van hoek, m. 2011. aldea de ramaditas, chile: architectural art or rock art? in: rupestreweb

M. van Hoek – 2011 Ramaditas, Chile1

Published in: http://www.rupestreweb.info/aldearamaditas.html

Aldea de Ramaditas, Chile:Architectural Art or Rock Art?

Maarten van Hoek [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Architectural art comprises all art forms (engravings, sculptures, paintings etc.) that haveintentionally been made to exclusively adorn surfaces of anthropic constructions. Fineexamples of architectural art are the engravings at Cerro Sechín in northern Peru. Also thezoomorphic images made up by small stone blocks built in into the stone terraces atChoquequirao, an archaeological complex west of the city of Cusco, Peru, must be regardedas architectural art, not as rock art, despite the unwanted manipulation of the definition ofrock art by Echevarría López & Valencia García and despite the uncritical acceptance of theirpaper in Rock Art Research (2009: 213). On the other hand, rock art is the corpus of imagery(mainly petroglyphs and rock paintings) that is found on natural rock surfaces (boulders andoutcrop).

In the Andes of South America it is not uncommon to find true rock art very near prehistoricstructures, but in relation with the hundreds of rock art sites in the Andes those instances mustbe regarded to be erratic. Some rock art sites are only very close to ancient structures like thegroup of petroglyph boulders at Quebrada de Jan Juan, Virú, northern Peru. In some casespetroglyph boulders are found distributed among the ruins of ancient structures, like atTomabal (Van Hoek 2007) and at Rincón del Toro, La Rioja, Argentina (Van Hoek 2011) andsome boulders at those sites seem to be part of the ruined walls. In other cases petroglyphboulders definitely form part of the ancient structures, like at El Tambo in the Quebrada de laGuitarra in Moche, northern Peru. Also in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile several sites,for instance the settlements of Tarapacá Viejo, Camiña and Jamajuga (Vilches & Cabello2006), Vinto, Millune and Achuyo (Valenzuela, Santoro & Romero 2004) and Suca(Sepúlveda, Romero Guevara & Briones 2005) feature decorated rocks that are part ofprehistoric structures.

Although there are instances where true rock art has been executed on the walls of ancientbuildings (long) after the construction (Van Hoek 2009), in most cases the Chilean examplesmost likely represent situations were petroglyph boulders already occurred at the site (mostevident at Tarapacá-47) and were primarily and conveniently used as building material at thetime of construction. This however does not rule out that the images were still venerated atand after the time of construction and therefore so placed that they remained visible. Yet, thismay also have been done purely because of decorative motives.

In every single case in which a boulder with rock art forms part of a prehistoric construction itshould be ascertained if that boulder has been used solely for building purposes or not. Inmost cases those decorated boulders in ancient walls form the base of that wall, which argues


mailto:[email protected]

in favour of being used as building material. Unfortunately, many structures are too derelictand too much disturbed to ascertain the original position of the decorated boulders. Also,many of such boulders are rather large and will have readily been discarded as buildingmaterial. For instance, at Jamajuga in the Quebrada de Mamiña, several boulders withpetroglyphs are rather large and occur on a steep slope (contrary to for instance TarapacáViejo) among a large number of boulders (Trincado 2009). Apparently it was not feasible touse them, at least, not to move them. Therefore, another possibility is that (especially large)boulders were left in situ, while the construction was built around it. Also this possibilityshould be investigated in every single case.

However, we have to accept the fact that in most cases it will remain obscure if theoccurrence of a decorated boulder in an ancient construction has been intended to representarchitectural art or not. The incorporation of decorated rocks may easily have been a matter ofconvenience. If so, the images on the boulders will represent true petroglyphs. However, thefollowing example might represent an instance in which architectural art has beenincorporated on purpose into a prehistoric building. It concerns two boulders in the prehistoricvillage of Ramaditas in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. In this paper I will discussthose two boulders and will attempt to answer the question: Aldea de Ramaditas: architecturalart or rock art?

