TheDenisovans orDenisova hominins (/dəˈniːsəvə/də-NEE-sə-və) are anextinctspecies orsubspecies ofarchaic human that ranged across Asia during theMiddle toLate Pleistocene, approximately 200,000–40,000 years ago. Most of what is known about Denisovans comes fromDNA evidence. While many recent fossils have been found and tentatively identified as Denisovan, the first Denisovans discovered were known from few physical remains. Consequently, no formal species name has been established. However, an analysis of themitochondrial DNA and endogenous proteins from theHarbin cranium, which had been given the nameHomo longi, showed with great certainty that this species represents a Denisovan.[1][2][3]In a study published in September 2025, remains from six additional sites in China including the 1 million year oldYunxian man were proposed to be included in the speciesHomo longi along with the genetically confirmed Denisovans.[4]
DNA evidence suggests they had dark skin, eyes, and hair, and had a Neanderthal-like build.[7][8] Based on theHarbin cranium, like other archaic humans, the skull is low and long, with massively developed brow ridges, wideeye sockets, and a large mouth. The two existing Denisovan mandibles show that like Neanderthals, the Denisovans lacked a chin. Like modern humans and the much earlierHomo antecessor, but unlike Neanderthals, the face is rather flat, but with a larger nose. However, they had largermolars which are reminiscent ofMiddle toLate Pleistocene archaic humans andaustralopithecines. Thecranial capacity and therefore thebrain size of the Denisovans was within the range of modern humans and Neanderthals.
Denisovansinterbred with modern humans, with a high percentage (roughly 5%) of Denisovan DNA occurring inMelanesians,Aboriginal Australians, andFilipino Negritos.[9] In contrast, 0.2% derives from Denisovan ancestry in mainland Asians andNative Americans.[10] In a 2018 study,South Asians were found to have levels of Denisovan admixture similar to that seen in East Asians.[11] Another study found that the highest Denisovan ancestry is inferred in Oceanians (~2.0%), while most populations of Native Americans, East Asians, and South Asians have similar amounts (~0.1%).[12] This distribution suggests that there were Denisovan populations across Asia. There is also evidence of interbreeding with the Altai Neanderthal population, with about 17% of the Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave deriving from them. A first-generation hybrid nicknamed "Denny" was discovered with a Denisovan father and a Neanderthal mother.[13][14] Additionally, 4% of the Denisovan genome comes from an unknown archaic human species, which diverged from modern humans over one million years ago.[15]
Denisovans might represent a new species ofHomo or an archaic subspecies ofHomo sapiens (modern humans), but up until theHarbin cranium was identified as a Denisovan in June 2025 through the mitochondrial DNA[2] and autosomal proteomics[1] there were too few fossils to erect a propertaxon. Proactively proposed species names without type specimen designation for Denisovans includeH. sapiens altaiensis orH. altaiensis (Derevianko, 2011),[18]H. denisoviensis (Picq, 2011),[19]H. denisovan (Gabriel & Mihaela, 2011),[20] andH. denisova (Gunbin et al., 2012).[21]
In 2025, Denné Reed argued that the informal name "Denisovans" represents the better system than proactively proposed names to reference this archaic human group due to its uncertain biological status as an independent evolutionary lineage. He suggested that "H. altaiensis" represents anomen nudum ("naked name"), since its description lacks differential diagnosis, does not clearly display the intent of naming a new species and lacks a fixed type specimen. He also suggested that the names "Homo daliensis" and "Homo mapaensis" are conditionally proposed which makes them unavailable based on ICZN article 15, while considered "Homo tsaichangensis" (intended name forPenghu 1 in a self-published digital book) to be unpublished and unavailable, as it does not contain evidence of ZooBank registration within the published work which fails to conform to the ICZN articles 8.5.3.1 and 8.5.3.2.[22]
Research published in 2024 proposed classifying Denisovans as part of the conditional speciesHomo juluensis based on the similarities between Denisovan andH. juluensis molars, prior to the classification of Denisovans asHomo longi based on DNA evidence.[23][24]
In 2021, Chinese palaeoanthropologist Qiang Ji and colleagues suggested that their newly erected species,H. longi, may represent the Denisovans, based on the similarity between the type specimen's molar and that of the Xiahe mandible.[32] In 2024, paleoanthropologists Christopher Bae and Xiujie Wu designated theXujiayao fossils as the holotype of the speciesHomo juluensis with Xuchang as the paratype, and suggested sinking Denisovans into this species. They recommended relegating theDali Man and the similar specimenJinniushan toH. longi.[33][34]
