This paper discusses the often difficult decision whether to publish the accurate location of a rock art site, or not to disclose that information. But if a scientist reveals the exact location, the information should be correct. This paper offers a number of instances where the location of a rock art site has incorrectly been published, or where a rock art panel has incorrectly been located. I hope that this paper will be regarded to be a constructive contribution in order to encourage (in general) the publication of correct information.
By Maarten van Hoek
*
*
Revealing Locations of Rock Art Sites
(or not ?)
And if you do, How?
Maarten van Hoek
Cover photo. The San Juan Valley looking east from the rock art site of Huancor in southern Peru. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
All illustrations can be enlarged.
*
Introduction
Among individual rock art researchers and members of rock art organisations there is often a controversy whether to reveal the exact location details of rock art sites or not. One group categorically rejects site-locations being revealed, whether on the internet or in publications. Another group argues that the (exact) location of sites and even of individual panels or boulders is an inseparable part of rock art studies and must therefore be included in at least scientific publications (whether these publications are available for the general public or not). A third group hovers between the first two groups, arguing that in most cases the location can/must be disclosed, while the location of other (vulnerable) sites or panels must be secreted.
I for one tend to classify myself as an investigator who is in favour of disclosing the locations of rock art sites in publications. They form an integral part of the (environmental and religious) context in which the rock art is found. However, in certain cases I prefer not to disclose the location of a site or a panel/boulder, for instance when there is imminent or immediate danger of the rock art site or a specific panel being vandalised, damaged, robbed or even destroyed.
Thus in my opinion the context dictates whether or not to reveal the location of rock art (sites). However, one of the major reasons to be in favour of disclosing locations in my publications, is the fact that nowadays there are already so many publications available on the internet that reveal the (sometimes exact) position of rock art. Such online publications may concern popular, non-scientific blogs for instance, or official scientific papers. Moreover, in my opinion people are not browsing the internet with the intention to find rock art sites that they then can visit and rob, vandalise or damage. In my opinion it is mainly the bad mentality of some visitors to a site that damages and violates the integrity of a Sacred Site, as well as the ignorance or even apathetic attitude of governmental officials of countries, states, counties, departments, municipalities etc.
However, over the past 45 years I have seen many publications about rock art sites that disclose the location of a rock art site or panel at an incorrect spot (in a few cases it also concerns my own publications). Although this may cause confusion (and in some cases even an unsuccessful rock art “hunt”), yet I am of the opinion that (hopefully) in not a single case there is question of intent. From experience I know how difficult it is to exactly pinpoint a site on a larger map, even when the exact location of the site or even a boulder is known (for instance in Google Earth). Still, if it is your intention to publish the location of a rock art site and it proves that – after all, when having published – the published location is incorrect, then it is highly desirable to either correct the error in a future publication yourself, or to accept that another rock art researcher acceptably notices and rectifies the error. It is a form of integrity to accept that errors are being made and that errors may be rectified by others (thus, do not shoot the messenger!).
Of course, the publication of an incorrect location may be explained in the context of the time of the surveys, as in earlier days technology was unavailable or not so far advanced. For instance, GPS did not exist when Núñez Jiménez compiled his enormous volume of rock art sites in Peru (1986). Having collected an enormous mountain of data, it was almost inevitable that Núñez Jiménez made several errors in this respect. But it definitely was not his intent at all to publish incorrect information. However, in modern (digital) times, misplacements may also concern instances of unnecessary sloppiness, as I will demonstrate in this study. A number of known instances will be briefly discussed in this paper, hoping that – by unfolding the slips and inaccuracies – errors can and/or will be avoided in future publications. That is my main concern.
*
Methods to Reveal the Location
There are several methods to reveal the location of a rock art site or a decorated boulder or a panel. The simplest method is to take a photograph (preferably from an elevated point; which is not always possible), or to make a sketch of the site, together with measurements (if possible). Examples are the sketch-maps of the rock art sites by Núñez Jiménez of Cerro Mulato (1986: Fig. 37) and Huancor (1986: Fig. 1608; see also Van Hoek 2021a: Fig. 13 for a more accurate sketch map of Huancor; a site discussed further down). This method will often prove to be inaccurate, which is also demonstrated by the two mentioned maps by Núñez Jiménez. However, I have used this method as well, for instance at Toro Muerto, but mainly in combination with (distinct) Google Earth maps and/or high quality aerial photos. Mind you, I never used GPS or a drone in any of our surveys and thus my maps may also be inaccurate.
However, one of the most reliable methods nowadays is indeed the use of GPS. Yet, there sometimes is a discrepancy between published GPS-data and their location in Google Earth (unfortunately, the several year-publications of Google Earth Satellite photos often shift a bit in position). However, in most instances the difference is only minimal. For instance, the GPS-data collected by the Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto (TMP) show a difference of (no more than) 12 meters when pinpointed in Google Earth. An example is the well-known Boulder TM-Fa-001 (or TMP-0079 according to the Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto; Roca 26 according to Linares Málaga) is 11.5 m WSW of the location in Google Earth (I will return to Roca 26 in a different context). Of course, a discrepancy of some ten meters between the GPS-location and the location in Google Earth is acceptable. However, it is scientifically unacceptable when the published location of a site is incorrectly situated 100+ meters or even kilometres distant from the factual location in the field.
Finally, another very suitable method is the use of drones, which can make vertical photographs from different points of altitude, combined with GPS-data. However, mind you, oblique or horizontally orientated photos made by a drone indicate the position of the drone, not the (often more distant) panel or cliff-face.
When successfully having located a site, it then will be possible to compile a reliable map of the site or a map with an (outcrop) panel, a boulder or boulders correctly marked. However, this is not always an easy task, as is evidenced by several publications featuring incorrect locations of rock art sites. In the following section a number of instances will be discussed, roughly travelling from northern Peru to southern Peru (as well as an instance from Morocco). In some cases site-locations have been incorrectly marked on a map, or an illustration of rock art is incorrectly labelled (indicating the wrong location) and is actually found at another site (sometimes hundreds of kilometres apart). This study offers examples of both issues.
*
A Variety of Inaccuracies
Antonio Núñez Jiménez was one of the great explorers of the rock art of coastal Peru. He methodically surveyed more than 70 petroglyph sites, of which he – in most cases – revealed the locations with B&W sketch-maps and/or aerial photos with location-arrows. However, in some cases the locations of the rock art sites on his maps differ quite a lot with the factual spot of the site or boulder. Many years earlier I already discussed the incorrect locations of several petroglyph sites in my book about Núñez Jiménez’ 1986-book (Van Hoek 2011). The following entries not only discuss some of the maps by Núñez Jiménez (1986), but also instances where (often more recently) location-errors were published by other authors.
*
Cerro Mulato – Peru
The first example concerns Cerro Mulato, a large site in the far north of Peru, about 60 km inland from Chiclayo. The arrow on the aerial photo of Cerro Mulato by Núñez Jiménez (1986 Fig. 36) indicates the wrong location of the decorated boulders, while his B&W sketch map (his Fig. 37) is largely incorrect (Van Hoek 2011: 22; Fig. 37). It is extremely difficult to produce a reliable map of Cerro Mulato without using GPS. Therefore, I did not dare to undertake that project. Finally, the coordinates provided by Rogger Ravines (1986: 42) locate Cerro Mulato at the far north end of the hill, about 500 m NE of the factual site.