ALDEA DE RAMADITASThe Atacama Desert of northern Chile houses a large number of most interesting rock artsites. On the way to Tamentica, a large rock art site in the Quebrada de Guatacondo (alsoreferred to as Huatacondo), our guide Jaime Droguett not only pointed out several geoglyphsin the Quebrada but also drew our attention to the site of a very ancient village calledRamaditas. Knowing of our interest in rock art, he disclosed that there was rock art at thissettlement as well.

It proves that the Ramaditas site has been excavated. On the internet I found references tothree publications about Ramaditas; two by Mario Rivera (2002 and 2005) and one by Rivera,Shea, Carevic & Graffam (1995-1996), but it is unknown to me if the rock art has beenreported in those publications. However, I was much pleased that Rolando Ajata López,archaeologist of the Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile, helped me out by sending me anunpublished report about the rock art of the Guatacondo Valley (Cabello & Ajata 2010). Thesurveys by Cabello & Ajata offer valuable information, some of which has been used by mein this paper. Because the following information about the Ramaditas site will be largelyunknown to many rock art researchers, I present a description of the Ramaditas site and adiscussion of its ‘rock art’.

The following information has been obtained from a review of the 2002 book by MarioRivera: Ramaditas is a Late-Formative village-farming site in the Quebrada de Guatacondo.In many ways, Ramaditas and the group of sites in the Guatacondo archaeological districtare unique because of excellent preservation of architectural features, the presence of a vastnetwork of irrigation canals and agriculture fields, fabric, basketry, and macro-botanicalremains. The settlement area -including structures and agricultural fields- has been estimatedin approximately 600 hectares. Radiocarbon age determinations place occupation at this sitewithin the Alto Ramirez II Phase, between 2,500-2,000 years B .P., a time span when largevillage-farming communities first appear in this sector of the Andes. Indeed, Ramaditasrepresented one of the earliest occupations in the Guatacondo District, a series of six roughly


contemporaneous village-farming sites and associated structures arranged along the present-day Guatacondo gully (Baied 2007).

Because of the drifting sands, much of the site is now covered up again. However, what isvisible today (2011) is still impressive and interesting. The site is located at an altitude of1150 m O.D. and about 80 km inland. The low ruins are barely visible from the dirt road toTamentica and therefore easily missed. The settlement is situated on an enormous plain cut bythe Quebrada de Guatacondo. At this point however, the Quebrada does not form a valley butforms a shallow gully of about 2 metres deep. At this point the gully is called Quebrada deGuatacondo, while further upstream and east of Cerro Challocollito the gully becomes moreand more a valley. This stretch between Cerro Challocollito and Tamentica is often calledQuebrada de los Pintados. About 5 km to the north of the village ruins the isolated group ofhills called Cerro Challacollo (1573 m. O.D.) is clearly visible.

Figure 1. Map of the surveyed area (100 m contour-interval). Drawing by Maarten van Hoek(based on the map by Clarkson, Johnson, Johnson, Briones & Johnson 1999: 21)

There are other important archaeological remains in this area (Figure 1). About 9 km to theeast of Ramaditas is another ancient settlement called Aldea de Guatacondo. On the easternslopes of Cerro Challocollito (6.5 km east of Ramaditas) is a small group of geoglyphs, while13 km east in the Quebrada de los Pintados are a few geoglyphs on a north facing ridge thatoverlooks the Guatacondo valley. They are rather easily visible from below. The mostimportant group of geoglyphs however occurs at about 18 km east of Ramaditas. Thesegeoglyphs are invisible from Guatacondo valley as they are located about 1400 m south of thevalley and about 100 m higher. They also appear on a north facing ridge and overlook anancient north-south road that is overlooked by many other groups of geoglyphs along theroute. Importantly, 20 km ENE and at 1727 m O.D. is the well known petroglyph site ofTamentica that will be discussed further on. East of Tamentica are several other rock art sites(rock paintings and petroglyphs) that have been studied in detail by Cabello & Ajata (2010).However, none of the images at these sites show definite parallels to the Ramaditas imagery.


