TRACCEDifferently Patinated Petroglyphs at Yonán Peru

Differently Patinated Petroglyphs at Yonán Peru

August 16, 2025 Academics, Featured, South America No comments INDEX

Especially petroglyphs in arid or semi-arid regions often show different degrees of patination. This may result in clearly visible images as well as almost invisible (hidden) images. I selected the rock art site of Yonán in northern Peru to demonstrate how easy it is to overlook images on exposed rock panels.

By Maarten van Hoek

Differently Patinated Petroglyphs

Yonán, Northern Peru, a Case Study

Maarten van Hoek

Cover Photo: Part of Complex YON-015. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Click on any illustration to see an enlargement.

Introduction

The petroglyph site of Yonán comprises the lower but rather rough part of a long outcrop ridge, which is located on the south side of the valley of the Río Jequetepeque in northern Peru. The site is located roughly 55 km inland as the crow flies (Figure 1), about 4.5 km ESE of the centre of the small town of Tembladera. According to Hostnig (2003: 89) Yonán has many alternative names (Chausis, Las Campanas del Diablo, La Biblioteca del Diablo, Cerro [de] Santa Clara, Cerro de Las Pinturas, and Fila de los Letreros). Yet the site is generally simply referred to as Yonán, after an inconspicuous hamlet, about 700 m WNW of the petroglyph site. However, it is a different site than Cerro Yonán, a petroglyph site immediately to the west of Yonán, across the dry valley of the Quebrada de Chausis.

Figure 1. Map of the Jequetepeque Valley and the location of three of the rock art sites in the valley. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap-Contributors.

The central course of the Río Jequetepeque runs through a sometimes narrow and yet in places fertile valley floor and is – near Yonán – about 460 m O.D. while the rocky valley floor of the Quebrada de Chausis is at about 480 m, measured at the foot of the western slope of the ridge. The top of the nearest hill, topped by an ugly pylon, is at about 510 m O.D., but the ridge extends much further to the SE (at least 1.5 km) to a point where it merges with other, higher hills (summit at 805 m). The site is overlooked by several high and steep sided hills of which Cerro Yonán (summit at 697 m; 0.67 km to the SE; see Figure 18) is the most conspicuous.

The rock art site (thus the part of the ridge where the petroglyphs are found) measures about 0.09 km from the apex in the north to its imaginary “base” in the south, while the estimated west-east base of this roughly triangular area is about 0.03 km (Figures 2 and 3). This relatively small triangle is the area that my wife Elles and I investigated (in 2004, 2006 and 2017). Especially in 2004 it was a surprise to see how many panels had been decorated with altogether thousands of petroglyphs (and there may be more petroglyphs to be discovered).

Figure 2. Map of the rock art site of Yonán. Only four panels have roughly been indicated. Panel YON-015 (a very large outcrop or enormous boulder) is marked at the exact position. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth (2025).

In places the ridge is rather steep to almost vertical and consists of a jumble of angular but worn outcrops, often with high, smooth, vertical surfaces, and a large number of large and small boulders chaotically strewn all around, some of which clearly are not in their original position. The predominant colours of the decorated rocks at Yonán are blue and grey.

The petroglyphs are found on almost every boulder and on almost every bit of exposed outcrop. The first group of boulders at the northern apex are marked with many petroglyphs. One remarkably large rock has three large natural holes in its almost vertical north face and looks like an enormous skull or ominous face. The petroglyphs continue almost continuously to the top of a prominent outcrop where fine views in many directions are to be enjoyed. In many cases all panels of a rock bear one or more images. Some of the panels are even completely covered with an enormous concentration of petroglyphs. As a result, several instances of superimposition occur.

Research History

Although discovered by Raimondi and first surveyed by Hutchinson as early as 1873, as far as I know (up to 2025), no-one has ever made a survey of Yonán that resulted in the publication of a complete inventory of each decorated panel. Yet, two published surveys (still incomplete inventories rather) of Yonán are important. The first record is by Victor Pimentel (1986), but his survey solely covered the extreme north tip of the ridge and describes only 25 rocks or panels. Fortunately, the petroglyphs that he illustrates are correct renderings of the images, but the individual images of each panel are not presented in their relatively correct positions.

