Tracing Images, Shaping Narratives: Eight Decades of Rock Art Research in Chile, South America (1944–2024)

Abstract

80 years of Chilean rock art research, from its early descriptive stages in the 1940s to the present-day integration of relational ontologies, archaeometric techniques, and interdisciplinary perspectives, is reviewed. 562 publications are analysed, covering four major regions: the Arid North, Semi-Arid North, South-Central, and Southernmost Chile. Drawing from a systematically constructed corpus, we trace the evolution of research questions, theoretical orientations, and methodologies over time, with attention to regional trends and institutional dynamics. Results reveal a gradual shift from typological classification toward more complex approaches addressing mobility, landscape, coloniality, visual agency, and human/non-human relationships. The Arid North emerges as the primary centre of innovation, while southern regions remain in exploratory stages despite recent advances. Comparison with global research trajectories shows how Chile’s situated approaches—marked by decentralisation, theoretical pluralism, and critical reflection—contribute to decolonial and southern perspectives in rock art studies. Rather than reproducing hegemonic models, Chilean scholarship offers alternative epistemologies rooted in context-specific materiality and historical processes. The review highlights the potential of Chilean rock art research to expand the theoretical and methodological horizons of the discipline, positioning it as a fertile field for dialogue with contemporary archaeology and global visual studies.

1. From Productive Margins: Global Trajectories and Situated Challenges in Rock Art Research in Chile

Rock art is one of the earliest known expressions of symbolic thought. It reveals the human capacity for representation, imagination, and abstract reasoning. As a transgenerational material manifestation, rock art is anchored in the landscape: it endures, is re-inscribed, updated, and also (presumably) re-interpreted over time. It acts as a vehicle for collective memory and is embedded in place. It is not necessarily representative; rather, it can also be presentational and performative, articulating image, gesture, and space in a single act. The act of painting, engraving, or otherwise intervening on a rock surface is a gesture imbued with intention, transforming the environment, generating agency, and often involving choreography, voice, body, and collectivity. Studying rock art thus enables us to address dimensions of social life that other archaeological materials rarely capture.

The history of rock art research across different world regions shows that the questions we ask (and those we overlook), along with the theories and methods we employ, are deeply shaped by historical and academic trajectories—trajectories that are in turn influenced by local contexts and global dynamics. From México and Central América, to North America, Europe, Australia, southern Africa, Russia, Mongolia, and India, the research trajectories share a common origin of marginality within traditional archaeology (Byambasuren 2022; Challis 2022; Conkey 2012; Díaz-Andreu 2022; Goldhahn 2022; Goldhahn et al. 2022; Hampson 2022; Hampson et al. 2022; Hays-Gilpin and Gilpin 2022; Laue 2022; Lewis-Williams 2006; Morwood and Smith 1994; Pillai 2022; Ponomareva 2022; Rainsbury 2022; Schaafsma 1985; Schmiechen 2022; Witelson 2022; Zawadzka 2022). Over time, rock art has become a legitimate, theoretically fertile, and empirically productive field of inquiry, as indicated by the proliferation of global volumes since the 1990s (Bahn et al. 2021, 2016; Bahn and Rosenfeld 1991; Chippindale and Taçon 1998; Conkey 2012; David and McNiven 2018, 2019; Davidson and Nowell 2021; Domingo-Sanz 2012; Domingo-Sanz and Gallinaro 2021; Franklin et al. 2008; Goldhahn et al. 2022; Hampson et al. 2022; Lorblanchet and Bahn 1993; McDonald and Veth 2012a, 2012b; Moro-Abadía et al. 2024b; Strecker et al. 2012; Whitley 2001).

These compilations also reflect persistent inequalities. Most of the dominant theoretical and interpretive frameworks have emerged from a few visible centres of scholarship, namely North America, Europe, Australia, and southern Africa. In their introductory chapters, authors increasingly acknowledge that the field of rock art is shaped by asymmetrical power relations, marked by colonial legacies and institutional, linguistic, and editorial barriers (Conkey 2019; David and McNiven 2018; Moro-Abadía et al. 2024a). Troncoso et al. (2018b) identify the systematic exclusion of South America from these repertoires as a consequence of institutional structural obstacles and argue that robust theoretical, methodological, and philosophical contributions capable of enriching global debates can indeed emerge from the Global South.

Echoing this perspective, we examine the history of rock art research in Chile as a case study of how situated trajectories can contribute critically to the broader field. The Chilean experience enables us to challenge dominant canons, expand epistemic genealogies, and prevent the recentralisation of knowledge. We analyse articles published on Chilean rock art between 1944 and 2024, tracing the evolution of research questions, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies across four archaeological regions: the Arid North, the Semi-Arid North, South-Central, and Southernmost Chile.

We briefly compare the Chilean trajectory with those of other regions, using published review articles. These works, by their nature, condense diverse traditions into broad syntheses. We consider this a necessary exercise to place the Chilean case within a broader context. Our global comparison relies on authoritative review articles and handbooks, which highlight broad trajectories rather than internal diversity. We follow this convention solely to contextualise the Chilean case, while also noting regional debates and ongoing discussions that go beyond the scope of this article.

2. Material and Methods: Corpus, Criteria and Regional Divisions for Approaching the Record

In Chile, three types of visual cultural features are found on “the geological surfaces of the exposed earth, generally hard but also including soft surfaces like sand, clay, and the distinctive muds of some deep-cave walls” (Chippindale 2001, p. 253). These are: rock engravings, rock paintings, and geoglyphs (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Geoglyphs are large-scale images created by removing or adding soil or stones to the earth’s surface. While technically and conceptually distinct, these three forms are often addressed together in the South American archaeological literature due to their shared visibility in the landscape and their archaeological significance. Accordingly, we adopt the term rock art to include both rock engravings and paintings, as well as geoglyphs.

This review analyses 562 published works on Chilean rock art spanning the period from 1944 to 2024 (

Table 1. Rock art papers (1944–2011). Arid North; Semi-Arid North; South-Central; Southernmost Chile.

Region	Foundations (1944–1975)	Research Decline (1976–1982)	Research Dawn (1983–1994)	First Expansion (1995–2005)	Diversification (2006–2014)	Expanding Frameworks (2015–2024)	Total
Arid North	37	12	45	93	80	75	342
Semi-Arid North	24	2	7	19	21	36	109
South-Central	20	0	2	14	13	17	66
Southernmost	2	3	2	0	8	15	30
General	3	1	6	4	4	5	23
Grand Total	86	18	62	130	126	148	570

). While earlier publications exist from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we take Rydén’s (1944) seminal study as the starting point of systematic, scientific rock art research in Chile. Of the 562 works considered, 7 refer to more than one area, bringing the total in Table 1 to 570.

To interpret this extensive body of work, we organised the corpus both temporally and regionally. Temporally, we defined six distinct periods based on the quantity and nature of publications, prevailing research themes, and the theoretical and methodological frameworks employed. The Foundation period was marked by efforts to classify, describe, and systematise regional data, establishing the basis for further investigations. The Decline period was characterised by a decrease in the number of publications as a consequence of the national socio-political context, which affected academic agendas. The Research Dawn period was defined by a renewal of archaeological investigation led by professional archaeologists, the incorporation of anthropological and symbolic theory, ethnohistorical insights, and concerns with cultural heritage and conservation. This phase also coincided with the emergence of Chile’s new competitive funding system, FONDECYT (the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development)—the main public body supporting scientific research across all disciplines in Chile, established in 1981 by CONICYT (the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research), now known as ANID (the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development)—which provided financial support for rock art research (Salazar et al. 2017; Sepúlveda 2025). During the First Expansion period, research broadened in scope and complexity, with landscape, symbolism, and territoriality emerging as key interpretive frameworks. The Diversification period was characterised by increasingly varied research agendas, encompassing a wide range of themes, theoretical approaches, and analytical methods. Rock art became central to broader archaeological debates on social complexity, interaction, coloniality, and symbolic landscapes, supported by more sophisticated and often interdisciplinary methods. The most recent Expanded Frameworks period has witnessed the consolidation of conceptual approaches and a geographical expansion into previously under-studied regions. Research integrated ontological and relational theories, digital documentation, and advanced archaeometric methods, while greater interdisciplinarity led to more nuanced interpretations of rock art as an active medium shaping ritual, identity, and interspecies relations.

Regionally, we identified four major areas reflecting ecological and archaeological-cultural differences (Figure 4):

Arid North, from Arica to Copiapó (18–27° S), corresponding to the Atacama Desert. This area includes the Atacama Desert ecoregion (biome: Deserts and Xeric Shrublands) and the Central Andean Dry Puna (biome: Montane Grasslands and Shrublands) (Dinerstein et al. 2017).

Semi-Arid North, from Copiapó to Illapel (27–31° S), marks the transition between hyperarid desert and more humid zones. It comprises the Chilean Matorral (biome: Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands and Scrub) and the Southern Andean Steppe (biome: Montane Grasslands and Shrublands) (Dinerstein et al. 2017).

South-Central Chile, from Illapel to Talca (31–35° S), is a zone of Mediterranean to temperate-rainy climate and includes the Chilean Matorral (biome: Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands and Scrub) (Dinerstein et al. 2017).

Southernmost Chile, from Talca to Tierra del Fuego (35–55° S), includes the Valdivian Temperate Forests and Magellanic Subpolar Forests (biome: Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests) (Dinerstein et al. 2017).

The corpus was constructed through a combination of strategies. When we began researching this review (around 2004), many references were not yet available online, so a chain-referral bibliographic method was used, consulting cited references within publications to identify earlier sources. Access to earlier works with limited circulation was facilitated through research conducted at libraries from Universidad de Tarapacá, Universidad de Chile, Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino and the Chilean National Library, and by contacting scholars regarding specific works. Recent publications were accessed through digital platforms and institutional repositories.

