This study mainly focusses on the rock art imagery on one specific and special panel at the rock art site of Chillihuay in southern Peru. This panel has an exceptionally high number of much differing anthropomorphic petroglyphs that – in my opinion – have intentionally been executed at this spot, high upon the mountain. I also argue that this collection expresses the worldview of the ancient peoples of this area, which may well be related to the Sacred Mountain of the area.

By Maarten van Hoek

*

*

A Petroglyph Panel at Chillihuay

(Ocoña Drainage – Peru)

within a larger context

*

Maarten van Hoek

*

Introduction

The west part of the Department of Arequipa in the south of Peru is extremely rich in rock art sites (Figure 1). Well-known to rock art researchers are the major sites of Mollebaya Chico, La Caldera and Quilcapampa in the Vítor Drainage, Illomas in the Manga Drainage, and – above all – Alto de Pitis and Toro Muerto in the Central Majes Valley. Less known, but equally important, is the exceptional site of Chillihuay in the Ocoña Drainage. All those sites (and many more) 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 (the area between Caravelí and Vítor; see Figure 1) as well as Majes Rock Art Style.

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 clearly separated concentrations of petroglyphs (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]), most of which are found rather high up, many almost at the top of the mountain. Importantly, the ascend to the petroglyphs involves a long and arduous climb up the steep and rock-strewn slopes. See the Cover Photo to have an indication of the steepness and the scale: search the person descending the slope.

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

Click any illustration to see an enlargement.

*

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. It was a photograph of especially one rock art panel in a publication by Zborover et al., which was known since at least 2007, that immediately triggered my interest. At first sight the rather good photograph of that panel (Zborover et al. 2023: Fig. 9) and the YouTube videos published by Zborover et al. showed a remarkable collection of mainly anthropomorphic figures on that panel, which are the subjects of my study.

*

Concise Recording History

Actually it is unknown to me who first discovered or reported the petroglyph site of Chillihuay, as none of the published works about the site that I have available reveals any fact. Linares Málaga does not seem to have had knowledge of the site before 1973, as Chillihuay is not mentioned in his 1973 publication. The Inventario Nacional published by Rainer Hostnig (2003: 45 – 46) mentions the site, but only refers to another publication by Linares Malaga (1991-1992: 11). Thus, 1991 is possibly the earliest reference to the site. A year after Hostnig’s publication Linares Málaga mentioned Chillihuay (Distrito de Río Grande; Provincia de Condesuyos) as Nr. 17 in his list of petroglyph sites (2004: 30), but it is uncertain whether Linares Málaga ever visited Chillihuay (in this respect see Van Hoek 2021a: 8).

It thus seems that until 2004 little is actually known about the site. Then, two years later, a brief publication, including some photographs, in the Revista Perú Explorer (2006) revealed the true importance of the rock art at Chillihuay. In the same year archaeologist Daniel Chumpitaz Llerena (2006) alerted the scientific world about the site with a publication in Rupestreweb. Later, in 2008, Maritza Rodriguez Cerrón and Daniel Chumpitaz Llerena, presented a brief paper (with four photographs) at the III Simposio Nacional de Arte Rupestre held in the town of Huaraz, Perú, emphasising once more the importance of the petroglyph site of Chillihuay. In 2008 rock art researcher Rainer Hostnig made a photographic record of much of Chillihuay West, which he kindly shared with me, as well as additional information about Chillihuay.

In 2007 seven small-sized photographs of petroglyph panels at Chillihuay were published on a website called www.decamana.com, which – unfortunately – can now (writing 2024) no longer be accessed, because the website no longer exists. That website in question also did not provide any further background information. Two of those seven “decamana” photos showed the panel that I would like to discuss in more detail here. Finally, a couple of years ago Milton Zevallos Vergara published a video on YouTube with a number of photos of petroglyphs that probably all are found at Chillihuay East (San Juan de Chorunga). Unfortunately his video is no longer available on YouTube.

In 2020 archaeologists Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón published an online Webinar about the rock art of Chillihuay including several photographs of hitherto unknown petroglyphs, but unfortunately also including and repeating incorrect and misleading drawings of some of the most relevant petroglyphs of the site (Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 9; Van Hoek 2020a: Figs 2 and 4; as always Chumpitaz Llerena ignored my legitimate critiques).

The first systematic surveying of a part of Chillihuay West was conducted between 1989 and 1990 by Damaso Wile Huashuayo Chávez, a local of this region and, at that time, a passionate archaeology student in Arequipa. As a result he published his informative thesis about his Sector D at Chillihuay West in 2022. Finally, in 2018 and 2019 a methodical archaeological survey of the petroglyphs of the Chillihuay Complex, was conducted as part of the Proyecto Arqueológico Corral Redondo (Lozada 2019). A few years later the rock art related results of this survey were published in Andean Past (Zborover et al. 2023; however see Note 1 at the end). Unfortunately I never visited Chillihuay. The arrangement I made in 2011 with a guide in Camaná fell through without an explanation.

Importantly, the surveys by Chumpitaz Llerena, Rodríguez Cerrón, Rainer Hostnig, Huashuayo Chávez, Zborover et al. and several other visitors yielded many interesting, even unique petroglyphs recorded at Chillihuay. It is hoped that the results of the Zborover et al. will be published online, like the Data Base of the Proyecto Arqueológico Toro Muerto (2017).

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. Because Zborover et al. did not assign labels to the panels during their survey (neither in their 2023-publication), I have – for easy reference – labelled the several panels that will be describe here Panel CHY-C-008, 009 etc. (the “C” referring to my Sector C; see Figure 2), referring to the labelling of the panels in my personal Data Base. The X in Panel CHY-X-001 etc., refers to boulders at Chillihuay East.

Although I know roughly where most panels that I discuss here are located, I will use the general term “Chillihuay” in this study (indicating both Chillihuay East and West), 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 much fragmented outcrop face. Especially the petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C-008 proved to present a most unusual collection of iconic anthropomorphic petroglyphs.

*

Panel CHY-C-008 at Chillihuay

within a Larger Context

*

Panel CHY-C-008

The panel I would like to discuss here is found at Chillihuay West, according to Zborover et al.  (2023: Fig. 9) in their westmost Sector A (Panel CHY-C-008 is located in “my” Sector C [Figure 2]). 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. Because Zborover et al. did not assign labels to the panels shown in their publication, I have – for easy reference – labelled the panel that is subject of this study Panel CHY-C-008 (the “C” referring to my Sector C; see Figure 2). Similar labels (like for instance Panel CHY-F-004 [the “Lord and Warrior” Panel; the grey dot in Figure 2]) all refer to the labelling of the panels in my personal Data Base. Moreover, when referring to the larger segments of the fractured outcrop panel, I will use capital letters to distinguish the six Segments (CHY-C-008-A to CHY-C-008-F; see Figure 3).

Figure 2. Panel CHY-C-008 at 921 m. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.

With the aid of the photo in the paper by Zborover et al., as well with the videos at YouTube (Badillo 2023) accessible via their paper (Zborover et al. 2023: 137), it was no problem to roughly locate Panel CHY-C-008 in Google Earth (the green dot in Figure 2). It proves that Panel CHY-C-008 is one of the southernmost decorated panels at Chillihuay West. The steeply sloping outcrop is located on the east bank of a rather narrow dry gully that runs south-north, at an altitude (according to Google Earth) of 921 masl. However, altitudes in Google Earth are not that accurate in mountainous areas, and therefore the panel most likely is found a few meters higher up (which is visible in one of their YouTube videos [2023: 137]).

Based on the North-Arrow in the photo published by Zborover et al. (2023: Fig. 9) the almost vertical Panel CHY-C-008 (located a few metres above the floor of the dry gully) faces SW, while at a spot near the panel the observer also has limited views of the valley of the Quebrada de San Juan de Chorunga. But it is certain that the Sacred Mountain, the impressive volcano of Apu Coropuna (roughly 62 km to the NE of the panel), is not visible from the spot. However, it might have been important to the ancient people of the area that any observer of the panel may have been considered to symbolically “look through” the panel towards Apu Coropuna.

The panel itself is part of a very large decorated, yet fragmented outcrop, of which only the left part will be discussed here. This left part (measuring roughly 9 m in width and 4 m in height) is also much fractured and comprises six large parts (labelled Segments A to F in Figure 3) that are all crowded with often faded and chaotically assembled petroglyphs on smooth yet mottled surfaces (as well as some smaller parts that have been indicated with grey squares in Figure 3). Especially the left-hand and upper parts of Panel CHY-C-008 are fragmented and exfoliated. Moreover, in some cases small parts of the segments have disappeared, taking away parts of the images. The base of the panel is covered with sand and debris, possibly hiding more petroglyphs. All those factors yield only an incomplete and often blurred picture of Panel CHY-C-008 and also for that reason all my sketchily drawings and subjective interpretations in this study are only tentatively presented here.

Figure 3. Panel CHY-C-008, roughly showing the positions of the selected Iconic Images. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Zborover et al. 2023: Fig. 9; and on the videos published by Badillo (2023).

The whole outcrop (thus also the right-hand part, which will not be discussed or illustrated here) features a surprising collection of often most idiosyncratic and unique petroglyphs. In this study several iconic petroglyphs, surprisingly only manufactured on Panel CHY-C-008 (and far as I know not on adjacent Panel CHY-C-009), will be discussed, to show the links with (a selection of) other rock art sites in the MRAS (numbered 1 to 13 in Figure 1; #14 – located on the south bank of the Río Tambo – falls outside the MRAS).

Before discussing the iconic images on Panel CHY-C-008, I have to explain the difference between images found in a much larger area and images found (almost) exclusively within the MRAS. This difference is best explained with the image of the “Venus-Cross”; in essence a simple equal-armed cross surrounded by one or more outlining crosses. The “Venus-Cross” petroglyph also occurs at Chillihuay (at least three examples; one found on the well-known “Warrior-Panel” [Van Hoek 2024a: Fig. 7C]). The “Venus-Cross” symbol connects Chillihuay with several rock art sites in the MRAS (for example with a “new” site in the Vítor Valley [#8 in Figure 1]; Van Hoek 2024a]; La Caldera [#9; Van Hoek 2022a]; Mollebaya Chico [#12; Van Hoek 2022b; Figs 5 and 6]; Mollebaya Grande, also known as Gentiles? [# 10; Van Hoek 2024a; Fig. 4]; Culebrillas [#11]; Quilcapampa [#7; Van Hoek 2021a: 32, Fig, 23]; Alto de Pitis [#6; Van Hoek 2024a: Figs 7A and B]) and finally Caravelí [#2; Van Hoek 2022c: 14]). So far a minimum of 32 examples have been recorded in the MRAS. That seems a lot.