It was Cuban explorer Núñez Jiménez who – also in 1986 – published a more comprehensive inventory of black and white drawings and several photos of the site that he surveyed in 1976. Unfortunately, there are quite a few mistakes, some of which are observable in his own photos (compare for instance his Fig. 417 and Fig. 418). Moreover, specific petroglyphs on several panels are missing, are incorrectly illustrated or are illustrated as separate panels (these issues were more fully discussed by me: Van Hoek 2011). Moreover, the site-plan made by Núñez Jiménez in 1976 (1986: Fig. 333) only roughly indicates the location of most of the petroglyph panels, but as a scientific source his map is not of much use, since most dots do not show his Figure-number. Moreover, two most important panels (113 and 114 in Figure 3) are not included in the site-plan by Núñez Jiménez. My own (incomplete!) site-plan (Figure 3) will roughly point out where most panels are located. However, I must emphasise again that also my site-plan is incorrect to a certain extent as I did not carry out a scientific location survey. For instance, I never used GPS. Therefore, all dots in my site-plan are only approximate, but they show the YON-number of each individual rock referring to my photographic record. Numbers (in italics) without a dot refer to rocks that could not be pinpointed by me with sufficient accuracy, although it is certain that the rock is roughly located in the indicated area.

The actual number of petroglyph panels at Yonán is obscure. The plan by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 333) indicates the number 166 as the maximum, while his Fig. 456 shows his Piedra 168. However, in his book he includes 42 further illustrations of un-numbered Piedras, petroglyphs or panels (Figs. 457 to 499). This would mean that Núñez Jiménez allegedly surveyed at least 200 panels (although some petroglyphs on the same panel have been given a separate number or illustration by Núñez Jiménez). In an interesting article (2006) Campana and Deza discussed the site and claim to have surveyed 187 piedras grabadas, but it is not known whether they mean panels or rocks, as the distinction between these two is most confusing at Yonán. In 2009 French archaeologist Jean Guffroy published a book that contained a photographic record of the petroglyphs at Yonán, including 49 (detail) photos.

Figure 3. Site-plan of Yonán. Map © by Maarten van Hoek.

My own photographic record (compiled in 2004, 2006 and 2017) includes more than 130 rocks (often featuring several panels) most of which appear numbered on my map (but I left out a large number of panels that have only minor or indeterminate markings, some of which may even be modern). Many of the panels that I recorded do not appear in the book by Núñez Jiménez (and vice versa!). Concluding, I roughly estimate the number of decorated rocks at Yonán to be around 200, but the number of individual petroglyphs is much, much higher.

Unfortunately, vandalism at Yonán is a big problem. First of all, Yonán is situated almost directly on the main road from the Panamericana Highway on the coast to Cajamarca in the High Andes, and the site receives much attention via several websites on the internet. Moreover, around 2005 it was, regrettably, decided to erect a large sign on the main road and at the entrance-track to the site, advertising the archaeological complex at Yonán. Also this sign attracts a lot of visitors (sometimes too many; even bus-loads; website accessed on the 5^th of August 2025) who can easily park their car or bus only a few metres north of the entrance. As a result large crowds often climb the rocks (which, in my opinion, is a violation of this Sacred Site). Finally, there is no supervision at all (at least not in 2004, 2006 and 2017) and also because much of the site is concealed by vegetation, visitors and vandals go unnoticed. As a result of all those years of unsupervised visits too many decorated panels have (often heavily) been vandalised, especially by scratching. Several panels have even been violated with ugly paint. I also fear that some smaller rocks have already been stolen.

