The rock art of the Desert Andes, the extremely dry coastal strip west of the High Andes in South America, abounds in images of all sorts of animals. Most animals are to be expected: camelids, birds, snakes and felines, for instance. However, there is one animal species that is unforeseen. It concerns the image of the monkey. This study explores the distribution if the monkey in the rock art of mainly coastal Peru, and attempts at explaining the figure.
By Maarten van Hoek
*
*
Monkey Petroglyphs
in the Rock Art of Coastal Peru:
Distribution and Symbolism
*
Maarten van Hoek
Click on any illustration to see an enlargement
*
Introduction
Coastal Peru, the northern part of the Desert Andes (the extremely dry coastal strip west of the High Andes), is extremely rich in rock art. This northern part (yet also the southern, Chilean part; the Atacama) has numerous petroglyphs (yet relatively few pictographs). The area also has numerous geoglyphs. Although often important in view of their relation with rock art and other art forms, geoglyphs are definitely not a form of rock art, despite the fact that several (academic) researchers (Hostnig 2003: xi) consider geoglyphs to be a manifestation of rock art. However, the official IFRAO Rock Art Glossary defines rock art as (my emphases): “non-utilitarian anthropic markings on rock surfaces, made either by an additive process (pictogram) or by a reductive process (petroglyph)”. Thus this definition explicitly excludes geoglyphs. Yet, I acknowledge the importance of geoglyphs in rock art studies.
Understandably, besides numerous anthropomorphic figures and abstract motifs, the rock art of the Desert Andes also includes abundant depictions of all sorts of animals, like (especially) camelids, birds (like raptors), felines, snakes and lizards (images of marine creatures are strikingly rare in Desert Andes rock art). Most animals depicted in the rock art of coastal Peru are indigenous to the area, and several of those animals are even considered to be Sacred Animals in Andean worldview; especially the snake, the feline and the condor. Now, what about the monkey? Does that animal also fit into the worldview of the Desert Andes cultures?
Of course it will be no surprise that images of the elephant do not occur in Desert Andes rock art. However, it will be a surprise to find rock art images of monkey species in Desert Andes rock art, because the natural habitat of the monkey in South America is found far to the east, in the Amazonian rain forest, across the High Andes.
Yet, many rock art sites in the Desert Andes feature images of those “alien” monkeys (the species of each monkey depicted in Desert Andes rock art is not relevant in this study). Their occurrence is explained by the fact that in prehistory there existed intensive contacts between the Amazon and – across the High Andes – the Pacific Coast. Peoples of those areas intermittently exchanged all sorts of goods, ideas, ideologies and apparently also images of tropical animals and animal-parts (like the highly valued colourful feathers of tropical birds), but – most importantly – also live monkeys.
It will also be no revelation that images of monkeys appear in the rock art of the Amazon. Just to mention a couple, at Cerro Azul, part of the Serranía de la Lindosa rock art complex, Colombia, there is, besides some other rock paintings of monkeys, a pictograph of two upright monkeys facing each other. Interestingly, the site is said to date back approximately 12.500 years. At the well-known rock art site complex of Serra da Capivara, Brazil, there is at least one pictograph involving an adult monkey with a young clutched to its back.
Moreover, it is certain that also several petroglyphs of monkeys have been reported in the Amazon Basin, for instance in Brazil (Pereira and Júnior 2022). If the illustration that I found on the internet (Figure 1B) definitely appears in their publication and is correct and indeed recorded in Brazil, then it seems that even petroglyphs depicting musical monkeys have been discovered in Amazonia. Importantly, monkey petroglyphs apparently playing a wind instrument also occur in the Desert Andes, for instance at Tarapacá-47 in northern Chile (Figure 1A). The concept of the musical monkey may therefore have been derived from Amazonian worldview. I will return to the important concept of biomorphs playing a wind instrument further on in this study.
Figure 1. A: Monkey petroglyph at Tarapacá-47, northern Chile. B: Monkey petroglyph from a site in Brazil, the location of which is unknown to me. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, A: based on a drawing by Núñez and Briones (1968: Lam. X-161); B: based on a drawing found on the internet, probably published by Pereira and Júnior (2022).
*
How to Recognise a Monkey in Rock Art?
Having said that monkeys appear in Desert Andes rock art, a problem surfaces. Images of purported monkey images often look much like humans or other animals. There are moreover several ways monkeys have been depicted in rock art, ranging from simple, fully pecked small examples lacking facial features, to more complex, outlined examples showing a mouth, eyes and/or nose and ears. And still they may look like a human (or another animal) One defining element, however, is the often long tail with a short or complex curl at the end. However, there are other species of animals that have been depicted with such a tail, like felines, vizcachas and some unidentifiable (rodent-like?) animals.
Another defining property is the often upright position of the purported monkey. However, also humans are usually depicted in the vertical position. Even felines (like the petroglyph of a feline at Caspana, northern Chile), camelids and other species are sometimes found in an (unusual?) vertical (confronting or even fighting?) arrangement on the rock surface. Another defining property is the arrangement of the four legs. In many cases the flexed front legs (or just one front leg) are pointing upwards, while the flexed hind legs are pointing downwards. Unfortunately, also other species of animals have been depicted with their legs arranged in the same way.
