Majes Rock Art

Majes Rock Art

Evaluating Scaffidi's 2018-Thesis

Originally published on the 1st of July 2023 in TRACCE

*

Important note to this revision:

On July 31, 2023 - after the first publication of my "Majes Rock Art" paper on the 1st of July 2023 - Scaffidi demanded a general takedown of my publications posted at several websites using her illustrations and other items on which her copyright rests. She did so without having the decency to contact/inform me in advance. In fact Scaffidi abruptly stopped her email-communication with me without any good reason after 2012 - simultaneously breaking her promise to help me with Majes rock art - and she never reacted to any of my emails to her after 2012. I apologise to Scaffidi to have infringed her copyright, which I have done under the (obviously naïve) impression that the way I used her illustrations was correct, always properly providing the source.

As I still believe in the following: he or she who publishes, can be commented on, I therefore offer the interested reader a revised version of my comments on Scaffidi's 2018-thesis, without using her illustrations and without quoting her (just to be safe). Instead I have formulated her remarks differently (please excuse any error in my English, which will never be as perfect as Scaffidi's). Whenever possible I will provide links (in the TRACCE version) linking this revision with the illustrations and her remarks in her 2018-thesis (available online). Finally, because of her attempts to cover-up her unskilfulness regarding Arequipa rock art, caused me to make changes, I regret that several URLs do not function anymore. For that reason also the subtitle above will lead you to her 2018-thesis, so you can check what I comment on, and why. I apologise to anyone for any error or inconsistency in this revision and for the inconvenience this revision may have caused.

*

In this online version of the revision no illustrations have been included. Instead the interested reader may click on the link leading to the publication in TRACCE having the illustrations, which can be enlarged, as well as all the underlined URLs leading to other sources (for instance in the References section). Also, a PDF with illustrations is available at ResearchGate. 

*

Maarten van Hoek

*

Introduction

Both academic and non-academic archaeologists of all sorts of disciplines and reputations have over time contributed to a better understanding of the archaeology and prehistory of the Majes Valley in southern Peru; an area extremely rich in rock art. Lacking informed knowledge, the only bases they all have to build on, is what is found and observed in the field and analysed at home, data which yield an often complex and incomplete and thus still (partial) obscure picture. It is understandable that - also because of the complexity and the large amount of available data and the lack of essential data - sometimes unintentional errors will be made.

A simple example of such an unintentional oversight is the photograph published by Mallory Melton et al. (2023: Fig. 2; my emphasis) having the following caption: "Aerial view of Quilcapampa showing the contrast between fertile river bottoms and arid upland areas. Photograph courtesy of Stephen Berquist. (Color online)". The caption is (only partially) incorrect, because in fact this photo shows the area of the petroglyph site of Tintín or Pisanay (Van Hoek 2017; see also the video), which is located more than seven kilometres SW of the Wari Enclave above the rock art site of Quilcapampa. For that reason Quilcapampa is nowhere to be seen in their Fig. 2.

I am convinced that the author of the photo (Stephen Berquist) will agree with me that the caption is incorrect (but only regarding the Quilcapampa part). But I also know that Stephen is not at all to blame for their error (perhaps he was not even informed about the goal and/or the contents of the caption of his photo he was asked for). Stephen has intensively surveyed and photographed (also with a drone) the site of Quilcapampa, but also much of the Sihuas Valley and surrounding pampas. Still, I am surprised that all eight (!) authors (none being rock art specialists) have overlooked this error, especially as the following co-authors of the paper - who all have contributed to the 2021-book about Quilcapampa (Jennings et al. 2021) - will undoubtedly have been asked to search for flaws in the draft MS (which is customary): Justin Jennings, Mallory Menton, Matthew Biwer, Aleksa Alaica and Luis Manuel González La Rosa. As I know Justin and Stephen from personal communication for many years and am aware that they have taken possibly thousands of photos at Quilcapampa and the Sihuas Valley and surrounding pampas, it is certain that this error simply concerns an excusable and minor imperfection. Fortunately, the essence of the caption still stands (the stark contrast).

*

The 2018-Scaffidi Thesis

The Berquist-photo "issue" in Melton et al. (2023: Fig. 2) triggered me to discuss the 2018-thesis by Cassandra (Beth) Koontz Scaffidi. In her 2018-thesis - referred to in this paper as simply Scaffidi (2018) - are also a few photos that - in contrast with Stephen's photo - present seriously incorrect information, but also several other imperfections and errors. Her thesis is called: 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. It thus essentially is supposed to be a bio-archaeological study.

It now proves that Prof. Beth Scaffidi once started as a student in a bio-archaeology (under the wings of bio-archaeologist Prof. Tiffiny Tung) and has later - writing 2023 - evolved into an experienced and highly qualified bio-archaeologist. Therefore, I do not in any way question her skills and publications regarding bio-archaeology, simply because - being a geographer - I do not have the expertise to challenge any of her bio-archaeological results, thus also not the relevant parts of her 2018-thesis, as long as those parts concern bio-archaeology only.

However, Scaffidi also links her bio-archaeological results with the rock art of her study area. And then it proves that she is by no means a rock art expert, not even for the area she was working in to prepare her 2018-thesis; the Central Majes Valley of southern Peru. Again, I do not question any of the specifically bio-archaeological results published in her thesis, but I have some (often serious) problems when she associates her bio-archaeological results with the rock art of the Majes Valley. I will now discuss the issues concerning the Majes rock art aspect.

Indeed, the 2018-thesis by Beth Scaffidi has worryingly many flaws and errors regarding the rock art aspect. Again, I am only (yet seriously) questioning her rock art "expertise", not her bio-archaeological reputation, although her reputation in general is - in my opinion - now damaged by several later and completely different issues (URL).