Petroglyphs of Yonán

Although in many cases the exact layout of the images at Yonán is hard to make out (they are often partially re-pecked, or heavily scratched, heavily vandalised with paint and graffiti, deeply weathered, often covered in bird droppings, or are part of a most complex group of often superimposed petroglyphs), there are several images that are easy to identify. A true hallmark at Yonán is the occurrence of objects that I suggest to represent the Tumi, the ceremonial knife of the Moche and Chimú. Then there are several fine images of birds (see Figure 7) and other zoomorphs. A specialty is the imagery of a bird that seems to be sitting on top of a stick or staff, or perhaps a plant (see Figure 16). Complete depictions of anthropomorphs are less well represented, while isolated (human?) masks or heads also occur.

Very special at Yonán are the two adjacent panels bearing altogether seven biomorphs that seem to play a wind instrument (it concerns Panels YON-113 and 114; see Figures 2 and 3 for their location). These hitherto unnoticed petroglyphs were kindly reported to me by Earl Maynard in 2004 and were later published by me (Van Hoek 2005: Fig. 8).

Abstract imagery occurs very often, but the array is clearly dominated by small arches and/or U-shapes (see for instance Figure 19). Yonán also has a small number of anthropic (humanly-made) depressions like cupules and basins. Special are the very large and astonishingly deep holes on boulder YON-006 (visible in Figure 18). Although these holes may be natural of origin, they have definitely been worked on, as petroglyphs cover the interior walls of the holes.

Related Sites in Jequetepeque

There are several important rock art sites in the valley of the Río Jequetepeque. The lower case letters between brackets in the following text refer to the map in Figure 4. All distances are from Yonán (i). About 8 km to the NNE is the site of El Pongo (j) with possibly ten decorated stones (Núñez Jiménez 1986: 187). Only 500 m to the west of Yonán and across the dry valley floor of the Quebrada the Chausis is the site of Cerro Yonán (h) with a large boulder displaying an important MSC-Style (Cupisnique) petroglyph of a feline (?) head. Further west are the sites of Quebrada del Felino, 7.1 km WSW (g); Chungal, 7.3 km NW (f); Montegrande, 7.8 km NW (e); Gallito Ciego approximately 14 km WNW (d: exact provenance unknown); Pay Pay, 16 km W (c); Cerro San Simón, 27 km WSW (b) and Tolón, 27.5 WSW (a), all described by Pimentel (1986). My wife Elles and I surveyed Tolón, Cerro San Simón, Pay Pay, Montegrande (completely destroyed), Quebrada de Felino and of course Yonán.

Figure 4. Satellite photo (dating 2010) of the rock art sites in the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru. For explanation of the lower-case letters see the text above. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Nasa World Wind.

Núñez Jiménez ascribes many of the images to the Moche culture, but argues at the same time that other petroglyphs at Yonán may be of pre-Chavín origin (1986: 205). Indeed, imagery at Yonán and several other rock art sites in the valley show MSC-Style (Cupisnique) related influences, especially at Tolón and Quebrada del Felino. Approximately 32 to the ENE of Yonán are the impressive, ruins of Kuntur Wasi, dating around 1200 B.C., an important Cupisnique centre, while downstream the river valley numerous ruins and looted tombs can be spotted with Google Earth, probably dating from various periods. At the mouth of the Río Jequetepeque are the well-known complexes of Pacatnamu dating from the Moche Period, and Farfan, built by the Chimú Culture (around A.D. 1175).

At the site of Yonán, Campana and Deza (2004) recorded several fragments of pottery and they ascribe the majority of these surface finds to the Chimú culture (which was preceded by the Moche Culture). However, the materials recovered from nearby archaeological sites are said to show strong cultural affiliations with sites in Cajamarca, and it may be that at least in some valleys, the Chaupi Yunga (the area comprising the middle sections of the valleys), was under control of highland rather than coastal groups. This highland influence is also evident by specific Tembladera Ware (Burger 1995: 98) although also coastal Cupisnique Ware has been found in the valley (Ibid.: 96). Unfortunately the imagery of the Cupisnique Culture is often incorrectly referred to as “Coastal Chavín”. However, I fully explained that Cupisnique is much earlier than the Chavín Cult (not a culture, in my opinion), who borrowed imagery and elements of the Cupisnique and incorporated those elements in their own iconography (Van Hoek 2011b).

