What if the real King Arthur was not the Christian hero we immediately think of but a pagan or Jew? Not a comedic King Arthur like the one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail whose possible worst peril was to battle knights who say “Ni.” Or T.H. White’s delightful and imaginary medieval England in “The Once and Future King,” where Arthur as a boy was turned into various creatures like a hawk by Merlin, so that he could learn to fly. That is clearly fantasy. So is Sean Connery as an older Arthur in The First Knight whose adversary is the philosophical Richard Gere as Lancelot.

But what if we could cut and paste some of the Arthurian legend and his tales in Avalon in a history book? This is not beyond possibility. There are historians who have either made the case for resurrecting King Arthur or who have not altogether discounted the possibility of a historical King Arthur. According to the distinguished historian, Geoffrey Ashe, in his book, The Discovery of King Arthur, he was “lucky enough to find a way through, and press on to a fruitful outcome”…giv[ing] Arthur a firmer status in history…mak[ing] him more interesting-more like his legend- than appeared probable a few years ago.”  And he says there are reasons to believe King Arthur may have had descendants. Perhaps King Arthur is in your family tree. Who knows?

Of course, we know the story. According to a recent BBC article, “King Arthur Tales ‘Penned in Oxford Chapel’,” the cleric, Geoffrey of Monmouth, wrote of King Arthur, and Guinever at St. George’s chapel. However, since he was also the standard for history on British kings, might he have not based it on something he knew that was a fact? He is best known for his work History of the Kings of Britain.

And if there was a real King Arthur, who was he? Even among historians who think a King Arthur is plausible, they do not agree on who the candidate is.

Ashe contends that he was a British king, Riothamus, who was on the continent during the correct time period (469-470) and whose career follows closely to the life of the King Arthur we are familiar with. Indeed, he was the “only British King who led an army into Gaul,” and he “disappears after a fatal battle, without any recorded death” among other coincidences. He argues that Riothamus was a title as its original form would have meant “High King” (96-97).

But there are others with different ideas. Stephen Knight, in his review of the historiographer, N.J. Higham’s, book King Arthur: Myth Making and History says Higham remains unconvinced that we will ever know if there is a King Arthur, or that it is important, but calling him an “agnostic” is not entirely dismissive of a historical King Arthur. However, he is “dismissive of Riothamus” and thinks the next more likely candidate is the historical figure Ambrosius Aurelianus. Aurelianus, according to Princeton University’s webpage, “Ambrosius Aurelianus,” was a “war leader of the Romano-Britsh against the Anglo-Saxons in the 5^th century.” But Higham thinks the most likely candidate for King Arthur is Lucius Artorius Castos, a Roman military commander in the 2^nd – 3^rd century AD (L.A.Malcor in “The Heroic Age”). Unfortunately, Knight notes, although this is a well-researched book, he does not clarify the reasons for his choices.

As if there were not enough, what if one tosses in a bit of the Arabian Nights in the Arthurian legend? According to Donald Yates and Elizabeth Hirschman, in their upcoming book, The Earliest Jews and Muslims of England and Wales, Arthur might have Arabic and North- African roots:

The origin of the name Arthur has been endlessly debated. It is almost certainly not “Celtic,” neither from a P or Q dialect, and cannot be traced further back than post-Roman times. The center of gravity for its appearance is the sixth century. In 1998, archeological excavations at sixth-century Tintagel brought to light a find subsequently dubbed the Arthur Stone, mentioning the name Artognou, claimed to be cognate. Although the reading is questionable perhaps this inscription and milieu are on the right track.

Arthur’s name has become something of a grail quest for modern researchers. Other theories derive the name from Artorius (Roman or Messapic), Arnthur (Etruscan), Arcturus (the “bear star”) or *Arto-uiros in Brittonic (“bear man”).

Perhaps the Gordian knot of the difficulty can be cut if we consider that many of the names in early Welsh history have Arabic and North African roots.

And perhaps we can one day trace the ancestry of King Arthur for sure. Celtic? British? Cornish? English? North African? Roman? Sephardic Jewish? Pick one or more.

Photo:  King Arthur in an eighteenth-century illustration for a play by John Dryden shows him in antique Roman costume. Copyright The Trustees of the British Museum. 

North Africans in Early Britain [blog post]

And Her Name Was Pomponia Graecina

The following excerpt is taken from Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Donald N. Yates, The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales:  A Genetic and Genealogical History (forthcoming Summer 2013 from McFarland & Co. Publishers).

If Roman Britain had cities, and we know it did, there were Jews in them. In fact, we have a tantalizing record of what may be the first British Jew. Pomponia Graecina was the aristocratic wife of the conqueror of Britain, the commander Aulus Plautius, who defeated the sons of Cunobelinus (Shakespeare’s Cymbeline), seized the Celtic or Belgic capital of Camulodunum (Colchester) in Essex and secured the conquest of Britain for the emperor Claudius in 43 ce. Plautius became the first governor of the new colony. It is reasonable to think his wife lived with him during his governorship (43-47).

