Tuesday, March 2, 2010

DNA Montomery, King Tut, and ?Jesus?

Today, on The Hidden History Hour, we had an interesting examination of several current Historical issues which are related to new yDNA findings:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sofiatemplar/2010/03/02/dna-and-history

Included are topics and data related to Prof. Hugh Montgomery's recent book, "God-Kings of Outremer" (2009) and his related works: "God-Kings of Europe" (2006) and "God-Kings of England" (2007). Thinking in terms of the Da Vinchi Code -- which Hugh dismisses as "claptrap", what are the ramifications of a Jesus who had children? Could a human have survived the cross -- after having a spear thrust into his side?

Is there biblical precedent for for divine grand-children? Of course, my own "Grandpa was a Deity" is still in the editing phase -- but, still, we can touch on some of the ramifications.

As you will learn, Prof. Montgomery has had his DNA tested and he is a J2 -- with one mutation from the J2 related to the Jewish priestly class which links directly back to the biblical first priest, Aaron.

There are two Haplogroup J1 CMH lineages:
12-23-14-10-13-15-11-16-12-13-11-30
and
12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-31
These are TRUE Priestly Jewish lineages
In “Cohen Modal Haplotype” (CMH) haplogroup J2
12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-30
This is a Jewish lineage related to the CMH. There is no question J2 is Semitic and there is little question that it is Jewish -- though those who have it might not, today, be followers of the Jewish religion.

Calculations by Biochemist & Harvard faculty member, Anatole A. Klyosov, have established that the the “CMH” of "haplogroup J2 represents a rather compact group of haplotypes with a recent ancestor who lived 1,450 years bp". Thus the J2 can be dated to 550CE or concurrent with the period when Frank KING Clovis, converting to Christianity -- where it emerged is still to be determine.
Hugh Montgomery's CMH haplogroup J2
12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-[29]
is one mutation removed from this J2 and therefore his ancestor lived subsequent to that date -- possibly around time of the Islamic invasion of Iberia (711CE), possibly more recently.

Also discussed are Ergolding -- which is notable for the direct link it creates (through yDNA) to the Frankish Empire and many of Sinclair lineage. We also mentioned Anatole Klyosov's dating of the R1b1b2 Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH) to 4400 years ago -- which was the period of Stonehenge, the first pyramids (and their architech cum deity, Imhotep). The concurrence of the astrological stone constructions with the emergence of R1b1b2 yields the only possible historic period in which there was a pre-Armana association with the AMH.

This pre-Armana indication of sustained contact has significance in the context of some claims that the recent (February 27, Journal of the American Medical Association) publication of King Tut's DNA affirmed family tree. Various Internet sites and forums have had individuals posit the possibility that Tut -- and therefore his father (Aten, the Monotheist Pharaoh) and grandfather -- was an R1b1b2. This assertion is based upon the only two yDNA markers recovered from all the remains tested. Those two markers are DYS393=13 and y-gata-H4=11.
My research shows the only geographically possible Haplogroup having those values to be J2 ... the same group for Hugh Montgomery and the Semites who occupied the Nile Delta region.

One site, A Forum, in order to make the R1b1b2 assertion, altered the H4 to 10 -- effectively declaring the recent testing did not conform to standards which were modified well before the testing had begun. In effect, the author of that assertion declared the Egyptian data invalid due to ignorance, or incompetence, on the part of the labs used. However, were it to be established that Imhotep was an R1b1b2 -- it follows that, having been deified, the Pharaohic families would not have hesitated to marry into his lineage, thus the possibility of R1b1b2 based upon possible Egyptian contact with the Stonehenge, or European megalithic, construction. Such a genetic connection 4000 years ago could have made it's way into the royal chambers 3300 years ago -- especially since then crown of Egypt is known to have been matriarchal.

