English Deutsch
Мир антропологии

5 'alien' mummies from Peru. Crude fake

ANTHROPOGENEZ.RU Editor’s comment: Sensational news reporting finds of  ‘alien mummies of Peru" are making headlines again. And this time we are dealing with a whopping five examples of such ‘mummies’. According to the news reports, scientists are said to have proved that the new findings are the ‘real deal’ (example here). ANTROPOGENEZ.RU naturally couldn’t stay on the sidelines, so we had our experts examine these mysterious mummies in early September 2019.

It all began with a letter from a researcher with a PhD in Engineering that we shall quote here:

"I suspect that you might have heard about those humanoid mummies recently discovered in Peru.

I happened to be involved into this matter. There is on-going research performed by certain organizations from Russia, USA and Mexico, which is aimed at the analysis of tissues and DNA of the mummies in question.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss this particular case with relevant experts as I don't consider myself one when it comes to anthropology."

We got back in touch with the author of this letter who was happy to share all the available information relating to these findings.  In particular, the results of carbon dating analysis as well as the selection of X-ray images were acquired.

It transpires that these discoveries were made under rather mysterious circumstances. There was a total lack of archaeological context to the finds – a farmer brought these mummies to researchers, but he refused to take them to the cave where the remnants of these strange creatures had been originally located.

In order to assess the supplied X-rays, we showed them to two of our experts:

  • Stanislav Drobyshevsky - our scientific editor and qualified anthropologist
  • Aleksey Bondarev – an experienced paleozoologist 

The carbon dating analysis results were presented to Jaroslav Kuzmina who holds a Grand PhD in Geographic sciences and is an expert in carbon dating.

We also shared our experts’ conclusions with the author of the letter.

As a considerable amount of time has now passed since our expert opinions were shared with the requester (from whom we got no feedback) and being aware that the media continue to convey the message of “authenticity” when it comes to the so-called Alien Mummies of Peru, the decision for us to publish our conclusions was inevitable. We believe it’s for the common good to do so.

Here is what the Antropogenez.ru experts think (independently from each other): 

Stanislav Drobyshevsky: Based on the supplied X-rays, we can conclude that the mummies are pretty haphazard compositions of human and animal bones. It is clear that we are dealing here with crudely constructed fakes. The fakes made by someone who has a pretty poor understanding of human anatomy.

Aleksey Bondarev: I was asked to give feedback on some X-rays of allegedly alien humanoid mummies discovered (or, possibly, cobbled together) in Peru. I was asked to figure out if animal bones were present in the skeletons. Actually, I’m not a professional radiologist, which puts some limitations on my analysis. Furthermore, X-ray images significantly differ from both two-dimensional (e.g. drawings or photos) and three-dimensional images as well as the actual objects. I don’t often have to make do with X-ray images since both paleontological and archaeological objects (expectedly enough) typically don’t have any soft tissue left. Because of this, some of my conclusions are preliminary. One thing I can say for sure is that this skeleton is mix of disparate parts.


Stanislav Drobyshevsky: The wrist X-ray (specifically, the palm) contains scapular cartilage (radius), diaphysis fragments of tubular bone and metacarpal bones (positioned backwards). The finger parts consist of metacarpal and metatarsal bones chaotically mixed with phalanges. 


X-ray of Josephine mummy
X-ray of Josephine mummy

Stanislav Drobyshevsky: Josephine's skeleton is clearly constructed from random bone fragments. Most of the skull once belonged to a small mammal, with its facial area deliberately removed.  The transverse ribs are composed from the tubular bones of a bird. Thigh bones (with propped lower ends) were used to represent humerus bones, while the actual humerus bones represent forearm bones. Tibia bones were replaced with Femur bones, while the shins are made from thigh bones. The wrists are most likely simulated with scaphoid and sphenoid bones (harvested from someone's foot). Finally, some of Josephine's phalanges are backwards. 

X-ray of Josephine mummy
X-ray of Josephine mummy

Aleksey Bondarev: It’s pretty difficult to identify many of the skeleton parts from the images I was given, mainly because I couldn’t see bony epiphysis in the samples. In a nutshell, those simply look like tubes with chewed-up endings.  This might be because whoever created this fake mummy chose to use young animal (or children's) bones or maybe even deliberately remove the edges. One of the major problems the creators of these mummies must have faced was the inability to maintain symmetry as well as functional plausibility. Image 00 IMG_7324 seems to support this statement quite well! I was able to see the following blunders while going through it:

  • A clearly dysfunctional attachment of the lower extremities to the pelvis section.  Femur bones were replaced with shin bones while their upper parts rub against the lower edge of the pelvis. And there is no joint, so the poor soul would not have been able to move his legs! One can clearly see that the pseudo-femur bone (the one on the right in the image) had its edge cut or broken off. Moreover, there is no joint that would attach it to the pseudo-tibial bone (partly seen here). The other bone (the one on the left, which certainly belonged to a young animal) is not too bad, though, as you can at least see a part of its diaphysis (while the epiphysis is totally gone). 
  • If we examine the knees, we can see that one has some sort of kneecap emulation, while the other has none. Both pseudo-tibia bones have drastically different shapes to their upper edges. Again, the poor being would not only have wobbled due to his hip situation, but also limped quite badly.
  • The right pseudo-humerus bone appears to have a severed edge as well. 
  • The forearm is made from a single bone that is impossible to identify as either a radius or ulna (at least I am not aware of any mammal species out there that will have such a bone in this specific section of its skeleton). It looks more like a tibia bone to me. Remarkably, both forearms were made from different bones as their shapes are significantly different.
  • The mummy's wrists are completely random. Those are clearly non-functional. Animals usually have multiple bones in those locations (with some variations, depending on the group).
  • The creators didn't even bother to emulate palms at all. The fingers are an utter mess. If we compare the left and the right hands, we can clearly see that the first pseudo-phalanges are connected differently in each hand (in the opposite direction, to be precise). It appears that this went unnoticed during the gluing process. Apparently, those guys couldn’t be bothered with such small blunders.