Moreover, it is a fact that whichever biomorphic image has been manufactured by ancient Andeans, the result often is not a completely realistic picture. Certain elements may have been grotesquely emphasised (like an excessively long tail); other details may have been reduced or even omitted (like the face elements in the petroglyph of a monkey at El Vado in the Palpa valley of southern Peru; Figure 2). Another issue is the fact that some selected animals in Andean rock art – like foxes, but especially monkeys – have been depicted while performing activities that are specifically human. For instance, certain animals have been depicted in rock art while playing a wind instrument (see Figures 1, 2 12 and 25), holding a weapon, or carrying some unidentified object (all of which may be invisible [explained later on]).
Figure 2. Monkey petroglyph apparently playing some wind instrument at El Vado, Palpa Valley, southern Peru. Photograph © by Peter Fux (2011).
Another problem is the fact that many images are hard to read or are even completely unrecognisable because of erosion, weathering and/or exfoliation. An example is the petroglyph of a biomorph on Boulder CAB-032 at La Cabañita in the Palpa Valley. According to Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1995) it is “muy deterionado” (much weathered), and for that reason he did not venture to identify the image. Indeed, the panel is much exfoliated, but in my opinion it is possible – despite the considerable damage – to recognise a fully laterally depicted monkey (Figure 3; observe the darker parts).
Figure 3. Panel CAB-032 at La Cabañita, Palpa Valley. Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, drawing based on Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1981).
Finally, when searching for information about whatever subject, there is also the danger of uncritically accepting and repeating published misinterpretations. One of the most consulted works about rock art in Peru, is the extensive 1986-book by Núñez Jiménez. Unfortunately, about 25% of the (graphical and sometimes textual) information in his book in inaccurate and often incorrect (Van Hoek 2011a). For instance his drawing of a petroglyph on Panel HCR-W03 at Huancor (Figure 4: left and centre) does not show the long monkey tail. Núñez Jiménez also tentatively interprets the biomorphic petroglyphs of Boulder CAN-001 at La Cantera in the Palpa Valley as “snake, lizard? and bird?” (1986: Fig. 1963); thus not recognising the otherwise distinct monkey petroglyph on the panel (see Figure 10). Also, his drawing of the images on a panel at “La Cantera” (1986: Fig 1966), are tentatively identified by him as “Figuras al paracer humanas”, while one of the images clearly represents a monkey (see Figure 11). Moreover, that panel is not found at La Cantera as stated by Núñez Jiménez, but on Boulder CAB-027 at La Cabañita, a site a short distance further north in the Palpa Valley.
Figure 4. Panel HCR-W03 (left and centre) and Panel HCR-E20 (right); both at Huancor, San Juan Valley. Photographs and drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, inset-drawing based on Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1981).
*
Monkey Petroglyphs in the Desert Andes
In this section I will mention or briefly discuss a selection of the petroglyphs of monkeys in the Desert Andes (including a few sites in northern Chile, but mainly focussing on Peru, though) that are known to me (of course there may be more). The locations of a selection of those selected sites are approximately shown on the map of Figure 5. I would like to emphasise here that my drawings and also my interpretations are subjective and may therefore be incorrect. Moreover, further research may prove that any zoomorphic image that I present here, may turn out to represent another animal species than suggested by me. Finally, the exact monkey species depicted in Desert Andes rock art (of the 50+ monkey species still living in Peru) is not relevant in this paper.
Figure 5. Map of the Desert Andes showing the very approximate locations of rock art sites with monkey petroglyphs mentioned in the text (not all sites could be shown). Map © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the map © by OpenStreetMap – Contributors.
Starting in the far south of the Desert Andes there is the rock art site of Yerbas Buenas north of San Pedro de Atacama (Chile) with the well-known image of a monkey (Figure 6A). In the same area are two monkey petroglyphs recorded at the Río Salado site. Both animals seem to hold a linear object of uncertain function. Skipping several important rock art sites, we arrive at Tamentica, where at least one petroglyph seems to depict a monkey, facing a (possible) second example (Figure 6C). Much further north is the rock art site of Tarapacá-47 with at least one boulder that has several monkey petroglyphs on two panels (Figure 6B), one possibly blowing a wind instrument (not shown here). Another panel at Tarapacá-47 depicts a monkey, again holding a possible wind instrument (see Figure 1A).
Skipping the important rock art site of Ariquilda we arrive the Camarones Drainage, where several sites feature monkey petroglyphs, like Pampanune, while at Taltape there is an unusually horizontally arranged monkey petroglyph, following (?) an archer (see Figure 8B; a scene to which I shall return). In the next drainage (Codpa) is the rock art site of Apanza with an almost horizontally depicted monkey petroglyph. Further north, at Las Animas (Azapa Valley), is a monkey petroglyph, possibly associated with a plant-like image (Van Hoek 2005a: Fig. 20A).
