The goal of this paper is to offer the interested reader a digital restoration and interpretation of the images of a vandalized petroglyph boulder located in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. Its damaged face underscores the urgent necessity to ([photo])graphic record rock art sites in general. It is hoped that very soon a complete survey will be made of the Chiza petroglyph site and that the official survey will be made available to rock art researchers.
by Maarten van Hoek
Interpreting a Digitally Restored Petroglyph Panel
near Chiza, Región de Tarapacá, northern Chile
Maarten van Hoek – email@example.com
In 2013 Dr. Horacio Larrain Barros, archaeologist and cultural anthropologist from Iquique, Chile, published an interesting on-line article called: Arte parietal chileno en peligro: grafiteros destruyen petroglifos en el Norte de Chile (Eco-antropología). The article concerned a less known petroglyph site located in the same neighbourhood as the well known Geoglyph of Chiza; one of the thousands of geoglyph sites in the Atacama Desert.
One of the photos in the publication by Larrain Barros, taken by team member Carolina Rodríguez in June 2013, showed a very large boulder with fine petroglyphs (Larrain Barros 2013: Fig. 4). However, as the title of his paper suggested, it indeed was a most unpleasant surprise to see how severely especially this petroglyph boulder, labelled Boulder CHZ-001 by me, had been vandalised. Altogether Larrain Barros illustrates ten petroglyph boulders in his e-article, and at least four were vandalised. Unfortunately Boulder CHZ-001 proved to have been damaged the most. Therefore, Larrain Barros rightfully states: ‘Pensábamos que el desierto y su maravilloso arte parietal o rupestre se podría librar de esta verdadera peste moderna’. This shameful destruction of this ancient and sacred site started at least in A.D. 1836 as is evidenced by one of the dates carved across the decorated panel of Boulder CHZ-001.
Despite the severe damaging and violation, the only goal of this paper is to offer the interested reader a digital restoration and interpretation of the images on this panel. It certainly is not my intention to offer a complete scientific inventory of any rock art site in the Study Area. I also do not want to pretend that I can offer a complete scientific archaeological record for the area. I leave that job to the academic, professional archaeologists.
In this study I will compare the petroglyphs on Boulder CHZ-001 with the images at other several rock art sites and with many geoglyph sites in the Study Area; the “narrow” coastal strip between the Quebrada de Camarones in the north and the Río Loa in the south; the desert west of the High Andes (Figure 1). Although I do not regard geoglyphs to be a form of rock art, geoglyphs are most useful for comparative reasons. They too are an invaluable legacy of the ancient Andeans and should equally be preserved, protected and respected.
The general geomorphology of the Study Area can be divided into six regions. Bordering the Pacific Ocean is a very narrow, often even absent, coastal strip (Planicie Litoral – green in Figure 1). Then, very abruptly, follows a coastal mountain range (Cordillera de la Costa) which creates a vast inland basin. Then follows a slightly sloping plane (Plano Inclinado) that is cut by canyons that run from east to west. Further east is the mainly volcanic mountain range (Precordillera de los Andes) of the Andes. The impressive canyon of the Quebrada de Camarones forms the northern limit of the Study Area. The Chiza rock art site is situated in the drainage of the Quebrada de Camarones and the area is part of the Plano Inclinado.
The Quebrada de Chiza is a southern tributary of the Quebrada de Camarones in the north of Chile (Región de Tarapacá), which empties its saline and arsenic waters into the Chilean Sea (Mar Chilen). In fact only a stretch of only 20 km between Cuya in Camarones and the well known Geoglyph of Chiza is named Quebrada de Chiza. At a point 27,6 km inland and at 383 m O.D., the Quebrada de Miñimiñi (running west from the extinct or dormant volcano of Cerros de Mamuta, 63 km to the ENE) joins the Quebrada de Suca and – after the confluence – becomes the mostly dry river valley of Quebrada de Chiza.
In ancient times this spot was an important crossroads which is evidenced by the fact that at least four facing hill slopes have been adorned with prehistoric geoglyphs; the east facing panel being the most impressive and best known, also because it immediately borders the Pan-America Highway and moreover is clearly visible from the highway when coming from the south. The others geoglyph panels face west, north and south and are also visible from the highway but escape being noticed as they are far less conspicuous.