*
Alto de la Guitarra – Peru
Alto de la Guitarra (also known as Alto de las Guitarras) is a most extensive and important petroglyph site in the north of Peru. It is located 23 km east of Trujillo (as the crow flies), the capital of the Department of La Libertad (Van Hoek 2023a/2014: Fig. 4). Despite the relatively short distance inland, Alto de la Guitarra is a very remote site, hard to reach. From the centre of Trujillo it takes less than 30 minutes by car to reach the INC sign at the start of the foot-trip, but then one has to first cross the rock-strewn valley in a harsh desert landscape on foot (Figure 1) and then scramble steep mountain slopes, to finally arrive at the highest point of the route; the watershed between the drainages of the Moche and Virú rivers (called ‘El Portillo’, at about 863 m O.D. according to Google Earth and located at 917 m.
In 2004 this rough walk of about 8 km single way took me at least three hours (Núñez Jiménez [1986] even mentioned 6 hours single way, but he started his trip at Quirihuac on the River Moche). Finally, after having crossed the pass, (Figure 1) the spectacular panorama of Alto de la Guitarra unfolds; a large, undulating, slightly west sloping field of red boulders in a yellow/orange setting (although in wet times the “desert” can turn pretty green) surrounded by impressive mountains.
Figure 1. The route to Alto de la Guitarra, looking SE from the rock art site of El Vagón towards the pass “El Portillo” (6 km distant). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
Unfortunately, the site of Alto de la Guitarra is often incorrectly located in publications. First of all, several researchers locate this important site within the Moche Drainage, while in fact it is found in the Virú Drainage (but only just). The otherwise very useful Inventario Nacional by Rainer Hostnig (2003: 198; my emphases) even more confusingly locates Alto de la Guitarra in both the Moche Valley and in the Chicama Valley: “en la parte alta del valle del río Chicama, entre los valles de Santa Catalina y Virú, a unos 600 m msnm. En la margen izquierda del río Moche…”, while Chicama is found some 65 km further north of Alto de la Guitarra. This confusion was repeated by Jean Guffroy (2009: 45) who also locates Alto de la Guitarra in Chicama. The (now deleted) website of Turismoi.pe once located Alto de la Guitarra on the south slopes of Cerro Gran Chiputur (or Cerro Ochiputur); a mountain no less than 14 km to the WSW of the factual location.
Also the well-known rock art investigator Antonio Núñez Jiménez surveyed Alto de la Guitarra. In his book he also includes an aerial photograph (1986: Fig. 590; rotated by him and not including a North Arrow; see Van Hoek 2011: 49) in which he drew an open arrow pointing to the purported location of the site (B in Figure 3). However, the tip of his arrow points to the wrong location (UTM coordinates in Google Earth: 741082.00 m O and 9100440.00 m S); no less than 1260 m to the NE of the factual location of Alto de la Guitarra. The site of Alto de la Guitarra not even appears on his Fig. 590. Only with the aid of the high resolution photos of Google Earth, that became available after 2006, it is possible to understand the error that Núñez Jiménez had made. So far, no detailed site-map of Alto de la Guitarra – showing all individual decorated boulders – has ever been made.
Núñez Jiménez also stated (1986: 443) that the rock art site of Pampa Calata is found 8 km from Alto de la Guitarra (bearing not mentioned), while in fact Pampa Calata is found only some 2.7 km to the east of Alto de la Guitarra. This error is repeated by Ravines (1986: 40) and by Rainer Hostnig in his Inventario Nacional (2003: 205).
However, it was the late Cristóbal Campana who intensively surveyed Alto de la Guitarra for more than 40 years (since 1963). Several of his surveys even lasted three to four days on-site. The reason to mention his thorough and time-consuming approach is explained by the fact that there is, however, (only) one flaw in the excellent 2013-book by Cristóbal Campana. This flaw concerns all location-details that have presented by Campana (2013: 45) on his map of Lámina II. Lámina II is a copy of a pre-2006 Google Earth satellite photo on which Campana added the route from the Moche Valley to Alto de la Guitarra (the yellow line in Figure 2), El Portillo (the pass on the watershed between Moche and Virú; P in Figure 2), the location of the important Sacred Mountain (Apu) of Cerro León and finally the location of the petroglyph site of Alto de la Guitarra (A in Figure 2).
Figure 2. Location of Alto de la Guitarra according to Cristóbal Campana (2008: Fig. 1), reproduced here with his kind permission. Added by Maarten van Hoek: V: the rock art site of El Vagón; P: El Portillo (mistakenly marked #2 by Campana on his Figura 01 above); A: the factual location of Alto de la Guitarra (located at #4 according to Campana).
Unfortunately however, the final part of the yellow line route and all the locations are incorrect. Regrettably this incorrect map has also been published earlier, in three works by Cristóbal Campana (2008: Fig. 1; 2009: Fig. 01; 2013a: Fig. 1). To clarify this confusing situation, an explanatory map is essential (Figure 3). More detailed information and more maps are available in Van Hoek 2023a/2014).
Figure 3. Location of Alto de la Guitarra, (200 m contour interval; scale bar 1 km). Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Hoja Cartográfica Número 17-f / Salaverry. INC: White INC-sign. V: El Vagón. Q: Quebrada de Las Guitarras. S: Quebrada Las Salinas. W: Watershed between Moche and Virú. A: Factual location of Alto de la Guitarra. B. Incorrect location of Alto de la Guitarra according to Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 590). C. Incorrect location of Alto de la Guitarra according to Cristóbal Campana (2008: Fig. 1; 2009: Fig. 01; 2013a: Fig. 1; 2013b: Lámina II). P: Location of Pampa Calata according to Daniel Castillo Benites (2011, 2012). 1: The true location of Cerro León. 2: The incorrect location of Cerro León according to Cristóbal Campana. 3. The location of (a) Cerro de León according to the Hoja Cartográfica Número 17-f / Salaverry.
*
Colcapampa – Peru
Another illustrative example of an incorrect location (which has not been discussed by me earlier) concerns the single petroglyph boulder of Colcapampa on the SE (left) bank of the Chancay Valley. Núñez Jiménez writes that the boulder is found (almost exactly) at the confluence of the SW flowing Río Chancay with the NW flowing Río Anasmayo (1986: 619; Fig. 1214), but in fact the boulder is found 930 meters to the ENE at an altitude of about 1250 m asl (green square in Figure 4). This error is repeated by Ravines (1986: 44) and in the Inventario Nacional by Rainer Hostnig (2003: 234), while Hostnig (2003: 241) locates Colcapampa too far inland on his map (75 km instead of the factual 50 km). The Colcapampa boulder survived the construction of the modern asphalt road through the valley, being located 60 m SE of that road. If the boulder would indeed have been located at the aforementioned confluence (red square in Figure 4), it might as well have been destroyed during that road-construction.
Figure 4. The location of the Colcapampa boulder (at 11°18’59.16″S and 76°52’5.22″W). Red square: approximated location according to Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1214); green square: approximated factual location (950 m to the ENE). Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.
