ceramic analysis and culture history 10 · ceramic analysis and culture history 159 assemblages...

10JOHN W. HOOPES

Ceramic Analysis andCulture History inthe Arenal Region

INTRODUCTION

The first attempt to formulate an archaeologicalchronology based on ceramics for the Greater Ni-coya subarea was made by Coe and Baudez (1961,Baudez and Coe 1962). They suggested a succes-sion of four major periods: the Zoned Bichrome,the Early Polychrome, the Middle polychrome,and the Late Polychrome. Baudez (1967) presentedthe first detailed description of Greater Nicoyaceramic types. Lange l1971) made use of Baudezand Coe's periodization and Baudez' type descrip-tions in his research in the Sapos River Valley.These also formed the basis for Healy's (1974,1980) analysis of material from the Rivas regionof Nicaragua, and Sweeney's (1975) analysis of ce-ramics from the Santa Elena Peninsula. It shouldbe noted that, of these researchers, Healy madethe greatest attempt to adhere to a well-definedtype: variety methodology. He made explicit useof a classification that included taxonomic di-visions by ware, group, and variety (as opposedto Baudez, whose categories often crosscut thesedivisions].

Parallels in cultural sequences and recognizablecontinuities in ceramic horizons from Rivas tothe Gulf of Nicoya (Creamer 1983) have been im-portant characteristics of the Greater Nicoya sub-area (Lange 1984b). Ceramic sequences have playeda key role in the interpretation of the region's pre-history, and their revision and fine-tuning have re-ceived a great deal of attention in recent years(Lange et al. 1984; Abel-Vidor et a1. 1987). Princi-pal concerns have been (1J "streamlining" lists ofceramic types and type descriptions in order to

; i

eliminate redundant categories (Abel-Vidor et a1.1987); (2) documenting regional variation and uti-lizing ethnohistoric documents [Abel-Vidor 1980,1981, 1988) to define cultural and geographicalsubdivisions [e.g., northern and southern sectors)of Greater Nicoya; 13)using compositional analy-sis to investigate processes of pottery manufac-tureand distribution (Day 1984; Bishop et a1.1988;Healy 1988); and (4) strengthening chronologicalcorrelations (Abel-Vidor et a1. 1987).

Although the basic outline of the Greater Ni-coya sequence was available in the early 1960s,and an initial ceramic typology for the AtlanticWatershed was suggested in the latter part of thatdecade (Kennedy 1968), the working ceramic se-quence for the Atlantic Watershed of Costa Ricadid not appear in its current form until the late1970s {Snarskis 1976, 1978). A great deal of re-search has focused on the Central Highlands andAtlantic Watershed regions of Costa Rica [see sum-maries by Snarskis 1981a, 1984a; Fonseca 1981),and many of the data are relevant to the Arenalarea. Unfortunately, much less on ceramic classi-fication has been published for this region than isavailable for Greater Nicoya.

The archaeology of the volcanic highlands andthe Guatuso and San Carlos plains in the north-central portion of Costa Rica is less well known.Research conducted by Snarskis in central SanCarlos (1978), by Aguilar in the Arenal area (1984),and by Norr in the Naranjo River Valley (1982-1983) suggests that these zones were occupiedfrom as early as the Middle Formative Period upto the time of European contact. Evidence fromthe latter part of the sequence indicates that therewere important contacts between these north-central regions of Costa Rica and both Greater Ni-coya and the Atlantic Watershed; however, thenature of these contacts remains poorly defined.

Material collected during reconnaissance andexcavation of sites in the Arenal region demon-strates that the Cordillera region was occupiedas early as Paleo-Indian times (Chaps. 1 and 11).Lithics and ceramics suggest a continuous oc-cupation of the region from the Archaic Periodthrough the fifteenth century cal AD. I Ceramicanalysis and stratigraphic excavations have re-vealed the existence of an Early Formative (ca.2000 cal Be), pre-Zoned Bichrome complex asso-ciated with the remains of a small village-theearliest known settlement in Costa Rica to date.Pottery from all subsequent periods was recov-ered in both surface-collected and excavated lotsfrom a variety of sites. The association of ceramic

Ceramic Analysis and Culture History 159

assemblages with dated volcanic stratigraphy hasallowed the construction of a ceramic chronologyfor the Northwestern Cordillera [Hoopes 1984a),a culture area that includes the Arenal basinthe Cordillera de Tilaran, and the Cordillera deGuanacaste.

The Northwestern Cordillera ceramic sequencehas important affinities with both the Greater Ni-coya and the Atlantic Watershed sequences. It isalso distinct in many ways. Its principal char-acteristics are (1) an Early to Middle FormativePhase whose ceramics bear strong similarities toSnarskis' (1978, 1984a) Chaparron and La Mon-tana complexes as well as to other early Cen-tral American complexes; 12)an extensive ZonedBichrome occupation sharing pottery types anda number of stylistic parallels with Greater Ni-coya; 13la late Zoned Bichrome/Early Polychrometransition with ties to both Greater Nicoya andthe Atlantic Watershed regions; (4) Middle Poly-chrome assemblages dominated by local typesand decorative modes, supplemented with im-ported polychromes from Greater Nicoya; and15)a late occupation characterized by an absenceof Nicoya-style polychromes and an emphasis onapplique decoration, suggesting the existence ofstrong cultural ties with peoples to the east andsouth.

The sequence for the Northwestern Cordilleraregion will benefit from future refinement and fur-ther correlations with chronometric dates; how-ever, the data presented here should provide afoundation for future research. While the presentstudy may be interpreted as primarily cultural-historical, the construction and refinement of aworking time-space framework is fundamental tofurther understanding of Costa Rican prehistory.

CERAMIC CHRONOLOGY IN THEARENAL REGION

While a number of formal and decorative modesare specifically characteristic of pottery from theNorthwestern Cordillera, the ceramics of the Are-nal area are sufficiently similar to documentedassemblages from Greater Nicoya and the At·[antic Watershed that cross-dating with publishedsequences [e.g., Baudez 1967; Snarskis 1978;Lange et at. 1984; Abel-Vidor et al. 1987; Chap. I,Fig. 1-8) is possible. Six phases have been defined:

'Tilaran (calAD 1300-1S00)-Late PrehistoricPeriod

i

IJ

160 John W. Hoopes

Silencio (cal AD 600_1300j_Early/Middle Poly-chrome PeriodLate Arenallcal AD 0-600)-Late Zoned gtchromePeriodEarly Arenal (500 cal Be-cal AD D)-Early ZonedBichrome PeriodLate Tronadora (1000-500 cal Bel-Middle Forma-tive PeriodEarly Tronadora 12000-1000 cal Bel-Early Forma-tive Period

METHODOLOGYWe have based the ceramic sequence on the analy-sis of 12,629 sherds from 43 sites. Almost 75% ofthese come from stratigraphic excavations, withthe remainder from surface collections. We ex-amined ceramics from each of 431 excavationand survey lots individually and recorded infor-mation on sherd size, vessel part (rim, body,handle, support, etc.], ceramic type, and modesof decoration, manufacture, and vessel form. Weentered data from index cards in the field on anelectronic spreadsheet (Lotus 1-2-3) using a por-table computer. Subsequent analysis was per-formed on an IBM-compatible personal computer.The spreadsheet contains tabulations of ceramictypes, varieties, and modal combinations fromeach lot. When possible, each lot was assigned anumber corresponding to its location in the vari-ous soil and tephra units of the Silencio strati-graphic sequence (e.g., lO, 20, 30, 50; Mueller1984b; Chap. 21.

Using data base and statistical functions, wesorted and combined lots by site, operation, stra-tum, phase designation, and assemblage. Oncedata were tabulated, it was possible to manipulatelarge volumes of data quickly and easily. Thecomputer allowed for the interpretation of thou-sands of potsherds by electronic rather than physi-cal manipulation. This methodology was particu-larly useful in the field laboratory, where it waspossible to evaluate ceramic frequencies duringthe course of fieldwork.'

