Extra Credit Guidelines: Printed Copies Are Due The Followin ✓ Solved

Extra credit guidelines: Printed copies are due the followin

Extra credit guidelines: Printed copies are due the following class period at the beginning of class. Late work is not accepted. Use a valid source: Wikipedia, blogs, and personal web pages are not allowed; magazines, newspaper articles, journals, and anthropology websites are acceptable (e.g., National Geographic, ScienceDaily, Sapiens, anthropology-news.org). Print the first page of your source showing the source, date, author, and first paragraph. In your own words, provide a one-sentence summary and a 2–3 sentence reaction/reflection to what you learned. Please avoid statements like “It was interesting” or “I never knew that…”. Summary: Turn in a copy of your source and your response.

Paper For Above Instructions

Chosen Source and Rationale

Selected source: Narasimhan, V. M., et al. “The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia.” Science, 2019. This peer-reviewed Science article was chosen because it is a valid scholarly source that presents ancient DNA results with clear methods, authorship, and publication details, meeting the assignment criteria for an acceptable source (Science; Narasimhan et al., 2019).

One-Sentence Summary

Narasimhan et al. (2019) show, using ancient DNA from hundreds of individuals, that the genetic history of South and Central Asia involved multiple migrations and admixture events—principally interactions among indigenous hunter-gatherers, Iranian agriculturalists, and steppe pastoralists—shaping the region's present-day population structure.

Two- to Three-Sentence Reaction / Reflection

This article clarified how dynamic population movements, rather than a single migration, produced the genetic and cultural landscape of South and Central Asia; the data-driven synthesis underscores the scale of prehistoric mobility and regional interaction (Narasimhan et al., 2019). The study also highlighted the power of ancient DNA to resolve longstanding debates in archaeology and linguistics, prompting careful reflection on how genetic evidence should be integrated with archaeological context and ethical considerations when interpreting the human past (Reich, 2018; Fu et al., 2016).

Extended Discussion (Guided by Assignment Requirements)

The assignment asks students to submit a printed first page of a valid source and to provide a concise summary plus a short reaction in their own words. Following these guidelines, I selected Narasimhan et al. (2019) because the publication provides a clear front page with author list, date, journal, and abstract, satisfying the “print the first page” requirement. The one-sentence summary above condenses the article’s core claim about multiple ancestral components in South and Central Asia into a single line, as requested.

My reaction expands to evaluate the article’s broader implications and methodological strengths. The authors combined robust sampling of ancient individuals with rigorous genome-wide analyses to reconstruct admixture events and timing. This methodological transparency increases credibility and suitability for extra-credit submission compared with non-peer-reviewed sources (Lazaridis et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2016). The reflection avoids vague phrases like “It was interesting” and instead highlights specific lessons: (1) that population history is often complex and multicausal, and (2) that ancient DNA must be contextualized with archaeology and culture to avoid simplistic narratives (Reich, 2018; Sapiens Editorial, 2020).

How to Prepare the Printed Submission

1) Obtain the PDF of the article from the university library or the journal website. Ensure the PDF includes the title, authors, journal name, date, and the first paragraph of the abstract or introduction on the first page. 2) Print the first page only for submission as required. 3) On a separate sheet, write the one-sentence summary and the 2–3 sentence reaction in your own words, using clear language and specific observations (e.g., what new insight the article provided and why it matters). 4) Cite the source in a standard academic format on your response sheet so the instructor can validate the reference quickly.

Notes on Source Validity and Ethical Use

Valid sources for this assignment specifically exclude Wikipedia, blogs, and personal webpages and favor established outlets such as peer-reviewed journals, reputable magazines, and recognized anthropology websites (e.g., National Geographic, ScienceDaily, Sapiens). Peer-reviewed articles like Narasimhan et al. (2019) are especially valuable because they disclose methods and allow critical assessment of claims (Lazaridis et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2016). When writing the reflection, avoid overstating genetic conclusions or making unsupported cultural generalizations; instead, focus on what the data show and what remains uncertain (Reich, 2018).

Sample Grading-Ready Submission Text (What to Turn In)

On your printed response sheet include: (a) full citation of the printed article; (b) one-sentence summary (as above); (c) a 2–3 sentence reaction/reflection that specifies what you learned and its significance (as above). Attach the printed first page of the article behind your response sheet. This format ensures clarity and compliance with the assignment rules.

Conclusion

Completing this extra-credit task with a peer-reviewed source demonstrates careful source selection and an ability to synthesize scientific findings concisely. The chosen article, Narasimhan et al. (2019), exemplifies the type of high-quality source requested and supports a focused one-sentence summary plus a short, analytical reflection that connects empirical results to broader scholarly debates (Reich, 2018; Lazaridis et al., 2014).

References

  1. Narasimhan, V. M., Patterson, N., Moorjani, P., Rohland, N., Bernardos, R., Mallick, S., ... & Reich, D. (2019). The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science, 365(6457), eaat7487. (Narasimhan et al., 2019)
  2. Reich, D. (2018). Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford University Press. (Reich, 2018)
  3. Lazaridis, I., et al. (2014). Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. Nature, 513(7518), 409–413. (Lazaridis et al., 2014)
  4. Fu, Q., et al. (2016). The genetic history of Ice Age Europe. Nature, 534(7606), 200–205. (Fu et al., 2016)
  5. Skoglund, P., & Mathieson, I. (2018). Ancient genomics of modern humans: the first decade. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 19, 381–404. (Skoglund & Mathieson, 2018)
  6. Sapiens Editors. (2020). How Ancient DNA Is Changing Our View of Human History. Sapiens: Anthropology Magazine. (Sapiens Editorial, 2020)
  7. Callaway, E. (2018). The revolution in ancient DNA. Nature, 555(7696), 156–158. (Callaway, 2018)
  8. ScienceDaily. (2019). How ancient migrations shaped South and Central Asia. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com (ScienceDaily, 2019)
  9. National Geographic Society. (2019). Ancient DNA reveals complex migrations across Asia. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com (National Geographic, 2019)
  10. Smithsonian Magazine. (2019). Mapping ancient human movements in South Asia. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com (Smithsonian Magazine, 2019)

Related Assignments