cultural scene investigation: a consilient approach to human migration studies final presentation...

Cultural Scene Investigation:

A consilient approach to human migration studies

Final PresentationMUMT 610 Jason Leung, Fabio Pires, Arianna Rehak, Moe Touizrar

Introduction

Impetus: 2014 Study by Hellenthal et alia published in Science titled “A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History”

“In some sense we don’t want to talk to historians,” Dr. Falush said. “There’s a great virtue in being objective: You put the data in and get the history out. We do think this is a way of reconstructing history by just using DNA.”

HypothesesGiven that biologists have very recently claimed to be able to date events in human history using the computer modeling of statistical genetic data, and have indicated no need for collaboration with historians, we propose that:

(a) Any claim of accuracy is unverified and premature

(b) The humanities are well-poised to aid both in the verification of biological dating techniques, as well as the degree of accuracy with which they can be applied

(c) Both scientific and humanistic research into human origins and migration can be accelerated and enriched through an equitable and reasonable consilience in the form of a dedicated and independent inter-disciplinary institute.

Overview(of a rather utopian thought experiment)

Conflicts Between Evidence and Narratives

Basic Structure of a Consilient Research Institute

Genetic Explanations of Human Origins and Pre-historic Migration

Brief History of Migration in Ancient Rome

Case Study: The Vandals

Possible Outcomes and Problems

Discussion

Narratives and Evidence: Academic and Theoretical

Conflicts

Why and how have theories in Archaeology and Anthropology failed to consider evidence that challenges orthodox positions (often rooted in 19th century narratives of ancient history) ?

Could the resistance to challenging but compelling evidence be symptomatic of a systemic aversion to change in the humanities (and therefore to consilience) ?

Two basic paradigms in modern archaeology

Processual (Objectivist / Positivist)Scientific approach

Approaches culture from an objective orientation

Attempts to remain ethically neutral and explicitly nonpolitical

Postprocessual (Material & Structural Individualistic Idealism?)

Knowledge is subjectively situated

Focuses on the ideologies, symbols, and mental processes behind human behavior

Searches for structural explanations based on deep-seeded dichotomies

Upholds individual actors as agents in cultural shifts

Identity and marginalization as key factors in understanding human culture

Compromise: Processual Plus?Approach that values the study of relativism, but can incorporate an objectivist orientation via rigorous scientific methods.

Fabio Pires

I checked. These are the two current paradigms

Fabio Pires

A recent problem within the field of archaeology is the extreme use of post-modern theory. This has been labelled as post-processual theory to signify a change from the more scientific approach of processual archaeology. In post-processual theory, the individual perspective is the center and there are many different possible interpretations of the archaeological record. The problem with this perspective is that there is no accountability, and it does not progress our understanding of the past.

Fabio Pires

Relies on Scientific techniques to get at intangible insights of past culture within a scientific framework.

Fabio Pires

processual archaeology paradigm- 1. archaeology should generalize, that is, seek regularities or laws of culture andbehavior that cover most or all cases- sees the particular details of places and individual people as less important- as responding to the overall circumstances, rather than being major determinants ofthem- sees different regions and periods as cases that can be compared, examples of thesame general processes- 2. culture is a system and a form of adaptation to material and social circumstances- typically a materialist view- economics and power are key to explanations- religion, art, ideology are “epiphenomenal” (“alongside the phenomenon”)- that is, they are not causal, but are dragged along by material processes- or are just irrelevant sidelights- 3. the past is part of objective reality, and it can be reconstructed and explained usingthe scientific method- 4. archaeology should be objective (factual), not political- factual and theoretical findings are ethically neutral, not political,- they are simply facts about the past

Fabio Pires

post-processual archaeology paradigm (closely tied to postmodernism)- 1. generalizations oversimplify; each case is unique, complex- seeks explanations in the particular details of each place and time- seeks explanations in terms of how individual people acted, especially ordinarypeople negotiating tensions around gender roles, wealth differences, and so on- sees no point in pursuing generalizations, because they would have to be so broadand vague as to be boring and uninformative- 2. explanations in terms of system or adaptation are trivial, incomplete, misleading;good explanations involve ideation- instead, emphasizes ideology, religion, other ideas as crucial- often try to reconstruct the meaning assigned to artifacts- 3. the past is always a reflection of the present; we are only fooling ourselves withscientific method- argues that most archaeology is not really so scientific, but instead perpetuatesassumptions and fashions in the archaeologist’s culture- some postprocessualists have argued that there is no objective reality, that theevidence can be made to show anything, and that therefore there is not even anyreason to dig it up- that extremism has faded; most now argues that we should try for objectivity, butrealize that it is rarely possible- 4. archaeology is inherently political, not objective- it always serves a political agenda