Figure 6. Monkey petroglyphs at: A: Yerbas Buenas; B: Tarapacá-47; C: Tamentica; all in northern Chile. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
We are now crossing the border with Peru to arrive at the extensive rock art site of Miculla, where several petroglyphs depict a monkey, some in the climbing position. On Boulder MIM-091 are two monkeys climbing a central pole, thus facing each other (Figure 7). The pole might symbolise a tree. Boulder MIM-025 shows a monkey possibly playing a wind instrument (see Figure 25), while another monkey at Miculla is in the “playing” or “offering” position, without showing any object (Figure 8A). Even biomorphic geoglyphs in the Lluta Valley of northern Chile are constructed in the “playing” or “offering” position. The context of biomorphs in a “playing” or “offering” position was fully explained by me earlier (Van Hoek 2005a).
Figure 7. Monkey petroglyphs at Miculla, southern Peru. Compare this arrangement with the scene illustrated in Figure 13. Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 8. A: Monkey petroglyph at Miculla, southern Peru. B: Petroglyphs at Taltape, Camarones Valley, northern Chile. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek.
NE of Miculla is Anajiri with at least three petroglyphs of a climbing monkey; two close together on one large boulder. Much further north is the rock art site of San Antonio in the Locumba Valley with at least two monkey petroglyphs. Skipping a large area, we arrive at Toro Muerto in the Majes valley, where – despite the enormous amount of petroglyphs (on an estimated number of 2600 decorated boulders) – only one possible image of a monkey (or is it a feline?) has been reported by us on Boulder TM-Fx-005 (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Petroglyphs on Boulder TM-Fx-005 at Toro Muerto, southern Peru, and detail of the possible monkey. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
Much further north, in the central Paracas-Nasca-Chincha Territory, is the Palpa Valley with a series of rock art sites. I already mentioned the (incorrectly interpreted) monkey petroglyph on Boulder CAN-001 at La Cantera (Figure 10), the (incorrectly interpreted) monkey on Boulder CAB-027 at La Cabañita (Figure 11), and the exfoliated image on Boulder CAB-032 at La Cabañita (see Figure 3). Also in the Palpa Valley is (rotated) Boulder CHI-008 at Chichitarra with a monkey petroglyph, while at nearby El Vado are two monkey petroglyphs; one with an object from the mouth (see Figure 2; see also Figure 28).
Figure 10. Petroglyphs on Boulder CAN-001 at La Cantera, Palpa Valley, southern Peru. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek; Inset B: based on Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1963).
Figure 11. Petroglyphs on Boulder CAB-027 at La Cabañita, Palpa Valley, southern Peru. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek; Framed inset: based on the drawing by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 1966).
The northern part of the Paracas-Nasca-Chincha Territory comprises the Pisco, the San Juan and the Cañete Drainages A number of rock art sites in the Pisco Valley, like Reposo South (see the inset in Figure 12), Pakra (Van Hoek 2005b) and Huancano (Van Hoek 2021a: Fig. 18), feature petroglyphs of monkeys, several of which involve apparently “musical monkeys” (at least two or three examples apparently playing a sort of trumpet). Importantly, of the at least seven monkey petroglyphs at Pakra, the group of four monkeys on Boulder PAK-014 seem to offer proof that “the invisible” is a possible Andean concept, as one of them is holding no trumpet, yet it still is in the same “playing” position as the three other monkeys (Figure 12).
Figure 12. The four monkeys on (displaced and damaged) Boulder PAK-014 at Pakra, and (the framed inset) the monkey at Reposo South, both in the Pisco Valley, southern Peru. Photograph © by Rainer Hostnig (rotated by the author). Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek; the drawing of the framed inset is based on photographs by Jhason Cavero Ramos (2019).
Earlier I argued that also the enormous Monkey Geoglyph on the Nasca Pampa (see Figure 29) is in fact playing “an invisible flute” (Van Hoek 2005a: 10-12, Fig. 21; 2019: Fig. 24A-B). There are many more rock art images in the Desert Andes that support my theory about “the invisible” in Desert Andes rock art (Van Hoek 2005a; 2019).
Further north, in the San Juan Valley, is the extensive rock art site of Huancor, where several petroglyphs depict a monkey, two of which are shown in Figure 4; one in the “playing” or “offering” position (without an object); the other holding an indeterminable object. In the same drainage are the “minor” rock art sites of Paty, Palma Alta, Toro Rumi and Guallapo, all featuring petroglyphs of one or more monkeys.
Further north again, in the Cañete Valley, is the aptly named boulder “Piedra de los Monos” near Paracán with four monkey petroglyphs; at least two drawn in the “playing” or “offering” position. In the area around Lima, the rock art sites of Cerro San Diego and Checta each have at least one petroglyph of a monkey.
Much further north, in the Nepeña Drainage, is the rock art Complex of Motocachy Pampa where a few petroglyphs depict a monkey. In the same drainage monkey petroglyphs have also been reported at other sites, like Vinchamarca. In the Santa-Lacramarca Drainage further north is the extensive rock art site of Palamenco, where – on at least thirteen boulders – many monkey petroglyphs have been recorded; most of them apparently climbing a vertically arranged (often forked) pole (symbolising a plant?). One of those boulders, Boulder PAL-079, has two small monkeys climbing one pole (Figure 13), thus facing each other in the same way as the couple at Miculla, 1337 km to the SE of Palamenco (see Figure 7). A similar design (without a pole, though) is found on Boulder TC2-013 at Los Tres Cerritos, Virú.