Further ESE, in the Quebrada de Suca, is another geoglyph panel (5 km SE of Chiza; often referred to as Chiza as well) and in Camarones are at least two other geoglyph panels, one at Cuya (23 km WNW of Chiza) and the other at Conanoxa (19 km NNE of Chiza). The adjoining Pampas are traversed by ancient roads. Those roads are often called ‘Inca Roads’ (Qhapaqñan or ‘Camino del Inca’), but most likely such roads are much older. The recording of two petroglyph sites in this area confirms the relationship of rock art and geoglyphs with the prehistoric infrastructure.
Until 2013 no information about petroglyph sites near Chiza was published, although Dr. Luis Briones, archaeologist of the Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile, since long knew of the Chiza site. However, in the Camarones Valley (for instance at Conanoxa, 18 km NNE of Chiza, and at Taltape, 29 km NE of Chiza) and in the Suca Valley (24 km ESE of Chiza) several petroglyph sites had previously been recorded (yellow squares in Figure 2). In 2013 the team of Larrain Barros reported for the first time numerous petroglyph boulders located in a side valley NE of Chiza (green square with black dot in Figure 2). The Chiza boulder field is roughly linearly arranged at the foot of a hill slope at an elevation ranging from about 630 to 780 m. This unnamed side valley (labelled Chiza in this paper) served to reach the Pampa of Chiza and connected Chiza with Conanoxa and Taltape in Camarones. Another, isolated, petroglyph boulder (Larrain Barros 2013: Fig. 12), also reported by the team of Larrain Barros for the first time in 2013, is located very near one of those ancient roads on the Pampa de Chiza (green square in Figure 2, at 1308 m O.D.), which clearly leads to the Taltape area.
According to Larrain Barros Boulder CHZ-001 is one of the largest petroglyph boulders at this extensive site. It is about 3 m high and is most profusely decorated with a large number of petroglyphs and (unfortunately) many graffiti on its west or WNW facing, vertical surface (Larrain Barros 2014: pers. comm.). In front of Boulder CHZ-001 is another, much smaller petroglyph boulder (Boulder CHZ-002) that is also illustrated in the article by Larrain Barros (2013: Fig. 7). Fortunately this boulder seems to be undamaged.
Although the anthropic damage to Boulder CHZ-001 is extensive and while many of the petroglyphs have moreover naturally weathered and eroded, it is possible to digitally ‘restore’ a large part of the images (but definitely not all). Although I visited the Chiza geoglyph sites in 2011, at that time I was unaware of the nearby petroglyph site. Therefore, in order to digitally restore the petroglyph panel of Boulder CHZ-001 I could only use the otherwise fine photograph by Larrain Barros (2013: Fig. 4). Because of the physical and anthropic damage and the fact that I had to work with only one photo, it is inevitable that the restoration may well be inaccurate, incomplete and sometimes subjective. Moreover, my drawing (Figure 3) only shows that part of the boulder that is visible on the photo by Larrain Barros; the boulder may have more panels with petroglyphs (as often is the case with larger boulders).
However, despite those reservations I am pleased to offer the interested reader a drawing of the ancient images on Boulder CHZ-001 (Figure 3) in which the damage by graffiti and weathering has been omitted. Moreover, in order to visibly separate several images I used the colours black and brown. This arbitrary colour-differentiation is by no means an indication of chronology. Subsequently I numbered twenty identifiable images; the unnumbered petroglyphs are either included in those twenty images or offer no specific additional information. The twenty numbered images will now be discussed, mainly focussing on parallels in the rock art and geoglyph art in this part of the Atacama Desert.
Notwithstanding criticism (2014) by Peruvian archaeologist Daniel Castillo Benites (concerning my Simbal paper in Rupestreweb) in this respect (reply by me), I find it scientifically acceptable to use photographs made by others in order to present a more complete or a different picture (literally and metaphorically) of certain rock art images or rock art sites without having visited the site(s) myself. The fact that I am not an academic, professional archaeologist is completely irrelevant in this respect. It is the result (the published text and illustrations) that counts; not so much the path that is followed to reach the result.