We first reviewed academic publications dated from the 19th century to the present that explicitly addressed rock art or geoglyphs within archaeological contexts in Chile. From this corpus we selected those publications dated between 1944 and 2024, considering 1944 as a starting point of systematic research. We included peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and monographs that present original data, interpretations, or syntheses. Publications whose primary focus was not on rock art (e.g., general archaeological reports where rock art is only briefly mentioned) were excluded unless they contributed substantially to the understanding of rock art contexts, interpretations, or methodologies. Theses and dissertations were not systematically included, although some may be indirectly referenced if cited in published works. Each item was evaluated based on its thematic relevance, methodological rigour, and regional specificity.

In order to assess academic centralisation and female/male participation within Chilean rock art studies, we determined the institutional affiliation and gender name of the first author of each publication, in consideration of the Chilean scientific publishing practice for the principal researcher to be listed first. Institutional affiliation was classified into four categories: Metropolitan (Santiago-based institutions), Regional (provincial Chilean institutions), Exile (Chilean researchers affiliated with foreign institutions during the dictatorship), and International (researchers based outside Chile), providing an indirect measure of the concentration or decentralisation of research activity across the country.

Each publication was reviewed to identify core ideas, research questions, and theoretical and methodological orientations. Special attention was paid to how rock art and geoglyphs were framed within broader archaeological problems. In order to achieve a better understanding of the historical conditions under which rock art knowledge has been produced, we also examined the role of individual scholars and institutions, including FONDECYT. Based on information from CONICYT and ANID, we compiled a database of rock-art focused FONDECYT-funded projects.

By combining temporal and spatial dimensions, this framework provides a comprehensive overview of how rock art research has developed in Chile over the past eight decades, identifying both continuities and transformations in its theoretical-methodological perspectives (Figure 5).

3. Results: Eighty Years of Rock Art Research in Chile: Periods, Trends, and Shifts

3.1. Lead-Up to 1944

The study of rock art in Chile before 1944 was marked by sporadic references from foreign travellers, geographers, and naturalists who described rock art as antiquities or ruins embedded in the landscape (Bollaert 1860; Bowman 1924; Philippi 1860; Plagemann 1906; Strube 1926; Uhle 1922; L. Vergara 1897). These descriptions were framed by a romantic or antiquarian gaze, typical of 19th-century intellectual interest in the exoticised “American past” (Orellana 1996). A notable exception is Plagemann (1906), who applied early analytical criteria to distinguish rock art types based on technique, an approach that foreshadows later archaeological systematisation.

In the early 20th century, contributions from Chilean amateurs reflect a growing but still unspecialised interest in visual archaeological remains (Fontecilla 1936; Gajardo-Tobar 1938; Iribarren 1947; Jaffuel 1930; Looser 1929; Oyarzún 1910). These authors, often trained in the natural sciences, adopted descriptive perspectives that lacked deeper culture-historical contextualisation. In parallel, academically trained foreign scholars like Latcham and Uhle began to apply archaeological methods (typologies, stratigraphy, seriation) to regional cultural sequences, treating rock art as a legitimate part of the archaeological record, alongside ceramics and lithics (Latcham 1927, 1938; Uhle 1922).

This period laid the intellectual and institutional groundwork for the emergence of archaeology as a scientific field in Chile. As Cornejo (1997) highlights, these early efforts positioned pre-Hispanic societies as worthy of scholarly attention, challenging deeply rooted narratives of Indigenous cultural inferiority. Rock art, in this formative stage, was not yet conceptualised as a problem in its own right, but rather as part of broader efforts to document material evidence of the past. The publication of Rydén’s Contributions to the Archaeology of the Río Loa Region in 1944 marks the threshold between antiquarian documentation and the emergence of a systematic, problem-oriented archaeological tradition. Rydén received his doctorate in archaeology in 1935 on his archaeological fieldwork in Argentina, conducted anthropological and historical studies on South American topics, and carried out fieldwork in Chile and Bolivia (A. Muñoz 2022). Rydén’s work not only inaugurated academic attention to visual records in northern Chile but also laid the foundations for future discussions on the style, distribution, and cultural association of rock art motifs framed within the descriptive and typological approach typical of its time. Its publication marks the threshold between enlightened collecting and modern scientific procedures, enabling us to outline, from its foundational constraints, the theoretical and methodological transformations that would characterise rock art research in subsequent decades.

3.2. Foundations (1944–1975)

The period between 1944 and 1975 marks the foundational stage of rock art research in Chile as a sustained academic endeavour. The majority of rock art research concentrated in the Arid and Semi-Arid North, but important—albeit isolated—contributions emerged from South-Central and Southernmost Chile as well. While descriptive approaches continued to dominate, this era witnessed the consolidation of rock art as a valid line of archaeological inquiry, largely framed within the paradigms of culture-historical archaeology. Studies were primarily concerned with documenting the formal, technical, and spatial features of sites, establishing chronological sequences, and exploring potential cultural affiliations. This aligns with the prevalent approaches in Chilean archaeology, which, according to Salazar et al. (2006, 2011) and Troncoso et al. (2008a), were strongly empiricist, typological, and culture-historical. The development of Latin American Social Archaeology in the early 1970s (Troncoso et al. 2006, 2008a) is reflected in the early work of Bate (1970), who incorporated reflections on history, evolution, and social processes while explicitly integrating variables such as economics, social relations, division of labour, and symbolic activities into the analysis of rock art. The first glimpses of New Archaeology that appeared in Chilean archaeology in the early 1970s (Troncoso et al. 2006) do not seem to have influenced the frameworks of rock art research. The majority (58%, 48:83) of the articles published during this period were largely written by regional researchers. Female lead authors represented only 13% of the papers, such as Norma Sanguinetti, Grete Mostny, and Ingeborg Lindberg (Figure 6).

Key figures of the Foundations period include Iribarren (multiple publications) and Niemeyer (1958) who developed systematic programmes of documentation and classification in the Semi-Arid North. Núñez (multiple publications) began conducting rock art studies that would later shape the interpretive frameworks of the Atacama Desert (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Spahni offered a regional synthesis of motifs, techniques, and site distributions, establishing early associations between rock art and other archaeological remains (Spahni 1961).

This period saw the creation of anthropology and archaeology degree programmes at the Universidad de Chile, Universidad de Concepción, and Universidad del Norte, which helped professionalise the discipline (Cornejo 1997; Salazar et al. 2017; Troncoso et al. 2008a; Urbina 2020). These universities provided an academic platform for rock art research. Museums (in Arica, Antofagasta, San Pedro de Atacama, Copiapó, La Serena, Valparaíso, Punta Arenas, among others), often associated with research institutes, played a critical role in fostering early rock art investigations, some linked to regional initiatives and state-supported cultural heritage agendas. Most of these museums and universities were regional offering spaces for research providing the main publication outlets of the time. Their bulletins, annals, and journals became the primary means for publishing rock art studies.

At this stage, research was mainly directed toward building descriptive and typological bases. Many studies describe rock art sites for the first time (Dauelsberg 1959; Hornkohl 1951, 1954; Igualt 1964; Le Paige 1958; Niemeyer and Schiappacasse 1963; C. Vergara 1972–1973; Villalón 1964). Stylistic classifications and regional inventories (Iribarren 1968, 1973; Niemeyer 1972) laid the groundwork for subsequent studies. Attempts at cultural contextualisation were also addressed (Ampuero 1966; Ampuero and Rivera 1971; Iribarren 1953, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1973; Lindberg 1969; Montané 1965–1966; Mostny and Niemeyer 1983; Niemeyer 1964, 1972; Niemeyer and Schiappacasse 1963; Núñez 1965; Núñez and Briones 1967–1968), and engagements systematically with ethnographic, symbolic, or functional dimensions was emerging (Bate 1970; Lindberg et al. 1960; Mostny 1961; Núñez 1964, 1967). Comparative studies and functional inferences highlighted its relationship with ancient cultural processes (Niemeyer 1967, 1972; Niemeyer and Montané 1968; Núñez and Briones 1967–1968; Schaedel 1957). This preliminary data set was a necessary condition for subsequent interpretive/ theoretical studies.

Nevertheless, this was a formative period that set the stage for more critical approaches. Scholars began to address fundamental questions of spatial distribution, site function, and motif variability. While the development of specific methodologies for rock art was still incipient, some conceptual and terminological clarifications emerged (Bate 1970, 1971; Igualt 1964, 1969, 1970; Madrid 1969; Montané 1965–1966; Niemeyer 1964; Niemeyer and Montané 1968; Niemeyer and Weisner 1972–1973; Sanguinetti 1968, 1969, 1970; C. Vergara 1972–1973; Villalón 1964). Notably, Bate’s work in Southern Patagonia (Bate 1970, 1971), influenced by Marxian theory, represents one of the first efforts to build a regional chronological framework for rock art traditions in Chile.

This period institutionalised rock art as a legitimate archaeological concern. It established regional corpora, laid the groundwork for stylistic and chronological discussions, and introduced the idea of visual culture as part of the material archive of pre-Hispanic societies. Theoretical engagement remained limited, and interpretive models were largely subordinate to classificatory goals.