*
Huancor – Peru
Huancor, an important rock art site located on the north bank of the valley of the Río San Juan (also called the Río Chincha) is scientifically known since the publication of Max Uhle (1924). The site was mentioned by several other researchers afterwards. Yet it was Antonio Núñez Jiménez who was the first to publish a rather complete graphical inventory of the petroglyphs (1986: 123 – 210). Unfortunately, several of his illustrations are inaccurate or incorrect (Van Hoek 2011: 85 – 93), including his two location maps. On his aerial photo (Fig. 1607) the point of the arrow points to a spot that is about 450 m to the SW of the factual site. Moreover, his distribution plan (Fig. 1608) is rather inaccurate and sometimes incomplete, which I mentioned earlier (2011: 85). Also for that reason I published an improved (and hopefully better) distribution map (which may still be inaccurate) (Van Hoek 2021a: Fig. 13).
Unfortunately, this incorrect Núñez Jiménez map of Huancor is uncritically copied by other academics who surveyed the site. In 2012 a paper about Huancor was published by Echevarría López and Mora. First of all, Echevarría López and Mora (2012: Figura 1) have literally and uncritically copied the site map of Huancor made by Antonio Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1608). They only added some information; in a few cases incorrectly. Although the general lay-out of the plan made by Núñez Jiménez is “more or less” correct, I still have several comments. First of all, most dots on his plan do not show a Piedra number. For instance, the important Piedra 119 and many others are not numbered on the plan. In fact, it is impossible to build a conclusive scientific analysis, when it is only based on the Núñez Jiménez map.
Echevarría López and Mora not only copied an incorrect map, they themselves make mistakes in their paper, for instance by locating their Escena 1 roughly 30 m to the WNW of the factual spot, and the same location error occurs for their Escena 10 (Van Hoek 2013: Figs 1, 2 and 3). Their Escena 10 has no Piedra number (Núñez Jiménez 1986: Fig. 1829) and consequently cannot be found on the map by Núñez Jiménez. I wonder whether Echevarría López and Mora have located this boulder themselves in the field, as the authors locate it no less than 100 m NNW of the actual spot (Van Hoek 2013: Figs 2 and 3). In fact, Escena 10 is found on one of the southernmost petroglyph panels at Huancor.
Several years later David Delnoÿ (PhD student, University of Liege, Belgium) and Marcel Otte (Professor, University of Liege, Belgium) published a short paper about the rock art at Huancor, in which they included two location-maps (2015a). The sketch map of their Fig. 1 is sloppy and inaccurate. Moreover, their Fig. 2 shows a site plan of Huancor said to have been “provided by Martial Borzee and the Universidad Peruana del Arte Orval”. However, it clearly is a copy of the site plan of Huancor published by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1608), who is not credited (or even mentioned) in their paper (while the same authors refer to Núñez Jiménez in another paper about Huancor that was published in the same year [2015b: 15]). The Delnoÿ-Otte publication proves (again) that it is necessary to reveal errors, in order to avoid again publishing such errors in the future. Again, that is my main (and only) concern!
*
The Palpa Valley – Peru
Also the aerial photo-map of the rock art sites in the Palpa Valley in southern Peru by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1973) is incorrect (Van Hoek 2011: 95). For the correct locations see Van Hoek 2021a: Figs 7 and 55.
*
Illomas – Peru
Illomas is a most important rock art site located in the Manga Drainage of west-Arequipa, southern Peru. It was first made public in 1935 or 1936 by Leonidas Bernedo Málaga, described in 1939 by Carlos Alberto Paz de Noboa, more fully described and illustrated in 2008 by Lorenzo Tacca Quispe, and photographed in 2013 by Grupo Andaray from Arequipa. In 2019 the site was surveyed again and a paper analysing the rock art and archaeology of Illomas was published in Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology (Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 2019). The factual location of Illomas is at 16° 1′ 22.09″ S and 72° 44′ 3.76″ W in Google Earth – April 2023. Despite being known for a long time, correctly locating this site (on a map or in a textual description) (still) is a problem for some researchers (even after the 2019-publication).
For instance Rogger Ravines (1986: 16) locates the site of Illomas (or Pacchana) at 72°. 46′ LO and 15° 41′ LS and no less than 60 km from the town of Chuquibamba, while in fact his coordinates incorrectly locate Illomas 40 km north of Illomas and 23 km NW of Chuquibamba. Also the Inventario Nacional by Rainer Hostnig (2003: 53) locates Illomas incorrectly, this time at 40 km north of Chuquibamba, while Illomas is factually located only 22 km SSW of the town of Chuquibamba. Moreover, the Inventario Nacional by Hostnig also includes an entry labelled Illoma-Yanaquihua (2003: 48), accompanied by a photograph of one of the rock art panels definitely found at Illomas (Boulder PAJ-011). However, in this confusing entry he roughly locates the site (Illomas? typo?) at the west bank of the Río Ocoña, which is about 45 km west of the factual location of Illomas.
Another example. Scaffidi et al. (2021) compiled a map showing Arequipa rock art sites, on which they also located the rock art site of Illomas. However, on that map Scaffidi et al. incorrectly located Illomas (red square in Figure 5) more than 18 km to the WNW of the factual location (approximated location of the erroneous location: 15° 58′ 56.72″ S and 72° 54′ 1.78″ W). Scaffidi et al. could have known the correct location of Illomas, which is shown in an earlier paper (which Scaffidi et al. refer to in their 2021-paper) by Jennings, Van Hoek et al. (2019: Figs 1, 2 and 3). On the same map (Scaffidi et al. 2021: Fig. 2) also the location of the rock art site Chillihuay is incorrectly marked, as in fact Chillihuay is found about 2000 m further east. Also the major site of Alto de Pitis in the Majes Valley is “slightly” incorrectly marked on their map, as will be explained below.
Figure 5. Map of west-Arequipa, approximately showing the correct (yellow squares) and incorrect (red squares) of Illomas, Chillihuay and Alto de Pitis. Map published by Scaffidi et al. (2021: Fig. 2); additions (the six [yellow and red] squares) made by Maarten van Hoek, under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Alto de Pitis – Peru
The erroneous location of Alto de Pitis (red square in Figure 5) is in fact repeating an error made by Scaffidi in her 2018-thesis (Van Hoek 2023b). In her 2018-dissertation Scaffidi correctly claims that the rock art site of Alto de Pitis on the east bank of the Majes Valley of southern Peru is visible from Uraca, a burial site on the west bank of the river Majes. A year earlier Uraca had been incorrectly located on the east bank of the Majes Valley in a publication by Alaica et al. (2017), an error which was repeated in Alaica et al. (2022: Fig. 1).
Indeed, the site of Alto de Pitis is “visible” from Uraca. However, there is a problem. The distance between the Uraca – Sector 1 burial site and the centre of Alto de Pitis is 6635 m (Line 2 in Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 11). Over such a distance, no rocks with petroglyphs (not even the largest ones) can be detected from Uraca. Consequently, only the direction in which Alto de Pitis is “visible” from Uraca – Sector 1 can be ascertained, however, only if you know where Alto de Pitis is located. Unfortunately, Scaffidi incorrectly locates Alto de Pitis about 2000 m north of the very northern tip of Alto de Pitis (Figure 6; Line 4 in Van Hoek [2022a: Fig. 11]). In fact the marker indicating “Pitis” on her Fig. 6.5 only indicates the village of El Pedregal. The rock art site of Alto de Pitis is not even visible on her Fig. 6.5 (2018).
