This paper discusses the possible meaning of two impressive petroglyphs at Chillihuay in the Ocoña Drainage of southern Peru. One petroglyph concerns the very large image of what is often called “The Lord”, which suggests that it is an image of an Andean God, possibly the well-known Staff God. Despite the many conflicts and wars that no doubt occurred throughout prehistoric Andes, it is in my mind certain that the two petroglyphs at Chillihuay offer no evidence for a militaristic theme in the rock art of the area, as is – in my opinion incorrectly – claimed by archaeologists Scaffidi and Tung, and later also accepted by Zborover.

By Maarten van Hoek

*

*

The Chillihuay “Lord”

Paracas “Staff God” or Tiwanaku “Warrior”?

*

Maarten van Hoek

*

Introduction

In view of the – in general – almost inevitable conflicts between (especially expanding) groups of people, it is surprising to note that rock art images of unambiguously armed personages are rare in the rock art of the Desert Andes, the extremely dry coastal area west of the High Andes. Moreover, such armed figures are even extremely rare in more constricted regions within the Desert Andes. For instance, only five petroglyphs unambiguously carrying weapons have so far been recorded among the thousands of images in the rock art of our Study Area, the Majes Rock Art Sphere (the MRAS; the rock art region in the west of Arequipa, southern Peru; Figure 1). Several other anthropomorphic rock art figures in the MRAS carry objects, but in all those cases it is unquestionably undecided what exactly those objects are. They could depict any object. And what is more, those five certainly armed rock art images could equally depict hunters or guardians. Moreover, despite what some archaeologists claim or suggest (Scaffidi and Tung 2020; Zborover et al. 2023), there is no sign of even the modest armed conflict between two or more people in the rock art of the MRAS, not even a modest unarmed yet aggressive confrontation between two people. In my opinion not a single militaristic theme is aimed at in the rock art images of the MRAS (Van Hoek 2021).

*

The Chillihuay “Warriors”

This study focusses on the impressive petroglyphs of two clearly armed anthropomorphic figures at Chillihuay, an important rock art complex in the far west of the MRAS (Site #8 in Figure 1). Those two unique petroglyphs have been discussed by me in much detail earlier (Van Hoek 2014), but this study aims at reviewing some aspects of the two figures that – as far as I know – have not been considered before.

Because it is certain that the two figures carry weapons, they usually are interpreted as “warriors”, whether this is correct or not. The “warrior” (guerrero) classification – in first instance indicating both petroglyphs – was probably used for the first time in a publication by Perú Explorer (2006). Those two figures were later separately labelled “El Señor” (the “Lord”) and “El Guerrero” (the “Warrior”) by archaeologists Rodriguez Cerrón and Chumpitaz Llerena (2008; 2013; 2014).

Figure. 1. Map of the MRAS with the locations of a selection of rock art sites roughly indicated. 1. The Yarabamba Group (outside the MRAS); 2. Culebrillas; 3. La Pampilla; 4. Quilcapampa and La Tuna; 5. Alto de Pitis; 6. Toro Muerto; 7. Illomas; 8. Chillihuay; 9 Río Caravelí. The circles indicate three of the volcanos (Sacred Mountains) in the area. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap-Contributors.

Unfortunately, publications by Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2013 and 2014) offered incorrect illustrations of the “Lord” and the “Warrior”, which – in my opinion – inhibits a correct interpretation of the figures. In my comments on their illustrations (Van Hoek 2014) I also used the labels of “Lord” and “Warrior”, but I offered – not to boast – far better illustrations (see Figure 4) (which were deliberately ignored by them in their subsequent publication). Moreover, I also suggested different meanings for the two figures. For instance, I suggested that the two armed figures could also be interpreted as territorial markers or as warning signs (comparable with scarecrows) for the uninvited or the uninitiated approaching the rock art site from the east (Van Hoek 2014: page 20 in the PDF-version), because the “Lord” and the “Warrior” are the first, also most intimidating figures that any person approaching from the San Juan de Chorunga petroglyph field (the east part of the Chillihuay Complex) would see.

*

Different Chronologies?

Are the “Lord” and the “Warrior” contemporaries? Unfortunately. dating petroglyphs is always a hazardous task, especially in deserts. Yet, there are some clues. Several petroglyphs at Chillihuay are of the MSC-Style (Van Hoek 2011), which all date to the Andean Formative Period (roughly from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1). Also the Paracas Culture (roughly B.C 800 to A.D. 100.) dates from the Andean Formative Period, and several petroglyphs in the (mainly western part) of the MRAS clearly demonstrate that Paracas iconography and most likely also part of their worldview influenced the MRAS to some extent (Van Hoek 2014; 2018; 2024; Jennings, Van Hoek et al. 2019). This may imply that the “Lord” and the “Warrior” also date from that period. Yet, their chronology is probably more complex than that.

A short recap. Earlier (Van Hoek 2014) I demonstrated (by analogy) that the “Lord” exhibits a Paracas mouth-nose configuration (a Double Unit Stepped Pattern; see Van Hoek 2004), Paracas legs and feet, the typical tripartite Paracas eyes and an attitude (Figure 2A) similar to anthropomorphic figures on Paracas textiles (Figure 2B). Much later I also suggested that even the dented X-Design on its thorax may be of Paracas origin (Van Hoek 2024). Therefore the “Lord” most likely is of Paracas (Formative Period) origin, or at least it shows Paracas influence. Yet I maintain that – if indeed the figure is the result of Paracas influence – the “Lord” is only a local interpretation of a Paracas figure, imported – for instance – on a textile, while the petroglyph itself has been manufactured – in my opinion – by a local of the Ocoña-Chorunga area, as probably have most of the petroglyphs at the Chillihuay Complex.