3.3. Research Decline (1976–1982)

The period from 1976 to 1982 marks a significant shift in Chilean rock art research, deeply influenced by the authoritarian turn following the 1973 military coup. The institutional dismantling of key academic programmes—such as those at the Universidad del Norte and the Universidad de Concepción—combined with censorship, exile, and the repression of intellectual circles, had a paralysing effect on the production of archaeological knowledge (Cornejo 1997; Seguel 2020; Sierralta 2020). Within this context, the research momentum of the 1960s and early 1970s came to an abrupt halt. Troncoso et al.’s (2006) overview highlighted the theoretical consequences for Chilean archaeology: silencing of Marxian perspectives, favouring the proliferation of ecological and functionalist processual approaches, and the persistence of the culture-historical approach. In the case of rock art research, processual approaches were absent during this period, while culture-historical frameworks were largely dominant. The work of Bate (1982) framed by a Marxian approach, was published from exile. During this time, most of the research and publications (61%) was from regions, and there was scarce participation by female authors (6%).

Despite these severe constraints, a handful of studies emerged during this period, including site descriptions (Dauelsberg et al. 1975; Iribarren 1976), efforts at contextualising specific locations (Massone 1982; Niemeyer 1976), and regional syntheses of site distribution (Niemeyer 1979). These works continued the descriptive and classificatory approaches developed in previous decades but provided an essential foundation upon which later explanatory research expanded with new theoretical and methodological perspectives.

Two works are particularly significant in this period. Núñez (1976) stands out for proposing an original interpretive hypothesis that connected rock art with social practices and ritual activities, drawing from archaeology, ethnography, and ethnohistory. His work articulated rock art with broader anthropological concerns, particularly the functioning of pre-Hispanic societies, foreshadowing approaches that would only consolidate in later decades. Based on multiple lines of evidence—such as the location of rock art sites in barren areas without resources, their position between agricultural valleys and the coast, their spatial association with caravan routes, and the abundant presence of foreign goods and resources in the archaeological record—Núñez proposed a functional-ritual link between rock art and the caravan routes during late pre-Hispanic times (ca. 1000–1530 AD). He argued that the growing intensification and specialisation of long-distance traffic in the south-central Andes required complex signage along the routes, which took the form of rock art sites. These sites fulfilled both logistical and ritual roles: they marked obligatory waypoints used as overnight stops and sacred places where caravan rites could be performed. This interpretation situated rock art within a substantive theory of the social, economic, and political dynamics of late pre-Hispanic groups in the Arid North. Far from constituting a functional or processual framework, Núñez’s proposal is distinctive for its relational and historical perspective, integrating economy, ideology, and materiality. He situated caravan traffic within a system of complementarity and ritual meaning. The originality lay in the early articulation of a broad social theory of movement, in dialogue with Andean ethnohistorical and ethnographic models as well as interregional comparisons.

Van Kessel (1976) offered a critique of the dominant inductive and formalist perspectives, highlighting the absence of cultural content in archaeological interpretations of rock art. Also drawing on Andean ethnography, Van Kessel situated rock art within an “animistic/utilitarian worldview”, where objects and landscapes had life and where worship sought concrete returns (fields, livestock, travel, trade), themes that are very much in vogue today after the so-called “ontological turn”. His intervention pointed to the methodological limitations of the field and the need for more reflexive frameworks—an issue that would remain unresolved until the 1990s.

These isolated contributions signal a latent tension between the established descriptive tradition and the desire for more interpretive and theoretically grounded approaches. Nevertheless, the overall output remained low and thematically conservative, constrained by the broader political and institutional context.

The Decline period was not merely characterised by a reduction in volume of research, but also by a narrowing of its intellectual horizons. The few critical voices that emerged during this time—such as Núñez and Van Kessel—highlight the structural barriers that prevented rock art from evolving into a more dynamic and theory-driven field of study. Their work, while marginal at the time, would later prove foundational for the epistemological renewal of the discipline in the post-dictatorship epoch (1990 onwards).

3.4. Research Dawn (1983–1994)

The period between 1983 and 1994 marked a renewed impulse in rock art research in Chile, following the stagnation of the previous decade. This resurgence coincided with broader processes of academic reorganisation and the partial reopening of university spaces in the late authoritarian period. It was driven primarily by a new generation of professionally trained archaeologists, the growing institutional support of key organisations such as the Universidad de Tarapacá and the Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino, and the consolidation of research funding mechanisms. This period marked the beginning of FONDECYT-funded archaeological projects specifically focused on rock art. While still regionally concentrated—mainly in the Arid and Semi-Arid North—this phase initiated critical shifts in the thematic, methodological and theoretical orientations of rock art studies.

One defining feature of this period is the diversification of research subjects. Descriptive approaches persisted (Briones and Espinosa 1991; Llamazares 1993; Moragas 1993; Niemeyer 1985; Niemeyer and Arrau 1983; Niemeyer and Schiappacasse 1981; Niemeyer and Weisner 1991; Ramírez 1988), but were increasingly contextualised through archaeological associations and regional syntheses (Ampuero 1992; Castro et al. 1989; Englert 1988; Mostny and Niemeyer 1983). These syntheses signalled a growing concern with the broader cultural and environmental settings of visual practices.

Methodologically, several studies engaged explicitly with the conceptual and technical challenges of rock art research (Briones 1984; Cerda et al. 1985). There was renewed interest in defining core concepts and advancing recording techniques, while some authors critically addressed functionalist and semiotic limitations in interpretation (Dettwiler 1986; Mostny 1985). This period also saw the emergence of proposals focused on the material and symbolic dimensions of rock art, treating it as a form of material culture embedded in specific historical and social contexts (Gallardo 1992).

Interpretive studies became more frequent, often using ethnohistorical and ethnographic analogies. Authors such as Berenguer and Martínez (1986), Cané (1985), Gallardo and Castro (1992), and Gallardo et al. (1990) explored the symbolic meanings of rock art imagery, while Chacama and Briones (1993) addressed the cultural categories involved in its production. These efforts marked a shift toward a more reflexive archaeology of representation, in which iconography, function, and meaning were no longer peripheral, but central to analysis.

Importantly, this was also the first period in which heritage values and public archaeology became visible concerns. Projects of site conservation and public dissemination were carried out (Briones and Álvarez 1984; Briones and Espinosa 1991), and several accessible volumes were published to reach broader audiences (Aldunate et al. 1983; Ampuero 1992; Briones 1985; Gallardo and Castro 1992; Mostny and Niemeyer 1983).

A key scholar who played a foundational role in this regard is Luis Briones, whose work in documenting, restoring, and preserving geoglyphs in the Arid North beginning in the late 1970s marked a pioneering contribution both nationally and regionally (Briones and Casanova 2011). Briones developed early protocols for the recording and mapping of large-scale geoglyph assemblages and promoted their value as heritage resources, integrating archaeological knowledge with public outreach and conservation planning. His work anticipated later efforts to position geoglyphs as central features in Andean visual landscapes, rather than as isolated anomalies or artistic curiosities (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

Another key development was the increasing integration of rock art within broader archaeological problems. Research began to explore its connections to camelid domestication, landscape organisation, mobility, and ceremonialism (Bittmann 1985; Briones and Chacama 1987; Núñez 1985; Santoro 1989; Santoro and Núñez 1987). These studies highlighted the role of rock art in structuring social practices, rather than treating it solely as a symbolic or decorative medium. Notably, Santoro (1989) and Santoro and Núñez (1987) proposed that rock art was integral to the ritual sphere of camelid domestication in the Atacama highlands (ca. 5000–3000 B.P.), while Berenguer (1994) explored its use in interregional interaction networks.

The spatial dimension of rock art also gained relevance. Research addressed site distribution, settlement systems, and the associations between rock art and other archaeological features (Berenguer and Cáceres 1989; Briones and Chacama 1987; Cáceres and Berenguer 1993, 1996a; Castro et al. 1989; Moragas 1993; Muñoz et al. 1987; Núñez 1985; Santoro and Chacama 1982). These efforts reflected an emerging landscape perspective in which rock art was viewed not in isolation but as part of spatially structured systems of social use and meaning.

Chronological and stylistic analyses also advanced. Scholars correlated rock art motifs with dated archaeological artefacts (Aldunate et al. 1983; Berenguer et al. 1985; Briones and Chacama 1987; Chacama et al. 1992; Chacama and Muñoz 1991; I. Muñoz 1983; Santoro and Dauelsberg 1985) and developed typological sequences to construct regional frameworks (Aldunate et al. 1983; Ampuero 1985; Berenguer et al. 1985; Cáceres and Berenguer 1993; Castillo 1985; Cervellino 1985; Massone 1982). These works laid a foundation for later efforts in relative and absolute dating, though often limited by the absence of excavated contexts (Cáceres and Berenguer 1993; Chacama and Muñoz 1991; Mena 1983; Santoro and Núñez 1987).

Two landmark publications encapsulate the achievements of this period. Arte Rupestre Chileno (Mostny and Niemeyer 1983) remains the only comprehensive monograph on Chilean rock art, synthesising stylistic knowledge across regions. Estudios en Arte Rupestre (Aldunate et al. 1985), a proceedings volume from the first national rock art meeting, brought together diverse contributions on time, function, meaning, and methodology, and reflected the growing cohesion and maturity of the field.

By the early 1990s, regional disparities had become evident. Research momentum persisted almost exclusively in the Arid North, particularly in the Loa basin, while the Semi-Arid North and South-Central regions experienced renewed decline. The Southernmost region remained underexplored, with some exceptions (Massone 1982).

Troncoso et al. (2006) note the consolidation of New Archaeology in Chilean archaeology in the 1980s. This was marked by a surge in ecological, functionalist, and settlement studies aligned with empiricist and positivist scientific criteria, though these coexisted with culture-historical approaches. In this context, the earliest FONDECYT-funded archaeological projects reflected a positivist, hypothetical-deductive model (Salazar et al. 2017). Rock art research, by contrast, displayed distinct characteristics that diverged from New Archaeology and positivist frameworks. Of the three FONDECYT projects awarded during this period, one adopted a contextual approach, another incorporated ethnographic research, and the third was defined by an interdisciplinary and multidimensional orientation. A similar trend is observed in publications from this period, which engaged with themes such as symbolism, ritual, social interaction, function, and heritage, often integrating ethnographic and ethnohistorical perspectives (Figure 5). Most publications originated from regional institutions, a pattern that had persisted since 1944; female participation (17%) increased notably compared to the previous period (Figure 6).