Indeed, also at Yonán a few petroglyphs clearly are of Cupisnique origin, or even of the still earlier Sechín Culture (fully explained in my book about the Chavín Controversy: Van Hoek 2011b). Núñez Jiménez recorded a petroglyph of a possible MSC-Style petroglyph (1986: Fig. 470), that was also photographed by Jean Guffroy (2009: Fig. 198). We never traced that specific image. However, despite the “claim” by Guffroy that this petroglyph is the only Formative Period at Yonán (Guffroy 2009: 99), there are definitely more MSC-Style petroglyphs at Yonán. For instance, on Panel YON-108 (see Figures 2 and 3 for location), we recorded a typical Sechín Style (or Cupisnique) image of a head crowned by three outlined triangles (Figure 5). On neighbouring Panels YON-106, YON-107 (and perhaps YON-110) are more MSC-Style petroglyphs, possibly all depicting biomorphic heads (none recorded by Núñez Jiménez and Guffroy). Of course there may be more Formative Period images at Yonán that cannot yet be recognised as such.

Figure 5. Petroglyph of a Formative period MSC-Style head on Panel YON-108. A similar petroglyph has been recorded at Cerro San Simón, a site WSW of Yonán (see Figure 4-Site b) (Pimentel 1986: Fig. 25D). Illustrations © by Maarten van Hoek.

It is therefore certain that the rock art at Yonán was manufactured during a very long time. Petroglyph creation possibly started even 5000 years ago, at some point during the Formative Period, which is evidenced by the MSC-Style petroglyphs at Yonán and several other sites in the valley. Later petroglyphs involve (Moche and/or Chimú) images of the Tumi (the ritual Andean knife) and the Tumi– and Porra-clubs (a Porra is an often star-shaped stone or metal club-head). Such clubs were often used by the Moche and Chimú in conflicts and wars, and a few petroglyphs at Yonán depict such warriors carrying such weapons, or isolated weapons of Porra-clubs (for instance on Panel YON-021: see Van Hoek 2025a: Fig. 17) and Tumi-clubs (on “Stein” 24: Pimentel: 103.3).

Reasons to Select Yonán

Yonán may have been selected to become a Sacred Site not only for its numerous suitable rock surfaces and its strange rock formations, but also because the very spot seems to symbolise the contrast between life and death. First of all, the Río Jequetepeque always carries water (and is thus alive and life-giving) and its (fertile) valley floor is partially cultivated. In contrast the Quebrada de Chausis is a dry valley (it is “dead”) and is completely filled with small and medium-sized boulders (barren) that have been rounded by water running through the valley (yet only in very wet times). It is an area that is hard to walk. Secondly, there is another marked contrast between the red-coloured hills bordering the Quebrada de Chausis and the white-washed boulders that pave the Chausis Valley (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Quebrada de Chausis, looking south (Yonán is just visible on the east bank). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Thirdly, at many sites in the Desert Andes it proves that prehistoric people preferred red-coloured stone surfaces to manufacture their images upon (Van Hoek 2015). Although the limestone surfaces at Yonán are (dark or light) blue or grey, any freshly made petroglyphs (being whitish in colour) would have stand out, strongly contrasting against the colour of the deeply patinated, natural stone surface. This last property (patination) often causes images to be overlooked during surveys. Those images may be classified as “hidden”.

“Hidden” Imagery at Yonán

There are several ways in which imagery can be labelled as “hidden”. Of course the image is there, but for some reason it escapes being noticed. Therefore, the term “hidden” is just a taxonomic inventiveness of me to label this feature that is so specific (but not at all exclusive) for Yonán. One rationale for missing an image is psychologically explainable. It simply is the fact that the (especially untrained) eye is generally attracted to the most conspicuous feature on a decorated panel (see for instance Figure 7) and tends to ignore the rest. For that reason it is highly recommended to make as many photographs of the same rock art panel, preferably at different times. In the field (often with dominant light from only one angle, which often creates a great (blinding) contrast between light areas and dark areas, as well as subliminally unnoticed light reflected from several angles), one often fails to perceive images that may become more obvious when scanning the pictures that were taken at different times in different light.

