More on Denisovan language (Sep. 2026), ancient language in Asia, ancient language connections and the spirituality of language, also publ. on the 02/09/2026

These legends of wild-men really fascinate me. When we look at human history in a linear sense, I think we have this impression that the "others", other humans like Neanderthals, went extinct, and that we survived because we were - dare I say "better" - I do not think we are "better", but that is commonly what is implied. 

Folklore and modern accounts however paint an image where, to me at least, it seems as though these other humans have continued in some way. Some explain these as hoaxes, others as relic hominids, although often encounters with sasquatch for example, are accompanied by supernatural phenomena, a sense that these beings are able to interact with this space, but are somehow not normally within it. 

I have my own theory about this - and it is just a theory. I wonder if humans, and our human consciousness have in a sense "broken off" or split off from the world of those other humans. I wonder if our perception of time, and the very nature by which we perceive reality, time, as spinning, might be some kind of, space of particular motion, which cut us off from those others. 

Humans back then didn't seem to experience time, nor to imagine the future, in the same way that we perceive these things today. According to our understanding, there is sometimes little change for tens, or even hundreds of thousands of years. And I wonder if their "time" is the original time, and if it actually still exists someplace, whilst our "time" or perception of it, is the odd one out. In our reality we find their bones and they are "ancient" to us, yet on a spiritual level, we seem to still encounter them, or aspects of them. But what even is time? Is it merely an entropic process, or is it in a sense also a measurement of how far away something is from our field of perception? And do the bones of these ancestors, and the places they inhabited in the past, despite being "in our past", do these bones and places still resonate with their essence? To them, has any time passed at all? 

Anyway, it is a wild and interesting subject. I met a man in Sweden who, when in Nepal, heard what he described as a yeti, a sound kind of human, but not, shouting to him and warning him of its presence. I have chatted with a couple of people from British Columbia who have seen some of these "others" there. A person close to me felt what he might describe as their presence, when in California. 

I absolutely believe in them. I mean, I've met people, not the kind of people who had any reason to lie or who were even interested in this subject, who told me of their experiences. I have seen and read far too much about them to doubt their existence. I think that denying the experiences of thousands of people and trying to explain them away, would be silly. And fundamentally I also just feel that they are real. Of course, this is my perception, but, as for myself, I stand by it. 

I think I encountered them in one dream. The landscape of the dream was itself less significant, but there was a kind of crossroads, and men were arguing. At a fountain-like thing in the centre of the crossroads, these, what I can only describe as sasquatches, were crying and wailing, with a sadness I could feel. They weren't like the typical image of sasquatch, the skin on their faces was noticeable, real, the creases on their faces. Their faces were almost skeletal, but wise, kind. It was as though I had a memory of their faces, somewhere. The hair on their bodies was more of an orange-brown, to red, rather than dark. However we interpret dreams, I felt that it was them, and in a sense the dream was showing me perhaps how sad they were about humans fighting among ourselves. 

Sometimes encounters with them are described as scary, and I am sure that is true. For myself, I feel fundamentally though that they are something truly important. The feeling I get, makes me think of guardians of a primordial time, inherently good. 

Often reports or discussion of these "others" describes them as speaking forms of language. Bigfoot are said to make "whooping" sounds, whilst others are described as making other sounds, or other forms of language. Their languages do not seem to be quite like our own, if indeed they have them. Whilst the connections are not direct, I have wondered if specific clusters of languages, for example, in mountainous areas, like the Caucasus, Pyrenees, the so-called Dene-Caucasian language family, could in some way derive aspects of itself from "others" in these mountainous areas, and that this could be where many of these relationships come from. This does not suggest a direct link between any particular ancient hominid and Dene-Caucasian languages, rather I am suggesting that some of what we might interpret as interconnectedness within these languages, and the idea of them being in one massive language family, might be that we are actually picking up on, noticing, incredibly ancient features of language that have survived in particular areas, not necessarily from any single group of other humans. Furthermore I would imagine that different aspects of these others' languages would be spread and distributed in different ways, in much the same way that their DNA is, although not along the same lines.

If homo-sapien language is fundamentally different from their languages, then perhaps, rather than trying to understand how for example, Indo-European, Uralic, and Eskimo-Aleut might share deep connections, perhaps if "our" version of language is uniquely homo-sapien, then what we call our "language families" might not have developed from earlier and earlier language families, but our language families themselves could represent the points at which these earlier human languages "became" organised and spoken as homo-sapien languages. 

