PhD Andrzej Romaniuk – Graduate of doctoral studies at the University of Edinburgh (Archaeology, February 2022), after the first year of his initial independent research in the UK. He specializes in archaeology, biology, and the evolution of micro-mammals (small mammals under 1 kg of live weight). He is currently working at the Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre (EPCC), organizing training workshops in data work and programming in SQL, R, and Python.
How did your journey with science begin?
It started with travel. During high school, I didn’t know what I wanted to do in life. Although I had good grades, I couldn’t see a practical way to turn my skills into a valuable career. The turning point was a trip to Jordan and Syria in 2007. I had the opportunity to meet and talk with scientists working in the ruins of ancient metropolises, temples, fortresses, and cemeteries; working hard but with conviction and a sense of mission that is rare in today’s highly cynical times.
Archaeologists are often seen in a very narrow perspective inspired by books and movies, usually as lone adventurers or bookworms. Modern archaeology has nothing to do with these portrayals and is closer to the sciences than it might appear at first glance. The goal of archaeology is the precise, methodical documentation of all physical traces of past human activity using methods adapted from other scientific fields. Palaces, statues, and tombs of the elite are impressive, but more can be learned about the past from the waste of an ancient dump or the remnants left on the floor of a ceramic workshop. Even the remnants of nature itself, from before the settlement was established, can tell us much about the environment the first humans lived in, the obstacles they faced in building the first structures, and the animals they coexisted with. Archaeological research is often very diverse and requires the expertise (before, during, and after excavations) of archaeologists, anthropologists, conservators, geologists, linguists, biologists, photographers, and even physicists, biochemists, and mathematicians.
This made me realize that archaeology allows for very diverse work and the opportunity to test my skills in various fields that I would not normally have access to. As a young, ambitious person wanting to fully utilize my abilities, develop in many directions, and understand myself, I found it to be the perfect start to something more in my life. In hindsight, I may have been a bit naive, but fundamentally I was right. Throughout my studies, I was a photographer, analyzed animal iconography, identified bone remains of small animals, analyzed and adapted research methodology for archaeological research. As an independent young scientist, I have studied the evolution of house mice, and more recently, I have been overseeing workshops and teaching the basics of data work, programming, and analysis.
What factors led you to decide to go abroad? What were the biggest challenges associated with that decision?
What prompted me to go abroad was the lack of prospects for further development in my country and financial problems. In 2013, when I was finishing my master’s thesis, I wanted to continue my studies and eventually find work in Polish archaeology. Unfortunately, the realities of the market at that time were unyielding; I was unable to find a job that would support me while continuing my education in my chosen field. I also did not qualify for financial support, except for a symbolic award for my results. After discussions with Professor Barbara Kaim, my supervisor at the University of Warsaw, other university staff, and senior colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology (now the Faculty of Archaeology), I realized that studying abroad was the only option. Not only could I support myself with a part-time job while continuing my education, but I also had better chances of obtaining funding, both scholarships, and grants for my first independent research.
Although I faced many challenges, most of them turned out to be trivial or resolved themselves with the support of others. I was already proficient in English thanks to frequent travels and volunteering at scientific events. I also knew that I wanted to retrain to work regularly in an archaeological laboratory, at a university, or a museum, on already excavated artifacts. Looking for options at British universities, I came to Edinburgh in 2013 to visit my friend Izabela Sztuka, also a graduate of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Warsaw, who was then on an exchange program at the University of Edinburgh. Iza encouraged me to attend the open days at the School of History, Classics, and Archaeology. What impressed me was not only the well-equipped laboratories, collaborative workspaces, and the vast library but especially the approach of British scientists. I had the opportunity to talk with Professor Laszlo Bartosiewicz, who was teaching osteoarchaeology at the time, and the then head of the school, Professor Stephen Bowd. After I shared my experience and the results of my previous work, they were very surprised that I couldn’t find opportunities for further development in Poland and offered me to apply for osteoarchaeology, a one-year intensive master’s program, and then for a PhD.
From September 2014, I studied osteoarchaeology, learning the basics of working with human and animal bone remains, including microscopic and paleopathological research (traces of fractures, diseases, etc.), and methodological approaches – experimentation on contemporary bones (animals) or their substitutes (human equivalents). I also received a scholarship that covered all living expenses – the first real financial support in my life. I was finally able to continue my scientific journey. In 2016, I published the results of my master’s thesis in Royal Society Open Science (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160514), and in 2017, I started my PhD, which I defended in October 2021.
