The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Yes—scientists have found ancient human DNA in cave-wall material from Spain and Portugal, including one sample from a painted area and four from unpainted walls. But the discovery does not identify the people who made the paintings: DNA beside rock art could have been left by later visitors or transferred indirectly. The study, published in Nature Communications on 23 June 2026, shows that human DNA can persist on cave walls for thousands of years, not that researchers can yet use it to name cave-art artists.
What scientists found—and what they did not
The study by Bossoms Mesa and colleagues investigated whether ancient human DNA could be recovered from material associated with cave art and nearby walls. Across 11 caves in Spain and Portugal, the researchers examined 24 rock-art panels featuring simple marks, hand stencils and figurative paintings.
They reported significant evidence of ancient human mitochondrial DNA in five samples: one pigmented calcite crust fragment associated with a painted panel at Escoural Cave in Portugal, and four samples from unpigmented cave walls at Escoural and Covarón in Spain. The researchers’ abstract puts the central finding cautiously: “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.” Read the study in Nature Communications.
The distinction matters. DNA in a painted-context sample is evidence that DNA survived in material associated with a painting; it does not prove that the donor applied the pigment. The authors explicitly say they could not conclusively connect DNA preservation to the creation of the art.
#1 Best Overall
Painted crust and unpainted walls are different evidence
The sample associated with a painting
The painted-context result came from a pigmented calcite crust fragment associated with Panel 11 at Escoural. It contained ancient human mitochondrial DNA, and the analysis detected no faunal DNA in that sample. The authors consider direct deposition by a person consistent with that pattern. Still, a visitor could have left the DNA after the panel was painted, so the result does not establish when the donor was present or whether the donor was an artist.
The painted sample did not provide enough information to determine the donor’s sex or population affinity. In addition, the initial positive signal was not reproduced in further subsamples from the same crust. That makes it a notable but sparse result, not a repeatable identification method.
The unpainted wall samples
Four unpigmented wall samples also yielded significant ancient human mitochondrial DNA evidence. Three contained faunal DNA as well. The co-occurrence is consistent with indirect transfer—for example, DNA carried in cave-floor sediment—rather than necessarily reflecting direct contact between a person and the sampled wall.
The remaining unpigmented Escoural sample had no detected faunal DNA and was predominantly male-derived according to the study’s nuclear-DNA sex estimate. Two unpainted Covarón samples clustered within western hunter-gatherer genetic variation in the authors’ analysis. These are findings about genetic signals in sampled material, not identified people: the study did not attach names to the donors or show that any donor made the nearby art.
Rank #3
How many samples were tested?
The researchers collected 54 pigment-containing samples from 24 panels, then divided those materials into 64 subsamples for analysis. They also analyzed a separate set of unpigmented wall samples. The reported five positives comprise one pigmented sample and four unpigmented wall samples; they are not five positives out of all 54 pigment-containing samples or a success rate across every sampled wall.
Sampling approaches varied with the site and material. They included scalpel sampling, a dentistry drill, swabs and fallen flakes containing pigment. The team adapted silica-based extraction and sequencing approaches previously used with ancient bones and sediments. Because the material was divided into subsamples, field-sample and analysis counts are not interchangeable.
Rank #4
How old is the DNA?
The researchers did not directly date the DNA-bearing wall material or the paintings. Instead, they used DNA damage patterns, mitochondrial evidence and archaeological context to assess 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.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Those are minimum estimates, not precise dates. The DNA traces may be much older, but the analysis does not establish an exact age for any trace. It also cannot date the associated paintings: a DNA deposit may have reached a wall before or after the art was made.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why this matters for cave-art research
Rock art is difficult to connect to particular people because paintings rarely come with direct evidence of who made them. Recovering DNA from cave surfaces raises the possibility that researchers could eventually learn more about human presence and cave use from places where bones or other remains are absent. The unpainted-wall results are especially relevant to that possibility because they show that a painted surface is not required for DNA to be preserved.
For now, this is a proof of concept, not a dependable routine technique for finding artists. Most pigmented samples did not produce the target ancient human DNA signal, and the sole positive painted-context result was not replicated in additional subsamples from its crust. DNA can also arrive by indirect transfer, so genetic evidence must be interpreted alongside the sampled material and its archaeological context.
Sampling itself requires care. Techniques such as scraping or drilling collect material from a cave surface, and fallen flakes may be scarce or fragile. Any future use around vulnerable art must weigh the scientific value against conservation concerns; a DNA result is not worth damaging the evidence it is meant to illuminate.
Outdated 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 matchPC 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 & 11Quick Recap
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.
