Chapter 3. Biology and Ideology
Zionism was developed by Eastern European Jews (Ashkenazim) out of their desire to combat prejudice of the societies they existed in. A main obstacle to creating and maintaining a Jewish state in the Land of Canaan was and continues to be the presence of Palestinian natives. Strengthening a claim to the land while denying the rights of the natives is a classic tool to achieve colonial success. De-legitimizing Palestinians was and is a strategy to win sympathy from Jews and non-Jews alike for the Zionist aspirations. Some argued that Palestinians were descendent of Arabs who came during the Islamic rule. As we have shown in the last chapter though, the indigenous people acquired various religious beliefs while maintaining residency in the land. Competing political sovereignty or religions never supercede indigenous people's rights. Later parts of this book will show that the only viable solution is a pluralistic democracy in all the land of Canaan for all its inhabitants. But before we get to that, we need to address the argument presented by some that there is a right of mass "return" of Jews to lands whose current inhabitants, the Palestinians, were merely squatters on this "Jewish land." One part of a rational response is that land can be no more Jewish than a tree or a river can be Christian or Muslim or Jewish. Land belongs to its inhabitants, collectively as natives and individually as human being regardless of what religion they acquire. In addition to examining of the history of Palestinian natives (regardless of religion), we must re-examine the supposed biological links between Ashkenai Jews (Eastern European Jews) and ancient Israelites. This is important because a solution based on human rights can be countered by claims of ancient rights that are retained in perpetuity. And as a geneticist by training and profession (Associate Professor of Genetics at Yale University), I had a keen interest in these questions.
Some Ashkenazi Jews argued that assimilation and interbreeding were not possible and that Zionism was the "nationalist" response to anti-Ashkenazi actions in European countries. Ideological and religious constructs sometimes find their way into population genetics and disciplines that we expect should be immune from such biases. Examining genetics of Jews was thus deemed important and a worthwhile venture to Zionists. The "Center for Genetic Anthropology" at the University College of London puts it this way on their web page:
Another fascinating study is the origins of the Eastern European Jews. You may know that there are at least three main propositions. The first is that they derive in principle from the ancient Israelite population, part of which migrated in Greek, Roman and later times to Eastern France and Western Germany, and early in this millennium to Poland and other areas. Their Yiddish language was a form of Old German with many later Slavic and Hebrew borrowings. A variant of this concept is that the migration was via Italy to Switzerland, Bavaria and Austria, with a postulated later migration east along the Danube valley to Romania and outwards from there. Yiddish shares many words and expressions with the southern form of German. I am not sure for the moment how much inward conversion to Judaism these two hypotheses suppose. The third, and in some ways the most intriguing idea, depending heavily as it does on the syntax and specific vocabulary of Yiddish, is that the Eastern European Jews, in addition to their descent from the ancient Jews population, have a significant part of their ancestry derived from Slavic converts (Sorbs, Balkans and others) plus a minor Turkic input from further east. The proponents of this theory designate Yiddish syntactically as a Slavic language with a mainly German lexicon. This is just the sort of proposition it might be possible to sort out genetically (1)
However, the information seems to be only accepted when it fits a certain political perspective (i.e. the relatedness of Jewish populations and justifying Zionist claims to the "Land of Israel."). In articles by those supporting Zionist views, when data conflicted with political constructs, sometimes, the political ideologies won. Conclusions were not questioned by very many people in some cases and in others, genetics was used to advocate policy against other people, a concept akin to the misuse of genetics in the first half of 20th century. The history of the misuse of science is sometimes best exemplified by the "Eugenics" movement.
