Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:58:40.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ancient pathways and geoglyphs in the Sihuas Valley of southern Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2018

Peter Bikoulis
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 19 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S2, Canada
Felipe Gonzalez-Macqueen
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Social Science Centre, Western University, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada
Giles Spence-Morrow
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 19 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S2, Canada
Stefanie Bautista
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Willy Yepez Alvarez
Affiliation:
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queens Park, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada
Justin Jennings*
Affiliation:
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queens Park, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada
*
*Author for correspondence (Email: justinj@rom.on.ca)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Anthropogenic pathways and geoglyphs comprise two of the most recognisable pre-Colombian features of the Peruvian Andes. Although often found in close proximity, there has been no quantitative investigation of the relationships between these types of landscape features. To investigate, the authors performed spatial analysis and simulation modelling on a combination of unmanned aerial vehicle and surface reconnaissance data from the Sihuas River Valley pampa in southern Peru. The results suggest that these pathways and geoglyphs were closely tied, forming part of travellers’ rituals to propitiate local deities and ensure a successful journey.

Information

Type
Research
Copyright
© Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2018 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Map of the study area and the Sihuas Valley, Peru.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Map of Cujan Alta, showing minor anthropogenic features.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Examples of figural geoglyphs: A) llama; B) ‘bat-man’; C) hooks; D) Gross-Munsa.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Examples of single (n=53), double (n=25); and multiple-ring geoglyphs (n=14).

Figure 4

Figure 5 Maps showing examples of pre-Columbian and colonial road ways: A) primary; B) secondary; and C) colonial.

Figure 5

Figure 6 Map showing the locations of all ancient roads and circular geoglyphs.

Figure 6

Figure 7 Bar graph showing the cumulative frequency distribution of pre-Columbian and colonial geoglyphs at different buffering distances.

Figure 7

Table 1 Results of Kolmogorov-Smirnoff (K-S) test between expected (Monte Carlo) and observed set geoglyphs, based on frequency within given buffering distance.