The Ancients - Human Evolution: Dragon Man

Episode Date: November 1, 2023

Homo longi, also known as Dragon Man, is an extinct archaic human species - with a nearly complete skull found near Harbin, China, dating back to at least 146,000 years ago. Discovered in 1933 during the construction of the Dongjiang Bridge, it remained hidden until 2018 due to wartime circumstances and tensions. But why was the discovery of a single skull so important? And what does it tell us about human evolution and migration during the Middle Pleistocene?In this episode, Dr Chris Stringer returns to the podcast to help shed light on the importance of this discovery, and explain how the Dragon Man could be our closest human relative. Looking at how the Dragon Man was discovered, what he tells us about Human Migration, and the impact it had on paleoanthropology - do we know who the Dragon Man was, and what does he tell us about our Human relatives from nearly 200,000 years ago?Discover the past with exclusive history documentaries and ad-free podcasts presented by world-renowned historians from History Hit. Watch them on your smart TV or on the go with your mobile device. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code ANCIENTS sign up now for your 14-day free trial here.You can take part in our listener survey here.

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. It's the Entrance on History Hit. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host, and in today's episode we're talking about about human evolution once again and this time the largest human skull ever discovered it's popularly known today as dragon man discovered in china on the eve of the second world war this is a fossil that still has a lot of mystery surrounding it? Could it be a new species of extinct human? Could this actually be our closest human relative? Well, in recent years, a team have been doing a lot of work on the skull of

Dragon Man, including the one and only Dr. Chris Stringer. Now, Chris has been on the podcast several times over the past year or so to talk about topics varying from the origins of homo sapiens to the first britons and even to talk a bit about the new discovery of homo naledi now chris is back to talk all the things dragon man what we know so far and what the theories are about who and what this archaic human was that lived more than 100,000 years ago in East Asia. I really do hope you enjoy, and here's Chris. Chris, wonderful to have you back on the podcast. It's a pleasure to be back with you.

Well, I mean, your episodes always prove incredibly popular. We had you last time for The First Britons, and before that, The Origins of Homo Sapiens. We're doing it again in person, which is fantastic. And we've got this incredible replica of a skull in front of us, Dragon Man. This must be one of the most significant discoveries in the story of the evolution of the genus Homo in recent times. It's incredible. Yes, it is a really important find. First of all, because it is so complete. So there's so much information in it. And also because it comes from China, which in some ways has many mysteries that we haven't yet unlocked about human evolution, about how species develop there, how Homo sapiens appeared in China. So these are all big questions. And this dragoman fossil can help answer these questions.

Because China, I know there are so many areas of the world that it is looking really exciting with the discovery of new archaic human fossils. But as you were saying there, Eastern Asia and maybe Southeastern Asia too, these are really exciting areas for what's going to be unearthed in the years ahead. Absolutely, yes. I mean, there's much more to come from China and particularly from Southeast Asia. And India has only one significant ancient fossil. So there's so much to come from this region. And in China, actually, there are already a number of human fossils, but they've been subjected to quite different interpretations. So you can build very different

scenarios. There are still a number of workers, including in China, who think that Homo sapiens, our species, actually evolved in China. So that view is still there, despite what I would say is a wealth of genetic evidence that suggests that can't be true. There are people who, looking at the fossils, see continuity from ancient humans through to Homo sapiens, even within China. Well, let's focus, therefore, on Dragon Man, this huge cranium we've got in front of us. What's the story behind its discovery? This is incredible. Yes. Well, I mean, I have to be honest and say we don't know the full story. So what we do know is what's come down to us by word of mouth. So we have no direct evidence of how this was

discovered. But the story we received is that in 1933, the Japanese were occupying this region of northeastern China. And they commandeered a group of Chinese workers to build a bridge across the river at Harbin. And the workers digging the sediments along the river found this incredible skull, beautifully preserved. they didn't want it to fall into the hands of the japanese workers so one of them put it in a rucksack took it home and put it down a disused well and it lay there for the next 80 years or so and this man near the time of his death told his family to look down the well. And incredibly, there was this beautifully preserved fossil still down that well.