====================================================================
OH for those who come across the claims, or worse swollow those claims, that R1b1b2 was the halpogroup for King Tut:

First check the Genographic Project at National Geographic -- the url is:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

The BLUE is the yDNA, the yellow-orange pathways are mtDNA

The sideboard text will show it's R1b ... the map will focus in a a trail that arches through Central Asia into Lithuania and down into Europe. In order to classifiy Tut as R1b, one need find a historic record that has Europeans as Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs). The only foreign Kings were the Shepard Kings -- the Hyksos -- who were asian Hebri (Hebrews when they became Israelites during the Armana period, per the Egyptian records of the period - known as the Armana Letters).
These Hebrews were, according to Flavus Josephus (first century Jewish Historian & General), from India. That would many the R1a. R1a because the Brahman and Ashkenazi Levites are R1a (plus other ancient records affirm those connections).

Basically, only an incompetent genealogist, geneticist, or historian, would assert that Tut could be R1b1b2 (Which is a Spanish Basque subclade which emerged about 4400 years ago -- clearly European. Hence the only possible connection is a link between the Spainish etc megaliths, the Pyramids, Stonehenge, and Imhopet - the architect of the first pyramid.)

Of course, the internet is also a playground for the mentally challenged conspiracy types -- they will assert any silliness that will get them attention ... and people of that type do make unfounded and unsupportable claims. They are most notable for their dismissal of science (ie, Creationists) and expert research published in peer review journals. The scientific method requires that one posit something which, if true, supports the theory -- ie, that the pyramids and stonehenge were based on a common megalithic skill and designed to provide a function (such as an astrological calendar or astrological alignment, or, as in the case of the Geat pyramid complex, an astrological representation of an important star cluster),
====================================================================
Any way -- enjoy the show ... there will doubtless be more to follow
====================================================================
One of the voices of whom I spoke sent this comment (4 March 2010):

"As for the Genographic website, it is wrong in so many ways its not funny. Not as wrong as those who believe in astrology, secret societies, and blood line of Jesus and so forth. But still wrong. And you don't have to take my word for it."

[No need wasting space on the rest of his drivel. Though he does support it with reference to a paper published by PLoS Biology: "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages" Patricia Balaresque et al
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Balaresque2010.pdf
The paper makes no mention of Egypt, and states "Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west." Which is exactly what the Genographic site states. So the evidence to support his assertion is that the Project is right and he is wrong. Ya gotta love this stuff.]

It appears this credentialed, unpublished, individual believes the National Geographic's five year Genographic Project is totally wrong and he is correct in asserting that the Monotheist Kings of the Armana Period, and their successor King Tut, were European. And gee, National Geographic is wrong on a level comparable -- but not quite as bad as -- "those who believe in astrology, secret societies, and blood line of Jesus and so forth." OK GUYS cancel your subscription membership to National Geographic Society and black list Dr Spencer Wells & company ... all because this (VV) guy says so.
====================================================================

2 comments:

  1. Hi Bill, great article here. I wasn't aware of the testing procedures but I did catch the program on Discovery which was interesting. I did not know that they were incorrect but reading this makes things a little clearer. So then, the results uploaded to Y-Search are inaccurate? I didn't realize that it was egyptian practise to inbreed with the Isralites. I think there was a priest there Joseph I think it was... I believe he was coming up as semetic but I can't recall at the moment if this was Tut's time or shortly afterwards...

    The testing of Ramses and the red headed Pharaohs should be interesting.

    Then of course the mass Exodus of Moses and his people along with his brother Aaron.

    So in essence what you are saying is the persons involved in the testing were wrong? I'm curious how there are 25 markers available in Y-search for Tut.

    Ther person you refer to must be Witlox, here is the site I was looking at, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjornwitlox/4386316321/in/set-72157607848193999/

    with the markers. Is this wrong?

    Also, you are aware of huge R1b1 Ashkenazi population correct? I didn't see you add them into it, I only saw the R1a's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. J1 is the true Haplogroup for Cohanims (40%). However, there are may Cohanims(15%) that are J2. It is true that J1 Cohanims outnumber J2 Cohanims.

    ReplyDelete