This paper reviews the publication by academic archaeologists, Andrzej Rozwadowski and Janusz Z. Wołoszyn, in which they suggest that zigzag petroglyphs at Toro Muerto in the Majes Valley of southern Peru – constituting the most important rock art site in the Desert Andes of South America – could be representations of songs. In my paper I question a number of their suggestions and statements by trying to put the whole issue in a more appropriate context. I cannot refute their theory, but my objections makes it unlikely (though not impossible) that Toro Muerto zigzags indeed represent songs.

By Maarten van Hoek

*

*

Commenting on Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn

Dances with Zigzags in Toro Muerto

Through the Lens of Amazonian Art?

*

Maarten van Hoek

Introduction

In April 2024 two academic archaeologists, Andrzej Rozwadowski and Janusz Z. Wołoszyn, published a well-founded paper about the possible meaning of some specific types of abstract petroglyphs recorded at Toro Muerto (southern Peru), focussing on Majes “Dancers” and especially Zigzags (Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024). In their paper they suggest – admitting that all their suggestions regarding those two types of petroglyphs are only hypothetical – that petroglyphs of zigzag lines at Toro Muerto could be representations of songs (2024: 15); hence the title of their paper. Their general remarks (especially those involving ethnographic details from Amazon cultures) are very convincing. However, despite the sound reasoning of both authors, I still have some comments that – to some extent – may challenge their theories. However, my comments mainly concern rock art related matters.

First of all, I must emphasise again that – in general – I have a problem identifying the Majes “Dancers” as really dancing people, even when their specific poses in many petroglyphs strongly hints at people that are dancing. Again I point to the many static Majes “Dancers” that are frequently depicted not only in Majes rock art, but also on the “Sihuas” Canes (important artefacts, still to be discussed). Therefore, why not – for instance – identify the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A (their Boulder TM 1219; a boulder which will be discussed in more detail further on) as a waving or as a saluting figure (see Figures 1C and 9)? Judging by its pose, these labels are equally possible, not only for this Majes “Dancer”, but also – for example – for the Majes “Dancers” illustrated by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: Fig. 3).

Yet, in their paper Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn state the following about the Majes “Dancers”: “It concerns an almost overwhelming repetition of images of dancing human figures (known as danzantes), … (2024: 2; my emphases). They thus ignore the fact that since 2003 their “danzante” (a Spanish term – apparently derived from Núñez Jiménez [1986] – yet hardly ever used after 1986), is much better known as the Majes “Dancer”, and has been described as such in numerous publications (Van Hoek 2003 to 2023; see my Bibliography at the end of this study). The authors thus also ignore the justifiable possibility that many Majes “Dancers” may well not be dancing.

In this respect I especially would like to point again to the many petroglyphs in the Central Majes Valley that are clearly depicting static Majes “Dancers”. Yet Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn argue that “Although some danzantes present rather static poses, their identification as dancers seems convincing.” (Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: 6; my emphases in bold). Firstly, I contest their remark that it only would concern “some” static danzantes, as there are many such static Majes “Dancers” at Toro Muerto (and “some” at Alto de Pitis). Confusingly, Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn still use the obsolete term “Pitis” (2024: 6), which is in fact incorrect, because “Pitis” (a name introduced by Núñez Jiménez [1986]) refers to only a very small part of the extensive rock art site of Alto de Pitis (fully described by me: Van Hoek 2013). But nevertheless, Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn are right in one respect. The identification of all static Majes “Dancers” (also by me), indeed confirms that also the static Majes “Dancer” belongs to the same Majes “Dancers” Family. But why has my label of Majes “Dancers” (and other material published by me) not been noticed by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn?

The answer is found in a rather unexpected remark by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: 2; my emphases): “Despite the significance of this complex for the region’s archaeology, Toro Muerto has been investigated rather irregularly and superficially in the past decades, while interpretations regarding the dating, function and significance of the site and the images found there have received little consensus (Linares 1974; Núñez 1986; van Hoek 2003).”. First of all, in their 2024-paper Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn refer to only my 2003-paper (2024: 6), but they do that incorrectly by quoting a remark by me – said by them to have been made by me “on page 16” – while my peer-reviewed 2003-paper includes the pages 151 to170. Sloppy!

In addition, especially their remark of “superficially” is incorrect, because in the past two decades I have published numerous in-depth papers and books dealing with rock art at Toro Muerto, the Majes Valley or the MRAS Sphere (see the Personal Bibliography at the end of this study). Moreover, most of my publications are available on-line at ResearchGate or Academia. Yet, they refer to only my 2003-paper. Why is their remark (quoted above) depreciating to me?

Their remark is the more depreciating, because Wołoszyn once promised me to comply with the following scientific attitude (and I quote from his email to me, dated 6-11-2019; his emphases in capitals; mine in bold): “I want to assure you that in ALL of our scientific publications I quote reliably (and I will continue to quote! – no matter how our contacts develop) ALL of your texts concerning Toro Muerto or rock art of Peru, to which I will have access (even if they do not have the status of official, peer-reviewed publications, it doesn’t matter to me – I know why they don’t…).  I believe that this is what an honest scientist should do.” Importantly, it is a fact that Wołoszyn does regularly read my publications, and he thus cannot maintain that he was not aware of my publications.