The classification can be understood as a"modified type: variety" system. We adopted thissyst~m in the interests of compatibility withpublished descriptions of ceramics from GreaterNicoya [Baudez 1967; Lange 1971; Sweeney 1975;Healy 1980; Lange et a1. 1984; Abel-Vidor et al.1987). The method differs from the type: varietysy~tem com~only used in Mesoamerica (Smith,Willey, a~d Gifford 1960; Sabloff and Smith 1969)because It uses an abbreviated taxonomic hierar-chy. To date, Healy (1980) has been the only re-

, ,;I, '

! \

searcher in Greater Nicoya to use "wares" and"groups" in a systematic fashion. In other refer-ences, the principal unit of classification is the"type" rather than the "group."

In lieu of detailed compositional information, Ihave been hesitant to postulate distinct "wares."The level of "group" is useful in the classificationof ceramics that have identifiable characteristicsof surface finish but do not carry sufficient in-formation to allow identification at the level of"type." In general, most ceramics are well pre-served and can be classified at the level of type. Inour assemblages, the most useful "group" desig-nation is one that would subsume Los HermanosBeige and the varieties of Mojica Impressed, all ofwhich share modes of form and surface finish. Be-cause group designations have not been formu-lated as a taxonomic level in the classification ofall of our ceramics, however, definitions at thegroup level are not included in the ceramic de-scriptions here. The most recent classification ofGreater Nicoya ceramics (Lange and Bishop n.d.]does not utilize the group category, and the meth-odology we use here is designed to be compatiblewith the available comparative data.

A taxonomic level that has proved useful isthat of "variety." Certain combinations of modesfell under existing type descriptions, but varia-tion within these types was believed to be geo-graphically or chronologically significant. In somecases, we have defined varieties to distinguish be-tween these subcategories.

THE CERAMIC SAMPLEThe principal sites excavated during the 1984 sea-son date to the Silencio and Tilaran phases. TheSilencio cemetery (G-IS0J, Las Piedras (G-152J, Ne-blina (G-ISl), Dos Armadillos (G-154J, and othersites yielded burial and domestic assemblages thathelped correlate cultural occupations with thestratigraphic sequence from Arenal Volcano. Be-cause Arenal's tephras were preserved as visiblehorizons, it was possible to use C-14 dates andstratified assemblages from individual sites to de-fine an idealized regional stratigraphic sequence(Hoopes 1984a; Chap. 2). At EI Silencio, wholevessels from burial offerings and sherds fromburial and architectural fill provided informationon Silencio Phase ceramics and interregional ex-change. At Dos Armadillos a horizontal depositoverlain by a well-preserved' tephra layer provideda sealed and dated domestic assemblage from theTilaran Phase.

The 1985 season provided the most importantinformation on the Tronadora and Arenal phases.Tronadora Vieja jG-163) and Sitio Bolivar (G-I64)each had primarily single-component surface as-semblages [Tronadora and Arenal phases, respec-tively). Excavations at the two sites were ex-tremely fruitful. Tronadora Vieja provided morethan seven hundred diagnostic sherds, over 60%of them dating to the Tronadora Phase. Sitio Bo-livar yielded an assemblage of almost six thou-sand diagnostic sherds in deposits pertaining al-most exclusively to the latter half of the ArenalPhase. Domestic and mortuary features were iden-tified at both sites, and the ceramic classes pres-ent indicated a wide variety of activities.

The ceramic assemblages represent a variety ofcultural and depositional contexts as well as timeperiods. Given the location of the study area-onand near the Continental Divide and between theCordillera de Guanacaste and the Cordillera deTilaran-c-we expected a blending of culture traits.The ability to make extensive use of crossdatingassisted our interpretations of sequences in theNorthwestern Cordillera and facilitated an in-dependent check on established sequences fromneighboring regions. Ceramic analysis also pro-vided important insights into interregional cul-tural change and interaction.

THE TRONADORA PHASE

The Early 12000-1000 cal Bel and Late 11000-500cal Bel facets of the Tronadora Phase represent theearliest dated ceramic-producing culture in CostaRica. They are characterized by the TronadoraComplex, an assemblage of compositional, for-mal, and stylistic modes (Hoopes 1985, 1987). Themost common vessel forms are massive "oila-tecomates" {tecomate-like vessels with exteriorlybolstered rims); tecomates with comma-shapedrims; flat-bottomed vessels with cylindrical and"hyperboloid" profiles; and squat, necked jars.The pottery from this phase shares importantmodes with other early complexes from CostaRica and Nicaragua as well as with those fromMesoamerica and northwestern South America. Itis also distinctive, however, indicating that strongregional traditions of ceramic production werepresent in the Intermediate Area at least as earlyas the second millennium cal Be.

The Tronadora Complex stands out as a unifiedstylistic assemblage that is readily separated fromassemblages of other phases in the Arenal region


[Hoopes 1984a, 1985). It is similar to other earlyCosta Rican ceramic complexes, particularly Cha-parron, from the north-central San Carlos plains,and La Montana, from near Tumalba (Fig. 10-1)[Snarskis 1978, 1984a). Norr's (1982~1983l Na-ranjo Phase ceramics from the Naranjo River andpottery from the site of La Pochora near Canas[Odio 1989) are the most closely related, followedby Haberland's (1966) Dinarte ceramics from Ome-tepe Island in Nicaragua. Important affinities arealso evident between Tronadora ceramics and pot-tery from Curre (Corrales 1985, 19891, in the Te-rraba-Coto Brus region. There are important sim-ilarities between Tronadora ceramics and those ofGreater Nicoya, especially types Schettel Incisedand Bocana Incised Bichrome of the Lorna B Phase(Lange 1980a); however, direct comparisons showthat Tronadora and Lorna B are not identical. Thelater dates for Lorna B assemblages and the pres-ence of Bocana Incised Bicrome in Arenal Phaseassemblages suggest that Lorna B may have devel-oped out of Tronadora Complex traditions (Hoopes1987]. In this respect, ceramics and associated C-14dates from Tronadora Vieia provide the first evi-dence of stylistic traditions predating the Zonedgichrome Period in northwestern Costa Rica. Tro-nadora ceramics also share a number of importantmodes with early ceramics from Guatemala, Ni-caragua, Panama, and Colombia.

The type site of the Tronadora Complex is Tro-nadora Vieja (G-163; Hoopes 1987:43-97; Chap.41, located during a reconnaissance of the south-ern perimeter of Lake Arenal in March 1984 (Brad-ley et al. 1984). Excavations at the site in 1985demonstrated that, although some material fromthe later Arenal and Ttlaran phases was present,the principal occupation of the site occurred dur-ing the Tronadora Phase.

TRONADORA PHASE DIAGNOSTICMODES AND TYPESCeramic types as analytical units provide a con-venient way of expressing frequently recurringsets of modes or attributes for purposes of interre-gional as well as intrasite comparisons. So far,with the exception of broad type classes such asthe Atlantic Red-Filled Black Group or the Chapa-rron Zoned Red on Brown Type [Snarskis 1978)-the latter of which might better be understood atthe group level as well-Middle Formative CostaRican ceramics have been analyzed and quanti-fied only at the level of modes. To assist withthe definition and identification of Tronadora ce-

162 John w. Hoopes

-"-

• Ton]lb.

•,'0 >.

" '~-,

01020304050)

PACifiC OCEAN

Figure 16-1.Map of Costa Ric~showing sites where Early and MiddleFormative ceramics (Tronadora Chapamm La Ma t 'B d _ ' . nana,

alva, an Curre) have been reported. Map by fohnHoopes.

,,

• c~.p.",;n

5".'0 L.<I.. mo•o Lo F'b';CO.su.i.'

• leI"'.' "alp;.

• Lo Montono

• G."V·bO

ramics, I shall first discuss ceramic modes diag-n~stic of this phase; however, there are also cer-tam sets of modes that may be labeled as specificceramic types.

Diagnostic Modes of the Tronadota PhaseM,ost modes of the Tronadora Complex'> are sharedWith those of Snarskis' (1978) Chaparron and LaMontana complexes, as already noted (Hoopes1984a). Excavations in 1985 yielded a collectionof almost four hundred Tronadora sherds and pro-vided stratigraphic data and C-14 dates to supporttheir early placement. The chief diagnostic modesof the Tronadora Complex are as follows lalpha-numeric designations refer to modes described inSnarski' [1978J1.

Form1. Large, incurving-rim neckless jars {olla-

tee I·' .amates With exteriorly thickened, maSSIverounded or angular rims (RIll.

