Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia

Ancient Human Reconstructions and aDNA Is there an ethical dilemma?

Anna Sointula

Kandidatuppsats 15 hp i arkeologi VT 2020 Handledare: Helene Martinsson-Wallin Campus Gotland Abstract

Sointula, A. 2020. Ancient Human Reconstructions and aDNA – Is there an ethical dilemma? The Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.

Sointula, A. 2020. Forntida Mänskliga Rekonstruktioner och aDNA – Finns där ett etiskt dilemma? Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia.

In recent years, archaeogenetic studies have been widely discussed in popular media and they have raised many questions, especially regarding cultural identity and ethnicity. This thesis discusses reconstructions based on ancient human remains and how they are related to the current academic hegemony and political circumstances in Europe. People of Britain have reacted particularly strongly to the reconstruction of the Cheddar Man, exhibited in the Natural History Museum in London. Based on this and few other reconstructions of ancient individuals, the ethical issues behind human reconstructions are analyzed and how museums and popular media as the public spaces displaying these pieces of art should deal with such issues as cultural heritage, human origins, and identity.

Under de senaste åren har arkeogenetiska studier diskuterats allmänt i populära media och de har väckta väckts många frågor speciellt kring kulturell identitet och etnicitet. Denna studie diskuterar rekonstruktioner baserat på forntida mänskliga kvarlevor och hur de är relaterade till den nuvarande akademiska hegemonin och den politiska omständigheter i Europa. Människor i Storbritannien har reagerat särskilt starkt på rekonstruktionen av Cheddar-mannen, utställd i ”Natural History Museum” i London. Med utgångspunkt i denna och ytterligare några rekonstruktioner av forntida individer analyseras etiska frågor bakom mänskliga rekonstruktioner och hur museer och populära medier ska hanterar frågor om kulturarv, mänskligt ursprung och identitet.

Keywords: Human and Facial reconstructions, Ethics, Ethnicity, Race, Cultural identity, Archaeogenetics, aDNA

Nyckelord: Människo och ansiktsrekonstruktioner, Etik, Etnisitet, Ras, Kulturell Identitet, Arkeogenetik, aDNA

Kandidatuppsats i Arkeologi 15 hp. Handledare: Helene Martinsson-Wallin. © Anna Sointula

Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala universitet, Campus Gotland, Cramérgatan 3, 621 67 Visby, Sweden

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude towards my thesis advisor, Helene Martinsson-Wallin, who has helped me with the structure of this thesis and been patiently correcting my grammatical errors. Without this guidance, this thesis would have not become complete.

I am also very grateful for my mother and friends who have provided me with their love and support during this process.

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1. Aim and research questions ...... 5 1.2. Method and material ...... 6 1.2.1. Source criticism...... 6 1.2.2. Delimitation ...... 6 1.3. Theory ...... 7 1.3.1. Definitions of ethics, ethnic group and cultural identity ...... 7 1.3.2. Postcolonialism ...... 7 1.3.3. Agency and practice ...... 8 2. Background ...... 9 2.1. History of human reconstructions ...... 9 2.2. Archaeogenetics ...... 9 2.3. Ethics of museum displays ...... 10 3. Material presentation ...... 12 3.1. Cheddar Man ...... 12 3.2. Whitehawk Woman ...... 13 3.3. Cro-Magnon Man ...... 13 3.4. Myrtis ...... 14 4. Analysis ...... 16 4.1. Nobel whiteness and savage darkness? ...... 16 4.2. aDNA – problem or possibility? ...... 18 4.3. Human reconstructions of Ancient people at Museums and Popular Media ...... 20 5. Discussion ...... 23 6. Results ...... 26 6.1. Future studies ...... 27 7. Summary ...... 28 Bibliography ...... 29 Illustrations ...... 33

1. Introduction

Facial reconstructions have always managed to fascinate many people. The older the depicted individual is and the more precise details the reconstruction contains, the better. Recently, there have been a growing number of headlines in public media focusing on the latest results in the art and science of human reconstructions and it seems that people today have a growing interest in what their ancestors might have looked like and their origin. Therefore, archaeologists today are also facing many new and important questions. The results of the latest ancient DNA studies have proved helpful in making human reconstructions more precise. However, these recent studies in the field of archaeogenetics have caused a lot of controversy regarding ethnicity and cultural identity, for example. The results regarding the skin and eye colour of these ancient people are the results which people have seemed to be surprised by and some scholars have even deemed the methodology behind these studies questionable (Furholt 2019) and have argued that there might be a danger of people drawing overly hasty conclusions and wrongly using this scientific data (Niklasson 2014). This thesis discusses the ethics of human reconstructions of ancient people, which is a relevant and important topic due to those recent results and discoveries of ancient DNA studies. There are as yet no common ethical guidelines which especially touch on the issue of ancient DNA sampling (Austin et al. 2019). This makes it important to question how these studies should be interpreted and employed for the benefit of the general public and how ancient human reconstructions should be interpreted and displayed in public spaces, such as museums and popular media.

1.1. Aim and research questions The aim of this thesis is to give new points of view on the ethical concepts and issues that the field of archaeology faces today. There is a great need for bringing information and awareness to the public as well as the academic community on how to interpret and communicate scientific results regarding archaeogenetics. When carrying out reconstructions of ancient human skeletal remains it is important to discuss which information is important for research and if there is a risk for misuse of this scientific data. In addition, the ways that ethnicity and cultural identity and their relation to human origins in Europe are represented through ancient human reconstructions should be considered. The aim of this study was to find out whether there was an ethical dilemma in relation to human reconstructions of ancient people, especially concerning those constructed based on the results from ancient DNA studies. In order to fulfil the aim of this study, the following research questions were contemplated:  What is the relationship between ancient human reconstructions and cultural identity?  Does aDNA bring new questions to the ethical aspect of ancient human reconstructions?  What role do museums and popular media play within the discourse of ancient human reconstructions?  How are the above questions related to the debate between natural sciences and humanities within the field of archaeogenetics as well as the contemporary political and academic aspects of it in Western society? 5

1.2. Method and material Since human reconstructions combine methods of both natural sciences and the humanities, it is fruitful to consider both perspectives. The material of this study is hence quite complex, and it will represent many points of view from many fields. The focus of this study is ancient human reconstructions based on human remains found in Europe dated between the years of 10 000 – 450 BC. The Cheddar Man, excavated in 1903 in Somerset, Whitehawk Woman, excavated from East Sussex, England in 1933, and Cro- Magnon Man excavated from France and Myrtis, excavated from Kerameikos, Greece in 1994 or 1995, represent the case studies. The facial reconstructions of these ancient human skeletal remains were chosen as they represent European prehistory and therefore, the values of the Western society. The nature of this study is comparative, since it analyses the differences between a reconstruction which is not based on any ancient DNA analysis, and three reconstructions based on ancient DNA studies. Only the human remains of the Cheddar Man, however, are genetically analysed, while the facial reconstructions of the Whitehawk Woman and the Cro-Magnon Man are based on ancient DNA results from other individuals representing their cultural group. Firstly, this study presents data on human origins and their skin colour in Europe and analyses their relation to these previously mentioned case studies. This study also analyses the possibilities and problems within the method of ancient DNA sequencing and the responsibilities that museums and popular media have as they depict and represent human remains and their cultural contexts. The method used for this analysis is a literature study since the material gathered for this study consists of various academic articles, research reports and other papers written by different scholars. This study is based on an evaluation of different discussions and debates amongst researchers and scholars, which have recently been published in different academic journals as well as popular media.

1.2.1. Source criticism An important source criticism to explore is how scholars today sometimes find it very difficult to understand each other’s discussions and published material, especially scholars from academic fields with different methodological perspectives (Lidén and Eriksson 2013; Ion 2019). The risk for misunderstandings is especially evident between scholars within the branch of natural science, and scholars who work within the academic disciplines of the humanities. This is a matter that highly affects the quality of discussion between scholars and can make some of their arguments irrelevant or unfruitful. The nature of this study is also multidisciplinary and combines frameworks from biology, politics and philosophy, which is also something to take into consideration. It is also important to note that the frame of this study only allows the analysis of a few cases of ancient human reconstructions. The case studies mentioned in this study have been chosen carefully, but it is without doubt that a larger sample would give results that are even more reliable.