In retrospect, the Research Dawn period represents a transition. Rock art research moved from purely descriptive documentation toward thematic expansion, interpretive engagement, and methodological refinement. While limitations remained, in particular, the scarcity of excavated contexts and the uneven territorial coverage, the groundwork was laid for the conceptual and analytical breakthroughs of the following decades.

3.5. First Expansion (1995–2005)

The period between 1995 and 2005 marks a turning point in Chilean rock art research with the return to democracy in 1989. Processes initiated earlier were consolidated, accompanied by a growing critical mass of professionals entering universities. Many went on to pursue postgraduate studies in Chile and abroad, producing research informed by new theoretical frameworks and innovative methodologies. A new wave of studies emerged, marked by increasing thematic depth, broader regional coverage, and greater integration with archaeological research agendas. This upsurge—especially notable in the Arid North but also visible in the Semi-Arid North and South-Central Chile—was closely linked to the rise of FONDECYT-funded research projects, which played a key role in institutionalising rock art as a scientifically valid and fundable subject in different regions.

The Arid North became a major research epicentre. Numerous interdisciplinary projects and long-term programmes were developed, resulting in an extensive and diversified body of publications. Scholars such as José Berenguer and Francisco Gallardo have led research projects and trained new generations of archaeologists (Figure 11a,b). This period consolidated landscape-based interpretations (Briones and Mondaca 2004; Briones et al. 2005; Clarkson and Briones 2001; Gallardo 2001; Gallardo et al. 1999a; Sepúlveda 2004; Valenzuela 2004; Vilches 2005), advanced stylistic chronologies, and incorporated radiocarbon dating of deposits associated with rock art contexts (Berenguer and Cáceres 1995; Clarkson 1998; Clarkson et al. 2001; Gallardo et al. 1996; Horta 1996, 1999). Research also expanded in methodological approaches and regional coverage to geoglyphs (Briones and Castellón 2005; Clarkson et al. 1999a, 1999b; Muñoz and Briones 1996) (Figure 11c), while addressing heritage, conservation, and public archaeology (Romero et al. 2004a, 2004b). Rock art iconography was examined through studies of animal imagery (e.g., camelids, birds) and visual codes in image construction (Berenguer 1996; Chacama 2004; Gallardo and Yacobaccio 2005; J. González 2002; P. González 2005; Horta 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001; Romero 1996; Sepúlveda 2004) (Figure 11d).

In the Semi-Arid North, a new generation of archaeologists re-engaged with rock art, critically reviewing the existing corpus and noting regionally specific problems. The previous works were recontextualised, and new stylistic frameworks began to be proposed (Artigas 2002, 2004; Artigas and Cabello 2004; Cabello 2003; Jackson et al. 2001, 2002).

South-Central Chile, long marginalised in archaeological narratives, experienced a significant revival during this period. Pioneering work by Troncoso (e.g., Troncoso 1998, 2001d, 2005b) framed rock art within larger questions of hegemony, semiotic systems, and visual communication. The increase in studies in this region marked a shift toward a more inclusive national panorama (Figure 11e).

Research in Southernmost Chile remained scarce or unpublished. Additional rock art sites were located, highlighting the urgency of developing systematic approaches to previously overlooked areas.

From a thematic perspective, we identified at least ten major issues across different regions: (1) site description; (2) theoretical and methodological debates; (3) social uses of rock art; (4) symbolic meanings; (5) inter-site relationships; (6) chronology; (7) formal analysis; (8) landscape studies; (9) preservation and heritage; and (10) visual representation systems (see also Gallardo et al. 2006; Sepúlveda 2005).

Descriptive studies ceased to be ends in themselves and began to serve as platforms for analytical interpretation (Briones and Castellón 1997; Cáceres and Berenguer 1996a; Cervellino and Silis 2001; Chacama and Briones 1997; Clarkson 1999b; Miranda and Saavedra 1997; Moragas 1996; Núñez and Contreras 2005; Rivera and Marinov 2001; Schiappacasse and Niemeyer 1996; Van Hoek 2000).

Theoretical contributions problematised the epistemological status of rock art and its role in constructing archaeological arguments (Berenguer 1995a; Clarkson 1999a; Troncoso 2005b). Key questions on symbolism, ideology, and landscape were addressed (Castro and Gallardo 1995–1996; Clarkson 1999a; Gallardo 1996, 1998, 1999; Sepúlveda 2004; Troncoso 1998, 2001b, 2005a; Valenzuela et al. 2004b).

Methodological innovation included the identification of faunal species (Berenguer 1996; Gallardo and Yacobaccio 2005), style analysis using statistical attributes (Gallardo et al. 1996), and rock art recording protocols (Clarkson et al. 1999a). Direct dating techniques were also discussed (Clarkson 1996; Clarkson et al. 2001).

The social uses of rock art were linked to caravan traffic, ritual landscapes, settlement system, and the symbolic control of space (Berenguer 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1999, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Briones et al. 2005; Cáceres and Berenguer 1996b; Clarkson and Briones 2001; Gallardo 2001, 2004; Gallardo et al. 1999a, 1996; Gallardo and Yacobaccio 2005; Jackson et al. 2002; Moragas 1996; Muñoz and Briones 1996; Schiappacasse and Niemeyer 1996; Sepúlveda 2004; Sepúlveda et al. 2005; Troncoso 2001b, 2001d, 2004a, 2005a; Vilches and Uribe 1999).

Symbolic interpretations, particularly those grounded in ethnohistorical and ethnographic comparisons, were applied to discern mythic references or ritual functions (Artigas 2002; Briones et al. 1999; Castro and Gallardo 1995–1996; Chacama and Espinosa 2000; Espinosa 1996; Gallardo et al. 1999b; Romero 1996).

In terms of chronology, style-based dating proposals were developed in the Arid and Semi-Arid North, as well as in South-Central Chile (Gallardo et al. 1999a, 1996; Gallardo and Vilches 1995; Jackson et al. 2001, 2002; Sinclaire 2004; Troncoso 2001a, 2001d, 2002c, 2003, 2004a). Significantly, there have been efforts to date specific rock art styles more strictly by means of indirect radiocarbon-dated strata next to the art or carbon superimposition from the images themselves (Berenguer and Cáceres 1995; Rivera and Marinov 2001) or radiometric dating of deposits superimposed on the rock art (Clarkson et al. 2001).

Formal analysis developed as a subfield, with emphasis on style, composition and iconography (Artigas and Cabello 2004; Berenguer 2004a; Cabello 2003; Chacama 2004; Chacama and Briones 2003; Chacama and Espinosa 2000; Gallardo 2005; Gallardo and Vilches 1996; Gallardo et al. 1996; J. González 2002; P. González 2005; Horta 1996; Horta and Berenguer 1995; Jackson et al. 2002; Montt 2002, 2004; Núñez et al. 1997; Sepúlveda 2002, 2004; Sinclaire 1997; Troncoso 2001d, 2001e, 2002b, 2002a, 2004a, 2004b; Valenzuela et al. 2004a; Vilches and Uribe 1999). Definitions of style integrated spatial logic and archaeological context (Gallardo and Vilches 1996; Troncoso 2001d, 2005a), and superimposition plus technical and patina analyses added temporal dimensions (Artigas 2004; Horta 1996, 1999).

Analyses of temporally limited animal images integrating stylistic, morphological, zooarchaeological and archaeological data have been carried out (Berenguer 1996; Gallardo and Yacobaccio 2005; Sepúlveda 2002, 2004). Significant is the integration of different lines of evidence that has provided a temporal framework serving to clarify and explain the complexities in the use of imagery over the time. For example, Gallardo and Yacobaccio (2005) suggested the existence of two different visual systems in the early Formative period (ca. 500 B.C.–500 A.D.), associated with two different ways of life: hunting and husbandry.

The incorporation of landscape perspectives became more common, with studies exploring spatial syntax, site visibility, and topographic symbolism (Briones et al. 2005; Clarkson and Briones 2001; Gallardo 2001; Gallardo et al. 1999a; Sepúlveda et al. 2005; Troncoso 1998; Valenzuela et al. 2004a). Debates on the relational dimensions of landscape and image also gained momentum (Berenguer 1995a; Castro and Gallardo 1995–1996; Gallardo et al. 1999a; Troncoso 1998, 2001b, 2004a, 2005b). Significantly, archaeoastronomical concerns in the displacement of rock art have been addressed (Vilches 2005).

Regional data and attempted integrative frameworks were synthesised and compiled (Berenguer 1999; Briones and Ulloa 2001; Bustos and Lehnert 1999; Gallardo et al. 1999a; Núñez and Contreras 2003). Public engagement and heritage studies appeared (Guerra 2004; Romero et al. 2004b), addressing conservation, tourism, and local participation. Theoretical and methodological discussions were also carried out (Berenguer 1995b, 2004a; Briones et al. 2005; Clarkson and Briones 2001; Córdova 2001; Gallardo 1996, 1998, 1999; Gili 2001; Núñez et al. 1997; Pimentel 2003; Sepúlveda et al. 2005; Troncoso 1999, 2001c).

During this period, publications in international and national journals gained worldwide visibility, including thematic volumes and conference proceedings.

