ABSTRACT Here I provide a perspective on the palaeogenetic revolution from an archaeologist who has spent the last four years working alongside palaeogeneticists. I address the questions posed for this journal issue by talking through some of the recurrent comments I have encountered from archaeologists regarding the results of palaeogenetic analyses, particular the renewed emphasis on migrations influencing certain cultural transitions in later prehistoric Europe. Most of the antagonism between the two approaches stems from misunderstandings regarding each other’s implicit methods, questions and epistemologies. Palaeogenetic studies are far from infallible, particularly when it comes to characteristing the archaeological evidence, but many of the common points of criticism levelled at them by archaeologists are often misguided. If we can move past a climate antagonism and suspicion around palaeogenetics, synthesis with the archaeological evidence provides tantalizing opportunities for developing richer understandings of the archaeological record and the lives of people in the past.

中文翻译：

---

陌生土地上的一个陌生人：一位古生物学家中的考古学家对古生物学革命的考古学回应的观点

摘要在这里，我提供了一位考古学家与古生物学家一起工作了四年的古生物学革命的观点。我通过讨论考古学家关于古遗传学分析的结果，特别是重新强调影响后史前欧洲某些文化转型的迁徙，来探讨本期刊物的问题。两种方法之间的大多数对抗源自对彼此的内在方法，问题和认识论的误解。古生物学的研究远非万无一失，尤其是在表征考古证据方面，但考古学家对它们的批评的许多共同点常常被误导。