Writing Remains

New Intersections of Archaeology, Literature and Science

Josie Gill, Catriona McKenzie, Emma Lightfoot, Josie Gill, Catriona McKenzie, Emma Lightfoot

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781350109483
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Letteratura
• Subtopic: Critica letteraria di letteratura comparata

Writing Remains brings together a wide range of leading archaeologists and literary scholars to explore emerging intersections in archaeological and literary studies. Drawing upon a wide range of literary texts from the nineteenth century to the present, the book offers new approaches to understanding storytelling and narrative in archaeology, and the role of archaeological knowledge in literature and literary criticism. The book's eight chapters explore a wide array of archaeological approaches and methods, including scientific archaeology, identifying intersections with literature and literary studies which are textual, conceptual, spatial, temporal and material. Examining literary authors from Thomas Hardy and Bram Stoker to Sarah Moss and Paul Beatty, scholars from across disciplines are brought into dialogue to consider fictional narrative both as a site of new archaeological knowledge and as a source and object of archaeological investigation.

Part I

Genetics and human inheritance

1

New materialism, archaeogenetics and tracing the human

Jerome de Groot

In May 2019 the Centre Pompidou in Paris opened its ‘Préhistoire: Une énigme moderne’ exhibition. The exhibition outlined multiple encounters between artists and ideas of the ancient past, arguing that modernist work in particular was highly influenced by archaeology, fossil reclamation and ideas of prehistory:

Nourrie des découvertes archéolgiques, mais loin d’en être simplement le reflet, cette idée commune de ‘préhistoire’ déborde sa stricte définition scientifique, centrée sur l’émergence de l’humanité jusqu’a l’invention de l’écriture. Elle modèle les horizons mentaux de la modernité, où elle fonctionne comme une puissant machine à remuer le temps.¹

Aesthetic engagement with the prehistoric past is hardly new, then. However the development of innovative new techniques for reading ancient human DNA (aDNA) has dramatically changed our understanding of, and interface with, prehistory. This chapter explores these new high-profile scientific techniques for understanding the human and considers the aesthetic response. The chapter suggests that archaeogenetics, particularly improvements in the sequencing of aDNA, prompts new ways of thinking about the human species and its relationship to the past. These developments have the potential to change the ways in which we think about the disciplines of archaeology, history and literary studies. The chapter considers archaeogenetics in the light of new theories of materialism that have arisen in the humanities. In particular I look at the ways that the use of genetic science in archaeological investigation forces a reconsideration of the ‘human’ and its history. I argue that a key element of this reconfiguring of the species relates to the human in time. Despite the wealth of research into DNA we have little sense of how what Nadia Abu El-Haj terms the ‘genetic historical imagination’ functions (El-Haj 2012: 20). The chapter works towards a final discussion of several contemporary writers and the ways that they have approached ideas of roots, legacy, inheritance and archaeology in their work in response to the new definitions of the human emerging in archaeogenetics. Can literature enable us to reconcile – or at least comprehend – a seemingly profound epistemological shift towards understanding the human as and through data?

Ancient DNA and the ‘human’

Investigation of aDNA is changing our understanding of what it means to be human and how Homo sapiens developed over time (see, for instance, Furholt 2018). The genetic analysis of archaeological samples has been common since the 1990s, driven by technological innovations such as next-generation sequencing, which has enabled whole genomes to be sequenced at relatively high speed. The clarity and scope of this work have enabled new assertions to be made about the development of human groups, as well as revealing species of the Homo genus that had hitherto been unknown (see Reich et al. 2010). Such research has seemingly transformed the field of archaeology and will shortly begin to impact upon historical investigation of areas other than prehistory as geneticists Marc Haber et al. put it: ‘Findings from aDNA research are currently transforming our understanding of human history at an ever-increasing pace’ (Haber et al. 2016).

Ancient DNA has been used to investigate the human in history through its application within archaeogenetics, that is, the use of genetic science practices of varying kinds in the creation and analysis of data found at archaeological sites (often in comparison with modern DNA). This has led many geneticists to argue that such data can change the way we understand the human and the past. Joseph Pickrell and David Reich, two leading figures in archaeogenetics, argued in 2014 that improved technology and analysis techniques lead directly to new ways of understanding ‘human history’:

Because of these technological advances, the past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the quantity of data available for learning about human history. Equally important has been rapid innovation in methods for making inferences from these data. We argue here that the technological breakthroughs of the past few years motivate a systematic re-evaluation of human history using modern genomic tools – a new ‘History and Geography of Human Genes’ that exploits many orders of magnitude more data than the original synthesis. (Pickrell and Reich 2014: 377)

Their claim is that the DNA they investigate and the modes of interrogation – the upgrade in technique and opening up of quantity – lead to a richer understanding of how the human species develops over time. The rhetoric is about accuracy, density of data, innovation and the way that this allows a more textured understanding of ‘human history’. Ancient DNA investigation conceives of Homo as data and considers ways of understanding, narrating and articulating this data. The geneticist-historian produces the information – through sampling, sequencing and considering the genetic materials – and then reads it. The amount of data being produced by aDNA investigation is vast and such research is intervening in debates about population, migration, cultural development, evolution and the definition of the human (see Mathieson and Skoglund 2018). Much of this is driven by improvement in investigative techniques. The revolution of next-generation sequencing means that acquiring the entire genome is now much cheaper. Increase in computing power and developments in bioinformatics have made the process much quicker, and this has led to increased resolution and texture to results. The data is seemingly better and much more detailed. For Pickrell and Reich this leads to something of an epistemological shift: knowing the human differently, as much as a shift in understanding what there is to know about the human.