Mind you, I am only blaming Wołoszyn for his unscientific attitude (not Rozwadowski). It is evident to me that – despite his promise – Wołoszyn (intentionally) ignores – in his joint-2024-paper – all my work published after 2003, while I can prove that Wołoszyn used several of my after-2003 publications as a source for his own publications. For instance, it is a fact that Wołoszyn copied an illustration from my 2018-book (Van Hoek 2018: Fig. 81), cut off (!) my name on that illustration and published it in two videos available on the internet, without asking my permission and without crediting me (for all the evidence and further details, read my personal comments on Wołoszyn’s attitude). I am pretty sure that – without quoting me – Wołoszyn also used my publications as a source for some remarks in the paper by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024), while other publications have (intentionally?!) been “overlooked”. Finally, apart from finding certain data in the paper by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024) as being possibly derived from my 2003 to 2023 publications, I also have some mainly rock art related comments regarding certain remarks in their otherwise very informative and intriguing paper. My key comments concern their description of their Boulder TM 1219 and some of their conclusions based on certain aspects of its imagery.

*

Regarding Boulder TM 1219

Importantly, Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn mainly focus especially on one (indeed very impressive) panel to substantiate their theory. It is their Boulder TM 1219 (for easy reference to my earlier publications, this boulder is referred to in this study by my own label: Panel TM-Bd-007A). Their illustrations of that panel (2024: Fig. 8) are very clear and correct (see Addendum-1). Also their cautious description of the boulder is accurate, but it has a few flaws. Most importantly, they do not mention an important detail of the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A (Figure 1C; for a larger picture see Figure 9). That – in my opinion – relevant detail (which is visible in their illustrations) has been ignored in their description (2024: 7). In other sections (2024: 12, 13) some further details of the Big Majes “Dancer” are being discussed, but they still ignored that specific feature of the Big Majes “Dancer”, published earlier by me (Van Hoek 2022a: 8, 23; see also my remarks above regarding “superficially”). In view of their “song” theory, this is an important shortcoming, which I will now explain.

Figure 1. Details of Panel TM-Bd-007A (see also Figure 9). Photos © by Maarten van Hoek. The Big Majes “Dancer” (“C”) has been discussed by me earlier (Van Hoek 2022a: 8, 23, 29).

Click on any illustration to see an enlargement (that can be enlarged further).

**

When describing the Majes “Dancer” in general, they mention that the Majes “Dancer” features a head “presented en face or in profile” (2024: 5). I cannot remember to have seen any Majes “Dancer” (of the probably up to 1400 examples I have illustrations of) that has been unambiguously depicted in profile, and if there is one, it will be a very exceptional exception. Also the enigmatic “One-Leg” Majes “Dancer” has its eyes centrally placed on its face (Van Hoek 2022a: Figs 12A, 13, 14; Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: Fig. 2). Even when a Majes “Dancer” has only one eye (which occurs quite often), then the sole eye is “always” positioned in the centre of the face (Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 31; Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: Fig. 3), and thus it is not at all certain that it concerns a profile face (or even a mask).

Moreover, Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn also claim that “The faces of these figures sometimes have clearly marked eyes and other signs …” (2024: 5; my emphasis in bold). First of all, I object to the term “sometimes” as it is certain that a very large number of the Majes “Dancers” have facial features; yet mainly the eye(s). Majes “Dancers” with the head outlined and without any facial feature are very rare, and may even represent unfinished examples, like the example on Boulder TM-Aa-006; see Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 31; also notice the three (rotated) “one-eyed” Majes “Dancers” on that panel. What is more, I mentioned earlier (Van Hoek 2022a: 16) that – apart from eyes – facial features depicting or symbolising the ears, the nose and (which is important in this study) the mouth are extremely rare in representations of the Majes “Dancer” (or perhaps even missing completely [mind you, I have not seen every example of the approximately 1500 Majes “Dancers” estimated by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn to have been recorded at Toro Muerto; I know of “just” 1200 to 1300 examples at Toro Muerto]).

A very rare example of a Majes “Dancer” (unfortunately not visible in the drawing by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn: 2024: Fig. 3; TM 1646) featuring a sign that possibly represents a mouth appears at the top of Panel TM-Aa-003A (next to a “faceless”, unfinished [?!] example). Remarkably, it is not the traditional horizontal stroke (-) that often depicts the mouth in anthropomorphic rock art images, but a highly exceptional “X” sign, suggesting – in my opinion – that this Majes “Dancer” has perhaps been silenced (the lips stitched close?). Because (so far) “all other” Majes “Dancers” with an outlined head lack a mouth, they all may have been silenced, even in the – in my opinion unlikely –  case that the Majes “Dancers” are wearing a mask (Van Hoek 2022a: 6). Possibly being silenced is important in view of my comments on the hypothesis postulated by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn.

This brings me back to Panel TM-Bd-007A (TM 1219). It is most important to notice that  Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn fail to recognise or mention that the Big (static!) Majes “Dancer” on this impressive panel has no face. Yes, it has a (still outlined!) head, but this Big Majes “Dancer” is (probably) the only example of a Majes “Dancer” at Toro Muerto that – within its clearly outlined head – has had its face very carefully obliterated (however, there are some more – more crudely – obliterated Majes “Dancers” at Toro Muerto; see Van Hoek 2005: Fig. 2; and Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 27; publications [intentionally?] “overlooked” by Wołoszyn; see my earlier remarks about this issue), leaving a carefully pecked or hacked area (still outlined!) where (possibly [!], yet no-one can ever tell) once was one eye, perhaps two eyes (and even a mouth?). Finally, it may be telling that there is at least one other Majes “Dancer” – also on Panel TM-Bd-007A (marked with a yellow dot in Figure 2) – that seems to have a (partially!) obliterated face. However, notice that the obliterated part concerns the part where the eye(s) would have been.

