Scientists found traces of ancient human DNA in cave-wall material from Spain and Portugal, including one sample associated with a painted panel and four samples from unpainted walls. The finding shows that human DNA can persist on cave walls for thousands of years. It does not identify the artists, prove that any DNA donor made the paintings, or date the artwork.
What the study found
In a study published on 23 June 2026, Bossoms Mesa and colleagues investigated DNA preservation in and around rock art in 11 caves across Spain and Portugal. The 24 panels they examined included simple marks, hand stencils and figurative paintings. Researchers collected 54 pigment-containing samples and divided those materials into 64 subsamples for analysis; they also analyzed unpigmented wall samples separately. The study reported significant ancient human DNA evidence in one pigmented sample and four unpigmented wall samples. Those counts do not make five positives out of 54: the unpigmented samples were a separate set.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The authors describe the work as a systematic investigation of DNA preservation in cave-art settings. They adapted silica-based extraction and sequencing methods previously used with ancient bones and sediments. Because collection methods varied by site and material, samples were gathered using techniques that included scalpels, a dentistry drill, swabs and fallen pigment-bearing flakes.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Did scientists identify the cave-painting artists?
No. DNA found on or near a painting cannot by itself establish that its donor created the art. A person could have visited the cave long after the painting was made, and DNA can also move indirectly between surfaces. The authors state in the study abstract: “Although our results do not conclusively link ancient human DNA preservation to the generation of cave art, we show that traces of human DNA can persist on cave walls for thousands of years.”
#1 Best Overall
How the painted and unpainted samples differ
The sample associated with a painted panel
The strongest painted-context result came from a pigmented calcite crust fragment associated with Panel 11 at Escoural Cave in Portugal. It contained ancient human mitochondrial DNA, and the analysis detected no faunal DNA in that sample. The authors interpret this as consistent with direct deposition by a person, but it does not show when that person visited or whether they painted the panel. The sample did not yield enough data to determine the donor’s sex or population affinity. The initial signal was not reproduced in additional subsamples from the same crust, underscoring how sparse the positive results were.
Four unpainted wall samples
Four unpigmented wall samples also showed significant evidence of ancient human mitochondrial DNA. Three contained faunal DNA as well, a combination consistent with indirect transfer, including possible contamination from cave-floor sediment. In the remaining unpigmented Escoural sample, researchers detected no faunal DNA; its nuclear-DNA evidence was predominantly male-derived according to the study’s sex estimate. Two unpigmented samples from Covarón in Spain clustered within western hunter-gatherer genetic variation in the authors’ analysis. These are estimates and genetic affinities in sampled material, not identifications of named people or artists.
| Sample context | What was found | What it can—and cannot—show |
|---|---|---|
| Pigmented calcite crust associated with Escoural Panel 11 | Ancient human mitochondrial DNA; no detected faunal DNA | Consistent with direct human deposition, but does not identify the donor or connect them to making the art. |
| Four unpigmented wall samples | Significant ancient human mitochondrial DNA evidence; three also contained faunal DNA | Shows DNA can persist on unpainted walls; co-occurring faunal DNA is consistent with possible indirect transfer. |
| Unpigmented Escoural sample without detected faunal DNA | Nuclear-DNA evidence indicated a predominantly male-derived signal | A sex estimate for sampled material, not an identified individual. |
| Two unpigmented Covarón samples | Clustered within western hunter-gatherer genetic variation in the authors’ analysis | Genetic affinity, not a named identity or proof of who made nearby art. |
How old is the DNA?
The researchers did not directly date the DNA-bearing material. Instead, they used DNA damage patterns alongside mitochondrial evidence and archaeological context to constrain its age. Their damage-pattern analysis suggests a minimum age of about 1,000 years for one Covarón sample and about 2,000 years for the other recovered human-DNA samples. These are minimum estimates, not precise dates: the DNA traces could be older, and the analysis does not date the paintings.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWhy DNA on unpainted walls matters
Unpainted surfaces may preserve traces of people who used a cave even when those traces are not part of the artwork. In principle, that could help researchers investigate human presence and cave use. This study is an initial proof of concept, however, not evidence that scientists can routinely recover DNA from cave walls or reliably identify artists. Most pigmented samples did not produce the target ancient human DNA signal, and the painted-context positive was not reproduced in additional subsamples.
Rank #3
What the finding means for cave-art conservation
Collecting material from cave walls can involve removing or disturbing it, and the study used different sampling approaches depending on the site and material. That makes conservation a central constraint: fragile art and cave surfaces cannot be treated as unlimited sources of samples. The result establishes a possibility worth studying, but any future use of wall DNA must weigh scientific value against the impact of sampling.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