Figure 2. A: The Chillihuay “Lord”. B: “Staff God”-like figure on a Paracas textile. C: The “Staff God” on a ceramic found at Conchopata. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on A: photographs by Rainer Hostnig; B: drawing by Mary Frame (2001: Fig. 5.10-A); C: drawing by Viau-Courville (2014: Fig. 9).

The “Warrior” (Figure 3A) is of a slightly different lay-out, but still displays Paracas legs and feet, but it also displays an attitude – especially regarding its profile head (also decorated with a Stepped Pattern; a Single Unit Stepped Pattern) and headgear, and also the way it holds its armament – that may show Nasca influence. Yet, the basic, largely frontally depicted pose is the same as the “Lord”. Therefore, the “Warrior” may (partially?) date to either the Formative Period or the Early Intermediate Period. However, I also suggested that the profile headdress hovering over the head of the “Warrior” may be an even later (Wari?) addition. It is this type of headgear that causes confusion regarding the chronology of the “Warrior”. Therefore, the exact chronologies of the “Lord” and especially of the “Warrior” are still uncertain and will have to be confirmed by more solid evidence. But it is undeniable that any attempt at establishing a chronology or interpretation must be based on accurate renderings of the petroglyphs in question; not on incorrect illustrations, like the ones published by Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (Figure 4A; see also Van Hoek 2014).

Figure 3. A: The Chillihuay “Warrior” at Chillihuay. B: Detail of the “Warrior”. C: Possible “Hunter” painted on a Kero found at Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on A: photographs by Rainer Hostnig; B: photograph © by Rainer Hostnig; C: a photograph by Viau-Courville (2014: Fig. 9).

Figure 4. A: The head of the “Lord” according to Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2014); B: The factual layout of the head of the “Lord”. Drawings A and B © by Maarten van Hoek, A: based on an illustration by Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2014), B: based on photographs by Rainer Hostnig.

Another reason to suggest that the “Lord” and the “Warrior” are possibly not contemporary is the fact that the two figures are not configured in a recognisable scene (which would imply the recognised presence of a sequence of events, or a narrative) and may thus not be related chronologically. If indeed a scene would still have been the purpose of the manufacturer(s), the configuration did not at all result in a confrontation scene, which debunks the conflict-theory, claimed by Scaffidi and Tung (2020) and accepted by Zborover et al. (2023). The Chillihuay “Warrior” – who is observing the path down to its left – is looking away from the “Lord”, who is facing the observer of the rock panel. Yet, both impressive figures (much better visible when just having been manufactured) just possibly may have had the same function: intimidating or scaring off uninitiated people entering the Chillihuay West Complex from the east.

Another indication that the “Lord” and the “Warrior” are possibly not contemporary and do not depict a scene, is the fact that they have been manufactured at different levels; the “Lord” being situated somewhat higher on the rock panel (Figure 5). Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodriguez Cerrón (2014) suggested that the “Lord” was manufactured at a higher level than the “Warrior” in order to establish its supremacy over the “Warrior” (thus obviously accepting the two figures to be of the same date). This may be true, but it is equally possible that the difference in position is simply explained by the possibility that the sloping layer of debris that once covered the lower part of the panel enabled the “Lord” to be manufactured at a higher point, while the “Warrior” was manufactured (later?) at a lower level.

Figure 5. The “Lord” (#1) and the “Warrior” (#2) and the (possible!) isolated headgear design (#3) at Chillihuay. Photograph © by Rainer Hostnig.

Not all petroglyphs on this panel are clearly visible. The natural surface of the upper part of the panel is fully exposed, deeply patinated and shows most petroglyphs and other markings very clearly. The petroglyphs on the lower part are more blurred, as this area, showing a more yellowish colour (Figure 5), seems to have been affected/weathered differently. It is possible that some time a pile of rubble covered and thus protected this lower area (similar differently patinated areas occur on adjacent panel CHY-F-005). The lowermost part probably has been covered for a much longer time and seems to have no petroglyphs.

A final indication possibly confirming an early manufacturing date of both figures is offered by the weapons they carry. Although Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodriguez Cerrón (2014) speak of “arrows” (flechas) when describing the objects held by the “Warrior”, it is more likely that the linear objects (with pointed outlined heads) associated with the “Warrior” are spears used in an atlatl (which the “Warrior” definitely “holds” in his right hand); not arrows of a bow-and-arrow. I also argue that, likewise, the pointed objects associated with the “Lord” are spears used in combination with an atlatl; not arrows, despite the fact that it is uncertain whether the “ladder” object represents a throwing device. My observations seem to be confirmed by an anthropomorphic figure on a Paracas textile (Frame 2001: Fig. 4.7.A) that seems to hold two spears depicting spearheads and feathers; a possible indication that the Paracas (and also the succeeding Nasca) used the throwing spear device (the atlatl) for hunting, internal conflicts and possibly warfare. In this respect it must be mentioned that the bow-and-arrow was probably introduced into this part of the Central Andes for the first time during the (late?) Middle Horizon (probably by the Wari). As far as I know, there are no petroglyphs in the MRAS unambiguously depicting the bow; only two very doubtful (partially covered) examples are known to me (Van Hoek 2019: Figs 38 and 39).

*

The “Lord”: Staff God or Not?

Interpreting the complex “Lord” petroglyph at Chillihuay is not a simple task, especially as its name – invented by modern researchers – is in fact subjective, especially because of the use of the capital “L”. For that reason I prefer to use “… ” in all uncertain labels. Moreover, nobody knows how the ancient peoples of the MRAS called their gods, deities, spirits, farmers, warriors, females, mountains etc., and probably nobody will ever know. The MRAS “Stone of Rosetta” has never been found.