FONDECYT-funded projects were central to this expansion, particularly in the Loa basin, and account for much of the period’s output. While some regions remained understudied or theoretically underdeveloped, the First Expansion period marked the consolidation of rock art as a robust and multifaceted field of inquiry. Researchers not only broadened the thematic and regional scope of rock art studies but also began to integrate it into complex archaeological debates on identity, mobility, social complexity, and symbolic production.

In the 1990s, Chilean archaeology incorporated post-processual influences focused on symbolism, power, and agency, along with the emergence of heritage management. However, the foundations of New Archaeology and a dominant empiricist approach remained (Troncoso et al. 2006, 2008a). Training was concentrated at the University of Chile and in FONDECYT-dependent research, accompanied by the expansion of contract archaeology and Indigenous demands for heritage participation. These accentuated the distance between academic and applied archaeology within a framework of strong research centralisation (Salazar et al. 2017; Troncoso et al. 2006, 2008a).

The “First Expansion” of rock art is a consequence of the professionalisation and diversification that Chilean archaeology was undergoing as a whole. Far from oscillating between empiricism and the partial adoption of post-processualism, rock art studies integrated more flexible approaches to landscape, symbolism, ideology, and visuality, combining stylistic, chronological, spatial, and semiotic analyses. In contrast to the metropolitan centralisation noted by Troncoso et al. and Salazar et al. cited above, rock art research is characterised by a relative decentralisation, with active centres in the Arid North, Semi-Arid North, and South-Central Chile. For the first time, the majority of publications from the metropolitan region (56%) exceed those from other regions (30%), along with an increase in the participation of international academics (14%) through collaborations with national research teams. Female participation in leading academic publications (33%) doubled compared to the previous period and continued to grow steadily afterwards (Figure 6).

3.6. Diversification (2006–2014)

During this period, research in the Arid North region concentrated on intense examination of rock art, mainly addressing social interaction, mobility, and identities in pre-Hispanic contexts (Briones 2006; Briones et al. 2007; Vilches and Cabello 2010). Links were explored between rock art representations and processes of social complexity, such as the domestication of camelids and the development of caravan routes (Berenguer 2009; Cartajena and Núñez 2006; Montt and Pimentel 2009; Pimentel et al. 2011). Noteworthy contributions on Colonial rock art (Arenas and Martínez 2007, 2009; B. González 2014; Martínez 2009; Martínez and Arenas 2009, 2011) pointed out the complications in reading images in the context of otherness and cultural appropriation. From a theoretical perspective, symbolic, agency, environmental, and social complexity approaches were applied (Briones 2006; Cartajena and Núñez 2006; Núñez et al. 2006a; Pimentel and Montt 2008; Pimentel et al. 2007; Sepúlveda 2011b; Vilches and Cabello 2006, 2010; Zori and Brant 2012). The relationships between visual systems, camelids, and ways of life remained as a line of inquiry (Gallardo and Yacobaccio 2007; Núñez et al. 2006b, 2009). Methodologically, iconographic (Berenguer 2013; Briones 2006; Briones et al. 2007; Cabello et al. 2013; Cases and Montt 2013; Montt 2010; Núñez et al. 2006b; Núñez and Contreras 2006; Tamblay 2006; Vilches and Cabello 2011) and physicochemical studies were carried out (Sepúlveda 2009, 2011a; Sepúlveda and Laval 2010a, 2010b; Sepúlveda et al. 2010a, 2010b) (Figure 11f), as well as chaîne opératoire analysis (Valenzuela 2012) and regional comparisons based on ethnographic and historical sources (Núñez and Castro 2011; Núñez and Contreras 2011). Spatial associations between rock art and settlement sites was a crucial way to contextualise rock imagery (Berenguer and Cabello 2005; Gallardo and Vilches 1996; Núñez et al. 2006a, 2006b, 2009; Vilches and Cabello 2010, 2011) (Figure 11g).

Research in the Semi-Arid North focused on the creation of regional styles, identification of iconographic relationships, and memory (Armstrong 2012; Cabello 2011; Cabello and Gallardo 2014; Troncoso et al. 2008b; Troncoso and Jackson 2010). Style and territoriality plus colonial interpretations were also addressed (Armstrong 2012; Cabello 2011; P. González 2011; Troncoso 2012; Troncoso et al. 2008b). Methods associated with phenomenological, semiotic, and landscape archaeology were used (Armstrong 2012; Troncoso and Vergara 2013) in combination with digital documentation technologies (Moya-Cañoles et al. 2014; Troncoso 2012; Urzúa 2012) and chaîne opératoire analysis (Méndez 2008).

In the South-Central region, the focus was on how rock art space was structured and the persistence of ceremonial landscapes over time (Sánchez and Troncoso 2008; Troncoso 2009; Troncoso et al. 2011). A prominent theme was the visual representation of Inca presence as a form of spatial hegemony (Sánchez and Troncoso 2008; Troncoso 2010). Approaches based on symmetrical archaeology, semiotics, and symbolism were used (Troncoso 2007a, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Troncoso et al. 2011), including comparative spatial analyses with Andean symbolic systems (Castelleti 2007; Sánchez and Troncoso 2008; Troncoso 2007a, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010).

The 2006–2014 period marked a turning point in Southernmost Chile after decades of marginalisation. Rock art sites began to be recorded in Tierra del Fuego and northern Patagonia. Research focused on the rock art traditions of marine hunters and their relationship with mobility, and the use of landscape (Méndez and Reyes 2006; Osorio et al. 2006; Podestá et al. 2008). Physicochemical studies applied to pigment analysis were incorporated, opening up new lines of research on colour technology (Sepúlveda 2011c).

A common feature in all regions was the shift to more complex interpretative approaches, where rock art ceased to be merely a stylistic object and came to be considered in relation to social practices, human and non-human agencies, and its symbolic constructions of space. Thus, there has been a gradual incorporation in all regions of landscape archaeology, relational perspectives, and more sophisticated material analysis techniques, such as physical-chemical and chaîne opératoire studies.

The regional differences are significant. In the Arid North, more intensive research was carried out, linked to long-standing topics such as caravan routes, neolithisation, and Colonial dynamics. This allowed for a strong connection with theoretical developments in Chilean and South American archaeology. In contrast, methodological advances in the Semi-Arid North were characterised by a greater concern for semiotic and phenomenological reinterpretations of visual landscapes. In the South-Central, the influence of symmetrical archaeology and forms of Inca visual domination set an original and critical agenda on hegemony, space, and visuality. The Southernmost region remains in an exploratory phase, focused on basic documentation (a necessary step before any analyses), with important methodological contributions from the technical analysis of pigments.

A cross-cutting theme was the growing interest in coloniality, not only as an historical concern, but as a critical category for rethinking the meanings of rock art in contexts of domination and resistance (Arenas 2013; Arenas and Martínez 2007, 2009; B. González 2014; Martínez 2009; Martínez and Arenas 2009, 2011). Methodological debates on style, agency and visibility also took hold (Gallardo 2009; Gallardo et al. 2006; Martínez 2006; Seoane et al. 2009; Troncoso 2007b, 2007c, 2008c; F. Vergara 2009), laying the foundations for further developments in the following decade.

The period from 2006 to 2014 was a critical stage of maturation in the study of rock art in Chile, characterised by a notable regional expansion, diversification of themes and approaches, and a growing methodological sophistication. Far from consolidating a homogeneous narrative, the research carried out during these years reveals the richness and complexity of rock art traditions throughout the country, as well as the capacity of rock art to integrate into broader archaeological debates on identity, mobility, landscape, coloniality, and agency. One of the most significant achievements of the period was the termination of an exclusively stylistic approach, opening up to multiscalar interpretations that cut cross technological, symbolic, and political dimensions. Further, rock art has established itself as a privileged source for studying long-term processes, articulating the visual record with trajectories of human occupation, power relations, and environmental transformations. In this sense, rock art is no longer relegated to the margins of archaeological research and is positioned as a theoretically and methodologically fertile field for thinking about the visual, the material, and the historical in an integrated way. Regional inequalities in terms of coverage, continuity, and analytical depth remain evident. The concentration of work in the Arid North contrasts with the still exploratory nature of research in Southernmost Chile. This imbalance calls for further expansion of the record and critical analysis of rock art in historically marginalised areas, as well as the consolidation of a comparative perspective that allows the various regional corpora to be articulated within a long-term visual archaeology.

During this period, Chilean archaeology expanded with new university degree programmes. The dichotomy between academic archaeology and environmental impact archaeology became more entrenched, and heritage management grew. Empirical approaches and dependence on external theoretical frameworks in research persisted, along with limited participation in international debates (Troncoso et al. 2008a). The increase in public funding for science boosted productivity, but also accentuated specialisation (Salazar et al. 2017).

The Diversification period (2006–2014) in rock art research generally evolved under the structural conditions described by Troncoso et al. (2008a) and Salazar et al. (2017) for Chilean archaeology. It coincided with the expansion of university education and an increase in public funding for science, which in turn allowed for the incorporation of new methodologies and approaches. These included physical-chemical analysis, chaîne opératoire, and approaches to landscape, agency, and coloniality, with an openness to symbolic, social, and relational perspectives. These were nourished both by imported theories and, above all, Indigenous (particularly Andean) ethnography. Troncoso and Salazar characterise this period of Chilean archaeology as an expanding system with little theoretical autonomy. We suggest that rock art studies took advantage of this institutional growth to diversify thematically and become more complex theoretically and methodologically, inserting rock art into broader archaeological problems. Participation in international debates remained limited, as is the case in the rest of the national discipline. Rock art publications were almost evenly distributed between metropolitan and regional institutions, with sustained participation of international scholars collaborating with Chilean teams. Female first authorship continued to rise, reaching 41% (Figure 6).

