The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences-Pennanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials.
ANSI Z39,48-1984
Library of Congress
Cataloging~inPublication
Data
em.
10
Contents
Rp=
Tables
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction, Frederick W. Lange
I. The Saga of an Archaeologist: A Brief Glimpse Into the Life of
Wolfgang Haberland, Doris Z. Stone
2. Settlement, Subsistence, and the Origins of Social Complexity in
Greater Chiriqui: A Reappraisal of the Aguas Buenas Tradition,
John W. Hoopes
3. Stone Tools and Cultural Boundaries in Prehistoric Panama:
An Initial Assessment, Anthony J. Ranere and Richard G. Cooke
4. A Ceramic Sequence for the Lower Diquis Area, Costa Rica
Claude F. Baude;:.. Nathalie Borgnino,
Sophie Laligant, and Valerie Lauthelin
5. The Archaeology of the Central Pacific Coast of Costa Rica
Francisco Corrales Ulloa and 1figenia Quintanilla Jimenez
6. The Bay of Salinas: Coastal Crossroads of Greater Nicoya
Frederick W. Lange
7. Luna Polychrome, Norma E. Knowlton
8. Preliminary Research in Chontales and the Lake Managua Basin,
Nicaragua, Dominique Rigat and Rajael Gonzalez Rivas
9. The Ayala Site: A Bagaces Period Site Near Granada, Nicaragua,
Silvia Salgado Gonzalez
10. The Nicoya Shaman, Jane Stevenson Day and Alice Chiles Tillett
II. Merchants and Metalwork in Middle America, Mark Miller Graham
12. Prehistoric Coastal Subsistence in Northwestern Costa Rica:
Geographical Diversity and Chronological Trends, Lynette Norr
13. Precolumbian Obsidian Trade in the Northern Intermediate Area:
Elemental Analysis of Artifacts From Honduras and Nicaragua,
Paul F. Healy, Frank Asaro, Fred Stross, and Helen Michel
14. EI Salvador and the Southeastern Frontier of Mesoamerica,
Karen Olsen Bruhns
IS. Lower Central American Archaeology: Some Comments as of 1991,
Gordon R. Willey
16. Gaps in Our Databases'and Blanks in Our Syntheses: The Potential
for Central American Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century,
Frederick W. Lange
References
Contributors
Index
xii
vii
xiv
xvi
xviii
1
5
15
49
79
93
119
143
177
191
221
237
253
271
285
297
305
327
369
371
Figures ix
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
Figures
Chapter 1
1.1.
In the field, Ometepe Island, Nicaragua
1.2.
Horseback survey, Ometepe Island, Nicaragua
1.3.
Haberland's research locations mentioned in this volume
104.
Tala Trichrome: Tala variety incensario
Chapter 2
2.1.
Aguas Buenas ceramics
2.2.
Map of Greater Chiriqui, indicating sites mentioned in the text
2.3.
Pedestal-based stone statue from the Barriles site, Panama
204.
Stone sphere at Palmar Sur, Costa Rica
2.5.
Artist's reconstruction of an Aguas Buenas ceramic assemblage
2.6.
Radiocarbon dates associated with Aguas Buenas and related
complexes
2.7.
Chronological sequences in Greater Chiriqui
2.8.
Distribution of Aguas Buenas settlements in the Torraba-Coto
Brus Valley and neighboring regions
2.9.
Human imagery in Aguas Buenas vessel supports from
Costa Purruja on Golfito Bay, Costa Rica
Chapter 3
3.1.
Map of Panama, showing the locations of sites mentioned in
the text
3.2.
Paleoindian fluted points recovered from Madden (Alejuela)
Lake, Panama
3.3.
Paleoindian artifacts from La Mula-West
304.
Early Preceramic stemmed and notched points from Central
Panama
3.5.
Early Preceramic stemmed and notched points from La Florencia,
Turrialba Valley, Costa Rica
3.6.
Late Preceramic tabular wedges or chisels from the Rio Chiriqui
shelters, Boquete phase
3.7.
Late Preceramic bifacial splitting wedges from the Rio Chiriqui
shelters, Talamanca phase
3.8.
Unifacial stemmed points from third millennium B.P. contexts in
Central Panama.
3.9.
Trifacially flaked points from early first millennium B.P. contexts
in central and western Panama
Chapter 4
4.1.
The Diquis Delta
4.2.
The Greater Chiriqui
Partition of the surveyed area
4.3.
404.
Ceramics of the Camibar complex
viii
5
6
7
13
16
19
21
22
24
26
28
33
42
55
56
57
60
61
63
65
68
69
80
81
83
86
Chapter 5
Archaeological regions of Costa Rica
5.1.
5.2.
Comparative chronological sequences, Central Pacific and
Greater Nicoya
Central Pacific region of Costa Rica: generaL distribution
5.3.
of archaeological sites
SA.
View of the Central Pacific from Las Mesas toward the
Tivives mangrove
5.5.
General view of the excavations at the La Malia site,
Ti vi yes mangrove
5.6.
Structure made from shells, potsherds, and clay, La Malia
site, Tivives mangrove
5.7.
Poze Azul archaeological site: locations of mounds,
5.8.
5.9.
5.10.
5.11.
Chapter 6
6.1.
Map of geographical locations and sites discussed in
this chapter
Chronological chart
6.2.
Preceramic (?) tools from the Bay of Salinas area
6.3.
Bay of Salinas site map
604.
6.5.
Bagaces period ceramics
Sapoa period ceramics
6.6.
Las Marias midden map
6.7.
Detail of Las Marias excavation, with multiple burial
6.8.
excavation
Groundstone celts, Las Marias
6.9.
6.10. Ometepe period ceramics
6.11. Vallejo Polychrome, Luna Polychrome, Murillo Applique
Chapter 7
7.1.
Structure of the design field in Luna Polychrome
7.2.
Map of the Greater Nicoya subarea, indicating sites where
Luna Ware, Luna Polychrome, or Lunoid Polychrome has
been reported
7.3.
Map of Ometepe Island, showing locations of Late Polychrome
period sites
7 A.
Artifacts recovered by Bovallius from a mound on Ometepe
Island in 1883
88
90
92
95
97
100
101
104
105
107
108
109
110
113
120
121
125
128
130
132
134
135
136
138
139
146
147
149
153
x Figures
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
7.13.
7.14.
7.15.
7.16.
7.17
Chapter 8
8.1.
Location of Chontales and Lake Managua basin projects
8.2.
Population distribution in the Lake Managua basin at the time
of the Spanish Conquest
8.3.
Toponymy of the Lake Managua basin at the time of the
Spanish Conquest
8.4.
Survey zones in the Lake Managua basin
8.5.
Distribution of sites in the northern part of the Lake
Managua basin
8.6.
Tamarindo site, Test #2, and burial urns excavated in Test #2
8.7.
Rio Viejo, north side of EI Moucan site
8.8.
Artificial mound, EI Moudn site
8.9.
Ceramics recovered from the EI Moudn site
8.10. Distribution of sites in the southern part of the Lake
Managua basin
Chapter 9
9.1.
Location of the Ayala site, Nicaragua
9.2.
Ayala site, excavation profile, Test pit II
9.3.
Polychromes of probable Honduran origin
Obsidian artifacts
9.4.
9.5.
Ceramics related to the Usulutan-technique group
Chavez White-on-Red: Astorga Cream variety
9.6.
9.7.
Rosalita Polychrome
9.8.
Belo Polychrome
9.9.
Belo Polychrome
9.10. Momta Polychrome
9.11. Momta Polychrome
Figures xi
154
156
161
162
163
166
166
169
171
171
173
174
176
178
179
179
181
182
183
184
185
186
188
9.12.
9.13.
9.14.
9.15.
Chapter 10
10.1. Map of Greater Nicoya area
10.2. Female shaman seated on Stool
10.3. Standing female shaman
10.4. Female figurine: Half woman, half jaguar
10.5. Howler monkey effigy vessel
10.6. Domed incense-burner with seated bat
10.7. Rosales zoned engraved plate with dancing shaman
10.8. Jadite ax-god bat pendant
10.9. Ceramic bowl with bat effigy
10.10. Ceramic snuffing instrument
10.11. Bone-sucking tubes
Chapter 11
11.1. Map of Middle America
11.2. Mesita A, East Barrow, San Agustin, Colombia
11.3. Chiriqui phase "Armadillo Ware" jars, with appliqued
frogs with flattened hindfeet in MacCurdy's "metallic type"
11.4. Figure with mask and staff, from Ullumbe site, San Agustin,
Colombia
11.5. Figure with mask, staff, and fan and cast-gold pin or lime
spatula, Calima style, Colombia
11.6. Merchant party, Chama-style vase, Ratinlixul, Chixoy Valley,
Guatemala
11.7. So-called master and slave figure, from Barriles, Chiriqui,
Panama
11.8. Fragmentary figure with conical plaited hat in the style of
Barriles, from theSacred Cenote, Chichen Itza, Yucatan
11.9. Support figure of the largest preserved metate from Barriles,
with overlapping feline incisors, Museo del Hombre Panameno,
214
215
216
217
222
225
225
226
227
229
230
231
232
234
234
238
240
241
242
242
242
244
245
247
Panama
193
194
200
202
208
209
210
211
211
212
213
Borgona Striated
Agurcia Polychrome
Ayala Plain: Ayala unslipped variety
Ayala Plain: Ayala slipped variety
Chapter 12
12.1. Map of northwestern Costa Rica, with archaeological sites
indicated
12.2. The stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic composition of food
250
250
254
257
258
xii Figures
12.4.
12.5.
12.6.
Chapter 13
13.1. Map of the northern Intermediate Area, detailing the location of
archaeological sites and obsidian sources noted in text
Chapter 14
14.1. Sites and geographical features mentioned in chapter
Chapter 16
16.1. Archaeologically known, lesser known, and unknown areas of
Central America
259
Tables
262
263
274
288
308
Chapter 3
3.1.
Periods of occupation and radiocarbon dates for Panama sites
dating from Periods I through IlIa
3.2.
Index of "thinness" for complete flakes from some central
Panama sites
3.3.
Distribution of selected lithic attributes in Cueva de los Ladrones
Chapter 5
5.1.
Central Pacific archaeological sites
5.2.
Greater Nicoya ceramics in central Pacific sites
Chapter 6
6.1.
Bay of Salinas and SapOli River sites
Chapter 7
7.1.
Definition of decorative zone codes
Location of sites on Ometepe Island yielding identified
7.2.
specimens of Luna Polychrome
Form frequencies for Luna Polychrome varieties
7.3.
Chapter 9
9.1.
Comparison of Ayala site sequence and other Greater Nicoya
chronological sequences
9.2.
Ayala site, distribution of ceramic typcs and varicties
9.3
Bagaces period radiocarbon dates
Chapter 12
12.1. Human bone collagen stable isotope results from
archaeological sites in northwestern Costa Rica
Chapter 13
13.1. Sample Concordance
13.2. (a) Elemental abundances or abundance ratios by x-ray
fluoresence analysis of 4 obsidian artifacts assigned to the
Ixtepeque source, (b) Elemental abundances or abundance
ratios by XRF of 4 obsidian artifacts assigned to the La Esperanza
source, (c) Elemental abundances or abundance ratios by XRF of
2 obsidian artifacts assigned to the GUinope source
13.3. Element abundances from neutron activation analysis of selected
Nicaraguan and Honduran prismatic blades
13.4. Pattern of prismatic blade abundance
xiii
52-53
64
66
98-99
114
129
145
148
164
192
196-197
198
261
275
277
278
280
Forword xv
Foreword
This volume accords to Wolfgang Haberland some well-deserved recognition and represents the esteem and respect he has engendered among his
peers, colleagues, and fellow scholars from Central America, Europe, and
North America. Since the 1950s his contributions to our understanding of
the prehistory of Central America have been marked by serious thinking and
resolute confidence in the efficacy of archaeological fieldwork. Recognition
of this legacy and commitment matters. Through the reconsideration of Haberland's individual scholarly contributions, we ultimately examine our collecti ve intellectual history. This takes nothing away from the honor
bestowed on Wolfgang Haberland. In fact, it puts him precisely at the center
of our reflections.
At the same time it behooves us to note that the singular recognition this
publication embodies is not idiosyncratic; that is, it does not represent an
isolated or completely unique process. Our homage to Haberland implicitly
acknowledges the long and brilliant record of German scholarship dedicated
to the prehistory of the Western Hemisphere.
Thirteen of the sixteen chapters in this volume evolve more or less
directly form the research and publications of Haberland. As a result, a number of the authors focus on the refinement or revision of cultural boundaries
and local, regional, or areal chronologies. As Gordon R. Willey points out in
his commentary herein, such time-consuming intellectual endeavors are a
fundamental requirement for unraveling the prehistory of Central America.
What is particularly satisfying to me in these chapters is the ongoing integration of sequences illuminating material remains (e.g., lithics and human
bone) other than ceramics. Of course, the latter are and will continue to command a central analytical position in delineating culture histories. In addition, a diverse range of the writings presented here derive from Haberland's
pursuit of the "real-life" meaning of the material culture he assiduously
unearthed. Particular attention to interpretations of select aspects of ideology, ritual, economy, and agriCUltural techniques are of specific interest.
The other three chapters have different motivations. Doris Z. Stone's biographical essay provides the warmth of human detail and the wisdom of perspective, creating focus insights on both Haberland's personality and his
intellect. As noted, Willey contributed a constructive review and commentary about the analytical chapters in this volume was well as an engaging
order of research directions to tempt Central American prehistorians. The
volume concludes with an energetic invitation by Frederick W. Lange, the
editor, to "interpret the social dynamics of the prehistoric societies we are
dealing with" and a review of the lacunae to be filled as we progress on this
and related agendas.
xiv
Preface xvii
Preface
The symposium "Weit ist der Weg: Paths Through Central American Prehistory," which I organized with Doris Z. Stone, was held on Monday, 8 July
1991, at the 47th International Congress of Americanists, in New Orleans,
Louisiana. What the participants knew, but what out of necessity was a
secret beyond that circle, was that this symposium was in honor of Dr. Wolfgang Haberland, a friend and pioneer in Central Ameri.can r~sea~ch.
Wei! is! der Weg was the name of a popular mUSIcal film In Germany
when I lived there in 1959 as a high school student. The term, in German,
refers to a long path, with the implication that it is arduous. In the original
context, it referred to the construction of the Brazilian capital at Brasilia and
the major task of building the road to the interior.