Figure 2. Large part of Panel TM-Bd-007A. Green dots: Majes “Dancers”; yellow dot (also in detail): Majes “Dancer” with partially obliterated face. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

The intentionally and carefully obliterated face of the Big Majes “Dancer” is not the same as the many fully pecked (often small) petroglyphs of the Majes “Dancer” that also lack all facial features. In those cases it seems as if the Majes “Dancer” itself was more important than its head. Yet, some – or all? – of those examples with a fully pecked head and body could still have been the result of intentional obliteration (Van Hoek 2005). Alternatively, the manufacturers may have decided (at a later stage?) to leave out the facial features for the same reason as why they obliterated faces. We simply will never know the sequence or the reason. But the fact remains that the Big Majes “Dancer” has an intentionally obliterated face, as a result not showing any facial feature, thus also not a mouth. It seems to have been silenced on purpose.

Earlier I have demonstrated that intentional, prehistoric obliteration of especially faces and possible facial features is rather common at Toro Muerto, yet unique to the Central Majes Valley (Van Hoek 2005; 2022a: 22). This ritual (!) obliteration is seen in petroglyphs of Majes “Dancers” (Figure 3), as well as in felines, snakes and all sorts of quadrupeds (Van Hoek 2005). This later obliteration served – in my opinion – to intentionally deface the image in order to annul the original purpose of the image and thus to remove the power once ritually imbued within those images. In Andean worldview the head and/or face is of paramount importance, and possibly for that reason especially the head of (randomly selected?) biomorphic petroglyphs at Toro Muerto have been “defaced”; a kind of practice comparable with Trophy Head Taking. If you take the head, you also take the face. Importantly, the result of actual Trophy Head Taking has been depicted in many Majes petroglyphs as the “Trophy” Heads and “Trophy” Head Carriers; all – in my opinion – related to Apu Coropuna, the Sacred Mountain (Van Hoek 2023).

Figure 3. Some obliterated Majes “Dancers”. Photos and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

The fact that the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A has no facial features (anymore?), may point to an important implication. Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn theoretically suggest that especially the zigzag represents a song, but they do not explicitly point to the Majes “Dancer” as the person that is actually singing that song. Even if the Majes “Dancer” sings the song, then it is strange that almost every Majes “Dancer” has no mouth and that the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A even has had its face (and possible all facials; possibly including its mouth) carefully obliterated. Therefore I wonder, are the Majes “Dancers” mute, or have they intentionally been silenced perhaps? Of course it is possible that ancient Majes “Dancers” sing a song, but there is no proof at all, and even the (recently made!) ethnographic “evidence” from the remote Amazon is not directly convincing.

For instance, another strange conclusion by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: 13; my emphases in bold) concerns their following remark. “It is also worth noting that the feet of the central danzante on boulder TM 1219 are not fully human (they have three toes), indicating that in this case we may be dealing with the representation of a ‘mythological’ or, following Viveiros de Castro’s (1998, 471) concept of cosmological transformism, a human/non-human subject with human and non-human attributes.”.

Although their statistical observation regarding the number of toes of only the Big Majes “Dancer” in itself is correct (although they do not mention the three and four fingers of the figure), it is remarkable that they fail to mention that most Majes “Dancers” have no digits at all, while several (but few) examples have two digits, or – even rarer – four or five digits (Van Hoek 2022a: 12; see also Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: Fig. 3). A fine example is the large Majes “Dancer” on Boulder TM-Aa-062 that has four fingers and five toes (Figure 4). By ignoring all those exceptions Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn debunk their own conclusion based on the number of toes. Moreover, it is generally known that biomorphs (thus also anthropomorphs) depicted in rock art world-wide, very often have no digits, or an unexpected variation of digits (including examples with two, three, four, even up to seven digits).

Figure 4. One of the largest Majes “Dancers” at Toro Muerto (on Boulder TM-Aa-062), measuring 121 cm in height, not “more than 150 cm”, as stated by Disselhoff (1968: 34; this error was unknowingly repeated by me [Van Hoek 2003: 154]). The “tears” are invisible. Note the absence of geometric motifs like zigzags. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Therefore, in my opinion it is impossible to maintain (or even suggest) that the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A represents “… a ‘mythological’ or a human/non-human subject with human and non-human attributes. It looks to me as if Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn are presenting evidence, where there is no evidence, at least not when it concerns the number of digits of the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A. Concluding – regarding the “deviant” number of digits – the Big Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A is not unique within Toro Muerto iconography, and thus none of the Majes “Dancers” offers any evidence for any (Amazonian) mythological subject (thus I also reject their remarks on their page 16).

But concerning another aspect this Big Majes “Dancer” is not unique either, as is nonetheless claimed by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: 7; my emphasis) when they state that “In terms of utilization of the rock surface, this is a unique composition – no other boulder gives the impression of such a coherent arrangement dominated by linear geometric motifs, of which the danzante, equal in size to it, is an integral part.” Because Wołoszyn meticulously surveyed Toro Muerto for many years with a large specialised team (while I always worked alone with my wife, without drones, without GPS or any other technological gadget), especially Wołoszyn should have been aware of a comparable composition at Toro Muerto, also because he definitely has consulted my 2003-paper, in which there is a drawing of a type of Majes “Dancer” that I have labelled the “Hidden” Majes “Dancer”. This second “Hidden” Majes “Dancer” debunks their claim that the Big (Hidden!) Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A is unique.

The second comparable composition I refer to above is found on Panel TM-Bf-017A (Van Hoek 2003: 155; Fig. 8; see also Van Hoek 2022a: 8; Fig. 7). This panel, densely packed with all types of vertically arranged geometric patterns, shows an even more hidden “Hidden” Majes “Dancer”, because its head is folded across a differently sloping part of the panel and thus harder to see among the equally vertically arranged geometrics (Figure 5). But this time its head still includes its face, showing complex facial features (but no mouth!). Moreover, also this Majes “Dancer” is (again) static (or – at the most – “dynamically” “saluting” or “waving”).

