More lines from King David : Paloma

Justin: "the version of the story given by Rabbi Eliyahu ben Elqana Capsali (c1490-c1555) in his *Seder Eliyahu Zuta*. "
I would say that's close enough to count for the Medieval era = that a Jewish woman, 'Paloma', is Alfonso's mother.

That's far too vague to establish who her parents were, though.

There is a fun story told by Diego de Castilla that plays on the name Paloma. Martin de Rojas was hawking with King Ferdinand II. The hawk pulled away from a heron and went after a dove. Martin turned to the king and said, "Sire, now he is going after our grandmother."

Both Martin and the king were descendants of Paloma, whose name means "dove".

At this point I would be more interested in the source for the name Yonati, and for her connection to Gedalia.

Sharon, I don't have any problem with accepting Paloma as Alfonso's mother. The evidence isn't fantastic, but everything we know there is plausible, internally consistent, and easily within the memory traditions of the people who wrote about it.

I could see an argument that the name Paloma is poetic rather than actual, but that also doesn't bother me. It's the name we have from the sources. We're unlikely to find anything else.

But, as you say, I see no evidence this Paloma was a daughter of Gedalia. She could be, but it's just a theory, like hundreds of other theories developed by experts working to extend medieval lines.

:-)

Well, the name "Unathi" (oo naa tee) means "God is with us" in Xhosa. Not pertinent but all I've got while we wait for Jaim :-)

I agree.

Justin is correct that the evidence isn't fantastic. But, the chroniclers exist and their writings were acceptable in their time.

I concede "it's a theory" driven by two notable pieces of circumstantial evidence:

Justin is correct that Paloma = Yonai is my theory based upon evidence most others do not have - the Eliakim Karmoly text and the 'ibn Yahya Tapestry' from Jewish Theological Seminary. It took six years to locate and purchase a copy of the Karmoly text - and I had purchased a high-resolution copy of the Tapestry. I am the only researcher to ever get a high-resolution copy of that Tapestry...and I have posted it here on Geni.com for others to peruse.

The connection between the genealogies of 'ibn Yahya Tapestry' and the chronicle of Paloma was asserted by me. On the Tapestry, and in Eliakim Karmoly's text, we have the name Yonati - Hebrew name for "Dove".

Gedaliah had a daughter named 'Yonati' who is contemporary and co-located in Toledo at that time axis, who gave birth to a son who traveled the world, exclusively, with his Jewish cousins (Isac Kastiel, and others who show up on the ibn Yahya Tapestry.

Afonso Enriques was born from a Jewish woman, out of wedlock; the same Jewish woman I argue to be named "Paloma"...I argue it is 'Yonati' in the Tapestry.

I apologize for the delay in posting - I'm in Beijing and it is currently 6:50am.

Then, we have the answer. It's a theory. That means we should not be making the connection directly on Geni. We are looking for verified links. In fact, we're in the midst of a housecleaning to identify and cut speculative links.

We will want to keep good notes about the details of theories like this, though. This discussion will be a good reference for the current state of our knowledge in case new information emerges.

Yes - and the only one which references chroniclers of that period in conjunction with artifacts providing the name of Afonso Enriques' Mother - Yonati.

New profile for Paloma -- Paloma ha-Leví Benveniste

What about creating a project for the tapestry, Jaim?
I think Justin is correct, this is a theory, not evidence.
We have no leg to stand on if we're sequestrating users' theory profiles out of the tree, but allowing Curators to use the world tree to document theirs.
Hope that doesn't come across harshly - it isn't meant to.
As a project you'd be able to demonstrate the theory far more precisely and publicly than you do on a profile.

A project for this would be very cool.

Paloma ha-Leví Benveniste is Paloma?

(King David is getting further away . . .currently my 32nd great uncle's second great grandmother's husband's fourth cousin 21 times removed's husband's father)

Not exactly. Yonati was claimed to be Paloma. They're now separate.

Paloma is named in Spanish sources. I don't know the source for the actual name Yonati, but her position in the Jewish tree is from Jaim.

Anwar, I'm still hoping to convince you not everything you read on the Internet is true. It looks like you've been suckered here.

