TRACCEPetroglyphs of Cerro Queneto - Peru

Petroglyphs of Cerro Queneto – Peru

October 8, 2025 Academics, Featured, South America No comments INDEX

This study – about the petroglyphs at Cerro Queneto – is part of a bigger project covering several sites in the neighbouring drainages of the Río Moche and Río Virú (northern Peru). The paper offers a review and inventory of two of the three rock art groups bordering the western fringe of the alluvial fan of the Quebrada de San Juan (part of the Virú Drainage). This is the first “complete” inventory of the two little-known rock art sites that my wife and I discovered in the area.

By Maarten van Hoek

Petroglyphs of Cerro Queneto

Virú Drainage – Peru

Maarten van Hoek

Cover Photo: View of Cerro Queneto-2. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Introduction

The Queneto Complex is an enormous concentration of archaeological remains in the Virú Drainage (Figure 1). The complex comprises several geoglyphs, ceremonial (paved) roads, burial sites (almost invariably looted), architectural remains (like circular buildings and two temple complexes; one with impressive standing stones) and above all: rock art sites. No less than thirteen rock art sites encircle the large, boulder and gravel strewn alluvial plain of the Quebrada de San Juan (Figure 2). This study focusses on the rock art found at two small rock art sites located at the western fringe of the alluvial plain. For easy reference I have labelled those two sites Cerro Queneto-1 (CQU1) and Cerro Queneto-1 (CQU2) (Figure 2).

Click on any illustration to see an enlargement.

Figure 1. Location of the major rock art sites in the Virú Drainage (blue dot: the Queneto Complex; yellow dot: Alto de la Guitarra; green dot: the Susanga Complex) and in the adjacent Chao Drainage (red dot: the Santa Rita Complex). Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap-Contributors.

Figure 2. The Queneto Complex with the approximate location of the two sites at Cerro Queneto, indicated by the two blue squares and black figures (the yellow figures indicate the minimum numbers of decorated boulders/panels). Map © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 3. The approximate location of Cerro Queneto-2, looking south from Queneto-1 across the alluvial fan of the Quebrada de San Juan. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 4. The approximated location of the two rock art sites at Cerro Queneto. Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth.

Research History and Data

About a century ago nothing was ever reported to the scientific world about the rock art in the Virú Drainage. According to the Inventario Nacional by Rainer Hostnig (2003: 210) petroglyphs in the Virú Drainage were first recorded – at Queneto-1 – by Rafael Larco Hoyle in 1938. However, the actual discovery may have occurred in 1934, as archaeologist Castillo Benítez remarks (2010): “Los primeros comentarios de estas evidencias son mencionadas por Rafael Larco en 1934” (but Castillo Benitez may have been sloppy when referring to the date). However, none of the rock art sites of the area appears on the map in the book by Larco Hoyle, called “Los Mochicas”.

Also in 1938 Máximo Ricardo Díaz Díaz documented rock art in the Queneto area, as is evidenced by his autograph dated 1938 in one of his drawings of petroglyphs at Queneto-1. The drawings of Diaz Diaz, formerly kept in the Larco Hoyle Museum in Lima, are now stored in the Archives of the Museo Max Diaz Diaz in Lima, of which Castillo Benítez is the director. Unfortunately I have no access to this archive. Surprisingly, the extensive Virú survey published by James Ford and Gordon Willey (1949) does not even mention any rock art in the area at all. Also Hans Dieter Disselhoff (1955: 67) only briefly mentioned the rock art at (only) Queneto.

The first rock art researcher who actually published more extensive records of the rock art in the Virú Drainage was Cuban rock art explorer Antonio Núñez Jiménez (1986). He describes and illustrates several petroglyphs at Queneto-1 (1986: 453 – 464); Cerro de las Murallas (1986: 465 – 4 70) and Quebrada de San Juan (1986: 471 – 492). It must be noted however, that many of the drawings by Núñez Jiménez are inaccurate or even incorrect (Van Hoek 2011a; 2012a).

