Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T04:48:41.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Group of Geoglyphs in the Lower Carabamba Valley, Northern Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2021

Amedeo Sghinolfi*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Western University, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada
Jean-François Millaire*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Western University, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada
Jeisen Navarro Vega
Affiliation:
Independent Researchers, Trujillo, Perú
Estuardo La Torre Calvera
Affiliation:
Independent Researchers, Trujillo, Perú
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2019, while conducting a survey of the Carabamba River valley (ca. 150–3,325 m asl) in northern Peru, we identified and surveyed a group of five unreported geoglyphs. Their location and iconography suggest that they date from the Formative period (1800–200 BC) and that they were possibly associated with a form of fertility ritual.

En 2019, mientras realizamos un estudio del valle del Río Carabamba (ca. 150-3,325 m.s.n.m.) en el norte de Perú, identificamos y estudiamos un grupo de cinco geoglifos no reportados previamente. Su ubicación e iconografía sugieren que datan del Período Formativo (1800-200 aC) y que posiblemente estaban asociados con una forma de ritual de fertilidad.

Type
Report
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

Peru is replete with geoglyphs produced over the last 4,000 years (Guffroy Reference Guffroy1999; Hostnig Reference Hostnig2003) depicting anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and geometric figures created either through subtractive or additive techniques or by combining both methods. The subtractive technique produces the desired motif by clearing the ground of rocks and exposing the underlying lighter-colored soil. The additive technique rearranges rocks to outline the motif and highlight specific features (Gálvez Mora et al. Reference Gálvez Mora, Castañeda Murga, Runcio, Espinoza Córdova, de Haro, Rocchietti, Runcio, de Lara and Fernández2012). The Nasca Lines in southern Peru are some of the best known and most studied prehispanic geoglyphs. They have been linked to ritual practices, water resources, and celestial bodies (Masini et al. Reference Masini, Orefici, Rojas, Lasaponara, Masini and Orefici2016). Fewer geoglyphs are known from other parts of the Andean region, and relatively little is known about this art form in northern Peru (Alva and Meneses de Alva Reference Alva and de Alva1982; Corcuera Cueva and Echevarría López Reference Corcuera Cueva and López2010, Reference Corcuera Cueva and López2011; Gálvez Mora et al. Reference Gálvez Mora, Castañeda Murga, Runcio, Espinoza Córdova, de Haro, Rocchietti, Runcio, de Lara and Fernández2012; Hostnig Reference Hostnig2003:195–216; Wilson Reference Wilson1988). This report focuses on a group of five geoglyphs identified as part of an archaeological survey in the Carabamba Valley in northern Peru.

The Carabamba Valley

The Carabamba Valley originates near the modern town of Carabamba (3,325 m asl, province of Julcán in the department of La Libertad) and eventually merges with the Huacapongo Valley near the village of Tomaval (150 m asl, province of Virú in the department of La Libertad) to form the Virú Valley (Figure 1). The area located between 150 and 1,000 m asl is arid, and rainwater flows intermittently on the riverbed during the austral summer (December to March). Between 1,000 and 3,000 m asl, the climate is slightly more humid, sustaining bushes and trees. Above this zone extends the extensively farmed Carabamba Plateau (Oficina Nacional de Evaluación de Recursos Naturales 1973). The Carabamba Valley is a natural corridor that has connected the coast to the highlands and the people who inhabited these lands for millennia.

Figure 1. Left, location of the Carabamba River valley; right, location of the geoglyphs (Province of Virú) and of the other features mentioned in the text (maps made by Amedeo Sghinolfi on ESRI ArcGIS). (Color online)

Despite its key role during prehispanic times, very little research has been carried out in this area (Briceño and Fuchs Reference Briceño and Fuchs2009; Topic and Topic Reference Topic and Topic1982; but see studies of petroglyphs near the caseríos of Mayasgo and Juyacul: Castillo Benitez and Barrau Reference Castillo Benitez and Barrau2016; Van Hoek Reference Van Hoek2017, Reference Van Hoek2018). A survey of the area was carried out by the authors between April and December 2019 to identify and map archaeological sites, reconstruct settlement patterns, and document interactions between ancient human groups. We identified five unreported geoglyphs near the villages of La Huaca, Puquio Grande, and Mayasgo that shed light on the Formative period occupation of the area.