It seemed suitable for the symposium title as well, partially to hide its
honorary focus, but also to emphasize the great efforts that Haberland and
others have made in pioneering research in Central America. Wolfgang was
a student of Franz Termer. He first went to Central America in September
1953, when the world was still reorganizing itself after the years of World
War II. In a recorded interview, which his daughter Susann recently very
kindly made for me, Wolfgang recounted the years spent traveling the isthmus by bus, plane, horse, and leaky boats, dodging revolutions and establishing basic chronologies and conceptual schema as he went:
I got more or less an overview of the situation in EI Salvador, which is
very complicated. You see there was an idea that the whole republic of EI
Salvador was part of Mesoamerica as established by Paul Kirchhoff about
ten years earlier. His frontier went down including large parts of Nicaragua and also some parts of Costa Rica, what we today call Greater Nicoya.
Well, what I found was that there is, or was, a very sharp frontier in
archaeological material different between western and eastern EI Salvador. Western EI Salvador is pure Mesoamerica, while the eastern part is
something else~ it isn't Greater Nicoya but it isn't Mesoamerica either.
They have their own development, some influences going to and fro certainly, but the ceramics change rather abruptly. The Mesoamerican polychromes cease to be east of the Ri6 Jivoa, which is the last river before the
Lempa.
For many of us still working in the region, this statement embodies many
of the same territorial and periphery issues we are still wrestling with.
As with many other early researchers, Wolfgang's foundations are still
intact-we have built upon them and expanded them but still rest on them.
I am extremely impressed by the breadth and quality of the writings in this
volume. Some are highly sophisticated instrumental analyses, others are
xvi
Acknowledgments
Doris Stone and I had three goals in organizing a symposium for the 47th
International Congress of Americanists in New Orleans in 1991, for which
the majority of the chapters in this volume were originally written: (1) to
honor the pioneering Central American research by Dr. Wolfgang Haberland, (2) to provide a current overview of research themes in the area, and
(3) to provide a forum where younger professionals working in the area
could present their data to an international audience.
Many individuals and institutions combined to make the realization of
these goals possible. The success of the latter goal is perhaps best exemplified by plans by Hoopes, Corrales, and the French team to hold a Greater
Chiriqui ceramic conference in Costa Rica in the near future and the offer by
E. Wyllys Andrews, director of the Middle American Research Institute
(MARl) at Tulane University, to provide the Nicaraguan National Museum
with a complete set of MARl publications. The French Archaeological Mission in Nicaragua provided the airfare for Lic. Rafael Gonzalez of the Museo
Nacional de Nicaragua to participate and also made it possible for Dominique Rigat to participate. Lic. Gonzalez's living expenses in New Orleans, as
well as those of Lic. Francisco Corrales of the National Museum of Costa
Rica, were covered by the Center for Latin American Art and Archaeology
of the Denver Art Museum. Lic. Corrales had just completed a Hubert Humphrey Fellowship in Museum Administration and attended the congress en
route bad to Costa Rica.
All of us were delighted that Gordon Willey and Doris Stone agreed to
serve as discussants for this session. We were honored to have them with us
for the entire day-long session, and I am grateful to them both for their
insightful comments, and their contributions to this volume.
All of the participants and contributors were saddened by the great loss of
our friend and colleague Doris Z. Stone on 21 October 1994 in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
EW.L.
xviii
Introduction
Weit ist der Weg: Central American Archaeology on the
Eve of the Twenty-First Century
FREDERICK W. LANGE
The study of Central American prehistory has followed the historical trajectory outlined by Willey and Sabloff (1980:VIl-IX) for American archaeology
in general: from the Speculative Period (1492-1840) through the Explanatory Period (the 1960s to the present in various substages). It was during the
latter half of the Classificatory-Historical Period (1940-1960) and the beginnings of the Explanatory Period that Wolfgang Haberland made his primary
contributions to Central American archaeology.
His professional growth, parallel to broader developments in the profession at large, is seen in comparing his publications on space-time, such as
those for Costa Rica (1955), EI Salvador (1960a), and Nicaragua (1966),
with his other articles focused on behavior and interpretation, such as those
on shaman graves in Nicaragua (196Id), the significance of the distribution
of "Black-on-Red Painted Ware and Associated Features in Intermediate
Area" (1957a), the interrelationship of different early ceramic phases in Central America (1969), and a regional synthesis of Greater Chiriqui (1984a).
As Doris Stone points out (Chapter I, this volume), it is even more admirable that as curator of the Hamburg Museum fur Voelkerkunde und Vorgeschichte, he pursued these interests as part of professional demands that
included a much wider range of world archaeology and ethnology.
The number of scholars involved in Central American archaeology has
grown dramatically since Haberland first went to EI Salvador in 1953. One
measure of this increase is seen in a recent review of the bibliographic status
of Central American archaeology: Lange and Lange (n.d.:8) note that
"approximately 75% of the available printed resources have appeared since
[1967]." Except for Doris Stone and Gordon Willey, Haberland is alone in
spanning the period from 1955 to 1992 in publications pertinent to the
region.
Willey, who was a discussant at the New Orleans symposium and is a contributor to this volume, also had an early and significant impact on Central
American studies as part of a distinguished career in American archaeology.
Many of his New World syntheses (Willey 1955a, 1955b, 1958, 1959b,
1960, 1962, 1969, 1982) have continued to highlight the significance that
additional data from this region should have in our understanding of the
development of Western Hemisphere civilizations.
1
troduction
n reading the various profiles in Willey's Portraits in American Archaeol(1988), I was intrigued by his frequent references to roads not taken,
!cially with regard to his shift, at Alfred M. Tozzer's insistence (Willey
8:288), from Central America to the Maya area. Willey perhaps
resses this shift in professional trajectory most succinctly in the followpassage (1988:288):
Pursuant to my "Lower Central American plan", that I had outlined to him
fTozzer] back in 1949, I began to tell him about my next projected trip to
Panama. This time I would edge a bit north in that country, all the while
keeping in mind my eventual arrival at the Maya frontier. I noticed Tozzer's
face turning very red-or perhaps magenta would be a more accurate
description-as I detailed my long-term research strategies. Then he blew
up. "Gordon," he exclaimed, "you just can't do that! It defeats entirely the
purpose of Mr. Bowditch's intentions and his will! You just can't continue
to fool around in Panama with things like this shell mound culture of yours
and neglect the Maya!"
Introduction 3
1
I
13.
Precolumbian Obsidian Trade in the
Northern Intermediate Area: Elemental
Analysis of Artifacts From Honduras
and Nicaragua
PAUL F. HEALY, FRANK ASARO, FRED STROSS,
and HELEN MICHEL
271
TREN)
TREN-2
CARIBBEAN SEA
Deparl-
alion
Honduras
men I
Honduras
Hondurrt's
Colon
Colon
Colon
Honduras Colon
TREN-IO Honduras Colon
TR;EN3
TREN-9
TREN-4
ThEN-5
TREN-6
TREN1
TREN-S
NAA
Xl1F
sample sample
Counlly
of c;,\cav
Site name
Rio Claro
ExcavatiQn unit
Pil #3 (25-50 em)
Rio Claro
Rio Claro
Selin Farm
Selin ,,~
Pit #3
Pit #4
Pi! #2
Pit "2
"~ri'
Pit
Rivas
S,""
Santa """
Isabel "A"
Nicaragua Rivas
Nicaragua Managua San Crist6bal
San Crist6bal
San Crisl6bal
Nicaragu~
~~~:~:!~: ~:~::~:
(25-50 em)
(25-50 em)
(0-25 cm)
(0-25 em)
Date
t,
criod'
Early Cocal
Early Cocal
Early Cocal
Basic Selin
Basic Selin
Middle Polychrome
#I (150-175 ,m)
#1
cm) Middle Polychrome
Pit D (0-10 cm)
Late Polychrome
Late Polychrome
Pit D (0-10 cm)
Pit D 0-10 em
LaiC Pol chrome
Provenience
"
"
2227-Z
8144-7
8144-8
htepeque
lxtepeque
La Espcranza
lxtepeque
2227-X
GUino c
2227-Y
8144-2
8144-3
8144-4
8144-5
8144-6
GUinope
Jxtepequc
The San Crist6bal site, located about 1 km south of Lake Managua, is also
marked by earthen mounds, generally larger in size and more numerous than
at Santa Isabel "A." The site was excavated between 1977 and 1979 (Wyss
1983). The three obsidian blade fragments were recovered from a single
mound stratum dated, on the basis of associated ceramics, to the late Sapoa
period and Ometepe period (A.D. 1200-1520) (Table 13.1).
LEGEND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
MODERN CITY
~o
\00
I~
~,~",_,"-~,v-<-.--,"~
none have been positively identified, it is highly likely that local obsidian
sources exist.!
The Santa Isabel "A" site, a l-km2 area marked by low earthen mounds
on the Rivas isthmus, opposite Lake Nicaragua, was excavated in 1959 and
1961 (Norweb 1964; Healy 1980:49-57). A pair of obsidian blade fragments
were derived from a refuse-filled (ceramics, lithics, bone, and shell) stratum.
Ceramics indicate a temporal assignment to the Sapoa period (A.D. 8001350), particularly the La Virgen phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1200) (Table 13.1).
ANALYTICAL METHODS
The ten obsidian artifacts were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF), with
five of the samples being further tested using neutron activation analysis
(NAA).
Previous research has shown that the most significant elements of obsidian measured by XRF generally are Ba, Rb, Sr, and Zr.. Also measured are
Fe, Ce, Zn, Y, and Nb. The latter may be used in obsidian identification,
especially if their abundances are unusually high. With our nondestructive
procedure for XRF determinations, errors were introduced due to variation
in sample size and shape. Thin artifacts measured against thicker standards
tended to have abundances somewhat higher than the true values. By taking
abundance ratios of elements with X-rays having nearly the same energy
(e.g., Rb, Sr, Zr), this error canceled to a large extent. The measurements
were calibrated with a thick piece of E1 Chayal (Guatemala) reference obsidian. With a new methodology (Giauque et al. 1993), it is possible to make
nondestructive XRF measurements that are precise and accurate and not
affected by the shapes and sizes of the artifacts. The measurements in this
chapter, however, were taken before that methodology was developed.
The abundances (i.e., of Ba) or ratios (i.e., of Rb, Sr, and Zr) are calculated for the individual samples. For each group of samples having a common provenience assignment, the mean values are calculated. In addition,
the standard deviations or root-mean-square deviations (RMSD) in these
values are calculated and compared with statistical errors inherent in
counting X-rays; this permits evaluation of the performance of equipment
and procedures.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Of the ten obsidian specimens analyzed, four were determined to have been
obtained from the La Esperanza source, and two from the Giiinope source,
both in Honduras. The other four specimens were determined to have come
from the Ixtepeque source in Guatemala. Although all ten samples were
subjected to XRF, five of these were tested additionally by "extended"
NAA runs for greater confidence. The sample concordance is given in
Table 13.1, the XRF data are given in Table 13.2a, b, c, and the NAA data
appear in Table 13.3. It is seen in Table 13.3 that the average deviation
Rb/Zr
Sr/Zr
TREN-4
1022
191
0.558
0.887
TREN-5
1097
183
0.557
0.895
TREN-7
1186**
224**
0.565
0.872
TREN-I0
1026
180
0.591
0.907
Mcan(4) and
RMSD(4)
Ixtcpeque
source'"
1030***
176
0.568 0.016
0.890 0.015
O.57 0.01
0.90 0.02
TREN-I
924"'*
211 **
0.955
0.954
TREN-2
798
176
0.909
0.968
TREN-3
788
173
0.928
0.975
TREN-6
930**
210**
0.921
0.958
Sr/Zr
TREN-8
1100
121
1.37
1.58
TREN-9
1064
128
1.50
1.64
Mean(2 (2)nd
RMSD 2
1.44 0.09
1.61 0.05
Giiinopc
source*
1000***
134
1.39 0.09
1.53 .t 0.09
Data for the Ixtepeque source are from Asaro et al. 1978 for all clements
except Ba; that entry is from Stross et al. 1983, La Esperanza and Oiiinope
source data are from Sheets et al. 1990.
"
"
Thin samples, such as these, yield higher abundances than the true values
with the XRF methodology employed, but these errors tend to cancel out
when ratios of element abundances are taken.
Neutron activation analysis values
between artifacts and source abundances is between 1.3 and 2.1 percent for
the sixteen most precisely measured elements. This close agreement is consistent with the requirements for a chemical match by high-precision NAA
given earlier.
The five northeast Honduran artifacts were attributable to three different
obsidian sources. Three of the artifacts, with the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) catalog numbers Tren-l, -2, and -3, were provenienced to the
newly described La Esperanza (Honduras) source; one of the artifacts,
Tren-9, matched the Giiinope (Honduras) source; and one other, Tren-lO,
was assigned an Ixtepeque (Guatemala) provenience.
Table 13.3 Element abundance$* from neutroll activation analysis of selected Nicaraguan and
lid
Ie a es
0" uran pnsma(bId
TREN 7
Abund. Err.
1048
26
42,2
0.0
1.01 0.06
2.72 0.09
"CoCo
C>
0,
Eo
2.43
Fc(% )
a'
K(% )
0.547 0.008
0.922 0.015
4.42
3M
L.
23.3
M.
<53
3.0<
Na(% )
Rb
'"S,Sm
To
TO
"'''
A.D
.'
0.10
98
0.06
0.25
{xtepcque
source"
Abund. Brr,
27
1030
0.9
43.3
l.OS 0.08
2.71 0.17
2.30
0.541 0.013
0,9'13 0.019
4." 0.12
0.06
3.61
23.S
449
3.05
'03
0.6
0.27 0.04
2.09 0,02
2.59 0.Q3
0.759 0.008
7,0< 0,07
2.22 0.Q2
\.894 0.021
O,l!
0.19
l.ll
2.65
0,76
7.17
2.30
un
0.26
0.9
9
0.05
6
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.04
\.3%
L. Esptranza
ThEN .\
TREN 3
Abund. Err.
Abund. Eft.
765
52.1
0.76
4.59
2."
0.492
O.9()4
3.97
4.33
28.5
429
2.82
'56
" '"
0.7
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.008
0.016
0,08
0.27
0.7
9
2.1%
0.1!
4.54
2."
22
0.7
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.4"8 0.009
0.925 0.016
3.99 0.08
3.75
28.6
0.26
0.7
82S
SQ,7
0.86
4,52
2,36
0.501
0.897
4.14
3.75
28.9
"
06
0.Q4
0.05
0.07
0.006
0.009
0.05
0.17
0.4
9
, '" , '"
'" "
0.06
0,05
0.Q3
2.99 0.03
0.960 0.010
11.68 0.12
3.'0 0.Q3
1.593 0.021
OJ2
2.58
50,S
Ab~on~~e;:r.
428
2.81
0.06
0.04
2.56 0.Q3
2.96 0.03
0.944 0.009
1l.76 0.12
3.36 0.03
1.562 oms
0.28
2.1%
2"
0.06
0,24
2.54
3.02
0,959
11.7
0.14
0.Q3
0.03
0.01
O. ,
~:~~
g:g;
(lilinope
source"
Err. Abuod.