In 2025, Fu and colleagues retrieved mitochondrial DNA from thedental calculus of theHarbin cranium (H. longi holotype), reporting that it falls within the variation of seven previously sequenced Denisovan mitochondrial DNA.[2] Fu et al. (2025) also retrieved 95 endogenous proteins from the same specimen, and suggested thatH. longi can be confidently assigned to a Denisovan population.[1]
In 2019, Greek archaeologistKaterina Douka and colleaguesradiocarbon dated specimens from Denisova Cave, and estimated that Denisova 2 (the oldest specimen) lived 195,000–122,700 years ago.[37] Older Denisovan DNA collected from sediments in the East Chamber dates to 217,000 years ago. Based onartifacts also discovered in the cave, hominin occupation (most likely by Denisovans) began 287±41 or 203±14ka. Neanderthals were also present 193±12 ka and 97±11 ka, possibly concurrently with Denisovans.[38]
The fossils of multiple distinct Denisovan individuals fromDenisova Cave have been identified through theirancient DNA (aDNA): Denisova 2, 3, 4, 8,11, 19, 20, 21 and 25.[39] An mtDNA-based phylogenetic analysis of these individuals suggested that Denisova 19, 20, and 21 are the oldest, followed by Denisova 2, then Denisova 8; while Denisova 3 and Denisova 4 were roughly contemporaneous.[40][39] The mtDNA from Denisova 4 bore a high similarity to that of Denisova 3, indicating that they belonged to the same population.[41]
Denisova Cave contained the only known examples of Denisovans until 2019, when a research group led byFahu Chen,Dongju Zhang, andJean-Jacques Hublin described a partial mandible discovered in 1980 by aBuddhist monk in theBaishiya Karst Cave on theTibetan Plateau in China. Known as the Xiahe mandible, the fossil became part of the collection ofLanzhou University, where it remained unstudied until 2010.[42] It was determined byancient protein analysis to containcollagen that by sequence was found to have close affiliation to that of the Denisovans from Denisova Cave, whileuranium decay dating of thecarbonate crust enshrouding the specimen indicated it was more than 160,000 years old.[43] The identity of this population was later confirmed through study ofenvironmental DNA, which found Denisovan mtDNA in sediment layers ranging in date from 100,000 to 60,000 years before present, and perhaps more recent.[44] A 2024 reanalysis identified a partial Denisovan rib fragment dating to between 48,000 and 32,000 BP.[45][46]
In 2018, a team of Laotian, French, and American anthropologists, who had been excavating caves in the LaotianAnnamite Mountains since 2008, was directed by local children to the site Tam Ngu Hao 2 ("Cobra Cave") where they recovered a human tooth. The tooth (catalogue number TNH2-1) developmentally matches a 3.5 to 8.5 year old, and a lack ofamelogenin (a protein on theY chromosome) suggests it belonged to a girl, barring extreme degradation of the protein over a long period of time. Dental proteome analysis was inconclusive for this specimen, but the team found it anatomically comparable with the Xiahe mandible, and so they categorized it as a Denisovan. The tooth probably dates to 164,000 to 131,000 years ago.[47]
In 2022, a team from Germany, Austria, Russia and the UK found three Denisovans (Denisova 19, 20, 21) from layer 15 of the East Chamber, in Denisova Cave. It turns out that the mtDNA sequences of Denisova 19 and 21 are identical, indicating that they may belong to the same individual or be maternal relatives. The divergence date for the mtDNAs of the three new and the four previously published Denisovans is 229ka (206–252 ka 95% Cl) during theInterglacial period MIS 7.[39] Thegenetic diversity among the Denisovans from Denisova Cave is on the lower range of what is seen in modern humans, and is comparable to that of Neanderthals. However, it is possible that the inhabitants of Denisova Cave were more or less reproductively isolated from other Denisovans, and that, across their entire range, Denisovan genetic diversity may have been much higher.[40]
In 2024, scientists announced the sequence of Denisova 25, which was in a layer dated to 200ka.[48] During DNA sequencing, low proportions of the Denisova2, Denisova4 and Denisova8 genomes were found to have survived, but high proportions of the Denisova3 and Denisova 25 genomes were intact.[40][49][48] The Denisova 3 sample was cut into two, and the initial DNA sequencing of one fragment was later independently confirmed by sequencing the mtDNA from the second.[50]
In 2008, a Taiwanese citizen purchased a fossilHomomandible, dredged from the sea floor of theTaiwan Strait, from an antique shop and donated it to the TaiwanNational Museum of Natural Science. Attempts to extract DNA were unsuccessful, but in 2025 protein analysis of the specimen, designatedPenghu 1, was published showing that it belonged to a male Denisovan.[51]
In 2018, a relatively complete skull was reported fromHarbin, China, and was described in 2021 asH. longi.[32] In 2025, mtDNA and proteomic analysis confirmed that this skull is a Denisovan.[2][1]
The following list is the currently known specimens of Denisovans, with colored specimens being proposed through morphometric analyses only without mitogenome or proteomic analyses:[4]
Replica of the molar of Denisova. Part of the roots was destroyed to study the mtDNA. Their size and shape indicate it is neither neanderthal nor sapiens.
