Busting myths of origin

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  19 May 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6339, pp. 678-681
DOI: 10.1126/science.356.6339.678

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
Publication Date - String

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: funny how none of these critical responses actually refute anything

    It's always a disappointment to see a negative response to a well-researched article that makes no effort to back up its attempt at a rebuttal with any scientific arguments. But I guess that's what people interested in keeping to their own pet myths and uninterested in science will never notice about the way they sound to people who *are* interested in science.
    Thank you Ann Gibbons for a very enlightening, science-based read. It's also uplifting to see someone show the courage to take a moral stand on important social issues like that of refugees. Please don't omit the so-called "preachy"ness in subsequent articles.

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • RE: Terrible article, and boring..

    Preachy, condescending, disrespectful.

    A portion of readers may find this political projection on archaeology and archaeogenetics personally satisfying​, but this constant moralizing isn't good for scientific disciplines. Sounds like a great sermon from a pulpit,

    Competing Interests: None declared.