3.7. Expanding Frameworks (2015–2024): Regional and Thematic Perspectives

During this period, the Arid North region maintained its position as a dynamic hub of academic production on rock art. The notion of symbolic territories was explored in greater depth, emphasising the ideological role of art in contexts of camelid domestication, interregional mobility and caravan rituals (Clarkson and Briones 2015; Dudognon and Sepúlveda 2015; Gallardo and Cabello 2015; Guerrero and Sepúlveda 2018; Sepúlveda et al. 2019b; Valenzuela et al. 2019). Colonial rock art once again became the focus of attention from ethnohistorical and visual perspectives (Arenas et al. 2019; Arenas and Odone 2015, 2016; Martínez 2022; Núñez et al. 2022). The link between image, neolithisation and social change took on new nuances, integrating debates on interpersonal violence (Standen et al. 2021) and bodily representations (Cabello et al. 2022; Standen et al. 2018). Depictions of marine fauna on the coast of the Atacama Desert ushered in an emerging field in coastal rock art studies (Ballester 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d; Ballester and Álvarez 2014–2015; Ballester and Gallardo 2015; Ballester et al. 2015, 2019, 2018; Berenguer 2018; Castelleti 2019; Monroy et al. 2016).

Interregional mobility and patterns of interaction among different social groups in the Atacama Desert were explored through studies combining rock art analysis, archaeological faunal records, and reconstructions of pre-Hispanic travel routes. These investigations revealed complex networks of movement that connected oases, ravines, and coastal zones through long-standing circuits of social and ritual exchange (Gallardo et al. 2018; Núñez and Briones 2017; Pimentel et al. 2017a, 2017b; Yacobaccio et al. 2023).

Similarly, new research on Inca territorial control and colonial dynamics has highlighted how visual marks—such as geoglyphs and petroglyphs—were strategically employed to proclaim power and spatial appropriation. These visual systems operated both within the framework of pre-Hispanic imperial expansion and colonial processes of evangelisation and domination (Cabello 2022; Cabello et al. 2020; Martínez 2022).

Studies on the relationships between humans and animals have shed light on far-reaching socioeconomic transformations linked to domestication and ritual practices. By integrating rock art motifs, archaeozoological evidence, and contextual data, these studies suggest that such relationships were not merely utilitarian, but were embedded in symbolic configurations that deeply shaped social practices and engagements with the landscape (Castillo et al. 2022; Dudognon and Sepúlveda 2018; Sepúlveda et al. 2019a; Valenzuela et al. 2015; Yacobaccio et al. 2023).

The concept of ritual landscape and performativity has been increasingly emphasised in research that explores how rock art, geoglyphs, and engravings were spatial markers and elements activated through embodied practices, movement, and visuality. These works propose that rock art in the Atacama Desert was entrenched in ritual performances that materialised cosmological relationships and social identities across time and space (Clarkson and Briones 2014; Valenzuela et al. 2018; Valenzuela and Montt 2018). Materiality, style and visual construction notions were addressed (Cabello 2022; Clarkson 2019; Guerrero and Sepúlveda 2018; Sepúlveda 2018).

Methodologically, advances were made in archaeometric techniques, comparative stylistic analysis, and microarchaeological studies of colour (Avto Goguitchaichvili et al. 2016; Cerrillo-Cuenca and Sepúlveda 2015; Cerrillo-Cuenca et al. 2024; Guerrero et al. 2015; Sepúlveda 2021; Sepúlveda et al. 2023a). Non-archaeometric approaches were applied for studying technology (Valenzuela 2017).

In the Semi-Arid North, research on social networks and symbolic organisation of space was integrated (Nash and Troncoso 2017; Troncoso et al. 2016). A key contribution was the introduction of onto-relational perspectives, influenced by contemporary debates on animism and cognitive technologies (Armstrong et al. 2018; Troncoso 2015; Troncoso and Armstrong 2017; Troncoso et al. 2022). Shamanic perspectives, largely absent from Chilean rock art studies—with the exception of Niemeyer and Ballereau (Ballereau and Niemeyer 1996; Niemeyer and Ballereau 1996) and Schöbinger (1985) for the Semi-Arid North- were prioritised using analysis of symmetry under an agency framework (P. González 2020) or stressing the relationships between the location of rock art and topography and astronomy (Moyano et al. 2024).

Noteworthy is the development of non-archaeometric technological studies (Vergara and Troncoso 2015, 2016; Vergara et al. 2016) and advanced material characterisation using Raman spectroscopy and physical-chemical analyses (Moya-Cañoles 2021; Moya-Cañoles et al. 2021a, 2021b, 2016; Troncoso et al. 2015). Absolute dating was applied to pigments (Troncoso et al. 2015), marking a methodological milestone.

Between 2015 and 2024, systematic rock art documentation was initiated in South-Central Chile, shifting focus toward a region previously overlooked. Research in Maule, Biobío, and Los Lagos produced the first rock art records (Campbell et al. 2020; Espinoza 2017; Labarca et al. 2021, 2016; Morales et al. 2017; Moya et al. 2019). This new corpus was linked to studies on hunter-gatherer mobility and social networks (Moya et al. 2019), visual expressions of the Inca expansion, and colonial memories (Blanco et al. 2015; Dillehay and Ocampo 2016).

Research in Southernmost Chile experienced unprecedented expansion. New rock art sites were documented and regional and distributional syntheses were generated (Mena et al. 2018; Méndez et al. 2023, 2016; Muñoz and Artigas 2016; Muñoz et al. 2016; Sade 2016, 2018; Sade and Castañeda 2017; Sade et al. 2019). Research on mobility, communication, and cultural interaction through rock art was carried out (Artigas et al. 2016; Artigas and Muñoz 2015; Cordero et al. 2019; Gallardo et al. 2023; García and Mena 2016; Muñoz and Artigas 2016). Of particular note is the integration of distributional analyses and sociohistorical approaches, allowing rock art to be interpreted as part of networks of occupation and displacement in a landscape with low archaeological density (Méndez et al. 2023, 2016; C. Muñoz 2020) (Figure 11h).

During the last decade, rock art research in Chile expanded significantly in terms of both territorial coverage and analytical diversity. A key issue was the consolidation of relational and performative approaches to rock art, which characterise images not only as symbolic representations but also as agents in the construction of territories, bodies, and memories. This perspective was applied in the Arid North, and gradually in the more southern regions. Another cross-cutting aspect was the intensification of physicochemical and digital methods for the analysis of pigments, media and execution techniques, which improved the chronological, technical and stylistic understanding of rock art. These advances made it possible to move from descriptive approaches to process-based and multiscale analyses.

Significant regional differences remain. The Arid North region continues to be the centre of theoretical and methodological innovation, while the South-Central and Southernmost regions are in exploratory stages. The Southernmost region stands out for efforts to integrate rock art into regional frameworks of mobility and occupation, although with less analytical depth than other areas. The Semi-Arid North region is positioned as a space for theoretical experimentation, where proposals on ontology, technology, and animism converge, marking a remarkable originality in the national context.

Several theoretical and methodological contributions have been produced with a scope extending beyond local or regional contexts, contributing to broader disciplinary debates (Cerrillo-Cuenca et al. 2021; Sepúlveda 2018; Troncoso et al. 2018b; Valenzuela 2017; F. Vergara 2019; Vergara and Basile 2018).

The decade 2015–2024 represents a stage of conceptual, methodological, and territorial maturity in rock art studies in Chile, opening new paths for thinking about the visual, material, and social in the archaeology of the southern Andes. Rock art studies in Chile achieved unprecedented analytical density and thematic diversity, marked by the incorporation of ontological and relational approaches, as well as by the deployment of documentation and analysis technologies that broadened the methodological horizons of the discipline. Unlike previous decades, this stage was characterised by a more explicit dialogue between contemporary archaeological theory, discussions on materiality, agency, and landscape, and technical developments in archaeometry, digital visualisation, and spatial analysis. One of the main factors of this period was the territorial expansion of research. For the first time, rock art in the South-Central and Southernmost regions was the subject of systematic investigation, bringing to light traditions that had previously been unknown or little studied. This expansion of the national rock art map not only increased the empirical corpus but also allowed for more robust interregional comparisons and the generation of new questions about mobility, cultural interaction, and the circulation of visual forms. At the same time, research in the Arid and Semi-Arid North regions deepened previously opened lines of inquiry, consolidating agendas around caravan rituality, colonial visuality, and the links between images and agency. In these regions, rock art became a privileged platform for exploring the boundaries between history, myth, technique, and cosmologies in dialogue with ethnohistory, natural history, astronomy, and contemporary social theory.

In short, this period reaffirms the centrality of rock art as an object of archaeological knowledge, not only for its documentary value, but also for its ability to spark interdisciplinary debates and challenge classic taxonomies of the material record. Far from being a mere accumulation of ancient images, rock art emerges here as a field where memories are processed, ideologies are territorialised, and relationships between humans and non-humans are negotiated on multiple temporal and spatial scales.

Rock art publications during this period reveal a stagnation in both female participation and the involvement of regional researchers (Figure 6). Studies led by researchers based in the metropolitan region (57%) nearly double those from other regions (33%). This pattern aligns with Salazar et al. (2017), who noted that structural asymmetries and disciplinary centralism persisted throughout the 2010s.

3.8. Role Played by FONDECYT and Specific Institutions

Since the inception of FONDECYT in 1981 through 2024, a total of 452 FONDECYT Regular grants have been awarded in the fields of anthropology and archaeology, of which 18 have focused specifically on rock art. Notably, the Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino (MCHAP), the Universidad de Tarapacá (UTA), and the Universidad de Chile (UCH) have received 44%, 28%, and 22% of these grants, respectively (

Table 2. Rock art-focused research projects funded by FONDECYT, by sponsoring institution.

