This is the
second part of my column on Carved Stone Model Landscapes.
Jemez mountains, New Mexico. Internet image, public domain. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)
There are
examples of boulders carved to resemble landscapes much closer to home as well.
In 2017 Rory P. Gauthier and Emily J. Brown published a paper about carved
landscapes on the Pajarito Plateau in New Mexico. These were carved into
volcanic tuff boulders. The first one described was on the Tsankawi Unit of
Bandelier National Monument. “LA 65742 is known as Doll House, an apt
name. It is situated at the base of an
unnamed mesa separating Los Alamos Canyon from Pueblo Canyon in the Tsankawi
Unit of Bandelier National Monument. It
consists of three carved tuff boulders.
The most elaborate is the Doll House—a boulder .8 x 1 m in size carved
with two ascending roads leading to a house with five or six stories that is 50
x 50 cm square. Two
staircases have been carved into the northeast and southwest ends of the house;
of all the carved boulders we documented, this is the only one that exhibited
stairs. They lend credence to the interpretation that it represents a miniature
pueblo, and it is somewhat reminiscent of North House at Taos Pueblo.”
(Gauthier and Brown 2017:93-94)

The Doll House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 95, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)
The next
two examples are found in a large site that Gauthier and Brown refer to as the
Hannaford Site. “Named for archaeologist
Charles Hannaford (who, as a small boy, played around this cluster of carved
boulders on the rim of Pueblo Canyon) and situated on the south rim of Pueblo
Canyon, the Hannaford Site has two loci separated by a residential street.”
(Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)
Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 7, Feature 5, page 97, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)
The one
they identify as feature 5 resembles a stereotypical pueblo. “Two features in particular are
remarkable for the extent of the carving and their representational qualities. Feature 5, titled Home Sweet Home, is a large
bedrock boulder with an extensive complex of roads, courtyards or plazas, and
houses, some of which are multistory. The buildings vary in shape and are
rectangular, triangular, D-shaped, L-shaped, or simply irregular. A small hole on the north side of the rock
may be a purposefully carved cavate; it is 8 cm in diameter. The boulder would appear to represent an
entire village or pueblo.”
(Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)
The Inca House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 98, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)
Then
Gauthier and Brown’s feature 12 was named for its resemblanc e to the Inca
carved boulders showing agricultural terraces. “We called Feature 12 Inca House for its resemblance to extensively
terraced Inca agricultural sites. Made
up of three tuff bedrock boulders, the feature lacks the road and house
creations carved into so many of the other boulders at the site. Instead, the large boulder was carved with
ten levels of terraces over an area 3.5 x 1.8 m in size. They generally follow
the contours of the rock, but employ straight lines and angled corners rather
than curves to do so. The much smaller
ancillary boulder to the southeast has three incised pits. On the west side, another smaller boulder
exhibits a deeply carved road or cleft that angles directly toward a small
cavity in the main boulder that may represent a cavate.” (Gauthier
and Brown 2017:95) Gauthier and Brown’s ‘Inca House’ very much resembles the
examples found in the Sondondo Valley of Peru.
They note a
number of other examples of worked boulders and bedrock at this Hannaford Site
but their descriptions of these sound much more like traditional rock art with
carved faces, lines, and pathways. Based upon lichen growth on the carvings and
dendochronological dating of a fir tree growing out of a crack in a boulder
with signs of carving on it Gauthier and Brown assign a tentative date of
between 1910 and 1940 to the carved models. (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)
Trail and steps worn into volcanic tuff by foot traffic. Internet photograph, public domain.
So, who
made these? They appear
to be fairly young and show tool marks that imply metal tools. “Manufacturing techniques: Some of the
features at the Tsankawi sites and those located on the rim of Los Alamos
Canyon exhibit manufacturing scars indicative of metal tool use. Many of the features are sufficiently eroded
to give no indication of manufacture techniques, but given the soft nature of
tuff, the stone can even be shaped with a sharp stick. Obviously the marks left
by metal tools (possibly a hatchet or chisel and the claw of a hammer or
crowbar) indicate a historic date of manufacture.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)
There was a
private school that might have been implicated in the creation of the carved
stones. “We believe the most likely
suspects were students from the Los Alamos Ranch School. The school catered to young men from east
coast, well to-do families, and endorsed outdoor activities— favoring horseback
riding, camping, and hiking— as well as academics. The school was established
in 1917 and closed in 1943 when it was taken over by the United States Army for
the Manhattan project. This is the same
timeframe in which our research suggests the model villages were created. In
addition to matching the timeframe, there are other lines of evidence that
point to the students at the Ranch School.
The horseback riding and hiking that were part of the school’s curriculum
utilized a number of local trails and roads for these activities, including a
trail that entered Pueblo Canyon near the location of the Hannaford site, the
Breakneck Trail that entered Los Alamos Canyon, and the original road to Los
Alamos, all of which gave access to the Tsankawi area.” (Gauthier
and Brown 2017:105). This
school, dedicated to healthy outdoor activities and college preparation was
where Los Alamos is today. “The students
lived near the Hannaford Site, had easy access to it, and probably used the
area as a place to get away from the daily regimentation of the school. They
would also have had the time to create the many boulder sculptures. During
their outdoor activities, the students would have had access to the Tsankawi
Unit as well. In addition, the students would have traveled in the northern Rio
Grande region and would have been familiar with nearby Native American and
Hispanic settlements as well as the Ancestral Pueblo site of Puye and those
located at Frijoles Canyon, Tsankawi and Otowi. They therefore would have had
the knowledge of the local architecture and could have recreated these details
in their sculptures.” (Gauthier
and Brown 2017:106)
I would be
very interested to find more material on these carved stones. If any of my
readers have images or knowledge of them please contact RockArtBlog. Thank you.
NOTE: Some images in this column
were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs.
If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and
will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with
them. For further information on these reports you should read the original
reports at the sites listed below. Additionally, some of the quotations I have
included have had citations removed from their text. These can also be acquired
from the original texts.
REFERENCES:
Christie, Jessica Joyce, 2012, A New Look at Q’enqo as a Model of Inka Visual Representation,
Reproduction, and Spatial Structure, Ethnohistory
59:3 (Summer 2012). DOI 10.1215/00141801-1587478.
Cmielewski, Bartlomiej et al., 2020, Digital close-range photogrammetry of El Fuerte de Samaipata,
Architectus, Vol. 2, No. 62, pp. 35-42. DOI:10.37190/arc200206. Accessed online
30 September 2026.
Gauthier, Rory P., and Emily J.
Brown, 2017, Does
Size Really Matter? Carved Boulders on the Pajarito Plateau, pp. 91-107, from Parallel Passions, A Life Together in
Archaeology, Papers in Honor of Karl W. Laumbach and Toni S. Laumbach,
Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Volume 43, Edited by Emily
J. Brown, Carol J. Condie, and Helen K. Crotty.
Nina, Freddy Leon, and Antonio
Pizarro Ñahui,
2025, Petroglyphs and Pictographs:
Interpretation of rock art linked to water sources, terraces and astronomy,
Kazakhstan Archeology 2 (28), https://doi.org/10.52967/akz2025.2.28.159.180.
Accessed online 24 September 2026.
Pazstory, Esther, 1998, Pre-Columbian Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Powell, Eric A., 2026, Cultivating Fields of Stone, Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 5, pp.
36-41.
Wikipedia, El Fuerte de Samaipata, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Fuerte_de_Samaipata