1000
20
27
1022
50.2
0.6
sO.a 0.'
0,59 0,05
(lA9 0.05
1.88 0.10
8.03 0.17
2.52 0.10
2.14 0.06
2.47 0.\0
Q.S04 0.01)8
0.506 0.008
0.494 0.008
TREI'< -8
Abund.
26
'95
SU
0.6
0.57 0.05
8.10 0.16
'n
0.S79 0,016
0.05
0.25
3.1!
3.95
28.2
0.7
'"
,"
'60
2,69
036
0.06
0.05
2,11 0.Q2
2.95 0.03
0.880 0.009
12,10 0.12
3.83 0,04
1.78 0.027
1.4%
TREN 9
'n
Abund.
0.868
3.10
3.78
23.5
52S
2.71
0.015
0.05
0.25
0.7
0,872 0.016
3.28 0.06
0.25
28,3
0.6
4.09
2.70
0.05
0.48
2.\3
2.98
0.894
12.06
0.Q7
0.02
0.Q3
0.009
0.13
0.04
20
0041
2.12
0.05
0.Q2
2.99 0.03
0.891 0.009
12.12 0.12
3.93 0.04
1.83 0.03
3.93
1.82
o)
1.3%
Abundances and errors are in ppm except when otherwise indicated, Errors arC usually (he estimated uncen.ai~ucs on
counting gamma rays. Errors for lIIe btep.que rderence group. however. arc the IO01_tIlean_squarc_dev.anons
Da;~r fo~i~heml:~~~~~,:::n~~rcc
are (rom AsalO et at. 1918 for all clementS except Sa. which is from Stmss et al. 1983.
Data for tile La Espcranza and GOinope sources arc from Sheets c( at. 1992.
.
Yb values art based on a rocalibrated abundance (F. Asaro and H.R. Bowman. unpublished data) of 2.96 ! 0.06 ppm m
Standard POUtt;'o 5.1% higher than originally published (Perlman and Asaro 19(9).
.
A. D, " Average deviation of arlifaCl abundances from source values for 16 usually most_preclsely_measured elcn'cn(s
[excluding Co, Oy. K(%) and Sb]
From southwest Nicaragua, the five artifacts were also attributable to the
three separate locations, the same trio of sources identified for northeast
Honduras. Three of the five artifacts, with the LBL numbers Tren-4, -S, and
-7, were provenienced to Ixtepeque; one artifact, Tren-6, to La Esperanza;
and another, Tren-8, to Giiinope.
Nicaral':ua
Ll
Las
53S
Ll
274
0.3
iO.3 (~g:~)
This
San
Crisl6bal work
Ll
Nindiri
, IJsa~:r"~A"
11
(+0.9
_0.7
(+1.6
-1.2
61
4,0
21
3.7
(~7::\ I
107
I 19
72
100
4.2
(+4.1
210
33
15
(~J:~)
-2.3
Nic.
Nicaraguan
Number
pris. prismatic
S
1..1
L2
W
It
14
work
Ll
This
2.4
1l
177
52
(+11
14
320
Padillas
I Ja~~:I"
3
17
L2
values are weighted by the number of blades) from San Jacinto (Le6n) at the
bottom of Zone 1 to Santa Isabel "A." The ratio for Zone 4 (north and east of
Lake Nicaragua) may be smaller than 3 percent, or the apparent difference
may be due to the small numbers involved.
These data suggest that there was a distinct need for obsidian prismatic
blades, and this need could not be met by local sources of lithic raw materials. It appears, then, that there was a distribution network available and functioning that could supply those needs. It is reasonable to conclude that the
prismatic blades were prestige items and, hence, decreased in abundance at a
much slower rate with distance from the original source than other, less
important lithic artifacts (Renfrew 1977:78). The network (or possibly networks) seems to have supplied prismatic obsidian blades as far south as the
Santa Isabel "A" site in southwest Nicaragua and possibly as far south as the
Bay of Culebra in northwest Costa Rica (Sheets et al. 1990; Lange et al.
1992:124, sample 8139 G from Ixtepeque). The obsidian prismatic blade
network probably did not extend much farther south or inland, judging from
the limited obsidian abundance (0.2 percent) at Arenal.
There are some difficulties with using a prestige-chain model to explain
obsidian prismatic blades in Nicaragua. There is, for example, no apparent
decrease of abundance with distance from the originating source, as would
be expected even for an exchange model such as this. But this incongruity
could be due to the large uncertainties in the values. Also, the abundance of
prismatic blades relative to total lithic artifacts at Las Padillas seems distinctly lower than that found at San Jacinto and farther south.
Obsidian prismatic blades are taken as one of the key indicators of
Mesoamerican connections with what is termed lower Central America
(Lange and Stone 1984b; Lange et al. 1992:163; Sheets 1975), or the northern part of the Intermediate Area. The evidence noted here from Pacific Nicaragua demonstrates that obsidian prismatic blade distribution followed a
different pattern of exchange than that of ordinary obsidian artifacts and that
it was more like a prestige-chain than a down-the-line model. The present
work also suggests that the Ixtepeque source was the most heavily used
obsidian source for this distribution, that an exchange network for obsidian
blades extended south at least to the Rivas region, and that the extent of the
trade, or exchange, in Pacific Nicaragua corresponded to about 3 percent of
the lithic material utilized. However, because of the prestige nature of the
material, its "value" may have constituted significantly more than 3 percent
of the lithic trade or exchange. With control over this type of material, with a
high potential profit margin, Mesoamerican influence may have been quite
significant even at distances of several hundred kilometers.
In northeast Honduras, where virtually all obsidian had to be imported,
the early inhabitants secured this exotic material at the same time as natives
from Greater Nicoya and exploited identical sources in the south hundreds of
kilometers away. Without additional comparative data and with such a small
database, it is harder to reconstruct likely trade mechanisms or types of operational networks. However, overall, the implication from the northeast Honduras and southwest Nicaragua data is that obsidian exchange was
widespread in the northern Intennediate Area and that many different ethnic
groups were concurrent recipients of obsidian from the same sources.
How were such exchanges arranged or conducted? To what extent were
native groups of the northern Intermediate Area integrated economically (if
at all) among themselves? How did they interact with Mesoamerican groups,
which likely controlled access to the Ixtepeque and Rio Pixcaya sources, and
possibly others? The answer, unfortu~ately, to all these questio?s is that we
simply do not know. Without substantial expansIOn of the obsidIan database,
through the addition of a significant number of sourced samples with dat~d
contexts, it will remain difficult to do more than speculate about such prehistoric economic activity.
Ethnohistorical accounts reveal that some Greater Nicoya groups, such as
the Chorotega and Nicarao, were obvious immig;ants from Mesoame~ica,
spoke Mesoamerican-deri ved languages, and practiced many Mesoamencan
customs (Abel-Vidor 1981; Coe 1962a; Fowler 1989; Healy 1980; Lothrop
1926). Similarly, the conquistador Heman Cortes, who conducted some .of
the first Spanish explorations in northeast Honduras m 1524 and 1525, diScovered Nahua-speaking groups there (Healy 1976b:238-239). It IS certamly
evident from such ethnohistorical accounts that both regions (Greater
Nicoya and northeast Honduras) had more than a passing interest in neighboring Mesoamerican groups. Unfortunately, a response to the questIOn of
what kind of trade mechanism was operating is complicated not only by the
limitations of the obsidian database but also by considerable uncertainty
about the precise fonn of sociopolitical organization of many native groups
in the northern Intennediate Area. It is generally accepted that there was
great political diversity, with native societies representing different levels of
organization along a cultural evolutionary scale.
Creamer and Haas (1985) have focused especially on tribes and chiefdoms of this area. They note that tribal societies typically are decentralized
and relatively independent economically, so that interregional, long-distance
trade (to acquire obsidian, for example) would tend to be more limited than
that of chiefdoms, which are more centralized and often import quantities of
valuables and sumptuary goods from outside the local region. Knowledge of
the types of sociopolitical systems that existed at different times in. the prehistory of the northern Intennediate Area is, presently, a rather cruCial missing piece of anthropological information.
Virtually all indications are that the native societies of the northern
Intermediate Area, including northeast Honduras and Greater Nicoya,
were less centralized economically than their peers in, say, the adjacent
Maya subarea of Mesoamerica. Recent assessments of the ancient Maya
suggest they functioned at the level of very highly evolved chiefdoms or,
Notes
1.
2.
Lange et al. (1992: 175) mention at least two possible sources of natural obsidian in Nicaragua-one on the west side of Lake Managua, the other on the
northeast shore of Lake Nicaragua. No further details were available.
Cited distance estimates between archaeological sites and obsidian sources
reflect most direct, straight-line measurement and are, therefore, minimum
4.
1975:203). An upper limit was chosen so that the probability of obtaining the
observed value or less was 16 percent. The lower limit was chosen in a similar
way. These limits converge to the familiar Gaussian statistics as the numbers
become larger and larger.
Creamer (1992) has examined regional exchange in the Gulf of Nicoya, arguing
that it is an important type of trade network that warrants more investigation.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
15.
Lower Central American Archaeology:
Some Comments as of 1991
GORDON R. WILLEY
297
archaeological monographs for the area in the forty or more years following
Hartman's work were those of G. G. MacCurdy (1911) on Chiriquian antiquities and S. K. Lothrop's (1937, 1942a) impressive Cocle study, and neither
paid any significant attention to chronology. Only Sigvald Linne's survey of
Darien, in far southern Panama, published in 1929, showed some awareness
of the problem of temporal relations among his archaeological cultures, and
even he did not deal with it as a major issue. In fact, the first serious modem
chronological study for the area was mine and C. R. McGimsey's, on the
Monagrillo culture and later complexes in central Pacific Panama, published
in 1954. One can only wonder about this lag in chronology in lower Central
America. Was it because the area was in some way considered to be of lesser
importance-a place where one might not expect to find the kind of earlier
antecedents one found in Mesoamerica or Peru, where prehistory was best
seen as "flat" and synchronous? One can only speculate.
But since the 1950s, the task of regional sequence-building and the tying
together of these sequences through ceramic typological cross-matchings,
from region to region, has been taken on routinely by more and more archaeologists (Coe and Baudez 1961). Doris Stone (1966a, 1977) and Fred Lange
(ed., 1969, 1971b) have been among the leaders in this (see also Lange and
Stone, eds., 1984). Most of us realize that there is a lot more to archaeology
than such potsherd systematics. At the same time, it is nothing to turn up
one's nose at, for it is the sine qua non of archaeology. Without it, you do not
know where you are nor, literally, which end is up. In reflecting upon it, I
cannot but feel that we-the archaeological profession-should not have the
large territorial-chronological gaps that we still have in the lower Central
American record. I can only urge the younger generation of researchers to
press on with the job.
That they are doing so is manifest in the present volume. Hoopes, Salgado
Gonzalez, Ranere and Cooke, Baudez and his colleagues, Corrales Ulloa,
Graham, and Rigat and Gonzalez and Rivas, detail progress in lower Central
American typological, chronological, and distributional organization. I come
away with the impression-and I hope it is correct-that fairly large blocks
of territory can now be pretty well cross-correlated with each other from
about 500 B.C. up to the time of the Spanish Conquest. Francisco Corrales
Ulloa and Ifigenia Quintanilla Jimenez have done a nice job in working out
the region of the Central Pacific coast of Costa Rica. This fits in a piece
between Greater Nicoya (the Salgado Gonazlez and Rigat-Gonzalez Rivas
chapters) to the north and the Gran Chiriqui (the Hoopes and Baudez et aL
chapters) to the south. I think that now we can be on pretty firm chronological ground from about the Panama Canal northward and westward up to
Lake Managua.
But we need some strategically placed work in northwestern Nicaragua
and adjacent Honduras to enable us to carry the chronological linkages into
El Salvador and western Honduras and thus to link up to Mesoamerica.
(ca. 6000-5000 B.C.) than the other kinds of evidence (ca. 500-300 B.C.); but
within lower Central America, there is no culture historically meaningful or
suggestive of geographical patterning in these evidences-or so it would
appear from what has been reported. That is, no consistent diffusion time
line, such as the one I was trying to plot for ceramics, can be projected in any
direction. Could it be that the many small environmental-subsistence niches
of lower Central America made any uniform directional spread of agriculture unworkable? This suggests the maize plant had a widespread availability in the area from a very early time, perhaps as early as 6000 to 5000 B.C.,
but that it was accepted and cultivated variably, in accordance with small
regional-natural environmental niches and different regional cultural preferences. Lynette Norr suggests something like this in discussing farming-versus-shellfish diets as revealed by the isotope composition of human skeletal
remains.
To tum back to pottery, could such processes have operated in the diffusion of ceramic technology in lower Central America? Let us speculate that
some general knowledge of making containers out of fired clay was diffused
through the whole lower Central American area at a relatively early timesay, 3000 to 2000 B.C. But then this knowledge was put to practical use at
different times and in different places in response to local environmental circumstances or cultural predilections. However, after floating such an idea, I
will qualify it by saying that I still think the general directional drift of the
idea of pottery making was from northern South America, through lower
Central America, and on to Mesoamerica, even though we cannot yet draw a
smooth south-to-north slope for such a diffusion.
I am aware that diffusionist studies have been out of favor for the past
thirty years in Americanist archaeology. Nevertheless, I cannot see how any
archaeologist can deny that the processes of culture change move horizontally in space as well as vertically in time, and I am convinced that only in a
context of the interplay between in situ evolution and external stimuli will
we be able to understand and explain culture growth and change. To be sure,
it has been an American archaeological tradition to be rather vague about the
actual processes involved in diffusion, so I am glad to see Mark Miller Graham turning to an examination of the specifics about how diffusion may have
worked in lower Central America. Graham begins by striking a "deconstructionist" note in decrying the usefulness of culture areas-or the "culture
area-with-time-depth" concept, an idea given its first explicit definition by
the late Paul Kirchhoff (1943) and a later hemispherewide deployment by
myself (Willey 1966, 1971). He has a point in arguing that such culture area
boundaries, based on reified traits rather than on the archaeological record
that is the "text of prehistory," tend to obscure much that is of importance in
the past. In spite of this, I am always a little disturbed by too much denigration of the "normative." A normative approach is necessary to set a framework-in this case culture areas-against and within which we can examine
about making plans to return there and, in fact, carry out long-term surveys
and excavations in that country and elsewhere in lower Central America. 3 I
was all set to devote my career to building a chronological bridge on into
Mesoamerica-or at least that is the way I thought of it then. But, with
Tozzer's rather stern urging, I left lower Central America for the Maya, and
when I did this I also shifted away from the "bare-bones of chronology
building" as the goal of my archaeological life to more complex questions
concerning the content of culture history. As it happened, I went into Maya
Lowland settlement pattern studies, following in the line of some research
that I had done in Peru in 1946 (Willey 1953), before I had gone to Panama.
