I urged McDowell to make a public comment to clear up the misconception that Maussan is encouraging - that he believes the small mummies are assembled from multiple species - but I'm not holding my breath.
If the Peruvian team wanted this investigation to look as shady as possible, they're doing a fantastic job: Hire a forensic dentist to lead it. Dr. John McDowell not a medical doctor or Ph.D. (although I understand they do have an M.D. on the team). No archaeologists are on the team. The appropriate scientists to study these specimens would be bioarchaeologists, like the kind that have studied Andean mummies. Wikipedia, my emphasis:
The term bioarchaeology has been attributed to British archaeologist Grahame Clark who, in 1972, defined it as the study of animal and human bones from archaeological sites. Redefined in 1977 by Jane Buikstra, bioarchaeology in the United States now refers to the scientific study of human remains from archaeological sites, a discipline known in other countries as osteoarchaeology, osteology or palaeo-osteology. Compared to bioarchaeology, osteoarchaeology is the scientific study that solely focus on the human skeleton. The human skeleton is used to tell us about health, lifestyle, diet, mortality and physique of the past. Furthermore, palaeo-osteology is simply the study of ancient bones. In contrast, the term bioarchaeology is used in Europe to describe the study of all biological remains from archaeological sites.
I'm sure McDowell is an accomplished forensic dentist, but forensic dentistry is a field of criminology (Wikipedia):
Forensic dentistry or forensic odontology involves the handling, examination, and evaluation of dental evidence in a criminal justice context. Forensic dentistry is used in both criminal and civil law. Forensic dentists assist investigative agencies in identifying human remains, particularly in cases when identifying information is otherwise scarce or nonexistent—for instance, identifying burn victims by consulting the victim's dental records. Forensic dentists may also be asked to assist in determining the age, race, occupation, previous dental history, and socioeconomic status of unidentified human beings.
I look forward to seeing where the investigation goes...but for the Peruvian team and ufologists to pump up McDowell as a top scientist for this task is so "noted expert Professor Dr. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D."
No archaeologists are on the team. The appropriate scientists to study these specimens would be bioarchaeologists, like the kind that have studied Andean mummies.
I deleted my post above thinking I had found the wrong Dr. Turned out I had typed Dr. McDonald but had in fact found the same Dr. McDowell that you did, a forensic dentist. This seems to be a classic UFO/paranormal case of the "expert/non-expert". While a forensic dentist might be useful, the team should be headed by an archaeologist and or BioArch person that is familiar with Peruvian sites and cultures. Something that will probably never happen for a number of reasons.
My son is an Anthropology professor with a PhD in Bio-Archaeology and when I brought this story to his attention a while back, he commented "No Anthro person will touch these things":
First and foremost, any educated Anthropologist, especially in BioArchaeology, as well as most lay people, can immediate see they are hoaxes. They are cobbled together from various parts and pieces, therefore there is nothing to study. Something similar came up with Garry Nolan and his DNA testing of Ata talked about below. There is the faint possibility that these were some sort of ritual construction done in the past, but again a specialist in Peruvian Archaeology and cultures would be the best person for that.
As it's clearly a hoax with time and money in short supply in the Anthropology world, it's not worth the effort to academically study and de-bunk these things. A cursory glance does that.
As a hoax, they have no known province or provenance and are of limited value even if real.
As it's a hoax, whoever controls these things is not interested in a rigorous study behind a paywall in an academic journal, they want pull quotes that confirm it's not a hoax or at the very least keep the mystery going. Something McDowell, possibly inadvertently, gave Maussan. Maussan will always be in charge of the public narrative.
A mountain of ethical issues, from looting and grave robbing to the selling of artifacts to the recombining of remains. Also, for US Anthropologists there is NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. While a US law, Anthro people still are careful to not run afoul of the intent of the law, even in other countries.
This is a case where the proponents of the claim flip the burden of proof, as a few commenters upstream of this thread seemed to do. Until and unless a team of legit Anthropologists comes to study these remains and publish in a peer reviewed journal and their conclusion that these are hoaxes is upheld in peer review, then these are NOT hoaxes. Maussan and others have presented them as real, it's up to others to prove them not real.
