Beyond curse or blessing: the opportunities and challenges of aDNA analysis
Beyond curse or blessing: the opportunities and challenges of aDNA analysis
复制标题
超越诅咒或祝福：aDNA 分析的机遇和挑战
DOI：
10.1080/00438243.2019.1741970
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Sykes N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sykes N
这本书中的论文都有不同的观点，但它们共同表明，考古学学科继续与快速发展的DNA分析方法带来的多方向和多标量的紧张关系作斗争。在许多方面，aDNA分析的发展似乎反映了放射性碳测年早期的发展，当时新的14C测定可能会被粗暴地认为在大范围内不可接受而被驳回(Piggot 1959,289)，而不是参与其中。我们在大大缩短的时间跨过了DNA研究的这一阶段，这是一个可喜的发展，目前正在发展有效的跨学科合作，将DNA分析作为考古武库中的一项强大技术。然而，在过去几十年里(包括同位素分析、脂肪分析或蛋白质组学)，比起任何其他已经出现并应用于考古材料的科学技术，基因分析似乎更引发了人们对工作方式以及我们这个领域的价值、作用和影响的深切担忧。在介绍这一卷时，我们希望探讨在投稿中明显存在的一些主题和矛盾，同时也留出空间来考虑根本没有审查过的问题。例如，我们没有收到关于非人类动植物aDNA卷的任何意见书。诚然，征集意见书并没有明确强调人类以外的任何生物的aDNA，但也可能是那些研究非人类aDNA的人已经超越了祝福或诅咒的比喻，发现它令人不快。然而，它仍然是这样的，当考古学家在随意的谈话中提到aDNA时，经常有一种假设，认为它在很大程度上与人类和密切相关的原始人物种的aDNA有关，其中一个甚至现在仍然只从基因而不是形态上独特的遗骸中被知道：著名的Denisovan LpinkieL数字(Reich等人)。2010年；帝国2018年，第3章)。尽管像《侏罗纪公园》这样轰动一时的科幻电影可以从包裹在琥珀中的蚊子的食物中恢复恐龙的aDNA，或者广为人知的(尽管有些为时过早)声称由于使用aDNA的克隆，猛犸象和塔斯马尼亚虎可能很快就会再次与我们在一起(https://en.维基百科。Org/维基/猛犸象_克隆；https://cosmosmaga zine。COM/BIONICAL/活着的袋狼的回归。这两个网站都参考了22/2/2020)。首先，这本书中的一些论文有一些共性，迁徙是一个持续不断的主题，因为DNA研究无疑改变了我们对古人类运动的理解。然而，新的数据并不总是与考古学理论相吻合。过去的传播主义大师的叙事试图解释任何和所有的文化变化，作为迁移和人口更替的结果，在很大程度上被1960年的S声名狼藉，部分是在美国新考古学的猛烈攻击下L，其解释文化变化的咒语是当地适应(触发1989,222-7,244326)。现在，我们又回到了必须解释过去大规模移民的问题上，但不假设移民本身就能解释任何事情。在缺乏明确解释的情况下，这些数据可能会被以许多不同的方式阅读和使用。因此，不足为奇的是，这本书中几乎所有的贡献都提到了古斯塔夫·科西纳尔的文化-历史模型，以及它们如何被用来证明纳粹的种族意识形态是正确的
The papers in this volume all have different perspectives but, together, they suggest that the discipline of archaeology continues to struggle with the multi-directional and multi-scalar tensions that have come with the rapidly evolving methods of aDNA analysis. In many ways, the development of aDNA analysis would seem to mirror that of the early development of radiocarbon dating, when new 14 C determinations could be grumpily dismissed as Larchaeologically inacceptableL (Piggott 1959, 289) rather than engaged with. It is a welcome development that we have got past this stage in aDNA studies in a much-shortened timespan, and effective interdisciplinary collaborations are now developing that involve aDNA analyses as but one powerful technique in the archaeological armoury. However, more than any other scientific technique that has emerged, and been applied to archaeological materials, over the last few decades (including isotope analysis, lipid analysis or proteomics) genetic analysis appears to have opened up deep anxieties about ways of working, as well as the value, role and impact of our field. In introducing the volume, we wish to explore some of the themes and contradictions evident in the contributions, whilst also giving space to consider issues that have not been examined at all. For instance, we received no submissions to the volume concerning non-human animal and plant aDNA. It is true that the call for submissions did not explicitly highlight aDNA on anything but humans, but it may be too that those working on non-human aDNA had already moved beyond the blessing or curse trope and found it off-putting. It remains the case, however, that when aDNA comes up in casual conversation among archaeologists there is often an assumption that it very largely concerns the aDNA of humans and closely related hominid species, one of them even now only known from genetic rather than morphologically distinctive remains: the famous Denisovan LpinkieL digit (Reich et al. 2010; Reich 2018, Chapter 3). This is despite blockbuster sci-fi movies such as Jurassic Park where dinosaur aDNA could be recovered from the meal of a mosquito encased in amber, or well-publicized (albeit somewhat premature) claims that mammoths and Tasmanian tigers could soon be with us again thanks to cloning using aDNA (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mammoth_cloning; https://cosmosmaga zine. com/biology/return-of-the-living-thylacine. Both sites consulted 22/2/2020). To begin with some commonalities among the papers in this volume, migration is a running theme, as aDNA research has undoubtedly transformed our understanding of ancient human movements. The new data do not always sit comfortably with archaeological theories, however. Past diffusionist master narratives that sought to explain any and all cultural changes as a result of migration and population replacement largely fell into disrepute by the 1960 s, in part under the withering attack of American Lnew archaeologyL, with its mantra of local adaptation as the explanation of culture change (Trigger 1989, 222-7, 244, 326). Now we are back at having to explain mass migration in the past, but without assuming the fact of migration is in itself explanatory of anything. In the absence of clear interpretations, the data can be read, and used, in many different ways. It is, therefore, unsurprising that nearly all of the contributions in this volume make reference to Gustaf KossinaLs culture-historical models, and how they were used to justify Nazi ideologies of racial
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
S. Piggott;B. Trigger
通讯作者：
S. Piggott;B. Trigger
杜灵顿墙的放射性碳测年法
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
S. Piggott
通讯作者：
S. Piggott
在古基因组学革命中平衡分析目标和人类学管理
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
K. Sirak;Jakob W. Sedig
通讯作者：
Jakob W. Sedig
考古遗传学和人类进化：生物学学科的个体发育
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
C. Millar;D. Lambert
通讯作者：
D. Lambert
驯化下的大小变化：狼、狗和野狗内耳形状的保守性
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Anita V. Schweizer;Renaud Lebrun;L. A. Wilson;L. Costeur;T. Schmelzle;M. Sánchez
通讯作者：
M. Sánchez