Eugenics, Population Genetics, and Political Ideology
Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 from the Greek "eu" means good and "genic" from the word for born. Galton defined it as the science of "improvement" of the human race germ plasma through better "breeding." In the United States between 1907 and 1960 at least 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent pursuant to state laws to prevent those deemed genetically inferior from reproducing. The main victims of this sterilization were mostly the mentally retarded or those with psychological problems. At the peak of these programs in the 1930s, about 5,000 persons were sterilized annually. Based on the American development (especially the works of the American champion of Eugenics, Harry Hamilton Laughlin), the eugenics of the Nazis grew to eclipse the American system and then to become even much more extreme and contribute to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies and others. How and to what extent were Nazi and Soviet Eugenic movements influenced by the earlier American programs is a field of investigation. But now, few people believe it is useful or desirable to limit diversity and enhance ideas of racial purity through the protection of the gene pool of a particular population.
Yet, Zionism persists on the notion that Jews form not merely a religious community but a national ethnic community connected to the dispersed 12 tribes of Israel who hold special rights to the Land of Israel that supercede those of its current non-Jewish inhabitants. Biological evidence to the contrary is quickly dismissed. The Observer reported November 25, 2001 on the pressure exerted to remove a published work as follows:
A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal. Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away. Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma. British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?' The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
.... In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness. One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business' (2)
The paper in question, 'The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations' (3) is one of 13 papers published in that journal by Dr. Arnaiz-Villena and colleagues and hundreds published elsewhere by that group including over two dozen papers on genetic anthropology. Their work in population genetics is highly respected. The data they presented is consistent with data published in the same journal by Israeli scientists (4). Amar et al showed that Palestinians are closer to Sephardic Jews than either is to Ashkenazi Jews. The data also showed that Ethiopian Jews are genetically very distant from all. Yet contrary to their own data, Amar et al concluded, "We have shown that Jews share common features, a fact that points to a common ancestry." As I discuss below, they also failed to include Slavic populations in the study, which would have revealed similarities between Ashkenazi and these populations in the areas around the Black Sea. Arnais-Villena et al. had data, like those of Amar et al., which demonstrates clearly a close affinity of Palestinians (and Lebanese) to Sephardic but not Ashkenazic Jews. This makes sense in light of historical evidence (see chapter 2) that shows common Canaanitic origin and linguistic affinities for Sephardic Jews and non-Jewish Arabs (both speak Semitic languages derived from proto-Aramaic).
In any case it makes little sense to allow political conclusions for one viewpoint and deny it for the other in the same scientific journal (in this case Human Immunology). The Forward magazine (a Jewish liberal magazine published in New York,) picked-up this story and concentrated on the fact that Arnaiz-Villena et al. made some political comments in a "scientific paper" 5. Yet, the Forward ignored this that political speech and narrative is not challenged in many published papers (such as Amar et al. (4)) when it supports a preconceived political agenda.
Succumbing to ideological pressure in scientific work is not uncommon. In my own work on mammals and population genetics, I used the term Palestine to refer to the geographic area that now includes Israel and the occupied Palestinian areas. Frequently journal editors received letters complaining that there is no such thing as Palestine and that the word Israel should have been used and in at least two of my papers, such change was demanded by the editors. Of course, Israel never defined its boundaries and it has only been a political entity of 53 years. The geographic term Palestine was used for the area for 2000 years, and it is even used by Israeli scientists (e.g. The series of books titled Fauna Palestina and Flora Palestina published by the Israel Academy of Sciences). Many other ideologically driven Israeli scientists have attempted to enforce their political views via their scientific work. Hence you will see that many papers by Israeli scientists use the words Israel or Israeli even when not needed for the work at hand. A comparison by running a search of Current Contents (Institute of Scientific Information database) for example showed that mentioning the words Israel or Israeli in the titles of papers from Israeli authors is over 100 times more frequent than those mentioning their own countries in comparable countries with a scientific research program (Greece and Italy were used as a comparison).
In the field of human genetics, there are many genetic diseases that are common in Ashkenazi populations (e.g. Tay Sachs Disease, Breast Cancer, Familial Dysautonomia, Canavan Disease, and Gaucher Disease). These diseases are not common in Sephardic Jews or in Arab populations. Yet, even genetic counselors in the US, genetic support groups, and others have now adopted the concept that these are "Jewish genetic diseases." The "Mazor guide to Jewish genetic diseases" (6) cites as the "best resource" the book by Batsheva Bonne-Tamir and Avinoam Adam titled "Genetic Diversity Among Jews: Diseases and Markers at the DNA Level" (7). That book by Bonne-Tamir and Adam ironically does review genetic heterogeneity while unfortunately also being inundated with generic statements about a supposed historical "common origin" of Jews. This basic premise seems to be the underlying assumption for which much of the data was being "fitted".