They pulled it up. They recovered it. And it became known really to the world more generally in 2018. So Professor Ji Kuang from Hebei Geo University heard about the fossil, and he managed to acquire it for the museum of his university. And he started to study. He actually is an expert on dinosaurs. So he recruited a colleague, Zhiyong Ni, who's at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, the IVPP. And Zhiyong Ni then contacted me and said, would I be interested in joining this study of this incredible fossil? So there was a press conference in China that announced it. Initially,

it was said to be a probable Homo hydra bagensis. At that stage, there was no date on it. No one knew how old it was. And this story came out about that it had apparently been down a well for about 80 years, having been found in 1933. And of course, you might say, well, why did this man keep it secret for so long? And again, the story, the suggestion is that he was probably ashamed having worked for the Japanese occupiers. So he kept quiet about it until he was near death. And then he told his family about the discovery and they found it. So that's the story we've got. But there are investigations going on in Harbin to really try and map more

precisely where this came from. So this isn't the final word on its discovery, but there is research still going on on where it may have come from. Well, this is just the beginning, but I think it's such a fantastic example, isn't it, of the importance of international cooperation in this field and looking at archaic human fossils where you can work together with people all across the world to help deduce what this still very mysterious period in human prehistory. We can learn more about it. And this international cooperation is really helpful in that. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, no, of course, I was just honored to be involved in the study of this because cooperation is really helpful in that. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Now, of course, I was just honoured to be involved in the study of this because it is such a wonderful fossil. And of course, it matches my long-term interest in

things like Homo heidemagensis, the beginning of Homo sapiens, and the beginning of Neanderthals. And one other thing before we delve into the particular details of this skull, because it survives so incredibly well. The location that it was originally found, has that been completely lost? Do we only have a rough idea of where this worker originally found it before he then put it down a well? Of course, the bridge still exists at Harbin. So we know that it was on one side of the river in the river deposits, allegedly. So yes, work is going on to try and map the deposits to look to see where there are other locations with fossils of similar age. And of course, in our paper or in an accompanying paper,

a number of Chinese workers conducted isotope studies on little bits of the skull and also fossils from various parts of China and also the sediments in the Harbin region. So the isotope data, the chemical data if you like, from the fossil at least matches with the Harbin region. So at least that supports the idea that it does indeed come from Harbin. So we've got the replica here and as we delve into the features of it, we've also got next to it a replica of a modern homo sapien, a human skull. And the first thing you really notice before delving into the particular features is the sheer size of it. Chris, this is massive. It is. It is enormous. It's the biggest human

fossil I've ever seen. I mean, obviously, at the Natural History Museum, we've got the Cadway Broken Hill fossil, which is huge. This is probably 10% bigger than that. It's as large in overall dimensions as the largest Neanderthal, but in certain dimensions, it exceeds even the biggest Neanderthal. So the breadth of the face, the breadth of the brow ridge, the breadth of the nose, if you turn it over and look at the base, the base is extremely broad and the upper jaw is incredibly broad. So those dimensions are the biggest I know of for any fossil so far. So this was a huge individual. We assume it's a male, but we don't, of course, know that from this individual.

And we guess that the rest of the body must have been on a large scale as well. Not necessarily tall. I would suggest perhaps short and wide would be equally possible. Undoubtedly, very muscular, I'm sure. Well, let's explore all of these anatomical features that you've highlighted there and maybe you can explain like what they most closely represent in regards to other human species that we know of i mean should we start there for and i think you've highlighted already but that elongated cranium skull yes so it's very long and it's very large and voluminous so inside there was a brain of large Homo sapiens or Neanderthal size. So it was big brained. But as you say, the cranial vault, the brain case is long and low.

There's this massive brow ridge across the front, a low forehead. But if you turn it around to the back, what's interesting is that in say Homo heidelbergensis and more primitive humans like Homo erectus, there's a very strong rigid bone that runs across the occipital bone and it's strongly angled. Now, what's interesting is this fossil doesn't show that strong ridge. It's got only a mild ridge across the back and it's actually quite a rounded back to the skull compared to some more, what we might call more archaic humans. So that's an interesting combination. And when we look at certain features in the face, we see that it's not like Heidobagensis fossils or Neanderthal fossils. This face is actually like a bigger version of a Homo sapiens face. So the cheekbones

are actually quite small. If this was a Neanderthal or a Heidobagensis fossil, they would be much deeper and they would also be more inflated. So the cheekbones are angled. The middle of the face is flat. It's very delicately built. So this is a Homo sapiens face. And what backs that up is that if you look at the side view, the face is actually retracted under the brain case. So if this is a Heidelbergensis, the face will be pulled out much more. So the face is retracted under the cranial vault. It's kind of reduced, if you like, overall in proportion to the brain case. So those are derived features that make it look like homo sapiens. And yet it's got these other primitive features.