The Five New Geoglyphs

This group of geoglyphs extends over an area of 0.1 km2 at the confluence of the Carabamba and Las Salinas Rivers (290 m asl) on the eastern slope of Cerro Misia (Figure 2a). Las Salinas is a seasonal river that connects this part of the Virú basin to the middle Moche Valley through a stretch of land known as Alto de la Guitarra, where several petroglyphs have been identified (Castillo Benitez and Barrau Reference Castillo Benitez and Barrau2014; Disselhoff Reference Disselhoff, Disselhoff and Krieger1955). The geoglyphs were mapped using a lightweight drone (DJI Mavic Pro Platinum) that captured high-resolution pictures (12.35 megapixels; 26 mm focal length) from a range of altitudes (15–90 m). Vertical (90°) photographs were taken at regular time intervals (2 seconds) to ensure enough overlap (75% forward, 60% side overlap). High-quality georeferenced orthophotos and 3D models were subsequently created using Agisoft Metashape and MeshLab software.

Figure 2. (a) Place where the Carabamba (on the right) and the Las Salinas (on the left) Rivers meet; (b) the ravine that features Geoglyphs 2–5 (photographs by Amedeo Sghinolfi). (Color online)

Geoglyph 1 is located on an eastern-facing slope, 150 m from the confluence of the Las Salinas and Carabamba Rivers, and faces the highlands (Figure 3). The geoglyph (52 × 58 m) includes different motifs made with additive and subtractive techniques. The main figure is a warrior who faces a spotted cat, perhaps a jaguar (Panthera onca). Outlined with rocks, the warrior wears a long braid and holds a sacrificial knife (tumi) and a war mace (porra) or spear. Two ornaments hang from a waistband, one of which possibly represents a snake (right). Two barely visible anthropomorphic figures can also be seen: one (13 × 7 m) below the feline and the other (6.80 × 2.75 m) next to the warrior's forehead. The site also features a small, rounded structure (diameter, 3.75 m) 10 m northeast of the warrior, as well as others 150 m south of the geoglyph.

Figure 3. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 1; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 1 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Geoglyphs 2 through 5 are located in a narrow canyon (quebrada) 560 m south of Geoglyph 1 (Figure 2b) and 280 m southwest of the river. Geoglyph 2 (8.5 × 1.0 m) is on a flat area, was made with additive (head and part of the tail) and subtractive (end of the tail) techniques, and features a snake or a tadpole facing the highlands (Figure 4). Geoglyph 3 is located on an eastern-facing slope 550 m southwest of the river. It was made using the subtractive technique and is the largest (88 × 45 m) geoglyph of the group (Figure 5). It includes a bird-like motif and a head or half-moon design, as well as horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines (heavily eroded). Originally, this geoglyph would have stood out in this isolated quebrada, acting as the focal point of this sacred landscape. Geoglyphs 4 and 5, made with the subtractive technique, are located on the bottom of the quebrada between Geoglyphs 2 and 3 (Figure 6). Geoglyph 4 (11.5 × 9.5 m) depicts a camelid, whereas Geoglyph 5 (13.0 × 7.5 m) features a spiral motif. The tip of the spiral points toward a nearby hill, while the head of the camelid faces the confluence of the Las Salinas and Carabamba Rivers. Remnants of possible geoglyphs are also visible on a hillslope located 290 m to the southeast, but the area is heavily disturbed by modern path making (Figure 7).

Figure 4. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 2; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 2 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 5. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 3; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 3 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 6. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 4 (right) and 5 (left); (b) drawing of Geoglyph 4 (right) and 5 (left) (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 7. Possible geoglyphs located southeast of Geoglyphs 4 and 5 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi). (Color online)

