The Role of Ancient DNA Research in Archaeology

Abstract

In this paper I briefly introduce work on ancient-DNA (aDNA) and give some examples of the impact this work has had on responses to questions in archaeology. Next, I spell out David Reich’s reasons for his optimism about the contribution aDNA research makes to archaeology. I then use Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie’s framework to offer an alternative to Reich’s view of relations between aDNA research and archaeology. Finally, I develop Steven Mithen’s point about the different questions archaeologists and geneticists ask, arguing that different disciplinary perspectives color researchers’ perceptions of “the most important questions” or the “central topics” in a field. I conclude that evidence from aDNA research cannot solve archaeological disputes without closer, mutually respectful collaboration between aDNA researchers and archaeologists. Ancient DNA data, like radiocarbon data, is not a silver bullet for problems in archaeology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is now a Wikipedia entry entitled “Archaeogenetics”. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics. Accessed 2 June 2019.

  2. 2.

    FoxP2 is also present in birds (see Bolhuis and Everaert 2013 for contributions to this area of research).

  3. 3.

    Reich does not have this skepticism about contemporary work on the genetic basis of human behavioral traits, citing Genome Wide Association Studies on human behavioral traits as exemplary work in genetics (see e.g. Reich 2018, p. 256). This position is not uniformly shared by his colleagues in human population genetics (see e.g. Martin et al. 2017).

  4. 4.

    Contamination of a sample by human DNA is not the only problem; bacterial DNA could contaminate a sample and greatly affect the interpretation of the sequence extracted.

  5. 5.

    In typical cases men carry an X and a Y chromosome while women carry two X chromosomes.

  6. 6.

    This work draws on aDNA work on domestication. Zeder et al. (2006) provide a review of some of this work in both plants and animals.

  7. 7.

    The Y chromosome work reveals many ancient humans in a particular time period with the same male parent. This lends support to the idea that powerful individual men ruled in the relevant time period.

  8. 8.

    Reich’s arguments are not in defense of the claim that aDNA research is revolutionary in and of itself, rather, he defends the claim that aDNA research makes a revolutionary contribution to archaeology. Assessing the status of contributions made by aDNA research to population genetics, for example, requires an independent line of argument.

  9. 9.

    Some philosophers of science have proposed the notion of “scientific imperialism” as a contrasting notion to trading zones for characterizing interdisciplinary interactions in science (see e.g. Dupre 1994). Scientific imperialism picks out cases in which one group of scientists push their ideas and methods onto other scientists on the presumption that their approach will do a better job. The scientific imperialist assumes that their methods and theories carry a kind of epistemic warrant lacking in the methods and theories of fields they aim to take over (see contributions to Maki et al. 2018 for examples of putative scientific imperialism).

  10. 10.

    As mentioned in footnote 3 above, Reich champions GWAS work on human behavioral traits as exemplary work in genetics. This highly disputed area of human genetics research is by no means an unassailable source of epistemic warrant for claims made by aDNA researchers.

References

  1. Bolhuis JJ, Everaert M (eds) (2013) Birdsong, speech, and language: exploring the evolution of mind and brain. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Callaway E (2018) Divided by DNA: the uneasy relationship between archaeology and ancient genomics. Nature 555:573. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03773-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cann RL, Stoneking M, Wilson AC (1987) Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325:31. https://doi.org/10.1038/325031a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1997) The history and geography of human genes, Abridged Paperback edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chapman R, Wylie A (2016) Evidential reasoning in archaeology. Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Currie A (2018) Rock, bone, and ruin: an optimist’s guide to the historical sciences. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. Currie A, Killin A (2019) From things to thinking: cognitive archaeology. Mind Lang 34:263–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daston L (2007) Objectivity. Zone Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dupre J (1994) Against scientific imperialism. PSA 194:374–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1994.2.192948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Enard W, Przeworski M, Fisher SE et al (2002) Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature 418:869–872. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fraser S, Elsner J, Derek Hamilton W et al (2017) Matrilines in Neolithic cattle from Orkney, Scotland reveals complex husbandry patterns of ancestry. J Archaeol Sci 14:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.04.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 25–52

    Google Scholar 

  14. Graur D (2016) Molecular and genome evolution. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  15. Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE et al (2006) Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444:330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW et al (2010) A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328:710–722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hutchison M, Curtis N, Kidd R (2015) The Knowe of Rowiegar, Rousay, Orkney. Proc Soc Antiqu Scotl 145:41–89

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krause J, Fu Q, Good JM et al (2010) The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia. Nature 464:894–897. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lawrence D (2006) Neolithic mortuary practice in Orkney. Proc Soc Antiqu Scotl 136:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  20. Longino HE (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lynch M (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maki U, Walsh A, Fernandez Pinto M (eds) (2018) Scientific imperialism: exploring the boundaries of interdisciplinarity. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Maricic T, Günther V, Georgiev O et al (2013) A recent evolutionary change affects a regulatory element in the human FOXP2 gene. Mol Biol Evol 30:844–852. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin AR, Gignoux CR, Walters RK et al (2017) Human demographic history impacts genetic risk prediction across diverse populations. Am J Hum Genet 100:635–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mithen S (2018) Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans. London Review of Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Olalde I, Brace S, Allentoft ME et al (2018) The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555:190–196. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pääbo S (2014) The human condition—a molecular approach. Cell 157:216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.12.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rasmussen M, Li Y, Lindgreen S et al (2010) Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct Palaeo-Eskimo. Nature 463:757–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reich D (2018) Who we are and how we got here: ancient DNA revolution and the new science of the human past, 1st edn. Pantheon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Renfrew C (1999) Before civilization: the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. Pimlico, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wall JD, Kim SK (2007) Inconsistencies in Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences. PLoS Genet 3:e175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Walsh S, Knüsel C, Melton N (2011) A re-appraisal of the Early Neolithic human remains excavated at Sumburgh, Shetland, in 1977. Proc Soc Antiq Scotl 141:3–18

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wylie A (1989) Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s ‘options beyond objectivism and relativism’. Philos Soc Sci 19:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318901900101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wylie A (2000) Questions of evidence, legitimacy, and the (Dis)unity of science. Am Antiq 65:227–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zeder MA, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, Bradley DG (2006) Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends Genet 22:139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jane M. Downes for pointing me to work in Orkney archaeology and for helpful discussions of the material in this paper. I would also like to thank James Tabery and Alison Wylie for helpful discussions of earlier versions of this paper. Finally, I owe a big thank you to Anton Killin, one of the editors of this special issue, for his comments on earlier drafts, his helpful suggestions for generating responses to referees’ reports and his careful editing of the paper. Work on this paper was supported in part by a Sterling M. McMurrin Esteemed Faculty Award from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Utah.

Funding

This study was not funded by any external Grants. The author received some support from a Sterling M. McMurrin Esteemed Faculty Award from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Utah (his home department).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Downes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Stephen M. Downes has no conflicts of interest regarding this paper.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Downes, S.M. The Role of Ancient DNA Research in Archaeology. Topoi 40, 285–293 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09665-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Archaeology
  • Ancient DNA
  • Genetics