Her 2018-thesis only deals with the excavations at Uraca, an archaeological site located on the desert bank, immediately west of the Majes Valley. Although I have never visited Uraca (why should I?), I am certain that Prof. Scaffidi made some remarkable, yet completely unsubstantiated remarks and made some serious mistakes in her dissertation (yet apparently uncritically approved by four PhD's, including her colleague and thesis-advisor, Prof. Tiffiny Tung; see the cover of her thesis). My comments are based on my (our - the much appreciated assistance of my wife Elles in the field and at home always was and still is invaluable) rock art surveys in Arequipa.

*

Issue 1 - Toro Muerto

First of all, Scaffidi claims that both the rock art sites of Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis are visible from Uraca - Sector 1 when she writes that from Uraca 1, there are direct sight-lines to Toro Muerto (her Fig. 5.1) and the rock art site of Pitis, across the river" (2018: 165). Regarding Toro Muerto this is definitely not true, as she herself demonstrates in her Fig. 6.2. Although in her Fig. 5.1 Toro Muerto is indeed "visible" from Uraca, the red "circle" in her Fig. 5.1 gives the false impression that the whole of Toro Muerto is visible, because she unquestionably states that Uraca I is located, within full view of the Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis sites (2018: 235). First I will explain my concerns regarding "Toro Muerto" incorrectly being claimed to be visible from Uraca and later I will deal with the similar "issue" regarding Alto de Pitis. By the way, for an inexperienced walker, accessing the centre of Toro Muerto from Uraca through the loose desert sands involves a long, tiresome trip uphill.

My comments concern the fact that in fact only an extremely small fraction of the very SE end of Toro Muerto (Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 11) "is visible", which she herself confusingly illustrates in her Fig. 6.2 - bottom maps. Indeed, only an extremely small fraction of the southern tip of the Toro Muerto boulder field (Area A in Figure 2) and its extreme SE corner (not visible in Figure 2) "are visible", moreover - according to her own maps (2018: Fig. 6.2) - from only Sectors IIB and IIC (which are found no less than six kilometres distant from the southernmost tip of Toro Muerto) and - according to her Fig. 6.2 top-left (deleted Figure 1) - definitely not from Sector I at Uraca (which is nevertheless still claimed by Scaffidi in her thesis [2018: 165]; see the quotes in the previous paragraph).

Figure 1. Map of the Central Majes Valley showing the burial sites of Uraca Sector (Scaffidi 2018: Fig. 6.2). Click Figure 1 to download this publication and scan her photo.

Figure 2. View of Toro Muerto and Uraca Sector I from Alto de Pitis. Uraca Sector II is blocked by a low hillock. The volcano Apu Coropuna is visible from both Boulders AP3-071 and AP3-065. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 3.View of the Majes Valley; the blue pins marked by Scaffidi. Google Earth map compiled by Scaffidi (2018: Fig. 6.5). Deleted. Click Figure 3 to download this publication.

In the same "way" Toro Muerto proves not to be visible from Uraca-Sector IIA (2018: Fig. 6.2 top-right). Yet Scaffidi graphically claims that from Uraca-Sectors IIB and IIC Toro Muerto is visible (2018: Fig. 6.2; bottom-right and left), but then again this only concerns an extremely small bit, which is moreover hardly visible because of being six kilometres distant (conveniently disregarding the blasting sand storms and mist patches that both frequently occur in this part of the valley). Therefore, I claim that visibility of Toro Muerto did not play any premeditated role in selecting the locations of the Uraca burials. They just were convenient locations on higher ground. Yet, Scaffidi based her conclusions on those false observations.

Moreover, I am convinced that also not a single boulder with petroglyphs at Toro Muerto is visible from Uraca (whether viewed from Sector I or from Sector II). Therefore, I claim again that from the whole of the Uraca area Toro Muerto is in fact completely blocked (by Cerro Zuñimarca; see Figure 2) and thus I reject Scaffidi's claim that the Uraca burial sites were selected for any visibility reason. Numerous other locations in the Majes Valley would have been much more suitable to achieve visibility, if visibility was indeed a necessity.

Of course there is in some way a connection between some motifs on artefacts found at Uraca and (some of, but not all of) the petroglyphs of the Central Majes Valley, but I do not agree with the way Scaffidi (and Tung; see Scaffidi and Tung 2020) link the excavation data with the rock art repertoire of the Central Majes Valley. Besides the realistically only extremely few unambiguous graphical links between Uraca and Toro Muerto, Scaffidi still desperately seeks to establish also a visual link between Uraca and Toro Muerto, which in fact does not exist at all. Also this flaw weakens several of her conclusions regarding Majes archaeology.

Her wishful thinking is also demonstrated when she states that no Sacred Mountains are observable from any spot at Uraca, but that Uraca 1 is visually linked to rock art images at Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis(2018: 236). Indeed no Apus (the revered Sacred Mountains of the area; in this case mainly Apu Coropuna, the highest volcano of southern Peru) are visible from Uraca, but Scaffidi completely ignores my published conclusion that especially Alto de Pitis was selected because of the most convincing Apu-alignments from numerous decorated boulders, in particular those boulders with 'Carcancha" petroglyphs (see Van Hoek 2013). Yet, the fact that both Uraca Sectors have views of the site of Alto de Pitis is completely accidental and not premeditated at all. If Majes People were indeed looking for an Apu-linked and a Toro Muerto linked spot to bury their dead bodies and artefacts, Alto de Pitis would have been perfect. Also the possibly important Red Spots of the Majes Valley (fully explained in Van Hoek 2013) are visible from Alto de Pitis, making Alto de Pitis the most appropriate spot offering numerous religious and symbolic links with the Sacred Spots of the environment.

*

Issue 2 - Alto de Pitis

However, also regarding Alto de Pitis there are serious problems in the 2018-thesis by Scaffidi. Indeed Alto de Pitis is "visible" from Uraca and vice versa (see Figure 2). However, did Scaffidi indeed visit Alto de Pitis, or not? Does she really know where to locate Alto de Pitis; the site she calls "Pitis"? And why does she actually use the imprecise name "Pitis" (introduced by Núñez Jiménez 1986: 323 - 336), which refers to only a very small part of Alto de Pitis? She could have known this salient difference. I have surveyed the site of Alto de Pitis several times and for that reason I have labelled the site Alto de Pitis (Van Hoek 2013) in order to eradicate the existing, much differing, confusing names for the four different yet irrelevantly labelled sections of Alto de Pitis (see Van Hoek 2013 and Álvarez Zeballos 2009).