Thenuclear DNA (nDNA) of Denisova 3—which had an unusual degree of DNA preservation with only low-level contamination— shows that Denisovans and Neanderthals were more closely related to each other than they were to modern humans. Using the percent distance fromhuman–chimpanzee last common ancestor, Denisovans/Neanderthals split from modern humans about 804,000 years ago, and from each other 640,000 years ago.[41] Using a mutation rate of1×10−9 or0.5×10−9 perbase pair (bp) per year, the Neanderthal/Denisovan split occurred around either 236–190,000 or 473–381,000 years ago respectively.[71] Using1.1×10−8 per generation with a new generation every 29 years, the time is 744,000 years ago. Using5×10−10nucleotide site per year, it is 616,000 years ago. Using the latter dates, the split had likely already occurred by the time hominins spread out across Europe.[72]H. heidelbergensis is typically considered to have been the direct ancestor of Denisovans and Neanderthals, and sometimes also modern humans.[73] Due to the strong divergence in dental anatomy, they may have split before characteristic Neanderthal dentition evolved about 300,000 years ago.[41]
Sequencedmitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), preserved by the cool climate of the cave (average temperature is at freezing point), was extracted from Denisova3 by a team of scientists led byJohannes Krause andSvante Pääbo from theMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology inLeipzig, Germany. Denisova 3's mtDNA differs from that of modern humans by 385 bases (nucleotides) out of approximately 16,500, whereas the difference between modern humans andNeanderthals is around 202 bases. In comparison, the difference betweenchimpanzees and modern humans is approximately 1,462 mtDNA base pairs. This suggested that Denisovan mtDNA diverged from that of modern humans and Neanderthals about 1,313,500–779,300 years ago; whereas modern human and Neanderthal mtDNA diverged 618,000–321,200 years ago.[5][74]
Modern humans contributed mtDNA to the Neanderthal lineage, but not to the Denisovan mitochondrial genomes yet sequenced.[75][76][77][78] The mtDNA sequence from the femur of a 400,000-year-old early Neanderthal from theSima de los Huesos Cave in Spain was found to be closer to Denisovans,[2][79][80] and the authors posited that this mtDNA represents an archaic sequence which was subsequently lost in Neanderthals due to replacement by a modern-human-related sequence.[81]
In 2020, the sequencing of Denisovan Y chromosomes (Denisova 4 andDenisova 8), as well as the Y chromosomes of three late Neanderthals (Spy 94a,Mezmaiskaya 2 andEl Sidrón 1253) showed that the Denisovan Y chromosomes split around 700 thousand years ago (kya) from a lineage shared by Neanderthal and modern human Y chromosomes, which diverged from each other around 370 thousand years ago. The phylogenetic relationships of archaic and modern human Y chromosomes differ from the population relationships inferred from the autosomal genomes and mirror mitochondrial DNA phylogenies, indicating replacement of both the mitochondrial and Y chromosomal gene pools in late Neanderthals.[82]
Denisovans are known to have lived in Siberia, Tibet, Laos, Taiwan and Manchuria.[47][51][1][2] The Xiahe mandible is the earliest recorded human presence on the Tibetan Plateau.[43] Though their remains have been identified in only these five locations, traces of Denisovan DNA in modern humans suggest they ranged acrossEast Asia,[83][84]
In 2019,geneticist Guy Jacobs and colleagues identified three distinct populations of Denisovans responsible for the introgression into modern populations now native to, respectively: Siberia and East Asia; New Guinea and nearby islands; andOceania and, to a lesser extent, across Asia. Usingcoalescent modeling, the Denisova Cave Denisovans split from the second population about 283,000 years ago; and from the third population about 363,000 years ago. This indicates that there was considerable reproductive isolation between Denisovan populations.[85] Usingexponential distribution analysis onhaplotype lengths, Jacobs calculatedintrogression into modern humans occurred about 29,900 years ago with the Denisovan population ancestral to New Guineans; and 45,700 years ago with the population ancestral to both New Guineans and Oceanians. A third wave appears to have introgressed into East Asia, but there is not enough DNA evidence to pinpoint a solid timeframe.[85] Denisovan DNA segments discovered in modern populations east Asia have more similarities with the Denisovan reference genome from the Altai mountains, compared to the Denisovan segments found in Southeast Asia and Oceania.[86]
In a 2024 study, scientist Danat Yermakovich, of theUniversity of Tartu, discovered that people living at different elevations in Papua New Guinea have differences in Denisovan DNA; with people living in the highlands having variants for early brain development and those living in the lowlands having variants for the immune system.[87] Based on the high percentages of Denisovan DNA in modern Papuans and Australians, Denisovans may have crossed theWallace Line into these regions (with little back-migration west), the second known human species to do so,[31] along with earlierHomo floresiensis. By this logic, they may have also entered the Philippines, living alongsideH. luzonensis which, if this is the case, may represent the same or a closely related species.[88] These Denisovans may have needed to cross large bodies of water.[85] Alternately, high Denisovan DNA admixture in modern Papuan populations may simply represent higher mixing among the original ancestors of Papuans prior to crossing the Wallace line.