1.2.2. Delimitation This study focuses on the influence that the latest results from ancient DNA studies have leant to the art of human reconstructions, because the developments on the field of archaeogenetics have made this a highly relevant and important issue. As stated before, one of the most significant developments has been the ability to estimate the skin and eye colours of the tested 6

individuals. These kinds of results bring controversy especially when they are objectified in the form of human reconstructions. In this study I have chosen not to problematize the issue of biometry, since there have already been many discussions regarding that topic. There are undoubtedly other issues which could also bring new depths to the analysis of this study, but unfortunately, to broaden the research questions and the background of this study would also require deeper theoretical and methodological investment than this study allows. All the human reconstructions that are used in this study are prehistoric, since most of the discussions regarding ancient DNA also focused, for example, on prehistoric movements and migrations of human populations. Hence those reconstructions seem to be most relevant to the discussion of cultural identity and ethnicity. In addition, the human reconstructions mentioned in this study have been chosen because they have gained much attention in the eyes of the media and thus might have the greatest affect on the public.

1.3. Theory

1.3.1. Definitions of ethics, ethnic group and cultural identity Since this study will bring up the concepts of ethics, ethnicity and identity, it would be beneficial to clarify how they are comprehended and perceived by the author of this study. Firstly, the term ethics is traditionally understood to imply systemized and recommended concepts of right and wrong, or as stated in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ethics are‘the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group’ (Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, n.d.). The main core of ethics is to resolve questions of human morality, which in the context of this study is viewed in the form of ethical guidelines offered by different organisations. Those guidelines consist information for example about how the people of the past should be treated in an ethical way and how archaeologists should handle possible conflicts regarding different cultural groups with different power structures. Ethnic groups are a categorization of people who share similar cultural experiences usually based on their geographical location or socioeconomic status. People from the same ethnic groups usually share a similar genetic background, but it is not a requirement to be a member of an ethnic group, which is why the term ‘ethnic group’ is quite different from the term ‘race’. This is because ethnic groups are sociocultural units, which means that the people’s sense of belonging is based on the aspects of their everyday life, such as language, history and religion. Lastly, the term identity is generally used to explain the defining characteristics of a being (Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, n.d.). All humans have several different kinds of identities and they can be experienced either as individual or collective. Cultural identity is closely related to the concept of ethnicity, since it is also an individual’s self-perception based, for example, on his or her geographical location, history, social class or religion. However, it can also be based on individual’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group or generation.

1.3.2. Postcolonialism The topic of this study relates closely to the concepts of ethnicity, cultural identity and how people of Western societies relate them with human origins, which is the reason the postcolonial perspective is relevant to use in this study. Through this perspective, it is possible to analyse the contemporary power dynamics within Western societies, which becomes important as this study discusses the academic and political hegemonies of Europe and their affect to the art and science behind ancient human reconstructions.

7

Postcolonial theory took its rise from the ideology of the world after European colonialism. After the middle of the 20th-century the concept started to appear in many academic works and one prominent voice in this field is Edward Said, a professor of literature at Columbia University according to scholars as Harris and Cipolla (2017: 177). Said acted as an advocate for postcolonial theory and he is especially known for his work ‘Orientalism’ (1978). It was Chris Gosden (2001, 2005), who brought postcolonial theory into the field of archaeology with his chapter called ’Post-Colonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge’, published in 2001. This was subsequently followed up by his book on ‘5000 years of Colonialism’ (Gosden 2005). The focus of postcolonialism was to criticise the influences that the imperialist powers from the West inflicted on the countries they colonized and the concept of ’otherness’ is in the centre of this analysis (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 171-174). In this context this usually means the ’Western’ and ’non-Western’ people refers to the unchallenged and vague Western conception of ’non-Western’ people. The so-called “primitive non-Westerners” representing the opposite of the civilised “higher” characteristics Westerners usually value (Said 1978: 14).

1.3.3. Agency and practice Since the enlightenment, many philosophers and theorists have debated on what level human individuals are capable of rational actions and on what level they are affected by products of social norms and morals. Agency is widely conceived as the capacity to make independent decisions while also creating and interacting with the structural influences of, for example, social class, gender and ethnicity (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 38). The work by the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel, especially regarding ethnomethodology, has also heavily influenced the development of agency theory (Dobres & Robb 2000: 4). These ideas of agency influenced the field of archaeology from sociology, and in the 1980s the archaeologist Ian Hodder noticed the potential in the works of an English sociologist, Anthony Giddens (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 44). During the 1990s agency theory became more intensely popular amongst archaeologists and one of the most discussed debates regarding agency theory was the significance of material culture variation (Dobres & Robb 2000: 7-8). The Theory of Practice, on the other hand, derived from the French sociologist, anthropologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, whose theory is centred on the concept of habitus (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 42, 44). In the field of archaeology, the theories of practice and agency are seen as a protest against the structural-functionalistic point of view, namely that cultural change was always caused by influences outside the cultural system (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 45). The theories of agency and practice will become relevant for this study as it will seek to view the agency between the relationship of modern humans and human reconstructions. By considering an agency perspective, it is possible to analyse the influences of how museums and media select to present human reconstructions. Combined with postcolonial theory it will also give more depth and varied understanding about people and their actions in Western society.

8

2. Background

2.1. History of human reconstructions It can be argued that the history of reconstructions began during the Neolithic period of Jericho. Archaeologists found evidence that the skulls of the deceased were separated from their bodies and plastered (Verzé 2009: 5). This was seen as a form of ancestral worship (Verzé 2009: 5). Death masks could be seen as a form of facial reconstruction and were admired during the Renaissance (Verzé 2009: 6). During that period there were artists in Northern Italy who were the first to provide wax models of human body parts to doctors and surgeons, but it was Andrea Vesalius who decided to introduce these kinds of anatomical models to common medical schools (Verzé 2009: 6). During the 19th century the art of facial reconstructions of criminals became very important in the field of forensic sciences as an attempt to simplify make the identification of criminals more rapid (Verzé 2009: 7). In the 19th century the first scientific efforts were made in creating a human facial reconstruction, as the first scientists that were able to make three- dimensional models from cranial remains that aimed to portray the facial features of a given individual (Gupta et al. 2015: 26). This study was made by a German anatomist Wilhelm His in 1985 (Gupta et al. 2015: 26). During the same time, a German anatomist and physiologist Hermann Wecker developed a method for facial reconstructions that would be called the ’Wecker facial reconstruction technique’ (Gupta et al. 2015: 26). This method consists of measuring the depth of the facial tissue from carefully calculated marks by inserting a small blade through it that would touch the bone tissue underneath (Gupta 2015: 26). The results, however, were still quite controversial, as many different anthropologists made their own reconstructions from the Neanderthal skull found in 1908 and each of their results differed from others (Verzé 2009: 8). On the other hand, in the 20th century, there were some major technical developments as medico-legal experts started to take interest in this field and thus many separate methodologies were created all over the world (Verzé 2009: 8). One of these methods was for example the Manchester method, which was widely used in many facial reconstructions around the Europe. The Manchester method, developed by R. Neave at Manchester University, combined the methods that were used in Russia and America and were based on detailed traces of muscle insertion and thickness data for modelling the soft tissues of the face (Verzé 2009: 9-10). Lately the producers of facial reconstructions have added computerised techniques, such as 3D-modeling to further support their work. 3D-modeling has proved to be less time-consuming as it produced a gallery of most likely facial features by scanning the data from the skull and analysing the available data of age, sex and ethnic group (Verzé 2006: 10).

2.2. Archaeogenetics Archaeogenetics is a discipline that aims to reconstruct population history of the world by

9

using molecular genetic data, ancient DNA (aDNA), from ancient individuals in addition to archaeological, anthropological and linguistic research. It was only during the past decade that the method of using aDNA had started to become popular amongst researchers and scholars, however, the method was not entirely new. One of the first pioneers to use this method in his research was the Swedish biologist Svante Pääbo, who managed to extract some samples of DNA from Egyptian mummies by 1985 (Pääbo 1985). The method of using genetic data, however, was soon dismissed especially by those scholars representing the ascending post- processual school of thought in archaeology during that period, and the methods of natural sciences were even deemed to ’dehumanize the past’ (Shanks and Tilley 1987: 77). The method of human genome sequencing in archaeogenetic studies was first based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which means the small circular chromosomes inside the mitochondria that usually passed from mother to off-springs (Siekevitz 1957). Based on this sequence it was possible to estimate the maternal lines amongst individuals. Brian Sykes has argued in his popular book ‘Seven daughters of Eve’ (2001) that the skeletal remains of the Australopithecus named Lucy, found in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson in 1974 (Johanson 1981) can be considered to be “ the mother of origin of modern humans”. However, genetic sequencing using only mtDNA could be problematic, since the genetic traits of a mother who only gives birth to sons is lost. During the beginning of the past decade, however, a scientific breakthrough occurred within the field of archaeogenetics, when researchers learned how to produce genomic data from the nuclear DNA (nDNA) instead of only using the limited mtDNA (Kristiansen 2014a: 13). Since then, a growing number of archaeogenetic studies have been done, and every one of them seemed to gain more attention than the last. The study done by Soares et al. in 2010 claimed to have identified five different stages in human settlement in Europe during the past 50,000 years (Soares et al. 2010). In addition to that, another study done in 2014 by Lazaridis et al. (2014), discovered that modern European population was likely to come from three distinct ancestral lines, Early European Farmers from Anatolia; Western European Hunter- Gatherers, and Ancient North Eurasians. The study done by Haak et al. is regarded as the most ground-breaking in the field of archaeology was published by Nature in 2015. From the ancient European human remains that they had studied, the researchers detected a 75 percent similarity amongst the individuals from the Yamnaya culture and those of the late Corded Ware culture in Western Europe (Haak et al. 2015). Many scholars assumed that this would confirm the Steppe Theory coined by The Lithuanian American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (1959). According to Gimbutas’s theory, the homeland of the Proto-Indo-European languages was the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which stretched from the northern shores of the Black sea to the Caspian Sea in the east. Moreover, according to the Haak et al. (2015) study, the addition of the Yamnaya genomes the European genetic pool was followed by darker eye colour and lighter skin colour becoming more common in the amongst the European individuals. Several databases around Europe have collected data from modern individuals to compare modern DNA with the aDNA collected from ancient individuals. One program that collected such genetic data was IrisPlex, which has been used in studies that analysed the skin and eye colours of European populations (Walsh et al. 2011; Walsh et al. 2017).

