Been down this rabbit hole a few times and the honest answer is: it's complicated. Some of the lines do align with certain star positions and solar/lunar events for that period, but the sample size issue is huge. When you've got hundreds of lines pointing in basically every direction, statistically you'd expect some to align with something significant just by chance.
The Pleiades connection gets brought up a lot and that one actually has a bit more weight to it given what we know about how important that star cluster was to Andean cultures. But people extend that into "the whole thing is a star map" which is a much bigger claim.
The water/irrigation hypothesis still seems the most grounded to me tbh. Maria Reiche did solid work but she was pretty invested in the astronomical angle so worth bearing that in mind when reading her stuff.
Anyone here looked at the Anthony Aveni research? He's probably done the most rigorous statistical analysis on the alignments and his conclusions are a lot more cautious than the popular accounts suggest. Would be curious what others think.
