Rock Art at Punta Colorada, Majes, Peru

The paper proves that even “minor” rock art sites can be most interesting, especially when placing such a “minor” site in a larger local and regional context. Punta Colorada is such an important “minor” site as it may well connect (graphically, literally and metaphorically) two most important “major” rock art sites in the valley. Additionally, the site of Punta Colorada also seems to establish the spiritual link between certain rock art icons and Apu Coropuna, the Sacred Mountain of southern Peru.

By Maarten van Hoek

*

*

Rock Art at Punta Colorada, Majes, Peru

An Update

 

Maarten van Hoek

Click on any illustration to see an enlargement.

*

Introduction

The rock art site of Punta Colorada is – compared with its neighbours, Toro Muerto (with about 2700 decorated boulders) and Alto de Pitis (with approximately 400 petroglyph boulders) – a very modest site, as up to now (writing December 2022) only nine or ten boulders with petroglyphs have been recorded. Most likely it was Antonio Núñez Jiménez who first illustrated boulders with petroglyphs at Punta Colorada (1986: 527 – 530; however see Hostnig 2003: 56). Later at least seven more decorated boulders have been recorded near Punta Colorada. The purpose of this study is to present a short update of all the petroglyphs known up to now.

*

Location

Punta Colorada (the village) is located on the west bank of the Majes Valley, southern Peru, approximately 45 km inland (Figure 1). The boulders with petroglyphs are found at different altitudes (if possible these are mentioned in the following text), all on the west bank of the valley (Figure 2). If Núñez Jiménez is correct in indicating the boulders that he recorded with a large arrow on his aerial photo (1986: Fig. 2748) then they are found approximately at UTM 772261.00 m E  and 8198416.00 m S. He also stated that the boulders were located at 400 m asl and 40 m above the floodplain of the River Majes (1986: 527).

Figure 1. The location of Punta Colorada within the rock art region of Arequipa, Peru. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap – Contributors.

Figure 2. The much approximated locations of the decorated boulders at Punta Colorada, Majes Valley, Arequipa, Peru. However, the exact location of Boulder PUC-010 has been confirmed by archaeologist Richard Ochoa of SACRUN-SAC; Arequipa, Peru. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.

However, Núñez Jiménez is often inaccurate – even completely incorrect – in marking the location of rock art sites on his maps with arrows (see my comments on Núñez Jiménez’ maps and drawings in Van Hoek 2011) and therefore also this arrow may inaccurately (even incorrectly) indicate the location of those boulders. Unfortunately I have never seen a photo of any of those three boulders anywhere and thus I could not check anything. Moreover, it is possible that in recent years southward expansion of the village of Punta Colorada has destroyed the site/boulders that he recorded.

Recently – but exactly when is unknown to me – photographs of six petroglyph panels at Punta Colorada made by Jose Aroquipa Choque were uploaded by him onto the internet (at the moment untraceable). It concerned seven photos of six panels (and one photo of a new panel at the rock art site of Quebrada Pampa Blanca; Van Hoek 2020). The (very) approximate location of two boulders (Boulder PUC-004 and 005) has been figured out by me (see Figures 2 and 3 for approximated locations), while the four other panels also most likely all are found very near Punta Colorada, possibly somewhere near Boulder PUC-004. Finally, a tenth decorated boulder was recorded by archaeologists of SACRUN-SAC from Arequipa and on the 18th of August 2019 two photos of this boulder were posted on their Facebook page. It was found a short distance south of Punta Colorada (Figure 2; see also Figure 10).

Figure 3. The much approximated locations of some of the decorated boulders at Punta Colorada, looking SW from Alto de Pitis. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

The Boulders

To start with, in his book Núñez Jiménez included one aerial map of the site, as well as five black-and-white drawings of three decorated boulders. His Boulder (Piedra) 1 is said by him to have three decorated panels (Figure 4: A, B and C). His Boulder (Piedra) 2 (Figure 4: D) and his Boulder (Piedra) 3 (not illustrated here because of doubt) have only one panel with petroglyphs each. Later, six decorated boulders were recorded by Jose Aroquipa Choque and one boulder (PUC-010) by archaeologist Richard Ochoa of SACRUN-SAC, Arequipa.