2.3. Ethics of museum displays Places that retain and display objects of historical, scientific and cultural value are classified as museums. Collecting and interpreting these objects is considered to be among the main purposes of museums apart from putting the objects on display for the public to see. Different museums tend to focus on different subjects with a variety of programs and exhibitions. It could be argued that the ones with a focus on historical or archaeological purposes have been driven 10

by nationalistic thoughts and ideology as they represent nations’ prehistoric roots influenced by their mythical connotations (Werbart 2004: 364). The concept of ‘nation’ derived from the 19th century’s need to encourage the idea of unity through common history, culture, and language (Werbart 2004: 364). In Europe these ethical codes were usually influenced by Western ideologies, definitions of morality and understandings of science (Alfonso & Powell 2008: 6), which is influenced by Christian values. Ethical guidelines in the field of archaeology were essential, since ethical questions were influenced and defined by culture and history, which were the focus of archaeology (Alfonso & Powell 2008: 6). These guidelines varied based on their purpose and other factors such as the geographical location. The most frequently used guidelines have been developed by ICOM (International Council of Museums); WAC (World Archaeological Congress); EAA (European Association of Archaeologists); and the Society of Museum Archaeologists (SMA). The International Council of Museums has categorised different guidelines into eight different categories. The first one is that ‘Museums preserve, interpret and promote the natural and cultural inheritance of humanity,’ which consists of clarifying the statements of purpose, personnel, and finances. The second category states that ‘Museums that maintain collections hold them in trust for the benefit of society and its development’, which included statements about how the museum collections should be handled, such as the following:

“Collections of human remains, and material of sacred significance should be acquired only if they can be housed securely and cared for respectfully. This must be accomplished in a manner consistent with professional standards and the interests and beliefs of members of the community, ethnic or religious groups from which the objects originated, where these are known.” (ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums).

About 90% of the English cultural institutions held human remains in their collections according to a questionnaire conducted in 2002, which in addition to this, estimated that such collections held a total amount of sixty-one thousand pieces of human remains (Working Group on Human Remains 2003: 13), it is most likely the number has grown since the questionnaire was conducted. The categorisation of human remains in museums has not always been clear since there was a debate on whether they should be regarded as people, classified as artefacts, or other objects (Cassman et al. 2008: 1). However, such perspectives can significantly vary depending on cultural differences. This resulted in confusion on how the human reconstructions should be perceived. Even though those reconstructions rarely consist of actual human remains, they are made to represent them only in slightly different form. Human reconstructions have become a vital part of historical museum displays. The purpose of the human reconstructions is to bring ancient people back to life and display that to museums’ visitors and make it relatable as well as visualising human evolution.

11

3. Material presentation

3.1. Cheddar Man In 1903 archaeologists excavated the skeletal remains of a human male in Somerset, England, who is now called the Cheddar Man because that was also the name of the limestone gorge it was found in. The find was significant because according to the radiocarbon dating it dates to 9100 – 7100 BC, which in Britain represents the Mesolithic period, making these the oldest intact human skeletal remains yet found in Britain. In 2017 a team that consisted of specialists from many different universities working with London's Natural History Museum performed a study analysing genome-wide aDNA data of human remains from Mesolithic and Neolithic (10.500 – 4.500 BC) individuals excavated from Britain (Brace et al. 2018). These human remains included the remains of the Cheddar Man. The bone sample for the DNA analyses of the Cheddar Man was taken from his petrous, which is a part of the skull near the ear. From results of that study, the researchers were able to detect genetic similarities between the Mesolithic individuals from Britain and Western European hunter-gatherers (Brace et al. 2018). Based on the analyses of the mitochondrial DNA of the Cheddar Man it belonged to the haplogroup U5b1, which is common amongst the Western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Brace et al. 2018). Modern Europeans have an estimated 10 percent of the same DNA as these Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. From the results of this study, the researchers were also able to conclude that the Cheddar Man had a dark skin, light eyes and dark hair (Brace et al. 2018). These results supported the work of the Dutch paleoartists Alfons and Adrie Kennis, who made the most recent reconstruction (Image 1.) of the Cheddar Man, currently displayed in the Natural History Museum of London. 3D scans and printing were also used in the making of this reconstruction.

Image 1. The facial reconstruction of the Cheddar Man. The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London.

12

3.2. Whitehawk Woman The remains of the Whitehawk Woman, dated to the Neolithic period of Britain (c. 3600 BC), was excavated from the burial monument of Whitehawk Enclosure in East Sussex, England in 1933 (Romey 2019). The face of the Whitehawk Woman was reconstructed (Image 2.) and displayed in the Royal Pavilion & Museum’s new archaeology gallery in Brighton, England, in an exhibition that opened on the 26th of January 2019. The team behind the aDNA analyses of the Cheddar Man was also consulted in the making of this reconstruction and according to them, the skin of the Whitehawk Woman was of a southern Mediterranean/Near Eastern/North African colour and that she had brown hair and eyes (Romey 2019). This estimate is not based on an actual DNA sample from the human remains of the Whitehawk Woman, but on the aDNA analyses of other individuals dated to the Neolithic period in Europe and especially in Britain. The skin colour of the people who populated Whitehawk should at least have been darker than the skin colour of the Bell Beaker people, who replaced the people similar to Whitehawk Woman around one thousand years later (c. 2200 BC) (Romey 2019).

Image 2. The facial reconstruction of the Whitehawk Woman. Royal Pavilion & Museums; Brighton & Hove.

3.3. Cro-Magnon Man The term “Cro-Magnon” is used to refer to European early modern humans (EEMH) who populated in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and they were a genetically separated group for 20 000 years until their DNA mixed with Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from the Near East and Caucasus around 10 000 – 12 000 BC (Fu et al. 2014). The name of the term comes from the Aurignacian rock shelter of Cro-Magnon in southwestern France. The term “Cro- Magnon” is however not used to reference to a species or to an archaeological culture. There is a facial reconstruction (Image 3.) made from the human remains of a Cro- Magnon Man, which depicts him as dark skinned with dark hair and brown eyes. Just like the Whitehawk woman, the reconstruction of the Cro-Magnon Man was made by the Swedish 13

artist Oscar Nilsson using the 3D prints of the skull. The aDNA of the Cro-Magnon Man has not been analysed, but according to Nilsson, other early modern humans in Europe whose DNA have been analysed, have been shown to have had very dark skin. The facial reconstruction is displayed in the same exhibition at the Royal Pavilion Museum where the Whitehawk Woman is displayed.

Image 3. The facial reconstruction of the Cro-Magnon Man. Royal Pavilion & Museums; Brighton & Hove.

3.4. Myrtis Myrtis is a facial reconstruction of an eleven-year-old Athenian girl, whose remains were found in 1994 or 1995 from a mass grave for the plague victims in Kerameikos, Greece. The human remains of Myrtis are dated to 450 BC (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011). The facial reconstruction of Myrtis (Image 4.) was made by a team of specialists in Greece and the case report of the facial reconstruction was published in Angle Orthodontist volume 81 in 2011 (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011). The human remains of Myrtis were not genetically analysed, nor were any genetic data from other ancient individuals considered while making this reconstruction. It is stated in the case report that the facial reconstruction was made by first replicating the original skull using 3D modelling, rapid prototyping techniques and then the Manchester method. Myrtis’s skin colour is depicted as very light, her eyes brown and hair light red. Her clothes and hairstyle have been chosen to fit to the Classical era of Greece (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011). There have not been many human remains found from Greece which date to the Classical era. Myrtis is the first facial reconstruction that has been made from an individual who lived in Athens during the Golden Age of Pericles (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011). The facial reconstruction of Myrtis is currently displayed in an exhibition in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

14

Image 4. The facial reconstruction of Myrtis. en.wikipedia.org.