The terms “Lord” and “Warrior” were probably first used by Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2014). In my 2014-paper I translated their labels (“Señor” [also known as “Apu”; see below] and “Guerrero”) into “Lord” and “Warrior”, while later Zrobover et al. (2023: 110) used my labels again (with “…”, but without capitals, though). By using the name of “Señor” for the Chillihuay “Lord” Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2014) inherently suggested that the petroglyph might depict a deity or god, although they did not explicitly mention that possibility in their publication.

Importantly, the ancient Andean concept of “Apu” (literally meaning “Lord”) may indicate several things. The label “Apu” may refer to a Deity, a God or a Supreme Being; to the Spirit of a Sacred Mountain (the most powerful of all spirits), or to the Sacred Mountain itself, which is often the home of the spirits of the ancestors, and/or of one or more deities. Therefore, a “Señor” in Andean civilisations was not just an unimportant, male individual; it more likely was a high-status religious personage, or indeed a god. Importantly, a “Señor” – an “Apu” –  could also indicate a Sacred Mountain, like Apu Coropuna, an enormous volcano just north of the MRAS. Possibly for that reason Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón most likely regarded the Chillihuay “Lord” to represent a male Deity (male, because it carries weapons; Deity, because of the “Lord” label), which was moreover superior to the “Warrior” because it was executed at a higher position than the “Warrior” (2014). However, this “lower” position  of the “Warrior” is better explained by the different levels of debris at the foot of the panel.

Another aspect that may empower the use of the term “Lord, is the specific posture of the Chillihuay “Lord”. The anthropomorph has been fully frontally depicted with V-shaped arms that hold vertically arranged objects; the right hand holding two spears (similar to the one held by one of the similarly V-shaped arms of the “Warrior”). Thus the “Lord” at Chillihuay has clearly the posture of the purported well-known Andean “Staff God” (and to a lesser extent the “Warrior”). But is the “Lord” really a “Staff God”, and what is a “Staff God”?

*

The “Staff God” – A Factoid or Not?

Basically, a “Staff God” is a biomorphic figure (an anthropomorph or a therianthrope [for instance an anthropomorph with a zoomorphic head]) that because of its frontally depicted posture and its often flexed (V-shaped) arms – holding vertically arranged objects – is regarded to represent the highly revered Andean “Staff God”. However, regarding the general image of the “Staff God” there may be a problem.

Chumpitaz Llerena and Rodríguez Cerrón (2014) probably called the “Lord” petroglyph at Chillihuay “El Señor” for a reason. They may have – possibly subconsciously – interpreted the image as a deity; a divine being, without – however – explaining why they decided to call the petroglyph “El Señor”. A similar interpretation concerns a petroglyph found at the rock art site of La Isla, overlooking the Río Loa in northern Chile. A large outcrop panel features many petroglyphs, among which is a therianthropic figure (a human-feline combination) that may be compared to the purported “Staff God”. It has V-shaped arms holding vertically arranged objects (plants, feathers?), while it appears to be sitting on a “throne” composed of a large bicephalic camelid (Figure 6). This petroglyph is called “El Señor de los Camélidos”, the “Lord of the Camelids” by Berenguer (1999: 29) and is thus apparently interpreted as a Deity.

Figure 6. Petroglyph of a purported “Staff God” figure at the rock art site of La Isla, northern Chile. Drawing (omitting all other petroglyphs) © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Fernando Maldonado (in Berenguer 1999: 29).

Indeed, the layout of the “Lord” at Chillihuay may be compared with several similar (though always differing) images of the alleged Andean “Staff God”, as I suggested earlier (Van Hoek 2011; 2014). My suggestion was later repeated, but not questioned, by Zborover et al. (2023). Many figures looking like the “Staff God” are found across a large area of the Andes and the Desert Andes, and it is this reappearance that may have caused the surfacing of a factoid.

Factoids are those unsubstantiated ideas that are repeated by several authors over a significant amount of time to the point where they become more convincing than the actual facts. In my opinion an example of a factoid is the idea that the Andean civilisations had their roots in the so-called Chavín “Culture” of highland Peru. This idea is repeated time after time, also by – for instance – Viau-Courville (2014: 14). Yet, earlier I fully explained that – in my opinion – this idea is incorrect (Van Hoek 2011).

A short recap. The origin of Andean cultures must be sought in the much earlier coastal Cupisnique Cultures of northern Peru and not in the subsequent Chavín Cult (not a culture!) in the High Andes, that “borrowed” iconography and religious concepts from Cupisnique Cultures (Moseley 1975; Van Hoek 2011). Also the image and concept of the “Staff God” originated in coastal Cupisnique. For instance, a row of at least three sculptures of “Staff Gods” (one shown in Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 156) was found on an adobe wall at the temple complex of Sechín Bajo in the Casma Valley (dating from around 1600 B.C.). Moreover, a small gourd fragment which is engraved with the (possible) image of a “Staff God” (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 157), was found in ‘Cemetery P’ in the Pativilca Valley in 2002. C14 Radio Carbon dating of the fragment showed that it dates from around 2250 B.C. thus predating Chavín by more than a thousand years. But is the idea of the “Staff God” personage also a factoid or not? Yes, according to Viau-Courville (2014: 24) “Staff Gods” are probably one of the most enduring factoids in Andean studies. The problem is now that the more his idea is repeated, the factoid itself becomes a factoid.

Viau-Courville (2014: 9) argues that an examination of “Staff God” imagery reveals how some elements in the iconography indicate that these personages may be human representations engaged in ritual action, rather than representations of divine figures, i. e., cases of Andean divine anthropomorphism. Unfortunately it is uncertain which elements he refers to. Moreover, he argues that their attributes and spatial organization rather points to their status as ritual practitioners, or at least divinity impersonators. However, I do wonder why the existence of a “Staff God” is then refuted. Even if a figure would be an impersonator of a farmer, of a warrior or of a god, is it then not so that the impersonator by being dressed like the god in fact confirms the existence of a Farmer-God, or of a  Warrior-God, or even of a Staff God? And why is it impossible that the idea of prehistoric societies how their one of their gods should look like and be depicted, resulted in the image of the “Staff God”? I cannot imagine that any scientist will deny that the ancient Andean societies had gods.