If I had stayed with lower Central America in 1952, would I have continued with potsherd time-space systematics as the raison d' etre of my archaeo-
logical experience? One can only guess about matters like this in one's own
life, but it would be my retrospective guess that my field of vision might very
well have remained so limited. I know that I had other Panamanian sites and
localities in mind for stratigraphic testing and survey. For in 1953, I was considering moving from the Parita-Monagrillo sector, where I had been working, down into the Azuero Peninsula. This was a region where Alain !chon
(1980) was to work a quarter of a century later, and judging from his results,
it would have produced some good archaeological sequences. And this
would have led me, I am sure, to moving on westward in Panama, to places
where Olga Linares de Sapir (l968b) and her colleagues were eventually to
explore. I know that in the early 1950s, when I first came to Harvard with the
unbridled optimism of youth, I had a plan to virtually dig my way north from
Panama to the Maya frontier. In reflecting on this a good many years later, I
made the observation that if I had adhered to such a plan, "retirement would
have overtaken me about halfway through Costa Rica" (Willey 1988:289). I
think I would revise that now: retirement or the grim reaper would have
intervened somewhere well short of the Costa Rican frontier.
If I had stayed in lower Central America, would I have broadened my
approach beyond sequence bUilding? Would I have turned, perhaps, to ecological questions such as those Lange (1978) has addressed in Costa Rica?
Or maybe my settlement pattern background in Peru would have found
expression some way in Panama-but I am inclined to doubt it. Panamanian
archaeology, at least from what I have seen of it, would not lend itself easily
to settlement analysis, certainly not of the kind that is possible in Peruvian
coastal Valleys and deserts, nor even to what we can do in the bush in the
Maya Lowlands. So, in mulling over Fred Lange's question, I am afraid that
if I had not opted out of lower Central America in favor of the Maya, I would
have spent the rest of my career building potsherd sequences in Panamacertainly a creditable, high-minded endeavor but not a very exciting one.
Even I might have become bored with it.
Such are the musings of an antique Americanist, and they are not particularly edifyiug other than to raise this philosophical question: Should we
order all of our archaeological data in time and in space before we proceed
with other more meaningful questions about the past? I do not think there
can be any answer to such a question except a negative one. Yet how do I
reconcile this with my previous statement that the systematics of time and
space are the sine qua non of archaeology? The larger and more encompassing answer must be that we proceed with both at the same time.
Notes
L
2.
3.
~L
16.
SUMMARY
Gaps in Our Databases and Blanks
in Our Syntheses: The Potential for
Central American Archaeology in the
Twenty-First Century
FREDERICK W. LANGE
305
diate Area may in fact be quite different, and that broad developmental schemes may obscure the individual structures of societies.
Universal economic or symbolic values for items such as maize,
4>
NE HONOURAS
HONDURAS
!?7/l
l:<:Z:l
NICARAGUA
CARIBBEAN
50
100~m
SW N''''<AGU''
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Hoopes 1984; Gorin 1990; Baudez et aI., this volume). In this volume and
elsewhere (Lange 1989), I have returned to earlier work (Lange, ed., 1969,
1970, 1971) to suggest a local space-time sequence for the Bay of Salinas
area in northwestern Costa Rica.
Five of the chapters in this volume have not only cast other beams of light
on generally unknown areas of the Central American isthmus but also contributed to continuing regional synthesis efforts for the subareas of Greater
Nicoya and Greater ChiriquI (Figure 16.1). The term Greater Nicoya was
first coined by Norweb (1961) and Greater Chiriqu(by Haberland (1961a).
Both terms have been used somewhat uncritically; the utility of the term
Greater Nicoya was recently reviewed in Lange et al. (1992), and both Drolet (1983a) and Hoopes (this volume) have examined the nature of Greater
Chiriqui. A number of the chapters in this volume contribute to a better
understanding of both of these cultural-historical-geographical units, individually considered to be subunits of either lower Central America or the
Intermediate Area.
In the north, Dominique Rigat and Rafael Gonzalez's survey in the previously little-known Cuenca del Lago de Managua region developed the first
chronological sequence for the north-central part of Nicaragua. Seventyeight sites were recorded, ranging temporally from 300 B.C. to A.D. 1520,
with the majority being from the latter 400 years of the sequence; in part this
reflects an almost total dependence on surface materials. Most of the identified ceramic types can be related to the Greater Nicoya typological system to
the south, with a limited number of "local" types also represented. Fletcher,
Salgado, and Espinoza (1993) have reported a ceramic typology from northern Nicaragua that, even though some ceramics are derived from the Greater
Nicoya area, is clearly most closely allied with southern Honduras.
Although northern Nicaragua is spatially closer to the southern Honduran
area than is the Ayala site sequence reported by Salgado Gonzalez (this volume), Fletcher, Salgado, and Espinoza report none of the non-Greater
Nicoya southern Honduran ceramics reported in some quantity by S. Salgado. Rigat and Gonzalez also note a much higher percentage of obsidian in
the lithic sample than Gorin and Rigat had found in Chontales (Gorin 1990;
Rigat 1992).
Thus, Rigat and Gonzalez Rivas not only developed a local sequence but
also contributed to ongoing efforts at regional synthesis and the attempts to
understand the fluctuations in the geographical-ecological boundaries of
Greater Nicoya through time. The exact relationship of the Lake Managua
Basin to Greater Nicoya or to other existing cultural-geographical units such
as southern Mesoamerica remains to be determined through future research.
Silvia Salgado Gonzalez's report on the Ayala site near Granada, Nicaragua, was a space-time analysis of a collection of stratigraphically excavated
Nicaraguan materials that have been curated at the Peabody Museum at Harvard since they were excavated by Gordon R. Willey and Albert H. Norweb
between 1959 and 1961. Salgado Gonzalez's chapter discusses the Ayala
site's chronological position and its relationship to the Rivas area of Greater
Nicoya and Honduras, with particular emphasis on the Bagaces period (A.D.
300-800 in Nicaragua, A.D. 500-800 in northwestern Costa Rica).
Her study of Ayala's ceramics was conducted to further expand Norweb's
and Healy's work, to build a new regional chronological sequence, and to
make interregional comparisons within Greater Nicoya, especially during
the Bagaces period, which is still poorly understood. She also summarizes
local differences with the general Greater Nicoya sequence and defines new
phase names. As she notes, the definition of the new phases was based not
only on the Ayala site ceramic complexes but also on comparisons with
those of other regional sequences of Greater Nicoya. It is interesting-and
indicative of the relative uniqueness of the Ayala site sequence-that she felt
comfortable cross-dating her phases with the southern Honduran sequences.
In addition to ceramic types from the northern sector of Greater Nicoya
similar to those reported by Healy (1980) from relatively nearby sites,2 the
Ayala site appears to have a comparatively high percentage (given its geographicallocation) of types with relationships to southeastern Honduras. As
with the Rigat and Gonz~Hez Rivas space-time chapter, the report on the
Ayala materials both fills in a spatial gap in our knowledge of Greater
Nicoya prehistory and contributes to our slowly evolvmg u?derstandmg of
the nature of the relationship between southern Mesoamenca and Greater
Nicoya.
.
.
The chapter proposing a separate sequence for the Bay of Salmas (mdependent from the adjacent sequences of the isthmus of Rivas and Ometepe
Island in Nicaragua and the Santa Elena Peninsula, the Bay of Culebra,
Tempisque River Valley, and Tamarindo Bay in Costa Rica; see Figure 6.1)
was added after the New Orleans meeting in 1991, and!l represents the revIsion of an earlier paper (Lange 1989). This separation is a departure from
previous publications (Lange 1971a; Lange and Norr, eds., 1986:4; Lange
and Abel-Vidor 1980:4); the decision to establish a separate sequence for the
Bay of Salinas was based on re-examination of the ceramic and lithic assemblages, a significant expansion of the regional database since 1969-1971,
and a clearer understanding of the Bay of Salinas's position in a broader context. The predominant presence of typically southern sector (Costa Ric~)
ceramics, together with a more typically northern sector (Nicaragua) exp~dl
ent chipped-stone lithic assemblage, clearly distinguishes the Bay of Salmas
sites from sites either to the north or to the south.
The chapter by Francis Corrales Ulloa and Ifigenia Quintanilla Jimenez
on the archaeology of the central Pacific coast of Costa Rica summarized
some aspects of a multiyear project (Corrales 1986, 1988a, 1989a, 1990;
Corrales and Quintanilla 1986,1989; Quintanilla 1988a, 1988b, 1990). Like
Rigat, Gonz:Hez Rivas, and Salgado Gonzalez, these scholars fill in a previously unknown space in the chronological sequence of the prehistoric map
of Costa Rica.
As for space-time concerns, it is worth noting that Corrales Ulloa and
Quintanilla Jimenez have suggested the establishment of a new archaeological subarea (the central Pacific) that has no local stratigraphic sequence; all
chronological placements are dependent on cross-dating with either the Central Valley or Greater Nicoya sequences. Although in general this should
yield relatively reliable results, we need to bear in mind that in another Central American archaeological subarea (Greater Nicoya), the 200-year differences between the beginning and end of the Early Polychrome periods in
adjacent Pacific Nicaragua and northwestern Costa Rica can have a significant impact on the interpretation of regional cultural processes (Lange et al.
1992: 177; Salgado, this volume). An archaeological subarea without an in
situ chronological sequence is incomplete.
In their contribution Corrales Ulloa and Quintanilla Jimenez also provide
significant new data on the southern extension of Greater Nicoya and interrelationships with the Central Valley of Costa Rica, as there was a significant
quantity of Greater Nicoya ceramics primarily dating from A:D. 800 to 1200
in many of the sites. Finally, they also feel, on the basIs of aVailable data, that
they can suggest a "Central Archaeological Region" of Costa Rica, as distinct from the more traditional tripartite "Nicoya," "Central Valley," and
"Atlantic coast" regions.
Corrales Ulloa and Quintanilla Jimenez also address another concern of
this summary chapter-that of the archaeological identification of levels of
social organization. In discussing social organization, they write, "evidence
of . . . socio-political complexity is characterized by a transitional stage
between tribal and chiefdom social organizations," and they echo the need to
reassess our means of characterizing prehistoric Central American social
organization.
Based on fieldwork from farther south along the Pacific coast, Claude F.
Baudez and his students summarize a survey and testing program carried out
in 1990 in the lower Diquis Area, Costa Rica. The project resulted in a new
chronological sequence for southern Pacific Costa Rica and allowed comparisons with previous work by Lothrop (1963), Drolet (1984, 1992), and Corrales (1989a) in Costa Rica and Linares de Sapir (1968b) in Panama. As with
the Greater Nicoya and central Pacific works already mentioned, their chapter not only contributes to filling a space-time gap but also adds to a better
understanding of the Greater Chiriqui spatial-temporal dynamic.
As space-time gaps continue to be filled and correlated with existing
sequences, we also need to continue to address some priority regional
themes for the Central America area, themes that, incidentally, can only be
more thoroughly studied as the space-time basis expands. It is equally true
that attempts at more synthetic, regional research (prehistoric nutrition, trade
patterns, subsistence, settlement pattern, etc.) can also help to identify where
some of the most critical space-time gaps still exist. In the best of all worlds,
the development of space-time controls and the development of regional syntheses are interdependent and interactive. What are some of the more important themes to be pursued?
II
,
REGIONAL THEMES
The Development of Central American Social Organization:
Tribes, Chiefdoms, and Other Forms of Ranked Societies
As discussed, this is a top priority. Creamer and Haas (1985) may well have,
intentionally or otherwise, set this process in motion when they reviewed the
relationship of archaeological data and social organization in Greater
Nicoya. Although their selection of examples may not have been the most
representative, they performed a valuable service by stimulating a re-examination of the social implications of archaeological remains. However, the
archaeological data necessary for such interpretations are still far from adequate. As Healy (1992: 86-87) observes, "Though they focused on prehistoric groups in Costa Rica and Panama, they enumerated characteristics that
are equally applicable to the aboriginal societies of ancient Honduras.
Unfortunately, the archaeological data for this area are often incomplete, and
hardly uniform, making a full, detailed interpretation premature, If not problematic."
Many of us previously had assumed that jade, polychrome cer~mics, and
other specialized craft products had been the work of speCialists and
reflected a chiefdom level of organization. We now realize that the eVidence
for chiefdoms is not as strong as we thought and that the use of the concept
is perhaps even inappropriate in Central America-:the Intermedi~te Area. For
example, almost without exception, even the. fanCiest Greater Nicoya ceramics occur both in domestic and mortuary setttngs (Lange 1992).
The 1987 Dumbarton Oaks conference that focused on archaeological
detection of wealth and hierarchy in the Intermediate Area (Lange 1992)
also addressed a number of examples of archaeological representations of
elite behavior and objects of material culture. As Sheets (1992a:28) ~oted,
"High levels of aesthetic achievement are not unusual tn .relatlvely Simple
societies" and "Intermediate Area societies expended conSiderable ttme and
effort in selected crafts, with resultant high achievements in artistic. representations. There is no reason to expect that most of these achievements
required particularly complex societies." These views were echoed by other
contributors to the symposium and to the resulttng volume (Lange, ed.,
1992). There is a growing acceptance among Central American archaeologists that any assumption of a direct correlation between artifact quahty and
. '
social complexity is speculative at best.
Whether most of the archaeological data represent tnbes or chiefdoms, as
traditionally defined, is one issue; whether a more simple system of
unranked, passively ranked, actively ranked, and complexly ranked tnbes IS
a more productive analytical framework is another. As Hoopes has wntten
(1992:73), "A concentration on the identification of the emergence of 'chiefdoms' and centralized authority (cf. Snarskis 1987; HanseJll987) may well
.
be inappropriate for many parts of the Intermediate Area."
Available data strongly indicate that limited-scale (stngle-slte or.superficial survey) data are not reliable indicators of differing levels of SOCial organization. The potential for the most useful data seems to be tn thepotenttal
for intensive regional survey and testing programs (also known as Improved
space-time control) and assessing the data for the pres~nce or.abse~ce of systems of site hierarchies, rather than attempttng to dlsttngUlsh hierarchical
positions within individual sites and, even worse, trying to apply these tntrasite assessments to regional models.
Finally, there is also a problem with "paradigm disjuncture" .or the difference between what various scholars mean by a SOCial orgamzatlOn term,
such as chiefdom; a good example is the comparison with what some of our
Central American colleagues mean by the same term, usually translated as
cacicazgo (clearly recognizing that not all English-speaki~g resear~hers
agree on what chiefdom means 1). Because of differences tn educatIOnal
background and theoret;~al training, a chiefdom is not necessarily a cadcazgo; the Central American term is more in the vein of the ranked and
unranked options discussed earlier.