15

4. Analysis

In this part of this study the facial reconstructions introduced in the previous chapter are analysed under three different chapters by summarizing some literature and articles from academic journals as well as public media regarding aDNA, museum displays and human reconstructions. The first chapter will open a discussion about the ways human skin colour has been depicted and how it has been related to studies of human origins and ancient cultures. This analysis derives from postcolonial theory, as it puts Western civilization in opposition with the savage and primitive others, meaning the people of ancient cultures in this context. The second chapter will discuss the controversies that archaeologists have faced with aDNA studies and how it might affect the way the facial reconstructions named in this study should be interpreted. In this chapter, the revelations of aDNA regarding prehistoric migrations are related with questions of cultural identity. The debate between humanities and natural sciences will also be addressed. Lastly, the third chapter will discuss how human reconstructions are displayed in museums and media and what kinds of responsibilities they face in their portrayals of them. The discourses between these public spaces are analysed using the perspectives of agency and practice theory.

4.1. Noble whiteness and savage darkness? Firstly, it is important to define what is considered as dark or white skin and to understand the human evolution behind this question. According to some studies, the evolution of dark skin pigment in people started circa 1.2 million years ago (Jablonski 2004). This development was caused by the adaptation of humans to the hot climate and the loss of body hair, subsequently allowing the maintenance of homeostasis, which made it possible for humans to perform more physically challenging tasks (Jablonski 2004). In addition, aDNA studies that have analysed the colour pigmentations of human skin have usually used a chart to describe these different colours with pictures. This chart helps the reader to understand what the researchers have meant by a certain skin colour. The question of human origins has been debated since the Darwinian revolution, and it has always been highly influenced by colonial points of view, meaning the western socio- political policies and agendas (Athreya & Ackermann 2020: 72-73). The philosophical traditions of the Western Europe have also been influenced by the essential idea of humans being different from other animals (Anderson 2020: 56). Edward Said states in his book ‘Orientalism’ (1978) how people of the European West have in the past managed to marginalize and thus even devalue African as well as Asian identities and histories. This is also deliberately caused by European scholars, according to Said (Said 1978: 40-41). Paolo Palladino and Michael Worboys have also argued in their co- written article about science and imperialism (1993) that Western science has , even after the imperialist era, continued to dismiss perspectives outside Western societies. They emphasize how it is important to understand that imperialistic ideas have influenced the development of science as well (Palladino & Worboys 1993: 102). This narrative of otherness and Western 16

superiority can also be correlated with how Western scholars regard prehistoric cultures and their people and subsequently how they regard ancient facial reconstructions, such as the ones mentioned in the previous chapter. It should be clarified that the human remains behind these facial reconstructions mentioned in this study are not from primates – all these individuals belong to the Homo sapiens species. One important question right now is, however, where to draw the line with respect to regarding people of the past as being like us – the ‘modern people’? The answer to this question depends on the distinction between humans and the ‘others’, which in this case means the apes, with whom people share a common ancestor. Iain Davidson (2020: 36-37) have pointed out, that if Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory is correct, which it in this context of his text was, there could not be any clear line between modern human and primates. However, Davidson and his colleague have defined the first people that can be called ‘modern humans’ as deriving from the Upper Palaeolithic of Western Europe, since that is the period of time to which the earliest signs of art made by humans are dated (Davidson & Noble 1989). According to this definition, even the so-called Cro-Magnon Man, dated to the Upper Palaeolithic, should be regarded as a modern human. As also accomplished before, there is a history of colonialists regarding the aboriginal cultures as primitive and savage. These aboriginal individuals have usually had dark skin, hair and eyes and it could be argued that the people of Western society still harbor conscious or subconscious associations between these features and notions of primitiveness and savageness. Therefore, it could be argued that the image that the European people today held of their ancestors is a product of Eurocentric humanism. The remains of the so-called Cro-Magnon Man are from the Upper Palaeolithic, which makes the DNA analyses of skin colour even more complex. It was only until recently that the researchers have started to find the answers to their questions about prehistoric migrations; hence, it has been difficult to be certain about the exact origins of the Cro-Magnon Man. Subsequently, it cannot be said where this reconstructed individual has lived with high confidence (Romey 2018). Therefore, the creditability of the research team can be questioned as they have stated that the Cro-Magnon Man skin colour was ‘very dark’. In comparison to other reconstructions mentioned in this study, the remains of the Cro-Magnon Man are the most ancient and the colour of his skin is darker than other reconstructions. Could it be, that the reason behind this presumption perhaps lies in the subconscious assumption of the dark skin being seen as a primitive attribute, and the more ancient the individual, the more primitive it must have been? It is not a secret that ever since the Enlightenment Europeans have regarded white skin to be one of the most admirable features in people as it related to the ideals of purity and taste (Talbot 2018). This is something that becomes evident also from the way ancient Greek and Roman sculptures have been depicted and interpreted. The New Yorker published an article written by Margaret Talbot, an American essayist, in 2018, where she wrote about the myth behind the white colouring of the ancient Greek and Roman sculptures. In her article Talbot had interviewed Mark Abbe, who works as a professor of Ancient Art at the University of Georgia and has studied these ancient Greek sculptures for two decades. According to Abbe, those sculptures have originally had a lot of colour in them and states that one of the most ignored facts is that these ancient sculptures were not originally plain white marble (Talbot 2018). If these sculptures were found still carrying some of their original colours, museum curators have usually ordered to have them cleaned or scratched off(Talbot 2018). Vinzenz Brinkman, also interviewed by Talbot in the same article, has studied these ancient sculptures and came to the same conclusion that there is evidence that theancient sculpture has indeed been polychromic. He analysed them under a special light which was able to highlight the surfaces, revealing that usually the lips were depicted as red and hair as

17

black (Talbot 2018). Talbot sees this as a sign of the people of the western cultures engaging in an ‘act of collective blindness’ (Talbot 2018). Even a piece of pottery, currently exhibited in the Roman and Greek gallery of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, clearly shows a man painting a sculpture, which means that sings of this act has existed and even displayed in front of people, and yet subconsciously or consciously ignored. Based on this it could be argued how the facial reconstruction of the eleven-year-old Athenian girl, Myrtis, with her light skin and red hair, is a representation of these Western values, even present in modern Greece. Of course, it is impossible to tell her exact skin and hair colour even if her DNA would have been analysed, but it seems highly unlikely, that the most common skin tone of the Greek population during the Classical era would have been as light as it has been depicted in the reconstruction. The red colour of her hair does not seem very common amongst those with Greek heritage. According to the article by Talbot (2018), the hair of ancient sculptures was painted black. Even the case report on the facial reconstruction of Myrtis stated how nowadays facial aesthetics are based on ancient works of art such as coins, frescoes, pottery and sculptures (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011: 169). There is also a previous facial reconstruction made of the Cheddar Man, and it depicted this Mesolithic hunter-gatherer as light skinned. A previous facial reconstruction in 2D made of another Cro-Magnon male individual had shown him to be light skinned. It should also be mentioned that all producers of the facial reconstructions mentioned in this study come from countries in Europe and thus have grown up within a Western culture. From this, it is also easy to detect the way people of Western society have presumptions about the outlooks of their ancestors which are highly based on the most prominent features seen in their own society. This becomes quite evident from the reconstructions of Myrtis and Whitehawk Woman. With Whitehawk Woman, however, the situation is a little bit different. With Whitehawk Woman, the skin colour is depicted as dark, but her other facial features are very much resembling common features within the people of Western culture.