Importantly, the distance between Uraca - Sector 1 and the estimated centre of Alto de Pitis (see Figure 2) is 6635 m (Line 2 in Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 11). Again, over such a long distance, no (rocks with) petroglyphs can be detected. Consequently, only the direction in which Alto de Pitis is "visible" from both Uraca - Sectors can be ascertained, however, only if you know where to look. And this last remark announces my next problem that I have with the dissertation by Scaffidi. She does not know where to look, as I will demonstrate.

In this respect it is most disturbing that Scaffidi incorrectly locates "her" "Pitis" no less than 2300 m north of the very northern tip of Alto de Pitis (see Line 4 in Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 11). The Google Earth map of her Fig. 6.5 fixes her "Pitis" on an alluvial fan (at 460 m asl). However, in fact the marker indicating her "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 (and her marker [as marked in her Fig. 6.5] indicating Toro Muerto - indicated by a green dot in Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 11- is also seriously misleading and even confirms invisibility from Uraca)! Moreover, the average height of the slightly undulating "platform" at Alto de Pitis (site measuring 4080 m from north [at 540 m asl] to south [at 450 m asl]) is about 500 m asl, thus views from Uraca hardly involve the rock art site of Alto de Pitis.

To make things worse, her photo of Fig. 5.2 indicates the rock art site of "Pitis" with a red "circle" (Figure 4), but again the "circle" only indicates the alluvial fan on which the village of El Pedregal is found (Figure 4; red oval in Fig. 11). The rock art site of Alto de Pitis is - again - not even visible in her photo. Because of these inexcusable errors, I - again - wonder whether Scaffidi ever visited Alto de Pitis (a site which is only - easily - accessible by car from the south, at a spot (on the main Arequipa - Corire road) which is in fact 5975 m south of her marker indicating "Pitis" in her Fig. 6.5.

Figure 4: The (incorrect) location of the rock art site of "Pitis" according to Scaffidi (2018: Fig. 5.2).

I now wonder why Scaffidi makes such indefensible geographical errors in her 2018-thesis. She could have known the correct location of Alto de Pitis. A map indicating (most of) the rock art site of Alto de Pitis was published by Álvarez Zeballos (2009: page 13; illustrations are unnumbered). Moreover, also in my 2013-book are three maps indicating the exact location of the rock art site of Alto de Pitis (Van Hoek 2013: Figs. 3, 64 and 65). Did Scaffidi ignore all those published maps and information? If so, why?

Whether Scaffidi actually visited Alto de Pitis is most uncertain and references to her "visit" are confusing. Regarding their Fig. 2c (a small photo on her map) Scaffidi et al. (2021) seem to admit that they did not see this specific Alto de Pitis petroglyph in the field (marked "65" in Figure 2); at least in their Note 3 they write that Scaffidi and her group did not trace this petroglyph at Alto de Pitis! However, in a completely irrelevant, meaningless and again misleading "Erratum" Scaffidi and Tung (see Van Hoek 2022b) claim that Scaffidi photographed this panel as they write in their "Erratum" that the original photographs of the Toro Muerto and the Alto de Pitis panels were made by Scaffidi during the excavation-period at Uraca. Again I wonder: did Scaffidi ever visit Alto de Pitis? Is she - or someone-else - lying perhaps? In view of the given context (URL) I would not be surprised. Finally, the original photos of the published fake-photos (Fig. 3b) of the Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis petroglyphs were never shared with me, despite several polite requests (URL), while it is mandatory in scam-affairs like this. I still want to see those original photographs.

*

Issue 3 - Interpretations

But there are more weaknesses and flaws regarding rock art in her 2018-dissertation, especially regarding her interpretations. Although I do not in any way deny anybody the right to publish their own interpretations, it must be said that regarding interpretation of rock art images Scaffidi is often incredible (and not in a positive sense).

An example - involving an instance of jumping to conclusions - is the following remark by Scaffidi when she states that one of the rock art panels at Toro Muerto shows a feline [?] carrying a "Trophy" Head from its mouth (her Fig. 8.42). She continues to say that on the same panel is a human tibia[?] situated in an inverted position[?], which borders[?] the scene, implying that "Trophy" Heads were used in certain rituals (2018: 342). First of all, her photo (2018: Fig. 8.42) does not show the whole panel of Boulder TM-Cc-005 and thus only the upper part of the purported "tibia" (but why not an ulna or humerus?) is visible. For that reason it is virtually impossible for any reader to judge - having only an incomplete image - whether her (in my opinion completely unsubstantiated) interpretation of "tibia" (or ulna or humerus?) is correct. This flaw also makes her suggestion (and conclusions) most unreliable.

Secondly, the petroglyph in question (Figure 5) only shows a vertically orientated (not an upside-down image) sort of (fully pecked) bar with two very short V-shaped extensions at each end (the lower end not shown in her Fig. 8.42). It is completely unknown to me what this petroglyph depicts (and what to think of the row of items at the bottom of this Toro Muerto panel? Are these things bones as well?). There are several more such enigmatic petroglyphs at Toro Muerto. In my opinion Scaffidi jumps at a (completely unsubstantiated) conclusion, without expressing any doubt: tibia! "Wishful thinking"? I seriously doubt whether the petroglyph depicts a human "tibia" and if I am right, also her conclusions are again premature and unsubstantiated. Mind you, I do not deny her the right to interpret a petroglyph as a "tibia" or whatever. That is freedom of speech. After all, she might be right, being specialised in investigating human bones (but definitely not in Majes rock art).