There is more. The stepped pedestal element on which several “Staff Gods” seem to be standing (or sitting?), is interpreted by Viau-Courville (2014: 9) only as a symbolic representation of an (anthropic) pyramid, while I argued earlier that certain Stepped Patterns could as well symbolise Sacred Mountains (Van Hoek 2004). The same opinion was also put forward in the extensive study by Scott Smith, who called the Tiwanaku Stepped Pattern the Stepped Mountain (2012: 1). The many pyramid-shaped temples across the globe often symbolise Sacred Mountains and on top of the temple / Sacred Mountain, one was the closest to the gods as possible.

Viau-Courville (2014) does not speak of the Sacred Mountain; a concept highly respected in several ancient Andean societies (and in several other ancient cultures around the world as well). It now makes much more sense that an important personage, holding sacrosanct objects, standing on a Sacred Mountain, like the “Staff God” sculpture on a snuff tray found at Quitor, northern Chile (Figure 7), may well depict or symbolise a god; not just an impersonator, although I do not exclude that impersonators may have been active during ancient Andean rituals, because many religions worldwide use god-impersonators as a substitute, in order to represent and/or honour and/or propitiate their gods.

Figure 7. Image on a wooden snuff tablet from Quitor-5, Chile. The colours have been added arbitrarily to better distinguish several features. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a drawing in López 2007: 15.

There is also the idea that the Tiwanaku “Sacrificer” (a substitute for the “Staff God”?) is in fact a representation of a shaman (Horta and Paulinyi 2023). In view of the many snuff trays bearing images of Tiwanaku-Style “Staff Gods” and other officials, the often drug-inhaling shaman is certainly an option. In the conclusions I will return to this possibility.  But then again, why is it impossible that shamans are dressed like the gods they try to communicate with (during multifaceted rituals, perhaps while inhaling drugs from the frequently found snuff trays)? Importantly, it is even possible that the “Staff God” and the “Sacrificer” are one and the same personage.

*

The “Staff God” – A Shape-Shifter?

It is remarkable how many different representations there are of the purported “Staff God”. As far as I know (but I am not an expert in this field) there has never been found a single instance of an exact duplicate (possibly pointing to individual interpretations of a Pan-Andean concept). Despite this enormous diversity (often regarding still relevant associated details, like the presence of bird and feline elements), there are – in contrast – so many meaningful similarities that researchers started to group all such figures under one label.

The term “Staff God” was first used to describe a most elaborate sculpture on the Raimondi Monolith, discovered near Chavín de Huántar in the High Andes of northern Peru (Figure 8A). This Raimondi figure demonstrates the idea that the “Staff God” actually had several guises, as it almost certainly seems to be related to “another” important Andean personage – the “Decapitator”, or “Sacrificer” – a intimidating figure which is typically depicted with a “Trophy” Head in one hand and some sort of cutting device (a knife or an axe) in the other.

Figure 8. A: Part of the “Raimondi Deity” sculpture at Chavín de Huántar. The elaborate “headdress” has been omitted in my drawing. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Fig. 176 in: Burger 1995. B: Ceramic bottle; provenance unknown, but probably from northern Peru. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on photographs of the Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino in Santiago de Chile. Código de pieza: MChAP-3096.

There is at least one piece of evidence that clearly links the Raimondi “Staff God” with the “Decapitator”. It concerns a ceramic bottle stored at the Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino in Santiago de Chile (said to date from around 1000 to 400 B.C.). Although the ceramic is three-dimensional, the “Decapitator” still has several characteristics that are repeated exactly in the same way in the Raimondi “Staff God” (coloured-in in blue and yellow elements in Figure 8). In fact, the ceramic and the monolith almost certainly depict one and the same figure, except for two relevant differences (coloured-in in green in Figure 8B).

First of all, in its left hand the “Decapitator” holds a “Trophy” Head by the hair, while its right hand carries an object that much resembles the cutting devices or weapons held by several sculptures of warriors at the temple complex at Cerro Sechín, northern Peru (Van Hoek 2011: Figs 4 and 5). This may prove that the (older?) “Decapitator” and the (later?) “Staff God” were regarded by the ancient coastal cultures of northern Peru to be one and the same personage, changing their role through place and time, like a shape-shifter.

*

The “Staff God” in Rock Art

Another remarkable circumstance is the fact that – despite its purported high status – (possible) “Staff God” images are only rarely depicted in rock art. Perhaps for that reason – or just because of not having knowledge about such rock art figures – most authors who publish about Andean “Staff God” figures, do not even mention rock art figures.

Moreover, accepting my suggestion – which confirms and underlines Michael Moseley’s paradigm of the ‘Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization’ (1975) – that especially the coastal area of northern Peru is the origin of the “Staff God”, it is remarkable that in the enormously rich rock art repertoire of that area hardly any or no unambiguous rock art image of the “Staff God” has been reported. Only one possible example has so far been recorded at Cerro de las Murallas in the Virú Drainage in northern Peru (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 162). The same goes for the “Decapitator”. Only one rather convincing petroglyph has so far been recorded (at Alto de la Guitarra, also in the Virú Drainage; Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 40; see also page 178).

In view of its northern origin, it is the more surprising that more (possible) rock art images of the “Staff God” have been recorded south of Lima, for instance the couple at Huancor (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 163) and at Chillihuay (the “Lord”) both in southern Peru. Remarkably, further south, in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, are several more examples, like the anthropomorph holding linear objects (staffs?) at the rock art site of Chiu Chiu, overlooking the Río Loa (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 166). From its hips emanate four snakes (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Petroglyph at Chiu Chiu, northern Chile. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.