This is not to suggest that these "others" are in any way less intelligent, they are I think equally intelligent, but the way in which they use spoken language, might be fundamentally different from how we do. For example, they may not have had concepts of time or causality in the way that most human languages do today - for example. So when we are dating our "language families", perhaps what we would consider the grammar present in all human languages today, is something that developed from something much older, or existed alongside it, and connected with it. 

So, on one hand Dene-Caucasian languages likely are not a language family. There is not enough similarity to suggest that they come from a common system as far as modern human languages go. But there may well be elements shared within these languages that were inherited from other peoples, and I do wonder if these other peoples might have been non-homo-sapien humans.

Speaking of things in terms of "Denisovan language" and "Neanderthal language" is also not necessarily always useful, especially considering that these peoples were likely diverse, and that we do not understand them exactly, nor their precise relationship to earlier peoples. For example, Papua New Guinea shows arguably the largest amount of Denisovan genetic influences, but homo-erectus also lived in Indonesia for example, and we don't really know how these groups relate, or how different they were from each other, truly. I think what can be said with some more certainty is that certain areas contain a more visible connection with these ancient identified groups, than others. But of course connections with these "others" on both genetic and linguistic levels, would, in different ways, be spread equally throughout all peoples and languages, with some areas acting more as "master keys" enabling us to see the whole picture clearer.

So, Papua New Guinea has more noticeable Denisovan influences genetically, and I think it entirely possible there will be a linguistic signature. But whilst it might be possible to postulate on linguistic features that are deeply ancient to Papua New Guinea, defining which ones might be Denisovan is a lot more difficult. As far as southeast Asia goes, the [ŋ] phoneme is pretty common among languages whose speakers contain more Denisovan DNA influences. This "ng" sound is not unusual around the world, but it is particularly prevalent in some of these languages. The bilabial trill, [ʙ] is also an unusual sound found among some indigenous languages of Papua New Guinea. This certainly could I think have been inherited from a very ancient human population. The voiced retroflex implosive sound, [ᶑ], could be connected or have come from the Homo-Floresiensis people of the island of Flores in Indonesia, but it is also possible that this unusual sound could have come from another ancient human population in the area, again making it very difficult to say. Plus, in addition, this voiced retroflex implosive also occurs in some Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages, making it very unlikely that it is specifically connected to Homo-Floresiensis. I have learned some Noongar in the past, a Pama-Nyungan language, which has many of these "ng" sounds, which can be seen for example in the word nganga - "sun".

Personally, I have found no evidence of a common language link that would connect the languages spoken by peoples with the most Denisovan DNA influences, but again, Denisovan language likely would be spread along different lines of influence, occuring differently, and I hope that here I have at least mentioned some interesting points. 

Even though the Denisovans are named after the cave in which they were found, in Siberia, indigenous Siberians do not contain large amounts of Denisovan DNA, and it is important to note that again, many of these areas show evidence of multiple ancient humans, the Almasty and Neanderthals are a whole other topic on this, which I have detailed elsewhere. The Denisovans of Siberia also likely represented a different group of Denisovans to those living further south.

How these ancient peoples might connect to wild-men is something I have gone into a lot elsewhere, but not so much in terms of sasquatch/bigfoot. I doubt very much that the Indigenous Northwest Pacific languages have much linguistic influence from them. I am more of the opinion that many features of the Tsimshianic, Wakashan and Salishan languages do relate to ancient coastal populations who built shell middens. Haplogroup X, whilst seemingly not so connected to shell midden builders, is connected to ancient riverside dwelling peoples found in parts of North America. 

As I have postulated before, I think that the shell-midden builders, from Neanderthals to Modern Humans for well over 100,000 years of cultural shell-midden building continuity, might connect to some of our legends of giants, and aquatic ancestors too. I have talked about the use of shellfish in relation to broch and nuraghe builders, who are connected to "giants", and I have discussed Hopi folklore about semi-aquatic ancestors. 

An interesting example from Austrialia are the "Kow Swamp Skulls", human skulls roughly around 10,000 years ago, which display extremely-archaic, Denisovan or homo-erectus features, with large brow ridges and with some cranial elongation or just "naturally" elongated heads. These skulls, belonging to humans of a more archaic appearance, should not, according to the mainstream timeline, have come from populations that lived only 10,000 years ago, yet consistently these "shell midden" cultures seem very importantly connected to that time period, which in Europe often coincides with the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. 