Figure 7. Petroglyphs of birds on Panel YON-023. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

One characteristic of the rock art at Yonán is that (parts of) many images are far more clearly visible than other images on the same panel. These clearer images stand out in a white or light grey colour against the darker background of the natural rock surface. The difference between clear and “hidden” petroglyphs may have several causes. Firstly, the brighter petroglyphs may be later of origin and will therefore be less well patinated.

Secondly, the brighter petroglyphs may have been (partially) re-pecked. The “invisible”, completely patinated petroglyphs on a rock surface often need exceptionally good light to really become visible, especially when peck marks have weathered-off almost completely, or when images have been abraded. Of course, the depth of the petroglyph is another important factor; the deeper, the more visible. This mixture of reasons explains why petroglyphs at Yonán escaped being noticed. There are several instances that prove beyond any doubt that (parts of) images are in fact “hidden”, causing researchers to be tricked. Eight cases of “invisible” petroglyphs will be discussed in more detail.

Another reason for images to be classified as “hidden”, is due to unfavourable lighting. This issue of course is not unique for Yonán as it occurs at many more rock art sites. Yet, the situation at Yonán is more complicated because of the chaos of numerous boulders and panels that are facing in many directions.

The specific hidden petroglyphs at Yonán that I would like to discuss in this case are mostly (very) superficially executed and, often being weathered to a high degree, simultaneously being fully patinated and thus having exactly the same colour as the original, natural rock surface. An example is Panel YON-116 (Figure 8). When the sunlight shines perpendicularly upon these images they are barely visible and easily escape being noticed, especially when other, less patinated or re-pecked petroglyphs are present on the same panel. Favourable, slanting sunlight is essential to reveal them and even then it is hard to make out the exact pattern. So, the exclusion of these hidden petroglyphs in an inventory (like that of Núñez Jiménez) is not always the mistake of the observer, but often just bad luck. It happened to me as well and probably is one of the reasons that I missed several petroglyphs that are published in the book by Núñez Jiménez. There are many instances of “hidden” and/or deeply patinated petroglyphs at Yonán, especially at the western side of the ridge.

Figure 8. Completely patinated petroglyphs on Panel YON-116, showing a head or mask with headgear or hair. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Case 1

A most clarifying example occurs on Panel YON-047. Figure 10A of this panel shows the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: 496) of a complex set of curvilinear grooves. It proved that the grooves drawn by Núñez Jiménez exactly represent only the distinctly visible parts of an actually much larger pattern. Obviously, the distinct parts represent the components that have obviously been re-pecked (Figure 9).

Favourable light during one of our visits however, showed that several lines continued, but these were definitely not re-pecked, and thus less visible The whole set proved to be twice as large as the illustration by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 496). Even small fragments between the distinct lines proved not to be re-pecked. It is unknown why only parts of the set had been re-pecked, but the practice of re-pecking specific (parts of) petroglyphs and ignoring others proves to have occurred at several other panels at Yonán.

Figure 9. Two views of Panel YON-047 showing the difference in execution between the two parts, visible when photographed under different lighting conditions (see also Figure 10). Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 10. Two drawings of Panel YON-047 showing the difference in execution and extent between the two parts (see also Figure 9). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 496).

Case 2

The enormous outcrop rock (or boulder?), labelled YON-015 by me (see Figures 2, 3 and 22 for its location), which is densely covered with petroglyphs on almost every surface, also features an interesting group of petroglyphs on a more or less isolated part that I have labelled Panel YON-015C (see also the Cover Photo). It clearly comprises distinct and hidden parts (Figure 11B). Núñez Jiménez only illustrates the distinct parts (1986: Fig. 417; including a possible warrior holding a Tumi-club), but apparently he did not notice the deeply patinated parts during his survey. As a consequence his spiral (Figure 11A) is incorrectly drawn and some details are missing.