The National Foundation for Jewish Genetic Diseases, Inc. accurately stated in describing their mission that, "The genetic diseases described on this website are disorders which occur more frequently in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, although with the exception of familial dysautonomia they may occur among individuals of other ethnic backgrounds as well"8. Although a distinction is drawn between types of Jewish ancestry, the classification is still placed under that of “Jewish Genetic Diseases” as if genetic diseases can be related to religious rather than biological roots.
There is also a medical concern with the use a improperly encompassing term of "Jewish genetic diseases." There will be those who are Jewish but not Ashkenazi who will be offered unneeded testing and will be subjected to emotional stress when they really do not have any more risks of those diseases than the general population. Further, there are genetic diseases found more commonly in Sephardic Jews (and Arabs and other Middle Eastern Populations) than in Ashkenazi Jews or other populations. These include Familial Mediterranean Fever, Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenate deficiency, and Type III Glycogen Storage disease. In the United States the majority of Jewish Americans are of Ashkenazi heritage. However, with increased immigration of Israeli Jews to the US (many are Sephardic), the risks of such misguided genetic counseling have been increasing.
In the United States, genetic counselors routinely ask individuals if they are "Jewish" or have "Jewish relatives." They explain this to them by pointing out that there are certain genetic diseases that are more common among people who are "Jewish" than among other peoples. Jews are in the minority and the question in a genetic clinic to all patients include things like "are you Jewish" or "do you have any Jewish background". Few genetic counselors bother to point out the distinction between Ashkenazi, Sephardim, Ethiopian, and Yemenite Jews. The simplicity of asking about "Jewish" heritage is attractive in talking to individuals who are mostly non-Jewish and if Jewish may not even know much about nuances of ethnicity and population genetics. But the net result is that all pregnant women in America who are being counseled by a genetic counselor are being told Jews have certain genetic diseases and the conclusion is thus inevitable that Jews are genetically related. I cannot over-emphasize the significance of this in shaping the mistaken beliefs of many Jews and other Americans about relationships and ethnicity.
Genetics and the Bible
An article published in "Science News" states: "DNA analysis supports the biblical story of the Jewish priesthood. An analysis of Y chromosomes, which pass from father to son, indicates that Jewish priests, or Cohanim, may stem from an ancestor who lived several thousands years ago." (9). The New York Times reported "by the Yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descendent of a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some 4000 years ago" (10). The former paraphrasing is of work published by Thomas et al in Nature and the latter of a work published by Hammer et al. (11). Mischaracterization of research papers is popular magazines and newspapers is not unusual but in this case, the original authors sometimes had misled their audience and the editors reviewing their papers apparently were not doing a good job at editing. The paper by Hammer et al from the laboratory of Bonne-Tamir is especially interesting in this regard. Their own data reveal that:
1) North African, Arabian, and Kurdish Jews and other Near Eastern Jews (in other words Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews) are closer genetically to Palestinians and other Arabian populations than either is to Ashkenazi Jews (who are closer to Turks as shown in their data).
2) That Ethiopian Jews are genetically similar to Ethiopians and are very distant from other Jewish populations
3) That Lemba of South Africa who claim Jewish ancestry are also distant from Askenazim, Sephardic Jews, or Arab Muslims and Christians.
Despite this evidence from their own work, the authors make this remarkable conclusion: "The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East are descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora" (11).