Figure 13. Monkey petroglyphs on Boulder PAL-079 at Palamenco, northern Peru. Compare this arrangement with the scene illustrated in Figure 7. Photograph and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
Crossing the Río Santa we arrive in the Chao Valley, where the remote rock art site of Santa Rita has (on Boulder SRB-083) at least one petroglyph of a climbing monkey, as well as two interesting MSC-Style petroglyphs from the Formative Period (Van Hoek 2011b). A short distance north of Santa Rita is the Virú Drainage with a large number of important rock art sites. Monkey petroglyphs in this drainage have been recorded at Cerro Blanco, Quebrada de San Juan (Van Hoek 2007), El Vagón, Los Tres Cerritos (Van Hoek 2015: Fig. 36), Pampa del Castillo, Pampa Calata and – above all – at Alto de la Guitarra, where Boulder ALT-010 features at least three images of simply executed monkeys (Figure 14). At Alto de la Guitarra more monkey petroglyphs have been reported by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Figs 575, 634 and 690).
Figure 14. Monkey petroglyphs on Boulder ALT-010 at Alto de la Guitarra, northern Peru. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
Just north of Alto de la Guitarra is the Moche Drainage, with – much further inland – the hard to access site of Lúcumar, where (on Panel LUC-004) at least one climbing monkey has been reported by me (Van Hoek 2015: Fig. 28). Further north is the Chicama Drainage with at least two important sites that feature monkey petroglyphs. The first site is Cerro Negro where at least eight petroglyphs (possibly) depict the monkey; most of them (Figure 15) shown in “twisted perspective” (profile body; frontally depicted head).
Figure 15. Monkey petroglyphs at Cerro Negro. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
On Boulder CNG-027 at Cerro Negro is a rare image of a (female?) monkey that has been fully frontally depicted (Figure 16). A unique scene at Cerro Negro involves two small monkeys (?) that are carrying a crescent-shaped platform on which is situated a large (possible) monkey, also shown fully frontally, the whole topped by a curved, bicephalic creature (a snake?). On the same panel may be the isolated petroglyph of a monkey head. Further inland in the Chicama Valley is the twin rock art complex of Chuquillanqui with at least two petroglyphs depicting a monkey.
Figure 16. Petroglyph of a (female?) monkey on Boulder CNG-027 at Cerro Negro (position indicated by the yellow dot), Chicama Drainage. Inset: Petroglyph of a monkey (?) with a Tumi on its head, located at La Tambora, Zaña Drainage. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, the drawing is based on an illustration by Deza Rivasplata (2010).
The next important drainage is formed by the Río Jequetepeque, where – at the Formative Period rock art site of Tolón – a monkey (?) seems to be climbing the long tail of a much larger, upside-down zoomorphic petroglyph depicting a lizard (Van Hoek 2015: Fig. 34; a similar configuration [involving different animals] is found at Quebrada de San Juan in the Virú Drainage). Most important in this valley is the rock art complex of Yonán, much further inland. It has several petroglyphs depicting the monkey, one of which (on Boulder YON-021; yet labelled as a fox by Núñez Jiménez 1986: Fig. 395) has a Tumi (the sacred ritual Andean knife) on its head (Figure 17). At this site there are more biomorphic images with a Tumi on the head.
Figure 17. Monkey petroglyph with Tumi on its head on Boulder YON-021 at Yonán, Jequetepeque Valley (for location see Figure 18). Note the warrior holding a porra-club in its left hand (lower right-hand corner). A porra is a stone or metal, star-shaped knob, often used in Moche and Chimú clubs. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
A few zoomorphs at Yonán show the posture and curled tail of a monkey, but they have a roughly triangular head with triangular ears and just possibly they might depict felines (Figure 18 and the left-hand inset). Exceptional is the (monkey – feline?) petroglyph that has been manufactured on the vertical wall of a very deep (anthropic?) depression in Boulder YON-003 (Figure 19). Another monkey (on Boulder YON-036 – Figure 18: right-hand inset) labelled as a possible fox by Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 474) has a rayed headdress on its head. Finally, further inland in Jequetepeque is the “minor” rock art site of El Pongo with (according to Núñez Jiménez [1986: Fig. 320]) one monkey petroglyph.
Figure 18. Petroglyphs on Boulder YON-015 at Yonán, Jequetepeque Valley. Left-hand inset: Detail of part of Boulder YON-015. Right-hand inset: Monkey on Boulder YON-036. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 19. Possible monkey petroglyph in one of the three very deep potholes of Boulder YON-003 at Yonán, Jequetepeque Valley. My wife Elles gives an indication of the size of the potholes. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
The next valley comprises the Zaña Drainage, where, at the extensive inland rock art site of Los Morteros, at least one monkey petroglyph has been recorded (Deza Rivasplata 2010: 114). It is possibly associated with an image of a “Trophy” Head Carrier, which is rare in northern Peru. Further inland is the “minor” site of La Tambora, where a small boulder bears – on each side – the single petroglyph of a figure that both have been interpreted as anthropomorphs (Deza Rivasplata 2010: 176 – 179). Importantly, they both are characterised by an excessively large Tumi on the head. However, I rather interpret both animals as monkeys (see Figure 16: inset), especially as their layout can be compared with the more obvious (female?) monkey petroglyph at Cerro Negro (see Figure 16, detail photo), located to the SE in the Chicama Drainage.