The skull shown as 00 IMG_7324 seems to have once belonged to a monkey (with a severed face section). It's a known trick that follows the Rhodope skull (Starchild) scenario. Google chimpanzee / ape / monkey skull x-ray for some good examples of this kind of fake.  


X-ray of Albert mummy
X-ray of Albert mummy

Stanislav Drobyshevsky: Similar to Josephine, it is clear that Albert's skeleton is constructed using random bone fragments. Some small animal was used as a source for the skull. The forearms are made of tibia bones. The femoral bones with propped lower ends were used in place of humerus bones, while humerus bones were used as femoral bones (and again, those have propped ends). Finally, humerus bones  are used yet again in place of shins but this time the source was a much younger animal (as demonstrated by their size).

X-ray of Albert mummy
X-ray of Albert mummy

Aleksey Bondarev: There are not many differences between this and the Josephine mummy (a similar technique was used to knock together both mummy fakes). Funnily enough, the phalanges are attached in the correct way. Well done, guys! While the severed skull was yet again sourced from a monkey, this time it is a much more feminine example, so it must have been a female originally. It would have been better to name this mummy Josephine, not Albert, and vice versa. 


E.V. mummy (right) and X-ray (left)
E.V. mummy (right) and X-ray (left)

Stanislav Drobyshevsky: Once again, the skeleton is constructed out of random bone fragments. The X-rays clearly reveal this. If we take a closer look at the edges of both the arm and leg bones, we will see that those are broken off, so the parts don’t really fit together. The skull was most likely sourced from a small mammal (potentially, carnivorous). Tubular bones are used instead of cervical and thoracic vertebrae.

X-ray of E.V. mummy
X-ray of E.V. mummy

Aleksey Bondarev: The poor creature's head is an area of particular interest. It appears to have been fashioned from some young animal's skull. Although it’s pretty hard to be sure based on the X-rays alone, so I won’t say I’m a hundred percent sure. The head in question is just impaled on its pseudo-spine. If we look closely at image 00 IMG_0149, it's pretty clear that the spine, arms and legs were imitated using tubular bones. Those are roughly chopped (all diaphyses are fractured) and don't have any functional joints whatsoever.


X-ray of Victoria mummy
X-ray of Victoria mummy

Stanislav Drobyshevsky: The skeleton is constructed from random bone fragments. Similar to the previous cases, all bones are simply jumbled together. However, it's pretty hard to identify each of the bones due to a bad X-ray angle. 

Aleksey Bondarev: Materials provided for this specimen are quite dull in appearance (less presentable if compared to others). The construction principles are identical to the Josephine mummy: we have evidence of using broken bones throughout the build. 


Stanislav Drobyshevsky: Based on the condition of the bony epiphyses, it is obvious that the major part of bones used here came from children (different ages) and/or young animals.

Conclusion: These mummies are fakes. More than that, these were made from random bones by someone with a pretty poor grasp of human anatomy.

Aleksey Bondarev: We are dealing here with cheap skeleton imitations. I think the correct way to name them would be "puppets". These were fashioned using random bone fragments that aren’t easy to identify based solely on the X-rays available. It is highly unlikely that someone followed this approach to side-track the interested parties. It's just more convenient to cover all fragments with a thick layer of filler, while not being bothered by such trivial things as functional joints! The resulting skeletons simply cannot belong to any living being, because such a creature wouldn’t be able to function in any shape or form. Luckily, it’s still possible to identify the skulls (after subjecting them to a thorough clean, of course!). 

Carbon dating results

Jaroslav Kuzmin: One of the supplied DNA samples appears to be incomplete/inconclusive (the Maria specimen). It does not look like a human bone.

The bone that belonged to the ”Wawita" sample can be dated to around 1300-1400 AD (circa the end of the pre-Columbian era). This particular individual was mostly consuming corn and sea food as their main rations. The bone collagen is in good condition.

It is evident that the Maria specimen is significantly older. My estimate would be that it’s from around 250-400 AD. It is still unclear what exactly we are dealing with here.

The fur extracted from the Wawita sample appears to be older (circa 890-1010 AD) than its bone. Why so? Most likely, the fur and the actual mummy don't have anything in common. Both come from different time periods.

And that's pretty much everything I can share with you on the subject. It's clear that the supplied material is ill-matched. I guess that one should think how to merge the supplied information within the archaeological context.  

We think that no further comments are necessary here. We are dealing with a case of crude forgery. The evidence for this has been clearly laid out by our experts. A total lack of any archaeological context as well as the person who made the find being unwilling to reveal the original location of these objects further corroborate these conclusions.

'NOT A HOAX' Nazca 'mummified aliens are not fake,' claims scientist

Translated by Eduard Trofimov

Catalog gominid Antropogenez.RU