How Narrative Shapes Evidence (or the lack

thereof) -Political Uses-

Israel’s constant excavations in the City of David justify modern Jewish presence

example: SF Chronicle, Sept 6, 2009: “Ancient wall testifies to Jerusalem’s strength”Excavations by Ronny Reich, “Archaeology professor at the University of Haifa” “Archaeological research at the site known as the City of David, just outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, is caught up in the struggle for control of the city.”

Archeological site and the Palestinian settlement of Silwan

Fabio Pires

not mentioned: also Senior Archaeologist for the Israel Antiquities Authority, an office of the Israeli government

Fabio Pires

- is this a new discovery? No; the wall was first found in 1909, and the current projectmust have taken months the site is about to open for tourists, so this press release is a bid for publicity but why? the wall long predates the Hebrew kingdompresumably Elad thinks they are supporting their cause somehow…

Fabio Pires

if there's time-Chinese archeology and the holding onto the existence of the Xia dynasty- the oldest dynasty in China to be described in ancient historical chronicles such as Bamboo Annals, Classic of History and Records of the Grand Historian. THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS DYNASTY EVEN THOUGH CHINESE ARCHEOLOGY TAKES IT FOR A FACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_dynasty

Fabio Pires

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/10-reasons-the-city-of-david-is-not-the-wholesome-tourist-site-you-thought-it-was/

How Evidence Shapes Narrative

Some Challenging EvidenceHueyatlaco

Geochronological analyses indicate human habitation dating back to ca. 250,000 years ago.

Radiocarbon dating of animal remains present in the site produced an age of over 35,000 years ago. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ± 60,000 years ago.

Using the zircon fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash from Hueyatlaco's tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ± 240,000 years ago.

The findings challenge the scientific consensus for habitation of the New World (which generally places widespread human migration to the New World at 13,000–16,000 years ago).

This has been widely refuted by the broader scientific community, and has seen only occasional discussion in the literature.

Fabio Pires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco

Fabio Pires

Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances.

Fabio Pires

In 1967, Jose L. Lorenzo of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia claimed that implements had been planted at the site by local laborers in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible to determine which artifacts were discovered in situ and which were planted.[6] Irwin-Williams counter-argued that Lorenzo's claims were malicious and without merit. Furthermore, in 1969 Irwin-Williams[4] cited statements of support from three prominent archeologists and anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the group's methodology

Fabio Pires

Suggestion that the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.(Szabo,Williams 1968)RULED OUT----

Challenging Narratives?

How could consilience help to incorporate divergent evidence into a more flexible set of theoretical assumptions?

Vision for a Fully Consilient Research

Institute

Pewterschmidt Institute for Consilient Research (PICR)

Basic Structure of PICR

Inspired by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Core mission of equilibrium between the Sciences and Humanities

Flexible Project-Based Hierarchy

All projects determined by a small committee of humanists and scientists

Cultural Scene Investigation

On the Origin of Man

Homo sapiens sapiens (Anatomically Modern Human)Primate subspecies of homo sapiens, genus homo

200,000 years ago to present

Around 100,000 years ago:Africa: homo sapiens

Europe: homo neanderthalensis

Asia: homo erectus (also found in Africa and Europe)

Around 30,000 years ago: everywhere homo sapiens only

At present: two main, competing theories1. Recent African origin of modern humans (“Out-of-Africa” model)

2. Multiregional origin of modern humans

“Out-of-Africa” (v. 2.0)

Homo erectusMigration from Africa

2 million years ago

Homo sapiensEvolved in Africa

Migration from Africa

100,000 years ago

Replaced other hominin populations worldwide

MultiregionalHypothesis

Homo erectusMigration from Africa

2 million years ago

Each group continued to evolve separately

Mixture of genes between populations

Accounts for different physical attributes

External/Internal

A journey of a million miles…

Building Blocks of

LifeDNA: double helix

Nucleotides: A, T, C, G (“letters”)Base pairs (A+T, C+G)

