(?)

 (?)


Daniel Castillo Benites


In 2004 I met Daniel Castillo in Trujillo, Peru. We had a friendly conversation in which I was assisted by Victor Corcuera Cueva (my excellent guide to Alto de la Guitarra) who spoke English and could function as an interpreter in view of my poor Spanish. After 2004 we had several amiable email-correspondences about rock art matters and often Castillo was a great help (see my Cerro Negro paper/video). In 2006 he sent me a copy of his book (see below) as a gift to me. The last time I received his personal "Happy New Year" wishes, was in an amiable email personally sent to me in January 2014. In 2014 I published my Simbal paper (see below). To my unpleasant surprise my Simbal paper was all of a sudden most inappropriately commented on by Castillo. His false comments really came out of the blue.
My
Simbal paper now contains all information except for the final comments by Castillo and my final response.
My final response appears at the bottom of this web page (please keep in mind that these are my personal web pages).


Castillo Benites, D. S. 2006. Arte Rupestre en la Cuenca del Río Chicama. Ediciones SIAN, Arqueología / 4. Trujillo, Perú.

In his lavishly illustrated book about the rock art in the Chicama drainage (northern Peru), Castillo Benites also includes a section about the petroglyph site of El Cerrillo or La Laguna (2006: 29 to 32). In order to illustrate the petroglyphs of La Laguna (2006: Figs 16 to 21) he copied the illustrations by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Figs 537 to 542). As I have not seen this site, I cannot judge the correctness of the Núñez Jiménez material, but these La Laguna drawings may as well be inaccurate, incomplete or incorrect. This needs to be checked.

After having visited the Chicama drainage again in 2012 it proved that the book by Castillo Benites shows several flaws. His location map is inaccurate and his drawings (often far too small) are often incomplete, inaccurate or even incorrect. Moreover the book pretends to include all rock art panels from Cerro Negro, but in my paper about Cerro Negro this is contradicted. Also information regarding other sites described/illustrated by Castillo in his 2006 book may therefore be incomplete or incorrect.

After the publication of my paper about the rock art of Simbal, northern Peru, Daniel Castillo Benites attacked my person and integrity.
For that reason I have written my reply below (Derecho a Replica).



DERECHO A REPLICA


en relación a la “replica” de Castillo Benites (publicado en Rupestreweb-Mensajes) en relación al trabajo de Van Hoek, Maarten
(publicado en Inglés en Rupestreweb en 2014; PDF con version Español):
An update of the petroglyph art near Simbal, Río Moche, North Perú.

 

Primero: Mi artículo sobre Simbal que he publicado en Rupestreweb (2014) es exactamente lo que dice en el título: una actualización. Una actualización reexamina las fuentes disponibles y - cuando es necesario - reajusta los resultados; basando todas correciones en las investigaciones en el campo. Nunca fue mi intención de ofrecer un inventario completo y científico, ni presentar en detalle un texto y una descripción gráfica completa (con fotografías y/o dibujos de todos los soportes).

También es demasiado fácil de Castillo decir que su publicación completa de Simbal (2009) estuvo a disposición del público en el año 2009. El año de publicación no significa que la publicación es a disposición del público en todo el mundo inmediatamente. Quizas por este razón Castillo publicó su 2009-trabajo, pero sólo el texto - sin ilustraciones, en el internet al 15 de junio 2010. Sin embargo, Castillo distribuyó las illustraciones de su trabajo (Anexos) como archivo adjunto (PDF) en un correo electrónico mucho más tarde, en 2013.

Para mí, es totalmente irrelevante si alguien tiene un título académico o no, tiene una gran experiencia o no. Lo único que importa (para mi) es el resultado; lo de que se ha publicado (en papel o electrónicamente). Este resultado (el artículo: texto y los dibujos correspondientes) puede ser leído y comentado por lectores críticos. Invito a todos los lectores de Rupestreweb de leer mi trabajo (agradezco a Castillo para compartir una traducción en Español con los lectores de Rupestreweb) y juzgar si he escrito algo incorrecto.