Another example is an article by Nebel et al from Ariella Oppenheim's group was entitled "The Y Chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East" (12). The last sentence of the introduction of the paper stated as an objective of the paper: "we looked for information about how the Y chromosome of Jews fit into the genetic landscape of the Middle East." This laid out the bias which was clearly evident in the remainder of the paper. Data were not shared fully and only selective presentation of information was given which they used for unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, the appendix showed the gene data for 6 of the 14 populations that they had studied. The eight populations studied but not included in the presentation, other than showing up in one Figure, included the key group of Turkish people. This omission is not discussed in the paper even though the authors state in the methods that they examined samples from 167 Turks. Other tables, diagrams, and studies of relationship concentrated on these six populations (Kurdish Jews, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Palestinians, and "Bedouins"). It is not clear why the authors would choose these six samples to study in detail (e.g. in their Figure 2 and Table 2 both looking at genetic similarities) and ignore all other samples available. Buried in the paper perhaps is a clue to answer this question. The authors mention in one sentence the possibility of a European contribution to Ashkenazi gene pool stating: "alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that the Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes represent descendants of the Khazars." Had the authors fully included the Turkish and other populations in the report, readers could see that the groupings would clearly show evidence that Ashkenazim are closer to Turks than either to Palestinians or Sephardic Jews.
Two articles published in the prestigious British journal Nature claimed that the Jewish priests known as Cohanim share unique genetic markers not found in other populations. Skorecki et al. article was titled "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests" (13) and Thomas et al.'s was titled "Origins of Old Testament priests"(14). The New York Times and other newspapers and media outlets (including CNN) took up the story without questioning and made it into popular language claiming support for ancient Jewish lineages. Ironically, the right wing Jerusalem Post (February 28, 2001) revealed an interesting twist to this story:
Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin (Ph.D.) of the department of hematology and genetic pathology at the medical school of Flinders University of South Australia in Adelaide, recently published an article in the German-language Journal of Comparative Human Biology that attempts to casts doubt on Skorecki's study. Zoossmann-Diskin, who during the 1990s worked in the laboratory of Tel Aviv University geneticist Prof. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir, concludes that studies of kohanim are "problematic and arrive at conclusions are not supported by all available data." He maintains that "Jewish populations around the world descend from a variety of maternal and paternal origins... preliminary genetic studies of mitochondrial DNA (from maternal ancestries) have already demonstrated the connections between Jewish populations and non-Jewish populations (15)
Zoossmann-Diskin questioned the conclusions of Skorecki and others:
Careful examination of their (Skorecki's and Thomas's) works reveals many faults that lead to the inevitable conclusion that their claim has not been proven". The faults are: the definition of the studied communities, significant differences between three samples of Jewish priests, failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphism haplotypes, problematic method of calculating coalescence time and underestimating the mutation rate of Y chromosome microsatellites. The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also not supported by data from other populations." (16).
Most interesting is that the modal haplotype (group of characteristic genetic markers) for the Cohanim is the most common haplotype among Italian, Hungarians, and Iraqi Kurds, and is also found among many Armenians and South African Lembas.
The article titled “Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes” was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in 2000 (17).. The article is from the laboratory of Dr. Bonne-Tamir in Israel and is co-authored with 11 other authors. PNAS publishes articles based on communication from respected scientists and not by the traditional peer review process (although those communicating the article are encouraged to have them peer reviewed). This particular article was communicated by Dr. Arno G. Motulsky and it is not clear who reviewed it.
The PNAS paper indicated that Ashkenazi Jews would be more closely genetically related to Arabs than either is related to Europeans. In actuality, Ashkenazim are genetically closer to Turkic/Slavic than either is to Sephardim or Arab populations. These particular authors failed to study Slavic groups that other researchers have identified as closely related to Slavic ancestral populations of modern Ashkenazi communities. The article seems to have avoided discussing this particularly problematical issue and insisted in the conclusion to reiterate the contention made in the introduction that Jews of today are by and large descendent from the original Israelites. On the maternal lineage, there is no question that Jewish communities share little among themselves. Dr. Martin Richards. wrote:
Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming.... Buoyed by the hype, the private sector has been moving in. Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side - the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities - so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on (18).