Figure 6. Map of a part of the Central Majes Valley. Yellow line: the location of Alto de Pitis. Red oval: the incorrect location of Alto de Pitis according to Scaffidi (2018). Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.
Also the photo of her Fig. 5.2 (2018) incorrectly marks the rock art site of Alto de Pitis with a red “circle” (Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 12), but again the “circle” only indicates the alluvial fan on which the village of El Pedregal is found. The rock art site of Alto de Pitis (located much further to the south of El Pedregal) is not visible in her photo. However, the correct location of Alto de Pitis is known, because a map indicating (most of) the rock art site was published by Álvarez Zeballos (2009: page 13; his illustrations are unnumbered). Moreover, also in my 2013-book are several maps indicating the exact location of the rock art site of Alto de Pitis (Van Hoek 2013: Figs. 3, 64 and 65).
In October 2023 I came across a document on the internet that was called “Droughts, Water Security, and the Rise and Fall of the Wari Empire”. Unfortunately the PDF itself contained no publishing details. There was no name of the author, no date and no publisher; just text and four illustrations (all maps). The maps contained source-information, except for Fig. 3 (obviously a Google Earth Map). Because the name of Scaffidi was mentioned several times in the document, I searched the internet for further information and found the following reference: “RFF-2022-193 Cassandra K. Scaffidi, University of California, Merced. “Droughts, Water Security, and the Rise and Fall of the Wari Empire.” [Arequipa, Peru]”. Therefore I think that Scaffidi is the author of this document and I will refer to this document as “Scaffidi, B. 2020 (?)” (not 2022, because the PDF is dated 2020).
Several rock art sites were marked on her (?) 2020-maps, but some were not correctly located. For instance, on her (?) 2020 Fig. 2 the site of Alto de Pitis was – again – located too far north of the factual site, while also Chillihuay was incorrectly located on the map, this time no less than (roughly) 5 km SSE of the factual location of Chillihuay. Finally, the rock art site of Ananta in the Caravelí Valley was marked (in her [?] Fig. 4) on the east bank, while that site is found about 560 m to the NW, moreover on the west bank of the river. I will return to the situation of the rock art sites in the Caravelí drainage in another entry.
*
Toro Muerto – Peru
Toro Muerto is the largest rock art sites of the whole of the Desert Andes. It also is the best known site. Yet, a long time ago I found the a map locating Toro Muerto about 30 km to the SE of the factual location of the site, moreover along a (then) non-existing road (Figure 7). The correct location of Toro Muerto on this map is roughly at the @-mark, west of Corire. Also this error probably is just a matter of sloppiness.
Figure 7. Map of a part of Arequipa, showing an incorrect location of Toro Muerto. Map after an author / publisher who is unknown to me.
Another instance of uncritically assuming that locations are correct, concerns the aerial map of Toro Muerto published by Núñez Jiménez (1986: 341; Fig. 2105). On this map Núñez Jiménez marks the “Cementerio de Guarango” and one of the most important petroglyph boulders of Toro Muerto – “Roca No 26” – only a very short distance (280 m) to the WNW of the cemetery (which is located at approximately 16°14′ 32.21″ S and 72° 29′ 45.03″ W).
However, in fact both Roca No 26 (Figure 8) and the cemetery are found more than 800 m to the NE of the spots incorrectly indicated by Núñez Jiménez. “Roca No 26” is actually found at exactly 16°14′ 19.03″ S and 72° 29′ 25.55″ W in Google Earth – May 2023. Not being aware of his error and thus based on the incorrect map by Núñez Jiménez, I compiled a simple map of Toro Muerto copying and pasting the same incorrect location of the cemetery (Van Hoek 2003: Fig. 1). Several years later also Muriel Pozzi-Escot copied and pasted the (incorrect) Núñez Jiménez aerial map into her paper about Toro Muerto (2009: Fig. 4). These two instances (again) prove how easily incorrect information is taken for granted and often uncritically copied. And – if not informed – any author runs the risk to re-publish those errors (like Pozzi-Escot and I have – unintentionally – done).
Figure 8. Looking SW across “Roca No 26” at Toro Muerto, towards the (much approximated!) incorrect location as suggested by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2105). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
Caravelí – Peru
The situation in the Caravelí drainage is more complex, also because not all published material is available, making research rather difficult. Moreover, Caravelí rock art sites have not been surveyed by Núñez Jiménez, nor by me. For a long time the Caravelí Valley in the far west of Arequipa remained a neglected region concerning rock art research. In an early publication by Linares Málaga only two Caravelí rock art sites were marked on his map of rock art sites in Arequipa: his No. 16 – Quebrada Seca de Posco and his No. 39 – Socospampa (1973: Figura 58). The Inventario Nacional published by Rainer Hostnig in 2003 only mentions five sites “in the Province of Caravelí” (Cuculí, La Casa, Pampa Indio Viejo, Quebrada Seca de Posco and Socospampa), mainly very briefly referring to older publications by Linares Málaga and Rogger Ravines. Also Hostnig (2003: 58) was not aware that the site of Quebrada Seca de Posco was not located in Caravelí, since he based his information on very confusing information in publications by Eloy Linares Málaga.
Even more confusing, Linares Málaga (1973) once wrote that, according to Hubert Lazo (1965), Quebrada Seca de Posco was located at a spot with the following coordinates: W. 73° 18′ 06″ and S. 16° 03′ 50″, locating the site in the Pampas de la Paciencia, some 3 km west of the valley (lower red square in Figure 9). However, the site was also said – by Mario Valencia (1970) – to be located at W. 3° 16′ 20″ and S. 5° 58′ 00″, which proved to indicate a spot (upper red square in Figure 9) just west of the Pampa de Gramadal near the confluence of the Quebrada Seca with the Río Caravelí (blue arrows in Figure 9). The two spots are no less than 11 km apart (and both are incorrect).
However, Quebrada Seca is not the same as Quebrada Seca de Posco. This may be evidenced by the following information. The Ordnance Survey Map of Caravelí published by the ING-Perú (Código de Hoja: 32-p; 15º 57′ 13″ S and 73º 12′ 11″ W) shows a Quebrada Seca in the Province of Caravelí (small yellow arrow in Figure 9) and a Quebrada Saca de Posco (not Seca) in the Province of Camaná (small orange arrow in Figure 9). The 1996 Ordnance Survey Map of Caravelí published by the USA Government (SD 18-16 / 1501A / Sheet 2239) shows the same valleys respectively as Quebrada Seca (in the Province of Caravelí) and Quebrada de Posco (in the Province of Camaná). Therefore, it seems likely that Linares Málaga either made a mistake regarding the name of the Quebrada, or regarding the location of the Quebrada.
The solution? On page 158 of a publication by Linares Málaga (2011) is a map (dated 1970) of the site that Linares Málaga called Quebrada Seca de Posco, Prov. Caravelí. However, the small inset on this map gives a completely incorrect idea of the location of that site. At long last, the site of Quebrada Seca de Posco proved to be located 7 km NE of the confluence of the Quebrada Seca with the Río Caravelí (UTM: 691556.00 m O / 8238032.00 m S in Google Earth 2009). It furthermore proved that the site of Quebrada Seca de Posco (orange square in Figure 9) is located in a minor, unnamed side valley west of the Quebrada Seca de Posco, which, moreover, is actually located in the Province of Camaná, not in the Province of Caravelí.