Figure 11. Two drawings of the petroglyphs on a small part of the enormous Panel YON-015 (see Figure 22 for the location). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 417).

Case 3

Rock YON-079 at Yonán has at least two decorated panels that are equally interesting regarding hidden imagery. My photograph (Figure 12) of the upper, slightly sloping panel (YON-079B) reveals many more details than shown in the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (Figure 13A) (1986: Fig. 372). Most interesting is the “rake” that seems to be partially superimposed by the large spiral (Figures 12 and 13B). Secondly, there are curvilinear grooves that either form the almost invisible continuation of re-pecked grooves or are superimposed by later or re-pecked motifs. An almost invisible ring mark can be seen next to the spiral (Figures 12 and 13B).

Figure 12. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-079B (see also Figure 13). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 13. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-079B. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 372).

Case 4

Indeed, Núñez Jiménez offered an (otherwise incomplete) illustration of Panel YON-079B (1986: Fig. 372), but omitted to include Panel YON-079A, This is remarkable since Panel YON-079A has a small number of very distinct petroglyphs (re-pecked/later?) as well. However, a few motifs on this panel also escaped being noticed by me in first instance. Fortunately, at another time the light was more favourable and I noticed several more motifs (Figure 14) that consist of thin, very delicately pecked lines; a feature rather unusual for Yonán. One of these delicate figures has apparently randomly been superimposed by a short, crude line of large, clearly visible peck marks. But there are also grooves with distinct peck marks that show the same patination as the original surface and have thus become almost invisible.

Figure 14. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-079A. The numbers tentatively suggest the possible sequence of manufacture (I tentatively would like to suggest that series 1 is the earliest; 3 is the latest). Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

Case 5

Case #5 concerns the one boulder labelled by Núñez Jiménez as two separate Piedras: Piedra 3 (1986: Fig. 334) and Piedra 5 (1986: Figs 335 and 336). It is a classic example of a researcher being tricked by his or her own photographs, that were unmistakably taken at different times of the day. Apparently Piedra 3 (Figure 16A) was photographed by Núñez Jiménez when the sun illuminated the panel almost perpendicularly, thus only revealing the clear (re-pecked?) grooves, while Piedra 5 was photographed with slanting sunlight revealing the more deeply pecked lines, but hiding the clear (re-pecked?) grooves. Afterwards, both photographs were erroneously regarded by Núñez Jiménez to represent two different panels, and thus he made two completely different drawings. However it is certain that Piedra 3 and Piedra 5 represent the same panel (Figures 15 and 16B) and therefore the two Piedras by Núñez Jiménez are regarded by me to represent just one panel that has arbitrarily been labelled YON-001 by me.

My illustration (Figure 16B) actually is also a combination of photographs that I took at different times of the day (Figure 15). It gives the (almost) complete overview of the panel and also reveals more features, some of which were also noticed by Pimentel (1986: Fig. 88 and page 123). However, Pimentel illustrates the individual images in random order and thus not in their original position. What both Núñez Jiménez and Pimental did not notice is the petroglyph at the top of the panel, which clearly depicts a fish (Figure 17); an otherwise rare image in Desert Andes rock art. This fish may link Yonán with the Pacific Coast (fish petroglyphs have also been recorded at Quebrada de Pay Pay, a site north of Pay Pay [c in Figure 4]).

Figure 15. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-001. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 16. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-001. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 334).

Case 6

We have already seen that naked-eye observation in the field can lead to false conclusions. The clearly visible images may have been re-pecked or may represent later additions. Often new images are superimposed upon existing petroglyphs and consequently the original image may become less visible or even invisible after this new image was added. At Yonán several instances of superimposition occur, like the examples shown in Figures 12, and 14 to 16. The following three cases also involve examples of petroglyphs that have been superimposed upon earlier petroglyphs (but there are probably many more instances at Yonán).