2. Large, incurving-nm bowls or tecamates.Comma-shaped rims are thicker than vessel walls.These often have round-bottomed grooving alongthe lip and rim exterior (R6).

3. Squat, restricted-neck jars with exteriorlythickened rims. Decoration is usually found onthe exterior neck, immediately beneath the rim.

4. Tall, hyperboloid or cylindrical vessels withflat bases. In the former, the walls gradually curveinward, and the base is always the widest part ofthe vessel [Snarskis 1978: fig. 25a).

Decoration1. Round-bottomed groove incising, often used

to outline horizontal bands of red paint {OlD).2. Round or oblique punctation in zones out-

lined with groove incising (017), found beneaththe rim on exteriors of both bowls and jars.

3. Red-painted strip applique emphasized bygouge incision,_ executed on the vessel body whenthe paste was soft. Strip applique can be linear andhorizontal or can form curvilinear designs and fig-ures. Unfortunately, the latter type has been foundonly in small fragments; full-design motifs areunknown.

4. Wavy shell-edge stamping (DI8). This modehas two forms. The first is as a series of verti-cal impressions in a circumferential band aroundthe vessel exterior, outlined with groove incising.The second is as a fine [sometimes barely visible)stamping or rocker stamping on an unslipped sur-face, used to fill large zones when the paste wassoft and smooth.

5. Sharp-edged, multiple incisions, sometimesinfilled with red ocher pigment. This mode re-calls incision on Middle Formative ceramics fromMesoamerica and is closely related to Snarskis'Atlantic Red-Filled Black Group [ibid.: 76). Oneexample from Tronadora Vieja has a curvilineardesign, and the only rims known with this modeare direct and unthickened, probably from cylin-drical bowls.

6. Plastic decorations including punctate, but-tonlike applique or pastillage [Ibid.: fig. lOiil, cordmarking (ibid.: fig. 24xl, and circular reed stamp-ing [ibid. .fig. 24ddl.

PasteThere appears to be a much greater variety ofpastes in Tronadora materials than in either Cha-parron or La Montana. Snarskis describes La Mon-tana paste, the most outstanding characteristic ofwhich is the presence of gray particles, up to 1 mm


in size, identified as a possible basalt temper {ibid.:71). According to Snarskis, "virtually every MiddleFormative sherd ... whether from Turrialba theLinea Vieja, the Central Valley or San Carlos; haspossessed this grey-speckled paste" [ibid.].

This is not true for our collection. Most Tro-nadora Phase sherds are in fact "grey-speckled";however, the gray-to-white specks are a weath-ered pumice rather than a basalt. There are a num-ber of sherds in clear Tronadora style that do nothave the characteristic Chaparron and La Mon-tana paste. Variations include a fine-textured or-ange paste with few inclusions; a light brownpaste with white inclusions, which are probablyweathered plagioclase; and a fine-textured whitepaste. Tephra inclusions are ubiquitous in ceram-ics from all phases in the Cordillera de Tilaran.

Ceramic Types 0/ the Tronadora PhaseGiven the size of the assemblage from TronadoraVieia, it has been possible to define preliminarytype designations." Large portions of whole ves-sels are known only for Zetillal Shell-Stamped.

Tonjibe BeigeThis is the most common in Tronadora Phase as-semblages (Figs. 1O-2A-D, 10-3; Hoopes 1987:fig. 6.1). It is characterized by large ol1a-tecoma-res with thickly expanded rims (Rll). The lateEnrique Herra found sherds of this type at Pa-lenque Tonjibe in San Rafael de Cuatuso (Snar-skis, personal communication, 1985). It is alsoknown from Chaparron and La Montana assem-blages {Snarskis 1978). Toniibe Beige vessels wereoften massive, and their poorly fired thick rimsfrequently fracture into several small pieces. Rimsare usually painted with a hard, glossy red painton the lip. Well-preserved examples show a sur-face finish that is whitish-gray in color. Pastescontain a high proportion of gray-to-white par-ticles, possibly pumice. The unusually large size,weight, and volume of these vessels (rim diame·ters range from 30 em to 50 em) suggest that theymay have been used for brewing alcoholic bever-ages, such as chicha. Wide, thickened rims mayhave served as grips for lifting and moving theseheavy vessels.

Tronadora IncisedThis type is the second most common in Tro-nadora Phase assemblages (Figs. 1O-2E-K, 10-4;Hoopes 1987:fig. 6.2, pl. 6.1:A-G). Similar ceram-

165Ceramic Analysis and Culture HistoryJohn W. Hoopes164

oc EBA

JoC

ML NK

GE

1L-_..:5:.;C:;,:M:.-_Jp

Figure 10-3.Tcmiibe Beige rim profiles. All are from Tronadorfl vteia(G-163). Proveniences (by operation and lot): A (K4),B (I5), C (MI), D (V52j, E (H23), F (P3j, G (VB), H (H21j,I IM6/1), 11M2), K (L2), L (T4), M (M2), N (L13), 0 (WI'),P (P3), Q (R2), R (H4). Figures by fohn Hoopes.

HKJ

Figure 10-2.Tnmadcm Phase: Toniibe Beige rim sherds, A-D;i~o:adoraIncised rim sherds,E~K.sberd widths: A,F 5 ~m; B, 9.2 em; C, 5.6 em; D, 4.5 em; E. 6.6 em;K 6 em; G, 7.3 em; H, 3.9 em; I, 4 em; I, 5.5 ern;

. em. Photographs by Iohn Hoopes.

II

166 John W. Hoopes

A

Figure 10-4.Tronadora Incised sherds and profiles. All are fromTronadora vieia with the exception 0/ ,(an isolatedfind). Proveniences: A (H25), B (N4), C (H26), D (122).E (VB), F (P3), G (15), H (H9), I (V30), r (IF 3B), K (Q3),~ ((G4), M (G4), N (V5), a (H4), P (121), Q (W32), R (U),

H6). Figures by fohn HOODes.

I SCM

ics from La Montana and Chaparr6n (d. Snarskis1978: fig. 12f-i; fig. 22a-f; fig. 23w) are identifiedas La Montana Fugitive Red-on-Cream and Chaoparron Red-on-Brown. Tronadora Incised is char-acterized by tecomates and incurving-rim bowlsexpanded on the interior lip (R6), round-bottomedgrooving (especially on the vessel lip), and red-painted bands delineated with grooving (DlO).Surface finish is smooth and often white. Redpaint, while frequently eroded, is bright and pol-ished on well-preserved examples. Tronadora In-cised has analogues in Oc6s (Coe 1961) and earlyZoned Bichrome assemblages (d. Schettel In-cised; Healy 1980:fig. 103), where grooved rimswithout the addition of red-painted zones appear.

Tigra Grooved-PunctateThis type is characterized by a combination ofround or oblique punctations, delineated by hori-zontal lines of groove incision (Figs. 10-5, 10-6;Hoopes 1987:fig. 6.3, pl. 6.1:P-Z). Punctation isconfined to the vessel neck or areas immediatelybeneath the rim on vessel exteriors. Vessel rimsare painted red. Unlike the aforementioned types,Tigra Grooved-Punctate is not characterized by asingle vessel form. Punctate decoration appearson both tecomates [Snarskis 1978: fig. 23s-u) andsquat, necked jars. Sherds of this type appear inChaparr6n assemblages, but not in La Montana.General similarities in incised and punctate deco-ration suggest that Tigra Grooved-Punctate maybe an ancestor of the Catalina Phase-type HuilaZoned-Punctate (Baudez 1967), which belongs tothe Greater Nicoya ceramic sphere.

Zetillal Shell-StampedThe type vessel for Zetillal Shell-Stamped (Figs.10-7, 10-8; Hoopes 1987:fig, 6.4, pI. 6,3:K, M-SIwas found at the site of Zetillal de Ipis near SanJose [Snarskis 1978: 69-70, fig. 25a). A second ex-ample-the only other complete vessel known-was excavated from the lakeshore at TronadoraVieja. This type is characterized by the use oflight shell-edge stamping on tall, hyperboloid ves-sels with outflaring, flat bases. These two modesalmost always appear together. The distinctivestamping technique consists of a gentle markingof the soft clay surface, sometimes with a slightrocking motion. It is not found on any other ves-sel form. It is closely related to rocker stampingon Oc6s sherds from the Pacific Coast of Gua-


temala (Coe 1961). Other decorative modes in-clude horizontal and vertical groove incising. Thisusually appears around the neck and base, demar-cating longitudinal zones. Applique pellets are oc-casionally present, as are deeper shell-edge stamp-ing and punctation.