Another more convincing example concerns the petroglyph at the rock art site of Chusmiza-3 in northern Chile (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 167). The anthropomorphic figure – fully frontally depicted with V-shaped arms –  holds an atlatl in each hand. It also has the same type of rayed head as the Chiu Chiu example (300 km to the SSE), but instead of snakes, two wing-like appendages emerge from the hip area. Because of those “wings” I have labelled a rather large group of (rock art) images the “Avian Staff Bearer” (fully described and illustrated by me earlier; Van Hoek 2016).

As far as I know, none of the rock art images possibly depicting the “Staff God” is associated with a “Trophy” Head. Also the “Lord” and the “Warrior” at Chillihuay do not hold a “Trophy” Head. In fact, there is not a single petroglyph on the panel that unambiguously depicts a “Trophy” Head (although “Trophy” Head petroglyphs have been recorded at Chillihuay). Therefore, it is almost certain that the “Lord” and the “Warrior” at Chillihuay do not depict the “Decapitator”.

However, regarding the “Avian Staff Bearer” there are exceptions. Although none of those icons has been depicted with “staffs” plus “Trophy” Heads, there are several images of the “Avian Staff Bearer” that hold “staffs” (thus symbolising the “Staff God”?), but no “Trophy” Heads (Van Hoek 2016: Figs 46, 64, 66 and 68), or examples that have “Trophy” Heads attached, mainly to the elbows (thus possibly symbolising “Decapitators?), but that do not have “staffs” (Van Hoek 2016: Figs 69, 75 and 126). Importantly, most of them have been depicted in the typical “Staff God” posture.

Finally, in Andean rock art Stepped Mountain symbols (Van Hoek 2004: the Double Unit with apex up) are extremely rare, and rock art images of an anthropomorphic figure standing on such a Stepped Mountain do – as far as I know – not even exist in the rock art of the Desert Andes, although such configurations have occasionally been recorded in the rock art of the SW of the USA (see for instance Van Hoek 2004: Fig. 5D). Importantly, although very few Stepped Patterns have been recorded at Chillihuay – even within the faces of the “Lord” and the “Warrior” – those two figures are not standing on a Double Unit Stepped Pattern, which would more convincingly classify them as possible Deities.

*

The Chillihuay “Warrior”: Warrior or Not?

Paracas, Wari or Tiwanaku?

Although the headgear of the “Lord” is more complex (Figure 4), and as far as I know unique in the MRAS (and perhaps in the whole of the Desert Andes), the still atypical headgear of the “Warrior” is probably more interesting, because probably it is not unique. Earlier I tentatively suggested that the headgear of the “Warrior” (which has – like its head – been depicted in profile) could be a later addition, possibly of Wari origin (Van Hoek 2014). At that time I also pointed to the isolated design “hovering” between the “Warrior” and the “Lord” (#2 in Figure 3B). It has more or less the same layout as the headgear of the “Warrior” and therefore I suggested that it could have been an unfinished try-out, in an attempt to create a “Warrior” figure closer to the “Lord” (Van Hoek 2014). Also this isolated element could just possibly evidence Wari influence.

However, in 2024, browsing my rock art files, I came across another, possibly more informative parallel. A Tiwanaku Kero (drinking vessel), according to Alan Kolata (1993: Fig. 5.20) most likely found in the Akapana Ceramic Offering Room at Tiwanaku, Bolivia (the offering involving the intentional and ritual smashing of ceramics), shows an interesting figure. Like the Chillihuay “Warrior” it has been depicted fully frontally with flexed arms, except for its head and headgear that are depicted laterally (see Figure 3C).

Importantly, the headgear fixed to the head is almost similar to the one floating immediately above the “Warrior” at Chillihuay (disregarding the differing fine details, like the “bird” at the top). Also this Tiwanaku figure has its V-shaped arms in the same position, the left hand holding linear objects (the right hand and its possible contents not being visible in the illustrations that I have). This figure was interpreted by Mathieu Viau-Courville (2014: 16; Fig. 6) as a “warrior personage”, holding what appear to be arrows and a type of weapon, possibly a spear-thrower (atlatl). Viau-Courville (2014: 16) compares those purported weapons with the linear objects frequently held by representations of the purported “Staff God”. A fine example he illustrates  is for instance the alleged “Staff God” painted on a Wari ceramic found at Conchopata in Peru (see Figure 2C and Figure 10B).

However the official Tiwanaku Guide of the Museo Regional Tiwanaku in La Paz, Bolivia, classifies the anthropomorphic figure as “a hunter with bow and arrows next to his hunting dogs” (Escalante n. d.: 17). Indeed, two quadrupeds seem to accompany the purported hunter, the whole thus indeed depicting a possible hunting scene. Unfortunately none of the three illustrations of the fragmented Tiwanaku Kero shows the whole image; they all three show the same side of the Kero of which the right-hand part of the figure is not completely visible (Figure 3C). A roll-out would have been more informative (see Note 1). Based on the best photo that I have available – made by Viau-Courville (2014: Fig. 6) – I tend to agree with the interpretation offered in the official Tiwanaku Guide that the figure is holding a bow and two arrows; not spears and a spear thrower. It may thus well be a hunter.