The final area I would like to discuss concerns the Reque-Chancay Drainage. Although the inland stretch of the river is called Chancay, I will use the term Reque for the whole drainage. There are several important rock art sites in this drainage, of which two are of special interest regarding monkey-business. The first site is Cerro Mal Paso (Van Hoek 2024), where a large boulder (MAL-009) bears petroglyphs on three sides. The smooth WSW facing panel features – near the top – two monkeys in an upright position, simultaneously facing each other, while being joined by two short shared legs (Figures 20 and 21). Their outlined bodies contain a dot.
Figure 20. Boulder MAL-009 at Cerro Mal Paso, looking east across the Reque Valley. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
Only a short distance to the ENE of Cerro Mal Paso is the extensive rock art site of Cerro Mulato with 500+ decorated boulders and outcrop panels, some of which bear monkey petroglyphs (one climbing a short pole; see Figure 22: inset). Near the top of this isolated hill is an enormous outcrop with several decorated panels, topped by an impressive outcrop stack, which is decorated on one side. Among the several images are two petroglyphs of monkeys in an upright position (framed in Figure 22), simultaneously facing each other, and joined by their two diagonally arranged legs. One monkey has a half-moon-shaped back; the other has a triangular back. Both have an outlined, circular head, without facial features.
Figure 21. Monkey petroglyphs on Boulder MAL-009 at Cerro Mal Paso, Reque Valley. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 22. Monkey (framed) petroglyphs on Boulder CMt-060 at Cerro Mulato, Reque Valley. Inset: The climbing monkey on Boulder CMn-177 at Cerro Mulato. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
The Role of Monkeys in Desert Andes Cultures
The distance between (in this study) the southernmost rock art site where monkey images have been recorded (Yerbas Buenas in the Atacama Desert; see the map of Figure 5) and the two northernmost rock art sites (Cerro Mal Paso and Cerro Mulato in the Reque Valley) is about 2150 km. In this large area more than 80 rock art sites featuring petroglyphs of monkeys have been recorded (most of those 80+ sites have been mentioned in this study). It is thus beyond any doubt that the monkey petroglyphs manufactured in the Desert Andes have been executed by much differing cultures, during different times, and in much different natural habitats. It is also beyond any doubt that in all cases the monkey (the monkey-animal itself, not necessarily the image) has been introduced via various routes from the tropical forests east of the High Andes to the extremely dry Desert Andes. The introduction of live monkeys started long ago (certainly during the Andean Formative Period) and intermittently continued for centuries.
It is unknown where and when exactly the first live monkey crossed the Andes to arrive in the Desert Andes. Yet it is certain that rock art manufacture in the northern part of the coastal strip started at least 4000 to possibly 6000 years ago, which is evidenced by the Formative Period MSC-Style imagery created by the ruling Cupisnique Cultures that emerged along the coast of northern Peru (Van Hoek 2011b). For instance, in the Reque Drainage sites like Cerro Mulato, Raca Rumi, Corral de Hoyos and El Progreso have MSC-Style petroglyphs. In the Jequetepeque Valley rock art sites like Yonán, Cerro de Yonán, Quebrada del Felino, Montegrande, Chungal and Tolón definitely feature those ancient Formative Period MSC-Style images.
Indeed, Cupisnique peoples definitely had contacts with peoples from the Amazonian forests, and yet images of monkeys are very rare in Cupisnique MSC-Style art. At Chavín de Huántar (a later spinoff of Cupisnique art and ideology) an MSC-Style (anthropomorphised) monkey is sculptured on one of the stone slabs of the New Temple (Burger 1995: Fig. 180; see also Fig. 110). However, as far as I know, not a single MSC-Style image definitely depicting a monkey has been reported anywhere in Desert Andes rock art. This absence is still unexplained, but may have been the result of a taboo, commanded by the ruling elite, who controlled the monkey.
However, the cultures that succeeded the Cupisnique (see Figure 30 for a rough time chart) like the Salinar, definitely knew the monkey. However, especially the Moche Culture and the succeeding Chimú Culture (see again Figure 30) used the image of the monkey in their iconography. Both cultures used the image of the monkey on their ceramics (two-dimensionally [as in Moche fineline drawings], as well as three-dimensionally [see Figure 26] [but also as small sculptures on their ceramics]). Also many metal and wooden objects often feature (mainly small) monkey sculptures and images.
It is thus beyond any doubt that many Andean cultures kept the monkey as a (sacred) pet. Imagery of domesticated animals (other than camelids) occasionally occurs in Desert Andes rock art (and other forms of art). For instance a few purported feline petroglyphs at Toro Muerto, Peru, show a possible collar (Van Hoek 2021b: 2; Fig. 27). Also the monkey petroglyph at Yerbas Buenas, Chile is said to wear a collar (yet hard to see in Figure 6A), while just possibly the monkey petroglyph at Taltape in the Camarones Valley of northern Chile seems to be held on a leash from the belt of the preceding archer (see Figure 8B).
