Ancient geoglyphs, routes, and pottery in Peru’s Chillón Valley

What is it about?

This article studies small groups of geoglyphs in the middle Chillón Valley, on the central coast of Peru. Because these geoglyphs cannot be directly dated, the study uses surface pottery, drone documentation, field survey, and spatial tests to evaluate what can and cannot be inferred from the available evidence. The results show that some geoglyphs are associated with Formative-period activity, especially at Huarabí, but the evidence is more limited at Pichausa. The article also tests whether the geoglyphs are closer to mapped routes than would be expected by chance. Rather than assuming that geoglyphs were intentionally placed near paths, the study shows how this relationship can be tested rigorously, even when the sample is small and the archaeological evidence is incomplete. Its main contribution is methodological: it provides a cautious, data-based framework for interpreting poorly dated geoglyph landscapes without overstating the evidence.

Featured Image

Photo by Austin Langlois on Unsplash

Photo by Austin Langlois on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This work is important because geoglyphs are often interpreted through broad assumptions about roads, ritual movement, or landscape use, even when direct dating and contextual evidence are limited. This article offers a more rigorous alternative. It shows how small and poorly dated geoglyph groups can be evaluated using systematic survey, ceramic association, drone documentation, and null-model spatial tests. The study is timely because archaeological landscapes in the Peruvian desert are increasingly threatened by urban expansion, infrastructure, and surface disturbance, making careful documentation and transparent interpretation essential. Its main contribution is to demonstrate that spatial relationships, such as proximity to routes, should be tested rather than assumed. This approach can help archaeologists, heritage managers, and readers understand ancient landscapes more cautiously, while also reducing the risk of overstating what the evidence can support.

Perspectives