Snarskis notes, "The thick-walled basal angleand flat bottom are especially diagnostic, not ap-pearing in any other period in the [Atlantic] re-gional sequence" (ibid.:70). Snarskis believes thesevessels may have been pottery drums because oftheir elongated shape; however, their closed basesand the lack of any perforation would have in-hibited resonance, making this function unlikely.Some of our examples have blackened interiors,suggesting they were used for cooking. The dis-tinctive shape indicates a different function fromthe round bowls or tecomates in use at the sametime. These may have been drinking vessels.

Tajo Gouge-IncisedThis type (Fig. 10-9; Hoopes 1987:pl. 6.1:H-Ol isdefined by the use of red-painted strip appliquethe shape and texture of which are emphasized bya wide gouge incising, done when the paste wassoft and pliable. There are two main classes ofexecution: (1) the use of simple red-painted appli-que strips in horizontal bands; and (2) the creationof unusual curvilinear patterns using gouge inci-sion to emphasize contours and shapes. Pastes areusually a fine cream or white, sometimes with areduced core, and the use of bright red paint onthe raised applique design gives this ceramic astriking appearance.

Unfortunately, we could not identify a singlerim sherd with the distinctive decoration. Forthis reason, vessel form is largely unknown. Mostsherds indicate a globular shape, and the smooth-ness of their interior surfaces suggests bowls ratherthan closed jars. Tajo Gouge-Incised and ZetillalShell-Stamped are the only Tronadora Phase ce-ramics decorated extensively on the vessel bodyrather than simply on the neck or rim, and thereis little doubt that they both had specializedfunctions.

To date, this type is known only from theArenal area. The curvilinear decoration on TajoGouge-Incised may be distantly related to carveddesigns on Olmec ceramics such as those fromthe San Lorenzo Phase (Coe and Diehl 1980),but a clear relationship cannot be established atpresent.

168 John W. Hoopes

, !

,I

BC B co A

H

L

•p

Discussion

As noted earlier, the predominant vessel form ofthe Tronadora Complex is the bolstered-rim 0110-

tecomate. Tapering and comma-shaped rim pro-files are also present. Tecomates arc widespreadthroughout the Americas during the FormativePeriod, and the broad distribution of this formhas stimulated much research on the early diffu-sion of culture and ideas in the Americas (J. Ford1969; Myers 1978). Tecomates in the Tronador.aassemblage suggest the participation of Costa RI-can cultures in Formative patterns that appearthroughout Nuclear America between 4000 and1500 cal Be.

None of the sherds from Tronadora vteia are as"primitive" or poor in quality as either Pox (BTU.sh1965) or Purron (MacNeish et al. 1970) cerarnrcefrom Mexico, or the majority of Monagrillo ceram-ics from Panama {Willey and McGimsey 1954).


Figure 10-5.Tronadora Phase: Tigra Grooved-Punctate. A-D: rimsherds, E-P: body sherds. Sherd widths: A, 5.3 em, B, 4.3em; C, 4.2 em; D, 4.1 em; E, 4.1 em; F. 4.3 em; G, 4.7 em;H, 5.1 em; I, 3.2 em; f. 3.4 em; K. 3.5 em; L, 3.5 em; M, 3em; N. 2.8 em; 0,2.8 em; P, 2.7 em. Photographs by fohnHoopes.

E F

L

~~:.~~~;~~o

I

1L.._..:5::;C:;.:M::..-_1

Figure 10-6. d . essed iarTigra Grooved-Punctate (A-G, i-os. tee ;/mpr It(H); squat, groove-incised jar (I). All sh~ (~;)e C (';;;'8) DTronadora vieia. proveniences: A (L2), . (12) K(WI8), E (UO), F (H3). G (P3), H (W3). 1(Wl~), f s b'(123), L (W16), M (W34). N (W18), a (LI4). FJgure Yfohn Hoopes.

;;"',

170 fohn W. Hoopes

A

•C o

I

I '1

IIII III

Ii

iI

B

EF

H

K L

Figure 10-7.TronadorQ Phase: Zelma] Shell-Stamped. A-B: rimsherds; C-I: body sherds. K-L: base sherds. Sherdwidths: A, 4.6 em; B, 4.4 em; C, 3.0 em; D, 3.3 em;E, 4.2 em; F, 3.1 em; G, 3.6 em; H, 4.9 em; I, 4.5 em;J, cyli.ndrical vessel fragment; K, 4.9 em; L. 5.2 em.HeIght of J, 21.5 em. Photographs by fohn Hoopes.

•

'll'.~,;;,." j-- ';;

~~,~,~,,-.,-,,;,. '-.- ...•.., ;...,.;., :,.y.;"'; .. ,;:.-

'·,;'!;~.\;.~\·<'.';~~,;(ltft.:.'.,.,~:iti:;,.";".:::.:-', .... ':-:":":'-::':::>~

Ceramic Analysis and Culture History 17l

..,'" ,',',",.' "','".",;.,:-;:-;,1!l.

c

F G

oFigure 10-S.Atlantic Red-Filled Black {A-B, F-I}; cylindrical vesselsIe-E); shell stamping (f-M); and Zelilla] Shell-St~mpedprofiles IN-Q). All sherds are from Tronadora VIe/a.Proveniences: A (V24). B (M3), C (HlO). D (15). E (M2),F (L14). G (III). H (W7), I (VB).l (VB), K (WIB), L (W2B).M (W3). N (H5). 0 (Q3). P (120). Q (W3). Figures by lohnHoopes.

'.;"

E

L

p Q

I SCM I

172 fohn W. Hoopes

A c

•F G HE

D

,J K L

•II N oM

p

Figure 10-9.Tsonadnm Phase: Taio Gouge-Incised. A-Q: bodysherds. Sherd widths: A, 7.5 em; B, 7 em: C, 6.2 em; D,4.4 em; E, 3.8 em; P, 3.5 em; G, 3.2 em; H. 2.0 em; I, 1.8em; T, 7.0 em; K, 5.0 em; L, 5.2 em; M, 3.1 em; N, 2.1 em;0,3.2 em; P, 4.7 em; Q, 4.3 em. Photographs by JohnHoopes.

;;u.."njl,

,"IiIi

Jj

The assemblage gives the impression of a matureexecution of the potter's craft rather than a weaklydeveloped and incipient technology. Pastes arewell fired and vessel forms demonstrate a highlevel of sophistication.

Important modes that Tronadora Phase ceram-ics share with other Early and Middle Fonnativeassemblages include the use of round-bottomedgrooving, heavy punctation, shell stamping (some-times rocker stamping), and red zoning (Figs. 10-10, 10-11). In Panama, these appear on Monagrilloand Sarigua Phase ceramics [ibid.]. In Mesoamer-ica, they are diagnostic of Barra and Oc6s ceram-ics from the Pacific Coast of Guatemala and Chia-pas (Green and Lowe 1967; Lowe 1975; Coe 1961),Aialpan ceramics from the Tehuecan Valley (Mac-Neish et a1. 1970), and other Early Formative as-semblages (d. Lowe 1978). Side-by-side compari-sons of Tronadora ceramics and type collectionsof Panamanian and Guatemalan pottery indicatethat the Costa Rican sherds are far more similarto Oc6s ceramics than are any of the Panamanianexamples. While some Oc6s pottery, most no-tably the thin-walled, sharply-incurving "pump-kin" tecomates, has no parallels in the Tronadoraassemblage, others are virtually identical. Amongthese are sherds with rocker-stamped and shell-stamped decoration, punctation, and groove inci-sion, especially on vessel rims. Open bowls withbright red rims from both assemblages are closein form, color, and paste, although specular he-matite-found on the Ocos ceramics-has notbeen identified on Tronadora pottery.

