What The DNA Doesn’t Know Yet — But Will
One of the most significant facts about the Punín-2 skull is what it lacks: genetic analysis.
As of the reconstruction’s publication in October 2026, no ancient DNA study of the Punín-2 skull has been completed. Rynn and his colleagues, including Flores Franco and the University of Chimborazo team, are currently raising funds for further investigations that will include an attempt at ancient DNA analysis of both the Punín-1 skull (held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York) and Punín-2.
“DNA will tell us the true genetic lineage,” Rynn said. The statement acknowledges the limits of what the facial reconstruction alone can establish about the genetic ancestry of the individual. The reconstruction, based on skull morphology and the established relationships between skull shape and the ancestry of Indigenous American populations, strongly suggests Native American ancestry. But the genetic confirmation that would settle the question definitively — that would rule out, once and for all, any residual claims about Oceanic or archaic ancestry — requires DNA.
Ancient DNA analysis of prehistoric Andean remains is technically challenging. The preservation conditions for DNA in the Chimborazo region — a relatively warm, wet tropical highland environment — are less favorable than the cold, dry conditions that have yielded excellent ancient DNA from Arctic and European sites. The DNA in the Punín-2 skull has been in the ground for three to four thousand years in an environment that degrades biological material relatively quickly.
Whether enough intact DNA remains in the skull to support genomic analysis is not known until the extraction is attempted. Modern ancient DNA techniques have become remarkably sensitive, recovering usable genetic material from specimens that earlier methods could not have processed. But the preservation conditions matter, and the Chimborazo ravine may or may not have been kind to the genetic material inside the skull.
If the DNA analysis succeeds, it will provide answers that the morphological and facial reconstruction evidence can only suggest. The specific genetic ancestry of the Punín-2 individual — his relationship to other ancient and modern Indigenous American populations, his position within the genetic history of Andean prehistory, and the specific population movement that brought his ancestors to the Chimborazo highlands — will become accessible in ways that bone morphology alone cannot provide.
If the analysis fails — if the DNA is too degraded to yield results — the field will be left with the facial reconstruction as the most detailed individual characterization of the Punín-2 man available. That would still be significant. But the genetic confirmation would be better.
The fundraising for these investigations is ongoing. The story of Punín-2, three thousand years after the man’s death, is not finished.