To conclude, the rock art site near the Quebrada Seca de Posco definitely is not the same as the dry river of Quebrada Seca (yellow square in Figure 9), where – as far as I know – no rock art exists. Likewise the rock art site of Quebrada Seca de Posco (with possibly only up to seven decorated boulders) is definitely not the same site as three new sites jointly labelled Quebrada Seca by its discoverer in 2013, Mario Casas Berdejo. Because I now find the name Quebrada Seca misleading, I have labelled those three new sites Río Caravelí (North, Centre and South; green squares in Figure 9). More information about those three new sites can be found in my 2022b-publication.
Figure 9. Small part of the Río Caravelí (blue arrows) with incorrectly located rock art sites (marked with red squares and a yellow square), as well as correctly marked rock art sites (green squares and orange square). Map © by Maarten van Hoek (source unknown to me).
*
Imaoun – Morocco
Understandably not only in publications about rock art in Peru errors occur. The following example was spotted by me in a publication about one of the most important rock art areas in the Anti-Atlas of southern Morocco. It concerned the Imaoun complex, of which the site of Imaoun-1 (or Imaoun South) was first reported in a publication by André Simoneau in 1977.
In view of the importance of Imaoun-1 it is remarkable to notice that the very extensive, most detailed, yet extremely puzzling (and thus hard-to-read) survey of the rock art in a large area around Icht and Akka of the Anti-Atlas of southern Morocco by Renate Heckendorf (2008) does not seem to include any information about Imaoun-1; an – in my opinion – truly exceptional and unique rock art site. The Imaoun complex is found in the Wadi Akka Drainage.
After a long and frustrating search through her 2008-thesis, I finally found out that Imaoun-1 was listed by Heckendorf as “TM2/04: Imaoun Assif Touna” (or just “Assif Touna” [2008: 147]), without clarifying that her TM2/04 is actually also known as – and consequently only reported as such in publications – Imaoun South (Sud) or as Imaoun-1. In her 2008-thesis Heckendorf also refers to André Simoneau (1977) and to his catalogue number of the site he called “Imaoun Assif Touna”: 15.0109. Five photos with this catalogue number – demonstrably depicting petroglyphs recorded at Imaoun-1 – were also published by Simoneau in 1977.
Much later Susan Searight included Imaoun-1 as “S-32 Assif Touna” in her thesis (2001: 303), repeating Simoneau’s (1977) catalogue number of 15.0109 as well. Moreover, in her extensive thesis about the rock art of Morocco Searight (2001) also briefly described the three then known sites of the Imaoun Complex. The main site is called Imaoun South by Searight, which is the site referred to in this study as Imaoun-1. Confusingly, in her 2008-thesis Heckendorf labels another site (TM2/07) “Imaoun S.” as well (her “S.” definitely meaning “South”), but her TM2/07 concerns a different site, which is found no less than 5000 m south of Imaoun South (Imaoun-1). Surprisingly, Heckendorf (2008) did not refer to the most informative paper by Searight (1999), which describes and lavishly illustrates Imaoun-1, a site which was then also labelled Imaoun-Sud by Searight (1999: 15; Fig. 1).
In itself it is not a problem using the name of “Imaoun Assif Touna” (which was actually introduced by Simoneau in 1977), to indicate Imaoun-1, as long as it will be made clear which site it concerns (by mentioning earlier used names) in order to avoid confusion. The red arrow in Figure 10 may indicate the location (and direction?) of the dry riverbed of Assif Touna, which joins a tributary of Wadi Akka at the southern tip of Imaoun-2.
It is thus the more surprising to see that site TM2/04 – called “Imaoun Assif Touna” by Heckendorf (which thus in fact refers to Imaoun-1) – has incorrectly been marked on her map of the Imaoun area (2008: Abb. 50. Karte 3). On her Abb. 50. Karte 3, the site of “TM/04 (Imaoun Assif Touna)” is located by her 1100 to 2000 m NNE of the factual location of rock art site of Imaoun-1 (Figure 10). More unexpected is the fact that the unique site of Imaoun-1 and the rock art sites of Imaoun-3 (reported by Garcin and Garcin in 2004; Van Hoek 2024a; my video about Imaoun-3A) and Imaoun-2 have not even been marked on her map Abb. 50. Karte 3 (2008).
Concluding, three rock art sites (the yellow circles in Figure 10) – all reported before 2008 – are missing on the 2008-map by Heckendorf, while her location of TM/04 (Imaoun-1) is incorrect. Moreover, those three missing sites (Imaoun-1 to 3) have not been described, mentioned or illustrated by her, while it is certain that the Imaoun Complex houses some of the most important rock art sites in (southern) Morocco. Any researcher publishing about the rock art in the Wadi Akka drainage should – in my opinion – at least mention those three important sites in any publication and include some illustrations (of at least Imaoun-1).
Figure 10. Part of the Imaoun Rock Art Complex in southern Morocco, showing the correct locations of Imaoun-1, 2 and 3 (numbered accordingly and marked with yellow dots). The large red dot (4) approximately shows the incorrect location of TM2/04: Imaoun Assif Touna according to Heckendorf (2008: Abb. 50. Karte 3). Map © by Maarten van Hoek (scale about 200 m), based on Google Earth.
*
Misplaced Rock Art
In earlier publications I occasionally referred to situations where an archaeologist situated a rock art site or a decorated rock art panel at the wrong site. For instance, I noted that Hans Dietrich Disselhoff positioned Panel AP1-001F (which is found at Alto de Pitis on the east bank of the Majes Valley in southern Peru) incorrectly at Toro Muerto (which is found on the west bank, about 7000 m to the NW) (Disselhoff 1971: 40; Abb. 17), while in another publication (1968: 58) he placed another rock art panel also at Toro Muerto, while in fact it again is found at Alto de Pitis (it concerns Boulder AP1-033). Also Eloy Linares Málaga quite often mixed up the locations of rock art sites and panels in Majes. A leaflet of Prom-Perú – only describing the petroglyphs of Toro Muerto – also included two photos of rock art panels at Miculla, a site 320 km to the SE of Toro Muerto. In 2006 I wrote Prom-Perú about those errors, but never got an answer. It seems that people simply do not care, or do not appreciate to be corrected.
Another instance. Ilder Cruz Mostacero published a photo (Cruz Mostacero n.d. [2013?]: Fig. 11, not mentioning or acknowledging the source in his caption) of a boulder with petroglyphs, earlier published by Rodríguez López and Castillo Benites (2006), said by Cruz to be located at Alto de la Guitarra in the Virú drainage. However, the boulder is actually found at Chuquillanqui, which is located in the Chicama drainage. The two sites are 65 km apart.
Also Antonio Núñez Jiménez (1986) has published quite a few flaws regarding the correct location of sites and/or panels. One illustrative example is his Fig. 1568, which Núñez Jiménez locates at San Miguel de Yangastambo, allegedly located along the Río Cañete in the south of Peru, while in fact the petroglyphs are found at Palamenco (Figure 11A and B), a rock art site in the north of Peru, some 510 km to the NW of San Miguel de Yangastambo. Surprisingly, his drawing of his “Yangastambo” panel (Fig. 1568; Figure 11C) is even far better than his drawing of his Palamenco entry (Fig. 963; Figure 11D), especially when it is compared with my drawing and photograph (resp. Figure 11A and B). Many similar examples of incorrectly located entries by Núñez Jiménez (1986) have been discussed by me (Van Hoek 2011). However, in all those instances there is only question of (mainly time-related) sloppiness, not of any intent.