The small sample and apparent mixing in rele-vant stratigraphic deposits make it difficult to saywith certainty which modes or types are charac-teristic of the Early versus the Late TronadoraPhase. At present, there is no stratigraphic evi-dence available to support the division of theTronadora Phase modes into early and later fac-ets. Their separation is based on broader compari-sons with assemblages from other parts of Nu-clear America (Hoopes 1987). Modes of form anddecoration that are shared by Tronadora, Barra,and Oc6s (as well as by early South Americancomplexes such as Tesca, Canapote, Barlovento,and MachalillaJ (Bischof 1972; Meggers et a1.1965)are characteristic of the Early Tronadora Phase(2000-1000 cal BC). Toniibe Beige, Tronadora In-cised, and Zetillal Shell-Stamped probably firstappear during this period. The Late Tronador.aPhase is characterized by modes that are transr-tional into Loma BZoned Bichrome (EarlyArenal]types. These include combinations of grooving


and bichroming similar to Bocana Incised Bi-chrome. It is likely that Tronadora modes similarto "Olmec" or other Middle Formative ceramics,such as the unusual Tajo Gouge-Incised decora-tion and sherds infilled with ocher [Snarskis' "At-lantic Red-Filled Black" category), also date to theLate Tronadora Phase (1000-500 cal BC).

The two facets also assume a continuity be-tween the Tronadora and the Arenal phases. Givena 1,500-year hiatus in the C-14 chronology, how-ever, there is a strong possibility that TronadoraVieja was not continuously occupied between theTronadora and the Arenal phases. The persistenceof round-bottomed grooving and punctation intothe Arenal Phase blurs the transition between theTronadora and the Arenal phases. Given an earlydate for Lorna B ceramics, it is possible that theArenal-type Bocana Incised Bichrome overlaps theLate Tronadora Phase. However, characteristics ofEarly Arenal ceramics that are not found in Tro-nadora include vessels with supports; a predomi-nance of vertical, rather than horizontal, grooveincision; red-painted zones and decoration thatare not sharply zoned with incision; and multiple,"combed" incisions.

DATING THE TRONADORA PHASEEight C-14 dates are available from the TronadoraVieja site, four of which pertain to the preceramicFortuna Phase, and three of which are from ce-ramic-bearing contexts. (The correct associationof the eighth date is unclear.] Two of the dates forTronadora Phase ceramics are earlier by 1,000years than any other dates for Costa Rican ceram-ice, however, they are similar to dates that havebeen obtained for comparable Early Formative ce-ramic complexes from Ecuador, Panama, Colom-bia, and Guatemala.

The earliest ceramic-producing inhabitants ofTronadora Vieja occupied the same living surfaceas preceding Archaic cultures. This was probablya thin, tropical-forest soil on top of Aguacate For-mation clays. Tronadora Phase occupation con-tinued through the initial eruptions of Arenal Vol-cano, which deposited large Quantities of tephrain the Arenal area and contributed to the forma-tion of fertile soils.

The earliest C-14 dates at Tronadora Vieja areassociated with lithic artifacts and debitage em-bedded in the top of the Aguacate Formation. Thedates range from 3609-3450 cal BC (Tx-52751 to3014-2590 cal BC ± 310 (Tx-52741and date thelatter portion of the Fortuna Phase (the Archaic,

174 fohn W. Hoopes

A

M

! 1

B c

DA

D

••~.N D

p Q

Figure 16-10.Tronadora Phase: Unnamed Shell-Stamped. A-D: rimshuds. E-Q: body sherds. Sherd widths: A, 4.6 em; B,4.5 em: C, 4.3 em; D, 2.9 em; E. 3.7 em: P, 3.8 em; G,4.6em: H, 3.6 em: I, 3.5 em; I, 2.8 em; K, 4.3 em: L, 4.2 em!M, 2.1 em; N, 2.7 em; 0, 3.0 em; P, 2.3 em; Q, 3 em.Photographs by fohn Hoopes.

175Ceramic AnalYS1S and Culture History

B

F G H

E

•

)• K L

JH

E F

c

G

Figure 16-11. NTronadora Phase: Miscellaneous sherds. A-C: red-painted tecomate rims; D-L: grooved black ceramicsWith traces of red ocher (D and E are rims of cylindricalvessels); M-P: squat, necked jar fragments with Teedimpressions. Sherd widths: A, 5.0 em; B, 9.5 em: G,3.3em; D, 4.0 ern; E, 2.5 em; P, a.Oem; G, 2.7 em; H. 3.7 em:I, a.2cm; I, 2.5 em; K, 2.0 em; L, 2.0 em; M. 5.3 cauN,9.3 em; 0, 3.2 em; P, 3.2 em. photographs by JohnHoopes.

,III 176 fohn W. Hoopes

preceramic occupation].' The two dates for thebeginning of the Tronadora Phase occupation ofthe site come from stratigraphic units immedi-ately above the Aguacate. These are 2460-1890cal BC (Tx-52771and 1970-1694 cal BC [Tx-52791·The dendro-corrected 95% confidence interval ofthe first date completely overlaps that of the sec-ond, suggesting a date for the transition betweenthe Fortuna Phase and the Tronadora Phase atabout 2000 cal Be.

As noted earlier, Tronadora pottery is closelyrelated to Snarskis' (1978, 1984a) Chaparron andLa Montana complexes. Of the two, it is mostsimilar to Chaparr6n. Unfortunately, no dates areavailable for Chaparron pottery. Snarskis (1978)did obtain a total of five dates for deposits withearly ceramics at La Montana, a site near Tu-rrialba in the Atlantic Watershed region: 2271-1430 cal Be IUCLA-2113A; 3465 BP ± 1601,800-596 cal BC (UCLA-2113D,UCLA-2113N; 2500 BP

± 60), 800 cal nc-cal AD 52 (UCLA-2113B: 2275BP ± 160), and 400-122 cal BC (UCLA-2113M:2230 BP ± 60). The last two are thought to havebeen charcoal from a later period cemetery super-imposed on the level containing La Montana rna-terial. The earliest date was initially rejected asbeing too early [ibid.: 107); however, the Trona-dora Vieia dates suggest it may not be.

At the Mendez site on the Naranjo River, north-east of the Arenal area but still in the Northwest-ern Cordillera, Norr (1982-1983) included ce-ramics similar to those from Chaparr6n in herNaranjo Phase. It is defined as temporally equiva-lent to Lange's Lorna B Phase at the Vidor site, andNorr dates it to 800-300 BC (uncorrected). Twodates are reported from Naranjo Phase deposits.The first, 2028-1645 cal BC IUCLA-2167A 3500BP ± 60), comes from sterile subsoil at the base ofa large funerary structure. The second, 410-132cal BC lUCLA-2163: 2250 BP ± 601, comes fromceramic-bearing deposits in the same feature. Theearliest date was thought to be much too early forthe ceramic occupation. The dating of the Lorna Bcontext at Vidor has also been controversial (Lange1980a:35). There, in deep levels, sherds similar tothose from Mendez and Tronadora Vieja were as-sociated with a date of 1291-830 cal BC (UCLA-2177A 2830 BP ± 801.

Inspection of a sample of Norr's ceramics re-vealed that several of the sherds from the lowestlevels at Sirio Mendez were identical to Trona-dora Complex sherds. The early date from thissite (UCLA-2167A) is very similar to dates fromTronadora Vieja. Lorna B ceramics are not identi-

I, ,! i(!

cal to Tronadora sherds, however, they do bearimportant similarities. It now seems likely thatthe early dates from Mendez and Vidor are not ab-errant and that they in fact date Early and MiddleFormative horizons.

Haberland (1978:412) has suggested a date asearly as 1200 BC (uncorrected) for Dinarte Phaseceramics from Ometepe Island, Nicaragua. Thisdate is based on comparisons with material fromthe Guatemalan coast and the assertion that thesucceeding Angeles Phase dates as early as 500 BC(uncorrected). The Dinarte ceramics are poorly il-lustrated (Haberland 1966); however, one of his ex-amples appears to be a cylindrical vessel similar toZetillal Shell-Stamped, and Haberland (personalcommunication, 1985) believes that Tronadoraand Dinarte ceramics are likely one and the same.There is a close relationship between incised andzoned-incised decoration on Angeles Phase ce-ramics, and the type Bocana Incised Bichrome-amarker for the Lorna B Phase-and Angeles maycorrespond to the Early Arenal Phase. The strati-graphic position of Angeles and Dinarte levelsalso parallels the relationships between Trona-dora and Early Arenal pottery.