However, the “Venus-Cross” is not exclusive to the MRAS and thus the distribution of the “Venus-Cross” across the MRAS does not explain anything special about the rock art repertoire at Chillihuay or of the MRAS, as the “Venus-Cross” is found at numerous other rock art sites, not only in the Desert Andes and the remainder of South America, but at many sites across the world, with no less than a minimum of 850+ at New Caledonia (Van Hoek 2024b). Strangely, as far as I know, the “Venus-Cross” has not been recorded at Toro Muerto (#5 in Figure 1; the largest rock art site in the MRAS and in the Desert Andes), nor at the extensive site of Illomas (#3). The “mechanism” behind the selection of the “Venus-Cross” to be manufactured at a specific rock art site, simultaneously ignoring other sites, is a complete enigma. In contrast, the MRAStyle features several typical, even unique images that are “endemic” to the MRASphere.

Unfortunately, I have not surveyed Chillihuay myself and thus I have to rely on information published by others. Consequently, this study of Panel CHY-C-008 is mainly based on the information and photographic material published in a paper in 2023 by a team of archaeologists (Zborover et al. 2023), on the thesis by Huashuayo Chávez (2022) and on the photographic record of Chillihuay West, kindly shared in 2008 with me by rock art researcher Rainer Hostnig from Cusco, Peru.

Photos are often essential to see the fine details, which often are decisive in order to correctly interpret the petroglyphs. An illustrative example regarding details are the “Lord” and “Warrior” petroglyphs at Chillihuay that have incorrectly been drawn by previous Peruvian researchers (Van Hoek 2014: Figs 9A and B; 10). I only base my drawings on photos. Yet I have to emphasise that (because photos are often “blurred” and panels are often much weathered), this study only offers my sketchily made drawings (thus possibly often not complete and possibly not always accurate). Those rough sketches only serve to give an impression. As a consequence, I am the only one who is responsible for the correctness of my drawings and my (tentative) interpretations and conclusions based thereon.

*

The Petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C-008

Panel CHY-C-008 has an exceptionally large number of petroglyphs. There is a remarkable mixture of (very) small and quite large images. Those images include simple match-stick quadrupeds and complex outlined examples, several types of birds, (purported) snakes, monkeys and felines. There are also indeterminable fantastic biomorphs, complex large and simple small anthropomorphic figures, and several types of abstract and geometric designs, like concentric circles, S-shaped spirals and several simple and complex star- or sun-symbols. Also remarkable are some (short and long, often vertically arranged) rows of small cupules or dots, as well as some randomly arranged groups of dots and/or small cupules. Finally, it must be emphasised that the mottled panel is crowded with distinct and vague petroglyphs of often different degree of patination that are moreover weathered and that often appear intermingled, even superimposed, rendering many images hard to decipher and interpret (and to make drawings of).

*

The Key-Images

The petroglyphs depicting the several types of key-images on Panel CHY-C-008 (positions shown in Figure 3) concern most idiosyncratic anthropomorphic figures. Unfortunately, in some cases the specific features of one type also appear in other types. For instance, one anthropomorphic petroglyph combines aspects that belong to three different iconic categories. This makes the figure hard to classify, because the anthropomorph is an amalgamation of  three types. It features the “Trophy” Head, it also has an X-Pattern and an enigmatic Horizontal Long Line across its head. Despite this confusing aspect it will be attempted to present a review of the several key-images on Panel CHY-C-008. Finally, I would like to emphasise again that – when describing those key-images – my interpretations (and that of others) may well be subjective, even incorrect. I therefore also would like to underline again that we will never be 100% certain of the true meaning of most (if not all) of the images on Panel CHY-C-008.

*

The Zoomorphic Image

“Snakes”

Several different types of zoomorphic petroglyphs – including “snakes” – have been recorded at Chillihuay, among which is a creature composed of a concatenation of circles, each with a central dot (on Panel CHY-C-002), and examples having a circular head with two eyes and several short appendages, like the examples on Panels CHY-C-004 and CHY-C-005 (all three panels are found very close together).

However, it must be emphasised that many snake-like images at Chillihuay (and at sites elsewhere in the MRAS) not necessarily depict real snakes. They may depict centipedes, perhaps. This also goes for the type of purported “snake” that offers solid proof that there are cultural and religious connections between Chillihuay and sites in the remainder of the MRAS. The type of snake I am referring to has a most recognisable and idiosyncratic head, described by me earlier as being U-shaped (Van Hoek 2022a: 16). In several cases this type of “snake” also has been depicted as a bicephalic creature, often (but not always) with a row of internal dots and with small triangular appendages or short lines attached to its long body.

Until 2022 I knew of six snake petroglyphs with a U-shaped head at Chillihuay, including the one photographed by “decamana” in 2007, which is found on Segment CHY-C-008-F (Figure 4F), and the three examples published by me earlier (two shown in Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 15C). However the photo by Zborover et al. (2023: Fig. 9) faintly showed a second example (115 cm in length, not following the curves) at the bottom of Segment CHY-C-008-E (Figure 4E).

Figure 4. The two bicephalic “snakes” on Panel CHY-C-008 at Chillihuay. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

The two snakes are almost identical. Both are bicephalic and both have a short curl from the lower corners of their heads. The example on Segment CHY-C-008-F (Figure 4F) is orientated vertically, whereas the one on Segment CHY-C-008-E (Figure 4E) is arranged horizontally. The example on Segment CHY-C-008-E seems to have a fin-like extension, but it is uncertain if indeed it forms part of the creature (hence the “?”). On Segment CHY-C-008-F there is also a complex anthropomorphic figure that has two appendages from the top of its head, one apparently ending in a U-shaped, eye-less snake-head; the other appendage-end being weathered (see Figure 8). While Panel CHY-C-008 has two large bicephalic examples and one monocephalic example of the “snake” with the U-Shaped Head, this type of “snake” is – as far as I could check – absent on adjacent Panel CHY-C-009 (where only “simple” snakes have been engraved).

Interestingly, there is another “snake” with a U-Shaped Head at Chillihuay. The petroglyph has been engraved on Boulder CHY-X-002 at Chillihuay East. It is found diagonally arranged on the almost vertical face of the very large boulder (disregarding possible dislocating due to earthquakes and mining activities). The outlined “snake” (Figure 5) is tentatively estimated by me to measure about 120 cm in length. It has a large, outlined U-Shaped Head with two outlined eyes, each with a central dot for a pupil. The head is crowned by a large “dented” arc. From the corners of its “chin” emerge lines that each end in a fully pecked “ball”, while the clearly zigzagging body also has some appendages. The head is not positioned in the biological “correct” spot. Either the head or the body may have been a later addition. Especially the large head, crowned by the dented arc, gives the “snake” a “bizarre” appearance.

Figure 5. Petroglyphs on Boulder CHY-X-002 at Chillihuay East. Many of the often very faint other petroglyphs have intentionally been omitted by me to show up better the “snake”. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Elbita Vásquez Vargas.

Finally, the much sloping top panel of this large boulder has an interesting petroglyph of a monkey with unusually long legs that end in what I interpret as “Trophy Head Feet” (this image will be discussed by me further on [see also Figure 10B]) and a very nice bird image.

Of course there are more similar “snake” petroglyphs at Chillihuay, like the possibly unfinished examples on Boulder CHY-B-012; at an unnumbered panel (Huashuayo Chávez 2022: Calco 29), and the single-line body ending in an outlined U-shaped head on Boulder CHY-B-017 (Huashuayo Chávez 2022: Fig. 10), (provisionally) bringing the total to a minimum of eleven examples. This figure also includes the impressive example on Boulder CHY-X-002 at Chillihuay East described and illustrated above.

“Snake” petroglyphs of the same category (whether bicephalic or monocephalic, whether with or without dots or appendages from the body) have been recorded at several rock art sites in the MRAS. The sites in question have been numbered as follows on Figure 1: Caravelí (# 2; Van Hoek 2022c: Fig. 20); Majes: Quebrada Pampa Blanca (#4; the – so far – most complex example; Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 15B), and Alto de Pitis (#6); Sihuas: Quilcapampa (#7); Vítor: Vítor (#8; Van Hoek 2024d), La Caldera (#9), Mollebaya Grande or Gentiles (#10; the panel with possibly four examples; Van Hoek 2022: Fig. 15A), Mollebaya Chico (#11; very large examples), Culebrillas (#12), and at the isolated site of Cerro Pano (#13, located almost directly on the Pacific Coast). The absence of such snakes (so far) at Illomas (#3) and Toro Muerto (#5) is remarkable. Why were those important sites skipped (“ignored ?”)?

Resuming it is safe to state that – in the MRAS – the snake with U-Shaped Head occurs in a large area of about 160 km in width (SE-NW). However, in general parallels of images may occur at surprisingly distant and unexpected sites. For instance, immediately east of Río Puccha near the village of Yunguilla (Province of Huari) is the rock art site of Caullumachay, in the neighbourhood of which a petroglyph of a bicephalic snake has been recorded that shows the same internal decoration and the same type of ⊥-shaped head (URL) as seen in snakes at La Caldera in the MRAS (Van Hoek 2022a: Fig. 13). However, Caullumachay is found no less than 855 km NNW of Chillihuay and moreover located on the east side of the watershed across the High Andes. It is thus most uncertain (but not impossible) if any relationship exists.