In many parts of the Desert Andes monkeys probably were important representatives of alterity because of their foreign origin. Moreover, the fact that monkey images are directly associated with anthropic objects (such as flutes, headdresses and other objects) and the fact that monkeys have often been depicted in the “offering” position strengthens the idea that monkeys were considered to be impersonators and/or substitutes for certain high-status humans. In some cases monkey petroglyphs seem to be holding a cup-like object. One example is found on Boulder PAK-006 at Pakra in the Pisco Valley (Figure 23); another appears on Boulder HCR-W12 at Huancor in the neighbouring San Juan Valley (Van Hoek 2005a: Fig. 18E). Those purported cups may have held some substance or even liquid (like blood) used in certain rituals.
Indeed, monkeys have been depicted (especially on Moche ceramics) as participants in (often blood-related) rituals, which may indicate that monkeys were recognised as significant nonlocal agents in at least the Moche Culture, but probably in several other ancient Andean cultures as well. Monkeys thus also seem to have exerted certain power in political and ceremonial procedures, and may even have been recognised (because of their human-like shape) to perform ancestral roles. Some fineline drawings on Moche ceramics depict monkeys involved in ceremonial activities related to sacrifice, fertility, and regeneration. The best example that I know of is the scene on a Moche ceramic where several apparently instructed monkeys collect (blood-symbolising) ulluchu fruits for the high-status figure, possibly an important deity, who is fertilising a female at the foot of the ulluchu tree (Figure 24). Thus monkeys may have been considered to symbolise fertility, also in rock art.
Figure 23. Petroglyph of an “offering” monkey on Boulder PAK-006 at Pakra, Pisco Valley. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 24. Fineline drawing on a Moche ceramic. Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on an illustration by Vicky Arana (2023).
*
The Possible Moche-Chimú Origin
In this section I will explore the possible origin of at least two types of monkey petroglyphs, focussing on the drainages of the Río Jequetepeque and the Río Reque of northern Peru. Both valleys are part of the Northern Moche Territory (the Southern Moche Territory stretched from the Chicama Drainage to and including the Nepeña Drainage). The succeeding Chimú Culture occupied an area roughly stretching from the Reque Drainage to the Nepeña Drainage. However, there are several maps that show different areas once occupied by the Moche and Chimú, and for that reason I have only roughly marked the core area of the Moche-Chimú Territory in red in Figure 25. For that reason I will from now on speak of Moche-Chimú petroglyphs, because I cannot prove which culture manufactured which petroglyphs. It may even be the Sicán Culture (also known as Lambayeque), once conquered by the Chimú in the Reque Drainage that is responsible for the appearance of monkey images on the rocks.
Figure 25. Map of Peru roughly indicating the Moche-Chimú Territory and three important rock art sites with monkey petroglyphs. The musical-monkey is a petroglyph on Boulder MIM-025 at Miculla. Map and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
Starting in the Jequetepeque Drainage, the major rock art site that has conclusive images of the monkey is Yonán (disregarding the two examples at Tolón and El Pongo). Also ignored is the unfinished petroglyph in the large pothole of Boulder YON-003 (which might be a feline; see Figure 19). Yet, two monkey petroglyphs are of special interest. The first example (on Boulder YON-021; see Figure 17) has a Tumi on its head; a ritual knife often seen in Andean iconography. There are more biomorphic petroglyphs at Yonán that have a Tumi on the head. This elite object may point to a Moche-Chimú origin. One monkey petroglyph has a sort of rayed “crown” on its head, which might also be of Moche-Chimú origin. Moreover, some petroglyphs seem to depict warriors armed with tumi– or porra-clubs; weapons often used in combats and rituals by the Moche and the Chimú (Van Hoek 2025: Figs 25 and 65; see also Figure 17). Concluding, the monkey images (and many other petroglyphs) at Yonán may well be of Moche-Chimú origin, and thus the timespan in which Yonán was used to manufacture rock art, ranges at least from the Formative Period into the Late Intermediate Period.
The same goes for the situation in the Reque Drainage, where at least three rock art sites may offer evidence for a Moche-Chimú origin of monkey images. The first is the rock art site of Cerro Mal Paso, with the two monkey petroglyphs that are intimately joined while facing each other (see Figure 21). This specific configuration is also seen at the top of a Chimú Gold Headdress (said to date from roughly A.D. 1300 to 1532), stored at the Larco Hoyle Museum in Lima (Figure 26; see also the Cover Photo).
Figure 26. Part of a Chimú Gold Headdress and a Moche ceramic depicting two monkeys, both items stored at the Larco Hoyle Museum, Lima. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
A similar configuration has also been recorded at the nearby rock art site of Cerro Mulato, strengthening the idea that also those two petroglyphs are of Chimú origin. However, also Moche artefacts (like ceramics) sometimes show monkeys intimately holding each other. Examples are stored at the Larco Hoyle Museum in Lima (Figure 26). Yet, I dare to suggest that the Cerro Mal Paso and the Cerro Mulato joint-monkey petroglyphs date from the Early to Late Intermediate Period, whether manufactured by the Moche, Sicán or Chimú Cultures.