Figure 11. A, B and D: Panel PAL-051A at Palamenco. C: The same panel incorrectly located at San Miguel de Yangastambo. Photograph (B) and drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, C and D based on the drawings by Núñez Jiménez (1986: resp. Figs 1568 and 963).
Indeed, there is often confusion of which petroglyph is found where. For instance Ravines (1986: 34) illustrates a petroglyph said to be found “at Chichitara” in the Palpa Valley of southern Peru (a site not published by Núñez Jiménez), while this petroglyph is in fact found at neighbouring La Cabañita. Likewise, Núñez Jiménez includes drawings of petroglyphs “at La Cantera” (1986: Figs 1966 and 1968), which are in fact found at La Cabañita as well.
But even academics who are specialised in the rock art of Toro Muerto make mistakes regarding location. An illustrative example is the photo of the vandalised petroglyph boulder posted on Facebook by the “Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto” on the 11th of August 2018 (Figure 12). According to the caption it is accepted by the “Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto” that this boulder is located “at Toro Muerto”.
However, the archaeologists responsible for all posts on this Facebook page – Janusz Wołoszyn and Liz Gonzales Ruiz – should have realised that vandals would not easily (or rather: never) put a political poster on a boulder at a (remote) site like Toro Muerto, a site with decorated boulders that all are completely invisible from any asphalted road. On the contrary, such posters are found immediately along (busy) major roads. The boulder in question is in fact not located at Toro Muerto, but at Alto de Pitis, only 25 m north of the Arequipa-Corire (Toro Muerto) highway (the construction of which destroyed part of the rock art site of Alto de Pitis). It concerns Boulder AP2-001, which is easily visible for any motorist travelling from Arequipa to the Majes Valley. The correct location of Boulder AP2-001 in Google Earth (2018) is: 16° 16′ 33.14″ S and 72° 26′ 37.18″ W.
Figure 12. Screen-dump of an entry posted in the Facebook page of the “Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto”, incorrectly suggesting or claiming that this violated decorated boulder is found at Toro Muerto. Photograph originally by Frase Corta. Text by Frase Corta: “Candidato busca llegar a la alcaldía provincial atentando patrimonio mundial. Los simpatizantes de Aurelio Vilca Giraldo, aspirante a la provincia de Castilla pintaron una de las rocas donde se conservan los petroglifos de Toro Muerto.”
I appreciate that Frase Corta defends the legacy of the ancient Majes people, whether the boulders is purportedly found at Toro Muerto, or – as is the case here – at Alto de Pitis.
*
Confusing Coordinates and GPS-data
Mind you, the coordinates of Boulder AP2-001 at Alto de Pitis discussed above (Figure 12) are only correct for the 19-12-2018 Google Earth map. But the same boulder is found 17 m to the ESE in the 13-1-2004 Google Earth map and even 43 m to the ESE on the 5-6-2004 Google Earth map. Similar discrepancies occur in scientific publications, yet also on one and the same Google Earth map, but then there must be another reason for the discrepancy.
An illustrative example is found in a paper by Rubén García Soto (2013) which provides the UTM-data for a group of important geoglyphs that are found on Cerro Lechuza, about 37 km NNW of the town of Ica southern Peru. However, the distance between the spot indicated by his UTM-location (UTM de referencia son 386.407 E y 8.455.284 [2013: 153]; which are the same coordinates as: 13° 58′ 13.82″ S and 76° 3′ 6.09″ W), and the factual location of the geoglyphs in Google Earth 2021 (13° 57′ 48.52″ S and 76° 3′ 49.09″ W) is no less than 1500 m! Such a big discrepancy is not easy to explain. But there are more instances were academic archaeologists provide incorrect coordinates in their publications.
For instance, the UTM-data for the site of Lúcumar in northern Peru (Site 1 in Figure 13) provided by local archaeologist Castillo Benites (2009) from Trujillo (0741040 norte y 9119758 este) lead you to a point 450 to the NE of the factual site, moreover on the other side of the valley (A in Figure 13). The factual location of the centre of the Lúcumar rock art site is: 7° 57′ 38.93″ S and 78° 48′ 57.11″ W (or UTM 740771.78 m E and 9119396.48 m S) in Google Earth 31-7-2002. Argentinean archaeologist Ana María Rocchietti published the following co-ordinates for the Lúcumar petroglyph site: S. 7° 58′ 06″ and W. 78° 48′ 53″ (2012: 11; provided by archaeologist Álvaro Castañeda Mesía). However, in Google Earth 31-7-2002 these data lead you to a spot no less than 840 m SSE of the factual location (B in Figure 13).
Similarly, when using the UTM co-ordinates of the location of the “nearby” Piedra del Sol (Site 2 in Figure 13) provided by Castillo Benites (2009) (N. 0743897 and E. 9119195 in Google Earth 31-7-2002), one will reach a spot that is in reality located 2000 m NE of the factual location (C in Figure 13). The Piedra del Sol is in fact located at 742587.50 m E and 9117623.39 m S (in Google Earth 31-7-2002), only a short distance due north of the dirt track leading east from Simbal, on a south facing slope of the hill and at an altitude of about 690 m O.D.; only 20 m above the valley floor of the Río La Cuesta.
Figure 13: Map of the Simbal area, east of Trujillo, Peru. 1: Lúcumar; 2: Piedra del Sol. The capital letters are explained in the text. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.
A general problem is the discrepancy with collected GPS-data with the location in Google Earth. An example. In the period of 2015 to 2017 the Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto (PTM) documented a large part of the rock art site of Toro Muerto and provided GPS-data for the boulders that were recorded. Interestingly, the difference between their GPS-locations and the locations in Google Earth is often an acceptable 10 to 12 meters in the field. For instance, the well-known Boulder PTM-0079 (Roca 26 according to Linares Málaga) is according to the GPS-data roughly 11.5 m WSW of the location in Google Earth. This in itself is no real problem, because the boulder is very large and isolated (see Figure 8) and cannot be missed in Google Earth (neither in the field; except when going for the location incorrectly given by Núñez Jiménez). However, when decorated boulders are found (very) close together (with large and small boulders close together, which is – for instance – the case at many spots further NW at Toro Muerto), it will often be impossible – even with GPS – to exactly establish where a specific boulder is to be found in Google Earth (no matter which Google Earth year you use).
*
Conclusions
This paper discusses a number of publications that offer information about the location of rock art sites. However, the main goal of this paper is in fact to show how easily such errors are uncritically repeated by other researchers. An illustrative example is Fig. 49 published by Jean Guffroy (1999: 117). The caption of his Fig. 49 (showing the B&W drawings of four petroglyphs depicting of fish, originally published by Núñez Jiménez in 1986, and correctly referred to by Guffroy) still incorrectly locates Figs a, c and d at Cerro Mulato, and Fig. b at Alto de la Guitarra, both in northern Peru, but many kilometres distant. However, the correct locations are: Figs a and c are found at Alto de la Guitarra, and Figs b and d at Cerro Mulato.