The principal culture-bearing strata at Trona-dora Vieja are Units 50 and below. One-fourth, or26%, of the entire assemblage of diagnostic Trona-dora Phase ceramics, was found together with Are-nal Phase pottery in levels below Unit 50 and aboveUnit 60. Of these, two in the upper 50's strati-graphic units were Tronadora types, a result ofheavy mixing (probably due to a combination ofbioturbation and cultural disturbance); however,the greatest concentration of Tronadora Phasesherds appeared in Units 60, 61, and 64. Thesecorrespond to £1 Tajo Units 9 and 10, and are de-rived from the earliest eruptive activity of theArenal Volcano (Chap. 2). A small sample of Tro-nadora sherds was embedded in the surface ofAguacate (Unit 65), and may predate the deposi-tion of Arenal tephras. Two C-14 samples fromhearths in a well-developed soil layer on top of uTajo Unit 8 at El Tajo (which appears to corre-spond to Silencio Sequence Units 55 and 55A)yielded dates of 390-50 cal Be (SI-3459) and 86cal eo-cal AD 390 (1-10804: 1830 BP ± 80)(Aguilar 1984: 74). According to Melson (1984),the amount of time needed for the formation ofthe soil from which the date was obtained sug-gests that the deposition of the Taio Unit 8 tephraoccurred several hundred years earlier, perhaps asearly as 700 cal Be. All levels below Unit 55 atTronadora Vieja (that is, Units 60, 61, and 64)

would be older than this. At Tronadora Vieia,Units 60 and below yielded almost pure depositsof Tronadora ceramics.

The terminal date of the Tronadora Phase isbased on conservative estimates for the deposi-tion of Unit 55 and for the beginning of the EarlyArenal Phase at around 500 cal Be. Neither ofthese events is well understood or well docu-mented, and our absence of dates for the latterportion of the Tronadora Phase does not improvethe situation. The two earliest dates associatedwith Arenal Phase material are 1950 cal ne-e-calAD 660 (Tx-5280) and 830 cal Bc-cal AD 1 ITx-5271). The first has an excessive standard devia-tion. The second is associated with Late Arenalceramics and has a large standard deviation. It isclear that the Tronadoral Arenal transition meritsfurther investigation. As noted earlier, it is pos-sible that there is an overlap of the Bocana IncisedBichrome type with Late Tronadora assemblages.Early Zoned Bichrome ceramics may well haveevolved out of those of the Tronadora Phase, sug-gesting an important continuity of population inthe region.

INTRASlTE DISTRIBUTION OFTRONADORA PHASE CERAMICS

We found Tronadora Phase ceramics in the lowerlevels of all operations at Tronadora Vieia. Themost interesting association of Tronadora ceram-ics and occupational features was in Operation W,where they were associated with the floor of anearly house (Chap. 4).

In the nine excavation lots from Unit 60 andbelow in Operation W, 95% of the seventy-threediagnostic sherds recovered belong to the Trona-dora Phase. The most common type is TonjibeBeige, followed by Tigra Grooved-Punctate andTajo Gouge-Incised. Small amounts of TronadoraIncised, Zetillal Shell-Stamped, and Atlantic Red-Filled Black were also present. Mode-groups in-clude general groove incising, shell stamping, andreed stamping. Some reed-stamped jar fragmentshad a thick, black substance adhering to the ex-terior, decorated neck. Although this appeared tobe charcoal, it did not burn when held over aflame. Its nature and purpose are unknown.

The assemblage of ceramics associated withthe habitation features includes both decoratedand undecorated vessels, with Tonjibe Beige pres-ent as well as both Tajo Gouge-Incised and Ze-tillal Shell-Stamped. Although the greatest num-

Ceramic AnalYSIS and Culture History 177

ber of sherds of Tajo Gouge-Incised appeared inOperation W, both this type and Zetillal Shell-Stamped occurred in similar quantities in Opera-tions H, L and V. The proportions of other typesand modal categories do not vary significantlyover the site.

THE ARENAL PHASE

The Arenal Phase bears many similarities to theGreater Nicoya Zoned Bichrome horizon (Lange1980a); however, it also has significant local char-acteristics." Bocana Zoned Bichrome appears fre-quently in Arenal Phase surface assemblages; how-ever, Rosales Zoned-Engraved, Tola Trichrome,and other marker types of Zoned Bichrome as-semblages to the west are rare or absent.

The Arenal Phase is characterized more by theuse of linear painting and stamped decorationthan by zoned decoration. Las Palmas Red-on-Beige and Charco Black-on-Red are the two typesmost representative of the former; the differentvarieties of Mojica Impressed and the type CongoImpressed best represent the latter tradition.

The use of zoning (areas of color outlined witheither incision or painting) is uncommon in Are-nal Phase assemblages, except for Bocana IncisedBichrome. While zoned punctarion and shell-stamping are common in the Tronadora Phase,these diminish in popularity. The only type withzoned punctation to appear during the ArenalPhase is Huila Zoned Punctate (d. Baudez 1967:591. This type is not very common in TempisqueValley and Pacific Coast assemblages, and it isalso rare in the Northwestern Cordillera.

ARENAL PHASE SITES

Of forty-three sites for which ceramics were ana-lyzed during the 1984 and 1985 field seasons,twenty demonstrated a higher percentage of Are-nal Phase ceramics than of any other phase. In ad-dition to Tronadora Phase ceramics, we found astrong Arenal Phase component at Tronadora Vieia(G-163; Hoopes 1987:43-97; Chap. 4). At SitioBolivar (G-164j Hoopes 1987:98-161; Chap. 5)and Viboriana (G-175; Bradley et al. 1984:88-92)virtually all ceramics belonged to the ArenalPhase; however, the Arenal components at Trona-dora vieia, Viboriana, and La Isla lG-166; Hoopes1987:323) were earlier than components at SitioBolivar.

178 fohn W. Hoopes

Tronadora vicia (C-163)We recovered 177 Arenal Phase sherds from ex-cavations at this site, of which 120 168%) werelocated in 50's strata. Among the types repre-sented [in the order of their Importance I are LosHermanns Beige; Los Hermanos Beige: EspinozaVariety; Mojica Impressed: Laguna Variety; 80-cana Incised Bichromc, Las Palmus Red-on-Beige,Charco Black-on-Red. and Huila Zoned-Punctate.All of these appear in Zoned Bichrome assem-blages throughout much of Greater Nicoya) andrheir presence suggests that the Arenal Phase wasa time of strung cultural affinities between theArenal area and regions to the west. One interest-mg difference between this assemblage and thoseof the Tempisquc Valley is the presence in theArena] region of Espinoza Red-Banded, a type de-fined by Healy jI980! in the Rivas region of Nica-ragua [and defined for the Arenal region as LosHermanns Beige: Espinoza Variety; Hoopes 1987:415-420). This type suggests tics with the northas well, perhaps as part of a horizon extend-ing along the volcanic cordillera, although itsred decoration also has important parallels withEI Bosque pottery from the Atlantic Watershed[Snarskis 197RI.

Charco Black-on-Red sherds at Tronadora Vieiasuggest that the Arenal Phase occupation ex-tended through both Early and Late facets at thissite; however, this sample of Charco differs fromthose of more typical Late Arenal assemblages.The black-painted decoration was executed inbroad strokes rather than the narrow lines notedat Sino Bolivar. This may be a characteristic ofearly examples of this type, but the sample wasnot large enough to clarify this point.

Sitio Bolivar (G-164)

What it lacked Il1 longevity, the Arenal Phaseoccupation at Sitio Bolivar made up for in inten-sity. We recovered almost six thousand diagnosticshcrds from relatively small excavations, provid-ing us with a large assemblage that appears tohave been restricted in time to the last 200 yearsof the Arcual Phase.