Fonseca (1986) has dealt extensively with the issue of the interpretation of
social organization in archaeological research, and in a recent publication
Ibarra (1990:47) defined cacicazgo as (translation mine): "the life style of
semi-cultivator/distributor, characteristic of the Costa Rican chiefdoms, was
based especially in agricultural activities, complemented by hunting, fishing,
and gathering .... The ownership of the means of production, the land, the
raw material and the tools, was communal." This definition contrasts with
the more traditional strongly centralized redistributive system often associated with chiefdoms (although this concept has been reexamined and made
more flexible depending on its geographical and temporal locus ([cf. Drennan and Uribe, eds., 1987]). On a practical level, the use of translations of
English language material for teaching and the development of regional syntheses derived from both English- and Spanish-language publications
requires a communality of terminology and conceptual comprehension.
There is a great need to align the different terminologies so that we are in
fact all writing about the same thing, from the same mutually understood
(even if not agreed upon) conceptual framework.
A number of the chapters in the volume bear directly on our interests in
archaeological representation of social complexity. John Hoopes's chapter
on a reappraisal of settlement, subsistence, and the origins of social complexity in the Aguas Buenas tradition of Greater Chiriqui contains the most
comprehensive overview to date of previous research in the region, focusing
on "the earliest villages in Greater Chiriqui ... with the goal of identifying
problems and questions for future research in the area." Combined with the
more narrowly focused chapter by Baudez and his students and with Drolet's
research (1992), we have a new perspective on the prehistory of southern
Costa Rica and Greater Chiriqui. Drolet (1992:235-236) writes that:
tracing the evolution of two artisan industries over an approxi-
All presently classified ceramic types and varieties fall into the following
categories:
I. Types/varieties manufactured only in the northern sector;
2. Types/varieties manufactured only in the southern sector;
3. Types with one or more varieties manufactured in the
northern sector and one or more varieties manufactured in the
southern sector; and
4. "Foreign" ceramics falling into extra-areal southern Mesoamerican ceramic groups.
The distributional patterns of ceramics in the four different categories
offer excellent opportunities to examine intraregional relationships and
exchange patterns with southern Mesoamerica and the Caribbean-Atlantic
coastal areas. With regard to a specific comment in Bruhns's chapter, none of
the samples of Usulutan analyzed so far by the Greater Nicoya Ceramic
Project were imported from outside the area. As noted elsewhere (cf. Lange
1992:115) we are dealing with the broadly dispersed decorative technique
applied to local ceramics. For the future we need to expand the combination
of ceramic typological and instrumental analytical abilities, as well as auxiliary analytical techniques that are of less analytical power but of greater utility to the other regions, spheres, and zones of Central America.
Obsidian is another source-related raw material highly suitable for tracing
patterns of resource exploitation, artifact production, and both resource and
artifact distribution in Central America. Although still limited by comparison with Mesoamerican obsidian databases (cf. Charlton and Spence 1982;
Zeitlin 1982; Cobean et al. 1991; Stark et al. 1992), the database for Central
America is slowly accumulating (Sheets et al. 1990; Stross, Asaro, and
Michel 1992; Healy et aI., this volume).
Despite a highly volcanic landscape, obsidian has not been found in Costa
Rica in usable size or quality nodules or veins. All obsidian analyzed thus far
(Sheets et al. 1990; Stross, Asaro, and Michel 1992) from Costa Rica and
Nicaragua was either from the Pixcaya or Ixtepeque sources in Guatemala or
from the newly identified Giiinope source on the western Honduran border
with Nicaragua. Most of the analyzed obsidian has been recovered from contexts that coincide chronologically with both Mora Polychrome and Papagayo Polychrome and are excellent complementary data to the ceramics for
evaluating intersite and interregional contacts (cf. Zeitlin 1982; Stark et al.
1992).
In Ranere and Cooke's chapter, the authors examine regional trade systems that are not dependent on instrumental analyses for their definition.
They also make the interesting observation that some lithic distribution
patterns were more extensive than those of ceramics patterns and that
"lithic and ceramic styles were not always governed by the same constraints." This also seems to have been the case in Pacific Nicaragua,
whe~e La;,ge and Sheets (Lange et al. I 992:figs. 3.1,3.2,3.3) identified
varymg dIstnbutlOns for ceramic and lithic spheres in the northern sector
of Greater Nicoya.
Comparative II?portance of Maize and Other Subsistence Systems
From the begmmng of my research in northwestern Costa Rica (Lange 1969,
1970), I questIOned the Mesoamerican-based "myth" of maize agricultural
dependence that had been promoted about the prehistoric residents of the
southern sector of Greater Nicoya. In sequential periods of research in different parts of the Pacific coast of Guanacaste from 1969 to 1979 (Lange
1971a, 1976, I 977a, 1978, 1980a; Lange et al. 1976), there were no vegetal
remams, no artIstIc representations, no cob impressions, and few functional
manos or metates in domestic contexts.
Since that time the ability to reconstruct diets from human remains has
advanced greatly. In the most ~omprehensive analyses to date, eight individuals ;rom the VIdor SIt~ ",::ere mcluded with a much larger sample from Panama, as well as other hmIted samples from Costa Rica (Norr 1991). Closely
related to thIS more extensIve research, Norr's chapter in this volume presents extensIve stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic data derived from bone
collagen analysis of some of the prehistoric inhabitants. Part of Norr's sample population was derived from sites on the Pacific coast of Guanacaste
Provinc~ in Costa Rica, whe:e there was the potential for both agricultural
a?d marme SubSIstence explOItatIOn. She concludes that a complex pattern of
dI~tary explOItatIOn ~xIsted, with exploitation of either major resource base
belOg vanable WIth tIme period, geographical location, and climate. In most
locations she notes an inverse relationship between marine and maize diets
and "a strong correlation between settlement environment and subsistence
strategy."
We now know that the dietary strategies of prehistoric Central American
populations were more complex and much less monolithic than we realized.
Th~ ~vailable data appear to coincide conveniently with the models of more
lOdIvIdually struct~red societie~ presented earlier. However, considerably
more research on dIet and nutntlOn and on the auxiliary impact on mortality
and mortuary patterns needs to be conducted. Integration of the ceramic
lithic, faunal, :nolluscan, and human skeletal data from research throughou;
Central AmerIca should provIde a much more accurate overview of the
development of prehistoric subsistence patterns and related social patterns.
GEOGRAPHICAL GAPS
In the preceding section, I have sketched out some of the various themes that
need to be addressed in conjunction with basic space-time studies as we
gradually reduce the number of gaps and increase our interpretive understanding.
Methodologically, as we enter the twenty-first century, it is clear that our
basic time-space data must drive our hypothesis testing and our syntheses
and that these efforts at model testing and synthesis will in turn continue to
indicate where space-time data gaps exist. Central American prehistory
requires this interactive process and balance.
The next step is to identify those gaps as specifically as possible for the
four countries of the Central American isthmus: Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, and Panama (Figure 16.1). The following inventory of priority areas
for future time-space studies was developed in consultation with persons
working in each of the individual countries and is not meant to be exhaustive
in detail. Some minimal information may exist for certain areas not shown
on the map, and at the same time not all geographical subunits are individually identified.
Honduras
Although the western one-third of Honduras is firmly allied with the Maya
area (Healy 1984a, 1992), the vast eastern two-thirds is more closely allied
with lower Central America and the Caribbean, and it has received much
less research emphasis. There are two principal unknown regions and targets
for future investigation.
Pacific
The Gulf of Fonseca unites part of Honduras with Pacific coastal EI Salvador and Nicaragua. The gulf needs to be treated as a single multinational research area, both to increase our understanding of southern
Mesoamerican-lower Central American patterns on the Pacific coast and
to provide additional data on possible Caribbean-Pacific contacts via the
Choluteca River Valley and related connecting river systems, for which
the Gulf of Fonseca is the Pacific terminus.
Caribbean
As Figure 16.1 shows, despite Healy's efforts on the north coast (1974,
1975a, 1978a, 1978b, 1984a, 1984b) and research by others (cf. Clark, Dawson, and Drake 1983), the vast eastern two-thirds of Honduras remains virtually unknown. This area has been overlooked in part because of logistical
difficulties and in part because it shows little potential for contributing to our
understanding of Maya civilization. As Healy has noted:
In eastern Honduras . .. linkages to Mesoamerica . .. are unclear and
probably quite limited. Whether due to its geographical isolation
caused by the rugged mountain interior of Honduras, and therefore
the difficulty of maintaining continuous trade and communication
T
I
1
I
the northern Pacific coastal plain, especially from Managua north to the Gulf
of Fonseca. The nineteenth-century eruption of Cosigtiina and the more
recent inundations of Leon Viejo and the eruption of Cerro Negro are ample
proof of the ongoing natural forces in this region. As was noted (Lange et al.
1992:260), "archaeologists working in Nicaragua should take advantage of
this volcanic 'protective' shield and pay special attention to erosional cuts,
road cuts, and other vertical 'windows' into the substrata." The benefits of
locating and studying buried cultural remains have been amply demonstrated
by Sheets's work in EI Salvador (Sheets 1992b). The importance of multinational research around the gulf was emphasized in the preceding section and
is not repeated here.
Caribbean
The reasons for increasing studies on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua are
much the same as those for eastern Honduras, in terms of the need to add to
our knowledge of Atlantic-Caribbean coastal systems. In addition, there
have been isolated pot-hunter reports and some superficial avocational and
professional visits to sites with mounds and stone pillars that suggest a wide
range of cultural variations, from the expansion of the Mesoamerican frontier to non-Mesoamerican architectural traditions, perhaps related to late
prehistoric Chi be han expansion up the Caribbean coast. In addition, numerous sites on the Atlantic coast seem to have the carved stone statuary characteristic of the Chontales area and of the islands in Lake Nicaragua
(Haberland 1973; Arellano 1979-1980). Prograding of the Atlantic coast
means that early sites are now much farther inland and that except for high
points of land, the areas around the modern coastal lagoons may not be rich
in archaeological remains. From north to south, the Huahua, Cucataya,
Prinzapolka, Grande, Curinhuas, Mica, and Punta Gorda drainages should
all be carefully studied.
Potential significance
Nicaragua is both part of the Caribbean cultural arc on the Atlantic side and
the true transition zone between Mesoamerican and non-Mesoamerican peoples on the Pacific. Ceramic, lithic, and settlement data all show distinct contrasts with Mexican-Maya traditions (Lange et al. 1992:chap. 7) but with
connections to those areas via imported obsidian, use of the Usulutan decorative technique, representations of the Papagayo and Delirio White-on-Red
ceramic groups, and, in contrast with adjacent Costa Rica, the reliance on
local lithic sources for a widespread and developed chipped-stone industry.
All of these elements suggest that Nicaragua will contribute significantly to
our understanding of regional development in Central America.
Costa Rica
In terms of geographical distribution of archaeological research, Costa Rica
is the best known of the Central American republics, but as Figure 16.1
shows, there are still large areas that are known only from pot-hunter reports
or not at all. There are several principal targets for future investigation.
Pacific (northern)
The Santa Cruz Valley and the Nicoya Valley are both natural basins with
large modern populations and extensive farm- and ranchlands, and there is
superficial evidence that there were substantial prehistoric populations as
well. No extended work has been done in either of these areas, and we currently have no idea of how the local sequence of cultural development compares with that on the adjacent Pacific coast or in the Tempisque River
Valley to the east. As for the Tempisque River Valley itself, despite many
different research projects that have studied various aspects of the drainage
(Baudez 1967; Hoopes 1979; Day 1984c; Guerrero and Blanco 1987), it has
never been the focus of a systematic survey. As with the potential for tephra
buried sites on the northern Pacific coast of Nicaragua, the La Guinea area
sampled by both Baudez and Hoopes and the suballuvial finds of most of the
pri vate collection from Hacienda Tempisque suggest the strong potential for
extensive protected subsurface remains in the valley.
Pacific (central)
Although there has been a significant amount of research in this area in
recent years (cf. Corrales Ulloa and Quintanilla Jimenez, this volume), there
is still a need for a local, rather than cross-dated, cultural-historical
sequence.
Central Valley and Caribbean coast
Many of the same reasons given for studying the Caribbean-Atlantic
coastal systems of eastern Honduras and eastern Nicaragua can be repeated
here. There is an extensive presence of polychrome ceramics (primarily
from the years A.D. 800-1200) in sites in this area, as well as a shared jade
lapidary tradition (from ca. 300 B.C.-A.D. 700), which suggests we still
have a great deal to learn about Pacific-Atlantic interaction during the prehistoric period. W. J. Kennedy (1978), Snarskis (1975, 1976, 1978, 1984a,
1992), Fonseca (1981), Gutierrez (1986), Blanco (1986), and Hurtado de
Mendoza and Arias (1986) have all worked in the central portion of the
Central Valley-Atlantic watershed continuum, but we have little indication
of how the patterns and sequences they have developed and described will
apply to still unstudied geographical areas to the north and to the south.
The southern Central Highlands, purportedly the stimulus for much of the
stone sculpture in the Barriles area of Panama, and the extreme southern
Caribbean coast in the Sixaloa River Valley along the Panamanian border,
which was supposedly an Aztec outpost, are both poorly known areas.
They presumably have much to offer to our understanding of interregional
contacts and systems and should be the focal points of studies in the near
future. The north-central San Carlos plain, with its many rivers, and the
multiple drainages leading from the Central Valley and eastern flank of the
Central Highlands should also receive intensive study.
Potential significance
Costa Rica has much to offer in further data development for many of the
appositions and contrasts that we find in different guises in Central American archaeology: ecologically contrasting cultural historical development in
the dry Pacific and wet Atlantic climatic regimes, the contrasts of polychrome ceramics on the Pacific watershed and modeled and applique ceramics on the Atlantic, and the overarching presence of some material cultural
classes (for example, jade). Others were more geographically restricted in
their production and occurrence (such as polychrome ceramics).
Panama
The archeology of Panama in the twentieth century has been an interesting
contrast of largely opportunistic access to major cemetery sites, such as
;, 2\(. Cocle (Lothrop (1937, 1942a), the Veragus area (Lothrop 1950), and
"
Venado Beach (Lothrop 1954), and more carefully
structured settlement pattern and human ecology studies (Linares de Sapir 1968b; Linares and
Ranere, eds., 1980; Cooke and Ranere 1984). For a variety of reasons these
efforts have focused on what is commonly referred to as the Central Province of Panama; research in the Chiriqui region to the west and to the Darien
area to the east has been considerably more modest. In this area, there are
two principal unknown regions and targets for future investigation.