Institution	Number of Projects	Percentage
MCHAP	8	44%
UTA	5	28%
UCH	4	22%
SCHA	1	6%
total	18	100%

). Furthermore, the majority of these projects have concentrated on the Arid North (72%), followed by the Semi-Arid North (22%) and South-Central Chile (6%) (

Table 3. Rock art-focused research projects funded by FONDECYT, by region of study.

Region	Number of Projects	Percentage
Arid North	13	72%
Semi-Arid North	4	22%
South-Central Chile	1	6%
total	18	100%

). It is noteworthy that in the last decade several archaeological projects not exclusively centred on rock art have incorporated rock art within broader research frameworks.

Salazar et al. (2017) estimate that Chilean archaeology has been shaped since the 1980s by the FONDECYT model, which favours a positivist paradigm, applied and dependent on OECD criteria. While this has allowed the discipline to become more professional and international, it has also led to hyper-specialisation and a loss of theoretical reflection, cultural dependence on the anglophone circuits—scholarship that is published predominantly in the English language and theory that prevails from English-speaking nations—geopolitical centralism and gender asymmetries, and scant consideration of the social role of archaeology (Salazar et al. 2017).

Sepúlveda (2025) notes that female participation in Chilean archaeology under FONDECYT has been constant but minimal over the last 40 years. Sepúlveda observes a significant territorial dispersion, partially breaking the pattern of centralism of Santiago. We think that female participation in FONDECYT research projects on rock art expresses these asymmetries, particularly in the first two periods since the inception of this funding. The ensuing periods has brought parity in the allocation of rock art projects (

Table 4. Rock art-focused research projects funded by FONDECYT, by period, according to female/male as principal investigator.

	Female	Male	Total
Research Dawn (1983–1994)	1	2	3
First Expansion (1995–2005)	0	6	6
Diversification (2006–2014)	3	3	6
Expanding Frameworks (2015–2024)	2	3	5
Total	6	14	20

). The 20 projects awarded between 1983 and 2024 went to 10 researchers (4 female and 6 male), confirming Salazar et al.’s (2017) conclusions regarding the concentration among a small number of researchers.

The continued increase in publications in international journals and/or books over time (Figure 6c) shows the impact of the scientific evaluation system in Chile (ANID), which has made the pressure to publish in international indexed journals stronger (Gurruchaga and Salgado 2017). At the same time, national production has become more visible in international circles. Cornejo (2017) has noted an increase in productivity and the impact of Chilean archaeology in publications, the science with the greatest relative impact and a significant presence in global networks thanks to indexed journals.

4. Discussion: Rethinking Margins: Global Comparisons and Situated Knowledge

The Chilean trajectory of rock art research illustrates how a field long considered marginal within archaeology—both nationally and globally—can become a fertile ground for innovation. Similar to other regions such as North America, Europe, Africa, and Oceania (Conkey 2012; Goldhahn et al. 2022; McDonald and Veth 2012b), early studies in Chile were fragmented, descriptive, and conducted largely through individual efforts. Yet, over time, rock art has become a space of theoretical experimentation and epistemological expansion, particularly as scholars have integrated it with broader archaeological concerns including landscape, mobility, coloniality, and visual agency.

Recent syntheses on South American rock art highlight differences in rock art research in several countries and regions (Argüello García 2025; Fiore and Hernández Llosas 2007; Motta and Romero Villanueva 2020; Pereira 2006; Podestá and Strecker 2020; Sepúlveda et al. 2023b; Troncoso et al. 2018b, 2019; Urbizagástegui-Alvarado 2020, 2022; among others). Diverse theoretical and methodological approaches are applied to multiple rock art traditions, demonstrating the richness and fruitfulness of studies on engravings, paintings, and geoglyphs. In Chile, syntheses on rock art manifestations from the northernmost part of the country to Tierra del Fuego have revealed various styles and traditions associated with inland hunter-gatherers or fishermen from the Pacific coast, extending into 18th century (Cabello et al. 2021; Gallardo et al. 2006; Sepúlveda et al. 2016; Sepúlveda and Valenzuela 2012; among others). Despite numerous advances in the last two decades, certain inequalities in research remain. The sociohistorical and political history of Chile, as well as investment in science, can also help explain the inequalities observed in the rock art research trajectories across different regions (Adán et al. 2017; Salazar et al. 2017; Sepúlveda 2025; Sierralta 2020; Troncoso et al. 2008a).

As Goldhahn et al. (2022, p. 2) have argued, “national, regional and disciplinary traditions, as well as modernities, nationalisms, and colonial enterprises have helped shape the archaeological record and the discipline’s epistemologies”. Chile is no exception. Local factors such as late institutionalisation, academic centralism, limited Indigenous participation, and the weight of colonial legacies have significantly shaped research trajectories. The development of rock art studies has also depended heavily on individual actors and key institutions, such as the Universidad de Tarapacá, the Universidad de Chile, and the Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino, critical for continuity.

Both convergences and divergences can be observed when comparing these trajectories with those of Chilean archaeology in general (Salazar et al. 2017; Sierralta 2020; Troncoso et al. 2006, 2008a; Urbina 2020). Since the 1940s, research has focused on resolving culture-historical issues—description, chronology, styles, and typologies—which reflects the state of disciplinary development at the time. In rock art studies, culture- historical questions have always been present (it would not be accurate to speak of culture-historical “approaches”), and —unlike what the authors cited above have pointed out to Chilean archaeology in general—have shown an independence from processual approaches. Though some works addressed functional relationships in the 1970s and 1980s—for example, caravan trade—they did so on the margins and independently of processualism.

Another significant difference lies in the infrequent use of anglophone theory, which became more widely incorporated from the 1990s onwards. Likewise, the approaches of the 1980s that privileged symbolism and agency developed relatively autonomously from post-processualism. In fact, the notion of agency was not even stated as such (Valenzuela and Montt 2018). These symbolic approaches laid the groundwork in the 1990s for later studies that converged with British post-processual theory. An early example is that of Gallardo et al. (1990), among the first to cite works from this school of thought. In general, rock art studies in the 1970s and 1980s were characterised by a plurality of local approaches which integrated ethnography and ethnohistory. Perspectives from the humanities, such as semiotics and structuralism, gave rise to their own conceptual reworkings.

Unlike what has been noted in syntheses on Chilean archaeology in general, the participation of regional rock art researchers has been particularly significant. It was predominant until the First Expansion period (1995–2005) and, since then, has remained quantitatively and qualitatively relevant. We agree with Ballester (2020) that many national syntheses tend to be metropolitan-centric, omitting the contribution of provincial centres and professionals. For example, while Troncoso et al. (2006) place the public archaeology in the 1990s within the national panorama, these initiatives were already in play with rock art research in the 1970s, particularly in relation to the study of geoglyphs.

The growing internationalisation of the rock art archaeology, the development of collaborative networks, and the importance of archaeometric methods, emerged in parallel with Chilean archaeology as a whole.

Approaches have become openly heterogeneous and pluralistic since the 2000s. It is no longer relevant to conceive of the “culture-historical,” “processual,” and “post-processual” theoretical frameworks as successive and incommensurable paradigms (Lucas 2012, 2017). In the words of Cornejo (2020), contemporary Chilean archaeology resembles the streets of Blade Runner: multiple possible trajectories coexisting in a fragmented landscape.

Chilean rock art studies have generally followed a more pluralistic and critical path compared to hegemonic models that emerged from Europe (chronological/stylistic frameworks), southern Africa (neuropsychological shamanism), or Australia (relational ontological approaches) (Conkey 2012, 2019; David and McNiven 2018; McDonald and Veth 2012b). Rather than adhering to grand theories, Chilean research has tended to favour situated interpretations, combining stylistic analyses with context-based inquiries and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Chile has contributed significantly to international debates on ritual landscapes, caravan routes, colonial reinscription, and territorial visuality. Particularly notable are the discussions on hybrid iconographies (crosses, horses, anthropo-zoomorphic figures) and the political and ideological uses of imagery in processes of domination and resistance (Berenguer 2004b; Gallardo et al. 1999b; Troncoso 2005a). These contributions not only enrich global perspectives but also challenge traditional centres of epistemic production by proposing a relational, collaborative, and decolonial archaeology (Archila et al. 2021; Troncoso et al. 2019).

These insights align with broader discussions in global volumes. Conkey (2012) has emphasised the productive potential of marginality in rock art research, proposing that epistemological innovation often arises from peripheral positions. In her foreword to A Companion to Rock Art (McDonald and Veth 2012a), she argues that marginal fields can question the assumptions of the mainstream and stimulate critical reflection. This “positive marginality” becomes especially relevant in South America, where historical underfunding, institutional gaps, and limited visibility in global compilations have paradoxically fostered locally grounded, theoretically rich perspectives.

McDonald and Veth (2012b) further highlight the increasing internationalisation of rock art studies, calling attention to the inclusion of non-anglophone scholars and case studies from the Andes and Patagonia. While these regions receive limited attention in their introductory chapter, the broader volume reflects growing recognition of southern contributions. Likewise, David and McNiven (2018) advocate for co-production of knowledge and decolonial engagements, though South America remains underrepresented in their framing. This absence underscores the importance of documenting and analysing national trajectories such as Chile’s to broaden global epistemic genealogies.

Valenzuela and Montt (2018) further argue that the fragmented and regionally uneven development of Chilean archaeology, particularly in the field of rock art, is the result of longstanding institutional centralism and asymmetries in academic visibility. Their work highlights the strategic role played by regional institutions in fostering locally grounded research agendas that integrate rock art with broader themes like landscape, coloniality, and visual agency. This decentralisation, they suggest, enables the formation of alternative genealogies of archaeological knowledge, rooted in Global South epistemologies and resistant to normative theoretical models imposed by dominant academic centres.