4.2. aDNA – problem or possibility? As stated above, some scholars have deemed the method of aDNA sequencing as “dehumanizing” (Shanks & Tilley 1987: 77) and scholars and researchers seem to agree with that notion even today (reference). Some of the latest studies regarding aDNA and human migrations in Europe have gained many negative responses from other scholars. It seems, however, that the reason for this controversy is mostly caused by the lack of understanding at some level. Archaeogenetic studies and the responses to the results have caused adebate between natural sciences and their methods, which aim to explain the phenomenon, on the one hand, and the humanities, which again focus on understanding the phenomenon, on the other. The results of Haak et al. (2015) especially seemed to be a red flag for many scholars in the field of archaeology. The European Journal of Archaeology (vol 21), for example, published a discussion between several scholars about the study of Haak et al. (2015), where Martin Furholt (2018) expressed his concern about how archaeogenetics are bringing back the thoughts of culture-historical archaeology. With this he means that the results of aDNA studies usually tend to compound the concept of material culture with the concept of social group or other culture (Furholt 2018: 159). Other scholars (Eisemann et al. 2018) have also expressed a concern about correct terminology, which differs between the fields of natural sciences and the humanities. This discussion about these prehistoric migrations is also related to the discussion of cultural groups, such as the population of the Whitehawk people and the Cro-Magnon people. 18

The same material culture of certain groups does not always imply that the people with the shared material culture have the same ethnic identity. Therefore, it is very hard to answer any questions regarding the cultural identities of the Cheddar Man, Whitehawk Woman or the other individuals whose facial reconstructions are mentioned in this study and how that could apply to the ethnic groups or cultural identities present in modern Europe. Alexandra Ion (2019) also writes in her article about the impact of aDNA studies on the cultural identity of modern people and states that it is quite different thing to make a genetic profile and to integrate it with the cultural or historical narrative. It should be taken into consideration that very little is still known about aDNA and its technicalities. Susan Walsh, a researcher from the Indiana University, who was one of the members of the research team who analysed the aDNA samples from the Cheddar Man, also states that based on the results of their study, the colour of his skin being dark was only his ‘most probable profile’ (Barras 2018). It is not yet entirely possible to know the exact skin colour of individuals based only on their genetic traits. Whitehawk Woman and Cro-Magnon Man have not been genetically analysed in any way, but their reconstructions are based on the results from other archaeogenetic studies, which have analysed ancient DNA from the other individuals of the same time frame or cultural group. Because of this, it would be safe to say that there is no absolute certainty of the colours of their skin, hair or eyes. The facial reconstruction of Myrtis, on the other hand, is not based on any previous genetic studies, or at least the case report (Papagrigorakis et al. 2011) does not have any mention of them regarding any study of that sort. In a paper published by Current Swedish Archaeology’s 22nd issue in 2014, Kristian Kristiansen has some interesting points as he writes about the consequences of the Third Scientific Revolution. He compares the developments of aDNA and strontium isotopes. Kristiansen (2014a: 20) states, that while strontium isotope has proved to gather information about the lives and diets of individuals by examining, for example, wool and hair, while in the case of archaeogenetics scholars have only started to understand the conditions for DNA preservation and the best places in human remains for DNA sampling. Based on this point of view, it could be taken into question whether it was truly necessary to make ancient reconstructions of, for example, the Cheddar Man, if the methodology is not even fully developed to its full potential. It should also be discussed whether it is necessary for modern-day people to put such emphasis on the skin colour of ancient people with respect to their cultural identity. Archaeogenetic studies have even shown how the changes of the skin pigmentations have been caused by the changes in the environment (Jablonski 2004). It is also important to reiterate now, that the concepts of race or ethnic group are not biological. One of the current discussions on the subject of archaeogenetics and aDNA took place in 2019 as Current Swedish Archaeology published a series of articles in their 27th issue. This was based on a workshop by Alexandra Ion, who together with her colleague Darryl Wilkinson presented ’Can science accommodate multiple Ontologies? The genetics revolution and archaeological theory’ in Cambridge in 2018. The matters discussed in this workshop are summarized in Ion’s article (2019) and the participants in this workshop are mainly the other authors of the articles in this issue. In her article, Ion (2019: 25) also brings up the question of who the target audience for the archaeogenetic studies is and how useful this knowledge truly is for archaeologists. It is clear that different cultures also tend to have different reactions to archaeogenetics, and those opinions should be listened to when their own cultural heritage is taken into question. Ion mentions as an example the case of the first medieval Romanian ruler, Vladislav I Vlaicu, and the debate about his origin. For many years, different parties have been arguing whether this ruler was Cuman or not and this question seemed to have a specific importance regarding their own cultural history and identity (Ion 2019: 15-16). Some time ago, however, the

19

Minister of culture in Romania, Puiu Haşotti, prohibited the human remains of the ruler to be genetically analysed. He defended this decision by stating that those results should not have any significance because the biological heritage of the ruler would not abolish the mark that he has left to the Romanian culture, history and people (Ion 2019: 16). This is a perspective that should be added to the current discourse around human reconstructions and especially the ones regarding the Cheddar Man, who has gained an enormous amount of attention in the popular media as well. That, however, will be more closely analysed in the next chapter.

4.3. Human reconstructions of Ancient people at Museums and Popular Media What is the relationship between these human reconstructions displayed in museums and the visitor of the museums? Since scholars usually tend to put the concept of agency against the concept of structure and the theory of human agency often derives from the notion of individuality (Dornan 2002: 304), it is important to understand some structures behind Western culture and how it regards individuality. Ian Hodder has defined individuality as a historical product of late capitalism in Western societies (Hodder 2000: 23). The concept of individual self is viewed in Western societies as the outer skin of the body and self (Hodder 2000: 23), which for example, in the context of this study can mean the colours of the skin, eyes and hair. Individuality is also defined by the set of actions the individual has taken. Then again, behind these sets of actions are the choices made by an individual and these choices are always consequences of human agency. The community in which an individual lives influences the way the identity of that individual is constructed. An American sociologist, Benedict Anderson, has for example stated that every human has a sense of belonging and an image of their community, even though they would have never met most of the fellow members of their community (Anderson 1983: 6). It could be argued that human reconstruction in museums has the potential to affect this sense of belonging, as they are represented in a way as past members of that community. This discourse can also be seen in media discourses about the Cheddar Man, especially within headlines such as the one published by The Guardian called ‘He's one of us': modern neighbours welcome Cheddar Man’ (Morris 2018). In this article, the people from the village of Cheddar were interviewed with one of them stating how proud they are of being descendants of this Mesolithic hunter-gatherer (Morris 2018). In her chapter about the ‘Ethics of Interpretation’ (2004) the Swedish archaeologist Anna-Carin Andersson talks about the concepts of capital, habitus and field, which have been derived from the work of the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. According to her the concept of capital means different values which are collectively acknowledged and respected in a certain group, and there are different subordinates to the capital, such as symbolic and cultural capital, which consists of concepts such as faith, reputation, scientific work and education (Andersson 2004: 294-295). Habitus, on the other hand, is the form of existence of these capitals (Andersson 2004: 299), meaning the outcome of individual traits that each person has constructed for themselves. Field is the concept used as a common room for individuals actions interact with each other and the outside world (Andersson 2004: 301-304). Based on these concepts, museums can be viewed as the field since their employees gather and distribute information while interacting with each other. In this context, museums can function both as symbolic and as cultural capital. For example, the aim of the Royal Pavilion & Museum’s exhibition in Brighton, where the reconstructions of Whitehawk Woman and Cro-Magnon Man are currently exhibited, is to inform people about the lives of

20

the previous inhabitants of England and especially Brighton (Romey 2019), and their exhibition consists of many human reconstructions. This information, however, turns into sentimental value, and thus presents itself as a symbolic means, as well as influences an individual’s habitus. Through these reconstructions and their features and history that they imagine behind them, people are seeking answers to the question of why they have themselves become the individuals they are today. The media also has a significant influence on how people reflect their own history and identity. The image given by the media about the Cheddar Man, for example, has in a way also been quite misleading. For example, a headline was published by New Scientist a month after the revelation of the facial reconstruction of the Cheddar Man, called ‘Ancient ‘dark- skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true’ (Barras 2018). This gives the reader an impression that the work which was done by the scientists previously was poorly done, even though they never claimed that the results were one hundred percent accurate, because it is not yet possible with the equipment’s and knowledge of modern science. The British Nationalist party published an article (Watts 2018) about this and stated how the ‘leftist magazines’ such as The Guardian and The Washington Post are ‘pushing racial-politics and their destructive agenda’ with the way they have reported on the facial reconstruction of the Cheddar Man. Within the context of agency, it could be asked what is the factor that makes people react the way they have to the reconstruction of the Cheddar Man? People are taking action based on the information they have consumed, which usually means social structure, context and history (Wobst 2000: 41). This can be the information displayed in museums or the information shared by media sources and usually it is a mixture of that. People have prejudices towards other information sources because of the previous information sources and this can become a vicious circle. According to Giddens, the structure is something that people have created as through their action, as well as a medium which creates them (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 43). This potential of agency to react is called a ‘feedback loop’ (Harris & Cipolla 2017: 38-39). In this perspective, the museums and media sources as well as the people who consume them, are the agents which create structure and influence each other. Andersson (2004) has, for example, analysed the debate in the media and how that affected academic discourse around the theories of the origin of the Swedish nation. According to her (2004:292), the scholarly dispute about this subject can be divided between the ones who support the ‘western Swedish hypothesis’ and the ones who support the ‘Uppland hypothesis’. The most recent phase regarding the debate of the origin of the Swedish nation happened during 1960-1990 and in the early 1980s, when a documentary series called ‘The cradle of the Swedish realm – a rocking history’ (transl. by Andersson), aired on Swedish Television (Andersson 2004: 289). This documentary presented many alternative theories developed mostly by amateur historians about the origin of the Swedish realm and caused a lot of attention and the discussion around it seemed to be emotionally charged (Andersson 2004: 291-292). In her chapter, Andersson discusses the reasons behind the emotionality connected with this question and the process by which only one interpretation becomes the most widely accepted one amongst scholars as well as the public. According to Andersson (2004: 321) this is a question of who the people behind these statements are and what kind of credibility they enjoy in their society. The groups with the most valuable symbolic and social capital are always the ones who tend to win the common acceptance in these kinds of battles (Andersson 2004: 321). There is also a documentary about the process of the making of the facial reconstruction of The Cheddar Man called ‘The First Brit: The 10,000 Year Old Man’. This documentary aired on the 18th of February in 2018 in The British Channel4. Within the perspectives of agency and practice, this documentary has also had an influence on the European and