Ten years later, Pomponia Graecina was put on trial in Rome for a crime of character described as a “foreign superstition.” She was a member of the imperial Julio-Claudian family. The same charge was brought about the same time against Poppaea, the future wife of Nero. Poppaea was rumored to be privately a Jewish convert and to favor Jews.[i] Although many commentators and fiction writers believe Pomponia Graecina’s crime was the practice of Christianity, in the year 57 this would have been extremely unlikely. There were at that time very few Christians anywhere outside of Galilee. The apostles Peter and Paul were not yet dead. No Gospels had been set down in writing yet. In Rome Christians were a rarity far into the second century. They were so exotic even in the East that around 112 ce Pliny the Younger, then governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote the emperor Trajan for advice on how to identify and deal with them.[ii]

The Christian epigrapher Giovanni Battista de Rossi in 1879 associated Pomponia with family members buried in the catacombs of St. Callistus in the third century. She was gradually transformed into the apocryphal St. Lucina, even figuring in the historical novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, Quo Vadis. But a gap of over a hundred and fifty years seriously weakens de Rossi’s theory. Sand identifies Pomponia Graecina as a Jewish convert, not a Christian.[iii]  She survived her husband by twenty years and died about 83 ce.

            Christianity struggled for several centuries to differentiate and distance itself from Judaism. Many of Britain’s Jews around 300 were undoubtedly “semi-converts—people who formed broad peripheries around the Jewish community, took part in its ceremonies, attended the synagogues, but did not keep all the commandments.”[iv] After the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in 313, some Jews and “semi-Jews” presented themselves publicly as Christian, while thinking of themselves and their ancestors as still wholly Jewish. Sometimes families were divided in their allegiances. Timothy of the New Testament had a Jewish grandmother, Lois, and Jewish mother, Eunice, but a Greek father. When Timothy converted to Christianity in his native Anatolia, the apostle Paul performed a ceremony of circumcision on him (Acts 16:1-3). Most of Christianity’s early converts came from Jews. Paul made a habit of preaching in synagogues.

As the Christianization of the Roman Empire accelerated during the fourth century, circumcision was forbidden to males who were not born Jews, the practice of converting one’s slaves to Judaism or of owning Christian slaves was proscribed, Jewish women who were not born Jewish were barred from ritual baths and Jewish men of all persuasions were outlawed from marrying Christian women.[v] Endogamy—marrying cousins and other close relations—became ingrained among Jews attempting to hold themselves apart from Christians. All these developments tended to make secret Jews out of people who defiantly regarded themselves as Jewish and honored the commandments of Judaism to varying degrees, often without benefit of a rabbi, community, synagogue or Torah. It was not until the eleventh century that the Hebrew language was introduced to Europe, and its dissemination was spotty. Moreover, that Hebrew was no product of an autochthonous linguistic development, but the artificial creation of Jewish scholars.[vi] In the rift, which covered most of the Middle Ages, the vast majority of European Jews were totally ignorant of Hebrew and were probably also not acquainted with rabbinical Judaism as it took shape in Judea and Western Asia.

Christianity’s final triumph put an end to all proselytizing by Jews “and perhaps also prompted the desire to erase it from Jewish history.”[vii] In the centuries that followed, especially after the rise of Islam, rabbis and other keepers of the collective memory were pained by the apostasy of the Jewish people on such a continuingly large scale. They sought to deny what was obvious, considering anyone who gave up their Jewishness “dead.” “Zionist historiography . . . [turned] its back on any meaningful discussion of the issue,” writes Sand. “Abandoning the Jewish religion was generally interpreted by modern sensibilities as betraying the ‘nation,’ and was best forgotten.”[viii]

Photo:  A Roman crypto-Jewish family. Copyright The Trustees of the British Museum.

Europe in the Year 3000 BCE

The archeogenetics of Europe and transition from hunter-gatherers to Neolithic agricultural societies made a quantum leap forward with the publication of an article investigating haplogroup H, the type carried by about half of Europeans today. But you may have trouble accessing the research in the new journal Nature Communications. I haven't found one ordinary mortal who has actually read the article, because few libraries and hardly any individuals can afford the crushingly expensive subscription to Nature Communications. 

So here is an abstract. 

Anasazi: Cannibals or Witch-Hunters?

Though having an exotic ancestry might be interesting, there are limits. You might not want to have cannibals for relatives. Luckily, you probably don’t have to worry about that.