Importantly, in the High Andes there once thrived two major, contemporaneous Middle Horizon states, on the one hand Tiwanaku in the area around Lago Titicaca, and on the other Wari in the central High Andes of Peru. Therefore, accepting for now the theory that the Wari introduced the bow-and-arrow, the Kero figure could show Wari influence. If this is true, then this may imply that the personage on the Kero is of a later date than the “Warrior” at Chillihuay that is armed with an atlatl with attached spear and an extra spear. However, it is also possible that the Tiwanaku introduced the bow-and-arrow and that the weapon diffused north to the Wari Heartland in Highland Peru. Two illustrations in the official Tiwanaku Guide of the Museo Regional Tiwanaku show figures with headgear that is comparable with the headdress of the “Warrior” (Escalante n.d.: 19 and 21). This may mean that the specific Chillihuay headgear may be of Tiwanaku origin. The problem is that it is generally accepted that Tiwanaku reign or influence – stopping at the Moquegua Valley in southern Peru – in fact did not reach the MRAS and thus also not Chillihuay. Are the laterally depicted headgear of the Chillihuay “Warrior” and the similar isolated element local inventions, or did Tiwanaku influence reached Chillihuay via the Wari? Confusing in this respect is the fact that at a burial site in the MRAS a wooden object has been excavated, featuring – according to Yépez Álvarez (2012a) – a Tiwanaku Style “Staff God” sculpture (which will be discussed in the next section).

*

Diffusion of the “Staff God” into the MRAS

Despite the absence of unambiguous images of the purported “Staff God” in the rock art of the MRAS, it is certain that there has been diffusion of “Staff God” imagery into the MRAS, even when it only concerns (so far) only one certain example. The image I would like to discuss  (Figure 10A) has been carved out of a wooden object – a snuff tray – that has been excavated in the heart of the MRAS, at the burial site of La Real in the Central Majes Valley, southern Peru.

Figure 10. A: Sculpture on the snuff tray found at the burial site of La Real, Majes Valley, southern Peru. B: Figure painted on a fragmented ceramic found at Conchopata, Highland Peru. Drawings (subjectively coloured-in) © by Maarten van Hoek, A: based on a drawing by Torres (2018: Fig. 11.16.a); B: based on a drawing in Isbell and Knobloch (2006: Fig. 12.5).

Linking the “Staff God” figure on the snuff tray from La Real with the “Decapitator” icon  are the – in my opinion – two stylised “Trophy” Heads that are attached to the stretched arms of the La Real figure (the large red discs with a yellow dot in Figure 10A). It is now a fact that several images of the “Staff God” have either true “Trophy” Heads dangling from the elbows (or attached to other parts); others have stylised “Trophy” Heads attached. Such stylised “Trophy” Heads attached to anthropomorphic figures also occur in rock art, especially at sites in Chile.

An illustration of the La Real snuff tray was first published by García y Bustamante (1990: Figura 3), which was then copied by Yépez Álvarez (2012a: Figura 9.6), but Yépez Álvarez did not provide any information about the tray in his publication. However, a very short description appeared in another chapter of the same book, also written by Yépez Álvarez, though without a reference to the illustration of the snuff tray elsewhere in the otherwise most informative book. Yépez Álvarez describes the object as follows (2012b: 18): An artefact from the burial site of La Real – a tray carved out of wood to inhale hallucinogenic drugs – replicates the typical Classic Tiwanaku iconography. Yépez Álvarez thus seems to suggest that the snuff tray is of Tiwanaku origin, or at least of Tiwanaku influence. As far as I know the La Real snuff tray has not been scientifically dated, neither has its origin been established (which all would have been most informative).

Yet the La Real image also resembles similar images purportedly crafted by the Wari Culture. For instance, the “Staff God” found painted on a fragmented ceramic at Conchopata in the Wari Heartland [Figure 10B] carries a linear object in its left hand that – regarding its “zigzagging” pattern – is almost exactly the same as the pattern on the two objects held by the “Staff God” on the snuff tray excavated at La Real (Figure 10A) and in many other representations of the “Staff God” found throughout the Andes. However, the La Real snuff tray and the Conchopata ceramic – both artefacts being very easy to transport over long distances – may have been made at Tiwanaku (roughly 411 km east of La Real), or at Conchopata (roughly 385 km NNW of La Real), or at any other spot in the area once occupied by the Tiwanaku and/or Wari polities (thus even at La Real).

However, in the scope of this study it is (more or less) irrelevant where the La Real snuff tray originated; in Wari or in Tiwanaku territory. In the context of this paper it is more important that it is now a fact that the image of the purported “Staff God” was known to (at least a select number of elite?) people in the MRAS. Alternatively, diffusion of the “Staff God” figure could also have taken place from the Paracas Heartland, yet many centuries earlier. Think of the several (male and female) MSC-Style (Formative Period) “Staff God” figures found on the Karwa Textiles, found in a Paracas burial site near the Pacific coast.

However, in both scenarios the effect of this diffusion on rock art production in the MRAS can be disregarded completely. There are no convincing rock art images of the “Staff God” in the MRAS, although possibly a copy-cat emerged at Chillihuay: the “Lord”. And despite the numerous petroglyphs of “Trophy” Heads in the MRAS (especially at Toro Muerto), there are also no unambiguous petroglyphs depicting the “Decapitator”. The only possible contender is a very simple anthropomorph possibly holding a “Trophy” Head and a linear object on Boulder TM-Cd-057 at Toro Muerto (Van Hoek 2023: Fig. 78B).

*

Some Observations

It is certain that the various ancient Andean cultures worshipped their ancestors, their spirits and their gods. Understandably different cultures attributed different meanings to their gods, even to gods “borrowed” from earlier cultures. Therefore, despite living in the same desert, for instance the Nasca visualised and interpreted their personages differently than the Paracas they developed from, and therefore the Nasca images differ from the Paracas.

Differences between cultures and their imagery are also caused by the natural environment. There is – for instance – a lot of diversity between the hot and dry coastal deserts and the wooded highlands of Peru, which explains differences in imagery between Nasca and the “invading” Wari. Likewise, despite the graphical similarities, Wari “Staff Gods” may essentially have had a different content than those once revered by the earlier Cupisnique or contemporary Tiwanaku. Yet, despite those differences, the many guises of the purported “Staff God” show enough similarities to arrange them in one group (whether correct or not). But it is still uncertain which culture influenced the manufacturers of the “Lord” and the “Warrior” petroglyphs at Chillihuay and what they actually depict or symbolise. Were they purely local inventions, or was their worldview and iconography influenced by the contacts they had with people of the Paracas Culture? Were they gods, warriors or shamans perhaps?