As I have not surveyed the area around Punta Colorada myself, it is important to mention that the following descriptions of the petroglyph panels are mainly based on the six photos by Jose Aroquipa Choque. His photos are rather small (960 by 720 pixels) and therefore difficult to read. Moreover, the rock art site of Punta Colorada is located at a point where the Central Majes Valley is at its narrowest and thus acts as a funnel for the prevailing strong winds from the south (that are often laden with destructive sand particles). As a result many of the rocks in especially this area (but even at Alto de Pitis and – to a lesser extent – at Toro Muerto) are heavily eroded and partially exfoliated. As a consequence many petroglyphs thus appear severely blurred and/or are even (partially) destroyed. For those reasons my descriptions are definitely not complete or accurate. Yet an update is necessary, but of course any error is my responsibility.

Boulder PUC-001: This boulder is found – according to Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2748) – at a spot in (?) the recent village at an altitude of 400 m asl, 40 m above the floodplain (UTM: 772261.00 m E and 8198416.00 m S). It is said to have three panels with petroglyphs. As Núñez Jiménez’ drawings are often inaccurate or even incorrect (see Van Hoek 2011), I cannot guarantee that his drawings in Figure 4A, B and C (and D) are accurate.

Figure 4. Boulders PUC-001 (A, B and C) and PUC-002 (D) at Punta Colorada. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the (possibly unreliable) drawings by Núñez Jiménez (1986).

Boulder PUC-002: According to Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2752) this boulder is located 150 m SSE of his Piedra 1 (thus at UTM: 772317.00 m E and 8198284.00 m S; at an estimated altitude of  387 m asl). It has one panel with petroglyphs (Figure 4D).

Boulder PUC-003: Núñez Jiménez also included a drawing of his Piedra 3 (1986: Fig. 2753), said by him to be located only 6 m from his Piedra 1. Because I have not seen this panel myself, nor a photograph, I did not include his drawing, as it seems to represent a more recent “petroglyph” (it looks like a phallus; made by a local?).

Boulder PUC-004: This panel and the following five panels were photographed by Jose Aroquipa Choque. This large boulder has – at least – on its WNW facing panel a number of petroglyphs among which is at least one outlined anthropomorph (A in Figure 5) and a “Trophy” Head (T in Figure 5). The surface is much weathered and exfoliated in places and because of the small size of the photo the petroglyphs are hard to read. Its location in Figure 2 may well be somewhat inaccurately marked, but based on the photo its UTM-location in Google Earth may be approximately: 771963.00 m E and 8198713.00 m S; at about 470 m asl.

Figure 5. Boulder PUC-004 at Punta Colorada. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Jose Aroquipa Choque.

Boulder PUC-005: The northeast facing, vertical panel of another large, much weathered boulder has several petroglyphs among which a large, outlined and decorated feline (F in Figure 6) and at least one “Trophy” Head (T in Figure 6; there might be a second “Trophy” Head immediately to its left). There also might be an anthropomorphic figure on this panel (perhaps even depicting a “Carcancha”; a Skeleton-Anthropomorph; see Van Hoek 2013 for more information). Its UTM-location in Google Earth is estimated by me to be 771655.00 m E and 8198625.00 m S; at about 490 m asl.

Figure 6. Boulder PUC-005 at Punta Colorada. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Jose Aroquipa Choque.

Boulder PUC-006: The locations of the following four boulders are unknown to me, but it is possible that they are located somewhere near Boulders PUC-005 and PUC-006 (indicated with a “?” in Figure 2). The east facing surface of this large, largely exfoliated boulder shows three groups of serpentine grooves, the centre one (Element 1 in Figure 7A) composed of two undulating lines, which end in an inverted profile feline-like head, showing teeth. The two neighbouring sets have three lines each, but have no heads (anymore?). Yet the heads may have existed once, but a large part of the boulder has completely exfoliated and severely wind-eroded, because of the prevailing strong winds. The three sets most likely are in the original position, which seems to be confirmed by the “correct” vertical position of the anthropomorphic petroglyph (holding a straight object – a staff?) on the panel (Element 4 in Figure 7A). Yet, the boulder may have still been disturbed, the anthropomorph being added later.

Boulder PUC-007: On the west facing surface of Boulder PUC-007 is at least one petroglyph of a completely laterally depicted, outlined quadruped (most likely a camelid) with a rather large head, forward pointing feet and possibly some interior decoration (Figure 7B).

Figure 7. A: Boulder PUC-006; B: Boulder PUC-007 at Punta Colorada. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on photographs by Jose Aroquipa Choque.