Figure 5: Parts of the panel of Boulder TM-Cc-005 at Toro Muerto showing the purported "feline" petroglyph and the purported "tibia" petroglyph below the purported "feline". Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

I have more problems with certain interpretations by Scaffidi, especially because too often they are presented as absolute (like the "tibia"). The way she formulates her readings of rock art (and related) imagery indicates that there is no room for another interpretation. Hardly ever does she express any doubt at all (regarding rock art related matters). Such a rock art related example concerns the beautifully inlaid Spondylus shell that has been illustrated in the thesis by Scaffidi, which is claimed by her to depict a feline with a club (2018: caption to Fig. 8.41).

But why not allowing for another - in my opinion much more acceptable - interpretation? To me the object held by the feline may also depict a "Trophy" Head held by the bundle of hair (a curved bundle; often seen in Páracas and Nasca iconographies). A "Trophy" Head is also more to be expected in view of several Arequipa petroglyphs of felines carrying a "Trophy" Head (Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 2019; Van Hoek 2010, 2018; and 2023a). Tellingly, nowhere in Arequipa rock art (and in fact nowhere in any other Andean rock art region) have I ever seen a rock art image of a feline unambiguously carrying a club (or a "gourd", for that matter).

The same can be said for her interpretation of several small fragments of ceramics. For instance her caption for her Fig. 5.18 describes the illustration as a geometric design. This is of course possible, but why not alternatively interpreting the motif as a possible zoomorphic figure; a snake (or two snakes) perhaps? Segmented biomorphic (snake-like) petroglyphs occur for instance at Chillihuay in Ocoña, but have also been reported at Toro Muerto, for instance on Boulder TM-Da-068 (Figure 6 ) and on Boulder TM-Dx-072.

Similarly, her Figure 5.23. is said to depict a face (2018: 196). However to me it looks more like a snake's head (a face image has no head-contour). Petroglyphs of snakes or snake-like creatures with eyes only as facial features (within a head-contour, of course) do occur in Andean rock art (also on Boulder TM-Da-068 at Toro Muerto). She also states that her illustration 5.20. depicts an Owl. An owl? Possibly! Finally, her Illustration 5.26 fails to recognise possible bird imagery. Her absolute interpretations prove that Scaffidi does not acknowledge that - in general - there is a "gap" between imagery found at Andean rock art sites, and images found on Andean ceramics, textiles, temples and other image bearing objects and structures (Van Hoek 22f). I can make this claim, having intensively studied rock art imageries from all over the Desert Andes in the field and at home for more than 20 years.

Figure 6. Upper part of a biomorphic petroglyph on Boulder TM-Da-068 at Toro Muerto (left), compared with a design on a ceramic fragment from Uraca (right). Left: Photograph (rotated) © by Maarten van Hoek; Right: Photograph (now deleted) by Scaffidi (2018: Fig. 5.18).

In my opinion Prof. Scaffidi also pretends to be an expert in interpreting Majes rock art motifs when she writes that the petroglyph images from Toro Muerto often depict masked dancers, and that - for that reason - it is not unexpected to find musical instruments in the nearby burial sites. (Scaffidi 2018: 186). In my opinion this claim should be read the other way around. First musical instruments were made and only later included into their rock art repertoire (and - in case of the Majes Rock Art Style - only extremely rarely as I will demonstrate!).

I also have three other problems with her remark mentioned in the previous paragraph. She writes: "masked", "dancers" and "musical instruments". I wonder how she relates any purported "masked" figure with musical instruments, given the fact that - as far as I know - none of the so-called Majes "Dancers" of the Majes Rock Art Style has been unambiguously depicted playing a musical instrument. She also seems to have no doubts at all about any type of the Majes anthropomorphic figures (thus including the Majes "Dancers") to wear a mask. It is still most uncertain whether Majes "Dancers" (or any other anthropomorphic rock art figure) are indeed wearing masks (although some petroglyphs of isolated human "heads" in Majes Rock Art Style might depict a mask). More relevant and revealing information in my book about the Majes "Dancers" (Van Hoek 2022c).

Importantly, the fact that musical instruments have indeed been excavated at - so far - two burial sites in the Central Majes Valley, does not imply that musical instruments are (or should have been) indeed reflected in the local rock art. Scaffidi also seems to (intentionally?) ignore the fact that - so far - only three anthropomorphic petroglyphs (not involving Majes "Dancers", but "shamans" rather?) depicting figures possibly playing a wind instrument have been recorded in the Majes Rock Art Style (of the possibly thousands of anthropomorphic figures). Those three purported "flute playing" figures were recorded by me for the first time and published for the first time in my 2010-paper. My 2010-paper was read by Scaffidi and referenced by her in her 2018-thesis, but obviously those three "musical" figures have been ignored by her. Why? Because my recordings and observations did not suit her theories?

There is another comparable case of (intentionally?) ignoring published information. Although in her caption Scaffidi (2018: Fig. 5.36)refers todancers wearing headdresses, she obviously ignored my doubts of Majes "Dancers" really representing dancing figures, which I expressed in an earlier paper (Van Hoek 2003), a paper she also refers to in her 2018-thesis. To prove my doubt again, the Majes "Dancers" shown in her Fig. 5.36 are clearly static - thus definitely not dancing - figures. And there are many other Majes "Dancers" in the Majes Rock Art Style that are truly static, thus not dancing (see again Van Hoek 2022c). Hence my labelling those figures as Majes "Dancers", " " in order to express doubt.

Another instance of Scaffidi being uncritical concerns the figures on textile bands (2018: Fig. 5.35) which she excavated at Uraca, about which Scaffidi remarks that those textiles also represent themes found at Toro Muerto, including [which other themes does she refer to?] an anthropomorph with raised-arms (2018: Fig. 5.34), and the man with lowered-arms (Scaffidi 2018: 205). Any rock art expert could have informed Scaffidi that both types of anthropomorphic figures do occur in several Andean rock art sites (though never abundantly).