In 2023 Horta and Paulinyi suggested that Tiwanaku “Sacrificer” (and the “Staff God”?) could well be the representation of a shaman. Their idea of the participation of a shaman seems to be confirmed by the image of a ritual scene on a Nasca double-spout bottle (Figure 11). Archaeologist Donald Proulx (2001: 133; Fig. 6.16; see Note 2) interprets the scene as follows. “It concerns a group of trophy heads beneath a pyramid-shaped mound. A masked shaman, holding staffs in his hands and surrounded by small drinking cups, flanks one side of the mound, while an unmasked individual, also holding staffs, is found on the other side. A feline … hovers over the mound, having some unspecified symbolic meaning.” 

Figure 11. Drawing of a ritual scene on a Nasca double-spout bottle. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek (subjectively coloured-in), based on Uhle (1959: Abb. 1); in: Proulx (2001: Fig. 6.16).

Importantly, the “mound” Proulx speaks of is in fact a concentric Double Unit Stepped Pattern (#3 in Figure 11), that – in my opinion – clearly symbolises a Sacred Mountain. It is surrounded by small drinking cups (yellow in Figure 11; notice that there seem to be three different types of cups) and one larger vessel (all containing drugs?). Significantly, the fully frontally depicted, masked (male, female?) shaman (#1 in Figure 11) is depicted in the position of the “Staff God” (like the “Lord” at Chillihuay) and holds – in my opinion – just objects (why staffs?). The other, possibly laterally depicted figure (like the “Warrior” at Chillihuay) with an open mouth (#2 in Figure 11), also holds two similar objects. Importantly, none of the figures holds a “Trophy” Head, although many “Trophy” Heads have been depicted under and inside the Sacred Mountain. It is certain that all figures and objects in this scene are related and tell a story.

I now would like to offer my (subjective) interpretation of this scene. Personage #2 is – in my opinion – the “Warrior” who decapitated the victim(s). He seems to “address” the (invisible) ancestors and/or gods (?) on top of the Sacred Mountain. Figure #1 is the shaman, impersonating the Andean “Staff God”, while his rituals are focussed on transporting the souls of the deceased (victims?) to the top of the Sacred Mountain. The actual conveyance of the souls is not done by the shaman (who remains standing at the foot of the Sacred Mountain), but via the magical flight of a feline (front part only!?), apparently aided by an (inverted – dead?) bird, both located at the very summit of the Sacred Mountain (is #4 an altar?).

The important role of felines and birds in Andean cosmology – also in relation to the concept of the “spiritual flight” of souls to the top of a Sacred Mountain – is also confirmed by the study by Scott Smith who argues (discussing specific Tiwanaku imagery) that “The use of a puma effigy vessel for ritual at the summit of the sacred Step Mountain makes sense when we recall that felines were the mediators between the earthly and spiritual realms.” (2012: 48), and also that “… birds were conceptualized as being able to transgress the boundaries between the earthly and spiritual realms.” (2012: 51). In this respect Smith illustrates several Tiwanaku Style Sacred (Step Pattern) Mountains with feline or bird heads (2012: Figs 9, 12 and 25).

Also in Moche iconography Stepped Patterns associated with ritual decapitation scenes of captives, again aided by birds, while also anthropomorphic figures with a bird’s head and wings, have been reported (Verano: 2001: Fig. 8.7). It is thus scientifically accepted that in Andean worldview shamans can transform into animals (especially into felines and raptors) in order to communicate with their ancestors and gods, who very often reside on top of a Sacred Mountain.

*

Conclusions

If indeed the image and/or the concept of the “Warrior” and the “Lord” at Chillihuay once diffused from the Paracas territory (which seems to have been evidenced by me [Van Hoek 2014]), then it is – in view of the purported “conflict-theory” of the MRAS – remarkable that (according to Anne Paul) “there is no depictive evidence of warfare in Páracas-Necropolis iconography and there is no evidence that the images are referents to bellicose behavior”. (Paul 2000: 75 – 76; my emphases). It seems – so she argues – that Paracas individuals depicted (in scenes) in textiles are more occupied wounding and killing themselves, rather than fighting each other. Based on my knowledge of the rock art of the area, her conclusions also apply to the rock art repertoire of the Páracas-Nasca Territory. Rock art images (and geoglyphs) depicting conflicts or warfare do not exist in Paracas related rock art, as far as I know. Therefore, “Trophy” Heads, and related personages (shamans and attendants), depicted in Paracas and also in Nasca iconography not necessarily depict only mundane, combative scenes. Moreover, in prehistoric societies many mundane situations had a profound religious context.

Based on all observations in this study I can only conclude that the “Warrior” at Chillihuay does not symbolise a god or a deity, but more likely an (elite) personage, a guardian or a personage whose role possibly was to acquire “Trophy” Heads to be used in certain rituals. The “Lord” at Chillihuay most likely is not a “Staff God” proper, but rather a shaman impersonating a Deity, possibly the Andean “Staff God”. Most importantly however, despite the many conflicts and wars that no doubt occurred throughout prehistoric Andes, it is in my mind certain that the “Lord” and the “Warrior” at Chillihuay offer no evidence for a militaristic theme in the MRAS (Van Hoek 2021), as – in my opinion incorrectly – claimed by Scaffidi and Tung (2020) and accepted by Zborover et al. (2023). But again, also my suggestions are only unproven theories.