*

Anthropomorphic Images

Not all petroglyphs can instantly be classified as anthropomorphic. This for instance is the case with a small rectangular petroglyph on Segment CHY-C-008-A (inset in Figure 6). It seems to represent an intentionally isolated, disintegrated MSC-Style eye-element, showing an eccentric pupil at the twelve-o’clock position. Yet this image is not exclusive for Chillihuay and neither for the MRAS. It is one of relatively “many” MSC-Style images at Chillihuay (Figure 6), several of which have already been discussed and illustrated by me in an earlier publication (also fully explaining the concept of the MSC-Style; Van Hoek 2011). However, isolated MSC-Style eye-elements with an eccentric pupil have been recorded at several sites in the northern part of the Desert Andes (Van Hoek 2011). Therefore, the occurrence of MSC-Style petroglyphs at Chillihuay does not explain anything special about Chillihuay, except that it confirms an early Formative Period date (for Chillihuay and the MRAS). MSC-Style elements are also found at many other rock art sites (like at “nearby” Caravelí [Van Hoek 2018a: 39 – 48; 2022c: 36 – 41]), and especially further north in the Desert Andes.

Figure 6. Detail from Panel CHY-D-015-B. Inset: detail from Segment CHY-C-008-A. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Rainer Hostnig. Inset: based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

*

The “Feathered Homunculus”

It must be emphasised again that the anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Chillihuay often share particular features and thus cannot be discussed in neatly separated categories in this study. For instance, in the MRAS there is a specific type of anthropomorphic figure with one or more feather-like appendages from the top of the head that was classified by me earlier as the “Feathered Homunculus” (Van Hoek 2021b). In my 2021b-paper I stated that – with one possible exception – anthropomorphic petroglyphs depicting the “Feathered Homunculus” are exclusively found at Toro Muerto (Site #5 in Figure 1). The “one” exception concerns an anthropomorph on Boulder PAJ-165 at Illomas in the Manga Drainage, east of Chillihuay, reported for the first time by Tacca Quispe (2008: Dib. 126). This complex anthropomorph has three splayed, feather-like appendages from the head, while its left hand seems to be attached via a long serpentine line to a large “Trophy” Head (Van Hoek 2021b: Fig. 35).

However, there now is a (possible) second exception. On Segment CHY-C-008-A at Chillihuay is a simple, outlined anthropomorph with a similar “feather” on its head (Figure 7A). If in this case the same symbolism was aimed at, this possible “Feathered Homunculus” at Chillihuay may thus also confirm a cultural connection with Toro Muerto. Yet, this personage may also represent an unfinished example of one of the other key-figures on the panel.

Figure 7. A: The possible “Feathered Homunculus” on Segment CHY-C-008-A. B: Anthropomorph on CHY-C-008-B. C: Anthropomorph on CHY-C-008-A. All these drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) are only rough sketches, based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

In this respect it is important to note that at Chillihuay there are several anthropomorphic figures (four illustrated by Huashuayo Chávez 2022: Fig. 7) with a comparable feather-like appendage from the top of the head. However, I am not claiming that those figures are examples of the “Feathered Homunculus”. In my opinion those Chillihuay figures belong to another category. At least five of these images also have an X on the thorax, while – importantly – true examples of the “Feathered Homunculus” in the MRAS never have an X on their body.

The fifth example has been recorded on Segment CHY-C-008-B (yellow square in Figure 3). It is moreover special because of the two horizontal lines from the chin area, which may also be “feathered” (which – if correctly interpreted – seems to be a unique feature). However, this figure is rather faint, therefore I am not certain about the exact layout.

Just below that figure is the sixth example (dark-green square in Figure 4). It is an anthropomorphic personage with an indistinct feather-like appendage from the head, but in this case it is the circular head that is crossed by a large X-sign. Additionally, not all anthropomorphic figures at Chillihuay with an X on the thorax have a feather-like appendage, neither carry a “Trophy” Head. Importantly however, one of those purportedly “feathered” figures at Chillihuay is unquestionably associated with no less than two “Trophy” Heads (see Figure 11A). It has been reported by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 116) on Bloque 41 (thus not on Panel CHY-C-008). This personage will be more fully discussed in the “Trophy” Head Section.

The feather-like appendages are believed by Huashuayo Chávez to represent corn plants (2022: Fig. 7). However, his interpretation seems to be contradicted by the fact that – at Chillihuay – all those appendages have the short, appended feather-lines only at one side, the other side being empty (Huashuayo Chávez 2022: Fig. 7). If depicting or symbolising plants, one would rather expect the feather-lines to appear on both sides (but that is only my subjective opinion). Moreover, the feather-like appendages on the “Feathered Homunculus” at Toro Muerto are often different in layout (Van Hoek 2021b) compared to the always single feather-like appendage on the Chillihuay anthropomorphs (with at least one exception, found on Panel CHY-C-008; see Figure 7C).

In contrast, the examples of the “Feathered Homunculus” at Toro Muerto have one, two or even three such (and sometimes much differing) appendages from the head, often with the appended feather-lines at both sides (Van Hoek 2021b). Moreover, also petroglyphs of quadrupeds at Toro Muerto (and one at Illomas) and even of birds have been equipped with such appendages (while at Chillihuay at least one zoomorphic petroglyph also has similar appendages from the head [on Boulder CHY-D-011]). Having said all that, I emphasise that my hesitations about the corn-interpretation by Huashuayo Chávez, do not at all exclude such appendages indeed representing plants, however. Importantly, a plant symbol in Andean iconography often symbolises life, fertility and regeneration. In contrast, the “Carcancha” icon symbolises life and death. This important icon will now be discussed.

*

The “Carcancha”

The term “Carcancha”, which I introduced in 2013 to describe a very specific anthropomorphic personage in the MRAS of Arequipa (fully explained in Van Hoek 2013; see also Van Hoek 2015; 2020b), requires a short clarification before discussing several most interesting and also relevant petroglyphs at Chillihuay. A “Carcancha” is a rock art image of an anthropomorph that combines properties of a deceased person and properties of a living person. The life-death symbolism of the “Carcancha” is evidenced by its skeletal appearance (showing a rib-cage [sometimes with a sternum], the often grinning mouth and often most noticeable skeletal knee- and elbow-joints). Yet it simultaneously shows properties of a living person, indicated by the often dynamic posture, like the “surrendering” or the “saluting” position of the arms, and – in rare cases – the (male) organs.

Importantly, the “Carcancha” icon is found as a petroglyph in every major drainage of the MRAS (from Caravelí to Vítor), but there is a significant “overkill” of “Carcancha” petroglyphs at Alto de Pitis in the Majes Valley, the possible reason for this excess was fully explained by me earlier (Van Hoek 2013). Obviously, also at Chillihuay petroglyphs of the “Carcancha” have been recorded (Van Hoek 2020b: 4; Fig. 1; yellow inset). However, on Panel CHY-C-008 unambiguous depictions of the “Carcancha” have not been recorded, but yet this personage may still be symbolically-graphically represented on the panel.

There notably are at least five petroglyphs of anthropomorphic figures on Panel CHY-C-008 that display a rib-like V-shaped pattern on their bodies One more complex example is found on Segment CHY-C-008E. It seems to have a double-outlined body. However, in all instances the legs are simple and short and do not show any sign of knee-joints. Also their arms (if present typically in the “saluting” position: one arm raised, the other one drooping) do not have any sign of an elbow-joint. Yet all those figures might represent or symbolise “Carcanchas”.

Two of the possibly “Carcancha”-related petroglyphs on Panel CHY-C-008 have a bunch of parallel lines from the head, all curving to one side. Those lines most likely indicate hair or a headdress (Figure 8A). Immediately to their left (seen from the observer; not shown in my drawing) is a similar group of curved lines, but not attached to an anthropomorphic figure (an unfinished example?).

Figure 8. A: Possible “Carcanchas” on Segment CHY-C-008E. B: Possible “Carcancha” on Segment CHY-C-008F (notice the “snake” appendage and the “Trophy” Head attached to the large head. Both drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) are only rough sketches, based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

Interestingly, this type of curved hair (or headdress?) is also found in petroglyphs at the rock art site of Putinza in the valley of the Río Cañete, more than 480 km NW of Chillihuay as the crow flies (Van Hoek 2021c: 12; see also Fig. 66), at Pakra in the valley of the Río Pisco, 415 km NW of Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2005a: Fig. 14; see also Figs 15 and 16; 2005b: Fig. 3) and some other sites in the Paracas influence sphere, suggesting again a cultural link between the Paracas Culture and the MRAS.

Another large example of a possible “Carcancha” (on Segment CHY-C-008-A) has two bifurcated groups of two parallel lines from the head (roughly 44 cm in width) that most likely end in snake-heads. Similar configurations are also often seen in Paracas iconography. Moreover, bifurcated appendages (hair?) from the head might indicate female gender. The fifth (more ambiguous) anthropomorphic figure (on Segment CHY-C-008-F) has also a bifurcated group of lines from the head, one definitely ending in an apparently eye-less, U-shaped “snake” head (Figure 8B). The V-shaped pattern on the body of the anthropomorph is somewhat deviant.

However, also this figure may indicate Paracas influence because of the bifurcated appendages that – especially in Paracas textiles (Frame 2001) – often end in either snake-heads or “Trophy” Heads. Moreover, in Paracas iconography “Trophy” Heads and Snake Heads often appear at most unexpected – for us western minds even illogical – positions all over the images (for instance apparently randomly distributed across an enormous orca geoglyph [Van Hoek 2023: Fig. 83A], but also across other geoglyphs [Van Hoek 2021c: Fig. 57C-2]), as well as in Paracas textiles (numerous examples illustrated by Mary Frame [2001]) and ceramics.

Although unambiguous examples of  the “Carcancha” are not known to have been recorded anywhere in Paracas rock art (especially as the joints are lacking in comparable figures), there are several petroglyphs that may well be related to the “Carcancha” because of the V-shaped rib-like pattern on their bodies or garments. It concerns two petroglyphs at Huancor (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 51), one petroglyph found “somewhere in the Palpa Area” (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 29) and two petroglyphs recorded at San Marcos (Van Hoek 2021: Figs 50A and B). However, in all cases it may concern decoration of the garment the figure may be wearing. Yet, it is still possible that the icon of the “Carcancha” originated in the Paracas Culture and diffused SE towards the MRAS (Van Hoek 2013; 2018a). Finally, it must be emphasised that – besides the “Carcancha” – also the “Trophy” Head is a “vital” death-related image.