But a more careful examination on the paternal (male) lineage also shows far more revealing diversity than apparent from limited studies done by some groups with an ideological affinity. Italian researches studied many more populations than Hamer et al did in the PNAS paper and included diverse Turkish and Eastern European populations (19). The study looked at Y chromosome polymorphisms (genetic variations) in 58 populations including European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African. That study clearly shows that Ashkenazi Jewish samples clustered distinct from Sephardic Jews and closer to Turkic samples. Overall, the genetic data in that study were congruent with linguistic findings regarding population affinities. The authors concluded that genetic data do not justify a single origin even in the paternal/male line for the currently disparate Jewish sub-populations (Ashkenazi and Sephardi).
Genetics versus Zionist Mythology
The claims of a "single Jewish origin" are not well substantiated with a wide variety of incredibly rich data from historical, archeological, and other sources. The research of Arthur Koestler, who happens to be an Ashkenazi Jew himself, clearly demonstrates that most Ashkenazis are convert Khazar's with closer ties to Turkish people than to Semitic people (20). This conclusion is further bolstered by evidence from language development (e.g. Yiddish origin and history and absence of use of Aramaic in ancient Khazar Jewish sources), and now genetics. But this was in no way a new assertion. On the website of the Zionist Organization of America, we find this accurate description by Kevin Brook:
It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqih, in fact, wrote 'All of the Khazars are Jews.' Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that 'all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety.' A Persian work, Denkart, represented Judaism as the principal religion of the Khazars. How sincere was their Judaism? Abd al-Jabbar ibn Muhammad al-Hamdani, writing in the early 11th century, pointed out that "they took upon themselves the difficult obligations enjoined by the law of the Torah, such as circumcision, the ritual ablutions, washing after a discharge of the semen, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath and during the feasts, the prohibition of eating the flesh of forbidden animals according to this religion, and so on.' (translation by Shlomo Pines). The common writing system among the Khazars was Hebrew script, according to Muhammad ibn Ishaq an-Nadim, writing in 987 or 988. A large portion of those Khazars who later adopted a script related to the Cyrillic of the Rus were Jews, according to Tárikh-i Fakhr ad-Din Mubarak Shah, a Persian work composed in 1206 (21).
There is ample historical evidence that Levantine people and Eastern European people of all religions do share some common genetic markers. Greek and Turkish populations migrated throughout the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, and the Levant (i.e. The Ottoman Empire during the Hellenistic periods). Similarly, Slavic populations have migrated into Asia Minor and the Levant. There was thus tremendous mixing of populations but certain trends and characteristics remain especially in populations that tried to maintain their own inbreeding and uniqueness. In both Koestler's and Kevin Alan Brook's books (see recommended readings), ample archeological and historical sources are examined leading to the conclusion that the origins of the majority of present day Ashkenazi Jews are Khazar-Turkish rather than Semitic. Their migration from Khazaria into Eastern Europe and Germany and their development of a unique culture and language (Yiddish) are now well documented and analyzed. Genetic data is completely in agreement with this conclusion. Most people who identify themselves as Jewish are Ashkenazi (Ashkenazim estimated at 95% of world Jewry, the other 5% Sephardim, Ethiopian and other). Even within the latter minority of 5%, there are documented mass conversions (e.g. of Yemenite Arab populations to Judaism and Christianity). Again genetic evidence is rather clear on this. On a practical ground, the Zionist concept of "return" is flawed at least in its application to Ashkenazi Jews who are of Khazar ancestry. Return would obviously imply that one or his/her ancestors originate from a particular area.