In 2016 Castillo Benitez, together with María Susana Barrau from Argentina, published online a copy of their publication dealing with the most recent discoveries in the Virú Drainage (2016). This informative study appropriately acknowledges the discoveries and publications of Larco Hoyle (1938), Bennett (1939), Ford and Willey (1949) and Núñez Jiménez (1986), but strangely fails to acknowledge several other most relevant publications. For instance, they mention the book by Jean Guffroy (1999), a general work on rock art in Peru in which Virú does not get any special attention, but they fail to include a reference to another book by Guffroy, in which a chapter (with 19 photos) is devoted to the rock art at and around Queneto (2009: 113-121). Castillo Benítez and Barrau also do not mention the paper about rock art in the Moche and Virú Drainages by Jorge Zevallos Quiñones (1990).

Also unscientific is the fact that Castillo Benítez and Barrau intentionally ignored papers about rock art in the Virú Drainage that were published by me, well before 2016 (Van Hoek 2007a, 2007b and 2014). In this respect the apparently intentional disregard of my paper about the rock art at Tomabal (red squares in Figure 2) is inexplicable. In 2006 my wife Elles and I were guided by a local to this previously unknown, interesting but unfortunately severely looted site, which – as far as I could check prior to the publication of the report – had never been reported before. The results of our investigations at Tomabal were published in the Boletín de SIARB (Van Hoek 2007b) and this scientific publication was announced in Rupestreweb Messages on 18 November 2007 (Messages no longer accessible). In the same paper I reported two isolated petroglyph boulders located on the alluvial plain of the Quebrada de San Juan (orange squares in Figure 2 [labelled Templo-2]) that also were never recorded before. Yet, all those discoveries and their publication have deliberately been ignored by Castillo Benítez and Barrau (2016).

Much later I published my book ‘The Chavín Controversy’, which included MSC-Style rock art from Tomabal as well (2011b: Figs. 13, 14, 55, 106 and 117). This book was announced via Rupestreweb Messages too, and – moreover – information was sent via an email to Castillo Benítez personally. On 12 June 2011 I received his positive answer and I got a confirmation that he had acquired a copy of the book. So it is certain that Castillo Benítez knew about this site and yet he intentionally ignored an important report of the rock art at Tomabal in their 2016-publication, also in his Conferencia Magistral presented at the III Simposio Nacional de Arte Rupestre, Huaraz, Perú, in 2008 (2008b).

My last pre-2016 publication on Virú rock art (Van Hoek 2014), also announced in Rupestreweb Messages, has been ignored as well. It concerns a specific “hidden” petroglyph at Queneto-1. It thus proves that all my publications about Virú rock art have intentionally been omitted by Castillo Benítez in their 2016-publication. Unfortunately, in the scientific world ignoring people’s works is a general problem. In this respect Martinez Celis (Editor of Rupestreweb) once wrote: Desafortunadamente la omisión de referencias a trabajos de otros investigadores es pan de cada día [Martinez Celis 2016; source may be no longer accessible). Unfortunately, this general unscientific disrespect continues, not only by Castillo Benítez.

Finally, during our surveys of 2012 my wife Elles and I were the first to discover the two rock art sites at Cerro Queneto, henceforth (subjectively) referred to here as CQU1 and CQU2 by me, when walking from the rock art site of Quebrada de San Juan (indicated by two purple squares in Figure 2; and labelled San Juan in Figure 5) to the rock art site of Queneto-1. The two sites, both located at the bottom of the slopes of Cerro Queneto (and on a straight line from San Juan to Queneto-1, and thus possibly indicating an ancient route) are located rather far apart as is shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 5. Cerro Queneto (its summit concealed by the early morning Garua – the low blanket of clouds often covering much of the coastal strip in the Desert Andes) and the rock art site of Quebrada de San Juan, roughly looking west. Site CQU1 is just off the picture (arrow; also see Figures 3 and 6). Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Cerro Queneto-1 (CQU1)

CQU1-001. This rock art site consists (so far) of only one decorated boulder (with, moreover, only one petroglyph). It was discovered just north of a linear geoglyph on the lower slopes of Cerro Queneto (Figure 6), and almost directly west of the alluvial fan. The lightly pecked (rather, bruised) petroglyph (Figure 7) comprises the fully laterally depicted image of a fully pecked quadruped with a long curled tail (possibly a vizcacha). On one of its side panels may be a rather doubtful petroglyph.

Figure 6. The rock art site of Cerro Queneto 1. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 7. Boulder CQU1-001 and close-up. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

Cerro Queneto-2 (CQU2)

This site – located at the very foot of Cerro Queneto (CQ2) – comprises a group of at least five (possibly six) boulders with a few, mainly rather faint petroglyphs. Only one boulder is profusely decorated on several panels.

CQU2-001. This long boulder (Figure 8) has only a large arc (open end facing upwards) on its side panel. Other markings are doubtful.

Figure 8. Boulder CQU2-001. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-002. This boulder (Figure 9A) has on its flat upper surface a group of faintly pecked curved lines. One part of it looks like a large feline-fang. It may concern an unfinished Formative period MSC-Style head image (this break-down concept [from a complete image to elements of it] is fully explained by me in my 2011-book: The Chavín Controversy).

CQU2-003. Smooth domed boulder (Figure 9B) with a very faintly visible pattern of lines, the whole possibly depicting a biomorph.

Figure 9. A: Boulder CQU2-002. B: Boulder CQU2-003. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-003. Smooth pointed boulder (Figure 10) with a faintly visible pattern of a cross with attached lines, the whole possibly depicting a biomorph (a bird?).

Figure 10. Boulder CQU2-004. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Large boulder with (compared with the other boulders at this site) a large amount of much differing petroglyphs (Figures 11 to 17). In my opinion the boulder is not found “in situ”, but seems to have fallen downslope from its original (unknown) spot, judging by its damaged surface, especially at its “top”. Because the boulder has an undulating “front” surface with a number of separate areas with petroglyphs, I cannot speak of “panels”. On the front panel I distinguish five areas, while area 6 concerns a small side panel and area 7 the whole upper-back panel. These seven decorated areas are indicated in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Boulder CQU2-005. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Area 1: Broadly pecked curved line with six or seven small triangular attachments (one touching a circle) enclosing to its left a group of lines that may represent a biomorph (Figure 12). The curve ends near two petroglyphs; the larger definitely depicting a quadruped with a long curled tail (a vizcacha?), the smaller (also fully pecked) may depict a quadruped as well (Figure 12: details). Exfoliation and damage may have removed parts of the petroglyphs.

Figure 12. Boulder CQU2-005; Area 1 and details. Note the many flaked (damaged?) parts of the boulder. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Area 2: Outlined petroglyph with uncertain internal markings (a head?) and some indeterminable markings (Figure 13).

CQU2-005. Area 3: Distinct Y-shaped motif with (very faint) extensions and several more (very faint) markings (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Boulder CQU2-005; details Areas 2 and 3. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Area 4: Slightly curved line with possibly up to four drooping pecked triangles; the whole joined to a possible simple lizard petroglyph, which seems to continue as lines on Area 5 (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Boulder CQU2-005; details Areas 4 and 5. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Area 5: Lines attached to the possible lizard in Area 4, while other lines are attached (?) to the head image in Area 6. (Figure 14).

CQU2-005. Area 6: Rectangular, outlined head with hair or headgear and facial features, including a downward curved (“sad”) mouth and outlined eyes. (Figure 15; see also Figure 14).

Figure 15. Boulder CQU2-005; detail Area 6. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-005. Area 7: The upper surface of Boulder CQU2-005 is rather badly flaked and/or damaged in places, possibly taking away (parts of) the petroglyphs (Figure 16). There are several petroglyphs on this panel, although interpretation is often troublesome. One serpentine line seems to end in a head and thus may depict a snake. Immediately above the “snake” is a group of mainly straight lines that may form either an abstract pattern or possibly an (unfinished?) MSC-Style head. There are several more (smaller) petroglyphs, one example (framed in Figure 16) possibly depicting an (outlined) vulva symbol (Figure 17: detail-right).

Figure 16. Boulder CQU2-005; Area 7. The framed area is illustrated in Figure 17-right. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.

Figure 17. Boulder CQU2-005; Area 7; details. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.

CQU2-006. Long boulder with a bruised upper surface (used as a grinding stone?) with very faint lines and/or pecked areas, all impossible to identify (no illustration provided).

