This short paper discusses the problems that researchers often experience while attempting to interpret specific rock art images. Some of those problems will be discussed, while the paper also offers a selection of rock art images of “Unexpected Walkers”, focussing on purported “Walking Fish” images, the possible readings of which will be discussed.
By Maarten van Hoek
*
Fish Walking in the Desert?
in the SW of North America
The Problem of Interpreting Rock Art
Maarten van Hoek
*
Introduction
Rock art researchers often have the difficult task to attempt at interpreting the various ancient, often enigmatic images created on natural rock surfaces. Frequently they are hindered by not only incomplete and/or unfinished and weathered and thus confusing images, but also by his or her own background and mindset. In her book “Ambiguous Images” Kelley Hays-Gilpin (2004: 16: Fig. 2.2) correctly states that even differences in how rock art images are orientated can effect interpretation. In many cases also the absence of reliable informed knowledge is often a huge barrier. Then we only have the images (often of different ages or superimposed), the site, the cultural and natural landscapes and the regularly scant or incomplete archaeological context (like [fragments of] ceramics or textiles excavated in [often looted] burials). This study illustrates the problem of interpretation, focussing on some specific images in SW rock art.*
The Problem of Interpretation
Indeed, interpretation of rock art images and/or elements thereof is always a hazardous task. In the past fifty years I came across several – in my opinion – questionable examples of interpreting rock art images. Disputed, even incorrect interpretations have not only been put forward or repeated by me (I am not an academic archaeologist), but also by well-trained, academic archaeologists. Illustrative examples concern several readings by Beth Scaffidi in her 2018-thesis. She for instance argued that a small, rather featureless petroglyph that she saw at Toro Muerto, southern Peru, represented a human “tibia”, which I demonstrated to be completely unsubstantiated (Van Hoek 2023: Fig. 5). Another interpretation (also seriously challenged by me) concerned the image of a cat – beautifully inlaid on a Spondylus shell (found probably somewhere in Peru) – holding an object, said by Scaffidi to represent a “club” (2018: caption to her Fig. 8.41). However, personally I am convinced that the object can only be interpreted as a “Trophy” Head; based on similar imagery on several Nasca artefacts, like ceramics and textiles (for more information on both cases read Van Hoek 2023: 6-7).
Some interpretations are definitely incorrect and even scientifically unacceptable. An example is an interpretation of the petroglyph of the well-known “Trophy” Head Carrier at Toro Muerto (southern Peru). It has – without any explanation – been interpreted by Scaffidi and Tung (2020: 7) as a “halfhuman, half-animal”. However, the two bio-archaeologists based their fabricated interpretation on a falsified “photograph” of the otherwise human “Trophy” Head Carrier, referring to, yet simultaneously and inexplicably ignoring previously published correct illustrations of the figure. For that reason their “interpretation” can never be accepted as being scientifically correct (for more information see Van Hoek 2020; see the NOTE at the end).
*
Unexpected Walkers
Before dealing with some examples of petroglyphs of unexpected walkers in the SW of North America, I will present some instances recorded elsewhere. On Panel 125 at Locus GTVS in Gum Tree Valley, a rock art site in the enormous rock art complex on the coast near Dampier (Western Australia), is an unusual petroglyph of a 17 cm long human foot (Lorblanchet 2018: Figs 3.10 and 3.89). Strangely, attached to this foot are two “bird footprints”, thus suggesting that the human foot is being “walked” by a bird (Figure 1). This motif is thus part-human, part-animal. Lorblanchet now argues that it is a “man-bird”, which may represent, like a pars-pro-toto, the totality of a creature. He also suggests that this configuration may well be a graphic pun (which I seriously doubt) or – much more likely – a symbol of a “man-bird” of mythological significance. Importantly, both the human foot and the two bird tracks are easily recognisable.
Figure 1. Petroglyphs of a human foot “walked” by a pair of bird’s feet. Gum Tree Valley, Australia. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Lorblanchet (2018: Figs 3.10 and 3.89).