In the mid '00s, UFOlogist Steven Greer obtained a sample from a supposed "alien" mummy from Chili's Atacama Desert, to use in his film Sirus. Stanford geneticist Garry Nolan heard about it and volunteered to test the sample. While Nolan is a geneticist, he is not a Bio-Archaeologist or an Anthropologist or a specialist in Atacama cultures. Again, the "expert/non-expert". Actual Bio-archaeologist that looked at the mummy, quickly identified it as a pre-term fetus that showed signs of having been desiccated. Not an alien. If not an alien, there was no need for Nolan to test the DNA to see if it was an alien.
In this case, Nolan was called out for conducting the research in the first place or at least not stopping once he found it was NOT an alien and just a pre-term human girl:
On the basis of incorrectly perceived phenotypic anomalies and an in-
correct age-at-death estimate, Nolan and colleagues undertook a DNA
analysis in 2013 and unsurprisingly confirmed the mummy was human.
Although this testing was not sensu stricto necessary, once her humanity
was confirmed, analysis should have stopped and her body should have
been repatriated to Chile.
Had these researchers involved, from the beginning, a biological anthropologist who specialises in human re-
mains, we are certain that ethical concerns would have been raised regarding the potentially living relatives of Ata (Dorador and Harrod,
2018) and the illegal removal of the mummy from Chile. We therefore cannot conclude that the ends justify the means.
Many of these same concerns can be raised with Maussan's current side-show attractions and would likely prevent most serious Anthro people form ever engaging with them.
First and foremost, any educated Anthropologist, especially in BioArchaeology, as well as most lay people, can immediate see they are hoaxes. They are cobbled together from various parts and pieces, therefore there is nothing to study.
The recent specimens are more sophisticated than the earlier little dolls made of stuff glued together (the creator of which came forward). There's a guy on Twitter named Gonzalo who keeps popping up with this stuff on every UFO thread, and he posts endless promo pictures and videos.
I tried telling him that there's no phylogenetic reason for three-fingered, three-toed humanoids to just show up on the tree of life. But, you know, genetic engineering by aliens, etc. Your basic magical intervention.
On the basis of incorrectly perceived phenotypic anomalies and an incorrect age-at-death estimate, Nolan and colleagues undertook a DNA
analysis in 2013
Garry P. Nolan, a professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford, is of course a well-known believer in the contemporary mythos hypothesis that aliens are visiting Earth and, presumably in part due to the academic position he holds, is something of a darling of UFO enthusiasts with similarly radical but evidentially unsupported views.
As Nolan and his views (and some of his less mainstream work) are discussed elsewhere on this forum, thought it might be worth bringing attention to the quote that @NorCal Dave provided in his useful post above.
Essentially, Halcrow, Killgrove et. al are saying Nolan et al. looked at the physical characteristics of the "specimen" (probably a pre-term female foetus of undetermined antiquity- possibly only decades) and drew incorrect conclusions, not least an age-at-death estimate of 6-8 years (of a 6"/ 15 cm crown-heel length skeleton). Halcrow et al. argue a gestational age of approx. 15 weeks.
The authors describe the use of DNA testing (by Bhattacharya et al. 2018 as well as Nolan et al.) as unethical.
Garry P. Nolan, a professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford, is of course a well-known believer in the contemporary mythos hypothesis that aliens are visiting Earth and, presumably in part due to the academic position he holds, is something of a darling of UFO enthusiasts with similarly radical but evidentially unsupported views.
Indeed! I've had people privately use the term "rock star". Despite the fact he's never really presented any evidence that I'm aware of, aside from a few "strange isotopes"
I included this little anecdote as an illustration of what happens when legit academics get involved with the fringe and why they try to avoid doing so. Unless of course you don't think the idea of an ancient mummy alien is fringe.
I couldn't remember the title of the paper, so I asked my son where to find it. Turns out he uses this case in his Anthropology and Ethics class, so I got the paper as well as his notes and all the slides he uses for the class.