Boulder PUC-008: This boulder is also partially exfoliated, but on a deeply patinated part are the petroglyphs of two fully pecked quadrupeds and the – in MRAS extremely rare – fully pecked petroglyphs of four footprints; two forming a pair (Figure 8A). These footprints may reveal an important aspect of this spot.

Boulder PUC-009: This medium-sized boulder has one petroglyph of a bird at its very top, (B in Figure 8B), while below this bird are the six much weathered images of quadrupeds; probably all depicting felines, all with spots as interior decoration. They all face in one direction.

Figure 8. A: Boulders PUC-008 and B: PUC-009 at Punta Colorada. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on photographs by Jose Aroquipa Choque.

Boulder PUC-010: On the 18th of August 2019 archaeologist Richard Ochoa of SACRUN-SAC; Arequipa, posted two photos on the internet of a boulder (possibly fragmented into two or more parts) of which the NW facing Panel 1 (1 in Figure 9) although heavily pitted by natural causes, shows a number of much weathered and eroded petroglyphs. Although SACRUN described the petroglyphs as “diseños geométricos de líneas rectas, bandas onduladas y zigzagueantes” and thus only as abstract designs, it is certain that there are at least one petroglyph of an outlined and decorated feline (F in Figure 9) and two images of anthropomorphs (A in Figure 9); the right-hand example having one drooping arm and one arm raised, all hands and feet comprising three digits. Especially the left-hand “anthropomorph” needs further inspection as – alternatively – it might represent a “Trophy” Head.

Figure 9: Petroglyphs on an isolated boulder south of Punta Colorada, looking SSE. F indicates the feline; “A indicates the two anthropomorphs. Photographs © by Richard Ochoa P. – SACRUN SAC; Arequipa, Perú.

Panel 3 might have one or more much eroded images, while more petroglyphs may have existed on the south facing panels (not photographed) that are even more fully exposed to the strong, eroding southerly winds at this spot. The boulder is located at UTM: 772327.00 m E  and  8197955.00 m S; at about 384 m asl). This location has been confirmed by archaeologist Richard Ochoa of SACRUN-SAC; Arequipa (pers. comm. December 2022; see Figure 2 and 10). The spot – not the boulder – is visible from Alto de Pitis (indicated with a yellow circle in Figure 10). SACRUN also mentioned that immediately NW of the boulder a small, possible ancient burial site (clearly visible in Google Earth) has been disturbed by looters. Thus, there may be an association between burials and rock art in this case.

Figure 10: The Majes Valley looking south from Alto de Pitis, with the location of (invisible) Boulder PUC-010 marked with a yellow circle. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Discussion

Despite having only nine (possibly ten) decorated boulders, the rock art at Punta Colorada has some very special  images. To start with, there are the four petroglyphs of footprints on Boulder PUC-008 (see Figure 8A). Human and animal footprints are extremely rare in Majes Style Rock Art (MSRA) and at Toro Muerto they are – as far as I know – only found on Boulder TM-Be-083 (about 8 km to the NW). This large boulder features a row of six unique sandal-like images and one indisputable human footprint. On the same boulder are two more “sandal” motifs. A pair of small footprints is found on Boulder QPB-Nz-001 at Quebrada Pampa Blanca (Van Hoek 2020: 9). At Alto de Pitis only one isolated (human?) footprint has been recorded by me so far. It appears on Boulder AP3-044A (2 km to the NNE).

About 110 km NW of Punta Colorada are more petroglyphs of footprints. Panel ANA-002 at the rock art site of Ananta in the Caravelí Valley has at least twelve petroglyphs of human footprints. At the rock art site of Río Caravelí South (RCS), further south in the Caravelí Valley (site fully discussed and lavishly illustrated in my book: Van Hoek 2022a) are two boulders with footprints. Boulder RCS-Pe-008 has three footprints (two possibly human; one possibly of a feline), while on Boulder RCS-Pe-021 are the petroglyphs of three small (anthropomorphic?) footprints.

Even though the rock art around Punta Colorada is found on only a modest nine or ten boulders, the spot is still extremely important regarding the distribution of rock art in the Central Majes Valley. I again argue that Punta Colorada indicates the spot where people crossed the Majes Valley (on foot!) from Alto de Pitis to continue to Toro Muerto (and vice versa, of course) leaving their footprints in the desert sands. To verify this theory, it is important to establish the exact locations of all decorated boulders (except of Boulder PUC-010) to see if indeed a line of petroglyph boulders indicates such a route, especially regarding Boulder PUC-008. Interestingly, it is said that petroglyphs of footprints often indicate a route through the landscape. It is thus remarkable that no less than four petroglyphs of footprints – importantly all pointing more or less in the same direction – are found at Punta Colorada (see Figure 8A).

