Entanglements of Time, Temperature, Technology, and Place in Ancient DNA Research : The Case of the Denisovan Hominin

Article Entanglements of Time, Temperature, Technology, and Place in Ancient DNA Research: The Case of the Denisovan Hominin Venla Oikkonen 1 Abstract The study of ancient DNA (aDNA) has gained increasing attention in science and society as a tool for tracing hominin evolution. While aDNA research overlaps with the history of population genetics, it embodies a specific configuration of technology, temporality, temperature, and place that, this article suggests, cannot be fully unpacked with existing science and technology studies approaches to population genetics. This article explores this configuration through the 2010 discovery of the Denisovan hominin based on aDNA retrieved from a finger bone and tooth in Siberia. The analysis explores how the Denisovan was enacted as a technoscientific object through the cool and even temperatures of Denisova Cave, 1 Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Finland Corresponding Author: Venla Oikkonen, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere 33014, Finland. Email: [email protected] Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-23 ªThe Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0162243919879991 journals.sagepub.com/home/sth assumptions about the connection between individual and population, the status of populations as evolutionary entities, and underlying colonialist and imperialist imaginaries of Siberia and Melanesia. The analysis sheds light on how aDNA research is changing the parameters within which evolutionary history is imagined and conceptualized. Through the case study, it also outlines some ways in which the specific technoscientific and cultural entanglements of aDNA can be critically explored. Keywords ancient DNA, hominin evolution, Denisovan, ontology, population genetics Introduction During the past decade in particular, the study of ancient DNA (aDNA) has emerged as a thriving field that promises to fill in gaps in existing knowledge of evolutionary history. Thanks to advances in sequencing technologies, increasingly old and small fragments of prehistoric material have been subject to genetic analysis. The promises of analyzing ancient hominin DNA have enthralled across culture. This cultural resonance is visible, for example, in the excited coverage of aDNA discoveries in major newspapers and on news websites (e.g., Devlin 2018; Purcell 2018; Raff 2018). It is also reflected in how direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry tests are offering analyses of the customer’s shared percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA (e.g., Genographic Project, 23andMe, EthnoGene). These developments show how aDNA is becoming a means through which stories of roots and belonging are told on communal as well as personal levels. How aDNA research will develop and how it is invoked and negotiated in culture are thus issues of growing social and political significance. aDNA research overlaps with the field of population genetics, which has sought to trace similarities and differences among populations and thereby reconstruct patterns of evolutionary history. However, while population genetics has relied primarily on contemporary samples and deduced evolutionary pasts from modern DNA, aDNA research builds on genetic material retrieved from old remains. This makes aDNA research more than an extension of population genetics: aDNA research produces evolutionary trajectories connecting modern and ancient samples, invoking a different set of temporalities and material conditions than population genetic analyses of modern populations. 2Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) Science and technology studies (STS) scholars have provided insightful critiques of the role of underlying assumptions of ethnicity, race, population, and gender in population genetic projects, providing a helpful starting point for STS analyses of aDNA research (e.g., Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008; Nash 2015; M’charek 2005; Reardon 2005; TallBear 2013; Wailoo, Nelson, and Lee 2012; Whitmarsh and Jones 2010). However, these approaches are not designed to capture the specificities of aDNA. This article starts from the observation that aDNA studies involve unique configurations of technologies, materialities, temporalities, and imaginaries that need to be analyzed in order to fully understand how aDNA research is shaping ideas of roots and relatedness. This article traces the challenges that aDNA research poses for STS, outlining some ways of unpacking its material and temporal underpinnings. The article explores aDNA through the 2010 discovery of the Denisovan hominin. In 2008, researchers conducting a routine archeological study in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia found a prehistoric finger bone (a distal manual phalanx) (Reich et al. 2010). The region was known to have been inhabited by both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. In 2010, the bone was subjected to mitochondrial (mtDNA) genetic analysis, which suggested that it belonged to a previously unknown hominin group (Krause et al. 2010). This result was confirmed by nuclear DNA analysis later in the year (Reich et al. 2010). 