One example (with an outlined head and large raised hands) is found on Boulder AP3-017 at Alto de Pitis (not every boulder will be illustrated by me, but a photograph is available). Another fine, yet even more complex example of the "surrendering" type is found on Boulder CHY-C-001 at Chillihuay in Ocoña, while petroglyphs of figures with both arms drooping also occur at that site. More examples are found for instance at Cerro Mulato and Alto de la Guitarra in the north of Peru and at Miculla in the south of Peru, and - much further south - at Taira in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile (URL). Most of those rock art examples are more complex, however. Remarkably, petroglyphs very much looking like the very simple textile figures have only very sporadically been recorded at Toro Muerto. An example occurs on Boulder TM-Ba-006 (Figure 7) and others on Boulders TM-Cd-035 and TM-Da-038.

Figure 7. A: Boulder TM-Ba-006 at Toro Muerto showing an anthropomorphic petroglyph (in the yellow frame) compared with B: a similar textile figure from Uraca. A: Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek; B: Photograph by Scaffidi (2018: Fig. 5.34); now deleted.

Moreover, scanning the figures on her illustrations (5.34 and 5.35), I wonder why she has not realised that manufacturing two anthropomorphic figures next to each other on such a narrow band of textile (in one case less than 3 cm in width; Scaffidi 2018: Fig. 5.34) will have limited the layout so much that only very simple and much stylised figures - showing hardly any or no detail at all - must have resulted. Similar figures in rock art do exist, but have often more detail. It was therefore surprising that she identified one of the textile-figures as aman.

Regarding the excavated textile bands she further argues that UracaI yielded the only textile bands with Toro Muerto [?] imagery, as well as the only Wari-inspired textiles (Scaffidi 2018: 209), thus ignoring the fact that both Uraca Sector I and II experienced extensive looting as she herself writes (2018: 21), which means that at both Sectors such textiles and other artefacts could well have been looted. The picture of the Uraca Burials (and of many other burial sites in the Desert Andes) is thus incomplete. This makes her remark quoted in this paragraph completely unsubstantiated, and thus is her thesis not really reliable in this respect.

My criticism also involves her following - equally unfounded - claim that exclusively Toro Muerto motifs [which motifs?] were limited to Uraca I, implies that high-elite individuals had special access to not only imported, but also significant local, inherited themes that were visibly connected to the site of Toro Muerto (2018: 209). Scaffidi should have mentioned more often that the archaeological records regarding the Uraca Burials are incomplete due to looting. Moreover, the often (very) strong winds in the Majes Valley (especially generated near the Uraca and Punta Colorada bottle-necks) may have exposed often fragile textile fragments and may even have blown them away. I already rejected her claim of Uraca being visibly connected with Toro Muerto in another section of my paper. Yet, she again unconditionally links Uraca motifs with exclusively Toro Muerto designs,without indicating which motifs she refers to and without offering any illustration of those exclusively Toro Muerto designs. When not offering (or not being willing to offer) reliable graphical evidence, any academic can claim anything.

My reservations also involve her next remark in which she states that the excavation of those musical flutes at Uraca I, placed in the context of Toro Muerto imagery, implies that musical dancing was part of death rituals at Uraca I, but not at Uraca II (2018: 210). First of all, also musical instruments may have been looted from Sector II. Moreover, I also wonder what context of Toro Muerto imagery she refers to (read the above paragraphs about the three unique "musical" petroglyphs that I recorded at Toro Muerto). Without offering any illustration, her conclusions are simply incredible (and not in the good sense).

Another example of questionable interpretation concerns a remark by Scaffidi who states that the excavation oftoupees, headbands, and the skull of a cat at Uraca similarly reaffirm the Toro Muerto petroglyphs representing ritual garments (Fig. 5.53) (2018: 210). Having studied Toro Muerto for many years (in the field and at home) I am convinced that not a single petroglyph unambiguously depicts a ritual garment. I do not deny that possibly some anthropomorphic figures at Toro Muerto may be wearing some kind of ritual garment, but her claim is too absolute. The ritual aspect is simply guesswork, because I take it that Majes people wore garments in daily life as well. Scaffidi presents herself as an expert in Majes rock art, being able to distinguish between daily life garments and ritual costumes in anthropomorphic petroglyphs. However, she is definitely not such an expert. Even I cannot recognise that distinction.

Therefore, it might be possible that some petroglyphs show ritual garments, but without offering any photograph (preferably not falsified) of a Toro Muerto petroglyph, combined with a realistic and reliable explanation, it is impossible to check her claim. Unfortunately, in this way - not offering reliable graphical evidence (surprisingly her Fig. 5.53 does not exist) - any academic can claim anything. Referring to a non-existing photograph in her thesis, is also a form of laxity. She - and all four advisors - should have checked this (and the other issues of unnecessary sloppiness that are discussed in the next issue).

*

Issue 4 - Laxity

Another example of laxity. Scaffidi is also rather amateurish regarding presenting facts, resulting in several instances of incompetence. For instance, I find it very strange that Scaffidi - referring to my 2013-publication about Majes Valley rock art - writes that in 1912 pioneer Hiram Bingham visited the rock art site of Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis during his expedition to the summit of Apu Coropuna (van Hoek 2013) (Scaffidi 2018: 88). I checked my 2013-publication and nowhere could I find any hint that Hiram Bingham indeed visited Toro Muerto. I only wrote that I was the first who found out that Bingham was the very first explorer to discover Alto de Pitis in 1911, and not in 1912 as claimed by Scaffidi (1912 being the year of publication by Bingham). I also checked Hiram Bingham's full 1922-account (something also Scaffidi should have done) and again I could not find any mention of Toro Muerto. These are annoying cases of inexcusable and misleading sloppiness, especially as she refers to my 2013-publication, which has the correct information.