The plain on which Ramaditas is situated only very slightly slopes to the SW. The area aroundthe settlement consists of sands and fine gravel, while at certain areas concentrations ofsomewhat larger boulders (of uniform rock type) occur. Directly to the W and SW of thevillage is an area where agricultural fields with irrigation systems are still visible. These fieldsalso exist at many other parts of this vast plain, especially to the NE of Ramaditas, where alsolow, circular structures are visible. The village itself comprises a number of circular/ovalhouses that are clustered together (like nearby Guatacondo and more distant Tulor near SanPedro de Atacama) and a number of isolated houses. Many of the walls have been reduced tolow, circular ridges in the sand. The walls that are still standing are up to two metres high andoriginally would have been capped bay a construction of reed (rama). A reconstructed model-house of such a dwelling can be visited at Tulor, south of San Pedro de Atacama. Some of thisreed is still lying around, for example in the isolated house with the ‘rock art’. The wood tosupport these roofs came from a nearby forest, now completely disappeared, but severalpieces of wood are still scattered around. The walls have been made by adobe bricks (Figure2) and/or by cementing together fairly large boulders with clay from the riverbed. Theseboulders are of various types of stone and most are rounded (water-worn). They probablyhave been collected from a nearby source of river cobbles. Several house ruins still show dooropenings, small windows and even a stair.

Figure 2. One of the houses at Ramaditas, Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

The walls of the dwellings contain several types of anthropic markings. First, at least onesection of a wall clearly displays finger flutings (acanalado por dedos). Flutings are lines thathuman fingers leave when drawn over a soggy surface like wet clay. Although they formgroups of parallel lines, these markings probably have no specific meaning and represent noform of rock art but simply indicate that the clay that people used to cement the coblestogether had been applied with their fingers (Figure 3). They may have been left there becauseof a decorative aspect, although it is even possible that they appear on a section of the wallthat has been repaired (possibly even in very recent times).


Figure 3. The ‘finger flutings’ at Ramaditas, Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 4. Some of the ‘finger holes’ at Ramaditas, Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Several other sections of walls show small holes made by people who have poked holes intothe clay with their fingers (Figure 4). The holes thus created show no pattern and maypossibly have been made just for fun. However, Cabello & Ajata suggest that some of themmay represent simple ‘faces’ (2010: 5). Also a few figurative markings in the clay have beenreported by Cabello & Ajata (2010: 5 - see Lámina 2:D, 2:F, 2:G and 2:H), as well as twostones with paint (2010: 6 - see Lámina 3:C and 3:D). The last type concerns the two‘petroglyph’ stones that will be discussed now.

RAMADITAS’ ‘ROCK ART’The two boulders with petroglyphs have been cemented in into the inner wall of the northernarc of an isolated house (Figure 5), labelled Recinto 17 by Cabello & Ajata (2010: Plano 2).Recinto 17 is situated only a short distance to the W and SW of the two main groups ofhouses. The larger Boulder (1) is found between the door opening and a small window; thesmaller Boulder (2) forms the right hand ‘post’ of that small window (Figure 6). Importantly,both Boulders are not placed at the base of the wall.


Figure 5. The north wall of Recinto 17 at Ramaditas, Chile. In the background is CerroChallacollo. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 6. The north wall showing the two decorated boulders at Recinto 17 at Ramaditas,Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

BOULDER 1: The larger boulder is of a yellowish-pink colour and is now found about 15 cmabove present day soil level (base of the stone to ground level), although in reality thedistance would have been greater since the room has partially filled up with drift sand. Thevisible part of its surface measures 33 cm in height by 44 cm in width. On its verticallyoriented surface are three petroglyphs (Figures 7 and 8). There are two fully pecked, laterally


depicted zoomorphs, each showing four legs and ears. Both look to the right. The left-handzoomorph is about 8 cm in length and has a tail that is pointing upwards while it seems toshow an open mouth. However, the lower jaw could also represent a short rope attached to theanthropomorph. The right-hand zoomorph measures 9 cm in length and has a tail that curvesdownwards. It seems to have an open mouth, but not as clearly as the other zoomorph. Thesetwo zoomorphs probably represent representations of camelids.

