In painted caves, ancient human DNA clings to the walls 59%

By Libby Riddle30%

7/20/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 22.3% saturation with 154 hits. Analysis detected 1,621 faulty-reasoning hits from 691 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.6% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,497 of 20,434 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.40% of the article peer group.

For the first time, scientists have recovered ancient human DNA from cave walls. 
The search took place at caves throughout Spain and Portugal known for prehistoric paintings, including Spain’s famed Cave of Alt1amira. 
The DNA recovered from cave paintings and nearby walls is&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-74234-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">at least 2,000 years old </a>and&nbsp;probably much&nbsp;older,&nbsp;researchers report June 23 in<em>&nbsp;Nature Communications</em>.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The study cannot link the DNA to the artists behind the cave paintings. 
But the knowledge that human DNA can be preserved on cave walls for thousands of years may enable future work that probes the role of women in ancient art, traces the movement of artists and brings clarity to the <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oldest-neandertal-fingerprint-spain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">debate over Neandertals&#8217; artistic abilities</a>, says Hipólito Collado Giraldo, an archaeologist with Spain&#8217;s regional&nbsp;government of Extremadura.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
“I believe that a new and fascinating stage is opening up for archaeological science in general, and for rock art studies in particular,” Collado Giraldo says.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Previous attempts to retrieve human DNA from prehistoric caves have been limited to bones, sediments and artifacts. 
As part of the First Art project, which seeks to understand artistry&#8217;s origins, Collado Giraldo and colleagues collected more than 100 samples from 11 caves, half from paintings and half from bare rock nearby. 
Five samples came back positive for ancient human DNA. 
Surprisingly, only one came from a painting  from&nbsp;Escoural&nbsp;Cave in Portugal. 
The four other samples came from blank walls in&nbsp;Escoural&nbsp;and Spain&#8217;s&nbsp;Covarón&nbsp;Cave.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
“Our first positive sample was a pigmented one, and we were very excited,” says Alba&nbsp;Bossoms&nbsp;Mesa, an evolutionary geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. 
“So&nbsp;we took some control samples from unpigmented areas that were similar in texture and size, but those samples turned out to be better than the original.”&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Because DNA naturally degrades over time, scientists estimated most of the samples’ ages at a minimum of 2,000 years based on how the molecules shorten and undergo chemical changes. 
But the samples are probably much older,&nbsp;Bossoms&nbsp;Mesa says. 
DNA features in the two best-preserved samples had similarities to those of hunter-gatherers who lived in Europe as early as 16,000 years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
In three of the samples, the human DNA was present alongside animal DNA, making it hard to say how the human traces got there. 
They could have been carried into the cave by water or an animal from somewhere else. 
But at&nbsp;Escoural, there was no animal DNA in two samples&nbsp;—&nbsp;the pigmented one from the painting and one from a plain wall&nbsp;—&nbsp;suggesting that an ancient person interacted directly with the cave. 
They touched, sneezed or urinated on the cave wall and left their DNA behind.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
But direct interaction is not enough to link that DNA to the cave’s art.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
“It was found on the surface in the environs of the rock art, but it might have been left by any person near that rock face, perhaps long after the rock art was made,” says Benjamin Smith, a rock art specialist at the University of Western Australia in Perth who was not involved in the research.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
To tie the art to the artist, scientists would need to find DNA that is more concentrated in the painting than the blank walls or that could be dated to the same age as the painting. 
Finding ancient DNA within layers of the paintings’ pigment would be ideal, Smith says.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The DNA recovery methods the scientists used were developed for bones and sediments. 
If they can be further adapted,&nbsp;Bossoms&nbsp;Mesa says,&nbsp;other sites and types of art may yield more consistent DNA.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The Cave of Altamira didn&#8217;t yield human DNA, but it fulfilled a different dream for&nbsp;Bossoms&nbsp;Mesa. 
To protect its priceless prehistoric paintings, visitors can view only a nearby replica cave. 
On a childhood road trip, she admired astonishing faux paintings of bison and horses leaping across the&nbsp;ceiling, and&nbsp;wished she could see the real thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Twenty years later, when&nbsp;Bossoms&nbsp;Mesa returned to Altamira with the First Art project, she was one of two people allowed to enter. 
“Being grown up and able to visit the cave when so few people get that opportunity….&nbsp;It was very emotional for me.”&nbsp; 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Libby Riddle: 5.7%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 11.1%Libby Riddle: 4.3%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias11.1%This article: 8.7%Libby Riddle: 2.4%Science News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 12.6%Libby Riddle: 4.7%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic12.6%This article: 2.5%Libby Riddle: 0.4%Science News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 3.0%Libby Riddle: 2.1%Science News: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 10.0%Libby Riddle: 4.2%Science News: 4.3%Framing Effect10.0%This article: 7.4%Libby Riddle: 1.3%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion7.4%This article: 2.5%Libby Riddle: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.3%Libby Riddle: 10.5%Science News: 4.3%Optimism Bias22.3%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.9%Science News: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 2.2%Libby Riddle: 1.9%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 3.5%Libby Riddle: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 1.4%Halo Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Libby Riddle: 1.3%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 1.9%Libby Riddle: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.4%Libby Riddle: 5.8%Science News: 4.6%Appeal to Authority20.4%This article: 4.3%Libby Riddle: 0.9%Science News: 1.1%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 2.5%Libby Riddle: 1.3%Science News: 1.2%Slippery Slope2.5%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.3%Libby Riddle: 4.0%Science News: 4.0%Hasty Generalization1.3%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.2%Libby Riddle: 3.5%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.2%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.4%Libby Riddle: 1.8%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof7.4%This article: 6.2%Libby Riddle: 1.1%Science News: 0.2%Appeal to Nature6.2%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.7%Libby Riddle: 2.2%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal12.7%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Libby Riddle: 2.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Libby Riddle: 1.0%Science News: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 2.2%Libby Riddle: 0.9%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 9.1%Libby Riddle: 3.0%Science News: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice9.1%This article: 3.8%Libby Riddle: 0.6%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

691 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech435writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageHipólito Collado Giraldo • 59 words • 0.0% coverageHipólito Collado Giraldo • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAlba Bossoms Mesa • 29 words • 100.0% coverageAlba Bossoms Mesa • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAlba Bossoms Mesa • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Smith • 56 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Smith • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAlba Bossoms Mesa • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAlba Bossoms Mesa • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
85 attributed words33% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+30.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hipólito Collado Giraldo: 30.6%30.6%Biased Writer Voice-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Hipólito Collado Giraldo: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Hipólito Collado Giraldo: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.