Proving my point raised above, the errors by Guffroy have been repeated on one (unnumbered) page that was written and illustrated by Carmen Pérez (2022: 7), referring to Guffroy 1999. Moreover, the book by Guffroy (1999) is illustrated with numerous drawings taken from Núñez Jiménez’ 1986-book, many of which are inaccurate, incomplete or incorrect. This is understandable because Guffroy was never informed about the flaws in Núñez Jiménez’ book. However, even after the publication of my book about Núñez Jiménez’ flaws (Van Hoek 2011), many researchers continued to uncritically re-publish (often incorrect) drawings by Núñez Jiménez, often even basing their theories upon (that therefore may well be incorrect as well).
This study also questioned whether the locations of rock art sites should be published or not. Of course, everyone is free to decide whether she or he reveals the location of an archaeological site or not. In the past I asked several people whether they would be willing to reveal the location of a rock art site to me. In several cases I promised not to publish anything about the location. But even when I was not allowed to reveal the location, just knowing were a site was located would have been useful in order to recognise certain distribution patterns, but even then permission was occasionally denied (for an example see Van Hoek 2023c: 35).
However, the great advantage of revealing location details is demonstrated by my publication describing the rock art site of El Vagón, located in the Moche Drainage of northern Peru, which was inspected by us in 2006 to 2017. Unfortunately the site was destroyed between 2019 and 2022, and yet my extensive publication about El Vagón (Van Hoek 2019) is being ignored by Peruvian archaeologists, even after informing some Peruvian archaeologists about my report Only in August 2024 I found out via Google Earth what the scale of the destruction of the rock art site of El Vagón was (Van Hoek 2024b). Notwithstanding this boycott, my survey is the only up-to-date and most complete record of El Vagón and thanks to my maps, it is still known exactly where El Vagón WAS situated. Similar cases of destruction occur elsewhere in the Desert Andes, for instance at Huaca Blanca in northern Peru (Van Hoek 2021b) and at Calartoco in northern Chile (Van Hoek 2024c).
Again, I prefer to include location-data in my publications, although in some cases I reserve the right to not to reveal any location-details, often for a specific reason (see for instance Van Hoek 2010: Page 6 in the PDF version). Yet, in the past I sometimes was unjustifiably attacked by several academic (Peruvian and Argentinian) archaeologists for revealing the locations of rock art sites, or commenting on their published flaws regarding rock art locations in what seems to have been considered to be “their” domains. This proves that often some academics do not want to be commented on, even when they publish factually incorrect information. However, when you publish, you can be commented on (see Van Hoek 2014).
In this respect, a most disgusting form of vandalism at rock art sites is to use the rock art images as shooting targets (especially in western North America many rock art panels have been desecrated this way). Every rock art researcher or archaeologist will admit that this is a most repulsive way to act at any Sacred Site. Therefore, do not shoot at rock art. But I also would like to add again: do not shoot the messenger, as yet this happens too often as well. I also repeat: Publicly acknowledging that somebody is right, is also a form of integrity! However, integrity is a human capacity that gets lost more and more. Decreasing integrity means escalating lying.
However, if a researcher decides to reveal the location of a site or decorated boulder, it is highly desirable to make sure that the publication contains the correct data. That would only be fair to the interested reader, who may – based on the often interesting published information – decide to visit the site her- or himself. Even when not having any intention to visit a site, a researcher may draw the wrong conclusions regarding distribution. For instance, based on the incorrect location of the “Piedra del Sol” in the Moche drainage of northern Peru (see Figure 13 “C”, instead of the correct location indicated by #2), a researcher may conclude that some petroglyph sites are found at high altitudes, while in fact high altitude petroglyph sites are very scarce in the Desert Andes. Exceptions are – for instance – Alto de la Guitarra, which is found at about 800 m O.D. (see Figure 3), Cerro Colorado NE of Lima, which is at 2168 m O.D. (Van Hoek 2022c) and Chillihuay in south Peru at 950 m on average (Van Hoek 2024d). Concluding, published information may never be misleading (whether the false information has been published intentionally or not). Also conclusions based on false information may turn out to be incorrect (for a published example read my paper about Beringa [Peru]: Van Hoek 2022a).
If any (academic) archaeologist wishes to publish a study about the archaeology of whichever area in the Desert Andes, which will involve observations about the rock art in those areas, it would be a good idea to first consult the many publications about the rock art in those areas. The best source regarding Peru is the very extensive, often updated Bibliografía of rock art researcher Rainer Hostnig (see also my DropBox webpage). It may prevent making unnecessary errors or omissions regarding the rock art in those areas, avoiding errors made in the past.
*
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Rainer Hostnig for sharing with me the 1986-book by Antonio Núñez Jiménez, which I used intensively over the past 20 years and for sharing much information about rock art in Peru. I am also grateful to the late Cristóbal Campana Delgado for sharing many photos with me and for his kind permission to use them. Last but not least I am grateful to my wife Elles for her assistance while surveying numerous rock art sites in the Desert Andes and Morocco, and for her ongoing support at home.
*
References
Alaica, A. K., L. M. González La Rosa, W. Yepez Alvarez and J. Jennings. 2017. Antecessor Whistle Production during the Middle Horizon of Arequipa: A Technological study of the worked bone from La real. Poster.
Alaica, A. K., L. M. González La Rosa, W. Yépez Álvarez and J. Jennings. 2022. The day the music died: Making and playing bone wind instruments at La Real in Middle Horizon, Peru (600 – 1000 CE). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Vol. 68; pp. 101 – 459.
Álvarez Zeballos, P. J. 2009. Petroglifos de Cantas, Pitis, La Mezana y La Laja; Valle de Majes. No longer accessible at the website of Arqueología de Perú.
Castillo Benites, D. 2006. Arte Rupestre en la Cuenca del Río Chicama. Ediciones SIAN, Arqueología / 4. Trujillo, Perú.
Castillo Benites, D. 2009. Petroglifos del Distrito de Simbal, Valle de Moche. Revista del Museo de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia. Vol. 1; pp. 145 – 158.
Castillo Benítez, D. 2011. Revisión del sitio de arte rupestre Pampa Calata: nuevos reportes. In: Revista Museo de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo. Vol. 12; pp. 89 – 114. Trujillo, Perú. (Version with 7 drawings).
Castillo Benítez, D. 2012. Revisión del sitio de arte rupestre Pampa Calata: nuevos reportes. MS with different illustrations distributed by the author in 2012 via email.
Cruz Mostacero, I. n. d. (2013?) El arte Rupestre del Perú Antiguo. Unpublished PDF.
Delnoÿ, D. and Otte, M. 2015a. The Petroglyphs of Huancor, Peru: Form and Meaning. Expression. Vol. 9; pp. 18 – 21.
Delnoÿ, D. and Otte, M. 2015b Huancor: oubli et déclin d’un site d’art péruvien. Archéologia.
Disselhoff, H. D. 1968. Oasenstädte und Zaubersteine im Land der Inka. Archäologische Forschungsreisen in Peru. Safari Verlag. Berlin.