Figure 7. Boulder 1 at Recinto 17 at Ramaditas, Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 8. Drawing of the images on Boulder 1 at Ramaditas, Chile. Drawing by Maarten van Hoek.

In between the two zoomorphs is a petroglyph of an anthropomorph, again depicted in profileand also looking to the right. Also this figure has been fully pecked (disregarding small, un-pecked and randomly distributed areas). The anthropomorph is 22 cm in height and measures16 across. Several features are interesting. First of all the anthropomorph seems to carrysomething on its back, which may indicate that he is a traveller. The anthropomorph has a


rather long neck and a small head with a short appendage from the top. There are no facialfeatures. It has also two legs and two arms that clearly show splayed fingers. One hand mayhave four fingers; the other may have six.

BOULDER 2: At about 55 cm to the right of Boulder 1 is the second boulder of similarcolour, which forms part of a small window. The base of the stone is about 50 cm abovepresent day soil level and measures 29 cm in height by 28 cm in width. It features only twopetroglyphs, both less clearly and very superficially pecked (Figures 9 and 10). The mostobvious petroglyph certainly represents a biomorphic figure and probably is ananthropomorph. It measures 22 cm in height. It cannot be determined with certainty whetherthe figure is intended to be observed laterally or frontally, although the position of the twoshort legs suggests that the figure has been intended to be frontally depicted. In between thelegs is a short, downward pointing appendage. This might indicate male gender. The head isdirectly attached to the body; there is no neck. The head is a large circular pecked areashowing no facial details. Emerging from the shoulder areas are two curved lines of dots thatmight represent the arms. The body is almost fully pecked, but an area to the right of the mainbody mass may represent something else (an arm?, a backpack?, a spiral-like appendage?).The other marking on this boulder is a small, circular pecked area to the right of thebiomorph.

Figure 9. Boulder 2 at Recinto 17 at Ramaditas, Chile. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.


Figure 10. Drawing of the image(s) on Boulder 2 at Ramaditas, Chile. Drawing by Maarten van Hoek.

INTERPRETATIONThe biomorph on Boulder 2 is too amorphous to be interpreted with any certainty. Theanthropomorph on Boulder 1 together with the two zoomorphs may depict a scene in which aspecific person accompanies two animals into a certain direction (into his house?). Such aperson may have been a shaman or a pochteca, an Andean trader who is often carrying abackpack and other paraphernalia, like a flute (Van Hoek 2005: 28). Interestingly, the curvedarms and the empty hands are placed in a very specific position, reminiscent of many otherpetroglyphs in the Desert Andes where biomorphs (anthropomorphs and zoomorphs) are‘playing a wind instrument’. Several of the aforementioned biomorphs in this specific positiondo not hold a ‘wind instrument’. Their hands are completely empty, like the splayed hands ofthe enormous ‘monkey’ geoglyph on the Nasca Pampa in Peru. I have suggested earlier thatthese ‘empty-handed’ biomorphs may hold an ‘invisible’ object, like a flute (Van Hoek 2005).This might be true for the anthropomorph on Boulder 1 as well.