We first visited Chaco Canyon in northern New Mexico, and the wind was cold and eerie as we walked along the deep, narrow canyon and gazed upward at the buttery apartment complexes made of stone and mud high above us. Tiny windows had been etched in them. An eagle flew high ahead. Who were these people? The staff at the Visitor’s center were mostly Navajo and not descendants of the original inhabitants of the site, and either could not or would not tell us much. They said they were the Anasazi, a Navajo term meaning "enemy ancestors." What does that mean? When we pressed for more answers, I was told they belonged to the Chaco Culture. They were Chacoans. They created magnificent architecture. According to the Smithsonian article, “Riddles of the Anasazi,” by David Roberts they were marvelous architects:

The Anasazi built magnificent villages such as Chaco Canyon’s Pueblo Bonito, a tenth-century complex that was as many as five stories tall and contained about 800 rooms. The people laid a 400-mile network of roads, some of them 30 feet wide, across deserts and canyons. And into their architecture, they built astronomical observatories.

But who were these people? According to Alexandra Witze’s National Geographic News article, “Researchers Divided over Whether Anasazi Were Cannibals,” there are some archeologists who think the Anasazi were cannibals because of “piles of butchered human bones, some of which were apparently roasted or boiled. In one instance, ancient human feces even seem to contain traces of digested human tissue.” Archeologist, Christy Turner, has collected over decades what he calls “incontrovertible evidence of cannibalism and violence among the Anasazi” at sites dating “between about A.D.900 and 1250.” According to Amelie A. Walker in her article, “Anasazi Cannibalism?” there was evidence of seven people “not from burials” who were “dismembered, defleshed, [with] their bones battered, and in some cases burned or stewed, [and left] in the same condition as animals for food.” She suggests that there are three possibilities: “ritual “or “hunger” cannibalism or “something else altogether.” Is the culture of the Anasazi one of  cannibalism? Others disagree and think this is something else altogether.

What else could it be?  Local tribes are “deeply offended” by the suggestion that the Anasazi were cannibals says Witze. However, most scientists agree that the Anasazi experienced “brutal violence” though this “drops off after about A.D. 1200.” They just disagree about how to interpret that. J. Andrew Darling, an archeologist with the Gila River Community in southern Arizona thinks the answer is witch ( or what the Navajo call“skin walker”) executions. Darling discovered “after researching the folklore of modern Pueblo tribes” that “dismembering a witch” was the “only way to prevent the witch from wreaking revenge after death.” Debra Martin, an archeologist at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachussets, argues that “the bone destruction is best explained by several different reasons, including witch execution, chewing by a carnivorous animal, or being reburied” (Witze).

 "The best documented indication that the Basketmakers were headhunters is . . . Kinboko Canyon, evidence discovered by archeologist Samuel J. Guernsey of the Peabody Museum of Harvard in 1915, and reported in a 1919 publication of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology," writes Feldman in the chapter on the Anasazi. He goes on to describe this and other early excavations in the Four Corners area that were quickly hushed up and reburied in horror, including Battle Cave in Canyon del Muerto, now part of the Canyon de Chelly National Monument inside the Navajo Indian Reservation. We read now of flesh-stripping, bone crushing, roasting pits, and sliced off mastoids.

According to this article, around 950 A.D., eleven persons, including women and children, were killed and butchered, cooked, and eaten on Burnt Mesa in New Mexico north of the San Juan River. At a site near the Hopi villages in Arizona, a group of thirty individuals, forty percent under the age of eighteen, were slaughtered and eaten. In a Colorado rock shelter, a large jar was found filled with splintered human bones. . .

The grisly record goes on and on. Feldman writes that by the year 2000 the number of such sites in the San Juan drainage where the Chaco Culture was centered had risen to forty (p. 136).

So witch hunters or cannibals…or something else? We may never know the truth. According to Michael Adler, an archeologist at Southern Methodist University, … “scientists may never be able to prove whether the cannibalism or witch killing theory is correct. Or something else altogether.

CARLSBAD, Calif., April 1, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- As the global market leader in human identification, Life Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: LIFE) announced today it signed a global exclusive agreement with LGC Forensics for the right to distribute ParaDNA®, a portable rapid DNA system that determines the quality of human DNA faster and more economically than any existing method.  This announcement is the second in a series of new Rapid DNA products the company will introduce to expand the landscape beyond traditional Rapid DNA systems.


Watch video on how the ParaDNA works

http://paradna.lgcforensics.com/demonstration/

By MICHAEL SCHWARTZ


DNA is so tiny, only a few microns across, that we often don’t spend much time thinking about how much of our most personal and private information it contains. Yet each individual’s DNA also offers an 

While DNA may be small, it’s packed with information that has the potential to cause some pretty big problems. Uncontrolled access to this information, whether in a medical or law enforcement setting, could set individuals up for violations of privacy and discrimination, and as genetic testing becomes more common and inexpensive, the issues surrounding the protection of genetic information will become ever more pressing concerns in the larger public discourse.

Genetic privacy may not yet be a concern for most Americans, but as technology develops and practices change, it’s critical to know what risks you face as well as your rights, the laws that protect you, and how you can ensure your DNA isn’t be accessed and analyzed without your knowledge and consent.