*

“Trophy” Heads and their Carriers

Importantly, although the “Carcancha”-related petroglyphs on Panel CHY-C-008 and none of the other true examples of the “Carcancha” at Chillihuay are directly associated with a “Trophy” Head, in the MRAS there are very rare cases where a true “Carcancha” is carrying a “Trophy” Head, thus definitely establishing a cultural and religious link between the “Carcancha” and the “Trophy” Head. One such “Trophy” Head Carrier has been recorded at Quebrada Pampa Blanca, together with an isolated “Trophy” Head petroglyph (Van Hoek 2020b: Fig. 6), while two examples (one female?) occur at Illomas (Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 2019: Fig. 25).

In my opinion, the “Trophy” Head is one of the most important life-death-related symbols of the MRAS. It is a fact that also at Chillihuay several petroglyphs depict “Trophy” Heads, either as isolated objects, or carried by anthropomorphic figures (whether carried in the hand, or attached to an appendage from – for instance – the head [see Figure 8B]). On Panel CHY-C-008 there is at least one apparently isolated “Trophy” Head (on Segment E; light-green square in Figure 3). It is a rectangular head with two dots and a short line (two eyes and a mouth) and a short hanging cord from the top (Figure 9A). From the “chin area” five long, parallel lines run downwards (most likely depicting hair, or possibly blood ??). There may be a second isolated (unfinished?) “Trophy” Head on Segment CHY-C-008-A (indicated with a light-green square with a “?” in Figure 3).

Figure 9. A: Isolated “Trophy” Head on Segment CHY-C-008E; B: “Trophy” Head Carrier on Segment CHY-C-008B. Both drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) are only rough sketches, based on a video published by Badillo (2023).

However, Panel CHY-C-008 is more important because of the various anthropomorphic figures that are associated with “Trophy” Heads. These images will briefly be described here (in random order). Near the bottom of Segment CHY-C-008-F is a square head (a mask?) with rectangular eyes, a horizontal row of three lozenges and a large mouth. It might be attached to a (partially buried?) body (see Figure 8B). From the top of its head (roughly 20 cm in width) emerges one set of three parallel, downwards curving lines that end in a rectangular “Trophy” Head with two dots for eyes and four parallel lines from the chin area. For these reasons I classify also this anthropomorphic configuration as a “Trophy” Head  Carrier.

On Segment CHY-C-008-B is a most complex (partially blurred) anthropomorphic figure, again with a dented X on its thorax and with flexed, yet raised arms. Apparently its left leg-foot has weathered off (Figure 9B). Most remarkable is its large, most unusual triangular head or mask (its outline being dented as well) featuring two dots for eyes from each of which runs a diagonal line (an MRAS tear?). Other features include a possible nose, two more diagonal lines and a roughly executed mouth. In its left hand it uplifts a small rectangular “Trophy” Head (a rather unusual position for a “Trophy” Head in the MRAS) with two eyes. From the apex of the head emerge two (only partially visible) parallel lines that seem to be connected to another, yet indistinct (possible!) “Trophy” Head. This double line seems also to be held by the other arm/hand showing two digits.

On Segment CHY-C-008-E is another complex anthropomorphic figure with – unfortunately – parts of its head being much weathered. The visible part of the head and the headgear look confusingly complex, and possibly the head has a feathered appendage from each corner of the head. It also has a dented X on its body. It seems to hold a large rectangular “Trophy” Head  in its right hand, although it may also be attached to the shoulder. Equally the “Trophy” Head may as well be attached to a line from the top of the head (unfortunately this area is heavily blurred by weathering). The “Trophy” Head might be a later addition (even recently scratched?), if so, possibly superimposed upon its right (flexed?) arm.

On Segment CHY-C-008-C is a small anthropomorphic figure with a (dented?) X on its thorax. In its right hand of the drooping right arm it may “hold” a small, outlined “Trophy” Head (without facial features). The other arm is in the “saluting” position.

There are a few other (often atypical) petroglyphs at Chillihuay (possibly) involving “Trophy” Heads, like the purported monkey petroglyph (a sacred pet?) on top of Boulder CHY-X-002 at Chillihuay East (it concerns the same boulder as shown in Figure 5). It seems to have two “Trophy” Head Feet that are attached to either (too?) long legs, or – more likely – long hanging cords (Figure 10B). The “Trophy” Heads were identified as “possibles” by me earlier (Van Hoek 2023). Yet, the possible “Trophy” Head character of the “Trophy” Head Feet was not identified as such by the survey of Zborover et al. (2023: Fig. 12).

I have never seen a monkey in Desert Andes rock art with such unusually long “legs” at such an unusual position. The “legs”, (or rather, the hanging cords?), emerge from the centre of the body and have three “digits”, or rather “hair”. Importantly, petroglyphs of several species of animals carrying a “Trophy” Head (like camelids, felines, and – significantly – especially birds) have been recorded in the MRAS, but this purported Chillihuay-monkey seems to be unique.

Figure 10. A: Complex anthropomorph;  B: Monkey petroglyph (about 40 cm in height) with “Trophy” Head Feet (?) on Boulder CHY-X-002 at Chillihuay East. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek; “A” based on the illustrations by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 90); “B” based on the photograph published by Zborover et al. (2023: Fig. 12).

Huashuayo Chávez recorded two more, most interesting anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Chillihuay West, both associated with “Trophy” Heads. The first case concerns a most complex configuration on Bloque 15, although the possible symbolism of the apparently intentional composition was not recognised by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 27). In my drawing of the main configuration, I have (subjectively) coloured-in the several elements. A large anthropomorphic figure (“A” in Figure 10A) is “crowned” by a thin arc that starts at a headless anthropomorphic figure (“B”) (see Frame 2001: Fig. 4.22-C), while the arc ends in a “Trophy” Head (“C”). Possibly, all three Elements “D” may represent “Trophy” Heads. The curved (“red”) line (a line of blood?) may depict or symbolise the beheading of anthropomorph “B”. If my interpretation is correct, then this composition is truly unique (yet, see also Van Hoek 2018: 64; Fig. 44).

Possibly expressing the same symbolism is another petroglyph at Chillihuay West depicting an anthropomorphic figure with an X on its rectangular body. It has two simple feet, but it is headless, although a (possibly severed?) triangular head (connected to a long, irregular serpentine [blood?] line) is “floating” to its left (Huashuayo Chávez 2022: 103).

*

The X-Pattern

and the Horizontal Long Line

The second petroglyph recorded by Huashuayo Chávez that is associated with a “Trophy” Head concerns a unique anthropomorphic figure (on Bloque 41; Huashuayo Chávez 2022: 116) that belongs to no less than three different categories. First of all, it has a dented X-Pattern on its body and a feather-like appendage from the top of its head (Figure 11A). Finally, in each hand it holds a small rectangular “Trophy” Head, each with two dots for eyes. Crossing the lower arms are two linear objects that may well be spears or spear-throwers or even ceremonial staffs. Although the nature of the two linear objects is still most uncertain, the figure might depict a warrior having been engaged in “Trophy” Head hunting, or perhaps (even more acceptable) a high-status official engaged in a specific ritual involving “Trophy” Heads. Importantly, the figure expresses no violence. It only voices the result of violence.

Figure 11. A and C: Petroglyphs at Chillihuay West. B: Panel CHI-022 at Chichitarra – Palpa Valley. B: Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek. A and C: Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on illustrations by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 116 [Bloque 41] and 113 [Bloque 38]).

However, what is also special about the “Trophy” Head Carrier on Bloque 41 (Figure 11A), is the Horizontal Long Line that crosses its face and mouth, extending a short distance outside the head. This configuration is almost similar to the “Trophy” Head Carrier on Boulder CHI-022 at Chichitarra in the Palpa Valley, 275 km to the NW of Chillihuay, which also features the Horizontal Long Line, through the chin area this time (Figure 11B; Van Hoek 2010: Fig. 11).

Interestingly, also at other rock art sites in the Paracas Heartland anthropomorphic petroglyphs with an X-Pattern somewhere on their body (or on the purported “chair” such Seated Paracas Figures are supposed to be sitting on), have been reported (Van Hoek 2021c: 25 – 43). Importantly, several of those personages are carrying a “Trophy” Head.  Figures with an X also occur at the petroglyph site of La Viuda in the Palpa Valley, about 275 km NW of Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2021c: Figs 31 – 32), at an unknown site in the valley of the Río Grande, and at Reposo (one with a Horizontal Long Line) and at Huancano in the Pisco Valley (Van Hoek 2021c: resp. Fig. 24 and 25B). One of the seated figures at La Viuda has an X on the thorax, an X on its “chair”, while it is carrying a “Trophy” Head (Van Hoek 2021c: Fig. 32). The two other Seated Figures on the same panel at La Viuda are holding objects that could be (ceremonially and/or ritually utilised?) objects. Interpretation of such details is extremely hazardous.

Although the X-Pattern in Paracas Heartland anthropomorphic petroglyphs probably had a different meaning, it still may have expressed or symbolised high status as well. Also the X on petroglyphs of the Seated Paracas Figures and – especially – on their “chairs”, may indicate high status. Remarkably, some of those Seated Paracas Figures also have the Horizontal Long Line through the chin area, or (in one case) through the X-shaped mouth (Van Hoek 2021c: resp. Fig 29 and Fig 24; see also Fig. 49). Therefore, like the Horizontal Long Line, also the X-Pattern may demonstrate a cultural and religious link between the MRAS and the Paracas Territory (275 km NW of Chillihuay). And yet we may never know what exactly the X-Pattern or the Horizontal Long Line signified for those ancient civilisations.

Furthermore demonstrating the possible diffusion of the Horizontal Long Line (and Paracas imagery in general) from the Paracas Heartland towards the SE are more interesting petroglyphs from the Palpa Valley. Besides the example on Boulder CHI-022 at Chichitarra (see Figure 11B) at least four other anthropomorphic petroglyphs featuring the Horizontal Long Line have been recorded in the Palpa Valley. Two examples are found on Boulder CHI-009 (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 34); the third (with curved “Horizontal” Long Lines) appears on Boulder CHI-047 (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 35). The fourth example on Boulder CHI-039 also has curved “Horizontal” Long Lines (two at each side of the head), as well as a dented head and two X-Patterns (one X possibly depicting its mouth; the other X sits on its “chair”). Interestingly, it also carries a “Trophy” Head (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 37B). At the neighbouring site of La Cabañita two boulders feature anthropomorphic figures with a Horizontal Long Line. On Boulder CAB-016 is a small, possibly unfinished example (not published), and on Boulder CAB-022 sits a possible Seated Figure with curved “Horizontal” Long Lines and possibly with four legs (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 42).