Studies on Eastern European people of Jewish faith were erroneously claimed to support the idea that Ashkenazi colonization of Palestine represented a return of people to their homeland. There were apparent cases of suppression of clear evidence that Palestinians (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) are native people who share their genetic pool with others of their Canaanitic cousins. Thus, valid data are questioned and questionable data and conclusions rapidly published and publicized. In any event, the dispossession of the native Palestinians by Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe is in no way justified regardless of population genetics. After all, one would have to be totally immune to basic elements of justice to allow dispossession of people who are native in every sense of the word and whose ancestors farmed the land for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Further, it is even more unacceptable for natives to be dispossessed in favor members of a particular religion and converts to that religion, but not converts from that religion to other religions. To use genetic, however accurate or deceptive, to justify an ingathering of people of the Jewish faith while denying Palestinian people the right to their homes and lands is a travesty of justice. Genetics and eugenics have been used in many other instances to support unjustifiable acts of oppression and human rights violations. We should learn the lessons of history. On the positive side, the finding of close genetic affinity between Oriental Jews, Christians and Muslims suggests the true kinship of these Canaanitic people. Coexistence in the land of Canaan can be aided by knowledge of these relationships. Despite isolationist attempts, this could help unify Israeli (now more mixed Sephardic and Ashkenazi) and Palestinian narratives and cultures. Perhaps our common \ destiny in the Land of Canaan will involve a similar mix of varied cultures as happened historically. The Oriental culture indeed has a lot to contribute to the Occidental and vice versa.
Notes to Chapter 3
1. Promotional material from The Center for Genetic Anthropology, Departments of Anthropology and of Biology, University College London. Posted at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/
2. Robin McKie, Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians, The Observer, November 25, 2001. Also available at http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html
3. Arnaiz-Villena et al. 'The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations', Human Immunology. Vol. 62, No. 9 (2001) pp. 889--900.
4. Amar et al. Molecular analysis of HLA class II polymorphisms among different ethnic groups in Israel, Human Immunology, Vol. 60 (1999), pp. 723--730.
5. Marc Perelman, Palestinian Gene Study Breeds Scandal, The Forward, 30 November 2001, pp. 7-18, available also at http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.30/news7.html
6. Jewish Genetic Diseases: A Mazornet Guide. Available in publication form and also at http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/
7. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir and Avinoam Adam, Genetic Diversity Among Jews: Diseases and Markers at the DNA Level (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992).
8. Center for Jewish Genetic Diseases, Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Promotional material and web at http://www.nfjgd.org/
9. J. Travis, Science News 151 (Feb. 15, 1997), p. 106
10. New York Times, 9 May 2000.
11. M. F. Hammer et al. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2000, Vol. 97, No. 12, 6769-6774 . http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769.
12. Almut Nebel et al., The Y Chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East. American Journal of Human Genetics, 2001, Vol. 69 (number 5), pp. 1095--1112.
13. K. Skorecki et al. Y chromosomes of Jewish priests, Nature, Vol. 385 (1997), p. 32.
14. Thomas et al. Origins of Old Testament priests, Nature, Vol. 394 (1998), p. 138.
15. Jerusalem Post, 28 February 2001.
16. A. Zoossmann-Diskin Are today’s Jewish priests descended from the old ones?
Stammen die heutigen jüdischen Priester von den alten ab? HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, Vol. 51, No. 2-3, (2000), pp.156-162.
17. M. F. Hammer et al. ibid.
18. Martin Richards, "Beware the gene genies." The Guardian (February 21, 2003).
see also The American Center of Khazar Studies for compilation of genetic data. http://www.khazaria.com.
19. E. S. Poloni, O. Semino, G. Passarino, A. S. Santachiara Benercetti, I. DuPanloup, A. Langaney, and L. Excoffier. Human Genetic Affinities for Y Chromosome p49a,f/TaqI Haplotypes Show Strong Correspondence with Linguistics. American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 61(5), pp. 1015-1935.
20. Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage, (London: Random House, 1976), 256pp.
21. Kevin Brook, The Khazars: A European Experiment in Jewish Statecraft. Published on the web by The Hagshama Department of the World Zionist Organization. See http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=140, and also Kevin Alan Brook, Are Russian Jews Descended from the Khazars? A Reassessment Based upon the Latest Historical, Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Evidence posted at http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html
Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe; Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria (Northvale N.J.: Jason Aronson Inc., 1999).
Kevin Alan Brook. The Jews of Khazaria. 1st edition. (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1999).
See the Special Formatting Guide at the bottom of the page for more formatting that can be used.