For yet another reason the area was important for prehistoric Majes People. The name Punta Colorada was not arbitrarily chosen. It refers to the large Red Spot just above the village (see Figure 3), which is visible from many points within the 4 km long boulder field of Alto de Pitis and from many spots at Toro Muerto as well (see Van Hoek 2022b: Fig. 3). The colour red (deeply contrasting against the white desert sands and rocks) had a special meaning for the Majes Peoples (see Van Hoek 2013 for a full explanation).

For a long time I have claimed that the Sacred Mountain of the region (Apu Coropuna) was only visible from the rock art site of Alto de Pitis (Van Hoek 2013 to 2022b: 4). However, the recent “discoveries” of more rock art at Punta Colorada proves the opposite. It is important that at least from Boulders PUC-004 and 005 (and their possibly neighbouring boulders) and possibly as well from PUC-001 and 003 [if those boulders survived, this needs to be checked in the field] but definitely not from Boulder PUC-010) there are uninterrupted views of the Sacred Mountain,  Apu Coropuna, the impressive volcano, which is visible some 85 km to the NNW (Figure 11; for the location of Apu Coropuna see Figure 1).

Figure 11. Section across the Majes Valley from Punta Colorada to the summit of the Sacred Mountain of Apu Coropuna. Section © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.

Finally, I have convincingly demonstrated (Van Hoek 2013; 2020) that the Central Majes Valley and especially Alto de Pitis houses an “overkill” of specific life-death related imagery (mainly petroglyphs of “Carcanchas”: skeleton-anthropomorphic figures; “Trophy” Heads and some Mummy Bundles). Importantly, in my opinion “Carcanchas”, but also “Trophy” Heads symbolise the invisible, spiritual road along which the souls of the deceased travelled to Apu Coropuna, where – on the snow-clad top of the mountain – it was believed that their deities and ancestors reside(d). In this respect it is telling that of the ten boulders at Punta Colorada no less than two (possibly three) boulders feature a petroglyph of “Trophy” Heads. Moreover, it may be significant that especially from (at least) two boulders Apu Coropuna is visible.

*

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to archaeologist Richard Ochoa of SACRUN-SAC; Arequipa, Peru, for his kind, general  permission to use and publish photos posted on line by SACRUN-SAC. I am also much indebted to Rainer Hostnig for sharing with me numerous excellent photos (not only of Chillihuay) and pieces of information about Andean rock art. Rainer also made available to me the 1986-book by Antonio Núñez Jiménez, which I used intensively over the past years (also in this study). Last but not least I also would like to thank Justin Jennings for supporting me in the Tung-Scaffidi issue (see the Addendum).

*

References

Hostnig, R. 2003. Arte rupestre del Perú. Inventario Nacional. CONCYTEC, Lima, Perú.

Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Perú. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed. PNUD-UNESCO – Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo, La Habana.

Van Hoek, M. 2011. Petroglyphs of Peru – Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Carcancha and the Apu. Rock Art in the Death Valley of the Andes. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2018a. Formative Period Rock Art in Arequipa, Peru. An up-dated analysis of the rock art from Caravelí to Vítor. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek M. 2020. New “Carcancha” Petroglyphs in Arequipa, Peru. Illustrating the “Road to Coropuna”. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022a. The Book of the Río Caravelí Petroglyphs, Peru – Further Analyses. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022b. The Case of Boulder AP1-001, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

*

ADDENDUM

Misinterpretations versus Falsifications

Interpreting rock art images is notoriously difficult, especially in wind-swept deserts like the Majes area, where petroglyphs are often badly eroded. For instance, in this study it proved that the description of SACRUN of Boulder PUC-010 failed to recognise a feline and two anthropomorphic figures. These omissions are explained by the much weathered and badly eroded and – moreover – the pitted nature of the panel and are therefore understandable.