Figure 5. Panel TM-Bf-017A. Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

My last comment regarding Panel TM-Bd-007A (TM 1219) concerns the large petroglyph of a type that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn call the double crenelation (2024: 7). This type of image was said to be of particular interest to them, since – so they argue – it also constitutes an important component of the scene on boulder TM 1219 (2024: 9). Indeed that composite petroglyph on Panel TM-Bd-007A really stands out very boldly, if the light is favourable (see Figure 1A).

This specific complex abstract petroglyph was used by them to compare its design with a Tukano image from the Amazon (2024: Fig. 9A). They moreover related this double crenelated pattern to the Pipette Design. Although single crenelated motifs occur quite often at Toro Muerto, designs of double crenelated patterns – that could be interpreted as Pipettes – are very scarce. I have only spotted three examples at Toro Muerto (Van Hoek 2017: 106; Figs 1.2A, 1.3B and 1.C). It is a pity that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn did not consult my 2017 Pipette paper, as – regarding the Pipette Design – they might have been informed about important distribution patterns across the Americas, as well as about some interesting petroglyphs depicting Anthropomorphised Pipettes, none having a mouth (Van Hoek 2017: Figs 2, 4 and 5).

Finally, the central pattern on Boulder TM-Aa-017 (their TM 1650) is said by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn to depict a “crenellated pattern” (2024: Fig. 7). However, in my opinion that central composition (Figure 6) definitely does not involve a “crenellated pattern” at all. The two vertical arranged, parallel zigzags enclose – at the top – a motif looking more like a series of four stacked motifs that I have interpreted as four (possible!) Frontal Insignia Tumis in another publication (“overlooked” by Wołoszyn [Van Hoek 2016: Fig. 47]). It is even completely unknown whether this stacked pattern is in any way related to the “crenellated pattern” at all. There is even no proof that the stacked pattern and the Majes “Dancer” are of the same age, or manufactured by the same hand. Again, there is no informed knowledge regarding the age or meaning of any of the ancient Toro Muerto petroglyphs.

Figure 6. Boulder TM-Aa-017. The single Majes “Dancer” is marked with a yellow dot. Notice that the Majes “Dancer” (a later addition?) is separated (on purpose?) from the zigzags by a Stripe. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Other Issues

There are some other issues that make me doubt whether the conclusions by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn are valid. A few (often relevant) issues in their paper will be randomly discussed now. Although I cannot (and will not) refute the theory by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn that zigzag petroglyphs at Toro Muerto may symbolise songs, there remain – for instance – the unanswered questions whether Stripes (often very long pecked, vertical bands [see Figures 6 and 8], frequently associated with Majes “Dancers”), or isolated geometrics and isolated Majes “Dancers” also symbolise a song. Their focus is mainly on the zigzag.

Fortunately Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn also offer several other interpretations of the zigzag, among which there is the idea that zigzags may symbolise snakes (2024: 4). Indeed, at Toro Muerto there are several zigzags or serpentine lines that seem to have a snake head (Linares Málaga 2011: 182 [see Figure 8]; Van Hoek 2003: Figs 5 and 18C; 2022a: Fig. 54). Do those snake-zigzags also symbolise songs? Singing snakes, perhaps?

Another enigmatic feature of several Majes “Dancers” is that sometimes single examples of a Majes “Dancer” and – more often – two or more Majes “Dancers” in a row, are positioned on a horizontal Stripe (see for instance Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: Fig. 3 – TM 1646). This feature has not been explained by them, but – following Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2254) – is tentatively interpreted by me in my book as a “performing platform” (Van Hoek 2022a: 27; Fig. 60), which may point to any kind of ritual; yes, ritual singing as well. But again, also this “platform” feature will probably remain an enigma as well.

*

The Toro Muerto Soundscape

Importantly, the key interpretation in the paper by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn concerns their theory that the zigzag may symbolise a song. This seems to imply that they also agree that songs and music were – possibly dominantly – performed in the Central Majes Valley, as well as at Toro Muerto. In this respect it is strange that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn do not refer to an excellent paper by Alaica et al. (2022) that especially deals with the performance of music in the prehistoric Majes Valley. Unfortunately however, Alaica et al. (2022: 2) incorrectly link Majes “Dancers” with music, when they state that at the nearby rock art site of Toro Muerto petroglyphs of dancing figures play a range of musical instruments. However, both statements (dancing figures – range) are definitely incorrect, as I demonstrated in my comments on the paper by Alaica et al. (Van Hoek 2022b: 4).

Yes, there are several petroglyphs of Majes “Dancers” that seem to carry or hold some sort of linear object. However, most of the objects carried by Majes “Dancers” concern rather short, straight or slightly curved lines, that are often vertically, horizontally and/or diagonally arranged. As they do not show any detail, they can depict sticks, staffs, clubs, sceptres, weapons, (snuff- or tobacco) pipes, canes, musical instruments or any other kind of regalia. Moreover, it is even possible that in some cases those purported “objects” only belong to the category of small abstract signs that often surround Majes “Dancers”. But I do not see any reason why those featureless objects held by Majes “Dancers” should necessarily depict or symbolise only musical instruments.

Moreover, Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn also “overlooked” (at least they do not mention) “my” important discovery in 2009 of three anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Toro Muerto that may well be “playing a wind instrument”; two of them holding a “Trophy” Head. After “my” discovery (at that time I could not find any reference to those images), I published illustrations and descriptions of the three “whistle-blowers” (Van Hoek 2010: Fig. 3; Van Hoek 2022b: Figs 5 to 7). Moreover – based on the three “whistle-blower” petroglyphs and many other specific zoomorphic petroglyphs at Toro Muerto – I defined in more detail a prehistoric soundscape at Toro Muerto and the Central Majes Valley (Van Hoek 2022b: 13) and – consequently – a Majes Ritescape (Van Hoek 2022b: 20). Within this context, zigzag petroglyphs symbolising songs could well be an important addition, provided that the zigzag indeed symbolises a song. And that is not certain at all. Also Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn admit that.