Another instance of sloppiness concerns her data of the altitudes of both Uraca Sectors, as she confusingly wites that Uraca I is found on a high promontory at 500 m asl, and Uraca II at around 100 m [?] asl, on the floodplain [?] of the river valley (2018: 128). These data - suggesting a huge inexplicable difference of 400 m between Uraca I and II - are contradicted by several of her illustrations and by her Table 4.1, all of which show hardly any difference in elevation, while her Figs 4.1 and 4.4 also clearly show that none of the burial sites is found the valley floor of the River Majes (which would be truly exceptional, as the valley floor was most likely reserved for agricultural use only, while higher ground was usually selected for sacred spots [like burials] because those higher spots more easily escaped destructive flooding).

Another instance is found on her page 198 - discussing placas pintadas, though strangely not referring to the two most extensive publications about placas pintadas by Renate Faron-Bartels (2011a and b) - when Scaffidi writes that (some of?) those placas pintadas showed complicated scenes involving for instance anthropomorphs with avian wings (2018: 198; Fig. 5.36). However the caption of her Fig. 5.36. only shows petroglyphs of Majes "Dancers" with headdresses at Toro Muerto, and an interested reader will in vain be looking for those bird wings. Yet, there are petroglyphs at Toro Muerto of enigmatic biomorphic figures with elements (mainly emerging from the [top of the] head) that look like "bird-wings", but those wing-like elements may well represent or symbolise something else (Van Hoek 2021a).

Equally important is that placenames are correctly spelled. On her page 89 she mentions the name of Punto Colorado twice. However, it is more likely that she refers to the hamlet of Punta Colorada (the Red Spot, a site with a modest collection of rock art; see Van Hoek 2022d), which is located at the southern bottle-neck in the Central Majes Valley. Also bearings should be correct (which can easily be checked in Google Earth, also in 2015-2018; although this concerns an excusable error). From Punta Colorada the mouth of the Majes River (locally called the Camaná River) is found some 50 km to the SW as the crow flies, not SE, as claimed by Scaffidi. Finally, I also wonder if indeed the journey using the much winding dirt track directly along the river will take - according to Scaffidi (2018: 89) - only one hour's drive (but I cannot confirm my doubt, not being able to drive a car).

Scaffidi also remarks that the objects found at Uraca 1 correspond to the cases represented in the rock art scenes, referring especially to wind-instruments and tubes (2018: 210; Fig. 5.52). First of all, Scaffidi should have realised that - in general - there is an (often big) "gap" between imagery found at Desert Andes rock art sites and images found on ceramics, textiles, temples and other image bearing objects and structures (Van Hoek 2022f). For instance, so far, outside the Majes Rock Art Style the purported "Wari" image of the Majes "Dancer" has never been found on any (Wari) textile, ceramic or any other object or structure (of interest however are the easily portable pyro-engraved examples on the "Sihuas" Canes [Van Hoek 2018: 88 - 98]), establishing that Majes "Dancers" are a purely local and indigenous Majes invention (for more information see Van Hoek 2022c).

And secondly, in the whole of her thesis she does not offer a single piece of illustrative evidence supporting the above claims, while - most annoyingly - the two Figures she does refer to (in two quotes: Fig. 5.52 in this paragraph and Fig. 5.53 five paragraphs earlier) are untraceable in her thesis and thus cannot be examined. And when I asked for photographic evidence in another case (explained further on), Scaffidi conveniently (harshly) ignored any request. So I did not take the trouble to ask for her absent Figs 5.52 and 5.53.

On her pages 215 - 216 is a remark that I do not understand. She wrote that specific local burial styles persisted as long as Uraca was exploited, including the practice of camelid entombments and the use of Toro Muerto motifs not found at other sites in the region. (2018; 215 - 216). I mean: which "region" does she mean? Majes? Arequipa? And what "sites" does she refer to: rock art sites?; burial sites? And more importantly, which motifs is she referring to (again no photos have been included by her to authorise her claims)? I am very curious to learn from Scaffidi which "Toro Muerto motifs" are not found at "sites" in that "region". But probably I will never find out. Scaffidi will conveniently and unethically ignore any request, being incited long ago by her advisor: "liar" Tiffiny Tung, after which - in 2012 - Scaffidi (and Tung) abruptly ended her constructive email-communication with me, not explaining why, and breaking her promise to help me with Majes rock art.

Finally, Scaffidi correctly remarks that camelids were a crucial image in the iconography of the Majes Valley, and are omnipresent in the petroglyphs at Toro Muerto(2018: 211). Indeed, there are numerous petroglyphs of all sorts of camelids in MRAS (see Van Hoek 2022a for a comment on an important Majes camelid petroglyph, miraculously "lost" by Tiffiny Tung) and at many sites from Toro Muerto southwards across the Desert Andes. Then, why does Scaffidi include a photograph (2018: Fig. 5.37; please notice the plural) of which her caption states that the photo shows petroglyphs of camelids found at Toro Muerto? On her (?) photograph are visible petroglyphs of two single-line quadrupeds (possibly dogs or foxes), an outlined bird of the Three-Digit-Claw type, some partially visible petroglyphs (I have the complete images) and a zigzagging outlined element (snake or abstract?), but only one (internally decorated) camelid. The whole of this panel (on Boulder TM-Cd-008) is almost completely covered with mainly biomorphic petroglyphs offering, however, only one camelid petroglyph. If indeed camelids are that ubiquitous at Toro Muerto, why not including a photo (with a correct caption, of course) of a panel covered with camelids? There are many of such panels (Figure 8). But did Scaffidi indeed visit Toro Muerto?

Figure 8. A small selection of petroglyph panels at Toro Muerto showing groups of camelids (randomly arranged or in rows or "corrals"). Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Scaffidi's Conclusions

Regarding her conclusions I can be brief. Scaffidi summarises her findings using the following words: combat- prestige, and violent ritual - status" (2018: 389). She thus combines Combat with Prestige and Violent Ritual with Status, ignoring any other explanation. War and violence being the only key words of her thesis.