If we look at the palate, it's absolutely enormous. It's got a huge upper jaw. And unfortunately, most of the teeth have fallen out. But we've got one very large molar with three splayed roots there and what's interesting is there's no sign of third molars so this individual did not have wisdom teeth they had never developed and that's an interesting thing which we find in some of the other chinese fossils of this age that they lack wisdom teeth so that's an interesting local feature that it shows. You can see this very

flat base to the fossil and the mastoid processes, which lie just behind the ear region. They're quite large and rather homo sapiens like. So in some ways it looks very primitive with these great big brow ridges and the long low cranial vault. In some ways it looks quite derived with this reduced occipital torus and rather rounded back to the cranial vault and big brain, of course. And in some ways, it's a bit sapiens, right, with those big mastoid processes and this flat, rather delicately built face. And to have one tooth surviving, I can imagine you can learn quite a lot even just from one tooth. This feels great that you have, I know you've lost most of them, but to have a molar surviving,

that can learn more, I guess, about their diet, maybe DNA too, potentially in the future. Yes, that's right. I mean, obviously we would love to have the rest of the teeth. We've only got this one. It is very large in size and it does match, interestingly, the Denisova molar teeth, which are very large too. So that is a primitive feature that we find in Homo erectus, for for example and very splayed roots but overall lacking the third molars shows that overall there's a sort of facial reduction and even you can argue a dental reduction of actually losing the third molar teeth from the dentition so it's an interesting combination and yes you mentioned DNA and proteomics and unfortunately it's very unlikely there's going to be DNA in this fossil because it's

been dated by uranium series dating to over 150,000 years old. So it's unlikely to have DNA preservation. But of course, there's this developing field of looking at ancient proteins, proteomics. And so I know that some Chinese workers are already starting investigations of the proteomics of this fossil. And that will be very interesting, of course, because it may help us to place this in relation to us and the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, of course, who we haven't really talked about yet, but we do need to talk about. We will get to Denisovans. You mentioned Denisovacave, so we will in time, my friend. But I'd like to ask a couple of other questions first. I just put the replica back down. Because as you have so much of this cranium surviving, one of the best preserved

craniums ever discovered of an archaic human, I also noticed that there's been a reconstruction of what Dragon Man could have looked like. Now, he's slightly dark-coloured, brown hair, short and robust. I mean, what led you to conjuring up this image of Dragon Man? Yes, well, I wasn't involved in the reconstruction, and I'm rather cautious about making reconstructions on fossils like Dragon Man. It's good to get an idea of what this individual may have looked like. But of course, as you say, things like hair and skin colour, we don't have definite data on that for these fossils. In fact, there's more than one reconstruction of dragoman around. But I think, yes, in terms

of skin color, the likelihood is that it was darker, certainly than, let's say, average Europeans of today. In terms of hair, yes, likely dark hair. Again, on probability from what we know, Denisovan genomes and Neanderthal genomes. But we know that the nose was very large and the face was rather flat. But we don't know, obviously, about the shape of the eyes, for example, whether there was an eye fold, as we find in many Asian people. We don't know if that was there. Of course, if we had DNA, we might be able to make more accurate predictions. But looking at the Denisovans, we can make some predictions about morphology. And the assessment of that large body, of course, is based on the sheer size of the

fossil. And the fact that the Harbin region today has an interesting climate because it has some of the coldest winters in China. So even at the present day, some of the winter months average minus 15 degrees below zero in the winter. And that's today. So of course, in the past, it could have at times been even colder than that. But even if the Harvard individual was living under those conditions that we have today, those are extremely cold winters. And we imagine that these people had developed cultural adaptations to deal with that, perhaps the use of fire, the use of clothing, the use of shelters, perhaps maybe physiological adaptations, maybe extra layers of body fat, perhaps even more body hair. All those

things could have evolved to help these people cope with those conditions. And so I think that tells us that the body shape also probably was going to be short and wide because that's the physique that's favoured and selected for in cold conditions so mammals in general if you look at mammals closer to the poles where you've got a species like a wolf for example that spreads over a wide range the ones that live closer to the poles have bulkier bodies and shorter extremities so we imagine that this harbin individual would have been short and wide highly muscular probably with layers of body fat as well so probably not very tall but short and wide, highly muscular, probably with layers of body fat as well. So probably not very tall, but short and wide, very muscular, very heavily built.