1 An unidentified hominin tooth discovered earlier in Denisova Cave and anatomically different from both Neanderthals and modern humans became also genetically connected to this newly discovered hominin population, now named Denisovan. Based on the genetic analyses, researchers concluded that Denisovans coexisted with anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals. In the absence of substantial archeological and paleoanthropological evidence, the scientists tended to “refrain from any formal Linnaean taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies status for either Neanderthals or Denisovans” (Reich et al. 2010, 1059). Nevertheless, the Denisovan emerged as an evolutionary entity with its own “distinct population history” and characteristic genetic markers (Reich et al. 2010, 1059). Probably the most astonishing aspect of the discovery was the scarcity of evidence: the new hominin was reconstructed from nearly 50,000-year-old biological material consisting only of a finger bone from the little finger of a juvenile female and a molar from an adult male. This biotechnological marvel was echoed in media responses at the time. For example, The New York Times opened its report of the mtDNA analysis in March 2010 with the following words: “A previously unknown kind of human group vanished Oikkonen 3 from the world so completely that it has left behind the merest wisp of evidence that it ever existed––a single bone from the little finger of a child” (Wade 2010). Here, the scarcity of evidence emphasizes technoscientific progress: aDNA analysis did not require a wealth of bones like, for example, paleoanthropology. Another article in The New York Times on the nuclear genetic analysis in December highlighted scientific achievement by describing the geneticists at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology—chief architects of the Denisovan mtDNA study as well as many other aDNA studies—as “rescuing fragments of ancient DNA from fossils and stitching them together” (Zimmer 2010). Again, aDNA research is depicted as amazingly technologically advanced and yet wonderfully simple. These assumptions of straightforward access to a genetic past are highly prominent in current cultural discourses on aDNA, such as the news stories cited in the opening paragraph of this article (Devlin 2018; Purcell 2018; Raff 2018). My focus is on the initial genetic construction of the Denisovan hominin in 2010, as it illustrates the epistemic, material, and cultural dynamics through which aDNA research operates. While a number of genetic studies have been published since (e.g., Reich et al. 2011; Meyer et al. 2012; Sawyer et al. 2015; Slon et al. 2017), and additional teeth and a bone from Denisova Cave have been analyzed (Slon et al. 2018), the technoscientific apparatus traced in this article remains largely in place. In what follows, I show that contrary to popular representations of aDNA, the Denisovan hominin was not discovered but made through technoscientific practices and material circumstances involving developments in sequences technologies, the even temperatures of Denisova Cave, and theories of “molecular clock.” It was made through assumptions about connections between individuals and populations and the status of populations as evolutionary entities. The Denisovan was also made through place—Siberia and Melanesia—and the complex imperialist and colonialist histories those place names carry. My analysis investigates these entangled practices and imaginaries in the making of the Denisovan, showing key ways in which aDNA research differs from population genetic studies of modern samples as a lens into evolutionary history. The first section outlines the theoretical starting points of this article, especially the ontology of technoscientific phenomena as situated and enacted. The following analytical sections interrogate the making of the Denisovan hominin through configurations of time, temperature, technology, and place. The first of the sections places the Denisovan within the history of aDNA research, exploring the technoscientific apparatuses that 4Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) enabled its making. The second section focuses on temporality and temperature, especially the idea of the cave as a natural refrigerator for samples, and the theorization of DNA as a temporally invested object. The third section looks into the performative role of the assumption that individual samples represent populations as well as the assumption that populations are ontologically separate evolutionary entities. The fourth section turns to place, especially the role of Siberia and Melanesia in imagining the Denisovan. I conclude by elaborating on the implications of aDNA research for STS. Analytical Approach My analysis builds on STS engagements with the ontology of technoscientific phenomena. The significance of ontology for STS has been debated extensively in the past decade in particular (see, e.g., Woolgar and Lezaun 2013a). A central strain within STS approaches to ontology has focused on ontology as a process of construction: objects emerge from the technologies, methods, material circumstances, and cultural imaginaries through which they are conceptualized, analyzed, and lived. This means that the ontology of things is “accomplished” rather than discovered (Woolgar and Lezaun 2013b, 333). A central characteristic of accomplished objects is that they are ontologically multiple. Annemarie Mol’s (2002) groundbreaking book The Body Multiple demonstrates how the vascular disease atherosclerosis is different in the outpatient clinic, the operating theater, or the pathology lab. Yet, these different atheroscleroses share points of juncture that hold the phenomenon “atherosclerosis” together—at least most of the time (see also Law and Singleton 2005). The Denisovan is a different kind of object than atherosclerosis in that it is a theorization built initially around two fragments of biological material. Ontological multiplicity is present in tensions between the technological practices and imaginaries that enabled the production of the Denisovan hominin in the first place. My analysis focuses on technological practices, methodological choices, and theoretical models involved in the making of the Denisovan. In this, I draw on Amade M’charek’s (2005) work on how differences are enacted in the population genetic lab. M’charek shows that concepts such as race and gender, or similarity and distance, exist only in situated scientific practices that rely on a host of other factors such as circulation of samples or sequences through transnational networks between labs. M’charek (2014) also shows the temporal layering of scientific objects such as cell lines or Oikkonen 5 reference sequences. My exploration of the making of the Denisovan seeks to capture this type of technological detail. That is, the Denisovan is not a product of a general turn toward aDNA in the past decade but of specific technologies and material conditions. Such focus also helps elucidate how the apparatuses of aDNA research depart from those of population genetics based on large contemporary data sets. The Denisovan case touches on a specific ontological question in the history of evolutionary theory: the ontological status of species. Evolution is a curious process in that it can be detected only in retrospect. Evolutionary events seldom look like events when they happen, taking often generations to emerge; evolution can be traced only when we know what it gave rise to. Furthermore, evolution is premised on the presence of variation within populations, as selection cannot happen without difference to select from. Darwin recognized this clearly. In the Origin of Species,he notes that “the only distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate gradations, whereas species were formerly thus connected” and that we should give up “the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species” (Darwin [1859] 1985, 455). From this viewpoint, the constructed nature of the Denisovan becomes clearly visible. If the boundary between species, subspecies, and variation is blurry, and there is no precise moment when a species emerges from genetic variation, then the question of Denisovan’s species status is likely to be ontologically irresolvable. Despite Darwin’s words of caution, the history of paleoanthropology and study of human evolution are full of attempts to identify “missing links” between modern humans and apes. The fossilized remains of Neanderthals (Goulden 2009; Sommer 2006), Java Man (Swisher, Curtis, and Lewin 2002), and Peking Man (Leibold 2006; Sautman 2001), as well as the infamous Piltdown Man hoax (Goulden 2009), have all been mobilized to construct hominin evolutionary histories as temporally organized series of species and subspecies. The ultimate goal of these histories has often been to understand the evolutionary status of modern humans. The case of the Denisovan is part of this scientific history. However, it also epitomizes the increasing significance placed on genetics in the study of hominin evolution. Technoscientific Histories and Performative Practices The most important history that enabled the making of the Denisovan was the development of aDNA sequencing techniques. First successful studies 6Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) of aDNA were conducted in the mid-1980s with relatively recent specimens from museums and focusing on short sections of mtDNA; mtDNA was chosen because it was easier to retrieve and analyze than nuclear DNA (Anastasiou and Mitchell 2013; Ermini et al. 2015). The development of the field was hampered by the problem of contamination by modern DNA (left by archeologists, museum workers, geneticists themselves) as well as by the degradation of DNA due to material conditions (humidity, temperature, type of soil) (Anastasiou and Mitchell 2013; Ermini et al. 2015). Many of the crucial problems were solved by 2005, after which aDNA research has expanded quickly. The focus of research has also moved from mtDNA, which can trace only direct maternal lineages and gives little additional information, to nuclear DNA, which focuses on genome-wide inheritance as well as physical characteristics such as eye color or metabolism (Anastasiou and Mitchell 2013; Ermini et al. 2015). Since 2010, there has been a rapid increase in nuclear studies of aDNA, thanks to the increasing financial and technological feasibility of genome-wide sequencing. Furthermore, DNA that was earlier thought to be of insufficient quality for analysis has generated significant ancient sequences (e.g., Rasmussen et al. 2015; Brace et al. 2019). These studies differ from most population genetic projects in that their starting point is individual aDNA sequences rather than a large database of samples. These technological developments underlie the 2010 construction of the Denisovan hominin from a finger bone and molar, an endeavor that would have appeared impossible a decade earlier. The two key papers on the Denisovan hominin—the mitochondrial analysis published in Nature in April (Krause et al. 2010) and the nuclear analysis published in the same journal in December (Reich et al. 2010)—show the remarkable speed with which the nuclear analysis of the Denisovan phalanx followed the mtDNA analysis. They also demonstrate that the Denisovan was enacted as an evolutionary actor: the two types of genetic material (mtDNA and nuclear DNA) produced strikingly different evolutionary histories. The mitochondrial paper suggested that Denisovans shared mitochondrial ancestry with both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans about one million years ago, thus being an outgroup to both Neanderthals and modern humans who shared a mitochondrial ancestor some 500,000 years ago (Krause et al. 2010). The nuclear analysis in turn posited the Denisovans as a sister group to Neanderthals, arguing that while “the divergence of the Denisova mtDNA to present-day human mtDNAs is about twice as deep as that of Neanderthal mtDNA, the average divergence of the Denisova nuclear genome from present-day humans is similar to that of Neanderthals” (Reich Oikkonen 7 et al. 2010, 1055). In this respect, the two papers illustrate a central characteristic of population genetic knowledge production: different types of genetic material engender different patterns of ancestry (M’charek 2005; Nash 2015; Oikkonen 2015, 2018). Which genetic markers and molecular loci are chosen for analysis also matters, as patterns of relatedness are produced by comparing markers (Hamilton 2012; M’charek 2005, 2014; Sommer 2016; Oikkonen 2018). This is particularly important in aDNA research, as the qualities of a single aDNA sequence often represent a whole population. STS scholarship on population genetics has shown that ancestry is relational, that is, it is produced through comparison to other samples (Bolnick 2008; Fujimura et al. 2010; Hinterberger 2012; M’charek 2005; Oikkonen 2018). This is also the case with aDNA research. Krause et al. (2010, 895) write: “We aligned the Denisova hominin mtDNA sequence to 54 presentday modern human mtDNAs, a Late Pleistocene mtDNA recently determined from an early modern human from Kostenki, Russia, six complete Neanderthal mtDNAs, one bonobo (Pan paniscus) mtDNA and one chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) mtDNA.” Likewise, Reich et al. (2010) report that, apart from comparing the Denisovan nuclear genome to Neanderthal and chimpanzee samples, they also analysed the relationship of the Denisova genome to the genomes of five present-day humans that we previously sequenced to about fivefold coverage (a Yoruba and a San genome from Africa, a French genome from Europe, a Han genome from China and a Papuan genome from Melanesia), as well as seven present-day humans that we sequenced to 1-2-fold coverage for this study (a Mbuti genome from Africa, a Sardinian genome from Europe, a Mongolian genome from Central Asia, a Cambodian genome from SouthEast Asia, an additional Papuan genome from Melanesia, a Bougainville islander genome from Melanesia, and a Karitiana genome from South America). (p. 1057) The two quotes highlight the productive role of comparison in population genetics, suggesting that the Denisovan sample, even after genomewide analysis, cannot alone reveal ancestries. Yet, the Denisovan case differs from population-level studies of modern samples in that the point of comparison for Denisovan DNA is a relatively small set of geographically diverse modern samples. The performative power of individualized comparison becomes visible in Reich and colleagues’ (2010) analysis of the Denisovan nuclear genome. 8Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) The authors identify a previously unknown pattern of relatedness between the Denisovan genome and three present-day Melanesian genomes (see the quote above). They conclude that this suggests that Denisovans “have at least at some point been present in an area where they interacted with the ancestors of Melanesians” (Reich et al. 2010, 1059). Crucially, the connection between Denisovans and Melanesians is based only on one ancient and three modern samples. These four situated samples enact relatedness as taking shape through previously unimagined paths of migration and reproduction in prehistoric Asia and the Pacific region. Such reliance on individual modern sequences is intriguing in the age of big data and population-level biobanks, both phenomena widely discussed in STS analyses of population genetics (e.g., Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008; Whitmarsh and Jones 2010). It highlights the importance of paying attention to the situatedness of individual samples in aDNA research, as individual samples dispersed across time and space become nodes where evolutionary relatedness is anchored. Entangled Temporalities and Temperatures aDNA research