Elongated Skulls: Paracas and Beyond

The idea in brief

Skulls with dramatically elongated, cone-like shapes have been found in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Egypt, Malta, Central Asia, China and Europe. The most famous come from Paracas on Peru’s south coast, and many are displayed at the privately run Paracas museum founded by Juan Navarro and at the regional museum in Ica.

Brien Foerster and others argue that some Paracas skulls show differences that go beyond head binding: greater volume and weight, a missing sagittal suture, and an unusually placed foramen magnum (the opening where the spine joins the skull). They see this as a possible sign of a distinct lineage, perhaps a ruling group, that ordinary people later imitated by binding their children’s heads.

Mainstream anthropologists see a well-documented cultural practice, artificial or intentional cranial modification. Binding an infant’s soft skull with cloth, cords or boards for months or years permanently changes its shape. It has been practised on every inhabited continent for at least 12,000 years.

Both sides agree on one thing: the Paracas skulls are real, ancient and remarkable. The argument is about what they mean.

History of the idea

• Hippocrates (c. 400 BCE). The earliest written record of head shaping is the Greek physician’s description of a people he called the Macrocephali, the “Long-heads”, named for their practice.
• Julio C. Tello (1920s). The Peruvian archaeologist excavated the Paracas Cavernas and Necrópolis cemeteries on the Paracas Peninsula. He recovered hundreds of mummy bundles wrapped in some of the finest textiles of the ancient world, and more than 300 elongated skulls. The Paracas culture flourished from roughly 800 BCE to 100 BCE, before the Nazca.
• Physical anthropology (19th–20th century). Scholars classified head-shaping styles worldwide and showed that the shape depends on how the head was bound. Flat boards produce a “tabular” shape; circular wrapping produces an “annular”, cone-like shape like many Paracas skulls.
• Ancient-mystery literature (1970s onwards). Elongated skulls began to appear in ancient-astronaut writing as possible depictions of, or descendants from, non-human beings; see the ancient astronauts explainer.
• Childress & Foerster (2012). The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients, by David Hatcher Childress and Brien Foerster, surveyed elongated skulls and head-binding practices worldwide, from Peru and Bolivia to Egypt, Malta, China and Mexico.
• The DNA project (2014–2016). With the cooperation of Juan Navarro, owner of the Paracas museum, Foerster and the author L. A. Marzulli arranged for hair and bone-powder samples from several skulls to be sent to laboratories. Preliminary results announced in 2014 were said to show mitochondrial DNA “with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far”. A second round in 2016 was said to show European and Middle Eastern lineages.
• Foerster (2015). Elongated Skulls of Peru and Bolivia: The Path of Viracocha linked the skulls to Andean legends of the culture hero Viracocha.

Key evidence cited by proponents

• Cranial volume and weight. Proponents claim that some skulls hold up to 25% more volume than normal skulls and are heavier. Binding, they point out, should change shape, not volume.
• Sutures. Some Paracas skulls appear to lack a sagittal suture, the joint between the two parietal bones on top of the head. Proponents argue this is not explained by binding or by the disease craniosynostosis.
• The foramen magnum. Marzulli has said in interviews that the foramen magnum of some skulls sits further back and is smaller than normal, which he reads as a genetic rather than cultural difference.
• Eye sockets and cheekbones. Reports of larger orbits and pronounced cheekbones.
• Hair. Red, blond or light-brown hair on some mummies.
• DNA. The preliminary results Foerster and Marzulli have presented, which they say show unusual or non-local lineages.
• Worldwide distribution. The practice appears in cultures that had no known contact. Proponents read this as the shared memory of an elite with naturally long heads.

Who champions it

• Brien Foerster, a long-time Peru resident who leads Hidden Inca Tours, is the best-known advocate. He has written books on the subject and runs tours that visit the Paracas skulls.
• L. A. Marzulli, an American author, worked with Foerster on the DNA sampling and has argued in interviews that some skulls are genetically distinct.
• David Hatcher Childress, publisher and co-author of The Enigma of Cranial Deformation, places the skulls in a wider alternative-history framework.
• The Paracas History Museum, founded by the late Juan Navarro, holds the private collection most often shown in documentaries and videos.