It makes comparisons, doesn't it, when you look at, let's say, the Neanderthals in Britain, 100,000 years ago or something like that, where there's that similar assumption that they were trying to live in that climate where you had nice summers, but the winter climate was particularly difficult. So you could potentially imagine a similar thing with the climate of Dragon Man in the Harbin province. Yes, that's right. And in fact, what's interesting is this, of course, is more than 150,000 years old. So these people were living under conditions probably colder than any Neanderthals are known to have lived under in the winter. And we know from DNA data that there were people living at this time on the Tibetan plateau of China up at 3,000 meters in very cold conditions. And that could be a Denisovan population.

So the Denisovans, including this individual as a possible Denisovan, the Denisovans were widely adapted and they probably could live at high altitude and under cold conditions. But also, there's evidence Denisovans may also have lived in Southeast Asia and under cold conditions. But also, there's evidence Denisovans may also have lived in southeastern Asia under much warmer conditions. Interesting. And of course, you had to bet on those handprints. It's incredible handprints, isn't it? It's 200,000 years old. Well, before we delve into Denisovans Cave and more about the Denisovans' story, I must ask, so 150,000 years ago, Harbin province of China, have people uncovered any other archaic fossils from this area

of China that might date to a similar period? There are no human fossils from this area of Harbin. This is the only fossil so far, but we've got animal fossils from there. So we know that at times the climate was warm in the summers and cold in the winters. At times it was very much colder. So of course there were these cycles of warm and cold that affected us in Britain as well. The same sorts of cycles were affecting northeastern China. So at times it would have been even colder in winter than the present day. And the summers range from being warm as they are today to being colder than they are today. So because we can't place this Harbin individual exactly in time, we don't know if he lived in a time which was like the present day, so hotish summers but very cold winters, or did he live in an even colder time? We don't know that yet at the moment. I want to steer the conversation towards another particular skull from China that I know you've

had a look at and explored similarities with. This is called, in my notes, the Dali skull. Now, Chris, what is this skull and how has it got relevance to the Dragon Man? Yeah, so the Dali fossil was found more than 50 years ago. It's a fossil which, overall, if we had it here for comparison, it's smaller than the Dragon Man skull, the Harbin fossil. But it's got massive brow edges, just as this has. It's got the same rather delicate face tucked under the cranial vault, but a much smaller brain. Now, we think that the Dali fossil could be 300,000 years old. So it's

older, it's less derived, if you like. I mean, it could represent an earlier version of this population, the Dali fossil. And my colleague, Xi Yongni, used a vast amount of data from the fossil collections, about 100 fossils, and put them into a database with over 600 traits of the skull and teeth and so on. And Xi Yongni used that to build a phylogenetic network of all of these fossils and how they were related to each other based on phylogeny, on their relationships, which things were most closely similar on those traits. And what we found was a very interesting grouping that we found a number of Chinese

fossils grouped together with this one from Harbin, and that included Dali. So fossils like Jinushan, Dali, and another one from Hualongdong. So those fossils grouped together from China and formed what we can call a clade, a group with the same phylogenetic characteristics with a common ancestor. And we had another grouping, which was Homo sapiens fossils and recent Homo sapiens. So that formed a clade, which included recent humans from around the world, fossil humans, such as ones from Shkul and Kavse in Israel, Cro-Magnon in France, and further back in Africa, fossils like the Djebel Ikhud ones from Shkul and Kavse in Israel, Cro-Magnon in France, and further back in Africa, fossils like the Djebel Ikhud ones from Morocco.