At Toro Muerto in southern Peru my wife Elles and I recorded among the many abstract stripes ([often] long, vertically arranged, fully pecked bands) a few examples that had been anthropomorphised by adding a pair of feet (and sometimes other body parts as well), thus suggesting that such animated stripes could walk (Van Hoek 2024: Figs 5 to 9). At least in one case a pair of bird tracks had been added (Van Hoek 2024: Fig. 6D). Further north in southern Peru, in the Palpa Valley, are a few isolated head petroglyphs having a pair of (very simple) feet (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 42, 44-inset; 2026a: 19). It was the “Walking Head” concept from Peru that triggered me to question the interpretations of a number of “unexpected walking” images recorded in the rock art of the SW of North America (mainly in New Mexico).
*
The ”Walking Head”
The “Walking Head” symbol from Peru seems to have a graphical equivalent (but most likely with a different meaning) in the Anasazi rock art of New Mexico. Immediately west of the city of Albuquerque is the fascinating petroglyph site of Rinconada Canyon with hundreds of images (Van Hoek 2026b). One boulder in the canyon (located directly next to a larger boulder that has shamefully been vandalised by many gunshots) shows an interesting single petroglyph of a large, outlined head (or mask) featuring (closed?) eyes, a (misplaced?) nose, a small dented mouth and two outlined ears (Figure 2). Its head is topped by a row of short, vertically arranged lines (a headdress or hair?). Most remarkable however are the two simple appendages that emerge from the chin area. I do not think those lines indicate the neck. They look more like little legs with small feet, thus creating the impression of a “Walking Head”. Having said that, it is always possible that someone added the two purported legs/feet to the existing head or mask image (the slightly fainter and thinner legs look different when compared with the head), but – if so – it is unknown whether the purported second manufacturer indeed had the intention to create a “Walking Head”. Moreover, my interpretation may not at all reflect the intention of the ancient manufacturer(s). As far as I know, this “Walking Head” figure may be unique for the rock art imagery found near Albuquerque area (and perhaps in a wider area in the SW).
Figure 2. Petroglyphs at Rinconada Canyon, NM. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
The ”Walking Snake”
The petroglyph of the “Walking Head” at Rinconada Canyon showed us that it is possible that one petroglyph may have been crafted by two (or more) manufacturers. Another petroglyph in the SW may show the same concept. It concerns a petroglyph of a bird recorded at the Frying Pan rock art site in the SW of New Mexico (Figure 3). Rock art researcher Polly Schaafsma interprets this image as “a macaw with a cross element on the shoulder” (1992: Fig. 79), which in itself is correct. However a close-up photograph made by Ken Steiner shows that – in my opinion – it may better be interpreted as the image of a snake that was later changed into a bird by roughly adding an incomplete backline, a simple triangular beak and two small (roadrunner?) feet (and the Cross-in-Circle?). Those feet thus still give the impression of a “Walking Snake”. Importantly, another image on the same panel seems to depict a “Snake Human” (disrespectfully vandalised by the addition of a phallus). Again, an existing snake image could have been turned into a “Snake Human” by adding a head and two arms (legs seem to be absent).
Figure 3. The original petroglyph (top) of the alleged snake (depicted in orange) possibly transformed into a bird (bird elements are black; with the feet of a roadrunner?). The Cross-in-Circle may be of the same date as the “snake”, or it may have been added together with the bird-elements (or later still?). However, my interpretation of the possible reconstruction of this image may well be incorrect. Frying Pan (a mainly Mogollon rock art site in the southwest New Mexico). Photograph © by Ken Steiner. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the above picture by Ken Steiner.
*
The ”Walking Star”
Returning to the rock art regions in the north of New Mexico, there are several sites with petroglyphs of four-pointed stars (especially near Albuquerque and in the Galisteo Basin), that are said to represent the war-related Star Kachina. There are examples with almost complete human bodies where the head has been replaced by the four-pointed star symbol (Slifer 1998: Fig. 120), as well as isolated stars with only a headdress and two arms (or legs?), like the two (faceless) examples recorded at West Mesa; the large rock art complex (including Rinconada Canyon) west of Albuquerque (Schaafsma 1992: Fig. 132). However, Malotki and Weaver (2002: 106, Plate 107) illustrate two petroglyphs of isolated Star Kachinas they describe as “anthropomorphized stars exhibiting faces and arms”. Especially their drawing of a small Star Kachina (2002: 106), might be interpreted as a “Walking Star”, because especially in this case the purported arms may possibly be interpreted as legs (whether this is correct or not).