There is one other site in the Reque Valley, comprising an isolated, yet most impressive decorated boulder, that may also offer evidence for a Moche or Chimú origin. It concerns Panel PGR-002A at the site of Pampa Grande. Boulder PGR-002 is one of the only four decorated rocks recorded in this very big area (Van Hoek 2013). It is located quite some distance from Huaca Fortaleza; the ruins of an enormous adobe pyramid on Pampa Grande, which was one of the northernmost Huacas of the Moche. The petroglyph on Panel A involves a large head that is crowned by an excessively large, outlined Tumi enclosing a smaller Tumi (Figure 27). Earlier I classified this head as an anthropomorphic head (Van Hoek 2013: 104), but in hindsight (when preparing this paper) I am now more convinced that it even may depict the head of a monkey (but only the manufacturer could have informed us exactly what he intended to draw).
Interestingly, the unusually large size of the Tumi on Boulder PGR-002 may be compared with the equally large metal Tumis that have been found at Huaca Rajada (a most important archaeological site located further west in the Reque Valley), as grave-goods in a famous Moche burial complex, called the Lord of Sipan. The entombed personages most likely once were high-status Moche dignitaries and/or officials. This may point to a Moche origin for the Pampa Grande “monkey”. However, zoomorphs with a Tumi on the head have also been recorded on Sicán (Lambayeque) ceramics and on Chimú pottery. Thus the petroglyph at Pampa Grande may date to the Early Intermediate Period (pertaining to the Moche Culture); to the Middle Horizon (dominated by the Sicán or Lambayeque Culture); or even to the Late Intermediate Period, when the Chimú controlled the area (see the rough time chart of Figure 30 at the end of the paper). However, without further solid evidence it seems to be impossible to accurately date the monkey petroglyphs of the Reque and Jequetepeque rock art sites.
Figure 27. The large Tumi-Bearer petroglyph at Pampa Grande, Reque Drainage. Photographs and drawing © by Maarten van Hoek.
The same goes for other sites/valleys with an above average concentration of monkey petroglyphs, like the group in the San Juan Drainage (Huancor and other sites) and the Pisco Drainage (Reposo South and Pakra). Are they of Paracas origin, or perhaps Nasca, or even Chincha? Alternatively, the large group of “climbing” biomorphs (probably all depicting monkeys) at Palamenco cannot be dated, because contextual information is lacking.
In this respect it is moreover remarkable that “climbing” biomorphs are found in a very large area (from Cerro Mulato [see inset in Figure 22] in the very north of Peru (via the large group at Palamenco), to Miculla in the extreme south of Peru. Also the occurrence of almost identical configurations of two monkeys facing each other while in the “climbing” position at both Palamenco (see Figure 13) and Miculla (see Figure 7) is remarkable. However, the enormous distance between Palamenco and Miculla (some 1337 km; see Figure 25), offers an argument against the date and origin of those two petroglyphs being contemporaneous, and even (although this may be possible) that they express the same symbolism.
*
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that rock art images of monkeys are found widely distributed across the very large area of the Desert Andes; the extremely dry coastal strip west of the High Andes (see Figure 5). It is also certain that in all instances it concerns images of monkeys that did not had the Desert Andes as their natural habitat. Contacts with peoples from the forests east of the High Andes introduced the monkey, that in many instances were kept as pets; possibly as sacred pets. It is uncertain what role monkeys exactly played in every society they became a part of, because there is no informed knowledge about the rock art available.
Indeed, monkeys may have been kept just as pets, but a more symbolic, religious role is equally possible and also more likely. This religious, ritual role seems to be evidenced by the context in which the monkey is part of scenes drawn on Moche ceramics and their frequent appearance in Moche (but also Chimú) ceramics, and metal and wooden objects. Importantly, monkeys in – for instance – Moche (see Figure 26) and Chimú (see Figure 26) artefacts are sometimes arranged in an intimate position, often facing each other. This intimate arrangement seems to have been echoed in at least two petroglyphs in the Reque Valley (see Figures 21 and 22).
Another possible strand of evidence is the fact that – across the Desert Andes – monkeys in rock art are often depicted holding an object. For instance there are several petroglyphs of monkeys apparently playing a wind instrument, like a flute (see Figure 25) or some trumpet (see Figure 12). Other monkey petroglyphs seem to hold an object that could represent a drinking cup, possibly used in certain rituals (see Figure 23). Some monkey images may even be in the “worshiping” position, like the monkey seemingly venerating a feline in front of him on Boulder VAD-006 at the rock art site of El Vado in the Palpa Valley of southern Peru (Figure 28). Thus, there also are images of monkeys that have been depicted in only the “playing”, “offering” or “worshipping” position; that is, without holding an object.