So those formed a clade as well, which we can call a Homo sapiens clade. And then a third clade came out of the analysis, which was a Neanderthal clade. So there we had the familiar late Neanderthals from places like France and Germany. And then we had earlier Neanderthal fossils from Sacca Pastore in Italy. And then even the Sima de los Huesos fossils from Atapuerca formed early basal members, if you like, of that Neanderthal clade. So there were three main groupings. There was the Sapiens grouping, the Neanderthal grouping, and the Harbin grouping. And what was interesting on the phylogeny that Ji Yong, the most parsimonious one, the one with the least steps, actually grouped the Harbin clade with the Homo sapiens clade first and then the Neanderthal clade further away.

So that's very interesting. It suggests that the Harbin clade was actually more closely related to our species than to the Neanderthals. Neanderthals. So that was a surprise to me. And what was also interesting was that Zee Jung used the dating of the fossils, the known dating of fossils in the trees, to build up the most likely dating for the divergence points. And the interesting thing is he came up with a divergence of sapiens and the Hongbin clade of about 950,000, and the divergence of those two from the Neanderthal clade of over a million years. So that's really deep divergence, much more than genetic estimates would put that divergence. So geneticists, they often say that the divergence of us and Neanderthals was maybe around 600,000 years. So on the phylogeny, the phylogeny would suggest it's even deeper divergence. So this is a really intriguing situation that indeed these, what seem to be sapiens-like characteristics in the face and so

on, they actually seem to be drawing the Harbin clade closer to Homo sapiens than even the Neanderthals. And are there any thoughts at the moment as to what species, potentially the Harbin clade and the Homo sapiensiens they diverge from yes so some of my chinese co-authors they wrote a separate paper published at the same time in the same journal arguing that dragon man was indeed a distinct species with its own new species name and that's where the dragon man comes from homo longi dragon man so they named it the type of a new species, Homo longi, in China. In my view, because we've got a clade with Dali in it and Harbin, Dali has got a species name that's not much use, but it's there in the literature. It's been around for 50 years, Homo daliensis. So in

my view, it's probably better to call this Homo daliensis so my preference is to call the dragoman fossil homo daliensis it's a great name still called a dragoman but i put it with dali as homo daliensis so essentially you then have those clades with three species homo sapiens homo daliensis and homo neanderthalensis and the common ancestor of the homo sapiens and the dali clade if you want to call it that the harbing clade we obviously don't know who that common ancestor of the Homo sapiens and the Dali clade, if you want to call it that, the Harbin clade, we obviously don't know who that common ancestor was. And we don't know who the ultimate common ancestor with Neanderthals was either. And of course, it makes a difference where we date that. So if we dated at 600,000 at that divergence, you might say, well, it could be

Homo chidobagensis. It could even be Homo antisessel. If you put it at more than a million years, then we've got to go back in the record and look for even older fossils that might be close to that common ancestor. So still many questions about it. You know, this is still very much the start of all of this research, isn't it? Absolutely. But it's exciting nonetheless. It is, it is. It's very exciting. And of course, this is where proteomic data will be valuable. If we can get protein data out of some of these fossils, which are too old to yield DNA data, then we can start to build relationships based on that protein data.

And I'm hopeful that we'll have that for dragoman. With luck, we'll have it for Dali. I'm hoping that we'll have it for Heidelbergensis fossils, for example. Well, let's say, therefore, if the Harbin fossil, let's call it Homo daliensis, let's follow that. Let's say therefore with the Harbin fossil, let's call it Homo dalliensis, let's follow that. What is the theory that this fossil, when you've mentioned the name already, is actually a Denisovan? So explain the backstory of who the Denisovans are and then how this Harbin fossil potentially fits into that story.

Yeah, so the Denisovans, we've known about them for more than 10 years now. So Russian archaeologists have been digging this site of Denisovans cave in the Altai region in southern Siberia. They've been digging that site for more than 50 years. And they'd found many stone tools, many animal bones, but also some fragmentary human fossils. And these were assumed to be probably Neanderthal. Nobody really knew. There were some big teeth, very big teeth. There was a little bit of a finger bone. But when these were looked at for DNA, incredibly, it turned out that the genomes were, first of all, very high quality, really high quality than the known Neanderthal ones at the time, probably because of the cold conditions in the cave would preserve the DNA so well. And these genomes showed that this was a different kind of human, not Neanderthal,

not Homo sapiens, a third kind of human that we've called ever since Denisovans, for want of a better word. So these Denisovans were known much more from their genomes and DNA than they were from fossils. And that is still the situation. From Denisovans cave itself, we've got a handful of fragmentary fossils. And we've actually got now DNA from the cave sediments, incredibly. So there are more Denisovans now known from cave sediment DNA in the site than there are actually represented by fossils. But not only that, the data from the fossils and from the cave sediment showed that Neanderthals were there as well some of the time.