*

Acknowledgement

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

*

NOTES

Note 1: After having finished this paper I came across a publication that included an illustration of a (restored) roll-out of the kero found at Tiwanaku (Marsh et al. 2022: Fig. 6a). If this roll-out is correct (it differs in details from the original painted figure), then it is certain that the figure carries a bow and arrows in its left hand and a (ceremonial?) object in its right hand. The dogs are connected with a leash to the elbow of the purported hunter.

Note 2: After having finished this paper I also came across a publication that included a photograph of the Nasca double spout bottle mentioned in this study (Proulx 1994: Fig. 18). It proves that the drawing published by Proulx in 2001 (Fig. 6.16) differs from the original photo regarding some very minor and irrelevant details. The differences mainly concern the legs of the two anthropomorphic figures.

*

References

Berenguer, J. 1999. El evanescente lenguaje del arte rupestre en los Andes atacameños. The vanishing language of rock art in the Andes of Atacama. In: Arte rupestre en los Andes de Capricornio. Rock art in the Andes of Capricorn. J. Berenguer and F. Gallardo, Eds. pp. 9 – 56. Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino. Banco Santiago, Santiago.

Burger, R. L. 1995. Chavín and the origins of Andean civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

Chumpitaz Llerena, D. and M. Rodríguez Cerrón. 2013. Los petroglifos de Chillihuay: la imagen antropomorfa (del Formativo al periodo de integración Wari). V SINAR – “Eloy Linares Málaga”. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima, Perú.

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

Chumpitaz Llerena, D. 2009. Tercer Ciclo de Conferencias en Arte Rupestre – APAR / INC – Tacna. In: Rupestreweb Mensajes (no longer available).

Escalante, J. M. n. d. Tiwanaku Guide. La Paz, Bolivia.

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.

García Márquez, M. and R. Bustamante Montoso. 1990. Arqueología del Valle de Majes. In: Gaceta Arqueológica Andina. Vol. V-18/19; pp. 25 – 40.

Horta, H. and M. Paulinyi. 2023. Develando la identidad chamánica del Sacrificador tiahuanacota en la iconografía centro-sur andina (400-1000 DC). Unveiling the shamanic identity of the Tiahuanaco Sacrificer in south-central Andean iconography (AD 400-1000). Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino. Vol. 28-1; pp. 247 – 273, Santiago de Chile.

Isbell, W. H. and P. J. Knobloch. 2006. Missing Links, Imaginary Links: Staff God Imagery in the South Andean Past. In: Andean Past III. Chapter 12; pp. 307 – 351. Eds. W. H. Isbell and H. Silverman. New York and London: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Press.

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.

Kolata, A. L. 1993. The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization. The Peoples of America. Alan L. Kolata and Dean Snow, general editors. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass., and Oxford, U. K.

López Oliva, M. 2007. Interpretación Simbólica de la Iconografía del Sacrificador y el Señor de los Cetros: Una Visión Desde los Mitos. Universidad de Chile – Facultad de Ciencias Sociales – Departamento de Antropología y Arqueología. Santiago.

Marsh, E. J.; C. Llano; V. Cortegoso; S. Castro and L. Yebra. 2022. The bow and arrow in South America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Elsevier.

Moseley, M. E. 1975. The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Cummings Publishing Company. Menlo Park, California.

Paul, A. 2000. Bodiless Human Heads in Paracas Necropolis Textile Iconography. Andean Past. Vol. 6: Article 7; pp. 69 – 94.

Perú Explorer. 2006. Los Guerreros de Chillihuay. Revista Perú Explorer. Vol. 3; pp. 4 – 11.

Proulx, D. A. 1994. Stylistic variation in proliferous Nasca pottery. In: Andean Past. Vol. 4; pp. 91 – 107.

Proulx, D. A. 2001. Ritual Uses of Trophy Heads in Ancient Nasca Society. In: Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook. Chapter 6: pp. 119 – 136. University of Texas Press, Austin.

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.

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.

Smith, S. C. 2012. Generative Landscapes: The Step Mountain Motif in Tiwanaku Iconography. In: Ancient America. Vol. 12; pp. 1 – 69. Editors: George Stuart and Jeffrey Splitstoser. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville, NC-U.S.A.

Torres, C. M. 2018. Visionary Plants and SAIS Iconography in San Pedro de Atacama and Tiahuanaco. In: Images inAction. The Southern Andean Iconographic Series; Vol 6; Chapter 11; pp. 287 – 326. Edited by William H. Isbell; Mauricio I. Uribe; Anne Tiballi and Edward P. Zegarra. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

Uhle. M. 1959. Wesen und Ordnung der altperuanischen Kulturen. Bibliotheca Ibero-Americana. Berlin: Colloquium Verlag.

Verano, J. W. 2001. The Physical Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. In: Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook. Chapter 8; pp. 165 – 184. University of Texas Press, Austin.

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. Paper available as PDF at Academia.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2016. The Avian Staff Bearer. Upgrading a Controversial Icon in Atacama Rock Art. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Book of Bows – The Archer in Desert Andes Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available as PDF at DropBox.

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

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

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

Viau-Courville, M. 2014. Spatial Configuration in Tiwanaku Art. A Review of Stone Carved Imagery and Staff Gods. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino. Vol. 19-2; pp. 9 – 28. Santiago de Chile.

Yépez Álvarez, W. J. 2012a. Componentes psicotrópicos y parafernalia inhalatoria en el sitio La Real. In: ¿Wari en Arequipa? Yépez Álvarez and Jennings (editors). Capitulo 9; pp. 200 – 213.

Yépez Álvarez, W. J. 2012b. Recuperación del dato empírico: Descripción del sitio y excavación. In: ¿Wari en Arequipa? Yépez Álvarez and Jennings (editors). Capitulo 1; pp. 14 – 31.

Zborover, D.; A. E. Badillo; M. C Lozada; E. S. Lozada 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.