*
The ”Walking Fish”
A different case of interpretation concerns a tentative suggestion by Margaret Berrier. She whimsically implies that a certain type of fish image in the Mogollon (rock) art of southern New Mexico “may have feet”, when she writes in her introduction: “Do you think the fish petroglyph in Figure 1 might represent the one that got away? Or maybe walked away, since it seems to have four feet in addition to fins?” (2020: 1). I admit that she does not at all claim that such fish images indeed have (human) feet; she only is advocating a possibility. Yet I have some problems with this suggestion, which will now be discussed in more detail.
The petroglyph in question, recorded at San Diego Mountain, New Mexico (Figure 4A), indeed has – in addition to the “standard” triangular fins – two groups of two joined (why joined?) short, rectangular outlined appendages (not looking like [human] feet at all, though). Confusingly however, Berrier presents a drawing of the fish petroglyph at San Diego Mountain with only one pair of rectangular appendages (see the arrows in Figure 4A), while there are definitely two pair (why two?). If indeed such rectangular appendages are interpreted as human feet, then I do not agree with the suggestion, especially because adding truly correctly depicted human feet onto a fish image would not have been that difficult for a manufacturer of petroglyphs, and definitely not for the painters of Mimbres (Mogollon) ceramics, as is demonstrated further on.
For instance, in her paper Berrier illustrates a Mimbres ceramic showing two fish (2020: Fig. 10), each with two pair (why two?) of solid “rectangular” (thus not triangular) appendages. Yet, one pair is positioned illogically directly below the head, while the other pair is found in the centre (while near the tail sits a triangular appendage). See also Berrier (n.d.) Slides 14, 15, 57 and 58 for more apparently “conflicting” examples of “walking” fish in Mimbres ceramics.
Again, I question the feet-fins-theory, also because another fish petroglyph (Berrier 2020: Fig. 55; provenance not disclosed) has only one similar pair of rectangular appendages (or is a trio of rectangular elements?), situated moreover very near its tail (arrow in Figure 4B); not a really convincing pair of (human?) feet. Moreover, almost at the centre of the belly-line are two triangular fins (also [human] feet?). Less inconsistent is the drawing (Berrier 2020: Fig. 80) of a fish petroglyph (see Figure 7D) with four small rectangular appendages, placed at the purported “correct” feet-positions of a mammal (but not of a human!). Those appendages could – with some imagination – possibly be interpreted as feet. But as human feet? I seriously doubt that, and without reliable informed knowledge, this matter will remain undecided for me.
Figure 4. A: Petroglyph at San Diego Mountain, New Mexico. Photograph © by Ken Steiner. B: Fish petroglyph recorded at a site unknown to me (New Mexico?). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the illustrations by Margaret Berrier (A: 2020: Fig. 27; B: 2020: Fig. 55).
Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the drawing of the said fish illustrated by Berrier (2020: Fig. 80) faintly resembles a still living species of fish. It notably proves that there are fish species that – while foraging – literally walk across the bottom of the sea with their four broad leg-feet-like fins. An example is the Spotted Handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus). But the ancient Mogollon Peoples, who lived in a (semi)desert far from the ocean, will probably never have seen any fish walking across the bottom of the sea. So, where did the idea of “fish walking with human feet” come from? Is there reliable informed knowledge available? Or is it an interpretation based on other sources? If so, which sources?
In conclusion, as the many illustrations in the 2020-paper by Berrier clearly demonstrate, the Mogollon peoples drew fish fins in many different ways; the “standard” shape being triangular, however. Therefore, in my opinion also those short, rectangular appendages recorded in the fish at San Diego Mountain and other Mogollon fish depictions, may represent just another way to draw fish fins, Importantly again, they do not (ever?) look like human feet at all.