21

especially British identity. It has made people question, what does it mean to have ancestors who had dark skin and how does this affect our society today. It could also be argued that without this documentary, the reconstruction of the Cheddar Man would not have become as widely discussed a topic in the popular media as it has been.

22

5. Discussion

In order to discuss the matters that have been mentioned in this paper, it is necessary to understand the contemporary political and academic circumstances in Europe. Burström et al. (2004: 141) have stated that people with low income had low participation in the governmental elections and were mainly from ethnic minority groups. It can be argued that this is the reason so many politicians continued to stay in office even though they have been accused of publicly making racist remarks. One example would be the current Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, who once said that Africa would have been better off under colonial rule (Busari 2019). One political movement that has touched millions of people all over Europe during the past few years was Brexit, which was tied with several social issues such as race, self-determination and immigration (Brophy 2018: 1650). These issues could be traced back to archaeogenetical studies and questions of human origin in Europe as Britons had started to question what it meant to be European and what role genetic history played in their national identity. According to Kenneth Brophy, popular media discourse as well as academic research has been tied to this debate (Brophy 2018: 1650-1651). It is quite alarming how a report from 2015 showed that the number of employees from black, Asian and other minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds in museums, galleries and libraries have decreased to 2,7 percent from the estimate from 2006-2008 which was 7 percent (Francis 2018). It can be argued, that this had a major influence on how ethical dilemmas in museum exhibitions regarding different cultural were detected and handled. Stephanie Moser had mentioned in her article (2003) that the museums have had frequently represented the stories of human origins in a formulaic and restrictive way. Moreover, Moser had suggested five different strategies that should be considered while organising future museum exhibitions. These strategies are to engage with the present; challenge the iconography; abandon the narrative; tell different stories, and harness emotion (Moser 2003). Björn Magnusson Staaf (2004: 360) had stated that archaeological museums can never be apolitical and that the ethical guidelines of museums were to strengthen the democratic foundations of society (Magnusson Staaf 2004: 360). According to him, the old barriers between science and art should be torn down, and museums should be the places to present all the different aspects of the exhibition instead of focusing on just one narrative (Magnusson Staaf 2004: 360-361). In order for the museums to be able to utilize ethical guidelines as efficiently as possible, there is a need for a universal definition to the term ‘museum’. In 2019, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) considered whether the term “museum” has to be redefined (icom.museum.en/news. viewed in 17 May 2020). This made it evident that scholars should discuss the issue of human reconstructions more in-depth. A total of 269 different suggestions were gathered from all around the world and published in ICOM website. Furthermore, in 2019, and during the ICOM Executive Board meeting in Paris, the board decided to add the following as an alternative to the definition of museum:

“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.

23

Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.” (icom.museum/en/news. Viewed in 17 May 2020).

Additionally, Susan Keene (2006) had further questioned whether museums are a dying institution. In her article, Keene pointed out that for many centuries museums have been a defining aspect of the social hierarchy (Keene 2006: 3), as it was considered a luxury that only the most affluent individuals were able to afford. This has been an ongoing trend and even today its presence can be felt in Western society. Like any other services, the museums have sought to respond to the demands of their audience and set their strategies according to that. Subsequently, the portrayals of the human reconstructions and cultural identity were influenced as well. As has been established in the previous chapters, the discourse in popular media and society’s economy had an influence on the way people within the academic institutions dealt with the political questions concerning cultural identity (Andersson 2004). It can be argued that the form of racism in Western media has changed throughout the time. Hence, the term postmodern racism was created and defined as a subtle version of traditional racism. The subtlety of postmodern racism has made it harder to detect (Löwsted & Mboti 2020: 5). Furthermore, the anonymity given by social media has made it easier to spread racist remarks quicker and access a wide audience. Lately, the Britain’s media has been accused of racism because of the treatment of Meghan Markle, who married Prince Harry of England in 2018. Monica Sarkar, an analytical reporter of CNN, had collected stories on how public figures and university lecturers with ethnic backgrounds who have tried to speak out about the mistreatment of Markle by the British Media were silenced or even ridiculed (Sarkar 2020). Within this context, it becomes salient to discuss how the current media discourse around the discoveries and results of aDNA research has revolutionized this field of studies and thus awakened some concerns. An article written by the American geneticist David Reich, published in The New York Times in 2018, discussed how the field of genetics has changed our understandings of race. In this article, Reich states that even though the concept of race is a social construct, “the differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.” (Reich 2018). As a reply to Reich’s article, several scholars, social scientists and public health researchers wrote an open letter published by Buzzfeed and criticised the Reich use of the terms ‘race’ and ‘population’ in the context of biomedical and genetic research (Buzzfeednews n.d.). In a broader sense, it is worrying to consider how such researches and studies can promote and/or influence individuals’ behaviours toward those of different ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that figures, plots and images in genetics papers that were not even meant to present ‘objective’ data points, but only to be “visual representations of interpretations” (Ion 2019: 18). This could be hard to understand for social scientists who work with the methods of humanities and could result in confusion, as established during the previous chapter concerning prehistoric migrations and approximations of the skin colour of ancient peoples. This is only an example of how difficult it can be for scholars and researchers from different disciplines to communicate with each other. Subsequently, this miscommunication can result in misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the results of research, thus affecting what is presented to the public by scientists from different disciplines. Overall, this can decrease the quality of different academic works. Several scholars (Ion 2019: 30; Lidén & Eriksson 2010) have pointed out how the current academic conditions were not in favour of scholars working across disciplines. In an article by Stefanie Samida and Jörg Feuchter (2016), it was discussed that it is necessary for archaeologists, historians and geneticists to collaborate. They stated how it was 24

not easy to gain an understanding across disciplines, which is why the cooperation must be seen as a long-term process of interaction within all the levels involved in the research (Samida & Feuchter 2016: 18). Martin Furholt (2019) has developed a model for interpreting data for archaeogenetical studies. Using such models could provide an opportunity for different scientists, researchers and scholars to work together and to increase the quality of their work. In his article Brophy (2018: 1655) suggested that informing researchers and scholars about the issues they might face with the public media, which could help with the public discourse. According to him, the field of archaeology should employ social media mining as an essential archaeological digital fieldwork technique (Brophy 2018: 1655). John C. Barrett (2019: 41) has further discussed how the present interpretations should be differentiated from the ones made before and while being aware of our present-day understanding of past conditions. He continued to mention that the definition of biological inheritance has changed over the decades, and it no longer means one or two generations of kinship and fade as a distant thought about general ancestry (Barrett 2019: 41). As already established, the scientific discourse in Europe is a product of Western ideologies. Therefore, it could even be questioned whether it is even possible for European scholars and researchers to be aware of their own background and upbringing, and how that affects the credibility of their scientific work. This leads us to Andersson’s question “what is the meaning of scientifically secured knowledge?” (2004: 324). As science is expected to develop through time, will it ever become possible to produce completely accurate human reconstructions? As a response to Kristian Kristiansens article (2014a), in the Current Swedish Archaeology’s 22th issue, Elizabeth Niklasson states (2014) that she is concerned that the additions of aDNA and Big Data in archaeological contexts can be manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally, and scholars and researchers may misrepresent the information, thus causing confusion in the society. She does not elaborate on this more specifically in her article; however, it can be interpreted that what she meant by this is that there is a possibility for people to make hasty conclusions, e.g. when it comes to ethnic backgrounds, and use them to push their own political agendas. In support of Niklasson’s statement, there are several examples from the history of archaeology that can be pointed out with respect to how scientific methods and data have been exploited for morally contradictory purposes. For example, during the Second World War certain individuals belonging to a society with National Socialistic ideologies and political agendas used the ancient Germanic symbols. In 2020, and about eighty years from the end of the Second World War, these symbols still live on and are associated with the values of the aforementioned ideology, especially in Europe and other Western societies. However, others have also argued that the impacts of research on society should not be of a concern for the researchers, as mentioned by Ion in her article about how the impact to the public should not be a concern of the scientists who publish their work (Ion 2019: 19). In addition to Ion, Kristian Kristiansen had made similar remarks while replying to Niklassons (2014) article in which he had stated that “we can never let new, basic research be directed by fear of misuse” (Kristiansen 2014b: 68).