departs from population genetic analyses of modern DNA also in its unique configuration of temperature and temporality. The discovery of the Denisovan relies on the constant cool temperatures that enabled the preservation of DNA in the phalanx and molar. The Denisovan is not the first prehistoric figure that draws on naturally cryopreserved aDNA. For example, “O ¨tzi the Iceman” discovered in the Alps in 1991 was preserved in permafrost for 5,000 years. Turnbull’s (2017) analysis of the case shows how “O ¨tzi” is enacted through technologies and approaches including paleontology, microbiology, blood analysis, pollen analysis, DNA analysis, analysis of stomach contents, and forensic analysis of wounds. The Denisovan hominin provides an interesting point of comparison because it differs from O ¨tzi in key ways. Unlike the Denisovan, O ¨tzi’s remains are almost complete including blood cells and half-digested meals, and genetic analysis played only one part in the analysis. Furthermore, the interest around O ¨tzi has centered on him as a unique individual belonging to a population whose existence was already known, whereas the Denisovan case concerns a whole population in a much more distant past whose very existence was unknown until the discovery of the phalanx. The Denisovan differs from O ¨tzi also in the degree of cold: the Denisovan finger bone and molar were preserved in temperatures around zero degrees Celcius. Reich at al. (2010) remark that “the Denisova phalanx is Oikkonen 9 named Homo floresiensis. Discoveries like these have rendered South East Asia and Melanesia an imagined world of lost hominins. These spatial imaginaries are echoed in the recent media coverage of Homo luzonensis, an ancient hominin discovered in the Philippines: a news story on the BBC website suggests that “human evolution in the region may have been a highly complicated affair, with three or more human species in the region at around the time our ancestors arrive” (Rincon 2019). Furthermore, the history of Western anthropology includes a number of studies of the indigenous cultures of Melanesia. Read in this context, the reports of interbreeding between Denisovans and ancestors of present-day Melanesians paralleled the nineteenth-century paleoanthropological search for a missing link on the islands of South East Asia and Melanesia—this time carried out through the tools of genetics. This parallelism subtly implied that the genetic connection between Denisovans and Melanesians might indeed provide answers to some of paleoanthropology’s oldest questions. Interestingly, Reich et al.’s genetic analysis tentatively suggested that the Denisovan genome may carry genetic traces of an even older hominin group, rooting Melanesia, by association, firmly in the imaginaries of hominin origins. At the same time, the idea of searching for the genetic secrets of hominin evolution in the Pacific Islands reinforced old colonial imaginaries of Melanesia as fundamentally foreign and exotic: a place that holds the secrets of human evolution yet cannot ever be fully known. These imaginaries of space linger in current discourses around the Denisovan. For example, a 2015 article in the National Geographic focusing on Denisova Cave echoes narratives of masculine bravery and struggle for survival. The text accounts how the Denisovan molar was initially mistaken for a tooth of a cave bear, and how scientists had to rule out DNA contamination by “ancient hyenas, which seem to have long prowled the cave” (Greshko 2015). The cave as a site of hominin struggle for survival is also reflected in how the text quotes the director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Svante Pa¨a¨bo’s words: “It’s an amazing place ...because it’s actually the only place in the world where we know that three different groups of humans with very different histories all lived.” At the same time, a 2016 article on the CNN news site appears mesmerized by Melanesia and Pacific Islanders (Strickland 2016). While the piece opens by exploring human genetic inheritance in general—“the traits we have in common with early humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, and how our histories crossed paths” (Strickland 2016; my emphasis)—the article quickly moves to positing Pacific Islanders as an evolutionary 16 Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) enigma and a key to the secrets of early hominin evolution. This colonial rhetoric of past-oriented indigeneity is reinforced visually by an immediately culturally recognizable image of Papua New Guineans on a wooden dinghy in a sunset. These examples show how aDNA becomes smoothly embedded within cultural imaginaries of space as it travels from high-throughput sequencing apparatuses to science journalism and public discourse. Crucially, the two regions in relation to which the Denisovan was constructed are mythic places in the Euro-American imperialist and colonialist imagination, an imagination that continues to organize discourses around science (TallBear 2013). These mythic resonances confirmed the idea that the Denisovan constituted a highly significant scientific discovery. They also gave epistemic authority to the very idea that aDNA provides a privileged and unmediated gateway to human evolutionary roots. Conclusion This article has explored the