She moreover writes (going in more detail) that Andean bio-archaeologists have deliberated significantly over whether severed heads represent respected ancestors or disembodied antagonists. According to Scaffidi, evidence for aggressive behaviour discussed in her Chapter 8 supports the interpretation that the severed Uraca "Trophy" Heads were war-related (2018: 10 - Note 4). By referring to only bio-archaeologists (who often ignore the valuable graphical records supplied by rock art imagery), she as well ignores the observations and theories of certain rock art experts and for that reason she also ignores and/or misinterprets the many rock art messages from Toro Muerto and (especially) Alto de Pitis.

Regarding the word respectfully that she uses in her Note-4, I argue that by using this term Scaffidi imposes her western-orientated idea of "being respectful" (which she herself is not regarding my person) upon the prehistoric Majes societies she in fact knows very little about (and nobody does). She rejects the possibility that (whether respectfully or disrespectfully) severed heads may still have served as a bridge respectfully connecting the deceased souls with the ancestors, who - in my opinion - reside(d) on top of Apu Coropuna, the Sacred Mountain of the area (Van Hoek 2013). I also argue again that the data collected at Uraca are only fragmentary due to looting. Any conclusion based on an incomplete record may thus be premature. Moreover, both points of view (whether - or) may well have simultaneously been valid, because each society in Andean prehistory may have had its own set of rationales to create "Trophy" Heads and images thereof. Recently this idea (still an unverified theory!) was elaborated by me further (Van Hoek 2023a). Earlier I also demonstrated that in Majes Rock Art Style there is not a single indication of war or conflict (Van Hoek 2021b). This contradicts her trophies of war claim, while her war claim is in fact only based on traumas inflicted on human bodies unearthed at some burials in Majes.

I have a different opinion. The fact that relatively (very) many petroglyphs of "Trophy" Heads (Van Hoek 2023a), "Carcanchas" (Van Hoek 2013) and Mummy Bundles have been recorded in Arequipa rock art - importantly without involving scenes showing any factual violence! - indicates that violence and "Trophy" Heads may have played a different role than claimed by Scaffidi (fully explained: Van Hoek 2023a). Of course, everybody is entitled to express their opinions and formulate their own interpretations, but the rock art aspect and its context should then be correctly and consistently interpreted (see also Issue 3 - Interpretations).

Indeed, Scaffidi and Tung unambiguously claim that the rock art of the Majes Valley depicts violence. They wrote that petroglyphs at Toro Muerto convey an obsession with violence (Scaffidi and Tung 2020: 7). In a lengthy paper I convincingly demonstrated that interpreting the rock art at Toro Muerto to be obsessedwith violence" is definitely not true and completely unsubstantiated (Van Hoek 2021b). In this respect it is revealing that academic archaeologist Justin Jennings (confirming my 2021b-findings) once emailed me (I emphasise; my addition): "I do think that the authors[Scaffidi and Tung] see violence everywhere - they interpreted some headdresses as helmets that I doubt functioned as so." (see also Scaffidi 2018: 50). Thus, I am not the only one having serious problems with certain interpretations regarding rock art imagery by Scaffidi and Tung.

But Tung and Scaffidi also published illustrations (2020: Fig. 3) that were intentionally falsified by them, just to "prove" or to boost their (incorrect) arguments about purported violence and (non-existent) conflict scenes depicted in Majes rock art. Fortunately, in August 2022 Justin Jennings also admitted to me that their 2020-"photos" (Figure 9) were not correct and that their "Erratum" was misplaced and misleading. Yet, I was never allowed to see their original 2020-"photos", which I am entitled to, but the editor of the Journal - Prof. Trudy Turner - and Mr. Michael Streeter of Publisher Wiley both inhospitably boycotted my justifiable requests.

*

My Conclusions

Regarding my own conclusions about Scaffidi's 2018-thesis I can be brief as well. If I would have been an advisor, her 2018-thesis would never have been approved (despite the six [!] pages of "acknowledgements"). I am of the opinion that every dissertation - the means to promote to PhD - should be flawless (as much as possible). And then I am not bickering about minor, understandable errors, like typing errors [SW instead of SE], etc.. But the sheer number of errors and shortcomings presented by Scaffidi in her 2018-thesis are unacceptable (yet approved by four PhD's!). Again, I do not question her bio-archaeological skills at all, but I seriously question her rock art expertise. Also her four advisors failed to find the (rock art) shortcomings in the 2018-thesis published by Scaffidi. I therefore hope that any future advisor will take the trouble to check any future draft-MS compiled by whomever more thoroughly.

Figure 9. Drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) of the intentionally falsified "photos" published by Prof. Tiffiny Tung and Prof. Beth Scaffidi (2020: Fig. 3).

Fortunately Scaffidi admits that all the shortcomings in her thesis are her own (2018: ix). However, there are too many shortcomings for a scientifically accepted dissertation.I now only hope that any future publication by Prof. Scaffidi (and by any other [bio-]archaeologist) - especially when referring to the local rock art - will have no flaws at all. It would be a good idea for (not only) her to consult - especially when intending to include remarks about the local rock art - a person who is better informed about whatever subject. In case rock art is involved, Scaffidi and Tung (and anybody else) are also encouraged to consult and to unbiasedly use and correctly quote the information in the numerous publications about rock art (see for instance my publications).

All those pieces of advice also apply in particular to her advisor, Prof. Tiffiny Tung, who has been - according to Scaffidi (Scaffidi 2018: iv.) - an informant of new viewpoints, comments, and qualified advice. Tung is also appreciated by Scaffidi to be ethically robust. However, I seriously question if Prof. Tung is worthy of the label of "ethically robust" (as I have explained earlier). Why?

Because after the publication of her 2018-thesis, Scaffidi (joined by her colleague Tiffiny Tung) continued to share and publish her view (which is OK with me). However, she - together with her colleague Tung - published (via Publisher Wiley) intentionally falsified photographs of Majes petroglyphs (Scaffidi and Tung 2020: Fig. 3) only in order to "prove" and boost their (in my opinion incorrect) opinion about Majes "Trophy" Heads and its goal. After 2012 Tung and Scaffidi all of a sudden unprofessionally stopped answering my emails (without giving me any good reason) and - later - never reacted to my publications, especially my emails and papers revealing their falsification (fully explained in Van Hoek 2020; 2022b and 2022e).

