Richard Kurin’s Book, History by a Hair: A Hairy (Hirsute) or
Hairless (Glabrous) Analysis?
Dr. Mark Holowchak
Finally, it is out! The much-ballyhooed book History by a
Hair! The book is motivated by a 15-year DNA study by Richard Green, Samuel
Vohr, and 12 others, including the Smithsonian’s own Richard Kurin, who
prompted the study, who wrote the book.
The book, published by Crown, has the following write-up:
The definitive account of how a discarded strand of hair
found in Thomas Jefferson’s Bible led to a sweeping, multi-year genomic
investigation, drawing on technological advances in DNA to finally resolve
[sic; to resolve finally!] a 200-year national controversy….
In 2011, staff at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of
American History discovered what appeared to be a hair—light red, possibly
human—pressed between the pages of the Thomas Jefferson Bible. That hair
sparked an unprecedented scientific quest: determining if modern genomics could
recover Jefferson’s DNA and finally resolve the most divisive and enduring
question surrounding his life—the paternity of the children of Sally Hemings,
one of hundreds of African Americans enslaved by Thomas Jefferson.
For over two centuries, the Jefferson-Hemings controversy has
shaped American debates about race, power, slavery, and the mythology of the
Founding Fathers. Historians have argued fiercely. Descendants have lived with
uncertainty. DNA technology in the 1990s brought us closer, but not all the
way; the evidence remained incomplete. Until now. In this riveting narrative—part
scientific detective story, part historical epic—Richard Kurin, distinguished
scholar and
museum official, leads readers through the fifteen-year-long
genomic investigation conducted with leading DNA scientists, archaeologists,
genealogists, forensic experts, and Jefferson and Hemings’ descendants across
the country.
The result is the first conclusive, scientifically validated
answer to a question that has reverberated since the eighteenth century—an
answer that settles the historical record, deepens our understanding of
Jefferson, honors generations of family oral history, and asks America to
confront the full complexity of its origins.
Huzzah! Kurin has finally solved the puzzle of Jefferson’s
involvement with Sally Hemings. Jefferson is the father. We now have proof! And
the press cannot get enough!
Andrew Lawler of The Atlantic writes:
The scientists had found their proof, thanks to Jefferson’s
hair: “Once you have a common ancestor, … the accuracy is absolutely stunning.”
Emily Blumenthal of The Telegraph penned her essay, “Hair
Test Proves Thomas Jefferson Fathered Children with Slave, Book Claims.”
Jill Jordan of Atlanta Black Star crafted an article titled
“‘A 99.9% Chance’” Smithsonian Scientists Say New DNA Analysis of Thomas
Jefferson’s Hair Show He Fathered Sally Heming’s Enslaved Children.”
The author of the book, Kurin, writes of his motivation for
the project:
If we can get Jefferson’s DNA, we can solve a 200-year-old mystery of American history. … How can a man who writes, “All men are created equal,” have his own children, not equal, and not having freedom? I knew people had a great stake in it.
Well, at least we know his disposition as he began his
project….
Before commenting on the book, let me begin metaphorically,
as readers by now know of my profound love for metaphors in sound historical
research. I do not have a horse in this race! Jefferson’s paternity of Hemings’
children has become a political hot potato. Blacks and extreme Leftists are
nearly of one voice that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children; extreme
Rightists are intent on defending Jefferson come what may. I am interested not
in political extremism—that is why this country is in the state it now is!—but
in what the facts tell us.
I have maintained, and I continue to maintain, that Jefferson
had no interest in and no involvement with Hemings. My reasons are many, and
well-known by now. If something emerges to show that I am very likely wrong, I
shall have, without reservations, a change of mind, though there will be
proportionate diminution for my respect for Jefferson. If it should turn out
that he had a lengthy affair with Hemings, which was continued after
Callendar’s accusations in 1802, he would have been placing his libido before
his concern for his children’s and grandchildren’s wellbeing. That would be too
unlike Thomas Jefferson, and so I too consider his “liaison” with Hemings to
be, as a granddaughter once said, a “moral impossibility.”