Interestingly in this respect, Margaret Berrier once published a revealing drawing of a composite animal painted on a Mimbres ceramic from the Galaz Site in the SW of New Mexico (Berrier n.d.: Slide 36 – the image in the upper right-hand corner). It shows a Bighorn-Fish amalgamation with three (why three? – see also Slide 13) purported (human?) “feet” at the back of the “animal”, thus near the Fish part, and – importantly – two different appendages at the front (near the Bighorn part) that definitely look more like human feet (showing digits, but definitely not the cloven hoofs of a Bighorn). Also interesting is the image in the lower right-hand corner of Slide 44 which shows a Snake-Fish amalgamation with two pair of purported “feet” appendages (not showing digits, though). Having said all this, I now wonder why – as far as I know (to quote Berrier [2020: 5] “correct me if I’m wrong!”) – not a single complete fish image has ever been recorded in Mogollon-Mimbres (rock) art unambiguously featuring appendages of human-looking legs-feet (with digits!) like those in Slide 36. The fineline painting of the Bighorn-Fish amalgamation on a Mimbres pottery proves that this would have been possible (thus probably in rock art too).
Berrier also mentions that some researchers “suggested the four feet [why four?; humans only have two feet!] on some fish represent their ‘humanness’ after being turned into fish” (2020: 4; my addition), but unfortunately she does not illustrate which fish depictions it concerns, nor is explained why and how those humans (shamans?) had been turned into fish, which would have been informative. Finally, does the pictograph of a sturgeon at Kootenay Lake (Columbia Plateau) – illustrated by Keyser (1992: Fig. 25c) – also show four human feet?
*
The ”Walking Shield”
At many rock art sites throughout the SW are petroglyphs or pictographs of circular shapes (empty or with elaborate interior decoration) having short, small appendages. In many cases it concerns the so-called “Shield Figures” (an Anasazi War Symbol), recognisable by the small feet emerging from the bottom of the circle and the often small head on top of the shield. However, in some instances there is no head; just feet (Cole 1990: Fig. 59). These may either represent unfinished “Shield Figures”, like possibly the two images at Poncho House, Utah (Castleton 1987: Fig. 7.70), or just a “Walking Shield”, or even just a “Walking Ring”, like the pictograph at a site along the San Juan River, Utah (Castleton 1987: Fig. 7.66). Why no head, and only two feet, I now wonder? Perhaps the shield symbol (large or small) may have been considered to be sufficiently intimidating without showing a head.
*
The Difficulty of Interpretation – Again
To illustrate the difficulty of interpretation again, I now offer the interested reader three different readings of one specific zoomorphic petroglyph (associated [?] with an adjacent sitting [?] anthropomorph) recorded at the Pony Hills rock art site in the SW of New Mexico (Figure 5). Polly Schaafsma (1992: Fig. 78) simply interprets the zoomorphic petroglyph as a mountain sheep, which – at first sight – seems to be correct. Remarkably though, the zoomorph is – in relation with the adjacent anthropomorph and the slight slope of the panel – in a vertical position (head-up); an unusual orientation for a Bighorn petroglyph (while Mogollon fish petroglyphs occasionally are found vertically orientated; see for instance Figure 8).
Figure 5. Two petroglyphs (among many other images; see Van Hoek 2026c: Fig. 20) on a large panel at Pony Hills, New Mexico. Photograph © by Ken Steiner.
However, Margaret Berrier suggests that the zoomorph combines a bighorn sheep with a fish tail (2020: Fig. 13), or, alternatively, that it represents “a combination of a bighorn sheep and a fish” (2020: 8). It is certain that conflations of two or more species are not uncommon in Mogollon (rock) art (and in the imagery of other rock art regions) as we have seen earlier in this paper. Indeed, the oval body of the zoomorph more or less resembles the body of a fish, and indeed many Mogollon fish images have a forked tail. So Berrier may well be right.
