*

Puzzling Petroglyphs

At Chillihuay, Peru

*

Maarten van Hoek

*

Introduction

The west part of the Department of Arequipa in the south of Peru is extremely rich in rock art sites. All those sites are part of the Majes Rock Art Sphere, the rock art region where the Majes Rock Art Style dominates the area (in this study “MRAS” may be read as Majes Rock Art Sphere [Figure 1] as well as Majes Rock Art Style). Well-known to rock art researchers are the major sites of Mollebaya Chico (#12 in Figure 1), La Caldera (#9) and Quilcapampa (#7) in the Vítor Drainage, Illomas (#3) in the Manga Drainage, and – above all – Alto de Pitis (#6) and Toro Muerto (#5) in the Central Majes Valley. Less known, but equally important, is the exceptional site of Chillihuay in the Ocoña Drainage, the subject of my study.

*

Puzzling Petroglyphs at Chillihuay

The impressive rock art site of Chillihuay (Site #1 in Figure 1) is located 60 km inland in the coastal desert of southern Peru, on the south bank of the west running Quebrada de Chorunga, a tributary to the south flowing Río Ocoña. Its position is rather exceptional as there are two concentrations of petroglyphs called (according to Zborover et al. [2023]) Chillihuay East [1] and West [2]; earlier labelled respectively San Juan de Chorunga [1] and Chillihuay [2] by me [Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 2]), of which especially Chillihuay West is found rather high up, almost at the top of the mountain. Moreover, the ascend to the petroglyphs involves a long and arduous climb up the steep and rock-strewn slopes.

Despite being very hard to reach, Chillihuay is one of the most important rock art sites of the Desert Andes (the extremely dry coastal strip west of the High Andes), not only because of its rich repertoire of petroglyphs, but especially because its imagery reflects the iconography of a much larger area; the Majes Rock Art Sphere, However, this study discusses a small selection of individual petroglyphs recorded at Chillihuay that are so complex, so deviant and often so enigmatic, that they may rightfully be called unique and/or puzzling. Some petroglyphs even seem to have been drawn in order to literally and figuratively yield a puzzle, as they are composed of separated elements, creating fragmented images.

Figure 1. Location of a selection of some rock art sites in the Majes Rock Art Sphere (MRAS).  Some numbers are referred to in the text. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap – Contributors.

Because I never visited Chillihuay I have no knowledge of the locations of all rock art panels. Confusingly, earlier publications differently classified the various sectors at Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 4 [showing incorrect altitudes]; Huashuayo Chávez 2022; Zborover et al. 2023), and consequently the numbering of the panels also differed. Therefore I use my own numbering in this study as well. Moreover, although I know roughly where most panels that I discuss here are located, I will use the general term “Chillihuay” (thus indicating both Chillihuay West and East), only when possible referring to Chillihuay East or West.

I will start this analysis at a most important spot; the rock formation formed by Panels CHY-C-008 and CHY-C-009 at Chillihuay West, which form a continuous, yet fragmented outcrop face (Figure 3). Earlier I discussed the petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C-008 in detail (Van Hoek 2024), which proved to present a most unusual collection of iconic anthropomorphic petroglyphs.

This time I focus on Panel CHY-C-009. Most surprisingly, none of the iconic anthropomorphic figures that appear on adjacent Panel CHY-C-008 are found on Panel CHY-C-009. I am convinced that this exclusivity is a deliberate choice (explained by me earlier; Van Hoek 2024). Yet also outcrop CHY-C-009 has a few most remarkable petroglyphs, especially on Panel CHY-C-009C, which is divided into four segments, according to the vertical cracks. Segment CHY-C-009C (located at 921 m) faces west, is smooth and large. It measures about 3 meters in height and roughly 2.5 meters in width (estimation based on the drone photos by Badillo (2023).

Figure 2. Panel CHY-C-009 at 921 m. The “Warrior” Panel and the “Agnathic Face” Panel are found at 965 m. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.

Figure 3. Segment CHY-C-009C at Chillihuay with the two petroglyphs framed in orange and green. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the videos published by Badillo (2023).

*

Puzzling Petroglyphs on Panel CHY-C-009C

Segment CHY-C-009C is especially interesting because of its unique petroglyph depicting a “Puzzling Biomorph” (about 40 cm in length). It is sometimes referred to as a “fish” because of its general shape (Figure 4A; orange frame in Figure 3). However, it has so many strange appendages (including the long, forked appendage from the head) that it is most uncertain what exactly this biomorph depicts. It may be a fantastic (marine?) figure. Moreover, unambiguous images of fish are extremely rare in the MRAS (and actually in the whole of the Desert Andes).

Figure 4. A: The “fish” petroglyph and B: the “anthropomorph” on Segment CHY-C-009C at Chillihuay (different scales). These two drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) are only rough sketches, based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

The most intriguing petroglyph on Segment CHY-C-009C (green frame in Figure 3) is a complex figure only 20 cm south of the purported “fish”, and very near the bottom of the panel. It looks like an anthropomorph (estimated to be 70 cm in height), but it seems to have been intentionally composed of isolated and stylised elements (Figure 4B). Four elements, each with three thin, parallel lines, may represent the hands and feet. It seems to have a large triangular head with three appendages (one incomplete because of exfoliation; the central appendage being forked, like with the “fish”) and two large rectangular eyes (?). Its “spine” seems to end in a two leg-like grooves enclosing a fully pecked rectangle.