Troncoso et al. (2018b, 2019) address this marginalisation directly. They argue that South America’s exclusion from reference volumes stems not from scholarly deficiencies but from structural barriers: lack of ethnographic analogues, predominance of local publication outlets, and linguistic as well as geopolitical asymmetries. Yet, these same conditions have encouraged unique methodological and theoretical approaches—emphasising landscape, mobility, technique, and relational ontologies—that stand as critical contributions to global debates, as well as essential contributions to international debates (Sepúlveda et al. 2023b). The volume edited by Troncoso et al. (2018a), Archaeologies of Rock Art: South American Perspectives, constitutes a deliberate act of critical engagement with global debates, showing that South American theoretical, methodological, and philosophical frameworks can substantially enrich them. The need to link local and regional scales to global debates, and to overcome academic isolation, is not unique to rock art research but characterises South American archaeology more broadly (Archila et al. 2021; Dillehay 2021).

A global comparison reveals patterns and divergences. In Mexico and Central America, rock art has historically been overshadowed by monumental Mesoamerican traditions. As Lerma (2022) notes, the field suffers from a lack of national synthesis and limited theoretical articulation. However, the early use of colonial and ethnographic sources and institutional support from entities like INAH (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, in México) mark differences with Chile. The dominance of the Mesoamericanist paradigm, while powerful, has often relegated rock art to the margins of national archaeological narratives, with the possible exception of Olmec rock art.

In North America, rock art experienced prolonged marginality, only gaining academic recognition after the 1970s (Hampson 2022; Hays-Gilpin and Gilpin 2022; Schaafsma 1985; Zawadzka 2022). Nonetheless, collaboration with Indigenous communities—facilitated by legislation such as NAGPRA—has produced robust intercultural models. In contrast, Chile remains in the early stages of institutionalised Indigenous involvement, despite recent initiatives.

North America provides a comparative framework for understanding the historical and epistemological trajectories of rock art research. As Whitley (2019) argues, the field evolved in close dialogue with ethnographic documentation and Indigenous traditions, resulting in a deeply regionalised record of research that contrasts with the European model centred on Paleolithic cave art. In contrast to Chile, where the use of ethnography has remained sporadic and uneven, many North American regions have long incorporated Indigenous knowledge into archaeological interpretations, albeit not without controversy (see also: Hampson 2022; Hays-Gilpin and Gilpin 2022; Schaafsma 1985; Zawadzka 2022). Whitley’s distinction between “styles” and “traditions” offers a valuable analytical tool: while styles may reflect age, gender, or ritual activity, traditions imply broader cultural continuities and shared cosmologies. This framework challenges static typological classifications and aligns with relational approaches to rock art as embedded in social and cosmological practices. Moreover, Whitley’s critique of archaeological resistance to Indigenous epistemologies (see also: Hampson 2022; Hays-Gilpin and Gilpin 2022; Schaafsma 1985; Zawadzka 2022) resonates with current limitations in Chile, where collaborative and community-led heritage practices remain marginal despite increasing calls for decolonising archaeological narratives.

Australia exemplifies a paradigm shift. Initially framed by colonial and racist theories (e.g., the attribution of Gwion Gwion art to non-Aboriginal sources), the field underwent a transformation through Indigenous-led reinterpretations. Today, Aboriginal communities co-produce knowledge and manage heritage sites, encouraging a shift toward relational and Indigenous-led frameworks in the discipline (Rainsbury 2022; Schmiechen 2022). Chile, by comparison, has yet to develop such relational and collaborative frameworks.

Europe presents a contrasting trajectory, from early professionalisation and institutional stability in the 19th century to the development of influential theoretical schools and advanced technological applications (Díaz-Andreu 2022; Goldhahn 2022). Yet, rock art has also been instrumentalised politically, as seen in Francoist Spain. Chile faces the challenge of constructing its own interpretive traditions without replicating Eurocentric models.

Asia offers diverse scenarios. In Russia, Soviet archaeology institutionalised large-scale rock art research with strong regionalisation (Ponomareva 2022). In Mongolia, emergent Indigenous archaeologies are grounded in animist cosmologies (Byambasuren 2022). India presents a complex intersection of colonial, nationalist, and local epistemologies (Pillai 2022). Chile aligns most closely with India in its unresolved tensions between state archaeology and subaltern knowledge systems.

Southern Africa has achieved global influence through the neuropsychological shamanism model (Lewis-Williams 2001, 2006, 2010). Foundational ethnographies, such as those by Bleek and Lloyd (1911), continue to shape interpretations. Yet, recent critiques emphasise symbolic variability and regional heterogeneity (Challis 2022; Hampson 2022; Laue 2022; Witelson 2022). Chile, still in the process of developing a situated ontology, may find inspiration in all of these works.

In South America, archaeological research—especially on rock art—has developed unevenly due to sociohistorical and political processes over the past fifty years. Different institutional models and funding conditions have also shaped research, leading to stronger development and higher scientific output in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile (Motta and Romero Villanueva 2020; Podestá and Strecker 2020; Sepúlveda et al. 2023b; Troncoso et al. 2018b, 2019). Rock art is considered as valuable as ceramics, lithics, or settlement patterns for addressing symbolic, economic, and political aspects of past societies. While descriptive and stylistic approaches with functional-environmental explanations dominated for decades, the last two decades have seen more interdisciplinary work and a shift toward sociohistorical perspectives that draw on materiality, agency, practice theory, relational ontologies, landscapes, image-making and the social contexts of production and use (Motta and Romero Villanueva 2020; Podestá and Strecker 2020; Sepúlveda et al. 2023b; Troncoso et al. 2019, 2018b). In addition, collaboration with local communities has supported the protection and preservation of sites threatened by poorly regulated tourism (Sepúlveda et al. 2023b).

These comparisons underscore shared structural challenges—disciplinary marginalisation, epistemic colonialism, and limited direct dating—as well as differences in professionalisation, Indigenous inclusion, and the consolidation of interpretive traditions. For Chile, the task ahead is to construct a critical, situated genealogy that engages with global conversations without reproducing theoretical subordination.

The future of rock art studies, both in Chile and globally, does not lie solely in technological advancement, but in constructing critical genealogies and relational frameworks that recognise rock art as an agent of knowledge, not merely an object of study. In this sense, Chile is well positioned to contribute a perspective grounded in Global South theories a view from the margins that is methodologically reflexive and epistemologically generative.

5. Conclusions

The narrative on the history of rock art research presented here carries several risks and biases that we explicitly acknowledge. First, our synthesis may reproduce a “taxonomic” view that organises the history of the discipline around milestones and emblematic figures (Cornejo 2020), thus reducing its complexity to a sequence of names and moments. Second, returning to Lucas’s notion of “literary production,” any synthesis constitutes an epistemic intervention: the trajectory of rock art in Chile that we outline here not only describes modes of research, but also discursively configures them by selecting milestones, categories, and actors. In this way, it has the potential both to stabilise certain narratives about Chilean rock art and to reorient them toward new comparative frameworks (Lucas 2018). Thirdly, we also assume the risk of “omissions” (González-Ramírez 2020), derived not only from the nature of this review—focused on scientific publications and therefore excluding other forms of knowledge production on rock art—but also from methodological decisions such as the consideration of the first author of the publication analysed in this paper, which tend to render collective and collaborative contributions invisible.

However, Chilean rock art research offers a compelling lens through which to examine the broader dynamics of disciplinary marginalisation, epistemological innovation, and global knowledge asymmetries. Over the past eighty years, Chile has transitioned from isolated documentation to the development of theoretically informed, methodologically diverse, and regionally sensitive approaches to rock art. This transformation has not occurred uniformly nor without obstacles; rather, it reflects the situated nature of archaeological practice within particular political, institutional, and intellectual landscapes.

Chile’s contributions—especially those related to landscape, mobility, coloniality, and visual agency—challenge dominant paradigms and propose alternative ways of understanding rock art as a relational, performative, and socially embedded practice. Drawing from critical frameworks such as relational ontologies, Indigenous epistemologies, and postcolonial theory, Chilean scholars continue to reposition the study of rock art from a peripheral curiosity to a central source of archaeological insight.

Globally, Chile’s experience mirrors many of the structural challenges faced by other regions in the Global South: limited funding, exclusion from dominant academic circuits, and underrepresentation in reference volumes. Yet, as Conkey (2012) and McDonald and Veth (2012b) have argued, marginality can serve as a productive space for theoretical innovation. The Chilean case exemplifies this “positive marginality,” not merely as a reaction to exclusion, but as an active process of epistemic reconfiguration.

Comparative brief analysis with other regions—Mexico and Central America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia—demonstrates that while rock art has often been relegated to the disciplinary margins, it remains a vibrant field shaped by divergent historical trajectories, institutional frameworks, and levels of Indigenous engagement. Chile’s current position is not one of belated integration into a global field, but one of critical engagement with it.

This history affirms the need to build a more plural, situated, and reflexive archaeology of rock art—one that resists theoretical centralisation and foregrounds diverse traditions of knowledge-making. The Chilean trajectory, with all its unevenness and regional differentiation, offers crucial insights for expanding the epistemological horizons of the discipline. Moving forward, the challenge lies in sustaining this momentum through greater collaboration with Indigenous communities, investment in new methodologies (such as direct dating and pigment analysis), and continued efforts to decolonise the theoretical foundations of archaeological practice.

Rock art in Chile is not only a window into past visual cultures, but also a mirror reflecting the present struggles and aspirations of archaeology in the Global South. Its study invites us to reimagine the field not as a linear progression from data collection to theory-building, but as a relational, contested, and co-produced endeavour, where knowledge is shaped as much by context as by content.