FTDNA admins come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I know. I'm one myself. Some of them are good at history but bad at genetics. Some are good at genetics but bad at history.

The short answer here is that all this is piffle. There are no confirmed male-line descents from King David, so there can be no certainty about his yDNA signature. In fact, the problem is quite difficult. There are several different families who claim a male-line descent from David but their yDNA shows they can't all be right.

There are many who advocate one line or another. That doesn't prove their claims. It's painful to see how many people are taken in by these enthusiastic but premature conclusions.

" There are no confirmed male-line descents from King David, so there can be no certainty about his yDNA signature."

I’m going off memory here, but my understanding is that there are likely many living descendants of King David, but there is not currently any way (paper, DNA) to show how we get from then to now.

The Goths Arrive:

In 409 CE the Vandals, Suebi, and Alans invaded Spain. They were followed by the Goths or Visigoths who subdued the country by 585 CE. The Visigoths at first belonged to the Arian Church that disagreed with the Roman Catholic one. They were pro-Jewish in many ways. Many Goths (of whom the Visigoths were a section) converted to Judaism. The Goths also ruled over southeast France in which area as well as in Spain the terms "Goth" and "Jew" were for a time interchangeable.

Spain in the Bible and Descendants of David

Spain is mentioned in the Biblical Book of Obadiah 1:20: "The exiled of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad": Targum Yehonathan translates "Sepharad" as "Aspamiah" meaning Spain. Rashi says, "These are the descendants of Judah who were exiled to Sepharad…the translation of Sepharad is Aspamiah" [i.e. Spain]. Rabbi Abraham Iben Ezra says that this is referring to the exile by Titus (the Roman Emperor who destroyed the Temple) of Jews to Spain. The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) says the same. The Abarbanel says that whole settlements in Spain were founded by exiles from Jerusalem who included families descended from King David.

Gothe = Gatae = Guti = Gutian = Jatt

https://iranian.com/2005/03/24/the-glorious-gutians/

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gutians

http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/saka/index.htm

https://www.jatland.com/home/Gutian

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/EasternMedia.htm

=Judi = Judah = Jidi

The descent is from Rashi. The argument is that if you can trace to Rashi, and many rabbinical families can, you are a descendant of King David.

Luria's premise is not accepted as proven.

https://www.momentmag.com/king-davids-genes-2/

The question of whether the 1,000-year connection between Rashi and King David can be verified is a matter of contention. According to the late David Einsiedler, who wrote in the scholarly journal, Avotaynu: The International Review of Jewish Genealogy, “Careful examination of all available sources leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is no complete, reliable and positive proof of claims of descent from King David, whether via Rashi, Judah Loew the Elder, or any of the other families claimed. There are at present no known sources that could fill the gaps or set the record straight. It is possible that there may be actual descendants somewhere, but at present, no one can produce sufficient and unquestionable proof of this claim.”

As a 49% DNA Ashkenazi Jew, I "do not" want this unproveable path on Geni. In fact I am finding the idea upsetting. Too many naive cousins. This cannot be done to them.

1. Luria's theories are theories, not facts (as Erica points out above).

2. The location of the original Sepharad is uncertain.

Quoting from The Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture:

> "A location named "Sepharad" is mentioned in the Tanakh (Bible) in the book of Obadiah, where the prophet refers to the Jerusalemite exiles in Sepharad. There is no scholarly concensus as to the geographical location to which this passage originally referred. Some scholars have suggested locations in Mesopotamia, Sardis in Asia Minor, or Sparta in Greece. From late Roman times, some Jews assumed that Sepharad referred to Spain. In any case, this was but one instance of the transference of biblical terms such as Sepharad, Tzarefat and Ashkenaz from their original Middle-Eastern referents to European locales. By the Middle Ages, Sepharad was the normal term used by Jews to refer to Spain."

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/intro.html

3. The analyses conducted by DNA Tribes have come under heavy criticism in the genetic DNA community. I've often thought about being tested there "just to see" but I would regard the results as purely for entertainment. Looking at the markers you've posted I don't see anything nearly so exotic. It's all just garden-variety R1b-U106, common throughout Western Europe.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6982-My-garbage-DNA-tribes-...

http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=29618&langid=42

http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-bin/dnatribes.cgi

Dr. Anwar, have you taken the FTDNA Big Y test?