Of another nature are the drawings (also interpretations!) made by Antonio Núñez Jiménez (see Figure 4) and thus also the drawings made by me! In this study I again caution the readers of Núñez Jiménez’ 1986-book not to take all his published material for granted. It proves that there are several omissions, inaccuracies and downright errors regarding his maps, drawings and captions (numerous examples have been discussed in my 2011-book). In my opinion, original photographs are essential in order to be able to check if published drawings are correct. Thus the original photo of a rock art panel should (must) always be supplied when asked for. Unfortunately, there are – as far as I know – no photographs of Boulders PUC-001 and PUC-002 available, and thus it is impossible to check if Núñez Jiménez’ drawings are correct (unfortunately, more than 25% of his 1986-illustrations is inaccurate or incorrect!).

Mind you, I am definitely not judging the person of Núñez Jiménez in any way. I realise that those (unintentional!) errors are due to many circumstances, not the least because his investigations took place about 50 years ago. He achieved a tremendous job and his book is still extremely valuable. I admire him for his perseverance while meticulously surveying numerous rock art sites in Peru. My only concern is that rock art researchers nowadays uncritically publish his drawings, as if they are correct. Therefore I strongly advocated (Van Hoek 2011) that it should be conscientiously avoided to uncritically copy and publish drawings by Núñez Jiménez without a warning that 25% of his drawings are inaccurate and/or incorrect. In my 2011-book I have collected numerous examples of drawings that are incomplete, inaccurate or incorrect (and – after the publication in 2011 – I found many more examples). Please, be careful when copying and publishing any of the numerous 1986-drawings by Núñez Jiménez!

Yet there are more problematic issues. In a study about the rock art of Chillihuay I demonstrated that several drawings in a paper published by academic archaeologists Daniel Chumpitaz Llerena and Maritza Rodriguez Cerrón (2014) are incorrect (Van Hoek 2014: Figs. 9 and 10). Yet, no reactions from their side. In my more general 2016-study about rock art illustrations, I argued again that several drawings by Daniel Chumpitaz Llerena and Maritza Rodriguez Cerrón (2014) are demonstrably incorrect (Van Hoek 2016: Fig. 1). Again, no reaction. Unfortunately, Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodriguez Cerrón re-published the same incorrect drawing in their video-chat (2020) and when alerted by me via another paper (Van Hoek 2020a: Figs 2A, B and C; Figs 4A and B) and an email, they did not at all want to acknowledge that their drawings are incorrect. They intentionally ignored all my publications in this respect (in disrespect!) and in a very brief email to me they ridiculously “defended” their incorrect drawings simply as “freedom of speech” (thus also – in vain – attempting to ridicule me!); a clear case of “Occam’s Broom”. I again alerted the rock art community not to uncritically trust the “scientific” publications by Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodriguez Cerrón, but I fear that it will be in vain. After all, they are academics – often protecting each other – and I (Calimero or David?) am not.

That the academic world often cannot accept that also skilled academic archaeologists may intentionally publish unreliable and incorrect (even falsified) material, is evidenced by the following, even more serious case. In 2020 Prof. Scaffidi and Prof. Tung published two demonstrably incorrect and falsified “photos” of rock art panels from the Majes Valley (2020: Fig. 3ab). I alerted the authors via email and a paper (Van Hoek 2020b), but never got any reaction. Because Scaffidi and Tung preferred not to email me back (an issue that I will explain further on) I arduously discussed the case during many months in 2020-2022 with academic archaeologist Justin Jennings (University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology; Royal Ontario Museum, Canada) and – after having understandably defended Scaffidi and Tung for some time – he admitted that their illustrations were incorrect. Justin also informed me in 2020 that Scaffidi and Tung would write an Erratum “to put things right”.

However, after more than a year no Erratum had been published. I therefore contacted Prof. Trudy Turner, the “principled” editor of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and asked her if she could be of assistance in having an Erratum published that I would approve of. I also explicitly asked her if she could provide me with the original, unaltered photographs of the Scaffidi-Tung “photos” (2020: Fig. 3ab). After a long wait and a second email I finally got her answer in which she promised that an on-line Erratum would be published by the end of May 2022. However, no Erratum, and … no photos! In July I therefore wrote to three official USA instances (guardians of integrity regarding falsification) explaining the case, asking again – in vain – for the original, unaltered photos. However, again no Erratum, and … no photos! Finally, on 19 July 2022 an “Erratum” was published online.

