 1860s. That little fact flies in the face of an ancient connection.

If a reasonable person honestly examines all of the evidence without bias and does not disregard the science of radiocarbon dating when it disagrees with pre-determined conclusions, and fully examines the DNA studies, the facts become obvious and clear that there are absolutely no cultural ties to Assyria.

[_bomgeography]

The nez pierce cultural ties to Assyria back up the claims made by chief joseph having cuneiform

First of all, Chief Joseph NEVER made any claims of having that tablet. There are absolutely no 19th century documents, photos, records, letters or any source to tie it to him. And there are no ties to ancient Assyria in ancient America, from any credible source, associated with any American Indians. As for the Nez Perce, even the floral design in the beadwork was recent to them, not even appearing until the 1860s. That little fact flies in the face of an ancient connection.

If a reasonable person honestly examines all of the evidence without bias and does not disregard the science of radiocarbon dating when it disagrees with pre-determined conclusions, and fully examines the DNA studies, the facts become obvious and clear that there are absolutely no cultural ties to Assyria.

You cannot say that those designs only appeared in the 1800s.

[_tapirrider]

You cannot say that those designs only appeared in the 1800s.

Yes, I can say that with confidence and with the backing of scholars when it concerns the Nez Perce. I challenge you to provide credible, scholarly sources that show otherwise, with that particular tribe. And show me reputable examples of how they did it prior to the glass beads. I would be very much impressed if you could provide a pre-1850 floral design like the type you claim is Assyrian, made with porcupine quill by the Nez Perce. Until you can show me such things, I will maintain that you are grasping at straws and making claims that you can't support.

[_bomgeography]

You cannot say that those designs only appeared in the 1800s.

Yes, I can say that with confidence and with the backing of scholars when it concerns the Nez Perce. I challenge you to provide credible, scholarly sources that show otherwise, with that particular tribe. And show me reputable examples of how they did it prior to the glass beads. I would be very much impressed if you could provide a pre-1850 floral design like the type you claim is Assyrian, made with porcupine quill by the Nez Perce. Until you can show me such things, I will maintain that you are grasping at straws and making claims that you can't support.

You need to prove that the symbols are not apart of Nez pierce culture.