DNA Law and Policy

While the structure and makeup of DNA has been known since the late 1950s, it was not until the 1970s that DNA was sequenced. It would would be nearly two decades before an efficient method of sequencing DNA would be developed, allowing it to be used outside of the scientific setting. Because the use of DNA profiling has only recently became practical for use in medicine and law enforcement, there aren’t yet that many laws that address the privacy and discrimination risks posed by genetic information. Here are just a few that have passed or are on the docket for the coming year that play a major role, or have the potential to, in the security of your DNA.

• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act:Enacted in 2008, GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. This means that health insurers and group health plans cannot deny coverage or charge higher premiums to an individual based on a genetic predisposition for developing a particular illness. It also ensure that employers cannot make any decisions with regard to hiring, firing, promotion, or job placement based on genetic data.In light of the recent growth of genetic testing, however, many think GINA needs amending. Provisions have been proposed that will help protect genetic information from being used to discriminate in life or long-term care insurance coverage and will ensure that data from genetic testing is not disseminated in research studies or other ways without an individual’s consent.The state of California has already passed state-specific laws of this nature that will ensure DNA can’t be used to discriminate in the areas of housing, education, public accommodations, life insurance, mortgage lending, and elections, so it may only be a matter of time before federal laws follow suit.
• DNA Identification Act of 1994: The DNA Identification Act was among the first laws to address the establishment of federal databases of DNA information, passed into law in 1994. The act authorized the creation of CODIS, a national database of DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes, the analysis of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes, and the analysis of DNA samples taken from identified human remains. The act was modified in 2004 by the Justice for All Act, which expanded the offenses for which DNA could be collected, created a new system of indexing, and required national accreditation for forensic laboratories.
• DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005: The DNA Fingerprinting Act allowed the national CODIS database to include samples from any individual from whom collection was authorized under state law. It also made it permissible for DNA to be collected from federal arrestees and from non-U.S. detainees. As a result, criminal DNA databases have rapidly expanded, with nearly all states and the federal government maintaining their own systems today. It has not been legislation without criticism, however. Some argue that it has unjustly allowed for the cataloging not only of convicted individual’s DNA but also that of those accused or arrested for a crime.
• California Genetic Privacy Law: One state that is working hard to protect the genetic privacy of its constituents is California. Authored by state senator Alex Padilla, the law would help protect genetic information from being used without consent, requiring research and health organization to acquire consent to collect, share, and retain genetic material and information. In 2006, Minnesota passed a similar law and over the past year South Dakota, Alabama, Massachusetts, and Vermont have all proposed related bills that would define genetic materials as personal property. As of yet, none of those bills have become law.

Also important to note are state laws on when and why DNA information can be forcibly collected. In all 50 states, those who have been convicted of a felony of any kind must submit DNA to both the national CODIS database and state databases. Yet policies differ from state to state with regard to when DNA evidence can be collected from those who are accused or arrested for a crime and have not yet been convicted. In 28 states, arrestees can be subject to DNA collection. Thirteen of those states collect samples for anyone arrested for a felony while the rest limit collection to violent crimes, including sexual assaults. Seven states also collect DNA for certain misdemeanors.

While this might help in solving crimes, it also poses some privacy issues. Probable cause is only required in 11 states to obtain or analyze a sample from an individual who has been arrested for a crime. More troubling, perhaps, is that even if an individual is acquitted of the charges, DNA information remains in the system unless the accused requests for it to be expunged; the state does not take responsibility forremoving DNA evidence from those who have been judged innocent.

Court Cases on DNA

Laws regarding DNA and the collection of genetic materials have been hotly contested over the past decade. Many believe that current state laws infringe on the Fourth Amendment and are tantamount to unreasonable search and seizure. Others have argued that DNA laws violate the Fifth Amendment, with the obligation to provide DNA evidence acting as witness against the accused him or herself. To date, many major cases involving DNA are still being addressed by the Supreme Court. Here are just a few that may shape federal and state law over the coming years or that have already impacted DNA privacy, criminal law, and genetic policy nationwide.