Figure 5.  A: Petroglyphs on Bloque 20 at Chillihuay and B: a detail of the “Stepped Face” (estimated 42 cm in width). These two drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) are only rough sketches, based on illustrations by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: Figs 8 and 10; 93).

Importantly, the “anthropomorphic” figure on Segment CHY-C-009C (Figure 4B) has – regarding its fragmented nature – a “parallel” at Chillihuay (Figure 5B). It concerns the “Stepped Face” (my interpretation) recorded by Huashuayo Chávez on Bloque 20 at Chillihuay West-A, only a short distance to the NE of Panel CHY-C-009. It has been referred to by Zborover et al.  (2023: 112) as an intricate abstract motif, composed of four Stepped Designs, the two upper ones flanking a triangular element. Zborover et al. also (incorrectly) argue that the Stepped Design and/or the triangular element is also common at Toro Muerto. However, first of all, the Stepped Design nor the triangular element are not at all common in Toro Muerto. In fact the Stepped Design is extremely rare in the MRAS and I know of only one example at Toro Muerto. It concerns the outlined wing of a Rectangular Bird petroglyph (Van Hoek 2018: Fig. 87).

Moreover, Zborover et al. also state that an element on Bloque 20 (the Stepped Design, or the triangular element?) was previously called a “dagger” design by me, and that I tentatively associated the “dagger” with Wari imagery (Van Hoek 2018; 2021c; more information in Van Hoek 2024). However, the pattern that I called a “dagger” is by no means the same as the “Stepped Face” or the triangular element referred to by Zborover et al. and illustrated (as Bloque 20) by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: Figs 8 and 10; 93). In my opinion the group (Figure 5B) most likely depicts an intentionally fragmented face (not a head) or mask (as suggested by me earlier; Van Hoek 2018: 65). Interestingly, also Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 29) labelled the group as “Posible cabeza humana a base de escalones”. I wonder why the two earlier, in my opinion more plausible interpretations have been ignored by Zborover et al. (2023).

*

More Puzzling Petroglyphs

There is at least one other, very old petroglyph at Chillihuay that seems to be composed of “isolated” elements (especially concerning the eyes, the nose and mouth). Together they seem to form an MSC-Style “Agnathic Face”, although it has been referred to by Zborover et al. (2023: 112; Fig. 13) as an agnathic “head”. In my opinion their “head” label is incorrect, because the head contour is clearly lacking (Figure 6). Importantly, below the Paracas Style Tripartite Eyes is an element – possibly depicting the mouth (featuring two more deeply carved-out, horizontally arranged fangs?) – that resembles the U-Shaped Head of a “snake” recorded elsewhere at Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2024: Fig. 5). Interestingly, the nose and the eye elements all have appended, nested U-shaped elements (with curving ends) that all may well symbolise the MSC-Style mouth (see Van Hoek 2011: Fig 141).

Figure 6. The “Agnathic Face” on Panel CHY-F-005 at Chillihuay (40 cm in height). Photograph © by Rainer Hostnig. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

This petroglyph, dating from the Andean (Late?) Formative Period, is found adjacent to the panel with the well-known “Lord” and “Warrior” petroglyphs (Panel CHY-F-004; both located at 965 m in Figure 2). Interestingly, the “Lord” has similar Paracas Style Tripartite Eyes (Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 9A), as has a complex figure on a Paracas textile (Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 11). This textile-figure also has a Stepped Pattern mouth that may be related to the mouth of the fragmented  “Stepped Face” petroglyph on Bloque 20 at Chillihuay (see Figure 5).

A very short distance to the right of Panel CHY-F-005 is Panel CHY-F-001 with – among many others – beautiful petroglyphs of a spotted quadruped (a feline?) and two birds, apparently in full-flight (one a colibri?). At the very bottom of the panel is an enigmatic anthropomorphic figure, estimated by me to be 54 cm in height (Figure 7). It seems to have a sternum with some lines (ribs?) attached, and for that reason I have classified the figure as (a most unusual) “Carcancha” (see Van Hoek 2013 for a detailed discussion of the “Carcancha” icon in the MRAS).

However, the anthropomorph (or marine therianthrope?) has been depicted rather grotesquely. It has small legs, in contrast with the clearly oversized arms, and a colossal yet strange, roughly triangular head that has the same type of rectangular eyes (lacking the pupils, though) as the petroglyphs in Figure 6. It also has a small dented mouth. Two outlined, curved and bifurcating elements emerge from the apex of the roughly triangular head (compare this with the head of the figure in Figure 4). The bifurcated property of those V-shaped appendages might indicate that we are dealing here with a female personage.