Earlier in this study I discussed several examples of the type of X-Pattern-bearing anthropomorph found at Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2018a: Figs 33 – 34) and at other rock art sites in the MRAS (Van Hoek 2018a: 56 to 60). Further examples of this type of X-bearing anthropomorph were recorded at Chillihuay by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 103; 113; 115). Yet, the best known example of an anthropomorphic figure with a dented X on its thorax still is the impressive image of the “Lord” at Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2014), a photo of which was first published in 2006 by Perú Explorer. Importantly, the “Lord” and also its direct neighbour – the purported “Warrior” – are not associated with a “Trophy” Head anywhere on the panel. Still, a relationship between the X-Pattern and the “Trophy” Head seems to be confirmed in the iconography at Chillihuay.

For instance, the “Trophy” Head Carrier on Segment CHY-C-008-B (see Figure 9B) and the examples on Bloques  41 and 38 (see resp. Figures 11A and 11C) indicate that there most likely is a relation between “Trophy” Heads and anthropomorphic personages adorned with a (dented) X-Pattern on the body (or on their garment). Importantly, this relationship also seems to be confirmed by at least three X-bearing “Trophy” Head Carriers on Panel CHY-C-008 (discussed in the previous section; see Figure 3 for their positions), as well as by the exclusive example at La Viuda in the distant Palpa Valley. This analogy may infer that all anthropomorphs depicted with an X on the thorax may be high status (religious?) officials, whether graphically associated with a “Trophy” Head or not.

Another configuration featuring the Horizontal Long Line is also seen in at least one other (similar) petroglyph, recorded by Huashuayo Chávez on Bloque 38, also at Chillihuay West (2022: 113). However, Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 41) seems to interpret the Horizontal Long Line in the figure on Bloque 38 as “straight arms” (brazos rectos), while its two curved, drooping lines actually depict the arms that – moreover – emerge from the biologically correct positions at the shoulders (see Figure 11C). However, in my opinion the straight Horizontal Long Line in this figure does not depict or symbolise arms.

Remarkably, a similar – yet slightly different – Horizontal Long Line through the chin area is also seen in a (rather blurred) petroglyph on Segment CHY-C-008-B (for location see the yellow square in Figure 3). This example (of which I could not make a reliable drawing of) is different because the two horizontal lines (again not depicting the arms, which also emerge from the shoulders) seem to be “feathered”.

On Segment CHY-C-008A (yellow square in Figure 3) is a frontally depicted anthropomorphic figure with two V-shaped lines (one inverted) that seem to represent a variant of the (dented) X-shape on the thorax (see Figure 7C). Yet, it seems as if its head is laterally depicted, looking to its right (towards the invisible valley), although it may also have a rectangular head that is frontally depicted, as details are being blurred. The head has a partially dented appendage, curving to one side (enhancing the possible lateral position), which may be related to the feather-like appendages in several other figures.

*

X-Patterns in the MRAS

The X-Pattern is rather widespread. Anthropomorphic figures with an X on the thorax have also been recorded on Panel RCC-Pe-001A in the Caravelí Valley, west of Chillihuay; on at least three panels at Illomas (Tacca Quispe 2008: Dib. 123; Panel PAJ-014 [Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 14] and Panel PAJ-063); on Panel TM-Db-001A (Van Hoek 2012: Fig. 113) and Boulder TM-Bb-010 (Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 36), both at Toro Muerto in the Majes Valley.

On Panel AP3-030E at Alto de Pitis, also in the Central Majes Valley (opposite Toro Muerto) and 76 km SE of Chillihuay, there is an anthropomorphic petroglyph with apparently three arms and an incised X on its thorax. At least two examples are known from Quilcapampa (Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 37-left), one being an impressive “Trophy” Head Carrier (Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 8; 2021: Fig. 62). More or less opposite Quilcapampa – across the Sihuas Valley – is a hitherto scientifically unexplored rock art site (Socor?), where at least one example has been recorded (illustration un-published).

Further east – at Mollebaya Grande in the Vítor-Chile Drainage – two petroglyphs with an X on the thorax have been recorded by Cardona Rosas (2016; one shown in Figure 12D). On Panel CUL-006 at “nearby” Culebrillas in the same drainage is a small anthropomorphic petroglyph with a simple X on the thorax, while at Mollebaya Chico also in the same Vítor-Chile Drainage, there is an example with a dented X on Boulder MOL-008 (Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 38).

More important is the petroglyph on Boulder MOL-077 which depicts a similar anthropomorphic figure, also with a dented X (Van Hoek 2023), but this time the personage is associated with a rectangular “Trophy” Head, comparable to several examples at Chillihuay. It is obvious that this Mollebaya Chico “Trophy” Head Carrier resembles examples recorded at Chillihuay, thus firmly confirming a cultural and religious connection between the two distant drainages.

A similar dented X-pattern on the body of an anthropomorphic petroglyph has been reported on Boulder QGG-008 at Quelgua Grande (Van Hoek 2018a: Fig. 39); a rock art site in the valley of the Río Tambo (#14 in Figure 1), 200 km SE of Chillihuay and well outside the MRAS and even outside the neighbouring Yarabamba Rock Art Sphere. This proves that purported cultural regions never have rigid boundaries. Motifs and their (sometime changing) symbolism often travel as a team, also (often far) beyond the areas of origin.

*

The X-Pattern in the Paracas Heartland

In the Paracas-Nasca cultural region, far to the NW of Chillihuay, anthropomorphic petroglyphs with an X-Pattern on the thorax are rather rare. At Huancano South in the Pisco Valley is a rather complex petroglyph of an anthropomorph with an X-Pattern (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 25). Another example – with two X-patterns on its body (or garment) – has been recorded at Reposo South also in the Pisco Valley (unpublished). It also might symbolise the Andean Staff God. The best examples are the Paracas Seated Figures at La Viuda (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 32-3) Furthermore, anthropomorphic figures with an X on the thorax also occasionally occur on Paracas textiles, like the two “warriors” depicted on a painted cloth mask from Ocucaje [Dawson 1979: Fig.7; see also King 1965: Fig. 80c]). Importantly however, rock art images unambiguously depicting armed and confronting warriors or conflict-scenes are unknown to me to have ever been recorded in the Paracas Heartland.

*

Diffusion from the Paracas Heartland

Interestingly, petroglyphs recorded in the Paracas Heartland depicting anthropomorphs with an X-Pattern and/or a Horizontal Long Line through the chin area or the mouth may confirm a relationship between the MRAS-iconography and the imagery of the Paracas Culture. First of all, in my opinion the configurations featuring the Horizontal Long Line represent simplifications of more complex Paracas images.

A most informative example in this respect concerns the petroglyph of a Paracas Seated Figure, recorded somewhere in the Oronguillo (or nearby Orongo) sector of the valley of the River Santa Cruz, only 12 km NW of Chichitarra. Instead of a single Horizontal Long Line from the head, it features a closed double line at each side, as well as a similar vertical appendage (Figure 12A). Additionally, it also has two V-shaped lines on its thorax, an X depicting the mouth and a very distinct “chair” with an interior X-Pattern.

Figure 12. Petroglyphs from A: Oronguillo; B: Tix Taca (the # design on its seat may be a local variant of the X-Pattern); C: Chillihuay; D: Mollebaya Grande (the arrows only suggest possible diffusion). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, “A” based on a photograph by Genry Bautista; “B” based on an illustration by Ritter (1994: Fig. 12); “C” based on the drawing by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 113 [Bloque 38]); “D” based on Cardona Rosas (2016: A10-P1).

Convincingly illustrating diffusion towards the SE from the Paracas Heartland along the Pacific Coast are three petroglyphs. The first concerns a Paracas Seated Figure at the rock art site of Tix Taca in the Yauca Drainage (Van Hoek 2021: Fig. 53), 154 km from Oronguillo and 156 km WNW of Chillihuay. The Tix Taca petroglyph (Figure 12B) has a single Horizontal Long Line across the chin area and a more or less triangular head, which is dented in the same way as some images at Chillihuay (see for instance Figure 9B). It also has a vertical line across the head (partially depicting a nose?) that continues as a single line from the top of the head, thus resembling the (feathered) lines in some anthropomorphs at Chillihuay, like the example in Figure 12C (recorded by Huashuayo Chávez [2022: 113]), which has also two curved arms that much resemble the arms in the anthropomorph at Tix Taca (Figure 12B).

The second example has been recorded very near the inaccessible Pacific Coast, about 30 km SSE of Tix Taca and just west of easily  accessible Playa Jihuay. The faint image shows a figure with a large circular head with outlined, circular, staring eyes. It has a Horizontal Long Line and drooping flexed arms. More important in this respect are the anthropomorphic petroglyphs recorded at Mollebaya Grande in the Vítor Drainage (#10 in Figure 1; 153 km ESE of Chillihuay), both having an X on the body. However, one example (Figure 12D) also features a Horizontal Long Line from its triangular head and a shorter vertical line on top. Note that the curved arms are positioned in the same way as the Tix Taca and Chillihuay examples. Therefore the example at Mollebaya Grande possibly proves that Paracas influence reached this far east.

*

The “Trophy” Head in the MRAS

One of the most important images of the MRAS – which is found in every MRAS-Drainage -concerns the “Trophy” Head, whether carried by a biomorph or not. Remarkably, Panel CHY-C-008 at Chillihuay has up to seven (possible) examples (and there are more panels featuring the “Trophy” Head at Chillihuay). This is quite a high number, but, there is no site in the MRAS that has so many petroglyphs of the “Trophy” Head as Toro Muerto in Majes (Van Hoek 2023: Fig. 66; outdated numbers, especially regarding the Ocoña-Chillihuay area). But what exactly is the function of the “Trophy” Head in the MRAS? There is some controversy among rock art researchers in this respect.