The impact of aDNA investigation on archaeological practice, and hence on wider public understanding of the past, has been significant. These technological, genetic developments have contributed to a number of public events reported widely in the press and around the world. The most high-profile moment was during the discovery, exhumation and examination of King Richard III’s remains in 2012 (Buckley et al. 2013). The remains were found under the site of a car park in Leicester and identified through laborious DNA investigation connected with other types of archaeological analysis. The investigations prompted a set of popular discussions in the press and beyond about the nature of lineage, the contemporary world’s relationship with heritage and the ethics (and legality) of disinterring human remains. The bones took on a kind of material substance as they were proven to be those of Richard III, shifting their physical nature into something to be celebrated and dreamed of, something that had relation to the contemporary world. The discovery of the king’s remains suggested that archaeogenetics might allow the identification of ‘truth’ in the past, particularly in relation to physical identity. The investigation into Richard III’s remains was a complex project intellectually, scientifically and ethically (King et al. 2014). The work on the DNA of the skeleton was crucial in establishing the veracity of the bones. The body of the king was reinterred in Leicester Cathedral after a year of legal wrangling about the final burial site, including a final judicial review and decision made by the High Court. The five days of events celebrating the reinterment situated the event at the intersection of heritage performance, nationalistic memorial service and historical re-enactment.

Two years later the remains of the boy known as ‘Anzick-1’ were reburied with much less attention although with some public discussion in the wider press. The child’s remains were discovered on a farm in Montana in 1968, buried with artefacts identified as part of the Clovis culture. Named after the family that owned the farm, the remains, which had been buried around 12,000 years ago, were sampled for DNA sequencing in 2014 before being reinterred. The investigation suggested that Anzick-1 was both a direct ancestor of contemporary Native Americans and also had Asian ancestors. In this way:

The Anzick-1 data thus serves to unify the genetic and archaeological records of early North America, it is consistent with a human occupation of the Americas a few thousand years before Clovis, and demonstrates that contemporary Native Americans are descendants of the first people to settle successfully in the Americas. (Rasmussen et al. 2014: 229)

The sequencing of the DNA was part of the final process of investigating the remains before they were reinterred. The ceremony was brief and low-key but still provoked some debate about the use and excavation of human remains. Shane Doyle, an academic who made arrangements for the reburial, argued that ‘From a tribal point of view, this is a big part of reclaiming our history, reclaiming our dignity for our kids’ (French 2017). The same article in the local Billings Gazette quotes Armand Minthorn of the Umatilla Tribe (now located in Oregon): ‘ “These are our ancestors’ remains, they are not artefacts. I hope that the people who come after us remember this, as well.” ’ The reinterring of Anzick-1 formed part of an ongoing reclamation of ancient memory in the Native American community (see Tallbear 2013).

The investigative team in this case, based at the Centre for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen, have worked on a variety of projects including ancient plant DNA and the controversial Kennewick Man (a prehistoric skeleton found in Washington, United States, which was the subject of a dispute over whether the man was Native American). Their director, Eske Willerslev, was profiled in the New York Times in an article which argued that ‘The findings have enriched our understanding of prehistory, shedding light on human development with evidence that can’t be found in pottery shards or studies of living cultures’ (Zimmer 2016). DNA, the article suggests, can contribute more to our understanding of what is at present a relatively unknown past, through the interpretative clarity of science. The article echoes the claims of Pickrell and Reich and points to the increasing public awareness of the transformative potential of archaeogenetics and bioarchaeology.

The innovative work being done by the Centre for Geogenetics and elsewhere on aDNA seeks to investigate the human past as accurately as possible using contemporary techniques that are not engaged with historiography. The work involves high-level DNA analysis, statistical investigation, mathematical modelling, consideration of previous studies (in particular radiocarbon dating) and population genetics and often incorporates physiological techniques such as cranial morphology. The work begins with the sample itself but soon expands to take in morphology, population genetics and statistical analysis. This is scientific archaeology, excavation, moving from one technique to another, sifting, comparing, analysing. Numerous techniques are brought to bear on the sample, but the purpose of the work is to exemplify it and give it meaning. This meaning allows the sample to live as both ancient stuff and contemporary signifier; it is both old and in the now, interpreted and inert. The research is painstaking in r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Series preface
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: New intersections of archaeology, literature and science
• Part I Genetics and human inheritance
• Part II Innovations in practice through collaborative projects
• Part III Literature, archaeology and layering the past
• Part IV Narrative archaeology and the narratives of archaeologists
• Index
• Copyright Page