*

The Majes “Dancer” and Gender

Regarding the sex of the Majes “Dancer” Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn correctly state that “Danzantes do not include features enabling unequivocal identification of their gender …” (2024: 6; my emphasis), but they could have been aware of a few petroglyphs of Majes “Dancers” at Toro Muerto that seem to show male sex (Van Hoek 2012: Figs 101, 102A and B). At Boulder TM- Bb-061 I noticed a Majes “Dancers” with a possible phallus (Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 22). In general, images of anthropomorphic figures unequivocally showing male and (or?) female sex in Majes “Dancers” are rather rare in Andean rock art, but they do occur (see Van Hoek 2012: for instance Figs 68 to 72).

Despite the fact that Linares Málaga (1990: 459; 1999: 141) claims that a pair of Majes “Dancers” represent an “Hombre y mujer danzando”, images of gendered couples are extremely rare (and often ambiguous). In fact I know of only one set of petroglyphs – on Boulder TM-Bn-008 (Figure 7) – that shows a (possibly!) female Majes “Dancer”, intriguingly placed next to a (possibly!) male Majes “Dancer”, his purported phallus suggestively pointing to “an (intentional?) opening” in the “female” figure (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 27; 2022a: Fig. 24).

Figure 7. Boulder TM-Bn-008, possibly showing a male (recently stained?) and a female Majes “Dancer”. Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

Finally, Núñez Jiménez illustrates a couple of Majes “Dancers” in which the feet and hands are joined (1986: Fig. 2198), but – exceptionally – one of the figures seems to have a thick line – a phallus? – between the legs, which might indicate male sex. It would now be logical to assume that the other (sexless) figure is female, but logic is not always correct. Sexless figures can still well be male (like many Andean rock art images of “whistle-blowers”). I also demonstrated that Majes “Dancers” have never unambiguously been depicted “playing a wind instrument” (like a flute), which would – in Andean worldview – be a rather positive indication of male gender (Van Hoek 2022a: 21 – 22). However, none of the petroglyphs depicting the Majes “Dancer” that I have inspected, has a flute-like object held at the mouth. More details about Majes “Dancers”, their gender and many other aspects, can be consulted in my book (Van Hoek 2022a).

*

The “Sihuas” Canes Issue

Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn use certain data – derived from three pyro-engraved canes (the “Sihuas” Canes) – as the base for a rough dating of some Toro Muerto petroglyphs. However, they refer to all three engraved canes, drawings of two of which were first published by Joerg Haeberli (2001: Figs 8 to 10), as if they all three came from one site in the Sihuas Valley by stating: “According to this author, these artifacts came from unknown burial contexts looted by grave robbers at the La Chimba cemetery located in the neighbouring Sihuas Valley.” (2024: 4; my emphases).

However, their claim is misleading, as it gives a wrong impression of what Haeberli wrote. Nowhere did Haeberli state that all three pyro-engraved canes came from La Chimba (Haeberli 2001; 2002). Only one cane (the one that was radio-carbon dated) was said by him to have been found – most likely as a trodden-on surface find – at La Chimba. In fact, regarding the provenance of the other two canes – those decorated with images of Majes “Dancers” – Haeberli only stated the following in the captions of his Figs 8 to 10: “Coleccion privada” (Haeberli 2001: 106), and “private collection” means to me that the provenance of those two canes is unknown. For that reason I always use the term “Sihuas” Cane, expressing uncertainty. Even the “Sihuas” Cane found in-situ at La Chimba may well have come from another spot – not even necessarily a burial – located somewhere in Arequipa (or even beyond).

Yet Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn still claim the following (2024: 16; my emphases): “It is worth recalling that the canes with images of danzantes, birds, different animals and geometric motifs, mentioned at the beginning of the article (Fig. 2), also come from a burial context.”. This again is misleading (presenting “evidence” where there is no evidence), because, when the provenance of an artefact is unknown (as is stated by Haeberli [2001]), it cannot be claimed with any certainty that it comes from a burial context. All three items may have – for instance – been discovered within a domestic context. In my opinion this uncertainty should have been acknowledged by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (having read my 2018-book).

Indeed, it is disturbing that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn make such an incorrect claim, as especially Wołoszyn has definitely been informed about the “unknown provenance” of two of the “Sihuas” Canes, because – regarding the “Sihuas” Canes – he consulted my 2018-book, from which he copied and published (without my permission) my drawing of one of the “Sihuas” Canes (Van Hoek 2018: Fig. 81). Having said this, I am also convinced that Wołoszyn found specific information in my 2018-book that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: 4-5) have published, as if they were the first to find out that much of Toro Muerto rock art dates from the (Late) Formative Period. It was I who first established a Formative Period dating for the MRAS (2018). The least Wołoszyn could have done (keeping in mind his promise to me), was to refer to my 2018-book (to quote Wołoszyn  “… this is what an honest scientist should do.”).

*

Conclusions

In general it is difficult trying to explain the meaning of rock art images. It becomes almost impossible when it concerns imagery of cultures that did not leave any written information about their rock art symbols, and especially when informed knowledge is absent. Moreover, especially the metaphors or symbolic meanings of abstract and geometric rock art images are even harder (or impossible) to access.  The only data we then have are the often enigmatic rock art images that we tentatively may compare with other sources of information. And then – with our western minds – we try to interpret the rock art image. That interpretation may be correct, an acceptable option, far-fetched (but still possible), or even ridiculous (i.e. referring to aliens).