What benefits do you gain from working in an international scientific environment compared to working in Poland?
First and foremost, it allows for easier exchange of ideas and experiences, including promoting one’s work among an interested group of researchers. It was in the UK that I was able to publish my research in an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal for the first time, and then three more in subsequent years. Although I was close to publishing in Poland, I didn’t have enough leverage to achieve it, not to mention covering the associated costs. An international environment also allows for effective methodological and experimental research, especially the introduction and popularization of new methods. Many branches of Polish science are lagging behind in methodological development, and working abroad provides access to cutting-edge techniques and collaborative opportunities that are essential for advancing scientific research.
The international environment also allows for effective methodological and experimental research, especially the introduction of new methods and their popularization. Many branches of Polish science are lagging behind with the development of research methodology, often content to catch up to Western Europe and the USA. As a result of this trend, many institutions in Poland simply lack the facilities for the development and testing of new methods. Thirdly, international institutes allow for further development, including the possibility of retraining. Science is constantly advancing, which requires scientists to continually educate themselves so that their projects utilize the latest achievements and their research publications remain at the forefront of science. I have personally retrained twice during my stay in the UK.
In general, I believe that British and French academia are more open, less constrained by local issues, and provide young researchers with a greater sense of daily security. In the West, it is easier to present your ideas, apply for funding, and obtain approval for projects without the need for connections. Scientists also have more control over their projects, without the risk of losing granted funding or their position on a project unless there are well-defined reasons for it.
Do you maintain contact with Polish scientific communities?
Since 2014, I have tried to maintain contact, although currently, it is solely on a friendly basis. Attempts to establish deeper cooperation have unfortunately failed. Nevertheless, I hope that someday I will return to Poland to lead my own scientific project and pass on the knowledge gained abroad.
What are you currently working on, and what is the main focus of your scientific research?
Since arriving in the UK, I have been working on the archaeology, biology, and evolution of small mammals, particularly rodents. The relationships of these animals with humans are often complex, but their analysis and understanding allow for far-reaching conclusions about human history.
A perfect example is the natural history of house mice (Mus musculus), which I have been studying recently. The earliest known remains of these rodents appeared in the context of Natufian hunter-gatherer settlements from the late Paleolithic (15-11 thousand years ago). These mice thrived in human constructions, which protected them from predators while providing easy access to food gathered by humans. This was not a deliberate human action, as in the case of larger animals. Human activity unintentionally created an ecological niche that the ancestors of house mice quickly exploited, evolving to adapt to it. Over time, house mice, as stowaways, spread with humans, both with colonists seeking new lands and traders interested in commerce. These mice adapted to new, often extreme climatic conditions (for example, on the North Sea islands) and to changing human habits, such as the agricultural revolution or the establishment of maritime contacts. The history of house mice can be read from archaeological remains as evidence of physical presence, population state, and health, as well as from mitochondrial DNA, which indicates their origin and adaptation to new conditions. This knowledge is currently being used to reconstruct the network of relationships between human settlements in the past, particularly in the context of maritime contacts.
In 2022, just a few months after officially obtaining my PhD in Archaeology, I secured a one-year postdoctoral fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities (IASH) at the University of Edinburgh. The purpose of this fellowship was to conduct pilot research combining archaeology with evolutionary biology in the Orkney and northern Scotland regions. Previous research on mitochondrial DNA and the shape of the first upper molars of house mice in the UK showed that the populations currently inhabiting the Orkney archipelago and the adjacent Scottish coast have a unique lineage, without signs of mixing with other British populations. It was suggested that, similar to humans, this is the result of intensified contacts during the late Viking Age, around the 10th-11th century AD. During this time, many new settlements emerged in Orkney, and along with the arriving people, house mice might have also arrived. This hypothesis was supported by the absence of these animals’ remains in older sites; however, evolutionary studies had been conducted only on contemporary animals and did not provide a definitive answer.