However, the text of the “Erratum” by Scaffidi and Tung was completely irrelevant and meaningless, only dealing with the caption of their falsified “photos”. Moreover, their “Erratum” only include two photos, both altered with D-Stretch, thus not the original photos. On top of that Mr. Michael Streeter, the Director of the Publisher (Wiley), emailed me that the “Erratum” did in fact feature the original photos (and that is a blatant lie!) and declared the “case closed”. In his opinion I should be happy with a meaningless “Erratum” and altered photos (Addendum Figure 1). Apparently “academic and honourable” Streeter does not know the difference between manipulated  and original photos. However, for me the case will never be closed. Fortunately in August 2022 Justin Jennings agreed with me that their “Erratum” did not offer the original photos and that in every case original photos must be provided along with any manipulated material. Justin also agreed with me that the two illustrations by Tung and Scaffidi (2020: Fig. 3ab) are scientifically incorrect. In fact Justin also agreed with me that their “Erratum” did not at all address any of my (repeatedly) expressed concerns. And I never got any original photo!*

*

Several times I wondered why Scaffidi and Tung did not reply to any of my emails. They all of a sudden stopped answering my emails in 2012, never giving any reason! By mid-August 2022 an email from Justin “explained” this absurd situation. Scaffidi and Tung lied to Justin (a colleague of theirs!) that I would have been bullying them in my 2012-emails. I was appalled by this idiotic and utterly false accusation. I have all the 2012-email-evidence to prove that this is a blatant lie and I emailed them (CC to many others academics; with relevant email-copies [see three PDFs]) revealing their lies. Also by lying to Justin proves that Scaffidi and Tung will do anything to convince the academic world that their publications and their illustrations are flawless and that they are trustworthy academics and honourable persons. Well, they are not!

Concluding, the illustrations (Addendum Figures 1 and 2) show that their illustrations (2020: Fig. 3ab) are intentionally falsified. And by unjustified ignoring me for ten years and then blatantly lying to Justin Jennings (and to Turner and Streeter), they show their bad mentality by discrediting me and Justin. Full information (including many illustrative illustrations) about the Scaffidi-Tung fraud is available online (Van Hoek 2020b; 2022a; 2022b and 2022c).

Addendum Figure 1: The D-stretched (thus not original) photos published in the completely irrelevant “Erratum” by Prof. Tiffiny Tung and Prof. Beth Scaffidi (2022).

Addendum Figure 2: A: My 2010-drawing of a petroglyph at Toro Muerto compared with B: the illustration of the same petroglyph falsified by Tung and Scaffidi (based on their “photo” of 2020: Fig. 3a). Drawing “B” shows the discreditable, yet academically accepted falsification (see below). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Misinterpretations are often justifiable; lies and falsifications never are:

 

Prof. Tiffiny Tung, I accuse you of spreading lies about me and of publishing falsified material.

Prof. Beth Scaffidi, I accuse you of spreading lies about me and of publishing falsified material.

Prof. Trudy Turner, I accuse you of protecting liars and cheaters (Tung and Scaffidi).

Mr. Michael Streeter, I accuse you of protecting liars and cheaters (Tung and Scaffidi).

 

*

References to the Addendum

Chumpitaz Llerena, D. and M. Rodríguez Cerrón. 2014. Los Petroglifos de Chillihuay: La imagen antropomorfa (del formativo al período de integración Wari). In: Rupestreweb.

Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Perú. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed. PNUD-UNESCO – Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo, La Habana, Cuba.

Rodríguez Cerrón, M. and D. Chumpitaz Llerena, 2020. Charla Rupestre: Los Petroglifos de Chillihuay. Arequipa, Perú. Video-chat at YouTube.

Scaffidi, B. and T. Tung. 2020. Endemic violence in a pre-Hispanic Andean community: A bioarchaeological study of cranial trauma from the Majes Valley, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 2020; pp. 1 – 24. PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2011. Petroglyphs of Peru – Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2014. The shaman, the lord and the warrior: anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Chillihuay, Arequipa, Peru. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2016. Sobre Dibujos de Arte Rupestre (Andino). Una Petición Para Sólo Publicar Dibujos Que Son Científicamente Sólidos. In: TRACCE – On-line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2020a. Enfrentando los dibujos… ¡otra vez! (Perú); Confronting the Drawings … Again! (Peru). In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2020b. False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022a. Vandalism and Falsification of Rock Art: A Matter of Integrity. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022b. The Majes Falsification Updated – The Inconvenient Truth. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF with the “Erratum” by Tung and Scaffidi available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022c. The Mislaid Beringa Petroglyph. A Missed Opportunity or a Misleading Missive? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF at ResearchGate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five × 4 =