• Maryland v. King: This case is currently under review by the Supreme Court after the justices agreed it to hear it late last year. Previously, Maryland’s top court ruled that taking DNA from individuals arrested, but not convicted, for a serious crime was a breach of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. If this decision is upheld, laws in 21 states and federal law enforcement practices could be impacted, and in the future, law enforcement officials would be required to procure a warrant prior to obtaining DNA evidence from suspects in a case.
• Bearder v. State of Minnesota: The Minnesota Supreme Court found the state’s own department of health in violation of the law for failing to dispose of blood samples routinely used to screen newborns for serious illnesses. In some cases, the samples were used to validate new genetic tests, a clear violation of the state’s Genetic Privacy Act.
• Washington University School of Medicine v. Catalona: In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that tissue and serum samples donated to the school could continue to be used for cancer research and that donors could not require that the samples be transferred elsewhere, as former Washington University surgeon William Catalona had argued. This is significant for DNA privacy, as it acknowledges that once samples are donated that they become the property of the institution, not the donor.
• Kohler v. Englade: DNA dragnets faced a major legal challenge with this Louisiana case. In 2003, Shannon Kohler was asked to submit a DNA sample by Baton Rouge police. His refusal led to him being named as the primary suspect in a serial rape and murder case. Kohler eventually provided DNA and was cleared of the charges, but alleged that the police didn’t have probable cause to compel him to give up his DNA. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying that the probable cause provided by law enforcement was so broad that it would have encompassed thousands in the Baton Rouge area. This decision helped to toughen the circumstances under which a warrant for DNA evidence could be granted, at least in the state of Louisiana.
• District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne: Oddly enough, while the courts have largely upheld the right of law enforcement to compel those who have been arrested or convicted of a crime to give DNA, once individuals are convicted of a crime, they do not have a constitutional right to their own DNA evidence nor that collected from the crime scene. In older cases, this means that DNA evidence cannot be reanalyzed using better, more accurate methods; a practice that has already exonerated many behind bars. According to the Supreme Court ruling in 2009, individuals do not have the right to post-conviction access to State’s evidence for DNA testing, making it impossible to exonerate those who may have been convicted falsely. Luckily, while the federal government does not mandate this, many states do allow for post-conviction DNA analysis.

This is hardly a complete list of all the major cases involving DNA testing and genetic privacy. For a great history on the subject, read a breif summary of major cases from Rhode Island College. For more information about major court cases on DNA around the world as well as some older cases here at home, check out the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s collection of important cases that have impacted genetic privacy all over the world.

When Your Genetic Privacy Is at Risk

While much of DNA law has to do with those who’ve committed a crime or been accused of committing a crime, the reality is that your genetic privacy can be at risk even if you’re a law abiding citizen. There are a number of cases when your DNA can be collected, analyzed, or retained without your consent.

• DNA dragnets:You don’t have to be accused of a crime in some cases to have your DNA requested by law enforcement. DNA dragnets occur when law enforcement officials as hundreds, sometimes thousands, of (presumably) innocent people to give samples of their blood or saliva in the hopes that one will be connected to a crime. While individuals can refuse to give DNA, in some cases the courts have forced compliance and most who refuse have faced increased scrutiny as a suspect in a crime, despite the fact that many see the request as an invasion of privacy.DNA dragnets aren’t especially common in the U.S., but in other places, like the U.K. and Germany, they have become common practice. In one case, DNA was collected from 16,000 individuals. While dragnets have been helpful in identifying the perpetrators of several high profiles cases, some who’ve been forced to partake say the dragnets have had unexpected consequences and have petitioned to have their DNA returned after being cleared.
• Discarded DNA: Directly giving a sample isn’t the only way for law enforcement officers to get a sample of your DNA. If your saliva is transferred onto another object, which you then discard, that object can be legally collected and used to analyze your DNA. While this practice has been challenged, it has held up in court because law enforcement officials state that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to items that have been discarded. Not worried that the police will come after your DNA? Be aware that stray DNA could also be accessed by others looking for genetic information, like family members or those seeking to establish paternity.
• Family member searches: Another occasion when an innocent person may have their DNA requested by law enforcement is when a member of your family is suspected to be guilty of a crime, but no DNA can be gathered from that person because he or she can’t be found. In these cases, sometimes close family members are asked to submit their DNA to look for matching elements. If you wish to aid law enforcement, make sure that your DNA sample will be destroyed after it is analyzed, not stored.
• Participation in studies: Currently, few states have laws that protect genetic data once it has been collected and analyzed for research. This means that genetic material can be reused in future studies, transferred between institutions, or disseminated without the permission of the original donor. This doesn’t mean that individuals shouldn’t participate in research, but they should find out in writing before the study what will be done with their genetic information. Studies have shownthat DNA data alone can easily be used to figure out an individual’s actual identity, a fact that could influence insurance and employment opportunities.
• Elective genetic testing: Many worried about genetic condition opt to have their DNA sequenced by a private company. This can be beneficial, but it does come with risks. Not all DNA testing facilities have airtight privacy policies and some may do little to ensure your information stays confidential. If you submit to testing from a service, you may also be opening yourself up to these records being obtained by insurance companies or other outside sources. Once those records are out there, it’s very hard to get them back.

How to Protect Your DNA

While it’s useful to know what laws protect your genetic information and when it’s at risk, it is perhaps more important to know what you can do to ensure that your genetic information is kept safe and confidential, unless you choose to share it, that is.