implications of the rise of aDNA research for STS scholarship. I have argued that while STS literature on population genetics provides a useful starting point, aDNA embodies material and cultural specificities that differ from other types of population genetic research. I have used the case of the Denisovan hominin to illustrate the complex technoscientific work through which a previously unknown prehistoric hominin is enacted from two aDNA samples. The analysis has demonstrated that the Denisovan relies on complex configurations of temporality, temperature, technology, and spatial imaginaries, which are, in many instances, unique to aDNA. I have highlighted the performative nature of the techniques and assumptions through which the Denisovan was established as an evolutionary actor. For example, the coolness of the cave (or in other cases of aDNA, permafrost) emerges as halting processes of material degradation and thus the working of evolutionary time and thereby paradoxically securing the procession of evolutionary time as a digitizable and measurable force. The relationship between individual and population also gains increased salience in aDNA, as researchers work with small numbers of geographically and temporally situated samples instead of a large database. Furthermore, cultural ideas of place—desolate and harsh Siberia and mysterious and impenetrable Melanesia—also co-constituted the Denisovan in ways that resonated, respectively, with narratives of brave and unique ancestry and colonialist imaginaries of spatialized difference. Oikkonen 17 The Denisovan case shows that aDNA projects are seldom straightforward discoveries but rather complex technoscientific endeavors that mobilize a range of historically shaped technologies, naturalized practices, material conditions, and cultural imaginaries. Developing STS tools to engage critically with the specificities of aDNA research is pivotal because the techniques and practices on which ancient hominins like Denisovans rely are often erased in public accounts, as the various media examples in the article demonstrate. For example, the ways in which cryopreservation by nature, or cultural imaginaries of space, have become naturalized around aDNA research, call for careful analysis. As the cultural appeal of aDNA research is likely to grow, it is crucial that science communication and public engagement around aDNA discoveries make these situated complexities clearly visible. While the Denisovan hominin is based on valid science, it is not epistemically or politically innocent. Rather, the Denisovan is the result of particular ways of looking at and manipulating temporality, materiality, temperature, and technology. Crucially, these ways of looking are likely to be reflected in other aDNA discoveries. Understanding how the Denisovan was enacted in 2010 may thus help us analyze the likely appearance of new aDNA samples from other remains and locations in the future. Acknowledgments I presented an early version of this article in the symposium Cold Storage: Time, Temperature, and Transit in Feminist Science and Technology Studies organized by Jennifer Hamilton and Charlotte Kroløkke at the Five College Women’s Studies Research Center in May 2018. I would like to thank the wonderful speakers and participants for inspiring comments and discussions. I also want to thank the two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments helped me focus and rethink crucial parts of the argument. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study received funding from Academy of Finland (Grant IDs 315067 and 326546). ORCID iD Venla Oikkonen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8613-0428 18 Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) Note 1. Mitochondria are organelles located in the cytoplasm of the cell outside the nucleus. They have their own distinct genome inherited maternally. Nuclear DNA refers to what is commonly understood as “the genome,” that is, genes located in the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. With the exception of the Y-chromosome, nuclear genes are inherited from both parents. References Anastasiou, Evilena, and Piers D. Mitchell. 2013. “Evolutionary Anthropology and Genes: Investigating the Genetics of Human Evolution from Excavated Skeletal Remains.” Gene 528 (1): 27-32. Bolnick, Deborah A. 2008. “Individual Ancestry Inference and the Reification of Race as a Biological Phenomenon.” In Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, edited by Barbara A. Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Sarah S. Richardson, 70-85. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Brace, Selina,Yoan Diekmann, Thomas J. Booth, Lucy van Dorp, Zuzana Faltyskova, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, et al. 2019. “Ancient Genomes Indicate Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 3 (5): 765-71. Clayton, Jay. 2002. “Genome Time.” In Time and the Literary, edited by Karen Newman, Jay Clayton, and Marianne Hirsch, 31-59. New York: Routledge. Darwin, Charles. (1859) 1985. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Edited by J. W. Burrow. London, UK: Penguin Books. Devlin, Hannah. 2018. “First Modern Britons Had ‘Dark to Black’ Skin, Cheddar Man DNA Analysis Reveals.” The Guardian, February 7. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britonsdark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals. Ermini, Luca, Clio Der Sarkissian, Eske Willerslev, and Ludovic Orlando. 2015. “Major Transitions in Human Evolution Revisited: A Tribute to Ancient DNA.” Journal of Human Evolution 79 (2015): 4-20. Fujimura, Joan H., Ramya Rajagopalan, Pilar N. Ossorio, and Kjell A. Doksum. 2010. “Race and Ancestry: Operationalizing Populations in Human Genetic Variation Studies.” In What’s the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference, edited by Ian Whitmarsh and David S. Jones, 169-83. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ghosh, Pallab. 2010. “Ancient Humans, Dubbed ‘Denisovans,’ Interbred with Us.” BBC News, December 22. Accessed April 23, 2019. http://www.bbc.com/news/ science-environment-12059564. Oikkonen 19 Goulden, Murray. 2009. “Boundary-work and the Human-animal Binary: Piltdown Man, Science and the Media.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (3): 275-91. Greshko, Michael. 2015. “DNA Reveals Mysterious Human Cousin with Huge Teeth.” National Geographic, November 16. Accessed April 23, 2019. https:// news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151116-denisovan-human-anthropolo gy-ancient-dna/. Hamilton, Jennifer A. 2012. “The Case of the Genetic Ancestor.” In Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision of DNA, Race, and History, edited by Keith Wailoo, Alondra Nelson, and Catherine Lee, 266-78. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hinterberger, Amy. 2012. “Investing in Life, Investing in Difference: Nations, Populations and Genomes.” Theory, Culture and Society 29 (3): 72-93. Khan, Amina. 2018. “Move Over, Neanderthals: Our Ancestors Mated with Denisovans Not Once but Twice, Scientists Say.” Los Angeles Times, March 15. Accessed April 23, 2019. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-scisn-denisovans-humans-mated-20180315-story.html. Khlevniuk, Oleg. 2004. The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Koenig, Barbara A., Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Sarah S. Richardson, eds. 2008. Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kohli-Laven, Nina. 2012. “French Families, Paper Facts: Genetics, Nation, and Explanation.” In Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision between DNA, Race, and History, edited by Keith Wailoo, Alondra Nelson, and Catherine Lee, 183-203. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Krause, Johannes, Qiaomei Fu, Jeffrey M. Good, Bence Viola, Michael V. Shunkov, Anatoli P. Derevianko, and Svante Pa¨a¨bo. 2010. “The Complete Mitochondrial DNA Genome of an Unknown Hominin from Southern Siberia.” Nature 464 (7290): 894-97. Kumar, Sudhir. 2005. “Molecular Clocks: Four Decades of Evolution.” Nature Reviews Genetics 6 (8): 654-62. Law, John, and Vicky Singleton. 2005. “Object Lessons.” Organization 12 (3): 331-55. Leibold, James. 2006. “Competing Narratives of Racial Unity in Republican China: From the Yellow Emperor to Peking Man.” Modern China 32 (2): 181-220. M’charek, Amade. 2005. The Human Genome Diversity Project: An Ethnography of Scientific Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. M’charek, Amade. 2014. “Race, Time and Folded Objects: The HeLa Error.” Theory, Culture and Society 31 (6): 29-56. 20 Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) Meyer, Matthias, Martin Kircher, Marie-Theres Gansauge, Heng Li, Fernando Racimo, Swapan Mallick, Joshua G. Schraiber et al. 2012. “A High-coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual.” Science 338 (6104): 222-26. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Nash, Catherine. 2015. Genetic Geographies: The Trouble with Ancestry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Oikkonen, Venla. 2015. “Mitochondrial Eve and the Affective Politics of Human Ancestry.” Signs 40 (3): 747-72. Oikkonen, Venla. 2018. Population Genetics and Belonging: A Cultural Analysis of Genetic Ancestry. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Purcell, Conor. 2018. “How Ancient DNA Is Transforming History.” The Irish Times, September 27. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://www.irishtimes.com/ne ws/science/how-ancient-dna-is-transforming-history-1.3639703. Radin, Joanna. 2013. “Latent Life: Concepts and Practices of Human Tissue Preservation in the International Biological Program.” Social Studies of Science 43 (4): 484-508. Radin, Joanna, and Emma Kowal. 2017. “Introduction: The Politics of Low Temperature.” In Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World, edited by Joanna Radin and Emma Kowal, 3-25. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Raff, Jennifer. 2018. “Five Amazing Things We Learned about History from Ancient DNA in 2018.” Forbes, December 27. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferraff/2018/12/27/five-amazing-things-welearned-about-history-from-ancient-dna-in-2018/#3e42043411f7. Rasmussen, Morten, Martin Sikora, Anders Albrechtsen, Thorfinn Sand Korneliussen, J. Vı´ctor Moreno-Mayar, G. David Poznik, Christoph P. E. Zollikofer, et al. 2015. “The Ancestry and Affiliations of Kennewick Man.” Nature 523 (7561): 455-58. Reardon, Jenny. 2005. Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an Age of Genomics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Reardon, Jenny. 