Conclusions

Although the two sites at the foot of Cerro Queneto are (very) modest, they are of importance (not only because of the petroglyphs that link them with many other sites in the area) as they most likely indicate an ancient route between the major rock art sites of Quebrada de San Juan and Queneto-1 and 4. Alternatively, they are (also) associated with the adjacent geoglyphs. It is remarkable that in most cases only one or a few petroglyphs have been executed on the boulders, except for (disturbed?) Boulder CQU2-005 that shows a profusion of much differing images (Figures 11 to 17), including pecked triangles that have also been recorded by us at Queneto-4, a short distance further north (Van Hoek 2025). This report proves that “minor” sites are equally important to understand rock art and its distribution in an area.

Acknowledgement

As ever I am grateful to my wife Elles for her assistance during our surveys at all the rock art sites of the Queneto Complex (and at all the other sites in the Desert Andes that we visited together) and – of course – for her support at home.

References

Bennett, W. C. 1939. Archaeology of the North Coast of Peru: An Account of Exploration and Excavation in Virú and Lambayeque Valleys. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History; Vol. 37, Part 1. American Museum of Natural History. New York.

Castillo Benítez, D. 2010. Queneto – Cuenca del Rio Virú. In: Arqueología del Perú.

Castillo Benítez, D. S. and M. S. Barrau. 2016. Avances en el inventario de sitios con arte rupestre en la cuenca del río Virú, La Libertad, Perú. Revista Arkinka. N° 252; pp. 100 – 111.

Disselhoff, H. D. 1955 Neue Fundplatze peruanischer Felsbilder. Baeseler-Archiv. Neue Folge 3; pp. 55 – 73.

Ford J. A. and G. R. Willey. 1949. Surface Survey of the Virú Valley, Peru. American Museum of Natural History. New York.

Guffroy, J. 1999. El Arte Rupestre del antiguo Perú. Edit. IFEA / IRD. Lima, Perú.

Guffroy, J. 2009. Imagénes y paisajes; rupestres del Perú. Editions IRD, Marseille, France; Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.

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

Larco Hoyle, R. 1938. Los Mochicas. Vol. 1. Casa Editorial La Crónica y Variedades. Lima.

Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Perú. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed. PNUD-UNESCO – Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo, La Habana.

Van Hoek, M. 2007a. A re-evaluation of the ‘monkey’ petroglyph at the Quebrada de San Juan, Peru. Rock Art Research. Vol. 24-2; pp. 255 – 257. Melbourne, Australia.

Van Hoek, M. 2007b. Petroglifos Chavinoides cerca de Tomabal, Valle de Virú, Perú. Boletín de SIARB. Vol. 21; pp. 76 – 88. La Paz, Bolivia.

Van Hoek, M. 2011a. Petroglyphs of Peru – Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands. Book available at DropBox (search PDF-102) and Academia.

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

Van Hoek, M. 2012a. Cerro Mulato: el caso de Piedra 274. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2012b. Andean rock art and apophenia: from the macro to the micro. In: Rupestreweb.

Van Hoek, M. 2014. Reflecting (on) Petroglyphs: Two Cases. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2025. Petroglyphs of Queneto. Virú Drainage – Peru. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox.

Zevallos Quiñones, J. 1990. Petroglifos en la zona costera de Trujillo. Revista del Museo de Arqueologia. Tomo 1; pp. 7 – 23. Trujillo, Perú.

My other publications about the Moche and Virú Drainages.

Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Rock Art of El Vagón. Moche Drainage, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.

Van Hoek, M. 2025. Rock Art at Los Tres Cerritos, Moche Drainage, Peru. Book available as PDF at Academia.

Van Hoek, M. 2025. Petroglyphs of Cerro Blanco – Huacapongo Valley, Virú, Peru. Book available as PDF at Academia and DropBox.

My videos about a number of rock art sites in the Virú Drainage:

VAN HOEK, M. 2017. El Arte Rupestre de Mayasgo-1, Río Virú, Perú. YouTube: https://youtu.be/8fxAO-vaq2g

VAN HOEK, M. 2018. Petroglifos de Queneto – Virú – Perú. YouTube: https://youtu.be/LkBeQB_iC2I