Humans: 3.2 billion bp

Two helices = two copies

Replication by duplication

Molecular Clocks

MutationsVariation amongst humans: 1 bp in 1000

Known mutation rates

Genetic markersPolymorphisms: differences in individual letters

Mini-/microsatellites: small group of repeating letters

Survival of the Fittest Theory

“Out-of-Africa” has greater evidence to support it

1. Co-existence of homo s. sapiens and other hominins

2. Genetic studies: new development! (within past 5 years)


Everyone genetically equidistant from those species

2.1 Little admixture from other hominin species


Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)Exclusive inheritance frommother

Matrilineal (mother to daughter)

Mitochondrial Eve:

140,000–200,000 years ago in Africa

Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA)Exclusive inheritance from father

Patrilineal (father to son)

Y-chromosomal Adam:

100,000–300,000 years ago in Africa

2.2 Tracing human lineage: Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA)

… begins with a single step

Barbarian Migration:

How the humanities might help to test the

efficacy of genetic dating techniques

Overview of the Migration Period in

Ancient Rome100 BCE - 500 CE

Considered to be the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.

Marks the arrival of the Germanic peoples as colonizers of Europe.

Why Migration Matters to our Project

We have specific humanistic accounts of peoples and movements.

Allow us to create benchmarks for comparison between historical and biological evidence.

We can then confirm or refute the accuracy of the proposed DNA dating methods.

Genetic Admixture:G. Hellenthal, G.B.J. Busby, G. Band, J.F. Wilson, C. Capelli, D.

Falush, S. Myers, Science (2014)

o Genetic admixture occurs when individuals from two or more genetically distinguishable groups have children together.

o This can be a result of individuals from one part of the world settling into a new geographic region already inhabited by other people, e.g. due to invasions or large-scale migrations.

Sourcing Genetic History

When individuals from different groups have children (i.e. admix), their offspring's DNA becomes a mixture of the DNA from each admixing group.

Pieces of this DNA are passed along through subsequent generations, carrying on all the way to the present day.

Therefore, the genomes of modern- day individuals (who descend from this admixed population) contain segments of DNA inherited from each of the original source groups.

The Case of the Vandals

Origin of the Vandal tribe is thought to be in Scandinavia.

From 40 BCE – 533 CE, they embarked on a tour of Europe and the Mediterranean because they were never able to settle anywhere permanently.

We believe this means that they must have mixed with many diverse populations.

Initial Assumptions

Early site of Vandal burial.

DNA profile unique enough to identify salient genetic markers.

Three subsequent sites from different historical periods to verify the markers.

Phase 1 – Data Collection

Identify 20-30 sites along the Vandal migration path for genetic testing of contemporary populations.

CSI teams to be deployed to sites

Teams consist of an historian, a geneticist, an archaeologist, and a physical anthropologist.

Phase 2 – Data Analysis

Laboratory analysis.

Create a geographic representation of Vandal DNA.

Construct as accurate a genetic timeline as possible.

Phase 3 – The Consilient Consolidation of Disparate Data

Comparative analysis of timelines between genetic dating and historical records.

Results: Consilience WORKS!

Possible Problems with the Case Study

Is it scalable? If the genetic test works, will it work further back into history?

What if the genetic data contravenes the accepted historical narrative?

How much does population mixing in the time between the event and the test play a part? Does it interfere with the interpretation of data?

The potential Goldilocks problem with the sample size.

Possible Problems with the Institute

Incompatible methodologies, epistemologies, vocabulary & perspectives.

Communication of the big picture to so many different specialists.

“Us vs. Them” (Scientists vs. Humanists).

Funding feasibility?

Discussion Questions

Will this project revolutionize the “hard” histories? If so, how?

What is the power of this technique to change the human narrative?

If the technique works, what can it tell us about the modern period? What can it do for pre-historical period and what can’t it do?

What happens when there is discrepancy between the humanistic data and scientific results? How do we prevent it from being a turf war?

cultural scene investigation: a consilient approach to human migration studies final presentation...

Documents

narrative slide

human history

consilient research

problems discussion

human habitation

moe touizrar slide

widespread human migration

homo sapiens europe