Skip to content
Back to the question

Evidence record

Who else was here?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

  • Source checked: 40
  • Partly checked: 8
  • A judgement, not a fact: 6
  • Presented as open: 1

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question about the past answered mostly from genomes: who the other kinds of human were, and how much of them survives in fossils and in living people.

  • There were other kinds of human alive alongside our own ancestors

    Established

    Neanderthals and Denisovans are known from fossils and genomes, and both overlapped with modern humans.

  • A genome can identify a population that the fossil record has not

    Established

    The Denisovans were defined from DNA before any fossil beyond a finger bone and teeth was assigned to them.

  • The others were separate kinds rather than variants of one species

    Contested

    Whether they count as species depends on the species concept; the team that named the Denisovans declined to say.

The question

Claim: Who else was here?

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

How the question is labelled

Claim: Another kind of human from a finger bone

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement

    The source reads: we have sequenced the genome of an archaic hominin to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiadiscussion, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: We define this group based on genomic evidence and call it Denisovans, but refrain from any formal Linnaean taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies status for either Neanderthals or Denisovans

What this does not establish

The team that described them declined to call them a species or a subspecies; "kind of human" is the page's neutral term.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A species from a finger bone” The paper that named the Denisovans explicitly refrains from calling them a species, and the page itself says whether they are one is unsettled. The title took a side the page does not.

Claim 2 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Denisovans

Kind
About a word. What a word in the original language means, or how it is translated.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The name comes from Denisova Cave in the Altai, where the finger bone was found.

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The question

Claim: In 2010 a fragment of finger bone from a Siberian cave turned out to belong to a population nobody knew existed, identified from its genome before anyone had a skull

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The mitochondrial genome of the same bone was published earlier in 2010; the nuclear genome that defined the population is the December 2010 paper.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Ancient DNA has revealed at least one human population unknown from fossils

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement

    The source reads: we have sequenced the genome of an archaic hominin to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiadiscussion, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: We define this group based on genomic evidence and call it Denisovans, but refrain from any formal Linnaean taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies status for either Neanderthals or Denisovans

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and traces of others inferred from genomes alone

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populationsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Model

    The source reads: these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans ... Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations

  • Supports

    The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountainsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: several gene flow events occurred among Neandertals, Denisovans and early modern humans, possibly including gene flow into Denisovans from an unknown archaic group

  • Qualifies

    A weakly structured stem for human origins in Africaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Such weakly structured stem models explain patterns of polymorphism that had previously been attributed to contributions from archaic hominins in Africa

What this does not establish

"Traces" is the right word: both signals are statistical, and the African one is disputed by a 2023 model that needs no archaic source.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: For hundreds of thousands of years several kinds of human lived at the same time

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were separate lineages from roughly 450,000 years ago, and Neanderthals are in the fossil record from at least 230,000 years ago.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil": later finds (Xiahe, Harbin, Penghu) extend the Denisovan record back past 146,000 years; nothing that shortens the overlap.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “For most of human history several kinds of human existed at once, and the present situation, with only one, is unusual.” "Most of human history" depends on where human history starts and no cited source measures it; the overlap and its end are what the sources date.

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the present situation, with only one, is recent

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

When the last of the other kinds died out is known only to within thousands of years, and for Denisovans only at the sites that have been dated.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible": the latest dated Denisovan evidence at Baishiya is 48,000 to 32,000 years old; nothing later found.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A finger bone from Denisova Cave was sequenced in 2010 and did not match modern humans or Neanderthals

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Until then, new kinds of human were found by digging up bones and comparing shapes

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

A simplification: the earlier Neanderthal genome and mitochondrial work used DNA too, but on a group already defined by its bones.

Claim 10 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: This one was found by reading a genome

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiadiscussion, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: We define this group based on genomic evidence and call it Denisovans, but refrain from any formal Linnaean taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies status for either Neanderthals or Denisovans

Claim 11 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the physical remains that go with it are still few, though one of them is now a skull

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    A male Denisovan mandible from Pleistocene Taiwanabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: so far only a few fossils from the Altai and Tibet are confidently identified molecularly as Denisovan

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: their precise morphological features remain elusive because of the fragmentary nature of the discovered fossils

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: we report 95 endogenous proteins retrieved from a nearly complete cranium from Harbin, China, dating to at least 146,000 years ago and previously assigned to a new species, Homo longi

What this does not establish

The Taiwan and Harbin papers were read as abstracts only.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and the physical remains that go with it still amount to very little.” A nearly complete cranium was assigned to the Denisovans in 2025, which the page reports further down; "very little" no longer described the record.

Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the genome showed

Claim: What the genome showed

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

What was found

Claim: What was found

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The genome from the finger bone described a population that split from the Neanderthal lineage hundreds of thousands of years ago

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Split times are model estimates that depend on an assumed mutation rate; Prufer 2014 puts this one at 445,000 to 473,000 years.

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and may have been widespread in Asia

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

An inference from where their DNA survives and from a few scattered fossils, not a mapped range.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on: fossils now assigned to Denisovans come from Siberia, the Tibetan plateau, Taiwan and northeast China, which is consistent with it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and had been living in Asia since.” The 2010 paper suggests a wide range in the Late Pleistocene; it does not say they lived in Asia continuously from the split.

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: They contributed DNA to people living today: the paper that identified them put it at four to six per cent of Melanesian genomes

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The 2012 high-coverage genome gave 6.0 per cent for Papuans.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of its genetic material to the genomes of present-day Melanesians

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual"Population relationships"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: This method estimates that 6.0% of the genomes of present-day Papuans derive from Denisovans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Denisovan ancestry Papuans multiple introgression": later work (a 2024 Nature Genetics review of multiple Denisovan introgression events) refines the history of the admixture; nothing that overturns the figures as attributed.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and later work found smaller amounts across east and south Asia

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains"Denisovan gene flow in mainland Asia"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: We estimate that the Denisovan contribution to mainland Asian and Native American populations is ~0.2% and thus about 25 times smaller than the Denisovan contribution to populations in Papua New Guinea and Australia

  • Supports

    Middle and Late Pleistocene Denisovan subsistence at Baishiya Karst Cavemain text, first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Denisovan genetic ancestry present in several East, South and Southeast Asian populations

What this does not establish

Prufer 2014 could not exclude that the small mainland share came secondhand, through later contact with people who carried it.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Denisovan ancestry Papuans multiple introgression": later work (a 2024 Nature Genetics review of multiple Denisovan introgression events) refines the history of the admixture; nothing that overturns the figures as attributed.

Claim 18 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and a high-altitude variant in Tibetans that came from them or from a population close to them

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNAabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: this gene has a highly unusual haplotype structure that can only be convincingly explained by introgression of DNA from Denisovans or Denisovan-related individuals into humans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2015 on, "Denisovan EPAS1 Tibetan introgression": later work refines the haplotype's history; nothing that reverses the attribution.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and a high-altitude variant in Tibetans that came from them.” The paper attributes the variant to "Denisovans or Denisovan-related individuals", not to the Denisovans of the cave.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: They were found in a genome before they were recognised in the ground

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The physical remains identified since are a handful of teeth and bone fragments, two jaws identified by their proteins, one from the Tibetan plateau and one from Taiwan, and a skull from Harbin

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individualintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Denisovans are known only from a distal manual phalanx and two molars, all excavated at Denisova Cave

  • Supports

    Middle and Late Pleistocene Denisovan subsistence at Baishiya Karst Caveabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: we identify a new hominin rib specimen that dates to approximately 48–32 thousand years ago (layer 3). Shotgun proteomic analysis taxonomically assigns this specimen to the Denisovan lineage

  • Supports

    A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateauabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: We determine the mandible to be at least 160 thousand years old through U-series dating of an adhering carbonate matrix. It is the first direct evidence of this hominin group outside the Altai Mountains

  • Supports

    A male Denisovan mandible from Pleistocene Taiwanabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: We identified a hominin mandible (Penghu 1) from Taiwan (10,000 to 70,000 years ago or 130,000 to 190,000 years ago) as belonging to a male Denisovan by applying ancient protein analysis

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: This individual has three Denisovan-derived amino acid variants and clusters with Denisova 3, suggesting that the Harbin individual belongs to a Denisovan population

What this does not establish

The Taiwan jaw and the Harbin skull rest on abstracts read here; the Taiwan jaw's age is uncertain between two ranges.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The physical remains identified since are a handful of teeth, bone fragments, a jaw from the Tibetan plateau identified by its proteins, and a skull that may or may not belong.” A second jaw, from Taiwan, was identified by its proteins in 2025, and the Harbin skull was tied to the Denisovans by its proteins and by DNA the same year, as the page says below. The list was out of date and hedged a skull the later passage treats as Denisovan.

Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The Tibetan jaw was the first to move the range

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The jaw is the one that moved the range.” With a second jaw now identified, "the jaw" was ambiguous; the Tibetan one was the first Denisovan found outside Denisova Cave.

Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It was found at 3,280 metres on the Tibetan plateau, carries no usable DNA, and was assigned by the sequence of its collagen

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The Chen manuscript gives the cave as 3,200 metres and the later paper from the same site as 3,280. The assignment is to a population "closely related to" the Denisovans of the cave, on one high-coverage genome for comparison.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Xiahe mandible": Xia 2024 gives the cave's altitude as 3,280 metres and identifies a Denisovan rib there by its proteins; nothing that changes the jaw's assignment.

Claim 23 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which put Denisovans on the high plateau at least 160,000 years ago and a long way from the Siberian cave that named them

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateauabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: We determine the mandible to be at least 160 thousand years old through U-series dating of an adhering carbonate matrix. It is the first direct evidence of this hominin group outside the Altai Mountains

  • Supports

    Middle and Late Pleistocene Denisovan subsistence at Baishiya Karst Cavemain text, first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: Together, they show that Denisovans occupied BKC from at least 160 thousand years ago (ka) to around 60 ka, and possibly up to around 45 ka

What this does not establish

A minimum age from the carbonate crust on the bone, not a date for the bone itself.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Xiahe mandible": Xia 2024 confirms the 160,000-year minimum and extends occupation of the cave to 48,000 to 32,000 years ago.

Claim 24 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: What one bone yielded

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A genome unlike modern humans and unlike Neanderthals

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2012 on: the 2012 high-coverage genome confirms the sister-group relationship; nothing that changes it.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A distinct population, sister to the Neanderthals

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: that may have been widespread in Asia

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Inferred from where their DNA survives and from scattered fossils.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A distinct population, sister to the Neanderthals, present in Asia for hundreds of thousands of years.” The 2010 genome carries the sister relationship and a suggested wide range; it does not date a presence in Asia over hundreds of thousands of years.

Claim 28 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Their variants in living people in Oceania at several per cent

Kind
Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of its genetic material to the genomes of present-day Melanesians

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual"Population relationships"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: This method estimates that 6.0% of the genomes of present-day Papuans derive from Denisovans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Denisovan ancestry Papuans multiple introgression": later work (a 2024 Nature Genetics review of multiple Denisovan introgression events) refines the history of the admixture; nothing that overturns the figures as attributed.

Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Interbreeding with the ancestors of Melanesians, presumably somewhere in southeast Asia

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Where the interbreeding happened is inferred from who carries the DNA today; "presumably" is the 2012 paper's own word.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Denisovan ancestry Papuans multiple introgression": later work argues for more than one episode of Denisovan admixture; where they happened is still inferred.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Interbreeding, somewhere in southeast Asia, on the route to Australia.” The papers place it presumably in Southeast Asia, with the ancestors of Melanesians; "on the route to Australia" was the page's own addition and is not in them.

Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A high-altitude adaptation in Tibetans traced to Denisovans or a population related to them

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNAabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: this gene has a highly unusual haplotype structure that can only be convincingly explained by introgression of DNA from Denisovans or Denisovan-related individuals into humans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2015 on, "Denisovan EPAS1": nothing that reverses it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A high-altitude adaptation in Tibetans traced to Denisovan ancestry.” The paper says "Denisovans or Denisovan-related individuals".

Claim 31 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A trait acquired from another population rather than evolved from scratch

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: one of several such cases proposed for archaic DNA

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The other cases the paper names concern immunity and skin pigmentation genes, some from Neanderthals rather than Denisovans.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “which is what these genomes keep showing.” The paper cites a few other proposed cases of adaptive introgression; "keep showing" made a handful of proposals into a pattern the source does not claim.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

And then read properly

Claim: And then read properly

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The first genome came from a small amount of degraded DNA

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individualintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Both published archaic genome sequences are of low coverage; 1.9-fold genomic coverage from the Denisovan phalanx ... many positions in the genomes are affected by sequencing errors or nucleotide misincorporations caused by DNA damage ... an extremely small fragment of this specimen is available to us

Claim 35 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In 2012 a method that separates the strands of the molecule before sequencing produced a genome from the same finger bone at a quality comparable to a modern one

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual"A single-stranded library preparation method"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: We therefore devised a single-stranded library preparation method wherein the ancient DNA is dephosphorylated, heat denatured, and ligated to a biotinylated adaptor oligonucleotide

  • Supports

    A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual"Genome quality"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Together with previous data (2) this provides about 31-fold coverage ... sequenced to ~24 to 33-fold genomic coverage ... The error rate is 0.13% for the Denisovan genome, 0.17% to 0.19% for the genome sequences from the eleven present-day humans

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That allowed the population to be described rather than merely identified

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the measurements the 2012 genome made possible, which the rest of the sentence lists.

Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: small, with low genetic diversity

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Measured in one individual.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2012 on: later archaic genomes are compared against this one; nothing that revises the low diversity.

Claim 38 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and separated from Neanderthals for hundreds of thousands of years

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 39 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It also sharpened the estimates of how much Denisovan ancestry survives in living people, and where

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

And traces of others

Claim: And traces of others

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Some analyses find segments in living West African genomes that appear to come from a population with no known fossils at all

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populationsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Model

    The source reads: these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans ... Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations

  • Supports

    Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populationsintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: the sparse fossil record and the difficulty in obtaining ancient DNA have made it challenging to dissect the contribution of archaic hominins to genetic diversity within Africa

Other readings

Ragsdale and others (2023) explain the same pattern with weakly structured African populations linked by gene flow, as the next part of the sentence says.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "ghost archaic introgression Africa": Ragsdale 2023 explains the signal without an archaic source; page updated.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: though a 2023 model explains the same pattern with no archaic source

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    A weakly structured stem for human origins in Africaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Model

    The source reads: Such weakly structured stem models explain patterns of polymorphism that had previously been attributed to contributions from archaic hominins in Africa

What this does not establish

Also a model fitted to present-day genomes; neither side has a fossil or ancient African genome to settle it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The page reported the African ghost signal without the published model that disputes it; the disagreement is now stated.

Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The study that produced the Altai Neanderthal genome also found a component in the Denisovan genome that may come from a further archaic population, or from older structure among their ancestors

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountainsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: several gene flow events occurred among Neandertals, Denisovans and early modern humans, possibly including gene flow into Denisovans from an unknown archaic group

  • Supports

    The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains"Unknown archaic gene flow into Denisovans"

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: This component may be present due to gene flow, or to a more complex population history such as ancient population structure maintaining a larger proportion of ancestral alleles in the ancestors of Denisovans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on: later analyses continue to model a deep "super-archaic" contribution to Denisovans; a 2026 preprint disputes it for one gene. Nothing that settles it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and the Altai Neanderthal genome carries evidence of a further archaic contribution to the Denisovans themselves.” The signal is in the Denisovan genome, not the Neanderthal one, and the paper offers ancient population structure as an alternative to gene flow.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: These are inferences from statistical patterns rather than from bones, which makes them weaker and still worth stating

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from both analyses being model fits to genomes, which their authors say.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: the record of who was here is being read from living people as much as from the ground

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page's reading of the passages above.

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What is still missing

Claim: What is still missing

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Found in a genome first, and in the ground only lately

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The genome was 2010; the first Denisovan fossil outside Denisova Cave was reported in 2019 and the first skull in 2025.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Found in a genome first, and in the ground barely at all.” With two jaws, a rib and a nearly complete skull now assigned, "barely at all" understated the record the page itself describes.

Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What they were like

Claim: What they were like

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: For fifteen years they were a genome with almost no body attached, and most of what was known about their range came from the DNA rather than from anything anyone had dug up

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and what was known about their tools and their range came from the DNA rather than from anything anyone had dug up.” DNA says nothing about tools; what is known of their tools and animal use comes from excavation, as at Baishiya. The Tibetan jaw also placed them before 2025, hence "most of".

Claim 50 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That shifted in 2025

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: we report 95 endogenous proteins retrieved from a nearly complete cranium from Harbin, China, dating to at least 146,000 years ago and previously assigned to a new species, Homo longi

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract only.

Claim 51 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Ninety-five proteins were recovered from a nearly complete cranium from Harbin, at least 146,000 years old, which had already been named as a species of its own

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: we report 95 endogenous proteins retrieved from a nearly complete cranium from Harbin, China, dating to at least 146,000 years ago and previously assigned to a new species, Homo longi

What this does not establish

The paper was read as an abstract only.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: three of the amino acid variants in them are Denisovan, and the protein phylogeny puts the skull with the original Denisova genome

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    The proteome of the late Middle Pleistocene Harbin individualabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: This individual has three Denisovan-derived amino acid variants and clusters with Denisova 3, suggesting that the Harbin individual belongs to a Denisovan population

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract; the authors say the result suggests, rather than proves, a Denisovan population. The Denisova 3 genome is from the finger bone.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: DNA from the tartar on its teeth, reported the same year, falls within Denisovan mitochondrial variation

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

Read as the abstract. Mitochondrial DNA only, from dental calculus rather than bone; no DNA came from the tooth or the petrous bone.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” A second, independent line of evidence for the Harbin assignment was published in 2025 and was missing.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is the least fragmentary Denisovan anybody has