Denisova Cave, over time of habitation, continually swung from a fairly warm and moderately humid pine and birch forest to tundra orforest-tundra landscape.[38] Conversely, Baishiya Karst Cave is situated at a high elevation, an area characterized by low temperature, low oxygen, and poor resource availability. Colonization of high-altitude regions, due to such harsh conditions, was previously assumed to have only been accomplished by modern humans.[43] Denisovans seem to have also inhabited Southeast Asia.[84] The Tam Ngu Hao2 site might have been a closed forest environment.[47]
The finger bone is within the modern human range of variation for women,[50] which is in contrast to the large, robust molars which are more similar to those of Middle to Late Pleistocene archaic humans. All the available molars are outside the range of anyHomo species exceptH. habilis andH. rudolfensis, and is more like those ofaustralopithecines. The second molar is larger than those of modern humans and Neanderthals, and is more similar to those ofH. erectus andH. habilis.[41] Like Neanderthals, the mandible had a gap behind the molars, and the front teeth were flattened; but Denisovans lacked a high mandibular body, and themandibular symphysis at the midline of the jaw was more receding.[43][89]
The DenisovanHarbin cranium,Homo longi is characterized by a low and long skull, receding forehead, extremely wide upper face, a large nasal opening equating to an enlarged nose (possibly an adaptation to the cold air), large and squareeye sockets, inflated and thickbrow ridges (supraorbital torus), flat cheekbones (zygomatic bone), a widepalate and large tooth sockets (equating to a large mouth), and a broadbase of the skull.[32] The Harbin skull is the longest archaic human skull to date. The Harbin skull also has the longest brow ridge of any archaic or modern cranium.[57]
The Harbin cranium had a massive brain at roughly 1,420cc, above the range of all known human species except modern humans and Neanderthals. Nonetheless,post-orbital constriction (a constriction of the braincase just behind the eyes, absent in modern humans, and equating to the location of thefrontal lobes) is more developed inH. longi than in Neanderthals, although not so much as in more-ancient human species.[32]
Despite the face being so wide, it was rather flat (reduced mid-facialprognathism), and resembles the anatomy found in modern humans, the far more ancientH. antecessor, and other Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens. This gives the Harbin cranium features that are similar to that of modern humans, but in fact, this is likely an ancestral trait.[91]
Because the original describers judged the Harbin skull to be closely allied with the Xiahe mandible, they believedH. longi lacked a chin, like other archaic humans, but the specimen's lower jaw was not recovered.[57] This lack of a chin is also present in the DenisovanPenghu mandible.[51]
BecauseJinniushan has abundant post-cranial remains, and is also grouped withHomo longi in several studies, it is very likely that these remains also belong to a Denisovan as well. This would enable a description of the post-cranial (body) morphology of the Denisovans.[57][90][4]
The human fossil elements atJinniushan all belong to one female individual. The fossil remains consist of onecranium, sixvertebrae (one cervical, five thoracic), one complete leftos coxae (pelvic bone), one complete leftulna, one complete leftpatella (kneecap), two left ribs, and several hand and feet bones. Analysis of the left-half of the pelvis (hip bone) in 2006 indicated that the individual was a woman.Like theHarbin cranium, a distinguishing feature of theJinniushan female is its large brain with a brain size (cranial capacity) of 1,330 cm3 (81 cu in).[92][93]Quoting Rosenberg et al. (2006) the "Reconstructed stature using this formula is 168.78 ± 4.30 cm.""we have used the mean of these two estimates, 78.6 kg, as the estimated body weight".Therefore we have an estimate of the body proportions, height, and weight of an adult female Denisovan (Homo longi), making it the largest female specimen ever discovered in the fossil record, although within the range of modern human females.[93]
The Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave has variants of genes which, in modern humans, are associated with dark skin, brown hair, and brown eyes.[7] The Denisovan genome also contains a variant region around theEPAS1 gene that inTibetans assists with adaptation to low oxygen levels at high elevation,[94][43] and in a region containing theWARS2 andTBX15 loci which affect body-fat distribution in theInuit.[95]
Some ornaments (above) and animal bones and stone tools (below) found in Denisova Cave. Note, ornaments may have been crafted by modern humans.