• Always know the privacy policies of genetic testing companies. Getting genetic testing done through a private company is increasingly common, as prices have plummeted and access to these companies has increased. While these businesses do provide an opportunity to learn more about your health, they also pose a risk to your privacy if you’re not careful. Before submitting any samples to a company, carefully examine their privacy policy to see what it says and check out the business through the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe.
• Know your rights under the law. We’ve outlined the major legislation that protects your genetic privacy above, but it doesn’t hurt to do additional research as well. The better you know what your rights are under state and federal laws, the better you can protect your personal and private health information. For additional information on privacy as a patient, learn more about HIPPA, which while not DNA specific does ensure that knowledge of your health issues can’t be shared.
• Don’t freely give out health information. Unless you are protected under law, do not share your personal family history or genetic information with others. In some cases, like when applying for life or long-term care insurance, this information can be used to discriminate against you. While GINA and other laws may protect you, there is no guarantee that sharing your genetic information won’t result in discrimination, so it’s best to always keep it to yourself unless absolutely necessary.
• Keep records about your DNA in a secure location. If you opt for DNA testing of any kind, especially that which looks at your risk for certain conditions, make sure to keep these records in a secure location that can’t be accessed by others. While you hardly need to worry about thieves, you do want to keep anyone who may be snooping around your home from finding out private information about you.
• Ensure that any research studies you participate in will keep data confidential. Sometimes, those suffering from certain diseases will choose to participate in research studies that collect genetic data. This can be an incredibly beneficial way to make strides in understanding and treating these conditions and others like them, but it does compromise DNA privacy. While not everyone will care about this, those who do will want to ensure that any studies requesting this kind of information will keep it confidential and, in some cases, you may even want to request that genetic material not be retained after the study is complete.
• Ask questions. You don’t have to agree to take part in a study for genetic information to be gathered on you. That’s why you should ask your doctor or health care professional if certain medical procedures will require genetic testing and find out in advance what his, her, or the medical facility’s policy is on personal genetic information.
• Seek legal recourse. If you believe your genetic information has been compromised in a way that violates your personal privacy and the law, contact a lawyer who can help you address these issues. You can also file a complaint with federal and state agencies for certain violations as well.

Much of the legislation and public policy regarding genetic privacy is still in its early stages, but as technology evolves and genetic testing becomes increasingly more common, how genetic data is handled, who has access to it, and the privacy rights of individuals will become increasingly more important. If you haven’t considered the risks posed by unsecured DNA information before, now is the time to look into protecting yourself and ensuring that your information isn’t being used, shared, or stored in ways that put your privacy at risk. While you may never face a serious issue with regard to your genetic privacy, it never hurts to be cautious and know your rights.

For more information visit BackgroundCheck.org. 

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany last week announced they have completed the first high-quality sequencing of a Neanderthal genome based on a hundredth of a gram of DNA extracted from a 100,000 year-old toe bone in a Russian cave and are making it freely available online for other scientists to study. Advantageously, Neanderthal and Denisovan remains were found in the same cave, making for breakthrough comparisons in hominid history. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/19/researchers-publish-full-neanderthal-genome

In a press release on March 19, 2013, Dr. Svante Pääbo, the head of the team that released the draft genome of Neanderthal man three years ago, said:  “We are in the process of comparing this Neandertal genome to the Denisovan genome as well as to the draft genomes of other Neandertals. We will gain insights into many aspects of the history of both Neandertals and Denisovans and refine our knowledge about the genetic changes that occurred in the genomes of modern humans after they parted ways with the ancestors of Neandertals and Denisovans.” 

The group plans to publish a major paper later this year. 

New Genetic Study Shows Rhineland Hypothesis False, 'Thirteenth Tribe' Theory Correct After All

In "Heretical History" and numerous other posts, we have argued that the contributions, genetic and cultural, of the Turkic-Iranic Khazars deserve much more attention than the cosseted theories of European Zionist Jews and the official views of the state of Israel on Jewish history. A new study by Eran Elhaik titled "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypothesis," (Genome Biol. Evol. 5.1:61-74) bears out our thinking with hard evidence that seems likely to settle that rancorously-fought-over question once and for all. 

According to Science Daily (Jan. 16, 2013), "Despite being one of the most genetically analysed groups, the origin of European Jews has remained obscure . . . but the new study . . . sets to rest previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry." Elhaik's findings strongly support the Khazarian Hypothesis, as opposed to the Rhineland Hypothesis, of European Jewish origins. 

Ashkenazi ("Germanic") Jews embraced a Western European origin myth not only because it presented Jews as very white, at the top of the race pyramid, but because of the prestige it brought them of being a spin off of the Roman Empire. 

The Khazarian thesis acknowledges that the most important element is Middle Eastern among "brown" peoples, and that the period of efflorescence of Judaism in Europe began in the late Middle Ages under the influence of migrating Khazars. 

That's an entirely different version of history, one much closer to Arthur Koestler's "Thirteenth Tribe" account, a theory for which he was castigated by fellow Jews and especially Zionists. 