Still I would like to argue that Berrier overlooked the possibility that the tail of the zoomorph represents the tail of a bird. Many Mogollon petroglyphs of birds notably also feature a forked tail (Van Hoek 2026d: Figs 4A and E, 8B and 24A; see also Fig. 24B and its caption). It is therefore – without reliable informed knowledge – impossible to decide for me who – in the case of the Pony Hills zoomorph – offers the correct interpretation. Yet I am inclined to see the zoomorph as an amalgamation of a bighorn and a fish (only possibly of a bighorn-bird conflation). The image may have started as a fish; the bighorn head and legs possibly being added by a later manufacturer. But again, without proof each interpretation may be correct.
*
The ”Walking Enigma”
Finally I offer the reader my (incomplete!) drawing of a rather enigmatic set of petroglyphs, featuring a fully frontally depicted anthropomorphic figure with a square head and square body and two arms, both holding an object (Figure 6). The thick legs are outlined (and incomplete?). The head of the anthropomorph is superimposed by the leg or arm of an enigmatic creature featuring a large, rectangular outlined body (often seen in SW Bighorn images) and a much smaller outlined square head that may depict a bird’s head (with a curved beak and feathers?).
Figure 6. Petroglyphs (of Tewa Pueblo authorship?) at Las Estrellas, Bandelier National Monument, NM. There are more very faint petroglyphs on this panel (not shown here). Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photo posted online by an author who is unknown to me.
The head of the anthropomorph is superimposed by a fully pecked (possibly faintly polished) flexed limb ending in long nail-like digits (is it an animal paw; of a bear?). Most intriguing in view of this study are the two fully pecked (again possibly faintly polished), human-like legs showing the knees and again long nail-like digits. The legs are not positioned in a bio-logical acceptable position, as one emerges from the centre of the belly-line. It thus seems as if this creature is walking on human legs, but it remains difficult to interpret this enigmatic synthesis.
*
Conclusions
This study presented only a very limited number of specific rock art images, and in every case the interpretation of the imagery proved to be (very) challenging. There often are several acceptable alternatives, yet also a number of pitfalls – like indistinct or incorrect illustrations – that may lead to dubious or even incorrect interpretations. In particular, published illustrations should always be reliable, and published illustrations may never have improperly been manipulated, or – like I explained in the Introduction – falsified (which will be harder to detect because of increasingly criminal use of AI) in order to “prove something”.
Also drawings must be as correct as possible. In fact every drawing is to a certain extent an interpretation (like my Figures 3 and 6). Unfortunately, incomplete or incorrect drawings occur more often than is realised. The lavishly illustrated 1986-book by Cuban explorer Núñez Jiménez, offers the best examples (no less than 25% of the illustrations of rock art images in Peru is either inaccurate, incomplete or completely incorrect; see Van Hoek 2011).
Also this study offers an example of an incorrect drawing. Although Berrier includes a photo of the San Diego fish petroglyph, without a clear explanatory text (which is missing; also in the captions) that links that photo (2020: Fig. 1) with her drawing (2020: Fig. 27), the incorrect drawing (Figure 4A) can easily be taken for granted, that is, if the reader does not spot the flaw. As a consequence any incorrect drawing can then erroneously, but unintentionally be used for other comparative studies and/or interpretations. An example. In 2003 I referred to a drawing (plus its caption) published by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2250) said to show – on one panel at Toro Muerto, Peru – four anthropomorphic figures; two vertically and two horizontally orientated (Van Hoek 2003: 153). However, our inspections after 2003 proved that it concerned only vertically arranged figures on two different panels of the same boulder (which also proved to be too large to have been displaced, as I incorrectly but unknowingly suggested in 2003).
The best thing to do, is not to uncritically take an interpretation or an illustration for granted. Dare to challenge published material, not necessarily by simply rejecting the interpretation, but by offering acceptable explanations and/or sound alternatives (which may – after all – still be incorrect). The best way to “defend or challenge” your own interpretations (often written like “example”, or, example?) is to ask the reader “correct me if I’m wrong!”, like Margaret Berrier did (Berrier 2020: 5). Therefore, always open your mind for alternatives and corrections put forward by others. So, if someone would spot an error or an unacceptable interpretation in this study (or any other publication of mine), please, let me know via email, or publish a paper which proves me wrong (and please send me a copy). Finally, “when you (I) publish, you (I) can be commented on”. Therefore, I as well appreciate receiving constructive comments.
