Hirering a car and driver i Trujillo seems expensive.
Does anybody know the roads/driving-conditions for Lima-Trujillo-Huaraz with a rental car?
Is a 4x4 recommended for going to Chavin?

No I don't think so. I went all the way by a standard local bus. It's a fully paved road.

So it should be feasable with a domestic car?
Our main problem is not speaking spanish and thereby finding the best route (by asking directions), but a decent GPS should do the job?
What about you kintante, have you been roaming around in a car?

I was just in Huaraz and went to Chavin on a local tour. I can vouch for the road being paved and in pretty good condition with lots of cars on it. It's just a slow windy road with some crazy drivers and the occassional pothole. Once you make the correct turn off the main road from Huaraz I can't imagine how it would be possible to get lost either. Don't drive into the Huascaran NP though. All of those roads we were on deteriorate into rough dirt track sooner or later

So a 4x4 would be preferable for driving i Huascaran NP then

Preferable yes though I doubt the tour vans are actually 4x4. It would be essential to have more clearance than a car would give you in any case. From what I saw anyway.

Jonathanfr has today identified under a different topic that Peru is about to submit a revised Tentative List. The quoted references listed some but not all of the sites to be proposed and the UNESCO reference (only published on 9 May) merely stated that there were to be "18 sites (10 cultural including 2 cultural landscapes, 5 natural and 1 mixed)" and that it would be formally submitted in the "coming weeks"

In search of the full list and a bit more information about the process I have discovered the following – and have felt that it should be under the Peru topic. As some of our members are currently in Peru (??) they might be interested to know the additions now!

The following 2 documents describe (In Spanish) the Workshops which took place (11 -14 Dec 2018) to arrive at the list
a. The "Contributions" which were discussed
b. The "Proposals" arising -

My Spanish isn't good enough to be sure that I have fully understood on the basis of a quick reading what happened but a few points of interest which did come to my notice were
a. Peru regards its current T List as consisting of just 6 entries. We have 7 on ours and UNESCO has 8. UNESCO is clearly incorrect in not removing Qhapac Nan. The other difference is the current inclusion of Pachacamac. My impression is that Peru regards this site as having been swept up within Qhapac Nan. (The Workshop actually visited the site on its last day). Though a slightly strange aspect of this that, prior to the meeting a government document, had suggested that Peru did indeed have 8 sites on its T List ("El Perú ha presentado hasta la fecha 8 propuestas de sitios que se encuentran en la lista indicativa del Centro de Patrimonio de la UNESCO: 7 culturales y 1 mixto (Titicaca). Esta lista es un inventario de bienes naturales y/o culturales que cada país presenta ante la UNESCO a fin de que sean aprobados en un futuro próximo como sitios de Patrimonio Mundial." - I suspect that it had simply copied this figure "8" from the UNESCO site and corrected it to 6 in time for the Workshop.
b. The impression is also that Peru's current T List will be carried forward with the latest 18 sites ADDED to rather than replacing them. This quote indicates that it remains the intention to nominate them "También hizo referencia que al presente en la Lista Indicativa, el Perú tiene registrados seis sitios, que se proyecta puedan ser inscritos en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en los próximos años". Also they didn't get discussed in competition with the new sites and there is NO overlap
c. A preliminary list of 86 (!!!) Cultural Sites were considered for inclusion!! Unfortunately we don't seem to have a full list of these. They were considered under the following categories with only certain ones being mentioned -
i. PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTÓNICO INDUSTRIAL Y CAMPOS DE BATALLA - Bodegas y viñedos para la producción tradicional de pisco (Pisco, Ica, Nasca, Moquegua y Tacna), Ferrocarril central trasandino (1870-1878 y 1921). Campo de batalla Pampa de Ayacucho.
ii. SITIOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS Sitios Chachapoyas del valle de Utcubamba (Amazonas), Complejo Arqueológico Huacas del Sol y de la Luna (La Libertad), Acueductos de Nasca (Ica), Petroglifos de Toro Muerto (Arequipa
iii. PAISAJE CULTURAL - Valle de Sondondo (Ayacucho), Complejo las Lagunas de las Huaringas (Piura, Conjunto Putucos, waru warus e islas flotantes.
d. The following Mixed sites were mentioned as having been considered - Bosques y pirámides de Lambayeque, Cañones de Cotahuasi y Colca y valle de Andagua
e. I cannot find a preliminary list of Natural sites!! hough the document does say that 76 natural protected areas were referred to by the speakers responsible for this aspect