In their recent paper Zborover et al. (2023: 115) suggest that some of the petroglyphs at Chillihuay – including the “Trophy” Head – may have had the function to memorialise or honour militaristic themes, also by referring to the 2020-paper by Scaffidi and Tung. In their Note 18 Zborover et al. concur with the theory by Scaffidi and Tung by writing that the petroglyphs of “Trophy” Heads are direct references to vicious fights, even if there are no rock art scenes depicting such conflicts. Zborover et al. also agree with the theory by Scaffidi and Tung by writing that a similar contention was claimed for regarding rock art images from the Central Majes Valley, referring to two recent publications (Scaffidi et al. 2021; Scaffidi and Tung 2020). Zborover et al. claim that those rock art images from the Central Majes Valley offer supporting proof for mainly bio-archaeological indications for conflict. However, also regarding the rock art context supporting evidence must be based on facts (and I only criticise the rock art aspects).

First of all, the statements by Zborover et al. give the impression that many similar petroglyphs have been presented by Scaffidi and Tung. However, the rock art related “evidence” presented by Scaffidi and Tung is based on only two anthropomorphic petroglyphs from Majes (Scaffidi and Tung 2020: Fig. 3), and on only one anthropomorphic petroglyph from Caravelí (Scaffidi et al. 2021: Fig. 2f) out of the many, many ten-thousands of rock art images in the MRAS. Such an extremely low number can never be put forward as (supporting) evidence.

Secondly and more importantly, the two petroglyphs from Majes presented by them as evidence (2020: Fig. 3) and referred to by Zborover et al. (2023), are demonstrably incorrect (my 2021-[2023] paper [referred to by Zborover et al 2023: 123] must have informed them about the fact that the Scaffidi-Tung “photographs” are false). That is a fact that I can prove; not a matter of interpretation. And in my opinion it is unacceptable that incorrect information (whether textual or graphical) is accepted by scientists as being correct, and then (knowingly or not) used to base scientific conclusions upon, which consequently must be incorrect as well. Also for that reason I cannot agree with the militaristic theory by Zborover et al. in this respect. It is based on the publications of only three petroglyphs, two of which are evidently false. And false information can never be put forward as scientific (supporting) evidence

Apart from the issues raised above, in general I prefer to allow for two or more alternative interpretations of rock art images to be presented, thus also for the icons recorded throughout the MRAS. Based on the petroglyphs depicting “Trophy” Heads, “Carcanchas”, the “Warrior” and the “Lord”, and boleadoras, Zborover et al. (2023: 115) seem to favour mainly (only?) the conflict-theory by embracing the idea of a militaristic theme, although the possible representations of boleadoras (yet also of any other weapon) may also have been used in hunting animals, as has also correctly been suggested by Zborover et al. (2023: 113).

However, in my opinion the “Trophy” Head (petroglyphs) can only be seen as strong evidence for (ritual!) violence, thus not necessarily supporting only the idea of (local and/or regional) conflicts. Moreover, although it is a fact that the “Trophy” Head is the result of violence (the act of beheading [which is completely absent in MRAS]), that does not mean that it is essentially the same as the direct allusions to vicious fights between groups of people, as stated by Zborover et al. (2023). I emphasise again that I do not categorically exclude that conflicts, even wars, may have occurred in the MRAS, but even then the “Trophy” Head (whether as an excavated object, or as a rock art image) by itself does not present solid evidence for conflicts. I need more rock-hard evidence, based on scientific facts, not on false illustrations and/or information.

The difference between my theory and conflict-theory concerns the ultimate goal of the “Trophy” Head (excavated skulls and rock art images). Scaffidi and Tung and Zborover et al. seem to stop at the level of conflict, while I prefer to see the images of “Trophy” Heads and (specially) “Carcanchas” in MRAS operating on a “higher”, (spi)ritual level, as attempts by the ancient peoples of the MRAS to connect with their deities and ancestors residing on the Sacred Mountains of the MRAS. In my opinion the “Trophy” Head is a (graphical) means to allow deceased individuals to travel to the tops of their Apus in order to join their ancestors, and/or to convey messages, which all fits perfectly in the dominant ancient Andean religious worldview.

Also contradicting the idea of the militaristic theme is – in my opinion – the fact that I know of only five (of the many, many ten-thousands) rock art images in the MRAS that (more or less unambiguously) seem to depict “warriors”, or rather “armed” figures (thus possibly also depicting hunters). These five examples include – at Chillihuay – the “Lord” and the “Warrior” on Panel CHY-F-004 (location: see Figure 2: at 965 masl), and a simpler X-bearing figure on Panel CHY-B-007 (Van Hoek 2021-2023: Fig. 6A); one petroglyph in Caravelí (Van Hoek 2021-2023; [TRACCE-version only: Fig. 11]), and one petroglyph at La Caldera in Vítor [Van Hoek 2021-2023: Fig. 5A]). Of course, more examples may show up.

Moreover, explicit scenes of conflicts or scenes unambiguously depicting violence are – as far as I know – completely absent in the MRAS. Although Zborover et al. (2023: Note 18) do not accept this fact to be relevant, it is – in my opinion – still a strong argument against accepting any militaristic theme being depicted at Chillihuay, or anywhere else in the MRAS (although absence of proof is no proof of absence).

Moreover, none of these five purported armed people mentioned above carries a “Trophy” Head, or is even remotely associated with a “Trophy” Head (disregarding the site-context), which would be logical if indeed a militaristic theme for especially the “Trophy” Head was aimed at. Only the Chillihuay-petroglyph illustrated in Figure 11A might represent a warrior once engaged in “Trophy” Head hunting, but the nature of the linear objects it seems to hold, is most uncertain. They might depict or symbolise weapons (atlatls?), but equally they may be ceremonial staffs, or any other type of ritual object (comparable in function with the Andean ritual knife, the Tumi). Thus the figure may as well represent “just” an official ritually engaged in a “Trophy” Head related ceremony. Therefore, it will probably always remain an enigma what exactly this specific figure depicts and symbolises.

Therefore, if ever a petroglyph will be recorded in the MRAS that unambiguously depicts an armed warrior carrying a “Trophy” Head and who is engaged in a conflict scene or a decapitating scene, only then I would (still hesitantly) accept a possible militaristic theme (and thus the conflict theory), but even then only as part of a more complex religious context, in which the “Trophy” Head serves a greater purpose than just depicting violence or conflicts.

Also contradicting the idea of a militaristic theme in the MRAS, is the fact that there are several MRAS-petroglyphs of “Carcanchas” and (especially) of birds (see Van Hoek 2023: 123, Figs 108A, 109A) and other zoomorphs that are carrying a “Trophy” Head. The “Trophy” Heads in these scenes and images do not at all graphically support the theory of a militaristic theme. Instead, based especially on those zoomorphic “Trophy” Head Carriers, it is in my opinion more logical that the “Trophy” Head serves ritualistic religious purposes, complying with Andean religious worldviews. The images of zoomorphs that are carrying “Trophy” Head (especially birds, but also of “Carcanchas” and isolated “Trophy” Heads, anthropomorphic “Trophy” Heads Carriers (and perhaps of the Chillihuay-Monkey as well), all symbolise the transference, the magical flight of the souls of the deceased (via “Trophy” Heads) and of messages to their ancestors and deities residing on top of the regional Apus. Expressly the petroglyph on Boulder AP3-171 at Alto de Pitis depicting the intentional transformation of a “Trophy” Head into a bird in full flight (Van Hoek 2018b: Fig. 14), is most illustrative in this respect (see also Van Hoek 2018a: 137, Fig. 102). Perhaps it symbolises the invisible, spiritual “Road to Apu Coropuna”; the Sacred Mountain of the area, which is clearly visible from Alto de Pitis.

I thus claim that this – the symbolic, supernatural flight of the “Trophy” Head to the regional Apu; a Sacred Mountain – is in fact the ultimate meaning and goal of the “Trophy” Head (taking) and of the “Carcanchas” and of many bird petroglyphs recorded in the MRAS (Van Hoek 2013; 2018a). The idea of such a spiritual journey also seems to have been accepted by Cardona Rosas (2016: note the title). But again, also my claim regarding the goal of the “Trophy” Head in the MRAS is just what it is: a theory, a tentative attempt at interpreting a certain ancient icon that probably always will remain indecipherable, also because informed knowledge is completely lacking. This in fact also goes for every interpretation presented in this study.

*

Final Observations

This study demonstrates that – exceptionally – the imagery on “just” one outcrop panel at Chillihuay (Panel CHY-C-008) comprises (a private!?) collection (explained further on) of most idiosyncratic key-types of anthropomorphic petroglyphs (including several “Trophy” Heads) and one specific zoomorphic design that all have also been recorded at many other rock art sites in the Majes Rock Art Sphere (the area from Caravelí to Vítor; see Figure 1). I cannot remember to have seen any other panel anywhere in the MRAS that combines so many idiosyncratic key-types of petroglyphs. These key-types include one MSC-Style eye motif; one possible “Feathered Homunculus”; several “Trophy” Heads and “Trophy” Head Carriers; possible “Carcanchas”; a relatively large number of X-bearing personages; anthropomorphs featuring the Horizontal Long Line and/or a “feathered” appendage, and two bicephalic snakes with U-shaped heads (and one monocephalic example). This condensed assembly of key images on one (private!?) panel (without depicting any scene, though) makes Panel CHY-C-008 truly unique.

*

The Local Context

It most likely was the combination of the suitable rock surfaces and the visibility of the often sun-illuminated yellowish  stone towering high above the valley that first triggered ancient peoples to explore the spot and to use it as a “Huaca”, especially because – in general – elevated spots were often considered to be sacred. In the course of time, Chillihuay became increasingly ritually charged, also by the (intermittent) production of numerous petroglyphs, manufactured mainly by locals, yet modestly influenced by other cultures (like Paracas).

Unfortunately, due to earthquakes and mining activities in the area, many of the boulders at Chillihuay are no longer in situ. Therefore, the fact that Panel CHY-C-008 is part of an outcrop means that the selection of this fixed panel at this height is probably premeditated, fitting within the worldview of the creators of  the images. If that is true, then also the selection of the iconic in-situ images on only Panel CHY-C-008 is premeditated and thus highly meaningful.