2008. “Race without Salvation: Beyond the Science/Society Divide in Genomic Studies of Human Diversity.” In Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, edited by Barbara A. Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Sarah S. Richardson, 304-19. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Reich, David, Richard E. Green, Martin Kircher, Johannes Krause, Nick Patterson, Eric Y. Durand, Bence Viola et al. 2010. “Genetic History of an Archaic Hominin Group from Denisova Cave in Siberia.” Nature 468 (7327): 1053-60. Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Martin Kircher, Frederick Delfin, Madhusudan R. Nandineni, Irina Pugach, Albert Min-Shan Ko et al. 2011. “Denisova Admixture Oikkonen 21 and the First Modern Human Dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 89 (4): 516-28. Rincon, Paul. 2019. “Homo Luzonensis: New Human Species Found in Philippines.” BBC, April 10, 2019. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/scie nce-environment-47873072. Sablin, Ivan, and Maria Savelyeva. 2011. “Mapping Indigenous Siberia: Spatial Changes and Ethnic Realities, 1900–2010.” Settler Colonial Studies 1(1): 77-110. Sautman, Barry. 2001. “Peking Man and the Politics of Paleoanthropological Nationalism in China.” The Journal of Asian Studies 60 (1): 95-124. Sawyer, Susanna, Gabriel Renaud, Bence Viola, Jean-Jacques Hublin, Marie-Theres Gansauge, Michael V. Shunkov, Anatoly P. Derevianko et al. 2015. “Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Sequences from Two Denisovan Individuals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (51): 15696-700. Slon, Viviane, Bence Viola, Gabriel Renaud, Marie-Theres Gansauge, Stefano Benazzi, Susanna Sawyer, Jean-Jacques Hublin, et al. 2017. “A Fourth Denisovan Individual.” Science Advances 3 (7): e1700186. Slon, VivianeFabrizio Mafessoni, Benjamin Vernot, Cesare de Filippo, Steffi Grote, Bence Viola, Mateja Hajdinjak et al. 2018. “The Genome of the Offspring of a Neanderthal Mother and a Denisovan Father.” Nature 561 (7721): 113-16. Sommer, Marianne. 2006. “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Neanderthal as Image and ‘Distortion’ in Early 20th-century French Science and Press.” Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 207-40. Sommer, Marianne. 2016. History within: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Bones, Molecules, and Organisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Strickland, Ashley. 2016. “Is there a New Human Species Waiting to be Discovered?” CNN, November 1. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/20 16/10/31/health/human-neanderthal-denisovan-dna-equation/index.html. Swisher, Carl C. III, Garniss H. Curtis, and Roger Lewin. 2002. Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TallBear, Kim. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Turnbull, David. 2017. “Out of the Glacier into the Freezer: O ¨tzi the Iceman’s Disruptive Timings, Spacings, and Mobilities.” In Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World, edited by Joanna Radin and Emma Kowal, 157-77. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Turner, Stephanie S. 2007. “Open-ended Stories: Extinction Narratives in Genome Time.” Literature and Medicine 26 (1): 55-82. 22 Science, Technology, & Human Values XX(X) Wade, Nicholas. 2010. “Bone May Reveal a New Human Group.” The New York Times, March 24. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/ 25/science/25human.html. Wailoo, Keith, Alondra Nelson, and Catherine Lee, eds. 2012. Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision of DNA, Race, and History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wald, Priscilla. 2000. “Future Perfect: Grammar, Genes, and Geography.” New Literary History 31 (4): 681-708. Whitmarsh, Ian, and David S. Jones, eds. 2010. What’s the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Woolgar, Steve, and Javier Lezaun, eds. 2013a. Special Issue: A Turn to Ontology in Science and Technology Studies? Social Studies of Science 43 (3): 321-462. Woolgar, Steve, and Javier Lezaun. 2013b. “The Wrong Bin Bag: A Turn to Ontology in Science and Technology Studies?” Social Studies of Science 43 (3): 321-40. Zimmer, Carl. 2010. “Scant Remains Reveal Ancient Neanderthal Cousins.” The New York Times, December 23. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://archive.nytime s.com/query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage-9401E6D6113EF930 A15751C1A9669D8B63.html. Author Biography Venla Oikkonen is an Academy Research Fellow in gender studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Finland. She has published two monographs, Gender, Sexuality and Reproduction in Evolutionary Narratives (Routledge 2013) and Population Genetics and Belonging: A Cultural Analysis of Genetic Ancestry (Palgrave Macmillan 2018). Her articles on cultural imaginaries of science and feminist and science and technology studies methods have appeared in journals such as Feminist Theory,Signs,Social Studies of Science,Science as Culture and Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience. Her current research project explores the changing affective politics around contagious diseases and intersectional differences in vaccine debates in Europe. Oikkonen 23