Entretanto, hay un artículo de Castillo (2009) con un poco de información incorrecta. Anticipo que una publicación científico ofrezca la información correcta, pero demostró que el artículo de Castillo (2009) no era exacto en cuanto a algunos asuntos. Consecuentemente, a veces me parece necesario de hacer correciones en el texto y/o en las ilustraciones. Para mi no importa quién hace las correciones. ¿Quién me impide de corregir algo? Castillo tendría agradecer que alguien hace estas correciones.

La única cosa en que Castillo es correcto es que yo no tengo ninguna formación académica en la arqueología: tengo formación académica en geografía. Sin embargo, en lo que respecta a arte rupestre tengo absolutamentela experiencia en el campo: desde 1975. Y desde 1982 he publicado más de 90 artículos y libros sobre arte rupestre mundial.

Segundo: Sin embargo, ¿por qué mi? ¿por qué ahora? ¿Por qué Castillo considera sólo mi obra de Simbal (2014) y por qué sólo ahora (después de muchas otras publicaciones de mi parte)? ¿Porque ahora mi trabajo de Simbal (2014) ofrece un poco de critica al trabajo de Castillo (2009)?

Además, muchos investigadores de arte rupestre utilizan fotos, dia-positivas y dibujos de otros investigadores, sin nunca haber visitado los lugares (unos ejemplos: Núñez Jiménez  1986: 443 - Pampa Calata; Hostnig 2003: muchos sitios; Linares Málaga: muchos sitios etc.).  También en estas coas estas investigadores de arte rupestre nunca han investigado estos sitios in situ, ni la comprensión de la arqueología de estos lugares. Además, algunos de estos investigadores - como yo - no tienen formación académica en la arqueología (pero para mi, no importa). Por lo tanto, es muy extraño que Castillo sólo critica mi trabajo de Simbal (y mi persona).

Desde el año 2000 he escrito 38 artículos y libros sobre arte rupestre Andino, publicados en diferentes medios de comunicación (Rupestreweb, Rock Art Research, Boletín de SIARB, etc. Ver: internet) y nunca Castillo tenía ningunacomentario sobre mi publicaciones, tampoco sobre mi trabajo de Tomabal en "su" zona, La Libertad: VAN HOEK, M. 2007. Petroglifos Chavinoides cerca de Tomabal, Valle de Virú, Perú. Boletín de SIARB, Vol. 21, pp 76-88. La Paz, Bolivia. ¿Por qué ahora de repente? ¿Porque en este caso (Van Hoek 2014) el 2009-artículo de Castillo está un poco corregido?

Tercero: Quisiera preguntar a Lic. Castillo (con su experiencia en el campo y con su formación académico en arqueológica; trabajando con técnicas y metodologías cada vez más refinadas y enriquecidas a través de la participación en congresos nacionales e internacionales) de explicar las siguientes cosas:

1) ¿Por que Castillo ha publicado un trabajo sobre Simbal (2009) en que tres piedras/paneles con petroglifos faltan en su lista de Lúcumar? ¿Es posible que yo tengo una mejor experiencia/experticia en el campo?

2) ¿Por que Castillo ha publicado un trabajo sobre Simbal (2009) en que algunas dibujos de petroglifos de Lúcumar no son correctos?
¿Es posible que yo tengo una mejor experiencia/experticia en hacer dibujos?

¿Castillo necesito dibujos o fotografías o información addicional? En mi trabajo de Simbal (2014) hay una dirección de correo electrónico: alguien me puede pedir información adicional. También Castillo podrá solicitar fácilmente a través de correo electrónico para obtener información adicional, en lugar de atacarme inapropiadamente y en público.

Además, el neologismo “MSC-Style” es de hecho un acrónimo que no está mal definida, como dice Castillo. He escrito un libro de 221 paginas con 174 illustraciones para definir y acalarar el acrónimo (Van Hoek 2011).