However, there is no doubt at all that I enormously value the scientific data gained by academic, professional archaeologists. But also their published work (whether textual or graphical) must be correct and also their findings and hypotheses can be questioned by anyone. When incorrect (graphical) material is published, it is too often taken for granted and thus it will be used and reproduced as if it is correct (for an example of a clearly incorrect illustration see the drawing by Eloy Linares Málaga published in my video about the Cerro Negro rock art site, Peru (Fig. 5; also published as Fig. 5 in my Cerro Negro paper in Rupestreweb: 2014). It is therefore only scientifically correct to rectify published material that is demonstrably inaccurate. Then it does not matter whether the person who rectifies the inaccuracies is an academic person or not. Neither does it matter whether she or he has visited the site in person.
One of the more notable images is a large, completely frontally depicted anthropomorphic figure, with a triangular, fully pecked body. Its head is ‘crowned’ by an inverted U-shape. It has two arms in the drooping position, which is the most commonly occurring position of arms in anthropomorphic figures in this part of the Atacama (for instance at Suca). One arm is still complete and seems to ‘hold’ or ‘touch’ a smaller figure (a child?). The possible relation with fertility seems also to be confirmed by the fact that between the outstretched legs a massive phallus is visible, which in itself is a rare feature in Andean rock art (Van Hoek 2012). Although all other anthropomorphic petroglyphs on this panel are unsexed, they most likely all depict male figures, also because at least four of them carry weapons (most likely the atl-atl; the throwing spear). Interestingly, archers and flute-players (always representing male figures in Andean worldview) are lacking on the panel.
This ‘arm-less’, fully frontally depicted anthropomorph is characterised by its triangular composition and in this respect it resembles Petroglyph 7. The body of Petroglyph 2 displays a typical hour-glass-shape and also the head is triangular. Arm-less anthropomorphs are rather common in Atacama rock art and occur for instance at Tarapacá-47 as petroglyphs. As geoglyphs they are found distributed over a distance of roughly 460 km from the Lluta valley in the extreme north of Chile to Loa valley in the south of the Study Area. Examples are found for instance at Cerro el Sol, Los Pintados and La Encañada.
Surprisingly, while triangularly shaped bodies are rather common, hour-glass-shaped anthropomorphs are very rare in Atacama rock art. However, an almost similar, also arm-less figure is found among the numerous geoglyphs at the Los Pintados site, 164 km to the south of Chiza (UTM coordinates: 430980.69 m E and 7719243.60 m S). At Calartoco a petroglyph boulder (not in situ) shows the image of an anthropomorph that seems to be composed of an (outlined) irregular hour-glass-shaped body.
Petroglyphs 3 and 4
Neighbouring designs 3 and 4 both depict an abstract design involving the combination of four simple spirals (curls, rather) shaped into a square configuration. This design is very rare in Atacama rock art. Remotely related petroglyphs of only two curls occur at Chillaiza and Suca (Ajata 2011: pers. com.), while two damaged but possibly related examples are found on a boulder at the Calartoco petroglyph site. However at Los Pintados (UTM coordinates: 431333.72 m E and 7719194.16 m S) there is a geoglyph of four ‘curls’ enclosed within a square that is almost similar to the Chiza Petroglyphs 3 and (especially) 4. At the geoglyph site of Altos de Ariquilda Norte (Panel 3; Geoglyph 6: UTM coordinates: 441670.44 m E and 7830063.68 m S) is a comparable but slightly different figure. A geoglyph panel at Cerro el Sol seems to depict an anthropomorph, with a square, outlined body filled by a similar design.
These two images are truly exceptional in Atacama rock art. The smaller image seems to represent an unfinished version of the adjacent, larger petroglyph, which looks like an arrow. However, the whole image seems to be fertility-related as it may well represent a stylised phallus, judging by the two possible testicles at the lower end of the petroglyph.
Interestingly, a (female?) anthropomorphic petroglyph from Site TR-1304 near Pachica (Brant 2008: Fig. 9A) seems to be penetrated by a similar motif. Below this ensemble at TR-1304 is a motif that has some affinities with Petroglyphs 3 and 4.