Disselhoff, H. D. 1971. Südperuanischer Felsbilder. Antike Welt. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Urgeschichte. Vol. 2.1; pp. 33 – 44. Zürich.
Echevarría López, G. T. & E. Mora. 2012. Las quilcas de Huancor, nuevas hipótesis sobre su cronología y asociación cultural. Boletín APAR; Vol. 3, No 12: pp. 449 – 461.
García Soto, R. 2013. Geoglifos de la costa sur: Cerro Lechuza y Cerro Pico. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP. Vol. 17; pp. 151 – 168.
Garcin, A. and G. Garcin. 2004. Promenade autour d’Imaoun. Cahiers de l’AARS. Vol. 9; pp. 1 – 6.
Guffroy, J. 1999. El arte rupestre del antiguo Perú. IFEA, IRD. Tomo 112. Travaux de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines, Lima.
Guffroy, J. 2009. Imagénes y paisajes; rupestres del Perú. Editions IRD. Marseille, France; Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.
Hostnig, R. 2003. Arte Rupestre del Perú. Inventario Nacional. CONCYTEC. Lima – Perú.
Hostnig, R. 2024. Bibliografía sobre arte rupestre del Perú -2024. Private Publication, available at Academia.
Heckendorf, R. 2008. ‘Bubalin’ und ‘Bovidien’ in Südmarokko: Kontext, Klassifikation und Chronologie der Felsbilder im mittleren Draa-Tal. Forschungen zur Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen; Band 6. Bonn.
Jennings, J., M. van Hoek, W. Yépez Álvarez, S. Bautista, R. A. San Miguel Fernández and G. Spence-Morrow. 2019. Illomas: the three thousand year history of a rock art site in Southern Peru. Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology. Vol. 39-2; pp. 1 – 31.
Linares Málaga, E. 1973; re-published 2013. Anotaciones sobre las cuatro modalidades de arte rupestre en Arequipa (pictografías, petroglifos, arte rupestre mobiliar y geoglifos). In: Boletín de APAR-2013. Vol. 4-15/16; pp. 611 – 651. Originally published in: Anales científicos de la Universidad del Centro del Perú. 1973. Vol. 2; pp. 133 – 267. Huancayo.
Linares Málaga, E. 2011. Memorias del Arqueólogo Eloy Linares Málaga. 80 Años de Edad y 60 de investigador. Castilla – Camaná. Universidad Alas Peruanas. Lima.
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.
Pérez, C. 2022. Especies Acuáticas en el Arte Rupestre del Perú. In: “El Sentido del Agua; Un Viaje desde la Prehistoria.” Arte Rupestre y Calentamiento Global.
Pozzi-Escot, M. 2009. Los petroglifos de Toro Muerto (Valle de Majes, Arequipa-Perú), Inventario y Registro. Crónicas sobre la Piedra. Arte Rupestre de las Américas. Cap. 4; pp. 349-361. VII Simposio Internacional de Arte Rupestre. Arica, Chile.
PROM-Perú. 2005. Petroglifos de Toro Muerto. Lima, Perú. Leaflet.
Rocchietti, A. M. 2012. El Pájaro de Simbal (Valle de Moche, Perú). AИTI – Revista del Centro de Investigaciones Precolombinas; Núm. 11; pp 5 – 14. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rodríguez López, L. F. y D. Castillo Benites. 2006. Los petroglifos de Chuquillanqui. Ponencia: II Simposio de Arte Rupestre. Trujillo.
Scaffidi (Koontz), C. (B). 2018. Networks of Violence: Bioarchaeological and Spatial Perspectives on Physical, Structural, and Cultural Violence in the Lower Majes Valley, Arequipa, Peru, in the Pre- and Early-Wari Eras. Dissertation. Vanderbilt University.
Scaffidi, B. 2020 (?). Droughts, Water Security, and the Rise and Fall of the Wari Empire. [Arequipa, Peru]. Publisher unknown to me (not mentioned in the online PDF).
Scaffidi, B. K., G. D. Kamenov, A. E. Sharpe and J. Krigbaum. 2021. Non-Local Enemies or Local Subjects of Violence?: Using Strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and Lead (206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb) Isobiographies to Reconstruct Geographic Origins and Early Childhood Mobility of Decapitated Male Heads from the Majes Valley, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 29; pp. 426 – 479.
Searight, S. 1999. Imaoun: un site de gravures rupestres du sud-marocain. Les Cahiers de lʼAARS. Vol. 5; pp. 15 – 26.
Searight, S. 2001. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Morocco. A Study of its extension, environment and meaning. PhD-Thesis. Bournemouth University.
Simoneau, A. 1977. Catalogue des sites rupestres du sud-marocain. Ministère d’Etat chargé des Affaires Culturelles, Rabat.
Tacca Quispe, L. W. 2008. Condesuyos: los petroglifos de Illomas y otros lugares asociados. Municipalidad Provincial de Condesuyos, Arequipa.
Uhle, M. 1924. Exploraciones en Chincha. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 21; pp. 91- 94. Berkeley.
Van Hoek, M. 2003. The rock art of Toro Muerto, Peru. Rock Art Research. Vol. 20-2; pp. 151 – 170. Melbourne, Australia. Available as PDF-51 at DropBox, which is also accessible via this link: https://arte-rupestre3.webnode.nl/new-publications/ (this URL link will not be repeated).
Van Hoek, M. 2010. ‘Trophy’ heads in the rock art of the Majes Valley, Perú: exploring their possible origin. In: Rupestreweb. Available as PDF-20 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2011. Petroglyphs of Peru – Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Book available at Academia (https://independent.academia.edu/vanHoekMaarten/Books) and as PDF-102 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Carcancha and the Apu. Rock Art in the Death Valley of the Andes. Book available (as PDF-2) at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2014. An update of the petroglyph art near Simbal, Río Moche, North Peru. In: Rupestreweb (Con comentario de Daniel Castillo Benites y réplica del autor).
Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Rock Art of El Vagón. Moche Drainage, Peru. In: TRACCE – On-line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2021a. Seated Biomorphs in Paracas Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at Academia and DropBox (PDF-3).
Van Hoek, M. 2021b. Updating the Rock Art near Huaca Blanca. Lambayeque, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2022a. The Mislaid Beringa Petroglyph. A Missed Opportunity or a Misleading Missive? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2022b. The Book of the Río Caravelí Petroglyphs, Peru – Further Analyses. Book available at Academia and as PDF-34 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2022c. Rock Art at Punta Colorada, Majes, Peru – An Update. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2023/2014. Re-published Review of: UNA SERPIENTE Y UNA HISTORIA DEL AGUA NOTAS PARA UN ESTUDIO DEL ALTO DE LAS GUITARRAS, A book by Cristóbal Campana Delgado (2013). Available as PDF-131 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2023b. Majes Rock Art: Evaluating Scaffidi’s 2018-Thesis. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek. M. 2023c. “Trophy” Heads in the Rock Art of North and South America”. Book available as PDF at Academia and as PDF #18 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2024a. Petroglyphs of Imaoun-3A. Southern Morocco. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2024b. El Vagón Violated. Ongoing Destruction of Rock Art Sites in Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2024c. The Rock Art Site of Calartoco – Victim of Infrastructure. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2024d. A Petroglyph Panel at Chillihuay (Ocoña Drainage – Peru) within a larger context. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Leave a Reply