¿por qué es necesario para Castillo para usar tales palabras negativas y oraciones que considero como un ataque personal (porque ellos no tienen nada que ver con el contenido de mi papel)?

Cuarto: ¿Y por qué es necesario para Castillo de utilizar tales palabras y frases negativas que considero como un ataque a mi persona (porque estos palabras y frases no tienen nada que ver con el contenido de mi papel)?

Ejemplos: herejía; risible; falta de formación; el autor se arroga facultades divinas; acosar por mail a investigadores; acosar por mail a universidades; acosar por mail a editores; reclamando información inédita, que está en prensa o en proceso de elaboración.

Acosar (molestar, atufar, crispar, desagradar, disgustar, encalabrinar, encocorar, enfadar, enojar, exacerbar, exasperar, fastidiar, hartar, hostigar, impacientar, indignar, irritar, provocar a) es un palabra impropio de Castillo. ¿Por qué? Porque siempre he pedido informacion cortésmente.

Sobre todo la ultima acusación de Castillo a mi persona es falsa y una decepción: Nunca he reclamando información inédita; siempre he pedido información cortésmente y nunca he usado (a sabiendas) información inédita sin permiso personal del autor.

Las últimas palabras: también es fácil para Castillo de tirar - de una manera negativa - las cosas fuera del contexto.

Un ejemplo pungente: Castillo ha escrito en su replica: Sostener como afirma Van Hoek que la Dra. Rocchietti desconoce la iconografía del formativo o del período intermedio temprano, es una herejía que no merece mayor comentario. Con esta frase Castillo afirma que yo insisto en que Dr Rocchietti no esté familiarizado con la iconografía del Período Formativo o el Período Intermedio Temprano.

Esta replica de Castillo es completamente falsamente. ¿Por qué? ¡Porque Castillo usa una frase incompleta!  ¡Nunca he “afirmado/escrito” que la Dra. Rocchietti desconoce la iconografía del formativo o del período intermedio temprano!

He escrito en dos frases (en 2014):

Most likely she was not aware of the Formative Period imagery on Boulder LUC-008 and on the Piedra la Paloma. Also the probably Early Intermediate Period imagery on many of the others stones in the Simbal area was unknown to her.

La traduccuión correcta de estas dos frases es (otra vez agradezco a Castillo para compartir una traducción en Español con los lectores de Rupestreweb):

Muy probablemente ella desconocía la iconografía del Periodo Formativo en el soporte LUC-008 y en la Piedra de la Paloma. También la probable iconografía del Periodo Intermedio Temprano en muchas de las otras piedras en el área de Simbal eran desconocidas para ella.

¡Que gran diferencia!

Cualquier lector imparcial debe admitir que la Dra Rocchietti en su trabajo sólo describe una pequeña parte de los grabados de Lúcumar y que ella no demuestra tener visto los grabados Formativos en este sitio. Por lo tanto, sus conclusiones se basan en una investigación incompleta. Por este razón las últimas palabras en el replica de Castillo son irrelevantes: No importan los méritos (muy apreciado para mi) de Dra Rocchietti en el Perú u Argentina (y de Lic. Castillo) en el replica de Castillo. Por lo tanto, la palabra “herejía”, usado por Castillo, y todo su replica es demasiado agudo, incorrecta y no colegiada.

EN RUPESTREWEB BUSCAMOS DISCUTIR LAS IDEAS, NO JUZGAR A LAS PERSONAS (Fuente).


Gracias por la atención.

Cordialmente,

Maarten van Hoek

 

 

COMMENTS

on the “comments” by Castillo Benites (published in Rupestreweb-Mensajes) on the publication by Maarten van Hoek (published in Rupestreweb 2014): An update of the petroglyph art near Simbal, Río Moche, North Perú.

