> DNA analysis proves that the piece is Denisovan, though it’s too old to date with radiocarbon techniques.
Gentle reminder of this HN Guideline, which I find helpful for civil discourse. It's easy to miss something in the middle of an article.
Re: the OP's question, while the article does confirm it was found by DNA analysis, I also find it surprising that DNA can be extracted at 500k+ years. I'm curious if there are any experts on it that could chime in here on what modern limits are for that type of stuff.
I'm finding it hard to believe AP simply "missed it" when they had the question in mind before they even read the thing.
I don't think you can assume that. I think a fair number of people could read the article and then afterward realize they don't know how it was confirmed.