The Study:
The study was conducted over the course of 15 years. The cost
must have been prodigious, but Smithsonian has the wherewithal.
The researchers studied genetic matter from 13
fifth-generation descendants of Hemings and Jefferson
Madison and Eston: 9 descendants
Maria Jefferson: 2 descendants
Randolph Jefferson: 2 descendants
Note here that there is no genetic material from Thomas
Jefferson other than the sample of hairs, presumed to be of him. Note also that
there was need of innovation to capture the genome: a certain amount of
“reasonable” reconstruction.
Let us now turn to generation 5. Each generation shares some
50 percent of its matter with the prior generation. Thus:
G1: 0.5 or 1/2
G2: 0.25 or 1/4
G3: 0.125 or 1/8
G4: 0.0625 or 1/16
G5: 0.03125 or 1/32
Hence, someone being a descendant of Jefferson in generation
5 will roughly have 0.031 (3.1 percent) of Jefferson’s DNA, with some allowance
for random variations.
Having run over 20,000 simulations of paternity, Green et al.
concluded that the probability of Jefferson being the father of Madison and
Eston was greater than 0.999 (99.95%). In other words, there is less than one
chance in 1000 of Jefferson’s non-involvement with Hemings apropos of Madison
and Eston Hemings. That conclusion is incredible! Rarely does such a thing
happen in science! That beats Fraser Neiman’s conclusion, using his Bayes’
algorithm, that there is a probability of 0.99 or one chance in 100 that
Jefferson father all of Hemings’ children. Though Kurin limits his conclusion
to Madison and Eston (he certainly knows that no one will hesitate in
broadening the scope without evidence to the other children of Hemings),
Neiman’s conclusion pertained to all of Hemings’ children. Hmm, Neiman’s
claim was itself sufficient to settle the debate, but somehow
it has not!
Results show (from what I gather):
Madison and Eston (9): 0.5 to 5.1 percent, with one sample of
5.1 percent (0.0051 to 0.051)
Maria (2): 2.4 and 2.7 percent
Randolph (2): nothing unexpected
The one sample with 5.1 percent of Jefferson’s DNA seems
compelling, for it is higher than expectancy. It is closer to generation 4 than
generation 5. Recall that a fifth-generation descendant of Jefferson should
roughly have 3.1 percent of his DNA. Green takes it as confirmation, but that
very high percentage, not out of the range of chance or perhaps due to some
methodological error (for it is in only one sample), is perhaps indicative of
some “contamination” of data by an unknown source (e.g., admixture of
blood-lines between the Carrs, Jeffersons, and Randolphs?): That anomaly needs
to be investigated and explained, not taken as confirmation.
While researchers claim to have recovered Thomas Jefferson’s
genome (with the hair sample preserved presumably after Jefferson’s death, not
from his “Bible”), though they admit to some ingenuity for some
“reconstructing” was needed, there has been no genome from Randolph Jefferson.
The genetic similarity of Jefferson and a brother should be 50 percent (0.5).
That would have been aidful.
Analysis, Biological and Non-Biological:
The promo for the book asserts Kurin’s book gives an “answer
that settles the historical record, deepens our understanding of Jefferson,
honors generations of family oral history, and asks America to confront the
full complexity of its origins.”
“Complexity,” always complexity. Pro-paternity adherents love
to fall back on Jefferson’s complexity, as he was a walking, talking
“contradiction”—a term misused and misunderstood. Sentences, not people, are
contradictions. Yet Kurin vaunts: “I was using evidence, logic, and the
available tools and methods to follow a trail.”
Nonetheless, to bastardize Shakespeare, “Methinks the author
doth boast too much.”