There may be another indicator that Panel CHY-C-008 is special within the Chillihuay complex. Panel CHY-C-008 is found at a spot quite a distance south of the main concentration (see Figure 2). When climbing up to the spot (Badillo 2023), the petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C-008 remain invisible until the very spot was reached. Possibly the secluded alcove was considered to be more sacred, being isolated from the rest, and was therefore selected to become one of the most private spots of the whole complex (which was likely to be more public). If my tentative suggestion is true, then possibly only the elite and specialised officials and authorised manufacturers of their sacred symbols may have had access to Panel CHY-C-008, that consequently became adorned with a collection of most idiosyncratic and meaningful images, depicting specific anthropomorphic figures (not involving scenes, though).

Yet it is also important that there are MRAS images that – as far as I know – are not found at Chillihuay, like the “Majes Spitter” (Van Hoek 2024c), the Rectangular Bird (see Van Hoek 2021a), and – especially – the Majes “Dancer” (Van Hoek 2022d), all of which are (almost) exclusively found in the Central Majes Valley only. This proves that – also regarding its graphical expression – every drainage developed its own individual character (often based on only one or a few specific images, like the Majes “Dancers” in the Central Majes Valley (Van Hoek 2022d), and the Bilobed Design at Quilcapampa in the Sihuas Valley [Van Hoek 2021a: 24]), yet simultaneously sharing many typical MRAS images with the other MRAS-Drainages (especially images of camelids, snakes, felines and birds [whether spotted or not]).

*

The Larger Regional Context

There is also no doubt in my mind that this rich collection of selected icons on Panel CHY-C-008 (and of course several other petroglyphs on the panel) definitely links Chillihuay with the rest of the MRAS and – to a lesser extent – with cultures beyond the MRAS. Therefore, the Chorunga Valley and also Chillihuay must have frequently been visited by locals and by people from other valleys in the MRAS, as well as by visitors beyond the MRAS (for instance Paracas traders or officials), even though Chillihuay is said not to be directly located along an important through route (Zborover et al. 2023: 116). Moreover, the site is positioned high upon a rugged mountain ridge that is very difficult to access. Not an inviting climb. Yet Chillihuay must have been a site that attracted people from nearby valleys and from afar. In my opinion “foreign” influence regarding rock art imagery mainly (yet modestly) came from the “neighbouring” Paracas Culture; not so much from the Wari Culture.

*

The Paracas Context

Having intensively studied the MRAS for more than twenty years, I am convinced that the cultural and graphic relationship between Chillihuay (and the MRAS) and the distant Paracas iconography is a fact. This relationship is – for instance – also evidenced by the petroglyphs of anthropomorphs at Chillihuay that have the Horizontal Long Line crossing the chin area or the mouth, two of which occur on Panel CHY-C-008. The other example is found on Segment CHY-C-008-B. Not only Chillihuay, also the extensive rock art site of Illomas further east offers evidence of Paracas influence, which is evidenced by – for instance – the Paracas Sun-Faces (discussed further on) and some specific anthropomorphs at that site (Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 1919: 13 and 16).

But also the impressive “Lord” petroglyph at Chillihuay offers evidence for a link with Paracas (Van Hoek 2014). Earlier I wrote (Van Hoek 2018: 54 – 55) that the “Lord”  has a fully pecked, double-stepped pattern on its face; an archetypal Andean design. This stepped element may represent the nose, but it is equally possible that it combines the nose and the mouth (which seems to be absent otherwise). Importantly, a stepped nose-mouth element also occurs as a facial element in a Paracas anthropomorphic figure embroidered on a textile (Van Hoek 2014: Fig. 11).

The “Lord” also has the well-known position of the frontally depicted, Andean Staff God, often depicted in (MSC-Style) Paracas imagery (for instance in the Karwa [or Carhua] textiles excavated at a site very near the Paracas coast). Importantly, a large anthropomorphic petroglyph on Segment CHY-C-008-C (estimated by me to measure roughly 90 cm in height) not only has an impressive, complex headgear and an X on the thorax, it is also drawn in the typical Staff God position, even when the “staff” in its left hand is almost invisible due to weathering and erosion. Also note the X-symbol on its head or mask (see Figure 7B).

*

The Purported Wari Influence

Although I am convinced that Paracas imagery and related ideology influenced the rock art content of (mainly the western part of) the MRAS, and thus also of Chillihuay (Van Hoek 2018: 56), I am less convinced about the purported high degree of Wari influence in the MRAS. For instance, I definitely reject the generally accepted theory that the Majes “Dancers” – icons that are almost exclusive to only the Central Majes Valley – are of Wari origin (Van Hoek 2022d).

In general Wari-influence regarding the imagery at Chillihuay is – in my opinion – rare and often ambiguous, even though Huashuayo Chávez proposed a Middle Horizon occupation and specifically a Wari cultural affiliation to the majority of the petroglyphs (Zborover et al. 2023: 104). However, although definite Wari artefacts have been excavated in the Corral Redondo archaeological site (Zborover et al. 2023: 104), Wari artefacts – like ceramics and textiles – can always have been transported by for instance Ocoña locals from Wari areas, thus not necessarily offering evidence for dominant (or even insignificant) Wari influence.

Moreover, petroglyphs of the Rectangular Bird (one with a stepped design at Toro Muerto) and several other petroglyphs (that are especially found concentrated at Sector-X at Toro Muerto [Van Hoek 2022e]) are possibly the only graphical indicators of a modest Wari-influence in the MRAS. Tellingly, the Rectangular Bird is (almost) exclusive to the rock art of the Central Majes Valley. And as far as I know, the Rectangular Bird has not (yet?) been recorded at Chillihuay. Moreover, the indications offered by Zborover et al. (2023) regarding foreign influence are often confusing. They for instance state that “sun-face” petroglyphs are common in rock art sites to the east of Chillihuay such as Illomas, Toro Muerto, and Quilcapampa, while my map of the MRAS (Jennings, Van Hoek 2019: Fig. 2) clearly indicates an absence of Sun-Faces in the Sihuas (thus also at Quilcapampa) and Vítor Drainages. The confusion is created because “sun-faces” (which always have facial features, like eyes and mouth) are not the same as “rayed head” images, neither as sun-symbols. Therefore I doubt whether a number of “sun-faces” (or “rayed heads”) have indeed been recorded at Chillihuay. The paper by Zborover et al. (2023) offers no illustration of a “sun-face” (or “rayed head”) at Chillihuay, which would have been informative. Finally, petroglyphs of true Sun-Faces are not at all common in the MRAS.

The same confusion involves their remarks regarding another idiosyncratic image at Chillihuay (Figure 13A). It has been referred to by Zborover et al.  (2023: 112) as an intricate abstract motif (recorded in Chillihuay West-A, a short distance to the NE of Panel CHY-C-008), which is composed of four Stepped Designs, two flanking a triangular component, which – so they argue – is also common at Toro Muerto. Moreover, Zborover et al. state that this (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).

Figure 13. A: Bloque 20 at Chillihuay West: detail of the “Stepped Face”. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on illustrations by Huashuayo Chávez (2022: Figs 8 and 10; 93). B: One of the four sets of the purported “Dagger Design” at Toro Muerto, together with my two interpretations of the design. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

First of all, the pattern that I dubbed as a “dagger” is – although possibly related – by no means the same as the Stepped Design or the triangular element referred to by Zborover et al., (photographed in 2007 by decamana.com, and illustrated thrice [as Bloque 20] by Huashuayo Chávez [2022: Figs 8 and 10; 93]). My drawings of the “dagger” show a completely different motif (one set shown in Figure 13B; Van Hoek 2018: Fig. 4). Zborover et al. called the group on Bloque 20 an intricate abstract, while the group most likely depicts a face composed of abstracted facials (as suggested by me earlier; Van Hoek 2018: 65). Interestingly, also Huashuayo Chávez (2022: 29) labelled the group – in my opinion correctly – as a possible human head (even it is actually a face) based on Stepped Designs. Because of the Stepped Designs the face-composition on Bloque 20  probably also indicates Paracas influence, in analogy with the stepped patterns on the faces of the “Lord” and “Warrior” (see also Van Hoek 2004: 88).

Moreover, my “dagger” design is not at all common, as stated by Zborover et al. (2023), as it occurs only eight times (one pair shown in Figure 13B) in the MRAS, and then again indeed only at Toro Muerto. Earlier (Van Hoek 2004: 87 and 88) I tentatively interpreted such a motif as an ocean wave (the curl or spiral) in combination with a mountain (the Stepped Design). However, I definitely reject my “dagger” interpretation (despite my own labelling of the motif as a “dagger”). Also the Stepped Design is not at all common in Toro Muerto. I know of only one Stepped Design at that huge site. It concerns the outlined wing of a Rectangular Bird petroglyph (Van Hoek 2018: Fig. 87). In fact, the Stepped Design is very rare in Desert Andes rock art. Surprisingly, it is rather common in Andean textiles, ceramics and the architectural art of many different Andean cultures; a very unexpected contrast. Therefore, the stepped facial elements in the faces of the “Lord” and “Warrior” petroglyphs, and in the “abstracted face” on Bloque 20 at Chillihuay (see also Huashuayo Chávez (2022: Calco 21) are an anomaly in the MRAS and – in my opinion – most likely reflect Paracas (perhaps early Nasca) influence.

Zborover et al. (2023: 119) correctly state that people began carving petroglyphs at Chillihuay as early as the Early Horizon, which is evidenced by the several MSC-Style petroglyphs at Chillihuay. They also remark that rock art production continued through the Middle Horizon (which is – of course – correct) as corresponding styles, and, specifically, Wari iconography, began to appear, but they do not give any example or illustration of that alleged Wari iconography. Do they mean (for instance) the “dagger-design”? I demonstrated that both the “dagger” and the Stepped Pattern may well be of Paracas origin. Therefore, in my opinion the allegedly influential role of the Wari must seriously be questioned (see also Yepez Álvarez and Jennings 2012) and any dominant Wari influence in the MRAS is therefore rejected by me (again). Yet Wari did visit and settle in areas in the MRAS and may indeed have affected the local rock art practices to some (minor) extent, in my opinion mainly at Toro Muerto (Van Hoek 2022e). Yet there are indications at Chillihuay that some designs may point at a modest Wari-influence, like the presence of the right-angled type of meander (see Van Hoek 2022e).