Interestingly, there is also a groove that unites the genital area of the anthropomorph with hisarms. This groove might represent an erect phallus. It is now generally accepted that theAndean flute may only be played by males (Van Hoek 2005: 26) and indeed several (butdefinitely not all) petroglyphs of ‘flute players’ in the Desert Andes show some indication ofmale gender (Van Hoek 2005: Fig. 6). Interestingly, there are many petroglyphs in theSouthwest of the United States where ‘flute-player’ petroglyphs have an (erect) phallus (aswell as being ‘humpbacked’). Two examples, both almost analogous to the Ramaditas figureon Boulder 1, are found in the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico, USA (Slifer 2000: Plate 20) andat the enormous Three Rivers site, also in New Mexico (Van Hoek 2010: Fig. 18.11). Thesepetroglyphs are found no less than 7330 km NW of Ramaditas and although a direct culturalrelationship is impossible, the distant figures still may share a similar symbolism. If we acceptthat also the biomorph on Boulder 2 represents a male, we might conclude that this specific


house at Ramaditas had been inhabited by a male (gendered?) person. It might even be thedwelling of the shaman of this village.

DATING THE RAMADITAS ‘PETROGLYPHS’In the Introduction it became clear that Ramaditas represented one of the earliest occupationsin the Guatacondo District. It probably dates from 500 B.C. to A.D. 0., a time span when largevillage-farming communities first appear in this sector of the Andes. However, Cabello &Ajata (2010) refer to the work of Rivera, Shea, Carevic & Graffam (1995-1996) and mentiona date of 90 B.C.. There now are four possibilities regarding the dating of the Ramaditas‘petroglyphs’, of which I personally favour option 1.

1). The first option is that two petroglyph boulders were found locally and - together withmany other boulders - were used to construct the wall of an isolated house. In this scenario,these boulders had already been decorated with images (long?) before the village wasfounded. Thus the images would be older than the construction of the village and initially theywould have been true petroglyphs. The boulders were incorporated into the wall in such a waythat the images remained visible. This may have been done for decorative reasons, but it ismore likely that the imagery was important to the person(s) residing in this dwelling. Theirspecific positions a short distance higher than ground level seems to point to intent. In thiscase rock art may have been turned into architectural art.

2). A second option is that the images were made when the village already existed. Themanufacture of the images may have been done in the field, at the spot where they werefound, or the boulders were first transported to the village and decorated there andsubsequently they were built into the wall.

3). The third option is that a person who inhabited the dwelling (or someone else) made theseimages as signs of his (or her?) function after they were fixed into the wall. EspeciallyBoulder 1 is large enough and firmly fixed into the wall to receive blows of a stoneimplement. However, the position of Boulder 2 is much less fixed and this may confirm theidea that the boulder(s?) was (were) already decorated (which seems to confirm option 1 oroption 2). If indeed options 2 and/or 3 are valid, the images represent architectural art ratherthan rock art. In this case the images would probably date from 500 B.C. to A.D. 0.

4). A fourth option departs from the idea that the images were made after the abandonment ofthe village. The houses were empty and travellers might have used the ruins as temporaryshelters. Someone may have executed these images on those two boulders during such a stay.Again, the rather unstable position of Boulder 2 argues against this idea. In this case theimages may be regarded as rock art and could date from any time from A.D. 0 to the SpanishInvasion.

From these four options it proves that the occurrence of a ‘petroglyph’ boulder built into adateable structure provides no indication of the age of the imagery, as the boulders atRamaditas do not occur in a sealed context. Importantly, parts of the clay (especially a smallpart with two finger-holes) still cover Boulder 1, while other parts (that once might havecovered a portion or all of the ‘petroglyphs’) may have fallen off. Unfortunately it cannot beascertained to date if indeed the clay once covered (part of or all of) the ‘petroglyphs’ ofBoulder 1. If the clay once covered the whole scene (which, because of its domed surface, isunlikely), it would indicate that the builders only used the boulder and did not have the


intention to (re)sanctify its imagery. However, it would have been quite impossible tocompletely cover Boulder 2 with clay, being a corner-stone of a small window.