The new study was not possible until recently, when many of the gaps in Caucasian and Jewish genetics were filled for the first time, using autosomal approaches rather than sex-linked haplotype surveys. Elhaik's masterwork examines a comprehensive dataset of 1,287 unrelated individuals in 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations genotyped over a range of half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or markers. These data were adapted from a study by Doron Behar and colleagues from three years ago.

The central role of Khazaria was also not wanted or wished for among Eurocentric scholars, who tended to denigrate Ostjuden or Eastern Jews. Few historians conceded even the fact that Khazaria was a Jewish state that lasted nearly a millennium, where Hebrew was spoken, preferring to think of it as a sort of travelers tale or land of religious fiction.  

Elhaik used seven measures of ancestry, relatedness, admixture, allele sharing distances, geographical origins and migration patterns to identify the Caucasus-Near Eastern and European ancestral signatures in European Jews' genome along with a smaller, but substantial Middle Eastern genome. "The results were consistent in depicting a Caucasus ancestry for all European Jews," according to Science Daily. 

Heresy in a Nutshell

Elhaik wrote:  "The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus and later Khazaria [a Hebrew-speaking Central Asian empire] was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road, the decline of Judah (1st-7th centuries), and the rise of Christianity and Islam. Greco-Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were intensified following the Khazars' conversion to Judaism… The religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed most of the Empire's citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years until the invasion of the Mongols. At the final collapse of their empire in the 13th century, many of the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the neighbouring populations."

According to Science Daily, Elhaik's findings explain otherwise conflicting results describing high heterogeneity among Jewish communities and relatedness to Middle Eastern, Southern European, and Caucasus populations not accounted for under the Rhineland Hypothesis. Although the study links European Jews to the Khazars, there are still questions to be answered. How substantial is the Iranian ancestry in modern day Jews (Khazars were themselves mixed)? Since Eastern European Jews arrived from the Caucasus, where did Central and Western European Jews come from, those usually called Sephardic?

Finally, if there was no mass migration out of Palestine at the 7th century, what happened to the ancient Judeans? --Shlomo Sand, the author of The Invention of the Jewish People, has maintained that there never were any expulsions or exoduses out of Palestine, only wholesale conversions to Islam. Thus, the true heirs of Judah are the persistent inhabitants who still occupy Jerusalem and the Holy Land, that is, Palestinians. 

It is ironic, to say the least, that these ancient Judeans are dispossessed by a nationalist colonial power with roots no deeper than nineteenth century Europe which exercises a force majeur based on mistaken notions of genetics and history. 

Photo above:  Arthur Koestler, the arch-heretic and persona non grata in the eyes of Jewish authorities, was unorthodox politically, religiously and sexually. 

Maybe If It's First Generation Sex-Linked Testing, Not Autosomal 

Dust off the crystal ball. Scientists consider DNA ancestry services “genetic astrology,” according to a recent BBC article by Pallab Ghosh. In “Some DNA Ancestry Services Akin to ‘Genetic Astrology’,” Ghosh quotes Professor David Balding as maintaining that ‘“such histories are either so general as to be personally meaningless or they are just speculation from thin evidence.’” One article, “Don’t Believe the Guy Who Claims He’s Descended From Vikings,” quotes evolutionary geneticist Mark Thomas, as saying “these tests have so little rigor that they are better thought of as genetic astrology.”  That may be right about some tests. But the key word is “some.”

Not all DNA ancestry tests or companies are created equal.  It is as much an oversimplification to suggest they are as it would be to claim that all lab tests are the same or all pharmaceutical drugs are the same. Do you get a shot for epilepsy when you have diabetes? Hardly. There are DNA tests and there are DNA tests. Customers are generally careful to get  the right medicine from a reputable doctor. A customer needs to be just as careful choosing a DNA test and a DNA ancestry company. Not all DNA ancestry companies, even some of the larger companies, have an ISO certified lab, for instance. This not only guarantees the reliability of results, it is also the highest standard in the genomics industry. A few have this laboratory benchmark, but it is, unfortunately, not required, in direct- to-the-consumer DNA testing. Would you want to entrust your genetic identity with anything less? The buyer needs to be aware that with non-certified labs there is a stronger possibility of contamination or lost or swapped samples. I know someone who was the unknown victim of a sample swapped. He thought he was someone else for two years.

Secondly, there are a variety of tests to choose from. There are sex-linked tests (Y chromosome, X chromosome- mitochondrial) and non-sex linked tests called autosomal. The sex-linked tests are haplotype tests based on genetic markers handed down by the male (Y chromosome, received only by other males) or female (mitochondrial). The industry started out with sex-linked testing, but its limitations dictated a move increasingly to autosomal or non-sex linked testing. There are weaknesses with sex-linked tests.