The problem is also that – when for instance we observe the rock art image of an elephant – we only are able to identify the species. But we cannot be sure about any possible symbolic meaning of the animal (unless, of course, reliable information is available). In this respect it is informative that Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn refer to a study by Parkington and Paterson (2017) in which is argued that “… undulations and zigzags associated with elephants may depict sounds produced by these animals.” (2024: 2; my emphases). But is that reading correct?

Having said all this, in the past I also presented certain theories about the meaning of specific petroglyphs that I recorded in the Majes Valley of southern Peru (see the Personal Bibliography at the end of this study). For instance, I am (still) convinced that the relatively many petroglyphs of “Carcanchas” at Toro Muerto and especially the “overkill” of those figures at Alto de Pitis served to symbolise the invisible, ritual path to Apu Coropuna that the souls of the deceased follow to join their ancestors that reside on top of a Sacred Mountain (Van Hoek 2013; 2020; 2022c; 2022d and several more). Also the relatively numerous rock art images of “Trophy” Heads in the Majes area express – in my opinion – the same relationship with Apu Coropuna (see for instance Van Hoek 2023). Actually, the essence of the same idea has also been expressed by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024: 16) when they speak of a “transfer to the land of the dead” (without mentioning or referring to Apu Coropuna in their paper, though). However, all those theories are just what they are: unproven theories (which, of course, might well be right, especially when they have correctly been put in the cultural context of the larger region).

The same goes for several postulations presented in the paper by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn (2024). Fortunately the authors explicitly state several times that they regard their ideas to be (excessively) hypothetical (2024: 12 – 14 – 15 – 16). They also state that they do not “wish to claim that all zigzags at Toro Muerto should be interpreted as visualizations of songs, and all other geometrics as symbols of the cosmos (particularly when we bear in mind their potential polysemy).” (2024: 16; my emphases). This leaves us the doubt: “how to find out which zigzags are visualisations of songs, and which are not”. For instance, are the two large, very impressive zigzags on Boulder TM-Aa-053 – near a very small Majes “Dancer” (yellow dot in Figure 8) – symbolising songs, or not? Moreover, three of the four quadrupeds on this boulder (#2 with hooves?) are associated with a small zigzag each. Are they singing as well?

Figure 8. The larger part of Boulder TM-Aa-053. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek. This boulder is said by Linares Málaga (2011: 180-181) to bear three zigzags and one stripe (while there are seven zigzags [six visible in the photo] and two stripes on the entire panel).

I also agree with the authors when they remark that “the ‘Andes-Amazonia divide’ that has taken shape in archaeological and anthropological discourse is more an academic construct than a description of a situation actually existing through history.” (2024: 15). It is a fact that people, animals, goods and (religious) ideas frequently crossed the Andean watershed. Importantly,  in this way also mind-kept images crossed the watershed, together with their symbolic meaning.

Unfortunately, there are still instances where diffusion of rock art images is unjustly refuted. An example are the belittling comments by Robert Bednarik on the excellent paper of Troncoso and Jackson (2010). Those authors correctly postulated that elements of the specific rock art imagery of the Aguada Culture of west Argentina crossed the High Andes and influenced the rock art imagery in eastern Chile. This diffusion was – in my opinion – unjustly criticised by Robert Bednarik, one of the reviewers of their paper (read my comments on Bednarik’s Comments [it concerns the fourth Bednarik Issue: Troncoso & Jackson]).

Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn moreover correctly remark the following: “What obviously remains a question is whether the Amazonian cultural context (recorded only in the twentieth century) should be perceived as the direct source of this kind of iconography in southern Peru (dated almost 2000 years earlier).” (2024: 15; my emphases). Indeed, the enormous distance in both space and time makes it hard to believe that once any relationship between Toro Muerto and Amazonia existed, especially as some of the arguments by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn in favour of such a connection are based on often inaccurate claims regarding the rock art imagery at Toro Muerto (the “three digits” issue, for example). But then, ideas travelled very slowly.

In this study I demonstrated that – despite its individually obliterated face – the Big “Hidden” Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A (TM 1219) is not unique. Moreover, all parallels described by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn may well be coincidental and their interpretations (or mine) may not be valid after all. For instance “the long ‘staffs’ held by this danzante” (plural!) on Panel TM-Bd-007A have been compared by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn with one object in a (recently made?) drawing depicting “the mythical dancer Yuruparí, holding in his right hand a stick as long as he is tall” (2024: 14). As I already debunked their “three-fingers” theory regarding the Big “Hidden” Majes “Dancer” on Panel TM-Bd-007A, the mythical character of (only?) this Toro Muerto figure is completely uncertain, also regarding its “long staffs”. The otherwise striking resemblance is – in my opinion – purely accidental and does not prove anything.

To conclude, I once theorised that music could well have been performed at several (rock art) sites in the Central Majes Valley (thus also at Toro Muerto), and the three possible “whistle-blower” petroglyphs at Toro Muerto may well represent a graphic expression of that music (Van Hoek 2022b). Moreover, much earlier Núñez Jiménez (1986: 368) theorised that certain abstract motifs (zigzags, short straight lines and often wide disc-cupules) represented “musical or dance signs” (signos musicales o danzarios). Therefore, the idea postulated by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn that zigzag petroglyphs symbolise songs, is equally possible, but their idea is apparently derived from Núñez Jiménez’ interpretations of those abstract signs. They thus theorise that “… the short lines seeming to emanate from the dancing figures (see Fig. 3) could have symbolized sound, while the dancer may have been not so much the music’s performer as its source and embodiment.” (2024: 14). But again, in the long run all those suggestions, whether based on intuition (like Núñez Jiménez’), or on well-documented studies (like my 2022a-book, or the current paper by Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn), simply are what they are: just theories. Any direct proof, or proof confirmed by reliable informed knowledge is missing.