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

A judgement from the abstracts: the other assigned remains are teeth, jaws, a rib and fragments.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Denisovan fossil mandible" and "Harbin cranium Denisovan": the Taiwan mandible (Tsutaya 2025), the Baishiya rib (Xia 2024) and the Harbin cranium (Fu 2025, two papers) were added to the page.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The distribution of their DNA in living people suggests they were widespread in Asia

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Where DNA survives today is indirect evidence of where people met long ago.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on: fossils now come from Siberia, Tibet, Taiwan and northeast China, consistent with it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The distribution of their DNA in living people implies they occupied a large part of Asia for a long time,” The sources say "suggest" and "inferred", and the DNA alone does not date how long they were there.

Claim 56 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which makes the scarcity of fossils a statement about preservation and about where people have looked

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page's reading: a wide range and few fossils together point to the record rather than to absence.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “near-absence of fossils” With the finds of 2019 to 2025, "near-absence" overstated it.

Claim 57 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

How many kinds of human there were

Claim: How many kinds of human there were

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Sixty thousand years ago there were at least four: modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the small-bodied population on Flores, whose bones are dated to between about 100,000 and 60,000 years ago

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: At that time, as well as later when modern humans appeared in Eurasia, other ‘archaic’ hominins were already present in Eurasia

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiaintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: hominins defined as Neanderthals on the basis of their skeletal morphology lived from at least 230,000 years ago before disappearing from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago

  • Supports

    Middle and Late Pleistocene Denisovan subsistence at Baishiya Karst Cavemain text, first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement

    The source reads: Together, they show that Denisovans occupied BKC from at least 160 thousand years ago (ka) to around 60 ka, and possibly up to around 45 ka

  • Supports

    Homo floresiensis, in the Human Origins collection"When Lived" and overview

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work

    The source reads: floresiensis date to between about 100,000 and 60,000 years ago, and stone tools made by this species date to between about 190,000 and 50,000 years old

What this does not establish

Dates are scholarly estimates with ranges of thousands of years.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Homo luzonensis Callao Cave": Roberts and others (2023) place both island species at 90,000 to 60,000 years ago; nothing that moves the dates.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Fifty thousand years ago there were at least four: modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the small-bodied population on Flores.” The Flores bones are dated to between about 100,000 and 60,000 years ago; only stone tools reach 50,000. Sixty thousand is the date the sources carry for all four.

Claim 59 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A fifth, named in 2019 from bones in a layer of a Luzon cave dated to 67,000 years ago, overlapped part of the same window

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippinesabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: third metatarsal discovered in 2007 in Callao Cave (Northern Luzon, the Philippines) and dated to 67 thousand years ago ... twelve additional hominin elements ... found in the same stratigraphic layer of Callao Cave as the previously discovered metatarsal ... which we name Homo luzonensis

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract; 67,000 years is the date of the first metatarsal, and the new bones come from the same layer.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "Homo luzonensis Callao Cave": nothing that moves the date.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A fifth, named from Luzon in 2019, overlapped part of the same window.” With the window moved to sixty thousand years, the Luzon date is given so the overlap can be seen.

Claim 60 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whether these are species, subspecies or populations is the species problem in a case where the evidence is fragmentary

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

  • Supports

    Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberiadiscussion, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: We define this group based on genomic evidence and call it Denisovans, but refrain from any formal Linnaean taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies status for either Neanderthals or Denisovans

  • Supports

    Species Concepts and Species Delimitationintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: all of these concepts have advocates among contemporary biologists. In addition, many of the concepts are at least partially incompatible

Claim 61 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the stakes are emotional

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page's own judgement; no source is offered for it.

Claim 62 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred where they met

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountainsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: several gene flow events occurred among Neandertals, Denisovans and early modern humans, possibly including gene flow into Denisovans from an unknown archaic group

  • Supports

    Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populationsintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Comparisons of genome sequences from archaic hominins to those from present-day humans have documented multiple interbreeding events

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on: later work adds episodes rather than removing any.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “They interbred where they met,” "They" took in the Flores and Luzon populations, for which there is no genetic evidence either way.

Claim 63 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which by one common definition makes them one species and by others does not

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The biological species concept defines species by interbreeding; others use diagnosable differences or separate lineages.

  • Supports

    Species Concepts and Species Delimitationtable 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Biological Interbreeding (natural reproduction resulting in viable and fertile offspring)

  • Supports

    Species Concepts and Species Delimitationintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: all of these concepts have advocates among contemporary biologists. In addition, many of the concepts are at least partially incompatible

Claim 64 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read