Figure 17. Fish petroglyph on Panel YON-001 (unfortunately chalked-in by vandal). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Case 6 concerns the large and rather conspicuous Boulder YON-026 at the centre of Yonán (Figure 18). West facing Panel YON-026B (Figure 19) features a large S-spiral and other motifs. However, the S-spiral seems to have been superimposed upon a large, much fainter anthropomorph that escaped the attention of Núñez Jiménez (Figure 20A). Significantly, this anthropomorph appears in an upside-down position (Figures 19 and 20B). This posture may have been intended (symbolising a dead person?), but it cannot be ruled out that the boulder tumbled down the slope after the anthropomorph was pecked in a more upright position.

Figure 18. View of Boulder YON-026, looking west. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 20. Petroglyphs on Panel YON-026B. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” partially based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 387).

Case 7

Panel YON-045 (Figure 21C) is found on an outcrop panel and in a rather inaccessible position. Again it was not noticed by Núñez Jiménez that the upright feline (or monkey?) (this specific position cannot have been changed by any displacement, since the petroglyphs occur on outcrop rock) and the two objects (weapons?) to the left and right of the animal (Figure 21A) had been superimposed upon a large, possible anthropomorphic figure (Figure 21B). The latter figure only faintly appears for a short time when the sun is in the right position and even then the exact lay-out of the image is difficult to see.

Figure 21. Panel YON-045. Drawings and photograph © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 446).

Case 8

The last Case concerns Panel YON-080, located at the west edge of Yonán (for its setting see the top left corner of Figure 22; see also Figures 2 and 3). This panel has not been included by Núñez Jiménez or Pimentel in their 1986-publications. The panel features a collection of mainly abstract symbols (circles, a spiral, lines etc.), as well as a rayed motif (#1 in Figure 23) that I would like to interpret as the (shadow of the) top of a cactus (I have seen several similarly looking shadows on the rocks at Yonán). Although I passed and photographed this panel a few times, only at home I noticed the pair of slightly recessed, fully pecked (and abraded?) pair of foot-prints, both showing digits (#2 and yellowish in Figure 23). Interestingly, the pair of foot-prints has been superimposed by a (possibly Chimú-Style) zoomorph with a curled tail (orange in Figure 23). It is clearly less patinated than the pair of foot-prints.

Figure 23. Panel YON-080 with the foot-prints and the zoomorph coloured-in. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

Discussion

The eight cases that I discussed and illustrated above are only a part of the array of panels at Yonán on which images show different degrees of patination (for instance Panel YON-049, YON-069A, YON-088, YON-096A and many more). This difference in patination – together with the array of Formative Period MSC-Style images to Moche-Chimú-Style images (Tumis, Porras, and Tumi– and Porra-clubs) – undeniably proves that Yonán has a very long history of petroglyph manufacture. An extensive survey of the site – focussing on details and differences in patination – may reveal the true sequence of petroglyph manufacture. When making drawings I recommend to also indicate differences in patination, unlike he drawings published by Núñez Jiménez (1986) that hardly ever show relevant differences in execution and/or patination.

This approach may, of course, be used when surveying other sites, because Yonán is not exclusive in this respect. There are many more sites with often informative examples involving differences in patination and execution. For instance, an interesting example is found at Ofragía in northern Chile, where a recumbent couple is found superimposed by a vertically arranged anthropomorphic figure (Figure 24). It is possible that the boulder got relocated on the steep slope (because of an earthquake?) after the couple had been manufactured in an upright pose. Alternatively, the couple may be in its original position, depicting dead people.

Conclusions

Yonán proves to be a most interesting rock art site. Not only because it has thousands of petroglyphs executed at an intentionally selected spot, overlooking a life-death symbolising confluence of a wet river and a dry valley, but also because this Sacred Site has intermittently been used over a very long period of time. I estimate the time span to roughly be 4000 years, from the Cupisnique Culture (starting around 3000 or 2500 B.C.) to including at least the Chimú Culture (ending around A.D. 1500). The intermittent use is also demonstrated in this study by discussing a number of cases of patination, which also underlines the importance of thoroughly examining instances of differing patination of the petroglyphs on a rock panel.