Caribbean
This area shows tentative linkages with eastern Honduras, Nicaragua, and
Costa Rica. Just as Nicaragua and Honduras form the southern border of the
Maya area, Panama is distinctly on the northern boundary of South American peoples, most of whom had their relationships with the tropical lowland
rather than Andean highland groups.
Pacific
Sites in this area are considerably earlier than coastal sites anywhere on the
Pacific coast of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the present database, which
has come from a number of sites in limited areas of investigation, needs to
be expanded.
Potential significance
Panama presently provides us with the best ecological data, mortuary data,
and Paleoindian and Archaic period data of any of the countries in Central
America. Nonetheless more than half of the country is unexplored, and we
have little idea of how data from these regions may alter or amplify our
present interpretations. In particular, research in Panama may help us to better understand the expansion of gold metallurgical techniques from South
America to Central America and Mesoamerica and to better explain whether
the initial expansion was over land, over water, or by a variety of different
means and mechanisms.
ANALYTICAL GAPS
An admirable array of advanced analytical techniques, ranging from INAA
applications to jade (Bishop, Sayre, and van Zeist 1985) and Greater Nicoya
ceramics (Lange and Bishop 1988; Bonilla et al. 1990) to isotopic reconstructions of prehistoric diets (Norr 1991), detailed environmental reconstructions (Cooke and Ranere 1984, 1992), utilization of remote sensing
techniques (Sheets, ed., 1984), phytolith analyses (Piperno 1988), and gradual development of a regional obsidian database (Sheets et al. 1990), have all
made significant contributions to current interpretations. However, these
techniques have usually been applied, either experimentally or exclusively,
to one region or subarea or another. The corpus of radiocarbon determinations is also very heavily biased toward the Panamanian area, with Nicaragua, by comparison, being represented by less than a dozen total radiocarbon
determinations. These unbalanced or limited applications have fallen short
of providing databases that can serve as the basis for regional comparisons.
Filling in analytical gaps, through the expansion of the application of techniques that have already proved successful in other locations to address similar problems, will help to tie together space-time sequences through
instrumental or other technical analyses not dependent on impressionistic
analyses of style or technique.
Locating a local jade source remains one of the highest priorities in artifact source, production, and distribution studies in Central America. Chronological control needs to be improved, whether through increased radiocarbon
dating or through the introduction of archaeomagnetic dating as a chronometric alternative.
We also need to greatly increase our sample of Paleoindian and Archaic
period sites if we are to make progress in our attempts to study the origin of
the settled village transition in Central America and its distinctive subsequent development that resulted in nonstate-level societies. At the other end
of the spectrum we have very few sites, if any, that we can say with confidence were occupied at the time of the Spanish invasion, and which truly
represent the endpoint in indigenous cultural development in the area.
POLITICAL GAPS
As we head for the twenty-first century, we also need to recognize the political and professional gaps that impede the study of Central America's prehistory. One gap results from the lack of a regional approach to cultural
preservation: most precolumbian culture areas cross over into the borders of
adjacent countries (or as in the case of the Gulf of Fonseca, pertain to three
different republics). Although each of the Central American countries struggles to one extent or another with protecting the cultural remains within its
own political borders, there is not yet a will to coordinate regional conservation that will positively address the cross-border situations, or what we have
cal1ed "cultures without frontiers." There have also been problems associated with the economic impediments of much of the 10cal1y sponsored Central American archaeology being limited to salvage efforts (Corrales 1987a).
Frequently these projects recover a limited amount of data over a relatively
brief work period and provide little opportunity to inventory and investigate
the surrounding area for other sites.
For example, when the important Talamanca de Tibas site was found in
the Central Valley of Costa Rica in 1979 (Snarskis 1979), efforts were
focused on the salvage situation, and neither then nor since has any survey
been attempted of the surrounding area-<lespite continuing efforts and
despite continuing reports of chance finds in the process of cultivating coffee
and construction for suburban development. This has been the case in a number of other sites in Costa Rica (cf. Guerrero and Blanco 1987 at La Ceiba;
Blanco 1986 at Ochomogo), and it is one of the most marked distinctions
between nationally funded projects and internationally funded projects that
have the luxury of proceeding at a more structured pace and often involve
more than one season. During the 1970s, the National Museum of Costa
Rica funded ongoing projects in the northwestern Pacific part of the country
(Lange and Abel-Vidor 1980), in the Atlantic watershed (Snarskis 1984a,
1992), and in the southern Pacific (Drolet 1984, 1992). Such projects are
now finished, and other continuous projects are being funded from international sources. In Nicaragua, aU archaeological projects, long-term or salvage, are dependent on extranational funding. In Honduras, the lack of
archaeological research in the eastern part of the country is partial1y due to a
lack of interest on the part of external agencies and the national government
in funding research in the non-Maya (i.e., nontourist) sector of the country.
We must also be concerned about training nationals in these countries to
assume more and more of the research responsibility. At the University of
Costa Rica there has been an ongoing program to encourage students to
carry out projects and write reports that would help to fill in the space-time
gaps in the coverage of national geographical and ecological subdivisions
(cf. Arias and Chavez 1985; Arrea 1987). However, very few of these reports
have found their way into the wider scientific literature (perhaps this criticism is balanced or even outweighed by the failure of many foreign scholars
to publish their results in Spanish; the reality is that we all need to do a better
job of sharing our results with interested colleagues, regardless of level of
training or linguistic ability or limitations). With the sole exception of Costa
Rica, there is very little or no university training in archaeology available in
Central America.
The impending passage to the twenty-first century is to some extent irrelevant to the study of Central American prehistory. However, the end of the
present century represents 100 years, with the flexibility of some convenient
rounding up or down by a few years here and there, since archaeology truly
began in Central America. Stone (1984) notes that Gordon began work in
Honduras in 1896 (Gordon 1898); F. de Montessus de BaUore wrote on
El Salvador in 1892; Bransford (1881), Flint (1878, n.d.), and BovalJius
(1886, 1887) opened the doors for serious archaeology in Nicaragua; Hartman (1901, 1907) began research in Costa Rica; and Holmes (1888) and
MacCurdy (1911) initiated research in Panama.
The passing of the century mark also seems worth observing because we
began this century without the existence of a recognized scientific discipline
of archaeology and are completing the century with a discipline that has
gone through many changes (Willey and Sabloff 1980). As in past eras, the
current direction of the discipline will have a definitive impact, for better or
for worse, on research in Central America in the twenty-first century. Will
the need for a return to an emphasis on space-time systematics be appreciated? Will the efforts to develop a model that challenges or complements the
conventional wisdom on the evolution and preeminence of state-level societies be welcomed by those who dominate the Atlantean heights of central
Mexican, lowland Maya, and Andean highland architectural complexes?
Changes in broader disciplinary emphases and the industry of our own
efforts will combine in as yet undefined variations and coalesce to produce,
it is hoped, an enhanced view of Central American prehistory.
References
Notes
Accola, R. M.
I.
2.
Abel-Vidor, S.
1980
1981
6(2):43-50.
Ethnohistorical Approaches to the Archaeology of Greater Nicoya. In Between
Continents/Between Seas: Precolumbian Art of Costa Rica, edited by E. P. Benson,
1986
1978a
1978b
Acuna, V.
1983
Florencia-1, Un Sitio Preceramico en la Vertiente Atlantica de Costa Rica. Vfnculos
9(1-2):1-14.
1985
1975
1976
Alfaro, A.
1923
EI Delfin de Corubici. EI Convivio de los Ninos, voL 12. San Jose, Costa Rica.
Ambrose, S, H.
1986
Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis of Human and Animal Diet in Africa.
lournal of Human Evolution 15:707-731.
1990
Preparation and Characterization of Bone and Tooth Collagen for Isotopic Analysis.
lournal of Archaeological Science 17:431-451.
1992
Isotopic Analysis: Methodological and Interpretive Considerations. In Elemental
and Isotopic Analyses: Understanding Diet and Disease in Past Populations, edited
by M. K. Sandford. Gordon and Breach, Scientific Publishers. In press.
Carbon Isotopic Evidence for Routing of Dietary Protein to Bone Collagen, and
Whole Diet to Bone Apatite Carbonate: Purified Diet Growth Experiments,
327
References 329
328 References
In Molecular Archaeology of Prehistoric Human Bone, edited by 1. Lambert and G.
1992b
1976
1987
Artavia, J.
1988
1989
Vinculos 6(1-2):141-154.
Bierhorst, J.
1990
The Mythology of Mexico and Central America. William Morrow, New York.
Bird,1.
1969
References 331
330 References
1978a
1978b
1968-75 Las Esculturas Espigadas y Otros Datos Sobre Las Ruinas de Cara Sucia, Departa-
mento de Ahuachapan.
1971
1973
1977
1988
1985
1992
Compositional Characterization of the Nicaraguan Ceramic Sample. In The Archaeology of Pacific Nicaragua, edited by F. W. Lange, P. D. Sheets, A. Martinez, and S.
1983
The Zapotitan Valley Archaeological Survey. In Archeology and Volcanism in Central America, edited by P. D. Sheets, pp. 62-97. University of Texas Press, Austin.
n.d.
The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Ranked Society in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development
in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox. Cambridge University
Press, New York. In press.
1992
Blanco V., A.
1986
Boggs, S. H.
1950
"Olmec" Pictographs in the Las Victorias Group, Chalchuapa Archaeological
Zone, El Salvador. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Notes on Middle American
Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 99. Washington, D.C.
sala.
Bozzoli de Wille, M. E.
1975
Birth and Death in the Belief System of the Bribri Indians of Costa Rica. Ph.D. dis- ..\
MI.
El Nacimiento y la Muerte Entre los Bribris. Editorial Costa Rica, San Jose.
Bradley, B.
1982
Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In Agate Basin Site, edited by G. C. Frison
and D. J. Stanford, pp. 181-208. Academic Press, New York.
Bransford, J. F.
1881
Archaeological Researches in Nicaragua. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowl-
332 References
1978b
1981
1984
The Gold of El Dorado. The Royal Academy of Art and Times Newspapers, London.
Gold Work. In Between Continents/Between Seas; Precolumbian Art of Costa Rica,
edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 153-166. H. N. Abrams, New York.
Across the Darien Gap: A Colombian View of Isthmian Archaeology. In The
Archaeology of Lower Central America, edited by F. W. Lange and D. Stone, pp.
1992
1963
1990
Campbell, L.
1979
Middle American Languages. In The Languages of Native America, edited by L.
Campbell and M. Mithun, pp. 902-1000. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Cann, J. R, and A. C. Renfrew
1964
References 333
Vallejo and Jicote Ceramic Codes: The Case for Stylistic Analogy in the Late Poly-
chrome Period, In Costa Rican Art and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Frederick
R. Mayer, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 213-259. Johnson Publishing, Boulder.
Carneiro, R.
1970
Casasola, L
1976-77 Notas Sobre las Relaciones Prehispanicas entre El Salvador y Ia CO,sta de Veracruz,
Mexico. Estudios de Cultura Maya 10:115-138.
Castillo, D., E. Castillo, M. Rojas, and C. Valldeperas
1987
Analisis de Ia Lftica Lasqueada del Sitio 9~FG-T en Turrialba. Memoria de Semi-
Brook,
Chisholm, B. S.
1989
1980 . The Identification of Selected Pollen Grains From a Core at Isla Palenque. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and-A. 1. Ranere. pp,
488-491. Peabody Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
Close,A. E.
1989
Identifying Style in .Stone Artifacts: A Case Study From the Nile Valley. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, pp. 326, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no, 1.
Sources and Further Analyses of Artifacts From San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico,
Latin American Antiquity 2:69-91,
'
14 References
,e,M. D.
)62a
Costa Rican Archaeology and Mesoamerica. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
18:170--183.
)62b Preliminary Report on Archaeological Investigations in Coastal Guanacaste, Costa
Rica. In Akten des 34x Internationalen Amerikanistenkongresses (Wien 1960), pp.
358-365. Verlag Ferdinand Berger, Horn-Wien.
178
Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
199ins, C. C.
184
The Cenote of Sacrifice: Catalogue. In Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures From
the Sacred Well at ChicMn Itza, edited by C. C. Coggins and O. C. Shane II, pp.
23-165. University of Texas Press, Austin.
mstenla U" A
185
Las Lenguas Dorasque y Changuena y Sus Relaciones Geneal6gicas, Revista de
Filologfa y Lingufstica 11:81-92, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose,
191
Las Lenguas del Area Intermedia: Introducci6n a Su Estudio Areal. Editorial de La
Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose.
>oke, R. G.
'76
Panama: Regi6n Central. Vinculos 2(1):122-140.
'77
Recursos Arqueol6gicos, Apendice 7. Evaluaci6n Ambiental y Efectos del Proyecto
Hidroelectrico "Fortuna." Loteria 254-256:399-444.
'84a
Archaeological Research in Central and Eastern Panama: A Review of Some Prob~
lems. In The Archaeology of Lower Central America, edited by F. W. Lange and D.
Stone, pp, 263-302. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
'84b Birds and Men in Prehistoric Central Panama. In Recent Developments in Isthmian
Archaeology, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 243-281. BAR International Series, 212.
BAR, Oxford, England.
86
La Arqueolog!a del Panama Precolombino y Su Importancia Para los Estudios de
los Pueblos de Habla Chibcha. In Memorias del Primer Simposio Cientifico Sobre
Pueblos Indfgenas de Costa Rica, edited by R. Barrantes, M. E. BozzoH, and P.
Gudino, pp. 81-95. Instituto Geografico, San Jose.
88
EI Motivo del "Ave de las Alas Desplegadas" en la Arqueolog!a de Panama y Costa
Rica. In Metalurgia de America Precolombina, 45x Congreso lnternacional de
Americanistas (Bogota), pp. 137-168. Banco de la Republica, Bogota.
Joke, R. G., and W. Bray
85
The Goldwork of Panama: An Iconographic and Chronological Perspective. In Art
of Precolumbian Gold: The Jan Mitchell Collection, edited by 1. Jones, pp. 35-45.
Weidenfield and Nicholson, London.
References 335
336 References
References 337
Culbert, T. P.
Davis, W.
1993
Writing Culture in Prehistoric Central America. In Reinterpreting Prehistory of
Central America, edited by M. M. Graham, pp. 253-276. University Press of Colorado, Ni wot.
1986
1991
1989
'Day,], S.
1982
Decorated Ceramic Types From the Late Polychrome Period: 1200-1500 AD.,
Hacienda Tempisque, Guanacaste Province, Costa Rica .. Vfnculos 8(2):39-64.
1984a
Greater Nicoya Polychrome Ceramics: Regional and Inter-Regional TIes. In InterRegional Ties in Costa Rican Prehistory, edited by E. Skirboll and W. Creamer, pp.
187-202. BAR International Series, 226. BAR, Oxford, England.