Similar ‘arrow/phallus’ figures occur as geoglyphs at nearby Chiza (a linear geoglyph that may be related; UTM coordinates: 393946.67 m E and 7876370.13 m S), at Alto Barranco (a design more likely representing a true arrow), at two panels of the Los Pintados / Los Pintados site (UTM coordinates: 430973.15 m E and 7719225.78 m S; and 429902.98 m E and 7719794.82 m S), at Cerros Monos, on a small hill just south of the Quebrada de Pintados near Tamentica, and at the geoglyph site of Altos de Ariquilda Norte (Panel 2; Geoglyph 1: UTM coordinates: 441591.18 m E and 7829914.06 m). Also at Altos de Ariquilda Norte is another geoglyph (Panel 2; Geoglyph 22: UTM coordinates: 441637.86 m E and 7829896.65 m) that is even more phallus-shaped. Although it has been labelled by Briones and Chacama (1987: 26) as an arrow (flecha), I rather interpret the figure as a phallus-symbol (Van Hoek 2012: 44-45; Fig. 93 – erroneously listed by me as Fig. 46 in the caption).
Interestingly, there are three other images (all three labelled Petroglyph 6 in Figure 3) that seem to confirm the fertility-related content of the panel. The three petroglyphs notably seem to depict the isolated vulva symbol. Its typical triangular shape with a short, vertical groove at the lower apex is reminiscent of several other instances of vulva depictions in Andean rock art. It is however remarkable that unambiguous depictions of isolated vulvas have – as far as I know – not been recorded in Atacama geoglyph art and are only very rarely recorded in Atacama rock art. Instances occur in the petroglyph art at Rosario in Lluta (Arica) (Van Hoek 2012: Figs 52 and 53) and at Sobraya in the Azapa Valley (Arica) (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 54); both outside the Study Area. In 2003 Rolando Ajata (Ajata 2011: pers. com.) recorded two petroglyphs at nearby Suca that I have interpreted as possible vulva symbols (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 55). Further SE – and outside the Study Area – are the possible vulva depictions at Santa Barbara (Río Loa) (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 56) and at Yerbas Buenas (Río Grande) (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 57). Therefore, the occurrence of no less than three possible vulva symbols on Boulder CHZ-001 is remarkable, especially in combination with the two possible phallus symbols.
This image concerns an armed, fully frontally depicted anthropomorph. This figure has an hour-glass-shaped body composed of two distinct pecked triangles (like Petroglyph 2). The object it carries most likely is the atl-atl; the throwing spear. Only the throwing-device (estólica) has been depicted judging by the small hook at the upper end of the object. Similar armed anthropomorphic petroglyphs occur at site TR-1304 NE of the village of Tarapacá (Brant 2008: Fig: 4A), although they have a triangular body, they do not feature the specific hour-glass-shape. Other armed anthropomorphic petroglyphs occur for instance at Suca, at Tarapacá-47 and at Calartoco.
Also in geoglyph art armed anthropomorphs occur. Examples are found for instance at Altos de Ariquilda Norte (Panel 3; Geoglyph 33: UTM coordinates: 441690.48 m E and 7830029.64 m S), La Encañada (Calartoco) and at Los Pintados (UTM coordinates: 430481.28 m E and 7719515.15 m S). At La Posada (Cerro Camino) are two anthropomorphic geoglyphs with possible weapons and one of them seems to have an hour-glass-shaped body.
This unusual petroglyph seems to depict ‘a bird on a raft’ (?) as it is standing on a horizontal line. It is moreover unusual as it seems to be connected by two thin lines (arms?) to Petroglyph 19, but this may well be unintentional.
This is another unusual petroglyph. From one side of a vertical line a row of six Andean ‘wave’ elements emerges. Five of those elements are drawn in outline; one is fully pecked. This design is very rare in Atacama rock art but parallels have been reported at rock art sites in the Quebrada de Huatacondo, east of the petroglyph site at Tamentica (Sectors Palta Cruz and Chele; Rolando Ajata 2011: pers.com.). Surprisingly however, it also occurs (in a slightly different lay-out) in geoglyph art. Especially at Altos de Ariquilda Norte (Panel 5; Geoglyphs 1 and 2: UTM coordinates: 441610.99 m E and 7829878.41 m S) some fine examples can be seen (photos available in: Panoramio and Tendencias).
A rather common rock art symbol in Andean rock art is the outlined cross. It also occurs frequently in both Atacama rock art and geoglyph art. Quite a few examples are found among the geoglyphs of Los Pintados and other geoglyph sites. Also several petroglyph sites feature the outlined cross, like an example on a rock art panel in the Chele Sector of the Quebrada de Huatacondo east of Tamentica (Rolando Ajata 2011: pers.com.) and four fine examples on a boulder at the Pukará de Jamajuga (Cerro Gentilar) just east of Mamiña.