*

Note. The cover photograph illustrates Boulder TM-Aa-063 (© Maarten van Hoek). The logo at the end (© Maarten van Hoek) is based on my photograph of a detail of Boulder TM-Bf-040.

*

Figure 9. The Big Majes “Dancer” (with an estimated 162 cm in height) on Panel TM-Bd-007A (saluting the observer[s]?). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Addendum-1

This Addendum shows how different renderings of one and the same panel can be. The first illustration (1) shows an impression (not a photo!) of an artist / author who is unknown to me. It took me quite a while, after having downloaded the illustration many years ago, to recognise Panel TM-Bd-007A in this rather confusing picture. The second illustration (2) shows the drawing made by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2162), demonstrating how inaccurate (and also incomplete) his drawing is, especially when compared with the accurate drawing (3) made by the Polish-Peruvian research team (Rozwadowski and Wołoszyn 2024: Fig. 8; reproduced here under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). However, the alarmingly much differing renderings presented in Addendum-2 are of a completely different (even negative) category.

*

Addendum-2

The illustrations above compare different renderings of two (saluting?) Majes anthropomorphic petroglyphs. A and B: Toro Muerto (A) and Alto de Pitis (B), published by academic bio-archaeologists Beth Scaffidi and Tiffiny Tung (2020: Fig. 3), compared with the factual layout of the same petroglyphs, as interpreted by me, based on my photos (C and D). All drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, A and B based on Fig. 3 by Scaffidi and Tung (2020), as Scaffidi did not allow me to publish their published Fig. 3. The white lines in their Fig. 3 are explained by them (in their otherwise completely irrelevant 2022-Erratum) to represent “tracings” that they derived from their D-Stretched photos of the original photos (I was never allowed to see the originals). However their “tracings” (A and B) are definitely incorrect and misleading.

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. See also my comments in Van Hoek 2020-2023.

*

Acknowledgements

I am much indebted to my wife Elles, who assisted me during our many surveys at Toro Muerto (and at many other sites in the Desert Andes), and for her ongoing support at home.

*

References

Although I have taken every care to correctly include all the publications (and the relevant URLs) to which I refer to in this study, it is always possible that (hopefully minor) imperfections still have been made by me or that omissions occur. Moreover, due to certain circumstances I had to delete and/or update/review some of my publications, some of which are still being referred to in this study. I apologise for any inconvenience, and if any of the URLs does not work (anymore), you may contact me, as I may be able to provide you with the information you may need.

Alaica, A. K., L. M. González La Rosa, W. Yépez Álvarez and J. Jennings. 2022. The day the music died: Making and playing bone wind instruments at La Real in Middle Horizon, Peru (600 – 1000 CE). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Vol.  68; pp. 101 – 459.

Disselhoff, H. D. 1968. Oasenstädte und Zaubersteine im Land der Inka. Archäologische Forschungsreisen in Peru. Safari Verlag. Berlin.

Haeberli, J. 2001. Tiempo y tradiciones en Arequipa, Perú, y el surgimiento de la cronología de tema de la Deidad Central. Boletín de Arqueológia PUCP, No. 5; pp 80-137. Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs evidencias, Segunda Parte. Eds. Peter Kaulike and William H. Isbell.

Haeberli, J. 2002. Siguas 1: a newly identified Early Horizon Culture, Department of Arequipa, Peru. Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings.

Linares Málaga, E.  1990. Prehistoria de Arequipa. Vol. 1. Capitulo VI. El descubrimiento para la ciencia de Toro Muerto. CONCYTEC UNSA, Arequipa, Perú.

Linares Málaga, E. 1999. Arte Rupestre en Sudamerica Prehistoria. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima, Perú.

Linares Málaga, E. 2011. Memorias del Arqueólogo Eloy Linares Málaga. 80 Años de Edad y 60 de investigador. Castilla – Camaná. Universidad Alas Peruanas. Lima.

Parkington, J. and A. Paterson. 2017. Somatogenesis: vibrations, undulations and the possible depiction of sound in San rock paintings of elephants in the Western Cape. South African Archaeological Bulletin. Vol. 72-206; pp. 134 – 41.

Rozwadowski, A. and J. Z. Wołoszyn. 2024. Dances with Zigzags in Toro Muerto, Peru: Geometric Petroglyphs as (Possible) Embodiments of Songs. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Published online 2024; pp. 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774324000064. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. You are not required to obtain permission to reuse this article.

Troncoso, A. and D. Jackson. 2010. Images that travel: ‘Aguada’ rock art in north-central Chile. Rock Art Research. Vol. 27-1; pp. 43 – 60. Melbourne, Australia. With RAR Comments by Natalia Carden, Dánae Fiore and Robert G. Bednarik; with RAR Reply by the authors. PDF – Read my comments on Bednarik’s Comments.

Van Hoek, M. 2003. The rock art of Toro Muerto, Peru. Rock Art Research. Vol. 20-2; pp. 151 – 170. Melbourne. Australia. PDF (not of the original RAR issue) is available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2005. Toro Muerto, Peru: Possible Prehistoric Deletion of Petroglyph Details. Adoranten – the Journal of The Scandinavian Prehistoric Society. Vol. 2005; pp. 73 – 80. Underslös, Sweden. Spanish version available at Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2012. Rumimantam Llaqllasaq Wirpuykita: The ‘Cycle of Life’ in the Rock Art of the Desert Andes. Book available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2016. The Frontal Insignia-Tumi: A Rare High-Status Object in Desert Andes Rock Art. In: TRACCE – On-line Rock Art Bulletin. Fully illustrated PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2017. The Pipette-Design in Desert Andes Rock Art. In: Adoranten – the Journal of The Scandinavian Prehistoric Society. Vol. 2017; pp. 103 – 115. Underslös, Sweden.