During my fellowship, I utilized materials from previous studies, adding samples from two archaeological sites. The first site, Birsay Beachview, is located near the village of Birsay on Mainland, the main island of the Orkney archipelago. The second site, Tuquoy, is on the island of Westray, at the northern end of the archipelago. From the 10th to the 14th century AD, Birsay and Tuquoy were the dominant settlements on their respective islands, with Birsay also serving as the administrative center of the archipelago until the 18th century. Due to limited time and financial constraints, I only examined the shape of the first upper molars of house mice using geometric morphometrics in a two-dimensional plane to capture changes resulting from inheritance and physical adaptation. To complement this method, I also measured the length of the teeth and checked for unique variations in the number or arrangement of the crown cusps. The teeth from the archaeological sites were significantly larger than contemporary specimens. There is some variability in the relationship between tooth size and the animal itself, but given the degree of difference and the lack of evidence for intentional evolution towards macrodontia (i.e., gigantism of the teeth), it can be safely assumed that the differences in tooth size reflect real differences in the overall size of the animals. This suggests the existence of a process that led to a reduction in size between the 14th century AD and the present, although without more detailed studies, it is difficult to determine why this happened. It may have climatic causes, both local and global, and be related to human activities (e.g., industrialization, urbanization).
The morphology (shape) of the teeth showed that traits unique to the Orkney population appeared as early as the Norse period, particularly indicated by the similarity of samples from Birsay to contemporary Orkney and northern Scottish populations. However, this population was not entirely static, as the stability of human settlement likely influenced the morphological evolution of house mice. The areas around the Birsay Beachview site have been continuously inhabited since the 10th century AD and actively participated in maritime exchange. As a result, the archaeological population looks like a direct ancestor of contemporary mice in both Orkney and northern Scotland. In contrast, Tuquoy, a settlement abandoned at the end of the Middle Ages, provided samples that differed from contemporary house mouse populations on Westray and neighboring islands. The difference was not dramatic but noticeable, indicating the existence of a now-extinct sub-population that either died out or was replaced by other populations over time.
The above results were published earlier this year in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blae005 ). My pilot study is an interesting example of why incorporating archaeological materials into evolutionary studies is key to obtaining more accurate results about the past. These results are valuable to both evolutionary studies and archaeology, especially in the context of human-animal relationships. I am currently seeking funding for further, more advanced research, including new archaeological sites and mitochondrial DNA analysis to complement existing methods.
What is your most important scientific achievement or discovery? Why is it important?
My first published research (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160514) received wide attention in Great Britain, including: in the form of two articles on the BBC website and a broadcast on British radio. They were also occasionally mentioned in the world press, although not in the Polish one. During this research, I analyzed rodent remains from four locations within the Neolithic site of Skara Brae, located on the main island of the Orkney archipelago, called Mainland.
Often called the “Scottish Pyramids” or “Scottish Pompeii”, Skara Brae is one of the oldest and best-preserved settlements on the North Sea islands, dating back to the late 4th and 3rd millennia BC. The remains of small animals from Skara Brae have previously been analyzed by various scientists to identify the species to which the remains belonged. Ultimately, only two were identified, both of which still inhabit Orkney today: common voles (Microtus arvalis) and wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus). Given the isolation of the archipelago, both species most likely arrived with the first Neolithic settlers. In the case of wood mice, this is not surprising, as these animals occasionally venture out and may even inhabit buildings. Voles, on the other hand, are known to be shy and avoid human settlements, except in border areas such as pastures and lightly cultivated fields. Moreover, nowadays they do not occur on any other islands in Great Britain, with the exception of the Channel Islands. Various researchers have suggested that they must have arrived with human settlers from the continent, perhaps deliberately taken along with larger farm animals.
In 2015, during three months of in-depth research on bone material, I reviewed all the material from Skara Brae related to two species of rodents, which consisted of over 30,000 bones and teeth or their fragments, many of them measuring no more than 1 cm. This material was obtained from the center of the settlement (1 location), the periphery (1 location) and from control excavations outside the settlement (2 locations). I analyzed each fragment under a microscope, recording the type of bone, possible sex and species, state of preservation, as well as specific marks on the bones (discoloration, burn marks, erosions caused by weathering or acid etching). What first caught the eye was the amount of material showing traces of fire, especially on bones such as the front part of the mandible, teeth, the posterior part of the vertebrae, and other bones that generally protrude above the muscles and are protected only by a thin layer of skin. The degree of charring varied, but generally matched what could be expected from thermal processing used by humans. The location of these marks indicated burning, roasting, or cooking whole animals. All such remains identifiable to species were from common voles and were found only in the center and on the periphery of the settlement. Materials from natural geological layers and those showing traces of activity outside the settlement did not show any such changes.