Two parallel, vertically orientated zigzags on the left of the panel of Boulder CHZ-001 give the impression of a snake symbol. However it is not at all certain that Petroglyph 11 depicts a snake, especially as a head seems to be missing. Zigzag lines occur hardly ever in Atacama rock art and geoglyph art. However, at the petroglyph sites of Tarapacá-47 and Chillaiza parallel zigzag petroglyphs occur. The example at Tamentica certainly depicts a snake. Near Pisagua is an outlined geoglyph that most likely depicts a true snake as it clearly displays the triangular head.
This design, a ‘diamond’ stepped figure (with a double curl on top [possibly added later?]), is represented in both Atacama rock art and geoglyph art (Van Hoek 2004). In fact it is probably the most widespread abstract design, after the circle, in Atacama geoglyph art. The diamond, or ‘rombo’ as it is called in Spanish literature, occurs in geoglyph sites from Conanoxa in the north (via examples at Chiza, Cerro el Sol, Cerro Unitas, Los Pintados, Tamentica, Cerros Monos, Alto Barranco, La Posada, Cerro Camino, La Encañada and others) to at least three geoglyph sites at Chug Chug in the south (covering a distance of about 360 km). Numerous examples occur at the geoglyph site of Los Pintados, while at Tarapacá-47 several petroglyphs of this design occur (Van Hoek 2001). The difference between geoglyphs and petroglyphs only concerns the size: geoglyph ‘diamonds’ are up to 40 m across, while – understandably – the much smaller ‘diamond’ petroglyphs are less than 40 cm.
Circles (single or concentric; with or without a central dot) are probably the most common abstract motif in Atacama rock art and in geoglyph art. Petroglyph sites (for instance Tarapacá-47 and Jamajuga) and geoglyph sites (for instance at Chiza and especially at Los Pintados) are often rich in circle designs. At several other places in the Study Area petroglyphs and geoglyphs of circles (single or concentric; with or without central focal point) occur.
This fully pecked stepped motif may represent a simple form of the well known stepped figures of the Andes (Van Hoek 2004). Similar simple motifs occur at the petroglyph site of Suca.
Camelids (often in a row and frequently joined by ropes) are very common in petroglyph and geoglyph art of the Atacama. Several geoglyph sites with numerous camelids (often in a row) are found in the valleys of Lluta and Tiliviche.
This fully pecked motif (accompanied by three dots) may well represent a bird petroglyph and may be compared with a similar (bird?) petroglyph on a boulder at the Pukará de Jamajuga in the valley of Mamiña. However, Petroglyph 16 may as well be a variation on the ‘diamond’ pattern in Atacama rock art and geoglyph art. At the geoglyph site of Los Pintados are several designs that closely resemble Petroglyph 16. Examples occur for instance at UTM coordinates: 430959.51 m E and 7719247.50 m S; 430225.77 m E and 7719247.69 m S; 429625.11 m E and 7719779.72 m S). At the Cerro Monos geoglyph site is a vertical row of three of those ‘bird’ designs.
This small anthropomorph is either holding a kind of axe or a hooked throwing-spear-device. Similar figures occur in Atacama rock art and geoglyph art.
A somewhat larger anthropomorph with apparently a forked headdress seems to hold a hooked throwing-spear-device (estólica) or an axe as well. Its body faintly shows an hour-glass-shape.
An arm-less anthropomorph resembling Petroglyph 4 seems to hold a throwing spear (dardo) as the top of the object seems to represent a triangular spear-head.
Petroglyph 20 (and some other petroglyphs) probably depict a bird petroglyph; most likely the suri (the Andean ostrich). Suris are represented in both Atacama rock art (for instance at Chillaiza) and geoglyph art.
Two conclusions emerge from the description of the images on Boulder CHZ-001 and their analogies in Atacama rock art and geoglyph art. First of all it is obvious and surprising that the imagery on Boulder CHZ-001 more reflects the geoglyph art of the Atacama than its rock art. For instance, specific petroglyph motifs found at Ariquilda (flute-players, bird-men, boats) are not represented on the panel. Although several images occur as well in petroglyph art, particular petroglyphs (Petroglyphs 5, 9, 10, 12, 13) are paralleled in geoglyph art more frequently and are either rare or absent at other petroglyph sites (as far as I could check).