EarlyMiddle Paleolithic stone tools from Denisova Cave includedcores,scrapers,denticulate tools, and notched tools, deposited about 287±41 thousand years ago in the Main Chamber of the cave; and about 269±97 thousand years ago in the South Chamber; up to 170±19 thousand and 187±14 thousand years ago in the Main and East Chambers, respectively.[38]
Middle Paleolithic assemblages were dominated by flat, discoidal, and Levallois cores, and there were some isolated sub-prismatic cores. There were predominantly side scrapers (a scraper with only the sides used to scrape), but also notched-denticulate tools, end-scrapers (a scraper with only the ends used to scrape),burins,chisel-like tools, and truncated flakes. These dated to 156±15 thousand years ago in the Main Chamber, 58±6 thousand years ago in the East Chamber, and 136±26–47±8 thousand years ago in the South Chamber.[38]
EarlyUpper Paleolithic artefacts date to 44±5 thousand years ago in the Main Chamber, 63±6 thousand years ago in the East Chamber, and 47±8 thousand years ago in the South Chamber, though some layers of the East Chamber seem to have been disturbed. There wasblade production and Levallois production, but scrapers were again predominant. A well-developed, Upper Paleolithic stone bladelet technology distinct from the previous scrapers began accumulating in the Main Chamber around 36±4 thousand years ago.[38]
In the Upper Paleolithic layers, there were also severalbone tools and ornaments: amarble ring, an ivory ring, an ivory pendant, ared deer tooth pendant, anelk tooth pendant, achloritolite bracelet, and a bone needle. However, Denisovans are only confirmed to have inhabited the cave until 55ka; the dating of Upper Paleolithic artefacts overlaps with modern human migration into Siberia (though there are no occurrences in the Altai region); and the DNA of the only specimen in the cave dating to the time interval (Denisova 14) is too degraded to confirm species identity, so the attribution of these artefacts is unclear.[96][38]
The inhabitants of Baishiya Karst Cave seem to have been extensively processinggoat antelopes, cows, deer, horses, andwoolly rhinoceros. They were also butchering large carnivores (cave hyena, dog, and big cat),marmots,hare, andeagles. They may have also used these animals'long bones to make bone tools, and additionally there are stone artefacts in each layer excavated.[45]
In 1998, five child hand- and footprint impressions were discovered in atravertineunit near the Quesanghot springs in Tibet; in 2021, they were dated to 226 to 169 thousand years ago using uranium decay dating. This is the oldest evidence of human occupation of the Tibetan Plateau, and since the Xiahe mandible is the oldest human fossil from the region (though younger than the Quesang impressions), these may have been made by Denisovan children. The impressions were printed onto a small panel of space, and there is little overlap between all the prints, so they seem to have been taking care to make new imprints in unused space. If considered art, they are the oldest known examples ofrock art. Similar hand stencils and impressions do not appear again in the archeological record until roughly 40,000 years ago.[97]
The footprints comprise four right impressions and one left superimposed on one of the rights. They were probably left by two individuals. The tracks of the individual who superimposed their left onto their right may have scrunched up their toes and wiggled them in the mud, or dug their finger into the toe prints. The footprints average 192.3 mm (7.57 in) long, which roughly equates to a 7- or 8-year-old child by modern human growth rates. There are two sets of handprints (from a left and right hand), which may have been created by an older child unless one of the former two individuals had long fingers. The handprints average 161.1 mm (6.34 in), which roughly equates with a 12 year old modern human child, and the middle finger length agrees with a 17 year old modern human. One of the handprints shows an impression of the forearm, and the individual was wiggling their thumb through the mud.[97]
In 2025, archaeologists discovered an assemblage of 35 wooden implements on the shores of an ancient lake from the site of Gantangqing (甘棠箐) inYunnan southwestern China, which was found associated with stone tools, antler billets (soft hammers), and cut-marked bones and is dated from ~361,000 to ~250,000 years at a 95% confidence interval, at a time when Denisovans were known to have inhabited the general region.[98][99][47] The wooden implements include digging sticks made of pine and hardwood, hooks for cutting roots, and small, complete, hand-held pointed tools.