The accumulation and nature of the burnt bones suggest that voles were likely intentionally caught and cooked or roasted whole. Such behavior could be due to pest control, but the absence of similar marks on wood mice, which likely lived close to humans and are known for occasionally foraging in buildings, is intriguing. An alternative explanation is that voles were treated as a food source, similar to other species found in the waste. This could also explain the introduction of these rodents to Orkney. There are known instances where small animals were taken on long sea voyages as a source of meat, as they were easier to maintain than larger animals, such as in the Pacific region.
The results of my work provided the first evidence of the control or exploitation of rodent populations by Neolithic inhabitants of Europe, which inspired similar studies in Spain and France. I continued these topics during my Ph.D., focusing more on evaluating research methodology for studying small animals in archaeology. Later studies on coprolites (fossilized feces) from Skara Brae, conducted by me and Dr. Else Panciroli, confirmed that voles were occasionally eaten by dogs living in the settlement, along with scraps from the slaughter of domestic animals. However, I am no longer as certain as I once was that they were directly consumed by humans, nor that it was a common practice among the Orkney inhabitants, even during the Neolithic. My later doctoral research did not show similar practices at another Neolithic site, Links of Noltland on Westray. The methodological studies I conducted also suggest that the deposits of small bones from Skara Brae could result from the mixing of remains from various sources, both human activities (hence the burn marks) and the accumulation of leftovers from predatory bird foraging.
What scientific problems in your field are you most looking forward to solving and why?
I am eagerly anticipating obtaining and analyzing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) samples from house mice to determine the degree of relatedness between individual populations in Orkney and France. So far, I have only used visual analysis of tooth size and shape (morphology). This is because teeth generally preserve better than bones, and small mammals, due to their size, require very well-preserved remains to obtain enough sample from a single bone to successfully extract valuable mtDNA information. The difficulties in obtaining samples for analysis increase with the age of the archaeological materials being studied. There is also the issue of potential sample contamination from other sources, such as the mixing of remains from different animals in the same deposits. touching with bare hands by archaeologists and other researchers and even contamination applied with dust.The situation is getting better every year, and there are methods for obtaining cleaner samples and requiring less material. However, there will still be some water in the Vistula and Thames before research on archaeological material using DNA samples from small mammals is easy to carry out and financially affordable for most interested researchers.
What are the biggest challenges you face in your scientific work?
It may sound strange, but dealing with constant stress and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Contrary to popular belief, scientific work is not devoid of emotions, especially negative ones, and often requires significant mental and physical effort. This is not surprising, as besides the actual scientific work and teaching, contemporary researchers must handle administrative matters, maintain contact with other specialists, travel to present the results of their latest research, promote their work outside academia, and apply for further research funding. This often exceeds 50 hours a week; as one climbs the academic ladder, the workload increases.
From my perspective, the most difficult and time-consuming task is applying for research grants. Given the usually low chances of securing funding on the first attempt (with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of candidates for a single funding option), there is a need for continuous writing of new applications to eventually, after many disappointments, secure funds for one’s dream project. Young researchers rarely have job stability beyond the duration of their current research project, leading to overwork, stress, and anxiety about the future. On the bright side, scientists who fail to develop their academic careers often find better-paying and more comfortable jobs outside academia. This trend is statistically confirmed and applies even to declared humanists.
What advice would you give to young scientists at the beginning of their careers?
Although my advice may not be universal, and there are certainly exceptions, I honestly suggest being open to various development options, including the possibility of complete retraining. A PhD is not only a specific, often very narrow specialization and the knowledge associated with it but also general skills in preparation, organization and conducting research, critical thinking, collaboration, public speaking, publishing results, and even budgeting and knowledge of law and professional ethics. These skills, once acquired, can be easily applied in other research fields. For example, a PhD in archaeology is not an obstacle to conducting research closer to biology or geology (and vice versa), especially in areas where these fields overlap. Moreover, science is advancing faster every year, with new, fascinating branches of research emerging, along with opportunities for self-improvement, increasing competencies, and broadening one’s horizons. Also, one should not be disgusted with working outside the broadly defined “academy”, in laboratories of private companies or government institutions. Contrary to popular opinion, such a change does not cancel the return to science, and the knowledge and skills gained in such centers are increasingly appreciated when conducting projects at both national and EU levels.
Fot. Unsplash