First of all, my article about Simbal that was published in Rupestreweb in 2014 is exactly what the title says: an update. An update re-examines the available sources and - if necessary - corrects the results of those sources; all observations and corrections being based on investigations in the field. It was never my intention to offer a complete, scientific inventory or to present in detail a complete text and graphic description (with photos and/or drawings of all rock art panels).

It is petty of Castillo to state that his complete publication about Simbal (2009) was available to the public in the year 2009. The year of publication does not imply that the publication is also immediately available to everyone in the world. Perhaps for that reason Castillo published his 2009-article on the internet, but only the text - no illustrations, on the 15th of June 2010. However, Castillo distributed the illustrations of his article (Anexos) in a PDF via email only much later, in 2013.

In my opinion it is completely irrelevant whether someone has an academic title or not, or has much experience or not. The only thing that matters (in my opinion) is the result; that what has been published (on paper or electronically). The result (the article: text and corresponding illustrations) can be read and commented on by critical readers. I invite the readers of Rupestreweb to read my 2014-article (I thank Castillo for sharing a translation into Spanish with the readers of Rupestreweb) and to judge if I have written something which is incorrect.

Meanwhile, an article by Castillo (2009) has been published offering bits of incorrect information. I expect a publication to offer correct information, but it proved that the article by Castillo (2009) was not accurate regarding some matters. Therefore, in some cases I found it necessary to make corrections regarding the text and/or the illustrations. To me it does not matter who makes those corrections. Who forbids me to correct something? Castillo should be grateful that someone is making those corrections.

The only thing in which Castillo is correct, is that I do not have an academic training in archaeology; I have an academic training in geography. However, concerning rock art investigations I definitely have experience in the field: since 1975. And since 1982 I published more than 90 papers and books about rock art globally.

Secondly: However, why only me, why now? Why is Castillo commenting on only my paper about Simbal (2014) and why only now (after many other publications by me)?

Is it because now my paper about Simbal (2014) offers a bit of criticism regarding the 2009-work by Castillo?

What is more, many rock art investigators use photos, slides and drawings made by other investigators, while they never have visited the sites they describe (some examples: Núñez Jiménez  1986: 443 > Pampa Calata; Hostnig 2003: many sites; Linares Málaga: many sites etc.). In those cases those rock art investigators have never surveyed those sites and also do not have an understanding of the archaeology of those specific places. What is more, some of those investigators do not have - like me - an academic training in archaeology (and I am fine with that). Therefore, it is very strange that Castillo only comments on my paper about Simbal (and criticises my person).

Since the year 2000 I wrote 38 papers and books about Andean rock art, published in various media (Rupestreweb, Rock Art Research, Boletín de SIARB etc., and never did Castillo have any comments on my publications, also not on my paper about Tomabal in “his” region, La Libertad: Van Hoek, M. 2007. Petroglifos Chavinoides cerca de Tomabal, Valle de Virú, Perú. Boletín de SIARB, Vol. 21, pp 76-88. La Paz, Bolivia. Why then now all of a sudden? Because in this case (Van Hoek 2014) the content of the 2009-paper by Castillo is criticised a little?

Thirdly: I would like to ask Castillo (with his experience in the field and with his academic training in archaeology; working with techniques and methods that are refined and enriched every time through participation of national and international congresses) to explain the following issues:

1) Why has Castillo published a paper about Simbal (2009) in which three stones/panels with petroglyphs do not appear in his list of Lúcumar? Is it possible that I have more experience/skill in the field?

2) Why has Castillo published a paper about Simbal (2009) in which some of his drawings of Lúcumar petroglyphs are inaccurate? Is it possible that I have more experience/skill in producing drawings?

Does Castillo need additional drawings or photographs or information? In my paper about Simbal (2014) there is my email address: anyone can ask me for additional information. Also Castillo could have easily asked for additional information through an email, instead of inappropriately attacking me in public.

In addition, the neologism “MSC-Style” is in fact an acronym that is not badly defined, like Castillo suggests. I have written a book of 221 pages with 174 illustrations in order to define and explain the acronym (Van Hoek 2011).