Another interesting fact is that the surfaces of the boulders visible today and their imageshardly seem to have been patinated. This may indicate that the petroglyphs weremanufactured not that long before (option 1) or during (option 2) the construction of thevillage. After being incorporated into the wall of the house they became protected from thesun, even when the site was abandoned. The now vertically placed surfaces of the twoboulders notably face south and only at the peak of the summer they will catch some sunlight, but never perpendicularly (because of the position of the site on the SouthernHemisphere: 21º S and only 268 km north of the Tropic of Capricorn).

GRAPHICAL CONTEXTUnfortunately, the graphical content of only two boulders offers too small a basis to definitelylink these ‘petroglyphs’ with other graphical representations in the direct neighbourhood orindeed in a much wider area. The two small ‘camelids’ show no specific detail or style andcan be of any prehistoric date. Similar representations of ‘camelids’ occur at many places inthe Desert Andes. Also the rather amorphous ‘biomorph’ on Boulder 2 shows no specificfeatures.

Only the anthropomorph on Boulder 1 could be used for comparison. Fortunately, Ramaditasis located at the western fringe of an area that is rich in rock art and also has a number ofgeoglyph sites (see the map in Figure 1). However, none of the anthropomorphic figures ofthe geoglyphs known to me has any resemblance with the anthropomorph on Boulder 1. Mostdistinguishing is the ‘backpack’ and the specific position of the arms and hands. Althoughthere are several rock art sites further east in the Quebrada de Guatacondo (Cabello & Ajata2010) only the graphical content of the site of Tamentica-1 proved to be useful to compare theRamaditas anthropomorph with.

TAMENTICA-1Tamentica-1 (the site at the north side of the bottleneck in the Guatacondo Valley) no doubtonce was a very important rock art site and it still is. However, I was shocked to see howviolated this sacred site was at time of our visit. Many stones were badly disturbed andseverely damaged. Another disappointment was that the newly built Site Museum was closedand because vandals are said to have stolen many items from the museum, it probably willremain closed.

Fortunately, many of the petroglyphs are still visible. Among these are several fully pecked‘camelids’, more or less of the same type as seen on Boulder 1 at Ramaditas. There are alsomany anthropomorphic figures, and what is more important, several of those figures proved tohave a ‘load on their backs’ (or simply are ‘humpbacked’). Especially this ‘backpacker’theme links Tamentica with Ramaditas. However, this parallel offers no conclusive proof thatthe Tamentica manufacturers are also responsible for the imagery at Ramaditas. Notably,petroglyphs of ‘backpackers’ occur at many rock art sites in the Desert Andes (for instance atCalaunza in the Codpa Valley of Chile and at Huancor in the San Juan Valley of Peru).However, Tamentica seems the site with the biggest number of such ‘backpacker’ figures.Moreover, several anthropomorphic figures at Tamentica have their arms in unusual positions.One such figure is more or less in the same position as the anthropomorph on Boulder 1, but ithas no hands. Unfortunately this cannot be checked anymore as this specific boulder hasseverely been damaged (Figure 11). A complete drawing of this panel appears in Grete


Mostny Glaser & Hans Niemeyer Fernández (1983: Fig. 45). Also this anthropomorph isassociated with a small, pecked ‘camelid’.

Figure 11. Damaged boulder at Tamentica-1, Chile (left). Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.The original drawing of the same stone (right) by Grete Mostny Glaser & Hans Niemeyer

Fernández (1983: Fig. 45).

Several ‘backpackers’ at Tamentica seem to hold object (staffs?), while a few panels showscenes involving ‘backpackers’, walking in a row (as on Bloque 32 - Panel I), or even whenstanding in a raft. At least one ‘backpacker’ at Tamentica (on Bloque 7 - Panel D) seems to bephallic and has a load on its back that is similar in shape to the load on Boulder 1 (Figure 12).Two profile figures in a row seem to ‘play a wind instrument’ and one of them seems to carrya ‘backpack’ (Bloque 40). Remarkably, none of the anthropomorphs that I inspected atTamentica-1 clearly displays (splayed) hands (like the anthropomorph on Boulder 1). It iscertain that the petroglyphs at Tamentica date from different periods. For example, the manyraft-petroglyphs are said to date from the Arica Culture (A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1500) (MostnyGlaser & Niemeyer Fernández 1983:123), but other images are said to date from around B.C.100 to A.D. 100.