25

6. Results

At the beginning of this study some questions were posed for the purpose of detecting whether there was an ethical dilemma in relation to human reconstructions of ancient peoples using some case studies of displayed reconstructions of ancient human remains. These questions were the following; What is the relationship between ancient human reconstructions and cultural identity? Does aDNA bring new questions to the ethical aspect of ancient human reconstructions? What role do museums and popular media play within the discourse of ancient human reconstructions? How are the above questions related to the debate between natural sciences and humanities within the field of archaeogenetics as well as the contemporary political and academic aspects of it in Western society? To fulfil the purpose and to answer the research questions of this study, the different factors involved were contemplated on by the use of theoretical perspectives of post-colonialism, agency and practice. The conclusion was that there are several factors involved in making an evaluation of ancient human reconstructions. Firstly, it has become undeniable that people see strong connections between ancient human reconstructions and their own cultural and ethnical backgrounds. In their minds (subconsciously or not) people tend to have a certain picture of facial features based on the features that are common in their culture or ethnic group, and these assumptions are heavily influenced by the history of Western society. This on its own still sounds quite innocent, but it can become problematic when these assumptions become ‘common knowledge’ and spread in museums and media and add to the political discussions of race and ethnicity. However, it is important to keep in mind that archaeological cultures and ancient individuals do not represent any contemporary populations or ethnicities in Europe. In my study I came to the conclusion that museums and popular media are among the most significant agents for the development of individuals’ cultural identity and self- determination. These are public spaces that actively seek to educate and inform people, An ethical dilemma rises within human reconstructions, when they become agents of questionable or misinterpreted information and agendas. Archaeogenetic research has been able to bring many new insights about the human past, but the results from these studies should not be regarded as absolute, unconditional truths. The results of my study suggest that it is important to remember that one’s cultural identity do not depend so heavily on biological traits. Therefore, the use of aDNA results when making ancient human reconstructions should only be seen as one part of the puzzle. However, the discussions on the method and its use are important. While comparing the facial reconstructions based on the aDNA analyses with the other facial reconstructions that do not use such data, several ethical issues arise. Some of these issues were concerning the disproportionate representation of different attributes such as skin, eye and hair colour. It can be argued that the attributes given to these facial reconstructions were affected by the biases of the researchers. The analysis in this thesis has shown that there are certain facial attributes that are considered primitive, such as dark skin, and in many cases these presumptions were made subconsciously and without the researchers being aware of

26

them. The sole fact that such connections are made between certain features in relation to being primitive is proof of how deeply such concepts are rooted in different cultures and societies. One of the most significant factors that affected the interpretation of reconstructions of ancient individuals was caused by the miscommunication between scholars and researchers from different disciplines. This resulted in misinterpretations regarding each other’s work and therefore caused a decrease in the quality of their work. It creates a problematic situation when these kinds of misinterpretations are presented to the public. If the contemporary science loose its credibility, it could lead to various social and political problems. To avoid such occurrences the language and models for data interpretation used by researchers and scientists from different disciplines should be overbridged by interdisciplinary collaborations in way that prevents such misinterpretations. In addition to the aforementioned issues, this thesis came to the conclusion that there are few discussions about how ancient human reconstructions should be represented in museums, as well as how these issues are almost openly ignored by academic institutions in Europe. As already established in previous chapters, there are long-lasting repercussions from ethical questionable interpretations, whether they are subconscious or not. Therefore, this issue should not be taken lightly. The question of cultural identity has become very important in Europe due to some recent political changes such as Brexit, and it is enormously important for academic institutions to be aware of the current discourses around them. Lastly, it could be argued that even though human reconstructions made for European museums used in my case studies are meant to be educational, informative and inspirational; they represent of Western values. This does not mean that these reconstructions should be removed from museums and galleries, or that their production should be prohibited under the penalty of perjury. However, more caution should be taken from all involved in this process; namely the manufacturers of human reconstructions, scientists and researchers, museum curators, media as well as the public. If the ability to produce completely accurate human reconstructions can be questioned, and the influence on the public is an important aspect to consider. When the results of scientific research are entangled with socio-economic factors, such as race and ethnicity, it is not ethical to produce science just for the sake of producing science without considering its consequences.

6.1. Future studies I suggest that further studies consider additional case studies and a more extensive analysis of ethics concerning human reconstructions. I think that it would be important to add a gender perspective into account. Racism can often be linked with sexism and as some recent aDNA studies have proved, there are possibilities that the analysis of the sex of ancient human remains has been incorrect. In addition to this, a discussion about how disability is featured in human reconstructions would also be interesting. There is, for example, a human reconstruction made from human remains of a young girl from Birka, Sweden, who according to researchers had a condition caused by alcohol consumption by the mother during pregnancy. When it concerns racism politics in Britain and other European countries, it would be fruitful to study the political history of these countries more in-depth using a sociological perspective. In addition to this, further developments in the field of archaeogenetics hold great influence in gaining new perspectives on future human reconstructions of our ancestors.

27

7. Summary

This thesis has aimed to analyse and discuss the ethics regarding ancient human reconstructions, particularly the ones based on aDNA studies, since the field of archaeogenetics has been able to make many new exciting discoveries during the past decade. Some of these studies, however, have remained quite controversial amongst scholars as they have brought up debates regarding the methods of humanities and natural sciences and discussions about and the ways ethnicity and cultural identity are regarded within Western society. The facial reconstructions chosen as the source material for this study are based on human remains found in Europe, dated between the years of 10 000 – 450 BC. The Cheddar Man, excavated in 1903 in Somerset; Whitehawk Woman, excavated from East Sussex, England in 1933; and Cro-Magnon Man excavated from France and Myrtis, excavated from Kerameikos, Greece in 1994 or 1995 are presented as case studies. These reconstructions were chosen because they represent European prehistory and therefore the values of the Western society. This study compares these four ancient facial reconstructions, of which three are based on aDNA studies. Only the human remains of the Cheddar Man, however, are genetically analysed and the facial reconstructions of the Whitehawk Woman and the Cro-Magnon Man are based on aDNA results from other individuals representing their cultural group. The method used for this analysis is a literature study since the material gathered for this study consists of various academic articles, research reports and other papers written by different scholars. This study is based on an evaluation of different discussions and debates amongst researchers and scholars, which have recently been published in different academic journals as well as popular media. The analysis is based on postcolonial theory, which offers insights about the interpretation of human origins and skin colour in Europe. Drawing from agency and practice theories, this study also analyses the possibilities and problems with respect to methods of aDNA sequencing and the responsibilities that museums and popular media have as they depict and represent human remains and their cultural contexts. The conclusion that this study came to, is that human reconstructions of ancient European populations are reflections of the quality of the academic work and political situation, as well as the cultural integrity within a society. Scientists, researchers and scholars have not only a responsibility to gather and analyse their data ethically, but to inform and communicate with each other and work to achieve a common “language”. The study has shown that cultural identity and ethnicities are very complex matters with many emotional connotations. Museums and popular media are therefore responsible for interpreting and displaying information within their cultural contexts and be aware of the political issues tied to them.

28

Bibliography

Alfonso, M.P. & Powell, J. 2008. Ethics of Flesh and Bone, or Ethics in the Practice of Paleopathology, Osteology, and Bioarchaeology. In: Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions.( Eds.) Cassman, V., Odegaard, N. & Powell, J. 2008. AltaMira Press, United Kingdom. pp. 5-11.

Anderson, K. 2020. Modern ontologies of the ‘More-Than-Animal’ Human: Provincialising humanism for the present day. In: Interrogating Human Origins: Decolonisation and the Deep Human Past. (Eds.) Porr, M. & Matthews, J.M. 2020. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 56-71.

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Andersson, A-C. 2004. The Ethics of Interpretation. In: Swedish Archaeologists on Ethics. (Eds.) Håkan Karlsson. Bricoleur Press. Lindome. pp. 289-326.