Discussion

We found no ceramic sherds on the surface of those prehispanic sites, which makes dating difficult. However, the warrior depicted in Geoglyph 1 is clearly associated with Formative period iconography. The warrior shows striking similarities with the human figures carved on the stelae from the Chavín heartland (Burger Reference Burger1982; Lumbreras Reference Lumbreras1977), with rock paintings and petroglyphs from Poro Poro in the department of Cajamarca (del Carpio Perla et al. Reference del Carpio Perla, Fulle and Gamarra2001) and Huaca Partida in the Nepeña Valley (Shibata Reference Shibata2017), and with petroglyphs from Alto de la Guitarra in the middle Moche Valley (Castillo Benitez and Barrau Reference Castillo Benitez and Barrau2014; Disselhoff Reference Disselhoff, Disselhoff and Krieger1955) and Palamenco in the Lacramarca Valley (Guffroy Reference Guffroy1999:100). The warrior also resembles the Sechín Alto Complex stone carvings (Bischof Reference Bischof1994:Figure 7). The other geoglyphs are harder to date. They could date from earlier times or from a later period when the area close to the river started to be occupied more intensively (ca. 400 BC). According to Corcuera Cueva and Echevarría López (Reference Corcuera Cueva and López2010:44–46), the later geoglyphs in the Quebrada Santo Domingo (Moche Valley) were made with the subtractive technique and featured geometric motifs, whereas earliest geoglyphs were made with the additive technique. It is unclear whether a similar chronology exists in the Carabamba Valley (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Location of the sites mentioned in the text (map made by Amedeo Sghinolfi on ESRI ArcGIS). (Color online)

The geoglyphs may have been associated with an inland north–south road running from the Moche to the Chao Valley, which likely started to be used during the Formative period (Beck Reference Beck1979; Van Hoek Reference Van Hoek2018; see also Gálvez Mora et al. Reference Gálvez Mora, Castañeda Murga, Runcio, Espinoza Córdova, de Haro, Rocchietti, Runcio, de Lara and Fernández2012:101–104, Figure 8). However, they are also associated with the east–west communication route that connected the coast to the highlands along the Carabamba River. Our survey yielded coastal and highland ceramics on numerous sites (highland textiles and ceramics were also found in the lower Virú Valley [Downey Reference Downey2015; Millaire Reference Millaire, Quilter and Castillo Butters2010; Szpak et al. Reference Szpak, Millaire, White, Lau, Surette and Longstaffe2015:457–458]), many of which were also littered with camelid bones. The presence of camelid remains is suggestive of the importance of herding and caravaning in the area, which played a key role in moving goods and ideas across valleys and between the highlands and the coast throughout prehispanic times (Wilson Reference Wilson1988). The camelid featured in Geoglyph 4 may thus have been intended as a celebration of the importance of this animal at a time when long-distance travel was booming in the region.

The geoglyphs presented in this article could therefore have marked the location of an important place for travelers. Geoglyphs 2 to 5 are in a secluded quebrada that would have channeled people toward the largest geoglyph (Geoglyph 3), which is located below one of Cerro Misia's peaks that features yellow-colored rocks and stands out in the surrounding landscape. This would have been an ideal location for travelers to perform rituals before continuing their journey (for a description of such rituals, see Bikoulis et al. Reference Bikoulis, Gonzalez-Macqueen, Spence-Morrow, Bautista, Alvarez and Jennings2018:1387–1388).

Other clues suggest possible connections with fertility. The geoglyphs are located where the Carabamba River meets the Las Salinas River, a place where a natural spring called Puquio Grande also originates. Interestingly, the geoglyphs face the highlands, the source of all waters, and many iconographic elements refer to water and fertility. For example, Geoglyph 1 features a jaguar and a snake, which are often related to fertility in Andean iconography (Bischof Reference Bischof1994:217; Burger Reference Burger1992:153; Guffroy Reference Guffroy1999:112; Hocquenghem Reference Hocquenghem1983:61–63; Venturoli Reference Venturoli2005:73). Geoglyph 2 features a tadpole, an amphibious creature related to earth, water, and fertility (Venturoli Reference Venturoli2005:74). Geoglyph 5 features a spiral motif, which Masini and colleagues (Reference Masini, Orefici, Rojas, Lasaponara, Masini and Orefici2016:277) argue can be linked to water. The spiral may also represent a land snail (Scutalus sp.), which reproduces during the rainy season and was consumed by locals throughout prehispanic times (Gálvez Mora et al. Reference Gálvez Mora, Castañeda Murga, Becerra Urteaga and Olivas1996). The possible bird in Geoglyph 3 may represent the sky, yet another source of water (Burger Reference Burger1992:107). If those geoglyphs were indeed related to fertility, one could argue that they were made by people who lived in this arid stretch of land to perform propitiatory fertility-related rituals.

