One step forward and two steps back: archaeology, DNA and the infantilization of research Despite the title of my talk, I believe that the development of DNA analysis in archaeology is a very good thing, which has opened new and interesting avenues of research. There are, however, also reasons for concern. It is not my role to discuss those of a technical nature, but I will use the rest of my time to highlight what I believe is a danger that the integration of genetic and archaeological research currently faces. Umberto Albarella Dept. of Archaeology The University of Sheffield, UK

The integration challenge a valiant attempt But in general talk to each other rather than with each other The problem of lack of integration becomes particularly severe when leads not just to a missed opportunity but rather to misinterepretation of the evidence

Cattle domestication a heavily investigated topic in the last 15 years Most papers jointly authored by geneticists and zooarchaeologists, so where is the problem? All papers on aDNA deal with cattle bone fragments, which have been identified by zooarchaeologists

(University of Sheffield) will try to revise aurochs The key morphological and biometrical reference remains a 40 year old book Tells us something about research priority Realistically Lizzie Wright’s project would not easily be funded Lizzie Wright’s PhD (University of Sheffield) will try to revise aurochs morphology and biometry

PhD work by Sarah Viner (University of Sheffield) Comparison of Bos astragalus measurements from the Mesolithic, Early Neolithic and Late Neolithic in Britain (Bd = breadth of the distal end, GLm = greatest medial length), after von den Driesch (1976).

Mesolithic Early Neolithic Late Neolithic PhD work by Sarah Viner (University of Sheffield) Early Neolithic Late Neolithic

PIG POSTCRANIAL BONES ???? Domestic pigs Wild boar Grotta della Madonna (Calabria) Upper Palaeolithic N=14 mean=0.055 PIG POSTCRANIAL BONES La Marmotta (Latium) Early Neolithic N=22 mean=0.060 ???? Grotta dell’Uzzo (Sicily) Mesolithic+Transition N=57 mean=0.44 Grotta dell’Uzzo (Sicily) Early Neolithic N=19 mean=0.024 Conelle (Marche) Eneolithic N=237 mean=0.061 Domestic pigs Wild boar

(University of Sheffield) PhD work by Angelos Hadjikoumis and Sarah Viner (University of Sheffield) This is painstaking work that takes a lot of effort and a lot of time – and won’t necessarily be published in Nature However, though animals cannot easily be labelled as wild, domestic, hybrid, local or imported they provide us with very interesting archaeological scenarios

What are we writing and who are we writing for? On the nature of communication, simplification, generalisation and partial evidence

Genetic research is providing useful new evidence in archaeology – the step forward! – but it also seems to be fraught with problems of which over-simplification is, I would argue, the worst The natural world, of which human behaviour is part, is, however, complex. There can be beautiful simplicity to be discovered in this complexity. That plain yellow triangle in this picture is a simple shape, wonderful in its simplicity. However, it does not represent the whole picture. Similarly, the occurrence of an animal of Near Eastern ancestry in Europe provides very interesting information, but this information is lost if not interpreted as part of a complex picture of human group interactions, and especially if it is selectively highlighted at the expenses of other evidence that may be equally important but is less straightforward to analyse. Pressure to publish in journals that apparently will only accept simple and straightforward stories, to obtain grants by funding bodies that equally seem to demand only simplified objectives and to build careers even at the expenses of scientific rigour is, however, contributing to generate a picture of the past that is, if not false, at least sanitised. Archaeologists in particular have envisaged the opportunity to gain exposure and funding that is generally rare in their notoriously rather penniless field. This is all well as long as it does not compromise research ethics. A particular risk for zooarchaeology is that some of this biochemical research may take us back to the old days of stamp collecting and laundry lists, therefore frustrating the attempt carried out in the last few decades to place zooarchaeology at the core of the archaeological agenda.

Research does not operate in a vacuum Research does not operate in a vacuum. The current trends are in fact consistent with a political move that is suspicious of intellectualism and eager to represent the world in black and while for the benefit of those who are in power and can dictate the appropriate colours - think of the axes of evil of G.W.Bush’s memory. There has indeed been in the last couple of decades a debate on the infantilization of politics, an attempt to consider citizens as mentally challenged, unable to understand the complexity of the political affairs of the world. The political message had to become so simple to bear resemblance with some forms of indoctrination. It is clearly a political ploy to discourage citizens from being alert and inquisitive. Whether we like it or not science is influenced by this political and cultural ethos. The parallel with consumerism is particularly apt. I would argue that the infantilization of politics has its own parallel in the infantilisation of research. It may happen in other fields but I see it in archaeology and will argue that the integration of genetics and archaeology has been particularly prone to this problem. The problem that we face is therefore epistemological – how do we create our knowledge – but it has its roots in politics and ethics.

What to do? Integration must become more meaningful There must be equal respect for all forms of investigation Malpractice needs to be exposed Intellectual independence must be paramount Responsibility is always individual, never collective