Los Hermanns Beige IS the most importanttype at this site. Moiica Impressed [Corrida, Arra-strada, and Cnngo varieties I is second. CharcoBlack-un-Red, Los Hermanos Beige: Espinoza Va-riety, Guinea Incised, Los Hermanns Beige: Cer-vantes Variety, Zelaya Painted (Bichrome and Tri-chrome varietlesl, and unidentified trichrome

sherds are also important types in the Sitio Boli-var assemblage. A number of early modes appearin this assemblage, most notably Usulutan-typeresist decoration and medial-flange bowls (bothon Guinea Incised); however, all together theceramics represent a dear assemblage of LinearDecorated types [ct. Baudez 1967). A few sherds ofCarillo Polychrome confirm the dating of the as-semblage to a time corresponding to the transi-tion between late Zoned Bichrorne and Early Poly-chrome periods in Greater Nicoya.

viboriana (C-I7S) and La Isla (C-166)

Surface collections from these sites provided thebest diagnostic assemblages for the Early facetof the Arenal Phase. Charco Black-on-Red andGuinea Incised, found in large numbers at SitioBolivar, arc rare or absent while Bocana IncisedBichrome and Las Palmas Red-on-Beige arc pres-ent. Excavations at Viboriana confirmed the strati-graphic position of Early Arcnal sherds in thelower 50's strata; however, the excavated samplewas not large enough for any stylistic changesover time to be determined.

ARENAL PHASE CERAMIC TYPES

Bocana Incised BichromeThis type (Figs. 10-12A-E, 1O-13J-K; Hoopes1987: fig. 7.1:J-K, pl. 7.l:A-DI was first definedby Baudez (1967) for the Tempisque River. It wasrecorded by Sweeney i1975j and Lange (19761 atsites on the Pacific Coast of Ouanacaste. Healy(1980) noted five sherds of Bocana Incised Bi-chrome in the Rivas region of Nicaragua. Bo-cana is the marker type for Early Arenal Phase as-semblages in the Arenal area (Hoopes 1987:346-3561. It is frequently associated with Las palmasRed-on-Beige and Los Hcrmanos Beige: EspinozaVariety.

Bocuna incised Bichrome in the Arenal area ischaracterized by grooved, vertical incisions. 111combination with zoned red slipping on a beige.unslipped surface. Decorative technique rangesfrom wide, round-bottomed grooving to sharp-edged, deep incising. Incisions are usually foundin multiple sets of three to four vertical lines) cor-responding to Baudez' "combed variety" (1967: 63:pI. 19) and Healy's "Bocana variety" (1980: 91: fig.26). Unlike on Tronadora Incised and other Trona-dora Phase sherds with incised decoration, verti-

,Ifn~;~:\\ J'7:";;'"·r .:.I. ,

",/ A..,,~

"~~.,-..., IT "~'. ~ : ,T ."" f' '. ,.I. ,

r i )- J /• J '//,

, i ./

,

Ceramic AWJlysi\ (JIJi! Culture 1!LI(()J\· 179

~.:,:-,.-~~,-~l"'~;" .••.1;-,~,."N ••.• , r r s » "., •••.:. t ..• .." ..·.'.~t,~<o;~...· ""\:'~1i",. '" ,1,. t'l;,. ',:/\ .., ot;,;.. "i'" '. "". •

~':"'".A(;;:..,,,,,:: .. ·t,< .,'

':;;.\ .~---

Figure 10·12. ~ IEarly AreIwl Phase, Hocana Incised Bichrome. A-L La"Palmas Red-on-Beige, F-f. Sherd widths, A. 6.6 ~n:;fj" 11em; C. 7,()em, lJ,(,.Rem; E, 7.0cm; F, 7.6 em; ( •. :J.'icm.fl, 8.0 em, J, 8.0 em; f, 6.0 em. Photographs hv JohnHoopes,

I

E

c,*", ...I

);,;;;;,rlJiMl'1>J I•• "

'\"........H

ttlllfJ,:. //

/rr

/

,." F'~'

,-."'.:~ , .. -/- ,/

'It ." ':' I J-- - /

180 fohn W, Hoopes

c

Figure 1().13.Las Palmas Red-on Beige (A-I); Bocana IncisedBichrome supports (I-K). Proveniences: A (C-I77-AI)B-D (G-175-Al), E (G-172-Al), F (G-175-Al), G (G-I]I-AI), H (IF9j, I (G-l64-Al), I (C-I75-AI), K (G-166-Al)Figures by John Hoopes. .

1...._.;;.5=CM~-'1

cal, rather than horizontal, incision predominates.Bocana Incised pastes differ from Tronadora Phaseones in that they include small crystals of blackhornblende. These may be what Healy [ibid.: 92)tentatively identifies as "obsidian inclusions."

Rim sherds include simple and direct formsfrom incurving-rim bowls. As is true for otherArenal Phase types, however, it is likely that jarrim sherds without incision identified as LosHermanos Beige may have come from Bocana In-cised Bichrome vessels. We noted two distinctivesupport types. The first is a solid, elongated, curv-ing support with longitudinal facets. The secondis a hollow, rattle support, about 10 ern to 15 ernlong, with vertical, rectangular slits on the exte-rior side. While not included in the type as de-fined by Baudez, these latter are decorated withthe diagnostic incision and red bichroming foundin Arenal assemblages. Examples from the Me-nal area are identical to supports on vessels inthe Museum of the Instituto Nacional de Segurosin San Jose and reported to have come from SanCarlos in the Atlantic Watershed (Snarskis 1982:88, upper right illustration-captions transposed).This latter support type was found associated withthe early Lorna B contexts at the Vidor site (Lange,personal communication, 1985).

Bocana Incised Bichrome is a diagnostic type ofLange's Loma B Phase at the Vidor site, and is con-sidered a marker for the earliest Zoned Bichromeassemblages in Greater Nicoya. It is likely thatBocana Incised derives from incised types of theTronadora Phase. Bocana Incised may well appearsometime during the Late Tronadora Phase. Untilwe can more clearly understand the transition be-tween the Tronadora and Arenal Phases, however,Bocana Incised is interpreted as a marker type forthe Early Arenal Phase.

Las Palmas Red-an-BeigeThe use of multiple-brushed wavy lines of redocher pigment is an important Arenal Phasemode, although it survives in later types such asCarillo Polychrome, Cabuyal Polychrome, and Ji-menez Polychrome (Figs. 1O-12F-J, 1O-13A-I;Hoopes 1987:fig. 7.1:A-D, pl. 7J:E-H). Its earli-est appearance is on Las palmas Red-on-Beige(Hoopes 1987:357-3671, a type associated withBocana Incised Bichrome. Baudez (1967:89) re-ports that the most common vessel form of thistype in his assemblages is the necked jar. Open,complex-silhouette bowls are much more com-mon in our collections.


The principal decorative motifs of this type arewavy lines and solid triangles, executed in redpaint on an unslipped surface. Bowls are deco-rated on the interior, with simple horizontal lineson the exterior. One example found has a hollowconical/mammiform rattle support. Jars are deco-rated exclusively on the exterior. A few examplesin both the Arenal region and the Tempisque Val-ley collections bear Mojica-style impressions, in-dicating the contemporaneity of these two types.

Baudez {ibid.: 206! notes similarities betweenthe wavy multiple brushing on Las Palmas Red-on-Beige and the decoration of Usulutan ceramicsof the Protoclassic Maya. Some of the hooked rimprofiles on Las Palmas bowls (Fig. 1O-3A) are alsocharacteristic of Usulutan and Iberia Orange ce-ramics of the Maya area. Healy 11980:239-241)describes a type he calls "Usulutan Resist" in theRivas region of Nicaragua, which dates to the Avi-les/San Jorge Zoned Bichrome Phases and may berelated to Las Palmas. Despite its being a "resist"ware, diagnostic modes include "multiple brushproduced straight and wavy lines ... in orange orred ... on a cream brown or orange base slip." Hisillustrated sherds [ibid.: figs. 110-111) are remark-ably similar to Las Palmas sherds.

Mojica ImpressedThe use of various implements to stamp rows ofsmall marks on the necks and shoulders of un-slipped vessels is a feature of Arenal Phase ceram-ics (Fig.1O-14i Hoopes 1984:6g. 2; 1987:7.1:I-V).Bauder' type "Mojica a impressions de coquille"(1967:57, pl. 16l is ubiquitous in both Early andLate Arenal Phase assemblages. Five varieties ofMojica Impressed have been defined on the basisof differences in impressed patterns (Hoopes 1987:368-390). Because of their large size, Mojica ves-sels were probably used primarily for storage. Thedifferent varieties appear to have temporal signifi-cance. The Mojica Variety and Laguna Variety areboth diagnostic of the Early Arenal Phase. TheCorrida Variety, Arrastrada Variety, and Congo Va-riety are all diagnostic of Late Arenal.