More work is needed in this part of the valley to identify the extent of this ritual site and to understand the relationship among the geoglyphs, the landscape, and the human groups that inhabited the lower Carabamba Valley. However, it is important to note that this stretch of land is presently under threat not only from erosion caused by natural phenomena but also, and more importantly, from illegal modern mining, quarrying, and looting activities that will inevitably thwart future archaeological research on prehispanic geoglyphs in the Northern Andes.

Acknowledgments

The Proyecto de Prospección Arqueológica en el Valle del Río Carabamba was conducted by the authors with the help of Kayla Golay Lausanne. The survey was conducted with a permit from the Ministerio de Cultura del Perú (Resolución Directoral N° 163-2019/DGPA/lVMPCIC/MC). This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council Canada (435-2016-739).

Data Availability Statement

Georeferenced orthophotos of geoglyphs are stored at Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

References

References Cited

Alva, Walter L., and de Alva, Susana Meneses 1982 Geoglifos del Formativo en el valle de Zaña. In Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, Vol. 4, pp. 203212. Beck, Munich.Google Scholar
Beck, Colleen M. 1979 Ancient Roads in the North Coast of Peru. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bikoulis, Peter, Gonzalez-Macqueen, Felipe, Spence-Morrow, Giles, Bautista, Stefanie, Alvarez, Willy, and Jennings, Justin 2018 Ancient Pathways and Geoglyphs in the Sihuas Valley of Southern Peru. Antiquity 92:13771391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, Henning 1994 Towards the Definition of Pre- and Early Chavín Art Styles in Peru. Andean Past 4:169228.Google Scholar
Briceño, Jesús R., and Fuchs, Peter 2009 Los Mochicas y las relaciones transversales en el valle de Virú, norte del Perú. Observaciones desde el sitio arqueológico “La Huaca.” Revista del Museo de Arqueología e Historia 11:111144.Google Scholar
Burger, Richard L. 1982 Pojoc and Waman Wain: Two Early Horizon Villages in the Chavin Heartland. Ñawpa Pacha 20:340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Richard L. 1992 Chavin and the Andean Origins of Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Castillo Benitez, Daniel, and Barrau, María S. 2014 Arte rupestre en el Alto de la Guitarra: Paraíso de cazadores, calendario agrícola, mitología y ritual en la costa norte peruana. Conchopata 4:304334.Google Scholar
Castillo Benitez, Daniel, and Barrau, María S. 2016 Avances en el inventario de sitios con arte rupestre en la cuenca del Río Virú. Arkinka 252:100111.Google Scholar
Corcuera Cueva, Víctor, and López, Gori-Tumi Echevarría 2010 Geoglifos y contexto arqueológico en la Quebrada Santo Domingo, valle de Moche, Perú. Boletín APAR 1(3):4047.Google Scholar
Corcuera Cueva, Víctor, and López, Gori-Tumi Echevarría 2011 Geoglifos en las lomas costeras del Cerro Campana, valles de Chicama y Moche. Informe preliminar. Boletín APAR 2(8):255261.Google Scholar
del Carpio Perla, Martín, Fulle, Martín Mac Kay, and Gamarra, Raphael Santa Cruz 2001 Poro Poro: Religión y agua en el Formativo de la sierra norte peruana. Arqueológicas 25:95116.Google Scholar
Disselhoff, Hans D. 1955 Neue Fundplätze Peruanischer Felsbilder. In Baessler-Archiv: Beiträge Zur Völkerkunde. Herausgegeben im Aufträge des Museums für Völkerkunde Berlin, Vol. III, edited by Disselhoff, Hans D. and Krieger, Kurt, pp. 5574. Dietrich Reimer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Downey, Jordan T. 2015 Statecraft in the Virú Valley, Peru, in the First Millennium A.D. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Gálvez Mora, César A., Castañeda Murga, Juan J., and Becerra Urteaga, Rosario M. 1996 Caracoles terrestres: 11,000 años de tradición alimentaria en la costa norte del Perú. In Cultura, identidad y cocina en el Perú, edited by Olivas, Weston Rosario, pp. 5576. Universidad San Martín de Porres, Lima.Google Scholar
Gálvez Mora, César A., Castañeda Murga, Juan J., Runcio, María A., and Espinoza Córdova, María del Carmen 2012 Geoglifos, ocupación y uso del espacio en el valle medio de Chicama, costa norte del Perú. In Arqueología y antropología en la encrucijada: Desafíos actuales en la investigación social. Actas del VI Coloquio Binacional Argentino-Peruano, edited by de Haro, María T., Rocchietti, Ana M., Runcio, María A., de Lara, Odlanyer H., and Fernández, María V., pp. 87108. Instituto Superior del Profesorado Dr. Joaquín V. González, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Guffroy, Jean 1999 El arte rupestre del antiguo Perú. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Lima.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocquenghem, Anne M. 1983 Les crocs et les serpents: L'autorité absolue des ancêtres mythiques andins. In Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography: 2. Representations of Gods, pp. 5874. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hostnig, Rainer 2003 Arte rupestre del Perú: Inventario nacional. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Lima.Google Scholar
Lumbreras, Luis G. 1977 Excavaciones en el templo antiguo de Chavín (sector R): Informe de la sexta campaña. Ñawpa Pacha 15:138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masini, Nicola, Orefici, Giuseppe, and Rojas, Josué Lancho 2016 Cahuachi and Pampa de Atarco: Towards Greater Comprehension of Nasca Geoglyphs. In The Ancient Nasca World: New Insights from Science and Archaeology, edited by Lasaponara, Rosa, Masini, Nicola, and Orefici, Giuseppe, pp. 217238. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François 2010 Moche Political Expansionism as Viewed from Virú: Recent Archaeological Work in the Close Periphery of a Hegemonic City-State System. In New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Quilter, Jeffrey and Castillo Butters, Luis J., pp. 221249. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Oficina Nacional de Evaluación de Recursos Naturales 1973 Inventario, evaluación y uso racional de los recursos naturales de la costa: Cuencas de los ríos Virú y Chao, Vol. I. Oficina Nacional de Evaluación de Recursos Naturales, Lima.Google Scholar
Shibata, Koichiro 2017 Cosmología tripartita en Huaca Partida, valle bajo de Nepeña. Indiana 34(1):1329.Google Scholar
Szpak, Paul, Millaire, Jean-François, White, Christine D., Lau, George F., Surette, Flannery, and Longstaffe, Fred J. 2015 Origins of Prehispanic Camelid Wool Textiles from the North and Central Coasts of Peru Traced by Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopic Analyses. Current Anthropology 56:449459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topic, Theresa L., and Topic, John R. 1982 Prehistoric Fortification Systems of Northern Peru: Preliminary Report on the Final Season, January-December 1980. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, Maarten 2017 Una actualización del arte rupestre de Mayasgo-1, cuenca del Río Virú. TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin 42. http://www.rupestre.net/tracce/?p=12638, accessed June 5, 2020.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, Maarten 2018 The Huacapongo Corridor: Rock Art along a Prehistoric Coastal Route in the Desert Andes. Self-published, Oisterwijk, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Venturoli, Sofia 2005 Animales de la fertilidad, análisis de la simbología vinculada a los animales en la sierra de Ancash. In Quaderni di Thule: Rivista italiana di studi americanistici V, Atti del XXVII Convegno Internazionale di Americanistica, pp. 7378. Argo, Lecce, Italy.Google Scholar
Wilson, David J. 1988 Desert Ground Drawings in the Lower Santa Valley, North Coast of Peru. American Antiquity 53:794804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Left, location of the Carabamba River valley; right, location of the geoglyphs (Province of Virú) and of the other features mentioned in the text (maps made by Amedeo Sghinolfi on ESRI ArcGIS). (Color online)

Figure 1

Figure 2. (a) Place where the Carabamba (on the right) and the Las Salinas (on the left) Rivers meet; (b) the ravine that features Geoglyphs 2–5 (photographs by Amedeo Sghinolfi). (Color online)

Figure 2

Figure 3. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 1; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 1 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 2; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 2 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 4

Figure 5. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 3; (b) drawing of Geoglyph 3 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 5

Figure 6. (a) Photograph of Geoglyph 4 (right) and 5 (left); (b) drawing of Geoglyph 4 (right) and 5 (left) (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi, drawing by Jeisen Navarro Vega). (Color online)

Figure 6

Figure 7. Possible geoglyphs located southeast of Geoglyphs 4 and 5 (photograph by Amedeo Sghinolfi). (Color online)

Figure 7

Figure 8. Location of the sites mentioned in the text (map made by Amedeo Sghinolfi on ESRI ArcGIS). (Color online)