Fourthly: And why is it necessary for Castillo to use such negative words and sentences that I regard as an attack on my person (because they have nothing to do with the content of my paper)?

Examples: heresy; laughable; lack of training; the author claims to have divine properties; annoying rock art researchers via email; irritating universities via email; infuriating rock art editors via email; demanding/claiming information that has not been edited, that is in print or being processed.

To annoy (or to irritate or to infuriate etc) is a term inappropriately used by Castillo: I always have asked politely for information.

Especially the last accusation by Castillo is incorrect and a deceit. Why? Because I never have demanded/claimed information that was not yet edited; I always have politely asked for information and never have I (knowingly) used unedited/unpublished information without the permission of the author.

Finally, it is also easy for Castillo to put things out of context in a negative way. A harsh example: Castillo wrote in his comments: Sostener como afirma Van Hoek que la Dra. Rocchietti desconoce la iconografía del formativo o del período intermedio temprano, es una herejía que no merece mayor comentario. With this sentence Castillo claims that I insist that Dr Rocchietti is not familiar with the iconography of the Formative Period or the Early Intermediate Period.

This comment by Castillo is completely deceitful. Why? Because Castillo quotes an incomplete sentence. I never “insisted/wrote” that Dr Rocchietti is not familiar with the iconography of the Formative Period or the Early Intermediate Period.

In 2014 I wrote in two sentences:

Most likely she was not aware of the Formative Period imagery on Boulder LUC-008 and on the Piedra la Paloma. Also the probably Early Intermediate Period imagery on many of the others stones in the Simbal area was unknown to her.

The correct translation of those two sentences is (I again thank Castillo for sharing a translation into Spanish with the readers of Rupestreweb):

Muy probablemente ella desconocía la iconografía del Periodo Formativo en el soporte LUC-008 y en la Piedra de la Paloma. También la probable iconografía del Periodo Intermedio Temprano en muchas de las otras piedras en el área de Simbal eran desconocidas para ella

What a big difference!

Any unbiased reader should admit that Dr. Rocchietti only describes a small part of the rock art of Lúcumar and that it seems that she has not seen the Formative Period images of this site. Therefore, her conclusions are based on an incomplete survey. For that reason the last words in the comments by Castillo are not relevant: The (much appreciated by me) merits of Dr. Rocchietti in Peru and Argentina (and of Castillo) are not relevant within the scope of the comments by Castillo. Therefore, I find the word “herejía > heresey” used by Castillo and the whole comment by Castillo far too harsh, inappropriate and not collegial.

IN RUPESTREWEB WE TRY TO DISCUSS IDEAS, NOT TO JUDGE PEOPLE (Source).

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,

Maarten van Hoek



A propósito de la discusion del artículo: http://www.rupestreweb.info/simbalpetroglyphart.html
------
 
To all readers of Rupestreweb.
 
In response to the final remarks by Mr. Castillo.
 
The final remarks by Mr. Castillo (19-2-2015) prove how EASY it is for him to find a way to dishonourably expose somebody in a negative way. In order to achieve that, Mr. Castillo wrote a “lengthy” letter without factually much information - most of it are quotations and their translations - only with the naïve and negative goal to overwhelm and convince the reader. Any observant reader will admit that Mr. Castillo failed, as in this letter he did NOT commented on the CONTENT of my video or my “replica” (as requested by me), but instead Mr. Castillo tried to incriminate me further by addressing different issues and unjustly and irrelevantly quoting from my other publications.
 
Moreover, he recommended reading my personal web pages and I am fine with that. (http://andeanrockart.simpsite.nl/) Do read my pages. I am certain that a truly honest person - who will carefully read my texts without bias - will agree with me in all cases, regardless of Mr. Castillo’s false allegations in his final remarks.
 