The authors end their study (my italics):
The data and analysis presented here help [to] address a
controversy that has existed for more than 200 years and often divided
descendants, scholars, institutions, and the American people. Having recovered
Thomas Jefferson’s DNA, the genomic evidence further reinforces strong
historical scholarship indicative of Thomas Jefferson’s paternity of Sally
Hemings[’] children. The study thus advances methods of genomic science and
provides greater certainty about early U.S. history. It also has personal and
familial consequences for all the progeny of Thomas Jefferson—for those whose
descent has historically been accepted, affirmed, or denied. Indeed, while
results of this study were being shared among participants and their families,
the Monticello Association formed a reconciliation committee engaging the
children of several of the descendants. The findings may enable descendants of
“founding father” Thomas Jefferson, whether born to Martha Wayles Jefferson or
to Sally Hemings, and whether their ancestral legacy is one of slavery or
freedom, to consider themselves as part of one and the same, complicated,
American family.
The wording is unduly cautious. They have, in their own
words, given us a plus-99.9 percent probability that Jefferson fathered Madison
and Eston. In science, that is tantamount to
declaring it factual that Jefferson fathered the two. So, why
such guarded language? That is a large, bright red flag!
One Himalayan albatross is that the study has heretofore not
been vetted by professional biologists and published in a reputable journal. It
is still supposedly under review at Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS) but it has not been yet accepted by the journal. Why was Kurin
antsy about publishing the book quickly, prior to vetting his data? Does he
fear that the study has serious flaws? That seems almost certain, as his
assessment of 99.9 percent certitude apropos of Jefferson’s paternity seems
ungrounded in his data.
Another issue which piggybacks on the first is that Mary
Brady-Atkins, 98 years young, withdrew her DNA sample on August 11, 2026. She
objected to the book being published prior to the data being vetted. She also
had reservations about any genealogical link between Jefferson and Hemings.
A third, on assumption of the sample of hair being
Jefferson’s, concerns the problem of gleaning reliable nuclear DNA from hair,
200 years old. There is typically considerable degradation and the possibility
of contamination over such a span, hence Green et al. engaged in some
reasonable reconstruction for their purposes.
There will be, I presume, other problems with this study
disclosed by those much more knowledgeable about such biological concerns than
am I. John Works, for instance, has been engaged in a many-years-long project
of study of DNA samples pertaining to Jefferson and Hemings and has noted
possible issues with Kurin’s study. I include a summary of his findings below.
The paper behind the book too will certainly attract the attention of
geneticists across America, and even across the globe, as did Eugene Foster’s
study in Nature in 1988. Foster’s study, “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last
Child,” was roundly assaulted by experts after his publication.
Nonetheless, even if my cautionary remarks about problems
with this study are correct, with the publication of Kurin’s book prior to any
professional, biological assessment of his data in the study, there will
be—like there was with the fantastical story in the book on the 1619 thesis;
with the flawed 1998 DNA study by Eugene Foster concerning Jefferson’s
paternity; with the movie on Jefferson in Paris; with Monticello’s own 2000
study of the data; with Monticello’s claim in 2018, under Leslie Greene-Bowman,
that it is henceforth to be taken as fact that Jefferson fathered all of
Hemings’ children; and with the novels related to Jefferson and Sally
Hemings—considerable damage to Jefferson’s reputation. Is that a Marxist
conspiracy or do so many “scholars” merely enjoy trying to undermine the legacy
of one of America’s truly great persons? Independently of any data put forth,
Kurin’s book will have wide readership on account of its large-scale promotion
thus far and account of its appeal to sensationalism.
I iterate: That the book is coming out before any
professional assessment of his biological data is telling. Once the book is published—and
it was supposedly released on September 22—the damage will have been done. The
general public will care little about any condemnation of the professionalism
of the study—procedural flaws, contaminated data, or misinterpretation of days.
Recall that Eugene Foster recanted concerning his 1998 DNA
study, which almost all historians embraced as gospel and which overnight
changed the historical landscape apropos of Jefferson Hemings. Foster’s study
was titled “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.” Historians uncritically ate
up the study, without understanding its implications. Foster later stated:
“This whole affair has been conducted by amateurs. I include myself.” Why is
that recantation not published on Monticello’s webpage???
The unpublished DNA study, I include here.
John Works’ careful assessment of the study I include here.