A scientific revolution is underway in the way we investigate and understand the past. The extraction and analysis of ancient DNA from human skeletal remains is transforming not only of human biological evolution, but also of human history and culture to show that Homo sapiens, rather than having a multi-regional origin, evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago or later, then dispersed throughout the world,
displacing existing populations. But who were these existing populations?
It is necessary to to synthesise archaeology, history, linguistics and genetics to tell the story of human
migration. It was Svante Pääbo and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig who developed much of the technology for extracting DNA from ancient skeletal remains.
So what is the revolution, if it is not in our understanding of the genetic basis of cognitive and behavioural differences between modern humans and our ancestors and relatives? It is in our ability to write the history of human populations, their movements and their mixing, throughout time and across the world, which in turn gives us insights into past population sizes, patterns of social interaction and political structures. All this from DNA. It is a bold insurgency into the territories of archaeology, anthropology and history, against which those disciplines have no defence
Archaeologists have argued over whether the spread of technology and cultures was caused by the spread of people (migration) or of ideas (acculturation). When the evidence takes the form of artefacts such as ceramic vessels with particular shapes and decorations, or lifestyles such as farming or metalworking, which appear to have originated in one place and are now found in another, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between migration and acculturation
Our stories of the past are now being written not by the skulls that appear on the cover of Nature or Science, but by toe and finger bones, by locks of hair and the tiny bones of the inner ear (which, it turns out, preserve an especially high density of DNA).
The evidence is that at least some Neanderthals copulated with some modern humans to produce fertile offspring: as a result, their status as separate species is questionable.
Unsurprisingly, North America is one of the most politically charged arenas for ancient DNA studies. Some indigenous Americans see genetic research as the latest attempt on the part of Europeans to enlighten them, having already taken their ancestors’ bones and artefacts to display in museums. The Navajo have forbidden the participation of tribe members in genetic studies, explaining in a document prepared for academic researchers that ‘human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore they know where they came from.’ In other cases, academics have found ways of working positively with Native Americans, showing them for example how DNA studies can demonstrate ancestral tribal links to skeletal remains.
The truth is that the language and modes of thinking we have all inherited are simply unsuited to handling the avalanche of genetic data that will shortly be available.
Tiny pockets of persistent endogamy (the custom of marrying only within the limits of a local community), we are blends of past populations, which were themselves blends of those who went before. And that trend continues today with the great 20th and 21st-century migrations. The study of ancient DNA really does tell us ‘how we got here’. Whether it tells us ‘who we are’ is a far more difficult matter
If you have not had your ownDNA tested, but if you did it wouldn’t tell who you are
There remains a place after all for archaeology, anthropology and history in telling us who we are, and who we would like to be but DNA spectacularly narrows it down.
displacing existing populations. But who were these existing populations?
It is necessary to to synthesise archaeology, history, linguistics and genetics to tell the story of human
migration. It was Svante Pääbo and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig who developed much of the technology for extracting DNA from ancient skeletal remains.
So what is the revolution, if it is not in our understanding of the genetic basis of cognitive and behavioural differences between modern humans and our ancestors and relatives? It is in our ability to write the history of human populations, their movements and their mixing, throughout time and across the world, which in turn gives us insights into past population sizes, patterns of social interaction and political structures. All this from DNA. It is a bold insurgency into the territories of archaeology, anthropology and history, against which those disciplines have no defence
Archaeologists have argued over whether the spread of technology and cultures was caused by the spread of people (migration) or of ideas (acculturation). When the evidence takes the form of artefacts such as ceramic vessels with particular shapes and decorations, or lifestyles such as farming or metalworking, which appear to have originated in one place and are now found in another, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between migration and acculturation
Our stories of the past are now being written not by the skulls that appear on the cover of Nature or Science, but by toe and finger bones, by locks of hair and the tiny bones of the inner ear (which, it turns out, preserve an especially high density of DNA).
The evidence is that at least some Neanderthals copulated with some modern humans to produce fertile offspring: as a result, their status as separate species is questionable.
Unsurprisingly, North America is one of the most politically charged arenas for ancient DNA studies. Some indigenous Americans see genetic research as the latest attempt on the part of Europeans to enlighten them, having already taken their ancestors’ bones and artefacts to display in museums. The Navajo have forbidden the participation of tribe members in genetic studies, explaining in a document prepared for academic researchers that ‘human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore they know where they came from.’ In other cases, academics have found ways of working positively with Native Americans, showing them for example how DNA studies can demonstrate ancestral tribal links to skeletal remains.
The truth is that the language and modes of thinking we have all inherited are simply unsuited to handling the avalanche of genetic data that will shortly be available.
Tiny pockets of persistent endogamy (the custom of marrying only within the limits of a local community), we are blends of past populations, which were themselves blends of those who went before. And that trend continues today with the great 20th and 21st-century migrations. The study of ancient DNA really does tell us ‘how we got here’. Whether it tells us ‘who we are’ is a far more difficult matter
If you have not had your ownDNA tested, but if you did it wouldn’t tell who you are
There remains a place after all for archaeology, anthropology and history in telling us who we are, and who we would like to be but DNA spectacularly narrows it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment