van hoek, m. 2013. santa rita, a petroglyph site in the chao valley, northern peru. in rupestreweb

Santa Rita, a Petroglyph Site in the ChaoValley, Northern Peru

Maarten van Hoek [email protected]

Introduction

Santa Rita is a rock art site in the Chao Valley in the north of Peru (Departamento de LaLibertad; Provincia de Virú; Distrito de Chao). The archaeological complex has onlyrecently been reported to the scientific world through excavations in the area between 1998and 2008. The excavations of the site - directed by Jonathan Kent of the Metropolitan StateCollege, Denver, USA - mainly focussed on Pre-Columbian domestic buildings and burialsites, but as part of the general surveying of the area several boulders with rock art have alsobeen recorded, mainly in the area to the NE of the excavations. The rock art site is stilllargely unknown to the scientific world, but as a result of a publication by Carol Patterson,Teresa Rosales Tham and Victor Vásquez Sánches (2010; their MS has 21 pages, numbered1 to 21 in the PDF that I have received from Carol Patterson) some information is nowavailable. It is this 2010 MS - Petroglyphs of Santa Rita B Complex, Chao Valley, Peru(henceforth referred to as the Patterson-MS) - that I will comment on, as several conclusionsand interpretations by the authors are - in my opinion - questionable.

Site history

For matters of convenience (also because - in general - I question the relationship betweenexcavation remains and nearby rock art) I distinguish the excavation site; Santa Rita B, andthe rock art site; Santa Rita. The excavation site was recorded by Mercedes Cárdenas as earlyas 1976, but as far as I know, no rock art had been recorded at that occasion. Much later, inthe years 1999 to 2002, the excavation team of Jonathan Kent recorded several petroglyphboulders near the excavations in two areas that were labelled Sector 1 and Sector 2. In theyears 2000 to 2002 further petroglyph boulders were recorded by the excavation team inanother area, Sector 3, while in 2004, Carol Patterson re-evaluated the petroglyphs located inSector 3 and recorded new ones within Sector 4. Unfortunately, the exact location of thosefour Sectors is very confusing, as I will explain below.

Probably in 2008 a web page about the dig was published by the California Institute forPeruvian Studies - CIPS (Kent 2008). This web page once had a link to a photo page (that isno longer accessible) where I found a few photos of the Santa Rita petroglyphs. I contactedJonathan Kent to ask for further details, but by that date no further surveying results were

M. van Hoek - 2013 Santa Rita - Chao1

mailto:[email protected]

available. In 2008, after an extensive email communication initiated by Carol Patterson (whohad been informed by Jonathan Kent about my interest in Santa Rita), my wife Elles and Ivisited the Santa Rita boulder field and recorded more petroglyph boulders. The followingpaper is based on my 2008 survey, the 2010 Patterson-MS, the information (once) available inthe web pages about Santa Rita and the most useful information (mainly personalrecords/photographs) kindly received from Carol Patterson.

Location

The Chao River, located on the western flank of the Andean Cordillera, is one of the driestdrainages in the Peruvian Andes. Despite being located in the coastal subtropical zone, thearea is arid with scarce annual rainfall (up to 40 mm maximum), while the averagetemperature is about 16° C. Considering the dry and desolate conditions of the area today, it isclear that severe changes have occurred on this landscape since its earliest occupation.Nowadays this coastal area is often covered in low clouds or fog (called garúa), veryoccasionally producing light rain or a fine drizzle. The soils in the valley are often rocky andlow in nutrients, and closer to the ocean the ground water is saline. All of these factorscontribute to the lack of major wildlife and sparse vegetation.

The Santa Rita rock art site is located at the eastern end of the Chao Valley (Figure 1), 28 kminland, about 69 km SE of the city of Trujillo, 17 km NE of the village of Chao and onaverage 1.5 km NE of the hill called Cerro Santa Rita (also known as Cerro Salital). SantaRita is a rather remote site and it is hard to find/reach because of a maze of narrow andwinding tracks that crisscross the valley floor. Moreover, it is situated between theconvergence of two east-west stretching valleys and thus the major dirt roads fortunatelyavoid the site. Although I did not see instances of vandalism, the relatively ‘unspoilt’ area isdisturbed by some recent tracks and other minor anthropic activities.

To the north of the site is the valley of the rivers Chorobal and Tutumo, while to the south isthe valley of the Río Huamanzaña (which further east is called Río Huaraday). To the north,south and east the site is surrounded by mountain peaks, the most impressive and eye-catchingbeing the triangular peak of Cerro Colorado (906 m O.D.), 4 km to the north (Figure 2). Thearchaeological complex is directly overlooked by Cerro Santa Rita to the west, while the rockart site is found between Cerro Pucarachic(o) to the east and NE and Cerro Aguadas Calientesto the SW (see Figure 3-top). Especially to the west are wide views (across the flat valleyfloor of the Chao Valley) and, though more limited, also to the SE (overlooking a part of thevalley floor of the Huamanzaña).


Figure 1. Location map (scale 5 km) of the Santa Rita petroglyph site (marked 1 - Frame: see Figure 3-top) in the Chao Valley,

and other rock art sites in the area: 2: Chorobal; 3: Susanga; 4: Queneto-Tomabal. Map by Maarten van Hoek; based on the map: La Libertad - Virú, in: Mapas Dre y UGEL.

Figure 2. Landscape at Santa Rita, looking north towards the peak of Cerro Colorada with the N-Srunning Muralla Pircada in the foreground.

Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Compared with several other coastal valleys, the Chao Valley is a relatively small. The westpart of the area is characterised by several large areas of sand (dunes and pampas) and lowrocky hillocks, while the east part is rocky and mountainous. To date most of the lands in thelower valley are being cultivated more intensely using waters of the ‘Chavimochic’ irrigationproject, which provides water for agriculture in the Chao, Virú, Moche and Chicama Valleys.


http://escale.minedu.gob.pe/carta-educativa

Fortunately this immense project never threatened the Santa Rita archaeological site (but hasdisturbed other sites).

As is often the case in this part of the Andes, the archaeological complex of Santa Rita isfound on an alluvial fan, which in this case stretches 2.3 km from north to south and 1.5 kmfrom west to east where it is blocked by a south running ridge of Cerro Pucarachic. However,the alluvial fan actually continues much further east. The fan gently slopes from east (at 460m O.D. at the foot of Cerro Pucarachic) to the NW and west (at 390 m O.D. at the modernwestern edge of the uncultivated fan) measuring along the major quebrada that bisects thealluvial fan. The major concentration of petroglyph boulders is at about 420 m, just north ofthe major quebrada (the only feature on the fan that was visible with Google Earth beforeDecember 2012 - after that date a high resolution photo became available).

Associated Archaeology

Almost as a rule in Coastal Andean archaeology, also the rock art site of Santa Rita is not anisolated site. On the contrary, the Chao Valley contains many prehistoric remains and of thesequite a few are from the Pre-Ceramic Period (dating before 2000 B.C). During this earlyperiod the Chao area supported a thriving society with a mixed maritime and terrestrialeconomy. The area was later occupied by people during the Formative Period (2000 to 200B.C.), the Early Intermediate Period, in which Moche occupied the area, and much later bythe Chimú. Nearby Cerro Santa Rita possibly fulfilled a role similar to that of a ‘huaca’, butinstead of having a wide regional function, it was more oriented to local religion. Other majorarchaeological complexes in the Chao drainage are San Jorge, El Naranjo, Cerro La Cruz andLas Salinas de Chao.

The north of coastal Peru is also rich in rock art sites, but I will only mention theneighbouring rock art sites as they may be relevant in this discussion. About 50 km to thesouth is Palamenco where (Formative Period) imagery similar to that at Santa Rita has beenrecorded by me. Some 42 km to the east, across rugged mountainous landscape, is thearchaeological complex of La Galgada where at least two rock art sites have been recorded(Bueno Mendoza 2006). To the north, in the neighbouring valley of the Virú River is Tomabaland the archaeological Temple Complex of Queneto (26 km WNW) where numerouspetroglyph boulders are found, and the Susanga Pyramid Complex (16.5 km NW) where atleast eight petroglyph boulders are known to exist (Thomas Zoubek 2012: pers. comm.). Sofar only one other rock art site has been found in the Chao drainage, at 6.3 km to the NE ofSanta Rita in the Chorobal Valley. It is called Quebrada de Huanáco or just Chorobal, whileHosting (2003: 208) also mentions the geoglyphs of two large ‘camelids’ near this site. It maybe part of an inland route, perhaps leading to the La Galgada Complex.

The Petroglyphs of Santa Rita

As I said earlier, the petroglyphs occur in four Sectors, except for one pillar stone (recordedby Jonathan Kent; not seen by me) with a large number of faint cupules on its flat uppersurface; many arranged in a large circle. Although the meaning and/or function of thosecupules are obscure, the whole composition looks like a calendar stone or perhaps somerecording device. This stone (which is not necessarily a standing stone - comparable with anerected ‘menhir’ - as suggested in the 2010 Patterson-MS) is located near the western fringeof the alluvial fan.


Unfortunately, a distribution map that clearly pinpointed the location of all individualpetroglyph boulders and that unequivocally indicated the limits of the four Sectors has neverbeen published. Moreover, the various (on-site sketch) maps that I received from CarolPatterson indicate the four sectors at different places. For instance, one map indicated Sector 2(marked with ‘2’ in Figure 3A) just to the SE of the major dig area (marked with ‘B’ in Figure3AB), while another map had Sector 2 marked to the NE of the major dig.

Figure 3A. Location maps of the Santa Rita petroglyph Sectors.

Figure 3B: The major 1998-2008 excavation area of Santa Rita B. 1 to 4: the Petroglyph Sectors. Drawings by Maarten van Hoek; based on

Google Earth (Maps). All scales 500 m.

Based on all those maps, my own short visit and the recently published (December 2012)satellite photo in Google Earth, I now venture to place Sector 1 (orange squares in Figure 3B)about 1400 m ENE of the northern tip of Cerro Santa Rita (red square in Figure 3A) and


Sector 2 roughly 1200 m to the SE of the northern tip of Cerro Santa Rita. Both are located tothe west of the Muralla Pircada (to the left of the wall in Figures 3AB); an impressive stonewall that crosses the alluvial fan from NNE to SSW (other walls cross the mountains to theeast). Sector 3 (green squares in Figure 3B) is roughly 1600 m due east of the northern tip ofCerro Santa Rita and Sector 4 (red squares in Figure 3B) is 1950 m ENE of the northern tip ofCerro Santa Rita, and both are to the east of the Muralla Pircada and north of the majorquebrada.

Sector 4, surveyed for the first time by Carol Patterson in 2004, is said to be located to the NEof Sector 3, but the factual limit between Sectors 3 and 4 is unknown to me. Confusing is thatthe 2010 Patterson-MS states that a certain petroglyph, on Boulder SRB-002 (Roca AF), isfound in Sector 2 (Table 1; Row 4), while it actually is located just east of the MurallaPircada in Sector 3. Also confusing is that the Patterson-MS states that Sector 4‘encompasses the south-eastern boundary of the flood plain’ (2010: 3; my emphasis). Thismight imply that Sector 4 is found to the SE of the major quebrada and that I have seen adifferent Sector (5?) altogether. A second email communication with Carol Patterson couldnot clarify this possible disagreement.

It is unknown to me how many (and which) boulders have been recorded by the excavationteam of Jonathan Kent and Carol Patterson in Sector 1, but I could find only a few petroglyphboulders north of the major quebrada and west of the Muralla Pircada. I did not see Sector 2,but in 2000 about 21 petroglyph boulders were recorded in a band stretching NW to SE forabout 130 m, located just north of a minor quebrada. The petroglyphs mainly comprise minor(curvi)linear markings, at least two ‘masks’ and a few simple images of zoomorphs andanthropomorphs. Sector 2 is said to be traversed by an ancient road (all information aboutSector 2 is based on personal communication with and information received from CarolPatterson: 2008).

I am certain that I have surveyed Sector 1 (but only the part north of the quebrada) and mostof Sectors 3 and 4 (indicated by the red numbers in Figure 3A), but still several bouldersescaped my attention. However, as the 2010 Patterson-MS only proves to make reference topetroglyphs that were recorded in Sector 3 and 4, the observations in my paper do not detractfrom the main thrust of my arguments.

Another problem is that the Patterson-MS does not provide any numbering system of thepetroglyph boulders. This is unfortunate, especially as the original sketches made during theperiod of 2000 to 2002 by the excavation team members provide a (possibly provisional)labelling system, using the Spanish term Roca (rock) followed by a letter code. Because ofthis general deficiency of the 2010 Patterson-MS, I hereby introduce my own system in whichevery petroglyph boulder is prefixed with SRB (Santa Rita B) followed by its own number. Incase there are more decorated panels, I have added capital letters (for instance: panel SRB-017A). Wherever possible, I will also mention the original Roca labelling system used by the2000-2002 excavation team members (for instance: SRB-017 - Roca AAA).

The boulder field of Santa Rita mainly is covered with sand, gravel and numerous small andmedium-sized boulders; only relatively few boulders exceed 3 or 4 metres. There are twomajor types of rock. One type involves a light grey granite-type of boulder that shows hardlyany patination and hardly any exfoliation. Probably because working this harder type of rockwill produce petroglyphs with hardly any contrast, this type of rock was not favoured for


petroglyph production in ancient times. I could find only one boulder of this type with a veryfaint petroglyph.

The other type of stone is (originally greenish) andesite which over time produces anattractive deep red-brown patina on its exposed surfaces. Except for the petroglyph mentionedabove, all definite petroglyphs that I have seen appear on andesite boulders. Unfortunatelymany of these andesite boulders have a tendency to severely weather and exfoliate (a naturalweathering process in which outer layers of the stone are gradually ‘peeled off’, like anonion). Many boulders have crumbled away almost completely and several petroglyphs havebeen damaged (and most likely also destroyed) by this natural process. Moreover, many of thepetroglyphs have weathered considerably because of further weathering and (wind) erosion.

Santa Rita proves to be a major petroglyph site. Although the first surveys by Jonathan Kent’steam yielded only a few petroglyph boulders, it is now one of the few sites in Peru with morethan a hundred decorated boulders. Together with the earlier recordings (2000 to 2004) I nowhave a documentation of 152 boulders with petroglyphs. Yet, it is not the intention of thispaper to provide a full inventory, but there are a few issues that I would like to address here.

Dating Issues

The first issue concerns the dating of the Santa Rita petroglyphs in the 2010 Patterson-MS.My first concern is that the time chart of Table 1 does not include the Early Intermediate andLate Intermediate periods and thus incorrectly places the Moche only in the Middle Horizon,while similarly Chimú is incorrectly placed in the Late Horizon (this should be: MiddleHorizon to Late Intermediate Period).

Moreover, the Patterson-MS ‘puts the sample size of about 75-100 petroglyphs across 4Sectors into an estimated age chronology based on style in conjunction with visualassessment of the age due to weathering’ (2010: 6-7; Table 1; my emphases). Based on thesetwo unreliable parameters the Patterson-MS argues that ‘The petroglyphs appear to range inage from early periods that correspond to Chavín, Gallinazo era from both style andfaintness in appearance. Superimposition of later petroglyphs from Moche and Chimú erasshow up brighter and less weathered’.

I now have a twofold problem with this statement and with the results offered in Table 1.Firstly, I am surprised by the uncorroborated and curious interpretations of the various imagesand, secondly, I am amazed by the astonishing ease with which those images have been datedin Table 1. For instance purported ‘symbols representing natural land or water forms’ and‘geometric symbols’ have been classified as: Late Horizon and/or Chimú (A.D. 800 to 1400). Ihave no idea why the presented symbols should represent natural land or water forms’. Thismight be the case, but I could not find any convincing argument; not for the interpretation, norfor the date.

One of the justifications for a Chimú claim is that one of the ‘geometric symbols’, the terrace-motif, also occurs at Chan Chan, the well known Chimú capital just NW of Trujillo. CarolPatterson does not seem to have been aware that this specific motif also occurs in FormativePeriod iconographies, many hundreds of years before Chimú (and moreover occurring inalmost every Andean culture). The fact that this petroglyph (Figure 4) looks relatively fresher


does not have to mean anything; the petroglyph may have been re-pecked by members ofsubsequent cultures who apparently still valued the symbol (perhaps imbued with a differentmeaning, though).

Figure 4. Detail of the stepped motif on Boulder SRB-018. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

The only (careful) conclusion that I agree with to a certain extent is that the fine ‘feline’ head(Table 1; Row 1; first box) on Boulder SRB-006 (Roca AJ - Sector 3) is one of the (few!)images that is ‘dateable’ by its style (Figure 5). Notably the ‘feline’ head definitely belongs tothe MSC-Style; an acronym introduced by me (Van Hoek 2011: 11) to nullify the incorrectand therefore unwanted Chavín label that many (rock art) images in the Andes have received.MSC-Style rock art images in this area more likely have been manufactured by one of theCupisnique cultures (Guañape, Sechín) during a period of roughly 3500 B.C. to 200 B.C.(Preceramic / Formative Period). Therefore, the date (narrowed down to 700-400 B.C. -Chavín/Cupisnique - Table 1; Row 1) stated by the 2010 Patterson-MS is highly questionable.In my opinion this ‘feline’ head is definitely not Chavín, but most likely of a (local)Cupisnique origin (or even older). Table 1; Row 1, shows two more drawings of purportedChavín/Cupisnique petroglyphs in Sector 3, but I could not see any stylistic evidence tocategorise these petroglyphs as Cupisnique (although they may well be).


Figure 5. Detail-drawing of the MSC-Style head’ on Boulder SRB-006 (several other petroglyphs on this panelhave been omitted). Drawing by Maarten van Hoek.

Following from the most uncertain chronology as suggested in the 2010 Patterson-MS there isanother conclusion that I have serious reservations about. The 2010 Patterson-MS refers to ahypothesis put forth by Jonathan Kent that ‘the oldest cultures resided in the lower end of thealluvial fan and over time settled progressively further up the fan towards the mountain base’.This may be true; I am not in the position to doubt this. However, the 2010 Patterson-MScontinues to say that ‘Similarly with the petroglyphs, he (Jonathan Kent) has observed whatappear to be very old cupules on a standing stone near the base of the fan where the oldestfeatures and artifacts have been excavated, while the more recent ‘Chimú’ style petroglyphsare found midway up the fan, near and just beyond the wall’, and that ‘The lightest engravedor scratched glyphs are found near the base of the mountains’. This is all very confusing (forinstance: beyond; is that west or east of the wall?) as the observations seem to suggest that theoldest petroglyphs are found in the west part of the fan (although the cupules have never beendated) and the more recent (Chimú?) in the east part of the fan (near Cerro Pucarachic).

Again, the dating in Table 1 is not based on any scientific and/or stylistic evidence and thesuggested chronological west-east flow is contradicted by the fact that the only ‘dateable’petroglyph, on Boulder SRB-006, actually is found in the centre of the petroglyph field (93 mESE of the Muralla Pircada; the location of Boulder SRB-006 is indicated with a black crossin a green square in Figure 3-bottom). In my opinion the Muralla Pircada cannot at all berelated to the general petroglyph production, or to its content and/or distribution. Therefore itis irrelevant whether a petroglyph is found east or west of the wall. Moreover, in 2008 Irecorded a petroglyph on Boulder SRB-058 that in my opinion shows certain MSC-Styleproperties (Van Hoek 2011: Fig. 107). Importantly, Boulder SRB-058 is found in the east partof the fan, in Sector 4, about 88 m west of the foot of Cerro Pucarachic.

I also dispute the general attitude to uncritically link petroglyphs with other archaeologicalremains nearby, like tombs, corrals or houses. Even if an in situ petroglyph boulder is found


completely covered with smashed but in situ Chimú pottery, this fact does not provide anyfirm evidence for a Chimú origin of the petroglyphs. It only proves that Chimú ceramics weredeposited on top of a petroglyph boulder at a certain time. Therefore, the verified occurrenceof Moche and Chimú remains in the area do not prove that the petroglyphs are indeed Mocheand/or Chimú.

Therefore, I prefer to suggest that the whole boulder field at Santa Rita predominantly haspetroglyphs of the Early Horizon, Formative Period and possibly even of the Pre-CeramicPeriod and that only a number of petroglyphs (but I cannot determine which ones) are of alater date (and possibly these may include images of Moche or Chimúorigin/manufacture/influence).

Interpretation Issues

Interpreting ancient petroglyphs is often extremely tricky. Often we see what we want to seeand moreover ignore the fact that much of the ancient rock art image(s) may havedisappeared; especially in the older images in areas with climatic circumstances that areunfavourable regarding preservation. Furthermore, the interpretation that we offer may noteven remotely be the same as the mind-image and/or meaning of the prehistoric manufacturerof the petroglyph we see now (I will give an example of such a disagreement when discussingthe ‘Cactus’ Issue). Therefore, in general it is wiser to explicitly express your uncertaintyregarding any interpretation and not to jump to conclusions that - from the start - may well bequestionable. Last but not least, it would also be wise to have an open mind regardingalternatives.

There are several interpretations in the 2010 Patterson-MS that I seriously question, like thereading of the petroglyphs on Boulder SRB-028 (Roca EE) in Sector 3, placed in the LateHorizon (but why?). An incomplete (!) drawing of the petroglyphs in Table 1; Row 7, showsthat the ‘star-like’ element of the image in the first box is much fainter represented. Actually,that is not the case. I could not see any relevant difference in patination (Figure 6). To me, itis disturbing that the Patterson-MS (2010: 13) interprets this set of petroglyphs as a ‘lizardsnapping a fly’. First of all, the image may be incomplete as part of the boulder hasdisappeared because of exfoliation. Secondly, the lines ‘connecting’ the elements may justaccidentally connect the figures and last but not least, why not expressing doubt or at leastoffering an alternative. My (jokingly - or not?) interpretation of a ‘biomorph giving birth’ maybe as valid as any other reading. I have similar reservations regarding the ‘shells’interpretation (Row 6) and the ‘open mouth or tail’ readings (Row 3). The former could wellbe interpreted as a ‘hand’ motif and although the latter instances may indeed concern imagesin which biomorphs may have ‘open tails or mouths’ because of a certain graphicalconvention (like numerous examples at Toro Muerto in the south of Peru), equally parts of thedesign may have weathered off. Yet, two specific interpretations need to be more fullydiscussed.


Figure 6. The petroglyphs on Boulder SRB-028. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

The ‘Cactus’ Issue

Interestingly, the 2010 Patterson-MS interprets a number of images (Table 1; Row 5) as ‘fullyoutlined (…. missing?) representing San Pedro cactus and flower’, while the caption to herFig. 13D even reads: ‘petroglyph of San Pedro Cactus with possible snails on it’ (I will returnto this ‘snail’ issue later on). According to the 2010 Patterson-MS ‘The cactus motif is themost prevalent motifs of all the petroglyph panels found in this survey’. However, there seemto be two different types of purported ‘cactus’ representations: roughly circular motifs(represented at Santa Rita with at least 5 motifs) and oblong elements (with at least 20examples). Indeed, the motifs in question are indeed found on several boulders, but I doubtwhether they are the most prevalent motif at Santa Rita (this may well be the reptile imagery:lizards and snakes).

Although I cannot prove that the cactus-interpretation is not correct, I would like to offer amore plausible alternative. Notably, it struck me that several of the purported ‘cactus’ motifsprove to have five small ‘elements’ at the top. These five elements could well represent ‘toes’and thus the motif may well (or rather, better) be observed as a ‘foot’ image (in some caseseven as a ‘sandal’).

There are several other arguments that underscore the ‘foot’ interpretation. Firstly, Andeaniconography is not always concerned with representing the factual number of digits. Feet andhands often have four, even three or six digits. Thus, the ‘cactus’ motifs with less or morethan five digits may still represent ‘hands’ or ‘feet’. An argument in favour of the ‘cactus’interpretation is that they almost invariably have been depicted in a more or less verticalposition, with the ‘toes’ on top. However, in rock art also ‘feet’ images are almost alwaysfound oriented vertically. However, one ‘foot’ petroglyph, on Boulder SRB-038 (Figure 7), isclearly oriented horizontally (although the rather small boulder may once have been disturbedand dislocated). Moreover, the ‘foot’ clearly shows five toes in such a way that it proves to be


a ‘left foot’ (length about 22 cm). It seems to be superimposed on earlier (?) and clearly muchfainter petroglyphs. Instances of palimpsest may also explain the interpretation of an image asa ‘petroglyph of San Pedro Cactus with possible snails on it’; the ‘snails’ being (parts of)earlier or later petroglyphs.

Figure 7. Close-up of the ‘foot’ petroglyph on Boulder SRB-038. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

There are other arguments in favour of the ‘foot’ interpretation. In a few cases examples oftwo ‘feet’ are found on a panel; either in a line or next to each other. The former configuration(only convincingly found on Boulder SRB-027A - Roca J) might be explained as symbolisinga person ‘walking’; possibly even as following a (ritual) route. However, just above the two‘feet’ are two circles, each with five lines. These may symbolise the ‘hands’ or ‘handprints’(of the same person?). The fact that the 2010 Patterson-MS offers a drawing (Table 1; Row 5;second box) showing six ‘digits’ is not relevant as explained above. Moreover, scanning thephotographic record of this boulder (Figure 8), I could trace only five ‘digits’ at each ‘hand’.It is moreover remarkable that the petroglyphs on panel SRB-027A have been ‘dated’ to the‘Middle Horizon’ in the 2010 Patterson-MS (Table 1; Row 5; second box), while on the sameboulder adjacent panel SRB-027B (also showing one - possible - ‘foot’ petroglyph) has beenascribed to the ‘Early Horizon’ (Table 1; Row 1; second box). Of course this is possible, but Iwonder on what grounds these chronological decisions and distinctions have been made.


Figure 8. The petroglyphs on Panel SRB-027A. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Only a few metres further east of Boulder SRB-027 is Boulder SRB-029 (Roca ii). On thesloping NNW surface (panel SRB-029A) is one distinct ‘foot’ petroglyph and - muchweathered and thus very doubtful - two more examples. On the vertical SSE facing side(panel SRB-029B) the 2010 Patterson-MS (Table 1; Row 5; first box) shows three ‘foot’petroglyphs of differing sizes, although only two certain ‘foot’ petroglyphs are now visible.Despite the differing sizes they might have been intended to form a matching pair.

A more convincing (though much weathered) ‘pair of feet’ concerns the petroglyphs onBoulder SRB-063; actually it is the first petroglyph panel that I noticed at Santa Rita (inSector 1 and about 50 m west of the great wall). It clearly is a ‘pair of feet’, overlooking anarrow (ancient?) path (Figure 9). In this case the pair indeed seems to depict a matching leftand a right ‘foot’, each with five dots for ‘toes’.


Figure 9. The ‘feet’ petroglyphs on Boulder SRB-063 (left of an ancient [?] path).


The 2010 Patterson-MS (Table 1; Row 5; third box) also includes a motif (the only petroglyphon Boulder SRB-075 - not seen by me) comprising a circular groove with ten short groovesemerging all around from it, thus creating a kind of ‘solar’ or ‘stellar’ motif (Figure 10).Remarkably, this ‘solar’ motif is compared in Fig. 12 of the 2010 Patterson-MS with a photo(previously published in Wikepedia, though this source has not been mentioned) showingsections/slices of the actual San Pedro cactus. Again, I prefer to read this motif differently aswell. To me it is more plausible that it is a ‘solar’ symbol; a rather common motif in Andeanrock art. Equally, it could well represent something else. Moreover, the six-pointed slices ofthe cactus in Fig. 12 of the 2010 Patterson-MS have much more in common with the six-pointed stone mace head that was found in the area (information based on a photo onceaccessible in the 2008 CIPS internet page). Images possibly representing mace heads are veryrare in Andean rock art (I know of only a few ‘convincing’ examples, at Yonán inJequetepeque, while another occurs in the Virú Valley).


Figure 10. The petroglyph on Boulder SRB-075. Drawing by Maarten van Hoek,based on a photograph from the personal collection of Carol Patterson (2009: pers.

com.).

Fig. 12 in the 2010 Patterson-MS shows another petroglyph (again the only motif on thisstone; Boulder SRB-040 - not seen by me) comprising a circular groove with ten shortgrooves emerging from the upper arc only, thus giving the impression of a ‘hand with tenfingers’. This petroglyph is linked in the photograph with a cactus that happens to growbehind the boulder (in 2004). First of all, that specific cactus probably was not there when thepetroglyph was made and even if another cactus was found nearby in ancient times, the motifnot necessarily has anything to do with the actual cactus (not even while the top of the cactussomewhat resembles the petroglyph).

Finally, I do not see any reason to date those supposed ‘cactus’ petroglyphs (that I prefer tointerpret as ‘feet’) only from the ‘Middle Horizon’, especially as the 2010 Patterson-MScontradicts this by stating that ‘The use of the San Pedro cactus has roots in the Chavínculture’, while simultaneously comparing the motif with earlier Cupisnique pottery (Fig.13A). I categorically reject any unequivocal Chavín relationship for any of the petroglyphs atSanta Rita. I again prefer to date most of the Santa Rita petroglyphs to the local Cupisnique(or earlier) cultures, while later petroglyph influences are in my opinion scarcer.

The ‘Snail’ Issue

One of the purported ‘cactus’ petroglyphs was said to have possible snails on it (Patterson-MS2010: Fig. 13D). The motif - that I prefer to read as a ‘foot’, despite the fact that the drawingin the Patterson-MS only shows four ‘digits’ - has some roughly circular internal markings.Although I cannot offer any proof that would contradict the ‘snail’ interpretation, I cannotunconditionally accept that those small, amorphous markings are indeed depictions of ‘snails’.


Even more controversial - and in my opinion unacceptable - are the claims in the Patterson-MS (2010: 14) that ‘Depictions of land snails are found both in profile and cross section on aboulder in Sector 3’, referring to the petroglyphs on Boulder SRB-017 (Roca AAA). Eventhough the caption to Fig. 14 reads ‘A boulder possibly depicting a snail and its chamberedshell (A), and a living snail (B) with a close up drawing of the snail (C)’, the word ‘possibly’is too unconvincing. The Patterson-MS also states that ‘The petroglyphs on this boulder showtwo perspectives of the snail. The brighter, segmented circle motif is of the snail shell in crosssection showing the chambers. The corresponding line drawing is of a snail in profile withthe over-arching shell that curls, the antenna on the head above the eye, and a ‘foot’ thatreaches out in opposite directions’. All these claims will be commented on here.

First of all I dare any-one to make a cross section of the fragile land snail from the Santa Ritaarea and to compare it with the large circular ‘wheel’ motif on panel SRB-017B (Figure 11). Iam pretty sure that it will be different to the petroglyph. And even if one is able to create amatch, this not at all proves that the ‘wheel’ motif indeed represents a cross section of a snail.Interestingly, panel SRB-017A (the other side of the same boulder) also has a (much fainter)‘wheel’ motif that has not been taken into account in the discussion. Moreover, similar‘wheel’ motifs occur at other Andean rock art sites, where they are found associated withother designs and/or biomorphs. Finally, snail-shells (molluscs) do not have ‘chambers’ likeprehistoric ammonites (squids).

Figure 11. The ‘wheel’ petroglyph on Panel SRB-017B. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

More disturbing is the interpretation of the zoomorphic petroglyph on panel SRB-017A(Figure 12), which is claimed to represent a ‘snail shown in profile’ in Fig. 16 of the 2010Patterson-MS. The 2010 Patterson-MS offers three lines of ‘evidence’ for this claim, but allthree substantiations are - to me - highly disputable and will be commented on.


Figure 12. The zoomorphic petroglyph on Panel SRB-017A. Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Firstly, there is the ‘arc over the body to represent the shell that curls upwards’. To me thisfeature simply is the curled tail of the zoomorph; a fairly common position and shape of tailsin zoomorphic figures in rock art images in this part of the Andes. Indeed, the groove arcsover the body, but it is not a line that is separated from the body. Only seemingly this ‘tail’ isdetached from the rear end of the body. Notably, the very first bit of the tail (where it in fact isattached to the back of the zoomorph) is more weathered and thus fainter. Probably for thatreason a small part of the tail has not been drawn in the black-and-white drawing of the Fig.16 in the 2010 Patterson-MS (Figure 13: blue arrow). Another argument against the ‘arcrepresenting a shell of a snail’ is that a number of petroglyphs of quadrupeds at Toro Muertoin the far south of Peru also have an ‘arc’, without giving any impression of representing oreven symbolising a ‘snail’.

Figure 13. The purported ‘snail’ petroglyph on Panel SRB-017A.Drawing by Carol Patterson (2010: Fig 16); the blue arrow has

been added by the author in comparison with Figure 12.


The second argument raised in the 2010 Patterson-MS to classify the zoomorph as a ‘snail’ isthe fact that the ‘head’ has two short ‘antennae’. Indeed, snails often have those twoappendages, but so do other species. In my opinion the two appendages simply represent thesimplified ‘ears’ of the undeterminable zoomorph (a viscacha, perhaps?).

The third contention focuses on the ‘unusual’ position of the ‘legs’ and especially of the two‘feet’. Notably, the Patterson-MS describes a specific aspect of the zoomorph a follows: ‘onefoot [is] leading forward and one foot leading backward’ (2010: 14). First of all, snails do nothave legs and feet (actually, I could now rest my case, but Andean iconography may againsurprise us). More convincingly contradicting the ‘snail’ interpretation regarding the opposed‘feet’ is the fact that other, also determinable, species of animals have been depicted in profilein Andean iconographies with ‘feet’ pointing in opposite directions.

Richard Burger illustrates a Chavín gold ‘feline’ (1995: Fig. 221) that clearly shows the sameposition of the two feet/claws, which proves that the custom to occasionally place ‘feet’ in anopposing configuration occurred as early as the Early Horizon and thus most likely as well inthe Formative Period (or even earlier).

In the rock art of the Andes images of laterally depicted zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’ alsosporadically occur and some of them look very much like the Santa Rita example. Severalremarkable analogies are found at one of the Motocachy Pampa petroglyph sites, NW of thetown of Moro in the Nepeña Valley, recorded by Donald Proulx in 1971. Boulders MP1-002,MP1-003 and MP1-006 (Figure 14) feature zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’, that are more orless similar to the Santa Rita zoomorph. The fact that the ‘tail-ends’ spirals downwards isirrelevant in this respect. Interestingly, also this site (about 75 km SE of Santa Rita) has atleast one definite MSC-Style ‘face’ petroglyph, on Boulder MP1-004 (Van Hoek 2011: Fig.118).

Figure 14. Petroglyphs on Boulder MP1-006 at Motocachy Pampa - Site 1, Nepeña. Photographfrom the personal collection of Donald Proulx (2009: pers. com.).


Another petroglyph that has much in common with the Santa Rita ‘snail’ occurs on BoulderVAG-004 at El Vagón-2 in Moche (about 56 km NW of Santa Rita). I discovered thisexample (Figure 15) in 2008. If there would be an applicant in Andean rock art forrepresenting a ‘snail’, this petroglyph would possibly be a better candidate. A short distancefurther south is Alto de la Guitarra with a few petroglyphs of zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’.

Figure 15. Petroglyph on Boulder VAG-004 at El Vagón-2, Moche.Drawing by Maarten van Hoek.

In the Chicama drainage (more than 100 km NW of Santa Rita) Daniel Castillo Benitesreported several petroglyphs of zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’, for instance the ‘squirrel’(ardilla de los algarrobales) at Quebrada la Mónica (2006: Fig. 43). At Cerro Negro, also inChicama, I noticed several petroglyphs of profile zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’ (possibly all‘monkeys’).

At La Galgada (42 km east) are two petroglyphs of ‘felines’ (?) that may be regarded to have‘opposed feet’ (Bueno Mendoza 2006: Foto 2 and Lámina IV). At Yonán in Jequetepeque(about 150 km NW of Santa Rita) several panels have zoomorphic petroglyphs with ‘opposedfeet (for example YON-015, YON-038B, YON-040A and YON-048). Panel YON-026A evenhas a ‘feline’ petroglyph with ‘opposed feet’. At nearby Quebrada de Felino (or Pampa deMosquitos) two petroglyphs clearly depict zoomorphs with ‘opposed feet’, one probably aFormative Period ‘feline’ (Pimentel 1986: Figs 81.1 and 82.1). Also at Palamenco (about 50km SE of Santa Rita), a small, fully pecked zoomorph with distinctly ‘opposed feet’ occurs,on Boulder PAL-062A. Interestingly, Alto de la Guitarra, Yonán, Quebrada de Felino,Motocachy Pampa and Palamenco all have MSC-Style imagery from the Formative Period,like Santa Rita.

More than 557 km SE of Santa Rita, Víctor Salvo (2011) reported a similar zoomorph with‘opposed feet’ on the Gran Piedra Sagrada near Lunahuaná in Cañete (Lima). The zoomorph(Figure 16) has been interpreted as a ‘fox’ (el zorro lunar) by its discoverer, who moreoveridentified the zoomorph with Moche iconography (despite the fact that Moche supremacynever reached Cañete). A short distance further south in the same area, a painting on aceramic - possibly belonging to the Chincha culture - clearly shows a fully profile zoomorphwith opposed feet (source - fuente). Even as far south as Toro Muerto and Alto de Pitis (bothsites located at about 1070 km SE of Santa Rita) several petroglyphs of quadrupeds with


http://guiachincha.com/2006/modules.php?name=Historia

‘opposed feet’ (probably ‘camelids’) have been recorded by me, for instance at Toro Muertoon Boulders Da-003, Da-044 Dx-082, and especially on Da-042 (Figure 17), and at Alto dePitis on Boulder AP3-132 (Figure 18). All these analogies regarding the ‘opposed feet’demonstrate that the property of having ‘opposed feet’ is no indication of animal species andthus also the ‘snail’ interpretation must be rejected.

Figure 16. Petroglyph on the Gran Piedra Sagrada, Lunahuaná, Cañete.Drawing by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Víctor Salvo (2011:

Fig. 1).

Figure 17. Petroglyph on Boulder Da-042 at Toro Muerto, Majes (the two larger legs may have been added at a later stage).



Figure 18. Petroglyph on Boulder AP3-132 at Alto de Pitis, Majes.Photograph by Maarten van Hoek.