Another striking outcome is the fact that the imagery on Boulder CHZ-001 reflects the geoglyph art that is found in a very large area. For instance, the diamond shape (Petroglyph 12) is commonly found at many geoglyph sites over a distance of almost 400 km from Conanoxa (in Camarones) in the north to Chug Chug in the south. In contrast, this specific diamond-shape only (?) occurs in the petroglyph record of the area around the village of Tarapacá, while outside the Study Area I only know of painted analogies from rock art sites TA-044 and TA-064, Tarija, Bolivia, (but these ‘diamonds’ have a different layout) and a more similarly looking parallel at Banderani in the Lago Titicaca area of SE Peru. Interestingly, also Wari textiles from central Peru sometimes include this particular diamond-shape.
The second conclusion concerns the content of the images. Although interpretation of rock art symbols and geoglyph images is notoriously difficult and often subjective, it seems to be justified to suggest that a more than average number of symbols on Boulder CHZ-001 are fertility related. In general fertility symbolism in the form of male and female genitals is relatively very rare in Andean rock art and geoglyph art (Van Hoek 2012). In this respect the content of Boulder CHZ-001 is exceptional. No less than three vulva-symbols (Petroglyphs 6) represent female symbolism on the panel. And what is more, according to the Pan-Andean concept of duality the female side is balanced by the presence of two depictions of symbols (Petroglyphs 5) that I prefer to interpret as isolated male genitals, while a large anthropomorphic figure explicitly shows male genitals; in it self rather a rare feature in Andean rock art. The smaller figure next to this anthropomorph (Petroglyph 1) may even symbolise a child and the intimate combination may epitomise the concept of progeny.
Finally, the damaged face and the desecrated spirit of Boulder CHZ-001 underscore the urgent necessity to ([photo])graphic record rock art sites in general. Boulder CHZ-001 is just one sad example of vandalism in the Andes and unfortunately there are many more such shattering instances, literally and metaphorically (Van Hoek 2014). It is therefore hoped that very soon a complete survey will be made of the Chiza petroglyph site and that the official survey will be made available to rock art researchers.
I am grateful to Dr. Horacio Larrain Barros from Iquique, Chile, for providing most useful information about the two Chiza petroglyph sites. His information has been included in the text and in the two maps that he kindly considered before publication. I also thank Rolando Ajata for his collaboration regarding the Suca and Huatacondo rock art sites.
(the underlined red references – also in the text above – are hyperlinks as accessible in 2014; some of them may not work after publication of this paper)
Brant, E. 2008. New Petroglyph Findings from Northern Chile: A Study of Dating and Function. California State University, Northridge, USA. Available on-line as PDF.
Briones Morales, L. & C. Mondaca Rojas. 2004. Conocimiento del Medio Ambiente, Rutas de Tráfico y Representaciones Rupestres de la Quebrada de Suca: Una Interacción Geocultural Andina Milenaria. Revista Diálogo Andino. Vol. 24; pp 99 – 113. Departamento de Antropología Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile.
Briones Morales, L. & J. Chacama Rodriguez. 1987. Arte rupestre de Ariquilda: Análisis descriptivo de un sitio con geoglifos y su vinculación con la prehistoria regional. Chungará. Vol. 18; pp 15 – 66. Arica, Chile.
Bruning, J. 2008-2013. Chilean geoglyphs. In: Panoramio. Map.
Larrain Barros, H. 2013. Arte parietal chileno en peligro: grafiteros destruyen petroglifos en el Norte de Chile. In: Eco-antropología.
Van Hoek, M. 2001. The stepped diamond in Andean rock art. Rock Art Research. Vol. 18-2; pp 96 – 100. Melbourne, Australia.
Van Hoek, M. 2004. The stepped-fret motif in American rock art: an attempt at tracing origin and meaning. The Artifact. Vol. 42. pp 75 – 91. El Paso Archaeological Society. El Paso, Texas. USA.
Van Hoek, M. 2012. Rumimantam Llaqllasaq Wirpuykita: The ‘Cycle of Life’ in the Rock Art of the Desert Andes. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Privately published using the BLURB Creative Publishing Service.
Van Hoek, M. 2014. The Motocachy Pampa Disaster, Peru. In: TRACCE. On-line Rock Art Bulletin.
Leave a Reply