The mainstream view, in fair depth

• Cranial modification is ancient and universal. The oldest secure evidence so far comes from the Houtaomuga site in north-east China. There, 11 of 25 Neolithic skeletons show intentional modification, dating from about 12,000 to 5,000 years ago (Zhang et al. 2019). The practice is documented among Neolithic Near Eastern farmers, the Huns and other peoples of the Migration Period in Europe, the Maya, Andean societies and Pacific Northwest peoples. Around Toulouse in France it persisted sporadically into the early 20th century.
• Style reflects technique, not biology. Physical anthropologists recognise distinct styles: tabular (pressed between boards or pads) and annular (circular wrapping). The cone-like Paracas shapes are the annular style. The shape follows the binding method, and the same population can show both styles at different times.
• It marked identity. Bioarchaeologists read head shape as a visible, lifelong sign of group membership, kinship or status. A study of skulls from Paracas Cavernas treats cranial modification as a marker of identity there (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2022). In the Cuzco region, a study of 419 individuals from 10 sites over 2,300 years found that the tabular style came first, unmodified skulls increased under Wari influence, and the annular style arrived later, probably with migrants from the Lake Titicaca region. Inca individuals in Cuzco itself tended not to modify their heads (Andrushko 2020).
• Volume and weight. Published measurements of modified skulls fall within the normal human range. Binding redistributes growth rather than adding brain volume. Weights of ancient, mineralised bone are not comparable with modern skulls.
• Sutures and the foramen magnum. Binding during infancy changes the growth of the skull, and modified skulls often show unusual suture patterns, early fusion and shifted landmarks. Anthropologists see these as expected consequences of the practice, not signs of a different species.
• Hair colour. Ancient hair often lightens or reddens after death through chemical changes, so light hair on mummies is not evidence of European ancestry.
• DNA claims. The Paracas museum results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal with methods and raw data. Small samples, contamination from handlers and modern DNA, and incomplete reference databases can all produce “unknown” or Old World results. A small forensic study of hair and tissue from Paracas skulls found ordinary human hair structure and human DNA profiles, with no foreign or unusual patterns (Thornton et al. 2022). Peer-reviewed ancient-DNA studies of the region tell the same story. An analysis of mitochondrial DNA from 218 individuals from Palpa, the Paracas Peninsula and the highlands, spanning roughly 800 BCE to 800 CE, assigned the individuals to Native American mitochondrial haplogroups (Fehren-Schmitz et al.), and genome-wide studies show deep local Native American ancestry across the ancient Andes (Nakatsuka et al. 2020).
• Genetics can still be surprising. Ancient DNA does sometimes overturn assumptions. In Early Medieval Bavaria, a study of 41 graves from around 500 CE found that women with elongated skulls were strongly enriched for non-local ancestry, most likely from south-east Europe, which suggests they moved into the region from elsewhere (Veeramah et al. 2018). That is the kind of result proponents hope for, but it came from published, replicable data, and it showed human migration, not a separate lineage.

Current state of research

Bioarchaeologists now study cranial modification as a window onto identity, kinship, migration and childhood. Vera Tiesler’s The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications (2014) set out methods for Mesoamerica. Newer work uses 3D geometric morphometrics to tell intentional modification reliably from accidental flattening in infancy (Black & Kurin 2021). A 2025 study reconstructed occipital modification practices and their motivations in prehistoric China (Ran et al. 2025), and reviews have mapped the spread of the practice across Eurasia in the Migration Period (Mayall & Pilbrow 2019).

The most extreme Paracas specimens remain largely in a private museum. A full, independent, peer-reviewed study of the Navarro skulls, with CT scans, measurements and ancient DNA, has not been published.

Open questions

• Will museum or university laboratories publish full CT and ancient-DNA analyses of the most extreme Paracas specimens, with raw data, so that both sides can check them?
• Why did so many unconnected cultures, from Neolithic China to the Andes, independently choose to reshape their children’s heads?
• What did head shaping mean to the Paracas people: lineage, beauty, status, or a link to a deity?
• How was the Paracas annular style achieved, and how long did binding have to last to produce the most extreme shapes?

Where to see them

• Museo Arqueológico Paracas, often called the Paracas History Museum: the private collection founded by the late Juan Navarro.
• Museo Regional de Ica, which has elongated skulls on display.
• Tours: Hidden Inca Tours’ Paracas skull tours and the Paracas site guide.

Further reading & watching

• Brien Foerster, Elongated Skulls of Peru and Bolivia: The Path of Viracocha (2015); see Voices.
• David Hatcher Childress & Brien Foerster, The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients (2012).
• Vera Tiesler, The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications (Springer, 2014). The mainstream reference work.

Sources

1. Paracas culture (Wikipedia, with references). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_culture
2. Artificial cranial deformation (Wikipedia, with references). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation
3. Zhang, Q. et al. (2019). Intentional cranial modification from the Houtaomuga Site in Jilin, China: earliest evidence and longest in situ practice during the Neolithic Age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23888
4. Gómez-Mejía, J. et al. (2022). Intentional cranial modification as a marker of identity in Paracas Cavernas, South-Central Coast of Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103264
5. Andrushko, V. A. (2020). Revelations of ancient head shape: cranial modification in the Cuzco region of Peru, Early Horizon to Inca Imperial Period. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24201
6. Fehren-Schmitz, L. et al. Pre-Columbian population dynamics in coastal southern Peru: a diachronic investigation of mtDNA patterns in the Palpa region by ancient DNA analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21135
7. Nakatsuka, N. et al. (2020). A paleogenomic reconstruction of the deep population history of the Andes. Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.015
8. Veeramah, K. R. et al. (2018). Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719880115
9. Thornton, J. E. et al. (2022). Raman spectroscopy and STR analysis of the elongated skulls from the Paracas mummies of Peru. Journal of Biotechnology & Bioinformatics Research. https://doi.org/10.47363/jbbr/2022(4)155
10. Tiesler, V. (2014). The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8760-9
11. Ran, Zhang, Wang et al. (2025). Reconstructing cranial modification practices: methods, motivations, and evolution of occipital modification in prehistoric China. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.3396
12. Mayall, P. & Pilbrow, V. (2019). A review of the practice of intentional cranial modification in Eurasia during the Migration Period (4th–7th c AD). Journal of Archaeological Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.12.007
13. How DNA testing revealed European ancestry in elongated Paracas skulls (Ancient Origins, proponent-side report with Marzulli interview). https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/paracas-skulls-dna-020914
14. Black, V. G. & Kurin, D. S. (2021). Reliable classification of intentional cranial vault modification and nonsynostotic deformational plagiocephaly using 3D geometric morphometrics. HOMO. https://doi.org/10.1127/homo/2021/1339
15. Hidden Inca Tours (Brien Foerster). https://hiddenincatours.com/