Finally, regarding the Boulder SRB-017 petroglyphs, the 2010 Patterson-MS claims that‘These [snail] petroglyphs illustrate an evolved stage of picture-writing characteristic of theperiod around A.D. 1300 to 1400’, and places them in the ‘Late Horizon’ (Table 1; Row 8;second box), while the 2010 Patterson-MS simultaneously claims that the ‘underlying glyphs,that are very faint’ have been assigned to the ‘Early Horizon’ - Salinar culture - 400 to 200B.C. (Table 1; Row 2; first box). This implies a huge chronological discrepancy, which isinexplicable, because it is based on what evidence?

The Patterson-MS however ignores the possibility that a collection of motifs on a rock panelmade by one culture may have been executed using different techniques (resulting in verysuperficial to more deeply pecked motifs). Even a ‘small’ time span of one to two hundreds ofyears between the manufacturing of two layers of petroglyphs on one panel by one culturemay result in the combination of fainter and brighter (and different!) motifs that we see onone panel nowadays. And again, also ignored is the possibility that certain motifs were(partially) re-pecked in (much) later eras by other cultures.

Personally I do not believe in the picture-writing theory (which, in the case of the 2010Patterson-MS, departs from the unverified assumption that the petroglyphs indeed depict‘snails’, which I proved to be highly questionable) and moreover, I do not see any reason toclaim that this picture-writing would be ‘characteristic of the period around A.D. 1300 to1400’. Why not earlier? To me all those claims are unsupported and thus unscientific remarks.

Conclusions

In general I applaud every serious attempt at interpreting rock art motifs. However, in everycase any interpretation must be credible and should be substantiated by acceptable, reliableand verifiable arguments. In my opinion absolute statements (those offering no room foralternatives) should be avoided. In most cases we simply do not know what a rock art motifexemplifies, not to mention the fact that we hardly ever will understand the exact meaning‘behind’ the visible motif as experienced and ‘seen’ by the prehistoric manufacturer. Every


rock art researcher should have an ‘open mind’ and preferably express the fact (in whateverway) that he or she is often only subjectively interpreting, which means that hardly anythingis certain.

In the case of the general chronology suggested for the Santa Rita petroglyph record, I havedemonstrated that the results in the 2010 Patterson-MS are highly questionable. So far none ofthe petroglyphs at Santa Rita yielded an absolute date. Only a few images can roughly bedated to the Early Horizon and/or Formative Period. This is dating is only based on thegraphical analogies with images in dateable structures. The remainder is (most) uncertain.This uncertainty should have been expressed.

In case of the interpretations in the 2010 Patterson-MS of a number of motifs (especially the‘cactus’ and the ‘snail’ explanation) I have demonstrated that alternative readings areavailable (respectively ‘feet’ and ‘viscacha’), without claiming however that my readings arethe only correct interpretations.

Acknowledgements

This paper could not have been written without the help of several people. In this respect Iwould like to especially thank Carol Patterson for her personal and magnanimous help bymaking specific information on Santa Rita rock art accessible to me. She generously providedme with detailed information on Santa Rita, including many drawings and unpublishedphotographs from her personal records, some of which has been used in this paper. I am alsograteful to Carol for emailing me a digital copy of the 2010 Patterson-MS. I am also indebtedto Professor Donald Proulx from the University of Massachusetts for sharing with mephotographs of Nepeña rock art and informing me of the Motocachy petroglyph complex. Iam also grateful to Dr Thomas Zoubek for his information on the Susanga petroglyphs. Lastbut not least, I would like to thank my wife Elles for her support as usual and for shelteringme with an umbrella against the (unanticipated) light rain we had at Santa Rita.

¿Preguntas, comentarios? escriba a: [email protected]

Cómo citar este artículo:

van Hoek, Maarten. Santa Rita, a Petroglyph Site in the Chao Valley, Northern Peru. En Rupestreweb, http://www.rupestreweb.info/santarita.html

2013


http://www.rupestreweb.info/santarita.html

mailto:[email protected]%20

REFERENCES

(References in blue are links to the sources as accessible on the internet in 2012).

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

Castillo Benites, D. S. 2006. Arte Rupestre en la Cuenca del Río Chicama. Ediciones SIAN,Arqueología / 4. Trujillo, Perú.

Bueno Mendoza, A. 2006. Petroglifos en la quebrada Morín y La Galgada: de los textos gráficos al mito etiológico. Investigaciones Sociales 67: Arqueología. Año X; N° 17; pp. 67 - 90. UNMSM - IIHS, Lima.

Kent. J. 2008. Archaeological Investigations at Santa Rita B, Chao Valley, Northern Coast. Dig Peru: Archaeological Field Expedition to Northern Peru (1998-2008). In CIPS. The web page with the Project Photos - http://www.cipstudies.org/photos.htm - is no longer accessible.

Pimentel, V. 1986. Petroglifos en el Valle Medio y Bajo de Jequepeteque, Norte del Perú.Bonn, Alemania. Verlag C. H. Beck, München.

Salvo V. 2011. Misterios de la ‘Piedra Sagrada’. In: Petrogliflos en Lunahuaná!!, importanteanuncio. Lunahuaná.

The 2010 Patterson-MS: Patterson, C., T. Rosales Tham & V. Vásquez Sánchez. 2010. Petroglyphs of the Santa Rita B Complex, Chao Valley, Peru. (Unpublished MS??).

Van Hoek, M. 2011a. The Chavín Controversy - Rock Art from the Andean Formative period. Privately Published using the BLURB Creative Publishing Service. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands.


http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1943422.

http://lunahuanaweb.blogspot.nl/2011/03/petrogliflos-en-lunahuana-importante.html

http://www.cipstudies.org/kent.htm

http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtualdata/publicaciones/inv_sociales/n17_2006/a04n17.pdf

van hoek, m. 2013. santa rita, a petroglyph site in the chao valley, northern peru. in rupestreweb

Documents