New Approaches in Stylistic Analysis: The Late Polychrome Ceramics at Hacienda
1984b
Tempisque. In Recent Developments in Isthmian Archaeology, edited by F. W.
Lange, pp. 215-225. BAR International Series, 212. BAR, Oxford, England.
1984c
New Approaches in Stylistic Analysis: The Late Poly~hrome Period Ceramics
Correal Urrego, G.
1983
1988
1991
ing, Boulder.
Remnants of the Shaman. In To Change Place: Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes,
A. L. Bryan, pp. 115-132. Center for the Study of EarlyMan, UniverSity of Maine,
1993
The Media of RituaL In Precolumbian Jade, New Geological and Cultural Interpre-
Orono.
Crane, R.
1968-75 Informe Preliminar de las Excavacio:f1es Arqueologicas de Rescate Efectuadas en
1974 en la H.acienda "Colima," Departamento de Cuscath'in (Proyecto no. 2 "Cerron Grande"). Anales del Museo Nacional "David 1. Guzman" 42-48:13-28.
Creamer, W.
1983
Production and Exchange on Two Islands in the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica,
1987a
1987b
1992
A.D.
tations, edited by E W. Lange, pp. 289-306. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
de la Cruz, E. L
1986
Use of Space and Patterns of Refuse Disposal at the Village Site of Murcielago,
Costa Rica. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Demarest, A.
1989
The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica. In Regional Per~
spectives on the Olmec, edited by R. 1. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 303-344. Cam-
(58):77-82.
1986
(editor). Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. Cambridge UniverSity Press, Cambridge.
DeNiro, M. 1.
1985
1978
1981
338 References
References 339
Emmerich, A.
Dillehay, T.
1989
1965
Washington, D.C.
Drennan, R. D.. and C. A. Uribe
1987
(editors). Chiefdoms in the Americas. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Drolet, R. P.
1980
Cultural Settlement Along the Moist Caribbean Slopes of Eastern Panama. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
1983a
Al Otro Lado de Chiriqui, el DiquIs: Nuevos Datos Para la Integraci6n Cultural de
la Regi6n Gran Chiriqui. Vinculos 9(1-2):25-76.
1983b Review of Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama, by O. F. Linares and A. 1.
1984
1988
1992
Press, Albuquerque.
The Emergence and Intensification of Complex Societies in Pacific Southern Costa
Rica. In Costa Rican Art and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Frederick R. Mayer,
edited by F. W Lange, pp. 163-188. Johnson Publishing, Boulder.
The House and the Territory: The Organizational Structure for Chiefdom Art in the
Diqufs Subregion of Greater Chiriquf. In Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate
Area, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 207-241. Dumbarton Oaks, Research Library and
Collection, Washington, D.C.
Nacio~
Duque Gomez, L.
n.d.
San Agustin: Resefia Arqueol6gica. 4th ed. Industria Continental Gnifica, Bogota.
Earnest, H. H., Jr.
1976
Investigaciones Efectuadas por el Proyecto no. 1. Programa de Rescate Arqueologico Cerron Grande, en la Hacienda Santa Barbara, Departamento de Chalatenango. Anales del Museo Nacional "David 1. Guzman" 49:57-74.
Easby, E. K., and 1. F. Scott
1970
York.
Einhaus, C. S.
1980
Stone Tools From La Pitahaya (IS-3). In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 429-466. Peabody Museum
Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1984
Inter-Regional Ties Between Panama and Costa Rica: A Closer Look at Formative
Ceramics From Western Chiriquf, Panama. In Inter-Regional Ties in Costa Rican
Prehistory, edited by E. Skirboll and W. Creamer, pp. 221-259. BAR International
Series, 226. BAR, Oxford, England.
Ekholm, G.
1942
Sweat of the Sun and Tears of the Moon: Gold and Silver in Pre~CoLumbian America. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
1992
Ford,1.
1969
References 341
340 References
Fowler, W. R., Jr.
1976
1989
1977
Furst, P.
1966
1968
Goodstein, 1. M.
1989
"A Definition and Interpretation of the El Cauce Ceramic Assemblage: An Examination of the Data Collected by Karl Ruppert in Nicaragua." B.A thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
Gordon, G. B.
1898
Researches in the Vitia Valley, -Honduras. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology, vol. I, no. 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Gorin, F.
Archeologie de Chontales, Nicaragua. These de Nouveau Doctorat, Sorbonne,
1990
Paris. 2 vols,
Graham, 1. A., T. Hester, and R. Jack
Sources for the Obsidian at the Ruins of Seibal. Peten, Guatemala. University of
1972
California, Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution 16:111-116. Berkeley.
A. J. Ranere, pp. 175-180. Peabody Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Graham, M. M.
1985
The Stone Sculpture of Costa Rica: The Production of Ideologies of Dominance in
Prehistoric Rank Societies. Ph.D. dissertation, UniverSity of California, Los Ange~
les.
1993
(editor). Reinterpreting Prehistory oj Central America. UniverSity Press of Colo~
rado, Niwot.
Gamio,M.
1913
Arqueologfa de Atzcapotzalco, D.P., Mexico. In international Congress of Ameri~
canists, Proceedings of the XVIII Session (London 1912), pp. 180-187. Harrison
Galinat, W. C.
1980
1982
1.
EI Preceramico de Aguacatenango, Chiapas, Mexico. Colecci6n Cientffica, 110.
INAH, Mexico.
Test Excavations at Two Sites in the San Dimas Colony. In An Archaeological Survey of the Rio Sapoa Valley, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 104-218. Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Chicago.
Greenberg, J. H.
1987
Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press. Stanford.
Greenberg, J. H., C. G. 'furner II, and S. L. Zegura
1986
The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of Linguistic, Dental and Genetic
Evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-497.
Grieder, T.
1975
The Interpretation of Ancient Symbols. American Anthropologist 77:849-855.
Grim, J.
The Shaman: Patterns of Siberian and Ojibway Healing, University of Oklahoma
1983
Press, Nonnan.
Gruhn, R., A. L. Bryan, and J. D. Nance
1977
Los Tapiales: A Paleo~Indian Campsite in the Guatemalan Highlands. Proceedings
of the American Philosophical Society 121 (3):235-273.
Guerrero M., 1. V.
1986a
El Contexto del Jade en Costa Rica. Vinculos 12(1-2):69-81.
1986b
Recientes Investigaciones en el Valle de Nosara. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns
in Costa Rica, edited by F. W. Lange and L. Norr, pp. 171-188. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 14 (1982-1983). Steward Anthropological Society,
Urbana,IL.
References 343
342 References
1964
1966
1968a
1968b
1969
Vinculos 14(1988):67-76.
1970
1973
1976a
1976b
1976c
1977a
1977b
1978
1984a
1984b
1984c
1986
1991a
1991b
344 References
1992
The Culture History of Ometepe Island: Preliminary Sketch (Survey and Excava~
tions, 1962-1963). In The Archaeology a/Pacific Nicaragua, edited byE W. Lange,
P. D. Sheets, A. Martinez, and S. Abel-Vidor, pp. 63-117. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Habicht~Mauche,
n.d.
Hall,E. T
1968
Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9:83-108.
Hammond,N.
1972
Obsidian Trade Routes in the Mayan Area. Science 178:1092-1093.
Hannus, A.
1990
Mammoth Hunting in the New World. In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by L. B.
Davis and B.O.K Reeves, pp. 47-67. Unwin Hyman, Winchester, MA.
Hansell, P.
1987
The Formative in Central Pacific Panama: La Mula-Sarigua. In Chiefdoms ofAmer~
ica, edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 119-139. University Press of
America, Lanham, MD.
1988
The Rise and Fall of an Early Formative Community: La Mula-Sarigua, Central
Pacific Panama. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hardin. M. A.
1983
The Structure of Tarascan Pottery Painting. In Structure and Cognition in Art,
edited by D. K. Washburn, pp. 8-24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hardy, E. T.
1992
The Mortuary Behavior of GuanacastelNicoya: An Analysis of Precolumbian
Social Structure, Ph,D dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,
Harte. N. A.
1966
EI Sitio Guacamayo. Boletin del Museo Chiricano 3:3-7.
Hartman. C. V.
190 I
Archaeological Researches in Costa Rica. The Royal Ethnographical Museum in
Stockholm. Ivar Haeggstroms Boktryckeri A.B., Stockholm.
1907
Archaeological Researches on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica. Memoirs of the CarM
negie Museum of Natural History 3(1):1-188, Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh.
Haury. E. w., E. B. Sayles, and W. W. Wasley
1959
The Lehner Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona, American Antiquity 19: 1-14,
Hayden, B., and R. Gargett
1990
Big Man, Big Heart? A Mesoamerican View of the Emergence of Complex Society,
Ancient Mesoamerican 1:3-20.
Haynes, C. v., Jr.
1991
Geoarchaeological and Paleohydrological Evidence for a ClovisMAge Drought in
North America and Its Bearing on Extinction. Quaternary Research 35:438-450.
References 345
346 References
1
I
Helms, M.
1979
Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Henderson,1. S.
1976
Precolumbian Trade Networks in Northwestern Honduras. Journal of Field Archae~
1977
ology 3:342-346.
The Valley de Naco: Ethnohistory and Archaeology in Northwestern Honduras.
Ethnohistory 24:363-376.
References 347
1984
1985
1987
1988
1992
Hulse, F. S.
1945
Appendix III: Skeletal Material. In Excavations at Culiacan, Sinaloa, edited by I.
Kelly, pp. 187-198. Ibero-Americana, no. 25. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hester, T. R.
1978
Socorro.
Hill, J. E., and J. D. Smith
1986
Bats, A Natural History. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hirth, K. G., and S. G. Hirth
1993
Ancient Currency: The Style and Use of Jade and Marble Carvings in Central Honduras. In Precolumbian Jade, edited by F. W. Lange, 173-190. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Ibarra R., E.
1988
EI Intercambio y la Navegaci6n en el Golfo de Huetares (0 de Nicoya) Durante el
Siglo XVI. Revista de Histaria 17:35-68.
1990
Las Sociedades Cacicales de Costa Rica, Siglo XlV. Editorial Universidad de Costa
Rica, San Jose.
Ichon, A.
1980
Archeologie de Sud de fa Peninsule d'Azuero, Panama. Etudes Mesoamericaines,
Serie II, no. 3. Mission Archeologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique,
Mexico City.
Holliday, V. T.
1985
Archaeological Geology of the Lubbock Lake Site, Southern High Plains of Texas.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 96: 1483-1492.
Holmes, W. H.
1888
Ancient Art of the Province of Chiriqui. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithso
nian Institution, 6th Annual Report, pp. 1-187. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Hoopes, J. W.
1979
Recent Archaeological Investigations at the Site of La Guinea, Tempisque River
Valley, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. B.A. thesis, Yale University.
Jones, 1.
1985
(editor). Art of Precolumbian Gold: The Jan Mitchell Collection. Weidenfield and
Nicholson, London.
Joralemon, P. D.
1988
The Olmec. In The Face of Ancient America, edited by L. A. Parsons, J. B. Carlson,
and P. D. Joralernon, pp. 9-50. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.
Joyce, R.
1986
Tenninal Classic Interaction on the Southeastern Maya Periphery. American Antiq
uity 51:313-329.
348 References
1987
1988
1991
1993
References 349
Labbe, A. J.
1986
Lange, F. W.
1969
(editor). An Archaeological Survey of the Rio Sapod Valley: Report on a Prelimi-
1970
1971a
1975
Kennedy, B. V. E.
1988
Variation in d13C Values of Post-Medieval Europeans. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-.
sity of Calgary, Alberta.
Kennedy, N. C.
1986
The Periphery Problem and Playa de los Muertos: A Test Case. In The Southeast
Maya Periphery, edited by P. A. Urban and E. M. Schortman, pp. 179-193. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Kennedy, W. J.
1998
Archaeological Investigations in the Reventazon River Drainage Area, Costa Rica.
Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University.
1978
A Middle Period Tool Assemblage Prom the Atlantic Watershed Region, Costa
Rica. Vinculos 4:43-56.
Kerbis,1.
1980
The Analysis of Faunal Remains From the Vidor Site. Vinculos 6(1-2):125-140.
Kirchhoff, P.
1943
Mesoamerica, Sus Lfmites Geograficos, Composici6n Etnica y Caracteres Culturales. Acta Americana 1:92-107.
K1epinger, L. L., and R. W. Mintel
1986
Metabolic Considerations in Reconstructing Past Diet From Stable Carbon Isotope
Ratios of Bone Collagen. In Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry
Symposium, edited by J. S. Olin and M. J. Blackman, pp. 43-48. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Knowlton, N. E.
1992
Ancient Mortuary Ceramics From Nicaragua: A Study of Luna Polychrome. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.
Columbia Before Columbus: The People, Culture, and Ceramic Art of Prehispanic
Colombia. Rizzoli, New York.
1971b
1976
1977a
1977b
1978
1979
1980a
1980b
1983
1984a
1984b
1986a
1986b
1988
350 References
1989
Paper presented at the fifty-fourth annual meeting of the Society for Ameri9an
Archaeology, Atlanta.
1992
1992
1993
n,d.
The Search for Elite Personages and Site Hierarchies in Greater Nicoya. In Wealth
and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 109-139.
n,d.
References 351
1986
Lange, F.
1992
Lange, F.
1984
w., S. Abel-Vidor, C. F. Baudez, R. L. Bishop, W. Creamer, 1. S. Day, 1. V. Guerrero, P. F. Healy, S. Salgado, R. Stroessner, and A. Tillett
New Approaches to Greater Nicoya Ceramics. In Recent Developments in Isthmian
Archaeology, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 199-214. BAR International Series, 212.
BAR, Oxford, England.
Larcte y Larin, 1.
1951
La Estela de Tazumal. Anales del Museo National "David J. Guzman," pp. 31-45,
Lathrap, D. W.
1975
1977
37:240-245.
Our Father the Cayman, Our Mother the Gourd. Spinden Revisited, or a Unitary
Model for the Emergence of Agriculture in the New World. In Origins of Agriculture, edited by C. Reed, pp. 713-751. The Hague, Mouton.
Legast, A.
1987
El Animal en el Mundo Mitko Tairona. Fundaci6n de Investigaciones Arqueo16gicas Nacionales. Banco de la Republica, Bogota.
Lehmann, W.
1920
Leibsohn, D.
1988
The Costa Rican Effigy Head Tradition. In Costa Rican Art and Archaeology:
Essays in Honor of Frederick R. Mayer, edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 133-160.
Johnson Publishing, Boulder.
352 References
References 353
Le6n Coto, M.
1986
Ani.Hisis Funcional de Sitios Arqueol6gicos en la Zona Protectora Las Tablas,
Sur-Este de Costa Rica. Vinculos 12(1-2):83-120.
Leonhardy, E C.