Some of the Kow Swamp Skulls look rather akin to the Paracas Skulls. I recently came across this idea of how a certain gene in Neanderthals and Denisovans might have meant that changes in skull shape could have occurred naturally. I do not think that this was merely about a genetic change, I think it more likely that elongated skulls (as I implied in my unrelated blog post on this website yesterday) might have more to do with our skull and brain's interaction with the "cosmic field" and with "cosmic language", which different hominids would have connected to in different ways. I doubt that the Paracas skulls are all about Denisovans though. Whilst Denisovans may well be a part of this picture, for example in terms of ancient connections between South America, Siberia, Polynesia and Southeast Asia, the specific (what I think are) links between the Andes, Quechua, Puquina, Kallawaya, Mapuche etc, etc, and Uralic languages, are less likely to have to do with Denisovans. Although, it must also be said that in some general characteristics and "looks", some of the Paracas Skulls share a lot of similarity with what Denisovan skulls look like.

The Huns, possibly speaking Uralic languages, at least in part, and sometimes the Sámi, practiced cranial deformation too, with the Sámi people also sometimes possessing an occipital bun, a natural extension at the back of the skull, akin to a much smaller version of what the Paracas skulls have. Some Iberians also possess this, which is interesting, given that I have found also, possible connections between Basque and Andean languages. It is thought by some that Sámi cranial deformation was "accidental". I also personally have an occipital torus, a kind of reduced form of an occipital bun. This is not found in all modern humans, but in a reasonable percentage of modern humans. Some might assume that these things are inherited from Neanderthals or Denisovans, but then why do the Sámi have occipital buns more commonly, when they have no significant Neanderthal ancestry? It is implied that this development occurs in some Sámi peoples due to a different process to that which occurred in archaic humans, but I don't think this really explains why this parallel development would occur, nor how it might connect to possible links with the Americas. It is also noteworthy that the Sámi, some Iberians and Berber speakers carry Haplogroup U5, which is quite common among the Sámi. The Sámi also do not have more Denisovan DNA than other Europeans, which again rules out the possibility that elongated skulls, Uralic-Indigenous American and Basque-Indigenous American links are the result of or primarily because of Neanderthals or Denisovans. 

ANE populations do connect Uralic speakers to Indigenous Americans in a more "known" way, but this again does not explain specific connections and similarities. ANE populations also likely didn't possess elongated skulls, nor did they have larger amounts of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA than other populations. Basque, Sámi, Norse- and Baltic-speaking populations do however share a closer connection to Cro-Magnon humans. Whilst Cro-Magnons are now classified as being modern homo-sapiens, I do not believe this, the differences are I think understated. Cro-magnons did have skulls that were somewhat elongated, and with larger brow ridges than us, even if neither of these features are obvious when searching on Google for example, as most results only, boringly, show the same single Cro-Magnon skull (Cro-Magnon one) over and over again, giving a false idea of what Cro-Magnons actually looked like. 

I do personally think, that out of all these ancient "others", those most likely to be connected to Uralic speakers and specific connections to the Americas, are Cro-Magnons. Not surprisingly, Cro-Magnons are also connected to ANE populations, and some of the highest amounts of ANE ancestry are found among Quechua and Aymara speakers. But to speak of the connections between Uralic and Quechuan in terms of such a long evolutionary pathway, does not really make sense to me. I feel that these connections were more a continuous thing, part of an ancient timeless world, rather than being tied to specific population splits. It is far more likely I think that these connections represented ongoing and continued networks of linguistic and religious (and genetic) interaction. ANE ancestry also may not explain the longer skulls, nor does it explain the implied mythology of maritime ancient Finns, as sorcerers, and similar legends of sea beings in South America.

This "sorcery" aspect is also very important, given the connections between the Sámi, Northern Finns, and witchcraft and wizardly, and of course the wizard hats, and witch hats, which are likely replicating the imagery of an elongated skull. I do occasionally wonder if our heads also act like prisms of consciousness, rather like our own "towers of babel", fragmenting and refracting this cosmic field in a way akin to how water refracts light. When it comes to these topics regarding ancient humans or "others", I think that society has taken the wrong approach by viewing them merely as figures in the distant past who lead to us. Instead I think it is far more likely that they share a very important part of their story with us, and that they are "there" in a timeless sense, in our DNA, in our languages perhaps. Even if in the physical sense of "time" they are far from us now, some of them did live on our physical plain more recently, and modern accounts suggest that they continue to interact with our World in certain places. Note that some of the topics in this blog post connect to those in another I published recently on this website, but the two are entirely different. 

I hope this blog post was an interesting read, it is dedicated to the power of protective love, and of our truly good spiritual guardians.