The discovery originated not from ground-level surveys, but from satellite imagery. In May 2025, mountaineer Carlos Gobbi identified unusual geometric shapes while consulting Google Earth. The imagery revealed a series of large circular structures linked by narrow passages, forming a broader pattern that suggested human intervention. However, the visual clarity of the satellite view contrasts sharply with the ground-level reality; the features do not immediately reveal their geometric logic when viewed from the terrain.
Gobbi made multiple attempts to reach the location, with earlier efforts thwarted by weather and the physical demands of the Andean range. He finally accessed the site in early 2026 after a four-day trek characterized by limited water supply and no phone connectivity. Upon arrival, he documented low stone walls forming corridors and what appeared to be piled stone mounds. Some sections of the structures were partly buried or built into trenches. Gobbi recorded measurements indicating that the circular structures ranged between approximately 27 and 35 meters in diameter, a scale too large to be dismissed as small domestic features. He also noted the absence of surface archaeological material, such as ceramics or food remains, which would typically suggest permanent occupation.
Cristina Prieto-Olavarría, an archaeologist at the IANIGLA-CONICET institute and principal investigator for the Argentine side of the project, stated that the site is unprecedented for the region. “There are no precedents of this either in news reports or in publications. It is an unprecedented find for archaeology. It is not a common archaeological site; there is no other like it in Mendoza,” she said. Her colleague Horacio Chiavazza, co-director of the Laboratory of Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory at the National University of Cuyo, agreed that the images alone were insufficient to determine the date or function of the structures, necessitating an in-person examination.
The investigation is part of Arqueoandes, a collaborative project studying landscape transformation in the high Andes. The team is considering the hypothesis that the construction is linked to the Inca period (15th and 16th centuries), though they have not ruled out an earlier or later origin. The prominent size and geometric arrangement have led some to speculate that the site could be a geoglyph—a large figure carved or built on the ground, visible primarily from above, similar to the famous Nazca lines in Peru. However, researchers are treating this classification as a working hypothesis rather than a conclusion.
Alternative interpretations include the site serving as a seasonal camp or a ceremonial location. The environment itself offers clues: the site is in a difficult-to-access area without a nearby water source. The absence of domestic waste supports the idea that this was not a place of permanent residence. If the site is indeed Inca, it may relate to the society’s sacred conception of the landscape, where mountains, trails, and landmarks were interconnected within a territory steeped in meaning.
When the expedition departs in December, the team will employ a range of high-precision methods. These include foot surveys, drone work, remote sensing, and geochemical and geoarchaeological investigations. Mario Gutiérrez, co-director of the project from the University of Jaén in Spain, noted that his team will contribute advanced methods to analyze sediments and botanical remains at a microscopic scale. This approach aims to reconstruct not only the human activities associated with the site but also the environmental conditions, such as water availability and climatic events, that prevailed at the time of its construction or use.
Until the fieldwork is complete, the fundamental questions of who built the structures, when they were built, and why remain open. The expedition represents a significant effort to bridge the gap between remote sensing observations and physical archaeological evidence in one of the most isolated regions of the Andes.