Figure 12. Detail of a boulder at Tamentica-1, Chile, showing three ‘backpackers’.Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

CONCLUSIONSWhat are the facts in this story? First of all, it is certain that the village of Ramaditas is one ofthe oldest agrarian settlements in the Atacama Desert. Its foundation probably dates around500 B.C.. The second fact is that two boulders - incorporated into the northern wall of anisolated house at Ramaditas - bear pecked images of altogether four biomorphs. A third fact isthat further east several expressions of prehistoric art are found (geoglyphs and rock art) andthat especially the rock art repertoire of Tamentica has certain elements in common with theanthropomorph on Boulder 1 at Ramaditas. The rest of the story involves hypotheses only.

It is a fact that we do not know what the Ramaditas images stand for. It is possible however -because of the ‘backpack’ - that the anthropomorph on Boulder 1 represents a Pochecta, anAndean traveller. In addition to this suggestion it is possible that - because of the phallus andthe position of the hands – the figure represents a shaman who is playing an ‘invisible flute’.The presences of ‘backpackers’ and ‘flute players’ at the rock art site of Tamentica-1 seems toconfirm the hypotheses postulated in this survey. A plausible theory (but still a theory) wouldbe that Recinto 17 belonged to a (travelling?) shaman and that his function was symbolised bythe imagery in his house.

It is also a fact that we do not know exactly when the four ‘petroglyphs’ were made(especially petroglyphs are notoriously difficult to date). In this respect I explored fouroptions. However, it is very likely that the images date from around 500 B.C. (if we accept500 B.C. as the date that the house was built). Unfortunately, it is too easily accepted that alsothe rock art in the vicinity of or incorporated in prehistoric structures has been manufacturedby the builders/occupants of those structures. However, it is not at all certain if indeed theresidents of those settlements were also the manufacturers of the imagery on the rocks; it ispossible but indecisive. This uncertainty also applies to the built-in images at Ramaditas.


There are several other sites in the Atacama Desert where rock art is found directly associatedwith a settlement. I already mentioned Tarapacá Viejo, Camiña, Jamajuga, Vinto, Millune,Achuyo and Suca. However, in those cases none of the decorated rocks has been incorporatedinto a house in the same way as at Ramaditas. Despite this distinctive difference, however, thekey question remains unsolved. Were the Ramaditas images once true petroglyphs, or havethey been made to serve as architectural art, i.e. have they been made exclusively to beincorporated into the wall of Recinto 17? We will probably never know.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am most grateful to Rolando Ajata López who provided me with much useful informationabout Chilean archaeology, including an unpublished report on the rock art of Huatacondo.We are also indebted to our guide who expertly guided us to the rock art site of Tamenticaand who showed us the ‘petroglyphs’ at Aldea de Ramaditas. I also thank my wife Elles forher assistance during the survey.

¿Preguntas, comentarios? escriba a: [email protected]

Cómo citar este artículo:

Hoek, Maarten van. Aldea de Ramaditas: Chile. En: Rupestreweb,http://www.rupestreweb.info/aldearamaditas.html

2011

REFERENCES

BAIED, C. A. 2007. Chungara. Vol. 39 - 1; pp. 135 - 136. Revista de Antropología Chilena. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=s0717-73562007000100009&script=sci_arttext

BRIONES M. G. L. & R. AJATA L. 2004. Video Documental elaborado en el ProyectoArqueologico "Puesta en Valor y Protección del Yacimiento Arqueológico de Tamentica". InYouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkV6Pufc3Q&feature=related

CABELLO, G. & R. AJATA. 2010. Revisitando el arte rupestre de Huatacondo. Informeaño II. Proyecto FONDECYT - 1080458. Unpublished Project Paper.