1966
(editor). Domebo: A Paleolndian Mammoth Kill in the PrairiePlains. Contributions of the Museum of the Great Plains, no. 1. Great Plains Historical Association,
Lawton, OK.
Levi-Strauss, C.
1969
Linares, O. F.
1977a
Adaptive Strategies in Western Panama. World Archaeology 8:304-319.
1977b Ecology and the Arts in Ancient Panama: On the Development of Social Rankand
Symbolism in the Central Provinces. Dumbarton Oaks Studies in Pre-Columbian
Art and Archaeology, no. 17. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1980a
Ceramic Classes From La Pitahaya (IS-3). In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric
Panama, edited by O. E Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 371-376. Peabody Museum
Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1980b The Ceramic Record: Time and Place. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric PanM
ama, edited by O. E Linares and A. J. Ranere, pp. 81-117. Peabody Museum
Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1980c
Conclusions. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama, edited by O. F. Linares
and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 233-247. Peabody Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1980d Ecology and Prehistory of the Chiriqui Gulf Sites. In Adaptive Radiations in PreM
historic Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 67-77. Peabody
Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Linne, S.
1929
Darien in the Past. Gotesborgs Kung!. Vetenskaps-Och, Vitterhets:Samhalles Han
dlingar, Femte Foljden, ser. A, band 1, no. 3. E1anders BoktrYckeri Aktiebolag,
Goteberg, Sweden.
M
Little, N.
1969
A Survey of the Bay of Salinas Region. In An Archaeological Survey of the Rio
Sapoa Valley, edited by E W. Lange, pp. 291-396. Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Chicago.
Loewen, J. A.
1963
Choco 1: Introduction and Bibliography. International Journal of American LinM
guistics 29:239-262.
Longyear, J. M., II1
.
1944
Archaeological Investigations in El Salvador. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum,
voL 9, no. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lothrop, S. K.
1926
Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Contribution no. 8. Heye Foundation, .-1.
Museum of the American Indian, New York, 2 vols.
1936
Zacualpa: A Study of Ancient Quiche Artifacts. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 472.
1937
Coc/e: An Archaeological Study of Central Panama, Part I, in collaboration with
H. B. Roberts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
voL 7. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1942a
Coc/e: An Archaeological Study 'of Central Panama, Part I!. Memoirs of the Pea- +_
body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1942b The Sigua: Southernmost Aztec O~post. In Proceedings of the Eighth American
Scientific Congress, vol. 2, pp. 109-116. Washington, D.C.
1950
Archaeology of Southern Veraguas, Panama. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 9, no. 3. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1952
Metals From the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Pea~
body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 10, no. 2. Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA.
.
1954
Suicide, Sacrifice and Mutilations in Burials at Venado Beach, Panama. Amencan --~
Antiquity 19:226-234.
1963
Archaeology of the Diquis Delta, Costa Rica. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, no. 51. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
MacCurdy, O. O.
1911
A Study of Chiriquian Antiquities. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts
and Sciences 3:27-167. Yale University, New Haven.
MacNeish, R. S., and A. Nelken-Terner
1983
Final Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Center
for Archaeological Studies, Boston University, Boston.
354 References
Ceramics: The Prehistory o/the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 3, University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Magnus, R. W.
1974
The Prehistory of the Mascot Coast of Nicaragua: A Study in Cultural Relation1975
1976
1978
The Prehistoric and Modern Subsistence Patterns of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua: A Comparison. In Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America, edited by B. L. Stark and B. Voorhies, pp. 61-80.
References 355
Montessus de Ballore, F. de
1892
Etudes Archeologiques sur Ie Salvador Precolombien. Acta, Eighth International
Congress of Americanists, pp. 525-532, Paris.
Moreau, J-F.
1983
L'Adaptation Maritime Prehistorique au Site Vidor, Costa Rica. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Montreal, Quebec.
Morley, S. G.
1983
The Ancient Maya, edite9- by R. 1. Sharer. 4th rev. ed. Stanford University Press,
Stanford.
Murray, T. A.
1969
Report on the Rio Antiguo Lecality of the Rio Sapoa Valley. In Rio Sapoa Valley
Field Report, edited by F. W. Lange. Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Chicago.
Navarrete, C.
1969
La Ceramica "Anaranjada De1gada" en El Salvador: Cuatro Informes. Antropologia .
e Historia de Guatemala 21 (1-2):39-44.
Nelson, F. W.
1985
Summary of the Results of Obsidian Artifacts From the Maya Lowlands. Scanning
Electron Microscopy 2:631-649.
Nietschmann, B.
1973
Between Land and Water: The Subsistence Ecology of the Miskito Indians, Eastern
Nicaragua. Seminar Press, New York.
McClesky, K.
1976
Las Figurillas de Ia Hacienda Los Flores. Anales de Museo Nacional "David 1.
Guzman" 49:51-56.
Norr, L.
McKenzie, L.
Norweb, A.
1959
Fieldnotes. Manuscript on file. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
1961
The Archaeology of the Greater Nicoya Subarea. Seminar paper, Anthropology
206, Fan 1961. Manuscript on file. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Ceramic Stratigraphy in Southwestern Nicaragua. In Aetas y Memorias del XXXV
1964
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Mexico, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 551-561.
1969
McKillop, H.
1989
Development of Coastal Maya Trade: Data, Models and Issues. In Coastal Maya
Trade, edited by H. McKillop and P. F. Healy, pp. 1-18. Occasional Papers in
Miller, A. G.
1975
The Codex Nuttall: A Picture Manuscript From Ancient Mexico. Dover Publica-
1991
Mexico.
Nutting, C. C.
1885
Antiquities From Nicaragua. In Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian
Institution/or the Year IS83, pp. 908-918. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Odio,E.
La Pochota: Un Sitio Temprano en el Valle de Tempisque. Primer Encuentro Nacio1989
nal de Arqueologos (San Jose, 1989). Manuscript.
O'Grady, R. T., I. Goddard, R. M. Bateman, W. A. DiMichele, V. A. Funk, W. J. Kress, R.
Mooi, and P. F. Cannell
1989
Genes and Tongues. New Scientist (31 March 1989): 1651.
Osgood, C.
1935
The Archaeological Problem in Chiriqui. American Anthropologist 37:234-243.
356 References
Oviedo y Valdes, G. F. de
1976
References 357
Plazas, C, and A. M. Falchetti
1985
Pearsall, D.
1988
1980
Pickers gill, B.
Politis, O.
n.d,
Fishtail Projectile Points in the Southern Cone of South America: An Overview. In
Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire. Peopling of the Americas Publications. Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
1989
Ponce, A.
1969
1971
Pinart, A. L.
1900
Notes sur les Tribes Indiennes de Famille Guarano-Guyamies de l'Isthme de Panama et du Centre-Amerique. Imprimerie Durand, Chartres.
Piperno, D. R
1985
Phytolithic Analysis of Geological Sediments From Panama. Antiquity 59: 13-19.
1988
Phytolithic Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. AcademiC
1989
1991b
Popenoe, D.
1934
Some Excavations at Playa de los Muertos. Maya Research 1:61-81.
Proskouriakoff, T.
1974
Jades From the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Ilza, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 10, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Quintanilla, L
1988a
1988b
Informe del Analisis de los Materiales de la Segunda Etapa de Excavacion del Sitio
1990
1991a
Ranere, A. J.
1968
Analysis of Pottery Surface Collections From the Pacific Districts of Punta Burica,
San Felix and Remedios in ChiriqUI, Panama, Appendix 2. In CulLUral Chronology
of the Gu/fofChiriqui, Panama, edited by O. Linares de Sapir, pp. I07-119. Smithsonian Contribution to Anthropology, no. 8. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1975
1985
Preceramic Maize in Central Panama: Evidence From Phytoliths and Pollen. AmericanAnthropologist 87:871-878.
PiUier, H.
1938
1990
1872
Apuntaciones Etnol6gicas Sobre los Indios Bribri. Serie Etnologica, voL 1, no. 1.
1980a
Toolmaking and Tool Use Among Preceramic Peoples of Panama. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 173-210. World
Anthropology. Mouton, The Hague.
Preceramic Shelters in the Talamancan Range. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehis~
toric Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 16-43. Peabody
Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
References 359
358 References
1980b
1980c
1988
Robinson, E.
1987
Sula Valley Diachronic Regional and Interregional Interaction: A View From the
East Side Alluvial Fans. In Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier:
Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador, edited by E. 1. Robinson, pp.
154-195. BAR International Series, 327(ii). BAR, Oxford, England.
n.d.
Roe, P. G.
1982
Romoli, K.
1987
Los de La Lengua Cueva: Los Grupos lndigenas del lstmo Oriental en la Epoca
de la Conquista Espanola. Instituto Colombiano de Antropologfa, Instituto Col ombiano de Cultura, Bogota.
Roosevelt, A. C.
1991
Ross, C. A.
1989
(editor). Crocodiles and Alligators. Facts on File, New York.
Rowe, 1. H.
1959
Carl Hartman and His Place in the History of Archaeology. In Actas del XXXllI
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (San Jose 1958), voL 2, pp. 268-279.
Lehmann, San Jose.
Ryder, P.
Hacienda Mojica. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Costa Rica, edited by F. W.
1986
Lange and L. Norr, pp. 105-120. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 14
(1982-1983). Steward Anthropological Society, Urbana, IL.
SablotI, 1., and R. E. Smith
1970
Ceramic Wares in the Maya Area: A Clarification of an Aspect of the Type-Variety
System and Presentation of a Formal Model for Comparative Use. Estudios de Cultura Maya 8:97-115.
Salgado, S.
1992
Ceramic Sequence of the Ayala Site, Granada, Pacific Nicaragua. Manuscript on
file, Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
References 361
360 References
n.d.
1992a
1992b
The Ceren Site: A Prehistoric Village Buried by Volcanic Ash in Central America.
bra.
Sauer, C. O.
1952
1984
Nitrogen and Carbon Isotopic Composition of Bone Collagen From Marine and
Terrestrial Animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica 48:625-639.
1983
Stable Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Bone Collagen Reflect Marine and Terrestrial
Components of Prehistoric Human Diet. Science 220:1381-1383.
Sharer, R.
1978
(general editor). The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, EI Salvador. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 3 vols.
1989
The Olmec and the Southeast Periphery of Mesoamerica. In Regional Perspectives
on the Olmec, edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 247-275. Cambridge Uni-
1982
1984
1984
South~
Smith, B. N.
1972
Natural Abundance of the Stable Isotopes of Carbon in Biological Systems. BioScience 22:226-231.
Smith, B. N., and S. Epstein
1971
Two Categories of 13CIl2C Ratios for Higher Plants. Plant Physiology 47:380384.
Smith, C. E.
1980
Plant Remains From the Chiriqui Sites and Ancient Vegetational Patterns. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp,
151-174. Peabody Museum Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
)1
362 References
Snarskis, M. 1.
1975
1976
1978
1979
1981 a
References 363
1991
1980
York.
1981 b
1983
1984a
1984b
1987
1992
The Archaeological Evidence for Chiefdoms in Eastern and Central Costa Rica. In
Chiefdoms in the Americas, edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 105-117.
University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Wealth and Hierarchy in the Archaeology of Eastern and Central Costa Rica. In
Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, edited by E W. Lange, pp. 141164. Dumbarton Oaks, Library and Research Collection, Washington, D,C.
1989
Solis Alpizar, O.
1988a
Excavaci6n de los Basamentos 5 y 6 del Sitio Jesus Maria (A-321-JM). Informe de
Trabajo de Campo (Enero-Febrero 1988). Proyecto Arqueol6gico Pacifico Central,
1988b
Proyecto Arqueol6gico Pacffico Central. Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, San Jose,
Analisis de Areas de Actividad y su Distribuci6n Dentro de Dos Unidades Domesticas del Sitio Jesus Marfa (A-321-JM). Tesis de Licenciatura, Universidad de Costa
Rica.
Ceramic Classes From the Volca.ll Barti Sites. In Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric
Panama, edited by O. F. Linares and A. 1. Ranere, pp. 353-371. Peabody Museum
Monographs no. 5. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1992
Steward, J. H.
Stone, D.
1943
1962
A Preliminary Investigation of the Flood Plain of the Rfo Grande de Terraba, Costa
Rica. American Antiquity 9:74-88.
The Talamancan Tribes of Costa Rica. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeol
M
1966b
ogy and Ethnology, vol. 43, no. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Introduction a la Arqueologfa de Costa Rica. Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, San
Jose.
Introduction to the Archaeology of Costa Rica (revised edition). Museo Nacional de
1972
1966a
MA.
1977
1982
1984
Pre~Columbian
364 References
References 365
Stothert, K. E.
1985
~~;. Preceramic Las Vegas Culture of Coastal Ecuador. American Antiquity 50:613-
1992
~recise Ch,aracterization of Guatemalan Obsidian Sources, and Source DeterminatIon of Artifacts From QUirigua. American Antiquity 48:323-346.
Sullivan, L.
1988
Ic~nchu's Drum: An Orientation to Meaning in South American Religions. Mac1983
Sweeney, 1. W.
1975
Guanacaste, Costa Rica: An Analysis of Pre-Columbian Ceramics From the Northwes,t Coa~t. Ph:D. d~ssertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvanta. University MIcrofilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
;:.ramic Analysis From 3 Sites in Northwest Coastal Guanacaste. Vinculos 2:37-
1976
Taylor, R. E.
1977
(editor) . .Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical
Perspectzves. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, NJ.
Ted10ck, D.
1985
Popol Yuh. Simon and Schuster, New York.
1910
Uber die Fruhkulturen in der Umgebung von Lima. In Verhandlungen des XVI
Internationalen Amerikanistenkongresses (Wien 1908), pp. 347-370. A. Hartle~
ben's Verlag, Wien.
Termer, F.
1948
Verswijver, G.
1986
Analyse Comparative des Parures Nahua: Similitudes et Differences. Bulletin
Annue129. Musee d'Ethnographie de la Ville de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland.
Thompson, J.E.s.
Viv6 Escoto, J. A.
1972
El Poblamiento Nahuat en El Salvador y Otros Palses de Centroam/rica. Colecci6n
Quauhtemallan und Cuzcattan. HambUrger Romanistische Studien B. IberoAmerikanische Reihe, band 18. Hansischer Gildenverlag, Hamburg.
'
1970
1986
Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Torres de Arauz, R.
1972
Uhle,M.
1903
Pachacamac. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiJadelphia.
366 References
Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Santa Marfa Drainage of Central Pacific Pana~a: A Preliminary Analysis. In Recent Developments in Isthmian Archaeology,
edIted by F. W. Lange, pp. 31-53. BAR International Series, 212. BAR, Oxford,
England.
1966
1969
1971
1980
1982
1984
1985
1988
i
i
References 367
Chi~
Contributors
369