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 only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2020-2023. False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022a. The Majes “Dancer” – Analysing an Enigmatic Icon. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022b. Music in Majes Valley Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022c. The Road to Apu Misti. The Rock Art of La Caldera, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022d. Why Selecting Mollebaya Chico for Rock Art Production? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

*

My Personal Bibliography

All my Publications Concerning Majes Rock Art

Mind you, this Personal Bibliography also includes publications that (partially) deal with rock art in the Majes Rock Art Style (MRAS), recorded in the area between the rivers Caravelí and Vítor in Arequipa. Therefore, several publications may also include only fragments of information about Toro Muerto, the Majes Valley, and/or the larger MRAS Sphere.

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.

Van Hoek, M. 2003. The rock art of Toro Muerto, Peru. Rock Art Research. Vol. 20-2; pp. 151 – 170. Melbourne. Australia. PDF (not of the original RAR issue) is available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2005. Toro Muerto, Peru: Possible Prehistoric Deletion of Petroglyph Details. Adoranten – the Journal of The Scandinavian Prehistoric Society. Vol. 2005; pp. 73 – 80. Underslös, Sweden. Spanish version available at Rupestreweb.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2010. ‘Trophy’ heads in the rock art of the Majes Valley, Perú: exploring their possible origin. In: Rupestreweb.. PDF available at Academia.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2011. Cerro Pano: A violated and endangered rock art site in Southern Perú. In: Rupestreweb. PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2012. Rumimantam Llaqllasaq Wirpuykita: The ‘Cycle of Life’ in the Rock Art of the Desert Andes. Book only available at ResearchGate.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Carcancha and the Apu. Rock Art in the Death Valley of the Andes. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2013. A new (?) geoglyph in the Department of Arequipa, Peru. Un geoglifo nuevo (?) en el departamento de Arequipa, Peru. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Horseman of Alto de Pitis, Peru: A Post-Columbian Outsider in a Pre-Columbian Landscape. Privately published as: Andean Rock Art Papers – Part 1 – Paper 1 (no longer available online, but PDF available at Academia). A video related to this article is found on YouTube.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2015. Ananta in Caravelí ?  Polycephalic Snakes in Desert Andes Rock Art. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2015. Rare Petroglyphs of Skeleton-Anthropomorphs in Caravelí, Arequipa, Peru. Adoranten-2014. pp. 88 – 96. Underslös, Sweden. PDF also available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2016. The Frontal Insignia-Tumi: A Rare High-Status Object in Desert Andes Rock Art. In: TRACCE – On-line Rock Art Bulletin. Fully illustrated PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2016. Sobre Dibujos de Arte Rupestre (Andino). Una Petición Para Sólo Publicar Dibujos Que Son Científicamente Sólidos. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2016. Dotted Zoomorphs in Andean Rock Art. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2016. The Avian Staff Bearer. Upgrading a Controversial Icon in Atacama Rock Art. In: TRACCE – On-Line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2017. Los Petroglifos de Tintín, Sihuas, Arequipa, Perú. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2017. Petroglifos en Yarabamba, Arequipa, Perú: ¿Aplacandos los Apus? In: TRACCE – On-Line Rock Art Bulletin. PDF available at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2017. The Pipette-Design in Desert Andes Rock Art. In: Adoranten – the Journal of The Scandinavian Prehistoric Society. Vol. 2017; pp. 103 – 115. Underslös, Sweden.

Van Hoek, M. 2018. The Supernatural Flight of the ‘Trophy-Bird’ of Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – On-Line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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 only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2018. Indifferent Obliteration of Petroglyph Art. TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Book of Bones – ‘Carcanchas’ in Global Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available as PDF at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Incomplete Versus The Unfinished: Invisible Objects in Desert Andes Rock Art? In: TRACCE  – On-line Rock Art Bulletin.

Van Hoek, M. 2019. Of Arcs and Dots. Enigmatic Configurations in Arequipa Rock Art, Peru. TRACCE – On-line Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2020. The Book of Janus. Polycephalic Creatures in Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Available only as PDF at ResearchGate.

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

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

Van Hoek, M. 2020-2023. False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. 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. 2021. War and Weapons in Majes Style Rock Art? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. Accessing the Inaccessible. Rock Art of Quilcapampa, southern Peru. Oisterwijk, the Netherlands. Book only available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. The Cíceras “Carcancha-Bird” Petroglyphs, Majes, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. Contextualising the Geoglyph of Huacán, southern Peru (Spanish version included). In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek. M. 2021. Contextualising the Unexpected Plethora of Feline Petroglyphs in the Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. The “Amputated Carcancha” of Alto de Pitis, Peru: An Alert. In: INORA. Vol. 91; pp. 28 – 31. PDF available at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. Quebrada de La Tuna – A Rock Art Site in Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Majes Falsification Updated – The Inconvenient Truth. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Road to Apu Misti. The Rock Art of La Caldera, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. Music in Majes Valley Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2022. Why Selecting Mollebaya Chico for Rock Art Production? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Status of Sector-X within the Rock Art Complex of Toro Muerto, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Amended version (2022).

Van Hoek, M. 2022. Vítor Valley Rock Art Sites: Tacar. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Majes “Dancer” – Analysing an Enigmatic Icon. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF only at ResearchGate.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Rock Art Site of La Laja – Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Petroglyphs of Cuesta de la Pachana and Miraflores, Manga Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

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

Van Hoek, M. 2022. Rock art at Torán, Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Case of Boulder AP3-172, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2023. The Case of Boulder AP3-060, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2023. The Case of Boulder AP3-098, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2023. A Study of Boulder AP3-065, Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2023. Majes Rock Art: Evaluating Scaffidi’s 2018-Thesis. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2023. The “Camelines” of Toro Muerto; Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2024. Animated Abstracts in Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

And more to come…