My final question in this Wari-issue is: Why is Wari influence “absent” in the rock art of the enormously large coastal strip (outside the MRAS), which was once occupied by the Wari? If for instance the Majes “Dancer” was truly a Wari icon, why then are the more than 1200 examples recorded by me only found in the Central Majes Valley (and six in Vítor) and nowhere else; not even on Wari-artefacts? Wari dominance reached as far as northern Peru, but there is no question of unambiguous Wari elements so far recorded in the rock art of that area. It was Linares Málaga who started to label much of the rock art of the Majes Valley as Wari expressions. And – unfortunately – that became the (often accepted yet incorrect) standard.

*

Chillihuay – a Major Sacred Site

Not only the amount of rock art in the whole complex of Chillihuay is most impressive, also many of the individual petroglyphs are striking; several are even unique. Added to this remarkable general display is the exceptional content of Panel CHY-C-008 with a large number of individual anthropomorphic figures; some possibly depicting deities (like the Andean Staff God). I have never seen a panel in the MRAS that has so many images (at least 25 examples [see Figure 3]) of much differing and often iconic anthropomorphs.

All those facts indicate that Chillihuay was – and still is – indeed an exclusive Sacred Site. Chillihuay must therefore have been a most important, highly celebrated ritual “Huaca” during a long period. Its importance was well-known and acknowledged in a very large area. Its ritual and religious importance and ritual rock art production (in my opinion mainly by local people) no doubt started at some point during the Andean Formative Period, (evidenced by several petroglyphs of the MSC-Style at Chillihuay), and its special ritual status continued to be sanctioned for many centuries by adding more and more petroglyphs.

Finally, despite this detailed report mainly describing the images on Panel CHY-C-008, I am certain that further in-depth investigation of the panel will reveal more – possibly decisive -details, especially because the photographs and drone-recordings by the Proyecto Arqueológico Corral Redondo of this panel were made at a time that the panel was in the shade. This also goes for many other panels at Chillihuay. There is still much to discover. If so, it may again change the opinions (also mine) earlier expressed about Chillihuay and the MRAS, the region possibly housing the largest concentration of rock art of South America.

*

Appreciation

This study benefitted much from the support by Rainer Hostnig, rock art researcher from Cusco, Peru, who shared with me the complete photographic documentation of his 2008-survey at Chillihuay West (the Cover Photo is © by Rainer Hostnig), as well as some additional and useful information about the site.

*

Justification

All the drawings of (details of) Panel CHY-C-008 and of petroglyphs on other panels at Chillihuay, the MRAS and the Paracas Heartland published in this study must be regarded to only represent my tentative interpretations, based on the often not so distinct or sometimes incomplete graphical information published by Huashuayo Chávez (2022), on the much better illustrations published by Badillo (2023) and Zborover et al. (2023) and the other researchers mentioned in the study. Especially some illustrations had to be digitally enhanced to see the details somewhat better, but it is very well possible that (all) my drawings are still inaccurate and possibly (especially regarding details) incorrect. Of course I still am the only one responsible for all my opinions expressed in this study, as well as for any inaccuracy or error.

*

References

Badillo, A. E. 2023a. Chillihuay ortho 1080p. YouTube Video (showing the location of Panel CHY-C-008 in a drone-created video).

Badillo, A. E. 2023b. Chillihuay Petroglyph Panels (South). YouTube Video (showing the petroglyphs of Panel CHY-C-008 and 009 in a drone-created close-up video).

Badillo, A. E. 2023c. Chillihuay Final. YouTube Video (providing general information about Chillihuay).

Cardona Rosas, A. 2016. Huacas paqariscas y mitos: el viaje de los Muertos. Rupestreweb.

Chumpitaz Llerena, D. and M. Rodríguez Cerrón. 2014. Los Petroglifos de Chillihuay: La imagen antropomorfa (del formativo al período de integración Wari). In: Rupestreweb.

Dawson, L. E. 1979. Painted Cloth Mummy Masks of Ica Peru. In: The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, May 19th and 20th, 1973. pp. 83 – 104. Editors: Ann Pollard Rowe, Elizabeth Benson and Anne-Louise Schaffer. The Textile Museum and Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, USA.

Frame, M. 2001. Blood, Fertility, and Transformation: Interwoven Themes in the Paracas Necropolis Embroideries. In: Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook. Chapter 4: pp 55 – 92. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hostnig, R. 2003. Arte rupestre del Perú. Inventario Nacional. CONCYTEC, Lima, Perú.

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.

King, M. E. 1965. Textiles and Basketry of the Paracas Period, Ica Valley, Peru. PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuscon. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Linares Málaga, E. 1973. Anotaciones sobre las cuatro modalidades de arte rupestre en Arequipa (pictografías, petroglifos, arte rupestre mobiliar y geoglifos). In: Anales Cientificos de la Universidad del Centro del Perú. Boletín APAR. 2013. Vol. 4, No. 15-16.

Linares Málaga, E. 1991-1992. Prehistoria de Arequipa. Vol. 2. Arequipa.

Linares Málaga, E. 2004. Arte rupestre en Arequipa y el sur del Perú. Editorial Nuevo Milenio. Arequipa.

Lozada, M. C. 2019. Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológica de Reconocimiento y Excavaciones Restringidas en Corral Redondo. Final report submitted to Peru’s Ministry of Culture, Lima.

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.

Perú Explorer. 2006. Chillihuay. Revista Perú Explorer, Nº 3.

Ritter, E. W. 1994. An analysis of mural art and rock art sites in the Acarí and Yauca Valleys of southern Peru. In: American Indian Rock Art. Vols VIII and XIV; pp. 63 – 75. American Rock Art Research Association. Flagstaff, AZ, USA.

Rodriguez Cerrón M. and D. Chumpitaz Llerena. 2008. Los Petroglifos de Chillihuay: Aproximaciones a su interpretación. Paper presented at the III Simposio Nacional de Arte Rupestre. Huaraz, Perú.

Scaffidi, B. and T. Tung. 2020. Endemic violence in a pre-Hispanic Andean community: A bioarchaeological study of cranial trauma from the Majes Valley, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 172-2; pp. 246 – 269. PDF available at Academia.

Scaffidi, B. K., G. D. Kamenov, A. E. Sharpe and J. Krigbaum. 2021. Non-Local Enemies or Local Subjects of Violence?: Using Strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and Lead (206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb) Isobiographies to Reconstruct Geographic Origins and Early Childhood Mobility of Decapitated Male Heads from the Majes Valley, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 29; pp. 426 – 479.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2004. The stepped-fret motif in American rock art: an attempt at tracing origin and meaning. The Artifact. Vol. 42; pp. 75-91. El Paso Archaeological Society. El Paso, Texas.

Van Hoek, M. 2005a. Los Petroglifos de Muralla y Pakra, Valle de Pisco, Perú. Boletín de SIARB, Vol. 19; pp. 28 – 37. La Paz, Bolivia.

Van Hoek, M. 2005b. Biomorphs ‘playing a wind instrument’ in Andean rock art. Rock Art Research. Vol. 22-1; pp. 23 – 34. Melbourne, Australia. Available as PDF at Academia and DropBox

Van Hoek, M. 2010. ‘Trophy’ heads in the rock art of the Majes Valley, Perú: exploring their possible origin. In: Rupestreweb.

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. 2015. Rare Petroglyphs of Skeleton-Anthropomorphs in Caravelí, Arequipa, Peru. Adoranten-2014. pp. 88 – 96. Underslös, Sweden.

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 and DropBox (PDF-001).

Van Hoek, M. 2018b. The Supernatural Flight of the ‘Trophy-Bird’ of Alto de Pitis, Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek M. 2020a. Enfrentando los dibujos… ¡otra vez! (Perú); Confronting the Drawings … Again! (Peru). In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek M. 2020b. New “Carcancha” Petroglyphs in Arequipa, Peru. Illustrating the “Road to Coropuna”. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021a. Accessing the Inaccessible. Rock Art of Quilcapampa, southern Peru. Oisterwijk, the Netherlands. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox (PDF-035).

Van Hoek, M. 2021b. The Enigma of the “Feathered Homunculus” in the Rock Art of the Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2021c. Seated Biomorphs in Paracas Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at Academia and DropBox (PDF-003).

Van Hoek, M. 2021-2023. War and Weapons in Majes Style Rock Art? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022a. The Road to Apu Misti. The Rock Art of La Caldera, Southern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022b. Why Selecting Mollebaya Chico for Rock Art Production? In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2022c. The Book of the Río Caravelí Petroglyphs, Peru – Further Analyses. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox (PDF-034).

Van Hoek, M. 2022d. The Majes “Dancer” – Analysing an Enigmatic Icon. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox (PDF-005).

Van Hoek, M. 2022e. The Status of Sector-X within the Rock Art Complex of Toro Muerto, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Updated: February 2022.

Van Hoek. M. 2023. “Trophy” Heads in the Rock Art of North and South America”. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox (PDF-018).

Van Hoek, M. 2024a. A New “Venus” Cross Petroglyph in the Vítor Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2024b. Imaoun – Morocco. Cross-Examining the Venus Cross in the Rock Art of Morocco and Beyond. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2024c. The “Majes Spitter”. Contextualising an Enigmatic Zoomorph in Rock Art. Privately published. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox (PDF-006).

Van Hoek, M. 2024d. New “Snake” Petroglyphs – Vítor Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Yepez Álvarez, W. J. and J. Jennings (Eds.). 2012. Wari en Arequipa? Analisis de los Contextos funerarios en la Real. Museo de Arqueologia Jose Maria Morante, UNSA. Arequipa, Perú.

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. See Note 1.

*

Note 1: Regarding the year of publication in the reference to Zborover et al. above and throughout my study, I followed the “Recommended Citation” as suggested on the first page of their Andean Past article. Hence I used “2023” instead of the “2024” mentioned at the top of each page of their Andean Past article-PDF. If “2024” is correct after all, please read “2024” instead of “2023” everywhere in this paper. Also, the spelling of the name of Zborover in the “Recommended Citation” is incorrect. I corrected that in my reference and used the correct spelling throughout my paper.

*

Thank you for your attention.