The mitochondrial genome is small compared with the nuclear genome according to the article “Mitochondrial Genome Analysis with Haplotyping” which means there cannot be that much variation with mitochondrial DNA analysis. For instance, some have expressed doubts that the recently found Leicester skeleton could be Richard III because of the mitochondrial DNA analysis that was done. Live Science writer, Stephanie Pappas, quoted Maria Avila, a computational biologist at the Center for GeoGenetics at the [British] Natural History Museum as saying “people could share mitochondrial DNA even if they don’t share a family tree” (Pappas).  

How is this possible? Mitochondrial DNA is ancient DNA and mutates slowly.  In the article, “Doubts Remain that the Leicester Body is Richard III,” a Mark Thomas at University College London is quoted as saying that “people can have matching mitochondrial DNA by chance and not be related.” So, it might not be Richard III after all. Male line haplotype testing has different limitations. “The Male Y- linked tests have very rapid mutation rates and are very fragile, so you can get a lot of errors with that type of testing,” according to Dr. Donald N.Yates, head of Research and Development for DNA Spectrum.

According to a recent New Scientist article by Colin Baras, “The Father of All Men Is 340,000 Years Old,” the Y chromosome seems more ancient than previously thought. If so, it is also less stable than we thought. Brian Sykes, Professor of Genetics at Oxford University and the author of The Seven Daughters of Eve, makes a strong argument that the Y chromosome is weakening and in trouble in his book, Adam’s Curse. He says it is “doomed to a slow and humiliating decline” (279) because of its instability and rapid genetic mutation and is thus headed toward extinction. Before the 1990’s paternity testing was based on Y chromosome comparisons and limited to fathers and sons. Sometimes, an uncle would be mistaken as the father. Today, it relies on autosomal DNA comparisons, can be applied to females, and is 99.99% accurate.

But then there are non-sex-linked Autosomal DNA tests which are based on a different science altogether. Anyone can take this traditional type of Autosomal DNA test because it does not rely on X or Y chromosomes (women are unable to take the Male Y- linked test and must entice a male in her line, if one is available, to take this test). This test is not testing ancient DNA but  goes back only some four or five generations, so it does not have these limitations. And it provides a complete analysis of all ancestral lines. Not just one line at a time as in haplotype testing. This is next generation ancestry DNA testing and the wave of the future. Moreover, this type of testing is more stable and has more scientific validity as it uses the same science that is used in the legal court system, by the government, and on CSI comparing loci markers to population databases. And two research teams independently reached the same groundbreaking results that the DNA mutation rate is slower than previously thought:  James X Sun et al., in the article, "A Direct Characterization of Human Mutation Based on Microsatellites," in Nature Genetics 44/10 (October 2012):1161-65, and A. Kong et al., in the article "Rate of de novoMutations and the importance of Father's Age to Disease Risk," in Nature 488 (2012):471-75. All done by the magic of math and laws of large numbers.

What does this mean concerning autosomal DNA ancestry tests? They have even more scientific validity. This second-generation type of DNA ancestry testing is based on these same genetic markers, and that is confirmation that the alleles on your DNA that are examined using a statistical basis have been relatively unchanged for the past 20,000 years. That’s about twice the length of what we call world history, hence a meaningful enough time frame for valid inferences about population patterns and ancestry of individuals. These are markers that everyone has (and why anyone can take an autosomal ancestry test).  These genetic markers change at a much slower rate than the Y chromosome which seems to be highly changeable, depending on the father’s age (Kong 201). (The Y chromosome is a marker only males have. It is used for other types of tests: male, haplotype, sex-linked DNA tests. Only males can take these tests, and it only provides information about that one male line).

Of course, anything can be over-interpreted. DNA testing is not magic. Maybe you should put that crystal ball up after all.

We received an interesting email from Bailey Edsall-Parr, an anthropology student, customer and genealogy enthusiast from Michigan. We present it here as a guest blog post.

I am currently researching the inter-relatedness of most, if not all, humans alive today. Anyways, I have a personal interest in genetics, mathematics, statistics and probability theory and have incorporated it into my studies. Any information if my theory is in any way "valid" is what I am seeking.  Before I elaborate my theory, here is some background information: According to the Law of Truly Large Numbers... "that with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen. In a sample of 1000 independent trials, the probability that the event does not happen in any of them is 
or 36.8%. The probability that the event happens at least once in 1000 trials is then 1 − 0.368 = 0.632 or 63.2%. The probability that it happens at least once in 10,000 trials is .

If there were random intermixing, then we would each have ~1 million ancestors living in 1500 AD, out of a world population of ~500 million. So the fractional overlap between two people would be about 1/500th.

But the probability that two people share at least one common ancestor would be essentially 100%.   Basically, you are choosing a random number between 1 and 500 a million times and you're asking whether you ever choose number 500.  In a million trials, we expect this to happen 2000 times.  So that it happens at least once is guaranteed.

If we get rid of the random intermixing, the fractional overlap will drop to much less than 1/500th.  But I suspect that the probability of at least one overlap will remain very high.