This will give you a much more detailed placement in the Y-DNA tree than the Y-67 can ever give you, and gives a chance to find out exactly who you share male-line ancestors with in the historical timeframe.

As mentioned above, we have many people who claim male-line descent from David and we know they can't all be right. A Big Y test can't provide the historical record that is needed to prove the descent (or not) from David, but it can tell you a lot about how far back you match with those who you suspect of descending from the same male line as you, given the evidence from your current level of testing.

Harald Tveit (Tveit) Alvestrand

I took up to Y-111 and did not do big Y because I did so much individual SNP testing Big Y is not needed, in my opinion.

Your Geni page says you're Z381 (= S263, TMCRA 4700 YBP) and Z305 (=S497, TMCRA 4200 YBP). Is Z305 the most specific SNP identified?

If so, you should expect to discover 25-30 more specific SNPs from a BigY test. These may be novel or may be shared with other people; we don't know until we test.
At the moment, Big Y tests are the largest source of new named SNPs.

(BTW, I'm also S263, but not S497, so we should have our most recent common male ancestor somewhere in the 4200-4500 YBP range)

Anwar, when you venture into DNA and genealogy you have to be prepared to accept that findings change as new information comes out. Sometimes we have to apply a little bit of common sense.

Your recent ancestry is Utah Mormon, and your male line traces back to a man named Brown in colonial North Carolina.

But DNA Tribes is telling you you're Spanish, and the Khazar project is telling you you're from the royal Davidic line. Think about that for a few minutes. It doesn't quite add up. It should be at least worth considering that your DNA results have been misinterpreted.

(And just as an aside, also maybe worth noting that FTDNA admins are not required to follow a particular line of interpretation. If they were, the Khazar project would not be making such claims.)

It's also worth noting that DNA Tribes has discontinued the test you took. Too much academic criticism.

The sort of thing you're experiencing has happened to me several times over the past 20 years as DNA gets better at these things.

Ten years ago in one of the early ethnic background trials, the results showed my ancestry was almost entirely Swedish. In fact, it should only be about 1/4. I knew to be a skeptical. Nowadays, with new info, my results are much closer to reality -- somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 Scandinavian (which is broader than just Swedish).

Then too, just five years ago my yDNA group, which is "Middle Eastern", was thought to stem from Jewish merchants in Europe, and to have branched off from the Jews about the time of the Exile. Many of my cousins were scrambling to build new identities about being Jewish. A fair number of them took the Exilarch bait. I was skeptical. Nowadays, our DNA is known to be Neolithic farmers in Europe, and to be particularly concentrated in the area of Switzerland where my ancestors originated.

Finally, it's fun for me to see that you are a descendant of Mormon President Wilford Woodruff. I used to be. I say "used to be" because a few years ago I used DNA to disprove an old family story. So I'm sorry to say now we are not cousins after all ;)

Private User I hope you consider some of the points raised.

For what it’s worth, I’ve worked with the Sephardi Federation, which is quite scholarly in orientation. As far as I can recall, origins are theories, with ongoing work in the area, shared and published; and with everyone eager to learn more.

There was “certainly” no attitude among the scholars I saw against lines into Islam, in fact I think there’s a consensus that it “must have happened.” We just do not have certainty on The Who / what / when and how as yet.

Now, I hope you consider my point.

Geni, by its goal as a single world tree, must “inherently” take a conservative approach. We certainly do have good mechanisms to present alternate views: projects are, I believe, the best way.

Think for a minute of the implications if we are ahead of the science and the history. It’s not affecting “your” tree or “my” tree, but the trees of millions, perhaps billions.

I learned a lesson when I casually mentioned to relatives, “we come from the same town where the Ba’al Shem Tov met & married his wife.” Next thing you know, I’m getting inquiries about how we’re related!

Please, let Geni be the conservative tree.

Thank you for understanding.

Hmmm