The list of 18 sites to go forward for addition seems to be as follows -
Cultural
1. Complejo arqueológico de Marcahuamachuco, región La Libertad
2. Sitios arqueológicos Chachapoya del valle de Uctubamba, región Amazonas.
3. Acueductos Nasca, región Ica.
4. Petroglifos de Toro Muerto, región Arequipa.
5. Bodegas y viñedos para la producción artesanal de pisco, regiones Lima,
Ica, Arequipa, Moquegua y Tacna
6. Templos rurales de Quispicanchi, región Cusco.
7. Templos Barrocos del Collao, región Puno
8. Ferrocarril Central del Perú
9. Campos de Batalla: Pampa de Ayacucho
10. Salineras de Maras Cuzco

Mixed/Cultural Landscapes
11. Paisaje Cultura del Valle del Sondondo
12. Paisaje cultural: Lagunas las Huaringas.
13. Bosques y pirámides de Lambayeque.

Natural
14. Sitios paleontológicos en las cuencas Pisco y Camaná.
15. Parque Nacional Sierra del Divisor
16. Bosque de piedras de Huayllay.
17. Sistema de islas, islotes y puntas guaneras del Perú.
18. Sistema de Lomas Costeras

A few comments
a. The following 3 quite "famous" Peruvian Tourist sites seem to have got missed out
i. Huaca de la Sol and Luna I wonder why? It is rightly (IMO) on our list of "top 50 missing". Could in not be "ready"?
ii. The Islas Flotantes of the Uno Indians, who are recipients of the somewhat unsatisfactory tourist visit in Lake Titicaca - unless of course they are included in the overall Titicaca site?
iii. Colca Canyon
b. The Central Railway is included and IMO does have a historic engineering claim to fame - it used to be the highest in the World until China built the Qinghai-Tibet line. But it of course starts at sea level and climbs to 4,777 m (15,673 ft) in just a few hours. I still remember with pleasure travelling it in 1973 and watching oxygen being dished out from a huge inflated rubber sack to those who needed it!! I understand that there is now no regular passenger service unfortunately.
c. Very surprising to see the Battlefield of Ayacucho included - not surprised that Peru would regard it as "important" but, as the UNESCO site makes clear, the production of this T List was carried out in a way which UNESCO considers to be the correct way forward for such tasks. It is even stated that "thanks to the technical guidance of the ICOMOS and IUCN experts in the first workshop, we also better understand what aspects of Peru's unique heritage can contribute to creating a more representative World Heritage List on a regional and global level." Surely, ICOMOS can't have acquiesced in the inclusion of a "National" battlefield -even if its significance ultimately stretched way beyond Peru? Where will it end?
d. I note that Pisco is likely to join other "national" drinks such as Mexico's Tequila, and China's Tea on the list. It is about time UK/Scotland proposed a "Whiskey Route" to run along side all those Wine related inscriptions!

I think I have been there while waiting for my bus to Arequipa. I would assume this is a simple extension of Nasca, not a new site.


Wondering what this refers to.


I would have assumed that they would go for Andahuaylillas. Apparently not. A pity.


Why not a Sacred Valley inscription???

Herewith a Google translation of the discussion
"On the colonial baroque was also the presentation Rural Temples of Quispicanchi, presented by the architect Juan Antonio Silva, who said that these churches are located along a continuous route of 180 km covering thirteen districts of the province of Quispicanchi in Cusco. He expressed that a way of resistance of the autochthonous to the foreign, transformed this baroque into a "churrigueresque mestizo". He made reference to the "high altar" of the church of San Salvador de Oropesa, as well as to the temples of San Pedro Apóstol of Andahuaylillas, San Juan Bautista de Huaro, Santiago Apostle of Urcos, San Pablo de Ocongate, San Francisco de Asís de Marcapata , San Juan Bautista de Ccatca and the chapel of the Purified Virgin of Canicunca. He concluded by stating that the candidature met criteria ii, iii and iv as an Exceptional Universal Value. It is undoubtedly an important proposal for its heritage, in relation to a baroque that constituted a regional nucleus with its own contributions and innovations. Once again, the appropriate terminological use is pending, since the altar is the table where the rituals are performed, while the architectural and sculptural element that accompanies it is properly an altarpiece. Definitely it is necessary to demonstrate documentarily that the Baroque contributions of Cusco were a form of indigenous resistance and on the other hand, take into account that the ornamental reloading in the altarpieces and covers can not simply be qualified as churrigueresco, a stylistic movement that did not become consolidated in Peru viceregal"