His words also prove how difficult (impossible, rather) it is for Mr. Castillo to comment unbiased and professionally on the CONTENT of a paper or video, WITHOUT attacking the person. Therefore I repeat: If you publish something, be prepared the CONTENT to be commented on. And that must be done in a correct way. Mr. Castillo seems to be incompetent of doing that. I asked Mr. Castillo to comment on the CONTENT of my video and of my “replica”. Well, in his final remarks he had NOT the courage to do that, but instead attacked me again using completely different issues (Argentina, Beringa Project etc) that are irrelevant in view of the subject matter. And again it proves that Mr. Castillo plays with words in a very negative way, trying to prove his case by introducing completely different issues and matters that are completely beside the point.
 
I only offer one example: In his final remarks Mr. Castillo states that I cannot accept NO for an answer. His remark is most deceitful. The Beringa example: I canNOT (and will never) accept that the scientific excavation of Beringa - that claims to have made photographic record of ALL relevant features - has NOT made photographs of the petroglyphs at that site. In my Motocachy paper - please check this - I ONLY expressed my profound scepticism and defensible criticism about a scientific project NOT having made photos of the most significant petroglyphs at Beringa. From the scientific point of view I criticise Prof. Tung for NOT having made photos of the Beringa petroglyphs. If Prof. Tung would have made photos and had told me that she did not want to share photos, I would have accepted (and regretted) that.
 
Email from Prof. Tung (dated 6-7-2012) (all other emails are available to anyone).
 
Dear Maarten,
I am in Peru with limited email access, but I am in the city this weekend, so I am now sending you a response.
I do not have any photos of the petroglyphs at Beringa because that was not my primary area of research. We focused on the human remains, animal bones, ceramics, textiles, and botanics. I am sorry about that. I wish I had petroglyph photos to send you.
Regarding the Yupanqui cemetery: I do not know which sector is La Real. It doesn't look like either of them.
I believe that the photo you sent me is from my graduate student's web site (Beth Koontz).  I have copied her on this email, so you can communicate with her directly. She has been working in this portion of the Majes Valley more recently than I have, so she may be able to help you.
 
Best regards, Tiffiny
 
Tiffiny A. Tung, Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
t.tung@vanderbilt.edu
 
It thus proves that Mr. Castillo only tries to discriminatorily bamboozle the reader with “lengthy” and devious quotations and incorrectly claiming that I do not take NO for an answer.
 
It also seems that Mr. Castillo cannot or is not willing to embrace the most appropriate and most positive concept once expressed by Diego Martinez, Editor of Rupestreweb: IN RUPESTREWEB WE TRY TO DISCUSS IDEAS, NOT TO JUDGE PEOPLE / EN RUPESTREWEB BUSCAMOS DISCUTIR LAS IDEAS, NO JUZGAR A LAS PERSONAS, but incorrectly attacking my person is what Mr. Castillo did in his initial comments of 13-4-2014 and again in his final remarks. Then it is no more than justified for me to expose in my answer the incorrectness of the false allegations of Mr. Castillo (read: http://andeanrockart.simpsite.nl/castillo).
 
As it proves that Mr. Castillo is only capable of making false allegations and offering a most negative contribution to what should be a positive and constructive way to discuss things and to professionally collaborate, I will no longer react to comments by Mr. Castillo, or by anybody else who acts in the same (negative) way. Also, if I will decide to react to a comment in the future, it will only be on comments in English. I will ignore any comment in Spanish.
 
But mind you, the papers and books that Mr. Castillo - or anyone else - has published will critically be read, re-read and commented on by me whenever necessary. This will also apply to his - hopefully soon to be published - survey of the rock art of La Libertad and Cajamarca. In a better world I would have been pleased to collaborate with Mr. Castillo regarding petroglyph rocks / sites in La Libertad that he does not know of.
 
Finally, the fantastic scenery and the magnificent rock art of La Libertad and Cajamarca (or any other area in Latin America) are NOT the property of Mr. Castillo (or of anyone else) and will never be. http://www.rupestre.net/tracce/?p=9023
 
Thank you for your attention
 
Maarten van Hoek