CLARKSON, P. B., G. JOHNSON, W. JOHNSON, L. BRIONES & E. JOHNSON.1999. Low-cost high-return aerial photography in archaeology. Inora, Vol. 24. pp. 21-25.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkV6Pufc3Q&feature=related

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=s0717-73562007000100009&script=sci_arttext

http://www.rupestreweb.info/aldearamaditas.html

mailto:[email protected]%20

ECHEVARRÍA LÓPEZ, G. T. & Z. VALENCIA GARCÍA. 2009. The ‘llamas’ fromChoquequirao: a 15th-Century Cusco Imperial rock art. Rock Art Research. Vol. 26-2. pp213-223. Melbourne.

MOSTNY GLASER, G. & H. NIEMEYER FERNÁNDEZ. 1983. Arte Rupestre Chileno.Serie El Patrimonio Cultural Chileno. Colección Historia del Arte Chileno. Publicación delDepartamento de Extensión Cultural del Ministerio de Educación.

RIVERA, M. A. 2002. Historias del Desierto: Arqueología del Norte de Chile. Editorial delNorte, La Serena, Chile.

RIVERA, M. A. 2005. Arqueología del Desierto de Atacama. La etapa Formativa en el Áreade Ramaditas/Guatacondo. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Bolivariana (ColecciónEstudios Regionales y Locales).

RIVERA, M., D. SHEA, A., CAREVIC & G. GRAFFAM. 1995-1996. En torno a losorígenes de las sociedades complejas andinas: excavaciones en Ramaditas, una aldeaFormativa del desierto de Atacama, Chile. Diálogo Andino. Vol. 14/15: 205-239. Arica.

SEPÚLVEDA, R. M. A., Á. L. ROMERO GUEVARA & L. BRIONES. 2005. Tráfico decaravanas, arte rupestre y ritualidad en la Quebrada de Suca (extremo norte de Chile).Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena. Vol. 37-2. pp 225-243.

SLIFER, D. 2000. The serpent and the sacred fire. Fertility images in Southwest rock art.Museum of New Mexico Press, NM.

TRINCADO P. 2008. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=Jamajuga+&m=text

VALENZUELA, D., M. C. SANTORO & Á. ROMERO. 2004. Arte rupestre enasentiamentos del Período Tardío en los valles de Lluta y Azapa, Norte de Chile. Chungara,Revista de Antropología Chilena. Vol. 36, Nº 2, 2004. pp 421-437.

VAN HOEK, M. 2005. Biomorphs ‘playing a wind instrument’ in Andean rock art. Rock Artresearch. 22-1, pp 23-34. Melbourne, Australia.

VAN HOEK, M. 2007. Petroglifos Chavinoides cerca de Tomabal, Valle de Virú, Perú.Boletín de SIARB, Vol. 21, pp 76-88. La Paz, Bolivia.

VAN HOEK, M. 2011. Banda Florida: An enchanting rock art site in La Rioja, Argentina. In:Rupestreweb: Forthcoming.

VAN HOEK, M. 2009. Egyptian temple petroglyphs. SAHARA. Vol. 20. pp 171-176.Milano, Italia.

VAN HOEK, M. 2010. Mogollon Rock Art and the Status of the ‘Flute Player’. In:Proceedings of the XV World Congress UISPP. Lisbon. BAR International Series, pp 161-173, Archaeopress; Publishers of British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.

VILCHES, F. & G. CABELLO. 2006. “De lo público a lo privado: el arte rupestre asociadoal complejo Pica-Tarapacá”. Actas del V Congreso Chileno de Antropología, San Felipe 2004.


http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=Jamajuga+&m=text

van hoek, m. 2011. aldea de ramaditas, chile: architectural art or rock art? in: rupestreweb

Documents