Athreya, S. & Rogers Ackermann, R. 2020. Colonialism and Narratives of Human Origins in Asia and Africa. In: Interrogating Human Origins: Decolonisation and the Deep Human Past. (Eds.) Porr, M. & Matthews, J.M. 2020. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 72-95.

Austin, R.M. et al. 2019. Opinion: To Curate the Molecular Past, Museums Need a Carefully Considered Set of Best Practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 116 n. 5: 1471–1474.

Barras, C. 2018, Ancient 'dark-skinned' Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true. New Scientist. Viewed in 30 April 2020. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned- briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

Barrett, J.C. 2019. The Archaeology of Population Dynamics. Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 27: 37-51.

Brace, S. et al. 2018. Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain. bioRxiv. Viewed in 17 May 2020. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/267443v1

Brophy, K. 2018. The Brexit hypothesis and prehistory. Antiquity Vol. 92 no. 366: 1650–1658.

Burström et al. 2004. Serving the Public: Ethics in heritage management. In: Swedish Archaeologists on Ethics. (Eds.) Håkan Karlsson. Bricoleur Press. Lindome. pp. 135-148.

Busari, S. 2019. 'Watermelon smiles' and 'piccaninnies': What Boris Johnson has said previously about people in Africa. CNN. Viewed in 17 May 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/23/africa/boris- johnson-africa-intl/index.html

Buzzfeednews. 2019. How not to Talk about Race and Genetics. Viewed in 15 May 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich

Cassman, V. et al. 2008. Introduction: Dealing with the dead. In: Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions. (Eds.) Cassman, V. et al. 2008. AltaMira Press, United Kingdom. pp. 1-4. 29

Davidson, I. 2020. IMHO: Inventing modern human origins. In: Interrogating Human Origins: Decolonisation and the Deep Human Past. (Eds.) Porr, M. & Matthews, J.M. 2020. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 35-55.

Davidson, I. & Noble, W. 1989. The archaeology of perception: Traces of depiction and language. Current Anthropology Vol. 30, no. 2: 125-155.

Dobres, M-A. & Robb, J.E. 2000. Agency in Archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In: Agency in Archaeology. (Eds.) Dobres, M-A. & Robb, J.E. Routledge. London and New York. pp. 3-18.

Eisemann, S, et al. 2018. Reconciling Material Cultures in Archaeology with Genetic Data: The Nomenclature of Clusters Emerging from Archaeogenomic Analysis. Scientific Reports. Vol. 8 no. 13003.

Ethic. 2020. In Merriam-Webster.com. Viewed in 27 April 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

Francis, E. 2018. It’s time all museums were postcolonial. Museums Journal Vol. 118: 14.

Fu, Q. et al. 2014. The genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia. Nature. 2014 Vol. 514 (7523): 445–449.

Furholt, M. 2018. Massive Migrations? The Impact of Recent aDNA Studies on our View of Third Millennium Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 21: 159–191.

Furholt, M. 2019. De-contaminating the aDNA–Archaeology Dialogue on Mobility and Migration Discussing the Culture-Historical Legacy. Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 27: 53-68

Gimbutas, M. 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Part I: Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area. American School of Prehistoric Research, Harvard University Bulletin No. 20. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Gosden C. 2012. Post-Colonial Archaeology. In: Archaeological theory today. (Eds.) Hodder, I. 2012. Polity press. pp. 251-266

Gupta, S. et al. 2015. Forensic Facial Reconstruction: The Final Frontier. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research Vol. 9: 26-29.

Haak, W. et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature Vol. 522: 207–211.

Harris, O.J.T. & Cipolla, C.N. 2017. Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. Routledge. London and New York.

Hodder, I. 2000. Agency and individuals in long-term processes. In: Agency in Archaeology. (Eds.) Dobres, M-A. & Robb, J.E. Routledge. London and New York. pp. 23-33.

Johanson, D. & Edey, M. 1981. Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind. St Albans: Granada.

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. 2017. Viewed in 17 May 2020. https://icom.museum/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf

Identity. 2020. In Merriam-Webster.com. Viewed in 27 April 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity

30

Ion, A. 2019. Who Are We as Historical Beings? Shaping Identities in Light of the Archaeogenetics ‘Revolution’. Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 27: 11-36.

Jablonski, N.G. 2004. The Evolution of Human Skin and Skin Color. Annu. Rev. Anthropol Vol. 33: 585–623.

Keene, S. 2006. All that is solid?: Museums and the postmodern. Public Archaeology Vol. n. 5:185- 197.

Kristiansen, K. 2014a. Towards A New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 22: 11-34.

Kristiansen, K. 2014b. What is in a paradigm? Reply to Comments. Current Swedish Archaeology 22: 65-71.

Lazaridis, I. et al. 2014. Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. Nature 513: 409–413.

Lidén, K. & Eriksson, G. 2010. Archaeology vs. Archaeological Science: Do we have a case? Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 21: 11-20.

Lyotard, J-F. 1979. La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit.

Löwstedt, A. & N. Mboti. 2017. Media Racism: Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics Vol. 13 n. 1: 111-130.

Magnusson Staaf, B. Museums and Ethics. In: Swedish Archaeologists on Ethics. (Eds.) Håkan Karlsson. Bricoleur Press. Lindome. pp. 349-362.

Morris, S. 2018. 'He's one of us': modern neighbours welcome Cheddar Man. The Guardian. Viewed in 14 May 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/09/hes-one-of-us-modern- neighbours-welcome-cheddar-man

Niklasson, E. 2014. Shutting The Stable Door After The Horse Has Bolted: Critical Thinking and the Third Science Revolution. Current Swedish Archaeology Vol. 22: 57-63.

Palladino, P. & Worboys, M. 1993. Science and imperialism. Isis Vol. 84, no. 1: 91-102

Papagrigorakis, M.J. et al. 2011. Case Report: Facial reconstruction of an 11-year-old female resident of 430 BC. Athens Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 81, No 1: 169-177.

Pääbo, S. 1985. Preservation of DNA in Ancient Egyptian Mummies. Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 411-417.

Reich, D. 2018. How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’. The New York Times. Viewed in 14 May 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics- race.html

Romey, K. 2019. These facial reconstructions reveal 40,000 years of English ancestry. National Geographic. Viewed in 3 May 2020. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/01/facial- reconstruction-history-england-uk/#/01-facial-reconstruction-sussex.jpg

Samida, S. & Feuchter, J. 2016. Why Archaeologists, Historians and Geneticists Should Work Together – and How. Medieval Worlds. Vol. 4 pp. 5–21.

Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New

31

Mexico Press.

Siekevitz, P. 1957. Powerhouse of the cell. Scientific American Vol. 197 (1): 131–40.

Soares, P. 2010. The Archaeogenetics of Europe. Current Biology Vol. 20: 174-183.

Sykes, B. 2001. Seven Daughters of Eve. W.W.Norton & Company Inc.

Talbot, M. 2018. The Myth of Whiteness in Classical Sculpture. The New Yorker. Viewed in 14 May 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-whiteness-in-classical- sculpture

“The First Brit: The 10,000 Year Old Man”. Channel4. Viewed in 14 May 2020. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-first-brit-the-10000-year-old-man

Verzé, L. 2009. History of facial reconstruction. Acta Biomed Vol. 80: 5-12.

Walsh S. et al. 2011. DNA-based eye colour prediction across Europe with the IrisPlex system. Forensic Science International: Genetics Vol. 6 n. 3: 330-340.

Walsh, S. et al. 2017. Global skin colour prediction from DNA. Hum. Genet Vol. 137 n. 7: 847-863.

Watts, H. 2018. “Not Even Close to Knowing” If Ancient Cheddar Man Brit Was ‘Black’. British National Party. Viewed in 11 May 2020 https://bnp.org.uk/not-even-close-knowing-ancient- cheddar-man-brit-black/

Werbart, B. 2004. Ethics and political agenda: The world of archaeologyand the academical environment. In: Swedish Archaeologists on Ethics. (Eds.) Håkan Karlsson. Bricoleur Press. Lindome. pp. 363- 373.

Working Group on Human Remains. 2003. Report of the Working Group on Human Remains. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London.

32

Illustrations

Image 1: The facial reconstruction of the Cheddar Man. The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London. Source: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed- boy.html

Image 2: The facial reconstruction of the Whitehawk Woman. Royal Pavilion & Museums; Brighton & Hove. Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/01/facial-reconstruction- history-england-uk/#/01-facial-reconstruction-sussex.jpg

Image 3: The facial reconstruction of the Cro-Magnon Man. Royal Pavilion & Museums; Brighton & Hove. Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/01/facial-reconstruction- history-england-uk/#/07-facial-reconstruction-sussex.jpg

Image 4: The facial reconstruction of Myrtis. en.wikipedia.org. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtis

33