So both Neanderthals and Denisovans were occupying the cave. And sometimes they must have been there at the same time, because amazingly, a small bone fragment was identified as being a probable first generation hybrid between a Neanderthal and a Denisovan. So this girl, and we can sex it from the DNA, this girl had a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. And that fossil is perhaps 100,000 years old. So it's an incredible site. And the mystery

is, of course, these Denisovans, because the fossils are so fragmentary, what did they look like and how do they relate to the rest of the fossils? Well, we can extend out and say, first of all, that we know that Denisovans must have been widespread because when you look where Denisovan DNA is today, incredibly, we or at least members of Homo sapiens do have Denisovan DNA. So just as pretty well everyone outside of Africa has around 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genome, when you go over to the Far East and to the Americas and Australasia, you find that there's also Denisovan DNA in those genomes today. And it's at very high levels in some cases. So people in Australasia

and the Philippines, some of them have maybe 4% or 5% Denisovan DNA in their genomes, as well as having Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. And the implication is that Denisovans can't just have been living at Denisovagavia in Siberia. They must have been much more widespread. So there must have been a population of them living down in Southeast Asia. And when Homo sapiens migrated through that area, perhaps 50,000 years ago, towards Australia and the Philippines and so on, they met Denisovans, interbred with them, and that DNA was then taken on and survives even down to the present day. So it's an amazing story. And it would imply that, yes, Denisovans were up in a relatively cold area in Siberia, but also they were somewhere down in Southeast Asia living in probably tropical and subtropical

rainforests, or at least in areas around those subtropical rainforests. And there's even a tooth from Laos now, which is thought to be a Denisovan based on morphology, not on DNA, a single molar tooth. So there's that mystery then of the Denisovans are well known from their genomes, not well known from fossils. I mentioned this tooth from Laos that could be Denisovan, but there is a jawbone from the Tibetan plateau of China, probably from a cave called Baishia Cave. And this fossil is very robust. It's a lower jaw, very strongly built. It's got big molars, no third molars, interestingly, and no chin at the front. It's a lower jaw, very strongly built. It's got big molars, no third molars, interestingly,

and no chin at the front. It's quite primitive looking. It didn't have DNA, unfortunately. It's more than 150,000 years old based on uranium-serie dating, but they did recover a small ounce of protein from it. And that protein data shows that this is more closely related to Denisovans than it is to Neanderthals or Homo sapiens. So this is a probable Denisovan jawbone from a very high altitude area in the Tibetan plateau of China, more than 150,000 years old. So in a sense, it matches what we've got for Dragon Man. And interestingly, Zhiyong's phylogenetic analyses did link that jawbone potentially with the dragoman skull. So that could represent a lower jaw, if you like, for the dragoman fossil.

Big molars, splayed roots, no third molars, that matches also with the harbin fossil. So that points to harbin as being a potential denisovan, but we mustn't run before we can walk. And so we've got to remember that there are no really complete Denisovan fossils that have complete genomes. We've got these complete genomes for fragmentary fossils, and we've got these complete fossils like Ragamound with no DNA, and at the moment, no proteomics. But yes, it's probable that this is going to turn out to be a Denisovan. But also, we have to bear in mind that there's a lot of variation in China. And it seems to make sense that you've got this deep lineage based on DNA, which we call Denisovans in East Asia.

And we've got this deep lineage based on fossils, like Dragoman and Dali, that we can call Homo daliensis. Why aren't they one and the same thing? That seems to make perfect sense. But the thing is that the Chinese fossils actually show a lot of variation. And OK, they're covering several hundred thousand years, but it seems unlikely to me that they're all going to be the same thing. So for example, there's a fossil from Ma Pa in China that even looks a bit Neanderthal-like.