*
Amendment
Figure 7 shows a collage of six fish petroglyphs recorded by Ken Steiner at Three Rivers. They all have also been drawn by Margaret Berrier in her 2020-paper. Figure 7A shows three short fins from the belly-line, but also three similar fins from the back. Are they all human feet? Figure 7E shows two pair of fins from the belly-line (Berrier shows one pair) and the same goes for Figure 7F, as the drawing by Berrier seems to lack two fins, one from the belly-line and one from the back (indicated by the ??). The orientation of this fish is correctly shown in Figure 8.
Figure 7. Collage of fish petroglyphs at Three Rivers. All photos © by Ken Steiner. For comparison see the drawings by Berrier (2020). A: Fig. 91; B: Fig. 103; C: Fig. 73; D: Fig. 80; E: Fig. 83; F: Fig. 84 (also see the cover photo [© Maarten van Hoek] and Figure 8).
Figure 8. Fish petroglyph at Three Rivers (see Figure 7F). Photograph © by Ken Steiner.
*
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Ken Steiner who shared with me thousands of photos of New Mexico rock art sites, together with his permission to publish them (all photos in this study have digitally been enhanced by the author). I am also indebted to Dennis Slifer, who provided me with useful information about certain rock art sites in the SW. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Elles who – as usual – assisted me during our surveys in North America (and many other sites, worldwide) and continues to support me at home.
*
References
Berrier, M. 2020. Let’s Look at Fish: Pisciforms in the Jornada Mogollon Region of Southern New Mexico and West Texas. Bulletin of Old Pueblo Archaeology Center. Vol. 83; pp. 1 – 28. Tucson, Arizona. PDF.
Berrier, M. n.d. (2021-2023?). Mainly Mimbres Ceramic – Jornada-Mogollon Petroglyph/Pictograph Comparisons, with a touch of Casas Grande. PPT Presentation.
Castleton, K. B. 1987. Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah. Volume Two: The South, Central, West and Northwest. Salt Lake City.
Cole, S. J. 1990. Legacy on stone. Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. Johnson Books. Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Keyser, J.D. 1992. Indian Rock Art of the Columbia Plateau. University of Washington Press. Seatle.
Lorblanchet, M. 2018. The Spirit Figure Group at Gum Tree Valley. In: Archaeology and Petroglyphs of Dampier (Western Australia). An Archaeological Investigation of Skew Valley and Gum Tree Valley. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Sydney; edited by Graeme K. Ward and Ken Mulvaney. Vol. 27; pp. 191 – 282.
Malotki, E. and D. E. Weaver, Jr. 2002. Stone Chisel and Yucca Brush. Colorado Plateau Rock Art. Kiva Publishing, Walnut, CA.
Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Perú. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed. PNUD-UNESCO – Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo, La Habana.
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 available at Academia.
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.
Schaafsma, P. 1992. Rock Art in New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Press.
Slifer, D. 1998. Signs of Life. Rock art of the Upper Río Grande. Ancient City Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Van Hoek, M. 2003. The rock art of Toro Muerto, Peru. In: Rock Art Research. Vol. 20-2; pp. 151 – 170. Melbourne, Australia.
Van Hoek, M. 2011. Petroglyphs of Peru – Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book only available – as PDF-102 – at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2020. False Information Concerning Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Also at TRACCE and -commenting on the falsified illustrations published by Prof. Scaffidi and Prof. Tung (2020)- as PDF-028 at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2021. Seated Bimorphs in Paracas Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book only available – as PDF-3 – at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2023. Majes Rock Art: Evaluating Scaffidi’s 2018-Thesis. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Available – as PDF-88 – at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2024. Animated Abstracts in Majes Rock Art, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Available as – PDF-9 – at DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2026a. Rock Art at El Vado, Palpa Valley – Peru. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF only at Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2026b. Some Aspects of the Petroglyphs at Rinconada Canyon, New Mexico. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF at Academia and DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2026c. Symbols on Top of a Pole in Rock Art. Comparing Rock Art Regions. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at Academia and DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2026d. Bird Petroglyphs at Three Rivers, New Mexico. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at Academia and DropBox.