"Our results suggest that hominins at Gantangqing made strategic utilization of lakeshore food resources," the researchers wrote in the study. "They made planned visits to the lakeshore and brought with them fabricated tools of selected wood for exploiting underground tubers, rhizomes, or corms. As such, the Gantangqing assemblage shows the likely use of underground storage organs and the importance of plant foods in early hominin diets in a subtropical environment."[100]
Analyses of the modern human genomes indicate past interbreeding with at least two groups of archaic humans, Neanderthals[74] and Denisovans,[41][101] and that such interbreeding events occurred on multiple occasions. Comparisons of the Denisovan, Neanderthal, and modern human genomes have revealed evidence of a complex web of interbreeding among these lineages.[74]
As much as 17% of the Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave represents DNA from the local Neanderthal population.[74] Denisova 11 was anF1 (first generation) Denisovan/Neanderthal hybrid; the fact that such an individual was found may indicate interbreeding was a common occurrence here.[13] The Denisovan genome shares more derived alleles with the Altai Neanderthal genome from Siberia than with theVindija Cave Neanderthal genome from Croatia or theMezmaiskaya cave Neanderthal genome from the Caucasus, suggesting that the gene flow came from a population that was more closely related to the local Altai Neanderthals.[102] However, Denny's Denisovan father had the typical Altai Neanderthalintrogression, while her Neanderthal mother represented a population more closely related to Vindija Neanderthals.[103] Denisova 25, dated to 200ka, is estimated to have inherited 5% of his genome from a previously unknown population of Neanderthals, and came from a different population of Denisovans than the younger samples.[48]
The Denisovanhaplotype for theMUC19 gene was also found in the late Neanderthals from Chagyrskaya Cave[104] in theAltai in Siberia andVindija in Croatia in Europe, which provides proof that late Neanderthals from both Europe and Asia had Denisovan admixture.[105]
About 4% of the Denisovan genome derives from an unidentified archaic hominin,[74] indicating this species diverged from Neanderthals and humans over a million years ago. The only identifiedHomo species ofLate Pleistocene Asia areH. erectus andH. heidelbergensis,[102][106] though in 2021 and 2024, specimens allocated to the latter species were reclassified asH. longi (Denisovan) andH. juluensis.[57][90]
Before splitting from Neanderthals, their ancestors ("Neandersovans") migrating into Europe apparently interbred with an unidentified "superarchaic" human species who were already present there; these superarchaics were the descendants of a very early migration out of Africa around 1.9mya.[107]
Archaic Denisovan introgression in modern humans across the world[108]
A 2011 study found that Denisovan DNA is present at a comparatively high level inPapuans,Aboriginal Australians,Near Oceanians,Polynesians,Fijians, EasternIndonesians, andAeta (from the Philippines); but not inEast Asians, western Indonesians,Jahai people (from Malaysia), orOnge (from theAndaman Islands). This may suggest that Denisovan introgression occurred within the Pacific region rather than on the Asian mainland, and that ancestors of the latter groups were not present in Southeast Asia at the time.[84][109] In theMelanesian genome, about 4–6%[41] or 1.9–3.4% derives from Denisovan introgression.[110] Prior to 2021, New Guineans and Indigenous Australians were reported to have the most introgressed DNA,[31] but Australians have less than New Guineans.[111] A 2021 study discovered 30–40% more Denisovan ancestry inAeta people in the Philippines than inPapuans, estimated as about 5% of the genome. The Aeta Magbukon in Luzon have the highest known proportion of Denisovan ancestry of any population in the world.[88] In Papuans, less Denisovan ancestry is seen in theX chromosome thanautosomes, and some autosomes (such aschromosome 11) also have less Denisovan ancestry, which could indicatehybrid incompatibility. The former observation could also be explained by less female Denisovan introgression into modern humans, or more female modern human immigrants who diluted Denisovan X chromosome ancestry.[7]