So maybe Neanderthals were there. There's a fossil from Zhu Chang, which is enormous, like the Dragon Mound fossil, but much thinner walled with a much smaller brow ridge that's about 100,000 years old. So that shows a lot of variation compared with the dragonmouth fossil. So there may be more variation in China than just one thing. I think it's unlikely that all these Chinese fossils are going to turn out to be Homo dioliensis and Denisovans. So it's a more complicated story. Yes, I think the dragonmouth fossil is probably a Denisovan. If it turns out to complicated story. Yes, I think the Dragon Man fossil is probably a Denisovan. If it turns out to be, of course, that will greatly help our interpretations of the

Denisovans because it matches with the idea that they're living in cold conditions, they're widespread in places like China. But also we've got that remaining mystery of what were the Denisovans like in Southeast Asia? That's a population that probably diverged several hundred thousand years early from the later Denisovans. So the Denisovans were around for several hundred thousand years diversifying in Asia and Southeast Asia. They certainly didn't all look the same. We would guess that from the DNA and where they're living. They probably have more genetic diversity than the Neanderthals. And they lived in probably more widespread environmental conditions than the Neanderthals. So they lived in probably more widespread environmental conditions than the Neanderthals. So a really interesting population

and we've got a lot to learn about them. A lot to learn. And as you mentioned, there is still so much that remains unanswered. But it is fascinating to consider that Denisovans are potentially one of the most successful archaic human species that ever lived.

Yeah, absolutely. Yes, they survived just as the Neanderthals survived for hundreds of thousands of years. They survived for that time too, over probably wider ecological range. They may have had greater population numbers. We don't know that yet, but it's certainly possible from their greater genetic diversity. So they were certainly a very successful human group. I would argue human species. And of course, if it turns out that the dragonmouth fossil and Dali are Denisovans, then of course I would argue that we can start calling the Denisovans Homo daliensis as well.

But again, we mustn't run before we can walk. We have to take this at a stage at a time and work towards getting complete fossils that have got complete genomes of Denisovans. It's a slow but exciting process, isn't it? And I guess in modern technology, that's really helpful. DNA, phylogenetic analysis, and so on. It's really exciting for what's going to happen next. Chris, this is brilliant. What do you think is coming next with the story of Dragon Man? As I say, there's the hope that there will be proteomic data from it, which will really help to place it. The fossil, of course, has a huge amount to tell us from its morphology. The inside of the brain

case is beautifully preserved. So we'll be able to say something about dragoman's brain shape and what it was like compared with us and the Neanderthals. We've got studies of the ear bones. So we know that those can be very important to group fossils. So these tiny little bones that are hidden from us, but with CT scanning, you can model them important to group fossils. So these tiny little bones that are hidden from us. But with CT scanning, you can model them and analyze their shape. And we know that, for example, Neanderthals had very different ear bone shapes from Homo sapiens. So what would the ear bones of dragoman look like? That's something that we hope to look at.

There's the tooth, of course, which its endostructure, not only its external structure, but the inside that tooth, can be instructive about its relationships. Is it more like Neanderthal teeth inside, or like those ones from Denisovacay, for example? So that tooth will be important. The cranial thickness, the sinuses, there's many, many more bits of information to come from this fantastic fossil. Well, this has been fantastic, Chris. Before we wrap up completely, is there anything else you'd like to highlight about the story of Dragon Man, about this incredible fossil? Denisovans, the Darlensis, and the Neanderthals may have had a deeper ancestry than most of us think at the moment. That instead of a common ancestor of maybe 600,000 years, perhaps there's evidence that that common ancestor lived even further back in time. Well, let's see. Chris,

it just goes for me to say, as always, thank you so much for taking the time to come on the podcast today. It's a pleasure, once again. Well, there you go. There was Dr. Chris Stringer talking all things Dragon Man, what the theories are surrounding this massive skull. I hope you enjoyed the episode. I love doing human evolution episodes. And when you have a guest like Dr. Chris Stringer, who can really bring this field to life, well, it's such a pleasure to be able to record it and then share this story with you i do hope you enjoyed it now last things from me you know what i'm going to say but if you have been enjoying the ancients recently and you want to help us out well you know what you can do you can leave us a lovely rating on apple podcast on spotify wherever you get your podcast

from it really helps us as we continue to grow the ancients and to share these amazing stories from our distant past with you and with as many people as possible. But that's enough from me and I will see you in the next episode.