Figure 7. The possible “Carcancha” on Panel CHY-F-001 (estimated 57 cm in height). Photograph © by Rainer Hostnig. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

A short distance to the ESE of Chillihuay is the rock art site of Illomas (Site #3 in Figure 1). Among the numerous petroglyphs at this site is at least one image that also seems to have been composed of fragments. It was first reported by Tacca Quispe (2008: Dib. 52), but not classified as a (possible!) anthropomorphic figure by him. In my opinion it may depict a mummy bundle (the long part with the many short lines attached, enclosing an undulating, outlined shape [a snake?]), crowned by a group of possibly intentionally fragmented elements, among which is a U-shaped headdress below which are two eyes, some horizontal lines (one with a triangle: a mouth?) and a small neck. Those fragments together could depict a False Head, an object which is often applied onto a real mummy bundle. It is unlike the rare petroglyphs of Mummy Bundles in the MRAS that all seem to be complete (Van Hoek 2012: Figs 298 to 305 gender).

*

Conclusions

This paper discusses a group of puzzling petroglyphs from the MRAS of western Arequipa, southern Peru. Apart from the purported fragmented images, there are also often complete petroglyphs that are enigmatic (even unique?), like the “fish” at Chillihuay (see Figure 4A; an equally unique petroglyph “comparable” with the Chillihuay “fish” has been recorded by me on Boulder MP2-015 at Motocachy Pampa, Nepeña Valley, northern Peru; Van Hoek 2016: Fig. 77). Every major site in the MRAS may have one or more unique petroglyphs that cannot be explained within the context of the dominant Majes Culture of the MRAS. In fact most of the interpretations of the MRAS imagery often concerns only pure speculation.

However, the emphasis of this paper is on often seemingly fragmented images. In my opinion the purported fragmented nature in the described examples is not a case of being unfinished or incomplete. I am convinced that those figures were intentionally drawn as fragmented images. Having studied the rock art imagery of the MRAS for more than twenty years, I am sure that fragmented images are – in general – special; even very rare indeed and often unique. This also means that it will be very difficult to unravel the symbolism of each of the fragmented images, especially as there is no informed knowledge.

Interestingly, a number of Paracas-Nasca geoglyphs in the Palpa area of coastal southern Peru, also seem to show intentionally fragmented anthropomorphic figures. Yet, those fragmented geoglyphs may be of a different nature, as their lay-outs are still identifiable as anthropomorphs (Figure 8). Nevertheless it may still be possible that the concept of fragmented imagery diffused from the Paracas Heartland southeast to the MRAS, as it is almost certain that Paracas influence diffused to the rock art of the western part of the MRAS, as has already been demonstrated (Van Hoek 2018; Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 2019). A final, very tentative conclusion may be that fragmented imagery mainly concerns images of anthropomorphic nature.

Figure 8. “Fragmented” anthropomorphic geoglyphs near Palpa, southern Peru. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

*

Acknowledgement

As always I am grateful to Rainer Hostnig for sharing with me his photographs of Chillihuay and for his general permission to publish his material (also the cover photo is his copyright).

*

References

Badillo, A. E. 2023a. Chillihuay ortho 1080p. YouTube Video (showing the location of Panel CHY-C-009 in a drone-created video).

Badillo, A. E. 2023b. Chillihuay Petroglyph Panels (South). YouTube Video (showing the petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C- 009 in a drone-created close-up video).

Huashuayo Chávez, D. W. 2022. Ubicación, identificación e importancia de los petroglifos de Chilliguay 1 Sector “D” del Distrito de Río Grande de la Provincia de Condesuyos-Arequipa. B.A. Thesis. Universidad Católica de Santa María, Arequipa, Perú.

Jennings, J., M. van Hoek, W. Yépez Álvarez, S. Bautista, R. A. San Miguel Fernández and G. Spence-Morrow. 2019. Illomas: the three thousand year history of a rock art site in Southern Peru, Ñawpa Pacha. Vol. 39-2; pp. 1 – 31.

Tacca Quispe, L. W. 2008. Condesuyos: los petroglifos de Illomas y otros lugares asociados. Municipalidad Provincial de Condesuyos, Arequipa.

Van Hoek, M. 2011. The Chavín Controversy – Rock Art from the Andean Formative Period. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book available as PDF at DropBox (PDF-100).

Van Hoek, M. 2012. Rumimantam Llaqllasaq Wirpuykita: The ‘Cycle of Life’ in the Rock Art of the Desert Andes. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book available at DropBox (PDF-101).

Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Carcancha and the Apu. Rock Art of the Death Valley of the Andes. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book available as PDF at DropBox (PDF-002).

Van Hoek, M. 2014. The shaman, the lord and the warrior: anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Chillihuay, Arequipa, Peru. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2018a. Formative Period Rock Art in Arequipa, Peru. An up-dated analysis of the rock art from Caravelí to Vítor. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2024. A Petroglyph Panel at Chillihuay (Ocoña Drainage – Peru) within a larger context. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Zborover, D.; Badillo, A. E.; Lozada, M. C.; Lozada, E. S. and D. W. Huashuayo Chávez. 2023. Petroglyphs in Context: Another look at the Chillihuay Archaeological Complex in Southern Peru. Andean Past. Vol. 14, Article 9; pp. 101 – 137.