This approach will result in a much better understanding of the symbolism of this Sacred Site. For instance, up to 2025 I did not have any knowledge of the pair of foot-prints at Yonán, until I scanned my photographic record again to prepare this study. Then I accidentally noticed those “hidden” images. These foot-prints may be significant, as they might symbolise the journey from the coastal area (through the Jequetepeque Valley to the High Andes; a route that definitely existed as early as the Formative Period; see Van Hoek 2025b). Immediately north of the highway from the coast to Cajamarca, Pimentel recorded five petroglyphs of foot-prints (including two pairs, similar to those at Yonán) at the site of Pay Pay (Pimentel 1986: Fig. 44C-1,2, and 3). They may well be related to the pair at Yonán and symbolise the same journey. This route from the Pacific Coast also may be evidenced by the rare petroglyph of the fish on Panel YON-001 (see Figure 17). Fish images have also been recorded at Quebrada de Pay Pay.

In this study I demonstrated that considering the differences in patination on one panel can be very informative. For instance, it is important to record cases of possibly abandoned petroglyph production (like the example on Boulder YON-047; see Figure 10), although the reasons to start or stop with any re-pecking will very hard to unwrap. Yet, cases of superimposition will possibly reveal sequences of petroglyph manufacture (noticed at several panels at Yonán), which will hopefully yield a better understanding of the processes of petroglyph production.

In my opinion it is also important to reveal that earlier publications may well be incorrect in the presentation of the drawings that have been published. This in particular concerns the B&W drawings published in 1986 by Núñez Jiménez, who is – without blaming him in any way – in many cases incorrect regarding his renderings (more details in my book: Van Hoek 2011a). Despite the flaws in his book, I admire the enormous work he has done surveying so many sites in Peru and then producing hundreds and hundreds of illustrations. Therefore, my only concern does not at all concern the person of Núñez Jiménez or his integrity as a scientist, but the people who uncritically copy his illustrations without mentioning that the drawing could well be incorrect, especially when having been informed (most of these issues are [graphically] presented in my book about Núñez Jiménez [Van Hoek 2011a]).

Acknowledgements

As always I am indebted to Rainer Hostnig, rock art researcher from Cusco, Peru, for providing me with a copy the 1986-book by Núñez Jiménez, which was a most useful asset in many cases, thus also when preparing this study. Last but certainly not least I would like to thank my wife Elles for her much appreciated assistance when surveying the rock art site of Yonán in 2004, 2006 and in 2017 (and Ofragía in 2011), as well for her support at home.

References

Burger, R. L. 1995. Chavín and the origins of Andean civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

Campana, C. and C. Deza. 2006. Los petroglifos de Yonán. Arkeos; Revista Electrónica de Arqueología PUCP. Vol. 1-4; pp. 55 – 77.

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.

Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Perú. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2ª ed., PNUD-UNESCO. La Habana.

Pimentel, V. 1986. Petroglifos en el Valle Medio y Bajo de Jequepeteque, Norte del Perú. Bonn, Alemania. Verlag C. H. Beck, München.

Van Hoek, M. 2005. Biomorphs ‘playing a wind instrument’ in Andean rock art. Rock Art Research. Vol. 22-1; pp. 23 – 34. Melbourne, Australia.

Van Hoek, M. 2011a. Petroglyphs of Peru. Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Privately published. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at DropBox (search PDF-102) and Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2011b. The Chavín Controversy. Rock Art from the Andean Formative Period. Privately published, Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available at DropBox (search PDF-100).

Van Hoek, M. 2015. Andean Petroglyphs and Yanantin. The Case of El Olivar, Ancash, Peru. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2025a. Monkey Petroglyphs in the Rock Art of Coastal Peru: Distribution and Symbolism. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2025b. Distribution Patterns of Rock Art Sites in the Desert Andes. Privately published, Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at Academia and at DropBox.