Figure 28. Monkey and feline petroglyphs on Boulder VAD-006 at El Vado, Palpa Valley, southern Peru. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
Also especially the four monkeys at Pakra (see Figure 12) offer evidence of the existence of the “invisible” object. But the most convincing example still is – in my opinion – the enormous monkey geoglyph on Nasca Pampa, southern Peru (most likely of Paracas or possibly of Nasca origin). The purported flute is “invisible”, yet the monkey is clearly drawn in the “playing” position. Even its splayed fingers are in the “playing” configuration (Figure 29).
Figure 29. Two readings of the monkey geoglyph at Nasca Pampa, southern Peru. Drawings © by Maarten van Hoek, based on an illustration by Johan Reinhard (1988: Fig. 46).
To conclude, I again argue that those seemingly “incomplete” images are not at all incomplete or unfinished (Van Hoek 2005a; 2019), but that those images depict the “invisible’; its creation regulated by the still unknown rationales behind this phenomenon. Yet, it may also be due to a possible taboo on depicting those (sacred?) objects. The general matter of taboo regarding Andean rock art is still unexplored and unexplained territory.
*
Appendix – Time Chart
Figure 30. Time chart very roughly indicating the periods in which the Cupisnique, Paracas, Nasca, Moche, Sicán and Chimú Cultures dominated the coastal strip of the northern part of the Desert Andes (Peru). All other cultures – like Salinar, Chavín and Chincha – have been ignored. Chart © by Maarten van Hoek, based on the chart by Michael Moseley (2001: Fig. 6).
*
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Rainer Hostnig (Cusco, Peru); Peter Fux (Switzerland) and Dennis Slifer (USA) for their much appreciated permission to use their photographic material, some of which has been used in this study (Figures 2, 6b and 12). Of course I am the only one who is responsible for all illustrative material information and opinions expressed in this study. I am also grateful for the assistance of my wife Elles during our numerous field surveys in the Desert Andes, and for all her support at home.
*
References
Burger, R. L. 1995. Chavín, and the origins of Andean civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.
Deza Rivasplata, J. 2010. La infancia de la palabra escrita. Hallazgos e investigación de petroglifos en el alto Zaña. Universidad Alas Peruanas, Lima.
Fernandez Alvarado, J. C. 2014. El mono: simbolo de la fertilidad en el antiguo Peru. Revista Tzhoecoen. Vol. 6 -1: pp. 257 – 273.
Fux, P. 2011. The Petroglyphs of Chichictara, Palpa, Peru. Documentation and interpretation using terrestrial laser scanning and image-based 3D modelling. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Auꞵereuropäischer Kulturen. Vol. 4; pp. 127 – 205.
Hostnig, R. 2003 Arte rupestre del Perú. Inventario Nacional. CONCYTEC, Lima.
Moseley, M. E. 2001. The Incas and their Ancestors. The Archaeology of Peru. Thames and Hudson, London.
Núñez Jiménez, A. 1986. Petroglifos del Peru. Panorama mundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed. PNUD-UNESCO – Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo.
Núñez, L. and L. Briones. 1968. Petroglifos del sitio Tarapacá-47. Estudios Arqueologicos. Universidad de Chile, Antofagasta. Nos 3-4; 1967-68.
Pereira, E. and J. Júnior. 2022. Representations of Primates in Petroglyphs of the Brazilian Amazonia. In: Urbani B, Youlatos D, Antczak AT, eds. World Archaeoprimatology: Interconnections of Humans and Nonhuman Primates in the Past. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
Reinhard, J. 1993. The Nazca Lines. A New Perspective on their Origin and Meaning. Lima.
Van Hoek, M. 2005a. Biomorphs ‘playing a wind instrument’ in Andean rock art. Rock Art Research. Vol. 22-1; pp. 23 – 34. Melbourne, Australia. Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2005b. Los Petroglifos de Muralla y Pakra, Valle de Pisco, Perú. Boletín de SIARB, Vol. 19; pp. 28 – 37. La Paz, Bolivia. Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2007. 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. Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2011a. Petroglyphs of Peru. Following the Footsteps of Antonio Núñez Jiménez. Privately published. Oisterwijk, Holland. Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at DropBox (search PDF-102) and Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2011b. The Chavín Controversy. Rock Art from the Andean Formative Period. Privately published, Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at DropBox (search PDF-100).
Van Hoek, M. 2013. The Tumi-Bearer of Pampa Grande, Lambayeque, Peru. Adoranten-2013. pp. 97 – 109. Underslös, Sweden. Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2015. ‘Climbing Biomorphs’ in Andean Rock Art and Beyond. In: Rupestreweb.
Van Hoek, M. 2019. The Incomplete Versus The Unfinished: Invisible Objects in Desert Andes Rock Art? In: TRACCE Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2021a. Seated Biomorphs in Paracas Rock Art. Oisterwijk, Holland. Privately published, Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at Academia.
Van Hoek. M. 2021b. Contextualising the Unexpected Plethora of Feline Petroglyphs in the Majes Valley, Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2024. An Update of the Petroglyphs at Cerro Mal Paso, Chancay Valley, Northern Peru. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.
Van Hoek, M. 2025. Distribution Patterns of Rock Art Sites in the Desert Andes. Privately published, Oisterwijk, Holland. Book available at Academia; DropBox.