In contrast, 0.2% derives from Denisovan ancestry in mainland Asians andNative Americans.[10] A 2018 study found thatSouth Asians were found to have levels of Denisovan admixture similar to that seen in East Asians.[11] Another study found that the highest Denisovan ancestry is inferred in Oceanians (~2.0%), while Americans, East Asians, and South Asians have similar amounts (~0.1%).[12] The discovery of the 40,000-year-old Chinese modern humanTianyuan Man lacking Denisovan DNA significantly different from the levels in modern-day East Asians discounts the hypothesis that immigrating modern humans simply diluted Denisovan ancestry whereas Melanesians lived in reproductive isolation.[112][31] A 2018 study of Han Chinese,Japanese, and Dai genomes showed that modern East Asians have DNA from two different Denisovan populations: one similar to the Denisovan DNA found in Papuan genomes, and a second that is closer to the Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave. This could indicate two separate introgression events involving two different Denisovan populations. In South Asian genomes, DNA only came from the same single Denisovan introgression seen in Papuans.[11] A 2019 study found a third wave of Denisovans which introgressed into East Asians. Introgression, also, may not have immediately occurred when modern humans immigrated into the region.[85]
The timing of introgression into Oceanian populations likely occurred after Eurasians and Oceanians split roughly 50,000 years ago,[113] and before Papuan and Aboriginal Australians split from each other roughly 37,000 years ago. Given the present day distribution of Denisovan DNA, this may have taken place in Wallacea, though the discovery of a 7,200 year oldToalean girl (closely related to Papuans and Aboriginal Australians) from Sulawesi carrying Denisovan DNA makes Sundaland another potential candidate. Other early Sunda hunter gatherers so far sequenced carry very little Denisovan DNA, which either means the introgression event did not take place in Sundaland, or Denisovan ancestry was diluted with gene flow from the mainland AsianHòabìnhian culture and subsequentNeolithic cultures.[114]
A haplotype of EPAS1 in modern Tibetans, which allows them to live at high elevations in a low-oxygen environment, likely came from Denisovans.[94][43] Genes related tophospholipid transporters (which are involved infat metabolism) and totrace amine-associated receptors (involved in smelling) are more active in people with more Denisovan ancestry.[115] Denisovan genes may have conferred a degree of immunity against the G614 mutation ofSARS-CoV-2.[116] Denisovan introgressions may have influenced the immune system of present-day Papuans and potentially favoured "variants to immune-related phenotypes" and "adaptation to the local environment".[117]
In December 2023, scientists reported thatgenes inherited bymodern humans fromNeanderthals and Denisovans may biologically influence the daily routine of modern humans.[118]
In August 2025, a study reported an archaichaplotype of theMUC19 gene of Denisovan origin which occurs at high frequency in most admixed American populations, and which was also was found in ancient genomes from 23 ancientIndigenous American individuals who predate admixture with Europeans and Africans.[105] This haplotype regulates MUC19 production. which is expressed incorneal andconjunctival epithelia, and thelacrimal gland[119] and shows strong signs ofpositive selection in modern humans.[120] This haplotype with Denisovan-specific variants is contained in a 72-kb region of theMUC19 gene, but that region is embedded in a larger 742-kb region that contains Neanderthal-specific variants. The authors also found that the Denisovan haplotype was also found in the Chagyrskaya[104] andVindija late Neanderthals, so the authors conclude that modern humans inherited this haplotype from Neanderthals, who likely inherited it from Denisovans through Denisovan admixture with Neanderthals.
A 2025 study of ancient and modern genomes from Eurasia traced the historical route of Denisovan admixture throughout Northern and Western Eurasia. It found that the highest amount of Denisovan admixture was in the 40,000 year oldTianyuan man from northeast China, the first example of the Ancestral East Asian population. The individuals fromSungir in Russia from 34,000 years ago also had Denisovan admixture. Tianyuan man contributed Denisovan DNA segments to the individual fromSalkhit in Eastern Siberia, and later to theAncient North Eurasians such asthe Mal'ta boy from 24,000 years ago. The Ancient North Eurasians then became the ancestors of theEastern hunter-gatherers who passed their Denisovan ancestry to the laterProto-Indo-EuropeanYamnaya culture. Therefore, present day Europeans and Near Easterners also have Denisovan ancestry.However, the study found that theJōmon people of ancient Japan were had much less Denisovan ancestry than all other East Asians.[121]
^abcdefFu, Q.; Bai, F.; Rao, H.; Chen, S.; Ji, Y.; Liu, A.; Bennett, E. A.; Liu, F.; Ji, Q. (2025). "The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individual".Science eadu9677.doi:10.1126/science.adu9677.PMID40531192.