Solving this problem, it was also Justin Jennings who informed me that Tung and Scaffidi have been spreading downright lies about me. The lies spread by Tung (joined somewhat later by Scaffidi) seriously damaged my person, but also damaged my constructive relations with several academics, including Justin (with whom I excellently co-operated regarding our Illomas-Project: Jennings and Van Hoek et al. 2019; and my 2021-Quilcapampa-Project). Justin also confirmed that the "Erratum" by Tung and Scaffidi was inadequate and that Tung and Scaffidi (and the editor Prof. Trudy Turner) should in any case have shared their original - unaltered - 2020-photos with me, which would prove me right (and I know that I am right). Several times I asked for the original photos, but I was never allowed to see them. Also Prof. Trudy Turner and Michael Streeter harshly ignored every polite request from my side.

Unfortunately - after the message by Justin Jennings and my publications in 2020 - 2022 - the danger of peer-pressure among archaeologists surfaced! Because of this negative peer pressure against me, I "lost" this case, simply by being harshly ignored by all individuals involved, but - unlike several academics involved - I did not lose my integrity. I may have "lost" this battle (and some "friends", like Jennings), but the war - started by Tung - is not over. I still believe the following:

*

¿ Quiere usted fortalecer su caracter ?...

¡ No abandone la lucha simplemente porque sea dificil !...

Roy Chapman Andrews

Fortunately, there is also positive news. In their 2021-Quilcapampa book (Jennings et al. 2021), Justin Jennings, archaeologist from the University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology of the Royal Ontario Museum, Canada, and his colleague Stephen Berquist referred to me as follows: "Maarten van Hoek (2018), who has made some of the most extensive studies of rock art in this region …" (Berquist et al. 2021: 102). Both Justin and Stephen helped me enormously with my studies of Arequipa rock art. At least some academics take my expertise and publications seriously and use them perfectly. This positive boost was most welcome.

*

Acknowledgements

Above all I value the generous help of Justin Jennings and Stephen Berquist regarding my studies about Arequipa rock art and that of Illomas and Quilcapampa in particular. I also appreciate the support by Justin regarding the "falsification" issue and especially that he informed me about Tiffiny Tung spreading blatant lies about me. Last but definitely not least I am - as ever - most thankful for the assistance in the field by my wife Elles and her ongoing support at home.

*

References

Álvarez Zeballos, P. J. 2009. Petroglifos de Cantas, Pitis, La Mezana y La Laja; Valle de Majes. In: Arqueología de Perú.

Berquist, S., F. Gonzalez-Macqueen and J. Jennings. 2021. Making Quilcapampa. Trails, Petroglyphs, and the Creation of a Moving Place. In: Quilcapampa. A Wari Enclave in Southern Peru. Jennings, J., W. Yépez Álvarez and S. L. Bautista (eds.). University Press of Florida.

Bingham. H. 1912. The Ascent of Coropuna. Harper's New Monthly Magazine. Vol. 125; Number 741-45: pp 489–502. Henry Mills Alden, editor.

Bingham. H. 1922. Inca Land, Explorations in the Highlands of Peru. The Riverside Press Cambridge. Boston and New York.

Faron-Bartels, R. 2011a. Piedras votivas de Pampacolca. Nuevos datos sobre las lajas pintadas del sur del Perú. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie am Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin. Berlin.

Faron-Bartels, R. 2011b. Piedras votivas de Pampacolca. Nuevos datos sobre las lajas pintadas del sur del Perú. Anexo. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie am Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin. Berlin.

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.

Jennings, J., W. Yépez Álvarez and S. L. Bautista (eds.). 2021. Quilcapampa. A Wari Enclave in Southern Peru. University Press of Florida.

Melton, M. A., A. K. Alaica, M. E. Biwer, L. M. González La Rosa, G. Gordon, K. J. Knudson, A. M. VanDerwarker and J. Jennings. 2023. Reconstructing Middle Horizon Camelid Diets and Foddering Practices: Microbotanical and Isotope Analyses of Dental Remains from Quilcapampa, Peru. Latin American Antiquity. Vol. 2023; pp. 1 - 21.

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. PhD Dissertation. Vanderbilt University: PDF, also uploaded onto Academia by Scaffidi.

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. 2021 refers to the publication online; 2022 to the factual publication. PDF.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2003. The rock art of Toro Muerto, Peru. Rock Art Research. Vol. 20-2; pp. 151 - 170. Melbourne, Australia.

Van Hoek, M. 2010. "Trophy" Heads in the rock art of the Majes Valley, Perú: exploring their possible origin. In: Rupestreweb (accessed June 2023).

Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Carcancha and the Apu. Rock Art in the Death Valley of the Andes. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book (full text and fully illustrated - unlike the Rupestreweb version) available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2017. Los Petroglifos de Tintín, Sihuas, Arequipa, Perú. In: TRACCE - On-line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Linked with my video on YouTube. (Both accessed June 2023).

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

Van Hoek, M. 2020. False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021a. The Enigma of the "Feathered Homunculus" in the Rock Art of the Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021b. War and Weapons in Majes Style Rock Art? 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 Majes Falsification Updated - The Inconvenient Truth. PDF - including the meaningless 2022-Erratum published by Tung and Scaffidi - available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022c. The Majes "Dancer" - Analysing an Enigmatic Icon. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022d. Rock Art at Punta Colorada, Majes, Peru - An Update. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022e. Vandalism and Falsification of Rock Art: A Matter of Integrity. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022f. The Origin of the Cochineros Bird, Río Mala, Peru. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF.

Van Hoek. M. 2023a."Trophy" Heads in the Rock Art of North and South America". Book available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2023b. The Case of Boulder AP3-065, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Forthcoming: check TRACCEand my New Publications.