And also a translation of the presentation on the Templos Barrocos del Collao, región Puno -
"Next the architect Leonardo Pecchi presented the proposal of the Baroque Temples of Collao, exposing that it is a mestizo baroque in which there was a peculiar American application on European forms, which included flora and tropical fauna that came from the jungle region, other people to the Puna mountains, as well as mermaids, masks, sun, moon, pumas and other pre-Columbian motifs. He briefly explained around the churches of Santiago Apóstol de Pomata, San Pedro de Juli, the cathedral of Puno, Santiago Apóstol de Lampa and San Francisco de Asís de Ayaviri. It concluded that the candidacy meets criteria ii and iv as Exceptional Universal Value. The temples considered are associated with the surperuano and collavino architectural nuclei, which constitute two very rich expressions and with local contributions, but which I think should be differentiated from each other since they do not constitute a single development of the regional baroque but two, which can enrich the candidacy"

Yet more "Mestizo" churches - well Mexico managed to differentiate a number of different styles/periods.

Ah! Great! They did include it. Just in a different bucket. Very deserving.

The cheapest and most efficient way is to fly. There are cheap flights from Lima to Cuzco, Trujillo or Arequipa and a reasonable cheap flight to Huaraz. From there I took public buses to reach the sites or somewhere close and the rest by taxi. I went to Caral by car, but my local uncle was driving. I'd say it is possible to drive in Peru, but I would rather avoid doing it in Lima.

Further to my analysis of and comments on Peru's upcoming T List Update -
The inclusion of the "Sistema de islas, islotes y puntas guaneras del Perú" represents a "come back" for Peru's only "Former T List" site - Paracas NP, which was on Peru's T List from 1984-91. The main differences seem to be
a. The new T List site contains a larger area than simply Paracas NP - "la Reserva Nacional de Paracas en Ica con 140,883 hectáreas, la Reserva Nacional San Fernando en Ica con 335,000 hectáreas y la Reserva Nacional Sistema de Islas, Islotes y Puntas Guaneras con 154,717 hectáreas. Esta última abarca desde Lobos de Tierra en Piura hasta Punta Coles en Moquegua y comprende 22 islas, islotes y grupos de islas, además de 11 puntas a lo largo de la costa peruana."
b. If the original was defined as a mixed site (not clear from our documentation) then all cultural aspects have been excluded from any claimed OUV which will concentrate entirely on Natural values. Most visitors to Paracas will have taken a boat trip out to the Ballestas Islands and seen the "Candelabro" geoglyph. It is striking, but the Peruvian committee developing the T List are probably correct in concluding it and the other archaeological aspects are not strong enough given the wealth of remains from similar cultures along the coast and that it is better to concentrate on the Natural values.

LC Peru is bankrupt though, no more flights to/from Huaraz for now.

Solivagant
Too bad I just left Peru. I was getting a little burnt out on the country but looks like there soon could be plenty more to go back to someday.
A. I think your thoughts on Huacas del Sol y Luna are correct. It looked like they are still putting lots of work into it but they must know they are nowhere near ready for presentation yet.
B. I imagine the floating islands would get lumped into Titicaca but one could question authenticity now?
C. Missing out on Colca + Cotahuasi canyons doesn't make much sense to me

I just realized the changes on Peru's T list. Cajamarca, Trujillo and even Lake Titicaca are gone. The new sites seems strange on first sight (except Guano islands). I can understand that they added new sites and the OUV for the colonial towns can be questioned, but I really don't get why they removed Titicaca.