^Curry, Andrew (18 June 2025). "'Dragon Man' skull belongs to mysterious human relative".Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).doi:10.1126/science.z8sb68w.
^abElise Kerdoncuff; Laurits Skov; Nick Patterson; Joyita Banerjee; Pranali Khobragade; Sankha S. Chakrabarti; Avinash Chakrawarty; Prasun Chatterjee; Minakshi Dhar; Monica Gupta; John P. John; Parvaiz A. Koul; Sarabmeet S. Lehl; Rashmi R. Mohanty; Mekala Padmaja; Arokiasamy Perianayagam; Chhaya Rajguru; Lalit Sankhe; Arunansu Talukdar; Mathew Varghese; Sathyanarayana Raju Yadati; Wei Zhao; Yuk Yee Leung; Gerard D. Schellenberg; Yi Zhe Wang; Jennifer A. Smith; Sharmistha Dey; Andrea Ganna; Aparajit Ballav Dey; Sharon L.R. Kardia; Jinkook Lee; Priya Moorjani (26 June 2025)."50,000 years of evolutionary history of India: Impact on health and disease variation".The Innovation.188 (13): 3389–3404.e6.doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.04.027.PMID40578318.
^Derevianko, A.P. (September 2011). "The Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans and their Behavior in Africa and Eurasia".Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia.39 (3):2–31.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.09.001.
^Picq, P. (24 November 2011).L'homme est-il un grand singe politique?. Paris: Odile Jacob. p. 24.ISBN978-2-7381-2698-6.
^Gunbin, K.V.; Afonnikov, D.A.; Kolchanov, N.A.; Derevianko, A.P. (September 2012). "The Importance of Changes to microRNA in the Evolution of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova".Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia.40 (3):22–30.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.11.004.
^Viola, B. T.; Gunz, P.; Neubauer, S. (2019)."A parietal fragment from Denisova cave".88th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.Archived from the original on 26 September 2019. Retrieved18 January 2020.
^Lewis, Dyani (18 June 2025)."First ever skull from 'Denisovan' reveals what ancient people looked like".Nature.642 (8069):848–849.Bibcode:2025Natur.642..848L.doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01899-y.ISSN1476-4687.PMID40537588.Qiang Ji, a palaeontologist at Hebei GEO University in Shijiazhuang, China, obtained the specimen from an unnamed man in 2018. The man — who Ji suspects discovered the artefact himself but failed to report it to authorities — claimed that his grandfather unearthed the fossil in 1933 during bridge-construction work over Long Jiang (which means dragon river), and buried it in an abandoned well, where it remained until a deathbed confession.
^Wu, X. Z. (1981). "A well-preserved cranium of an archaic type of earlyHomo sapiens from Dali, China".Scientia Sinica.24 (4):530–41.PMID6789450.
^Xuefeng Sun et al. , "TT-OSL and post-IR IRSL dating of the Dali Man site in central China", Quaternary International 434, Part A, 1 April 2017, 99-106,doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.027"correlating the pIRIR290 ages between 267.7 ± 13.9 ka and 258.3 ± 14.2 ka and new pollen analysis, we proposed a new viewpoint that the Dali Man was likely to live during a transitional period from glacial to interglacial climate in the S2/L3 (MIS 7/8) stage."
^Xing, Song; Martinón-Torres, María; Bermúdez de Castro, Jose María; Wu, Xiujie; Liu, Wu (2015). "Hominin teeth from the early Late Pleistocene site of Xujiayao, Northern China".American Journal of Physical Anthropology.156 (2):224–240.doi:10.1002/ajpa.22641.PMID25329008.
^Bermudez de Castro, J.M.; Arsuaga, J.L.; Carbonell, E.; Rosas, A.; Martinez, I.; Mosquera, M. (1997). "A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans".Science.276 (5317):1392–1395.doi:10.1126/science.276.5317.1392.PMID9162001.S2CID31088294.
Condemi, Silvana and Savatier, François (2025).The Secret World of Denisovans: The Epic Story of the Ancient Cousins to Sapiens and Neanderthals. New York: The Experiment.ISBN979-8-89303-070-9.
Peyrégne, Stéphane; et al. (20 October 2025). "A high-coverage genome from a 200,000-year-old Denisovan".bioRxiv10.1101/2025.10.20.683404v1.
_Fig._3-_Archaic_introgression_in_modern_humans_across_the_world_(Denisovan_only).png)