Mojica Impressed: Mojica VarietyThis variety (Hoopes 1984:fig. 2:E-H; 1987:pl.7.1 :I-L) bears small impressions in multiple rowsand corresponds to examples of the type from thesite of La Bocana [Baudez 1967:pl. 16A-q. Oncharacteristic examples, the impressions resemblesemicolons with an extra dot above. Individual

182 fohn W. Hoopes

impressions are deliberately placed and clearlydefined. There is sometimes a slight "drag-and-jab" effect, but all marks are crisp and distinct.Interestingly, this type of decoration was noted ona few sherds of Las Palmas Red-on-Beige.

Mojica Impressed: Laguna VarietyThis variety (Hoopes 1984:6.g. 2:A-D; 1987:pl.7.1 :M-QJ is distinguished by single or double rowsof impressions, usually made with instrumentsother than a shell. Fingernail and bar impressionsfall into this category. Some sherds included inthis variety appeared to have "pinched" or cord-marked decoration, reported by Snarskis (1978:123} for Chaparron pottery. The similarity be-tween Mojica Impressed: Laguna Variety and cer-tain Chaparr6n ceramics and the former's ap-pearance in earlier assemblages leads us to placethis variety in the Early facet of the ArenalPhase. This variety may correspond to some ex-amples classified as "Congo Punctate" by Baudez11967:611·

I Mojica Impressed: Cottida VarietyThe Corrida Variety (Hoopes 1987:pl. 7.1:R-S)bears the same type of mark found on Mojica Im-pressed: Mojica Variety, but it has been drawn orjabbed more rapidly and less carefully, giving it acoarser appearance. The individual marks are stillevident, but they run together. In general, thepaste and surface finish of this variety appear tobe coarser than that of the Mojica Variety.

Mojica Impressed: Arrastrada VarietyThis fifth variety (Hoopes 1987:pI7.1:T-V) is dis-tinguished by decoration that is scraped ratherthan impressed. The pattern was made with thesame multiple-point instrument used for MojicaVariety decorations (most likely the edge of ashell). Horizontal scraping has obliterated indi-vidual vertical marks, however, and the effect isthat of a set of rough, contiguous horizontal chan-nels [cf. Baudez 1967: pI. 16L).

Mojica Impressed: Congo VarietyThis variety of Mojica derives its name from"Congo Punctate" (ibid.: 61); however, the varietya~d the type do not completely overlap. Congo va-nety vessels are decorated with horizontal rowsof triangular punctations on their shoulders (d.

,

I

ibid., pI. 18F), while Baudez' category includes arange of different decorations.

DiscussionBaudez illustrates examples of pottery correspond-ing to all five varieties of Mojica Impressed, how-ever, he does not make any varietal distinctionsor note temporal differences in the use of the dif-ferent patterns. Data from the Arenal area indi-cate that Mojica Impressed decoration changedthrough time. Mojica Impressed: Mojica Varietyand Mojica Impressed: Laguna Variety occur mostfrequently in survey lots with Bocana Incised Bi-chrome and Las Palmas Red-an-Beige, both diag-nostic of the Early Arenal Phase. Las Palmas Red-an-Beige vessels will sometimes have impressionsidentical to those of Mojica Impressed: MojicaVariety. On the other hand, Mojica Impressed:Corrida Variety and Mojica Impressed: ArrastradaVariety appear in the large assemblage of LateArena! ceramics from Sitio Bolivar, while Mojicaand Laguna varieties were absent. In general, therewas a tendency for the decoration on Mojica Im-pressed pottery to become hastier and less wellexecuted over time. Mojica Impressed: Congo Va-riety was found in its most significant quantitiesat Sitio Bolivar, and it may belong in the Late Pue-nal Phase, however, the close similarity betweensome examples of this and the Laguna Varietysuggest that the Congo Variety is not as clearlydiagnostic as the other varieties.

Guinea IncisedThis type, also defined by Baudez (1967: 73), wasbest represented in assemblages from Sitio Boli-var {Fig. 1O-15A-Dj Hoopes 1987, pls. 7.2:A-F,7.3}. It is characteristic of the Late Arenal Phase(Hoopes 1987:391-402). In our assemblages, thesurface finish of Guinea vessels is predominantlyred and orange. Brown, beige, and tan examplesare rare or absent. Virtually all Guinea Incisedvessels are open, tripod bowls with large, hollowsupports. Vessel profiles vary widely, with a pre-dominance of basal angles and carinations- Wenoted some basal or medial flanges, often deco-rated with incision. We excavated a few examplesof Guinea Incised vessels with Usulutin-like re-sist decoration at Sitio Bolivar. Resist areas in-clude parts of the incised panel on the vessel ~-terior and curvilinear designs on the int~orsurface of bowls. Both the use of resist decorauonand the carinated, tripod bowl recall examples of

A

Ceramic Analysis and Culture History

B

H

K

F

M

Figure 16-14.Early and Late Arenal Phase: Mojica Impressed. LagunaVariety (A-E); Moiica Variety (F-I); Gorrida Variety (f,K); Arrastrada Variety (L-N). (Note scole-l Photographsby fohn Hoopes.

183

o, 5.em

II

184 John W. Hoopes

A

!II

Figure 16-15.Late Arenal Phase: Guinea Incised. A-D; Los RerrnanoSBeige: Cervantes Variety, E-1. Sherd widths: A, 12.0cm:B, 9.5 em; C, 11.5 em; D, 11.5 em; E, 12.0 em: F, 11.0 em!G, 4.0 em: H, 5.5 em: I. 6.0 em. Photographs by JohnHoopes.

Izalco Usulutdn from western El Salvador (Sharer1978: 39); however, the relationship is not close.Guinea Incised and analogous types are absentfrom contemporaneous assemblages in the Rivasregion of Nicaragua (Healy 1980: 313).

There is also a strong resemblance betweensome examples of Guinea Incised from the Cor-dilleran region and vessels of Snarskis' Zoila RedGroup l1978:201-202) from the Atlantic Water-shed region. Hollow, bulbous, rattle support forms(d. Snarskis' modes S18 and S23i ibid.iflgs 91-92)are common to both, as are the red surface colorand geometric incision. Incision and engraving onopen tripod bowls were common to both GreaterNicoya and the Atlantic Watershed regions ofCosta Rica at around cal AD sao. These vesselsappear to have been more important at inlandsites than at coastal ones in Guanacaste.

Charco Block-on-RedThe definition of this rypell-loopes 1987:pl. 7.4:C-G) used here combines Baudez' Charco and Co-bane Black-an-Red types (1967: 83-87}. Charco isthe most common decorated type in assemblagesfrom Sitio Bolivar. It is a rare type at Early ArenalPhase sites, however, and its representation issmall when all Arenal Phase sites in our sampleare considered (Hoopes 1987:421-4261·

Charco is characterized by black line decora-tion on a red slip. The use of an overall red slipdoes not appear on Cordilleran ceramics until theLate Arenal Phase. Charco also signals the firstuse of fired black decoration on pottery in the re-gion. On the great majority of Charco vessels fromSitio Bolivar, both slip and black paint tend to besoft and friable, in distinct contrast to the hard,often glossy finish typical of Early and MiddlePolychrome vessels in Greater Nicoya. Decorativemotifs on Charco echo those found on Las PalmasRed-an-Beige. These include multiple-brush wavylines, triangular elements, and vertical and hori-zontal narrow lines. While most Las Palmas ves-sels are open bowls, Charco is represented morefrequently by restricted-neck jars.

The temporal position of Charco Black-an-Redis not clear, either in the Tempisque Valley or theNorthwestern Cordillera region. Baudez (1967: 85)notes that Charco was common to both the Cata-lina and the Ciruelas phases, but found it morecommon in the latter, which corresponds to his"Linear Decorated" period (AD 300-500). Healy(1980:2041 identifies Puerto Black-an-Red, fromRivas, as belonging to the San Jorge Phase. Both


authors suggest that these black-on-red types ap-peared in the late Zoned Bichrome and dimin-ished in frequency in the Early Polychrome Pe-riod. Charco is not typical of the Late ArenalPhase; however, a single vessel of this type wasfound beneath construction fill at the El Silen-cio cemetery, a site with an almost pure SilencioPhase ceramic component.

Los Hermanos BeigeLos HermanosBeige (Fig. 10-l6A-N; Hoopes 1987:fig. 7.2, pl. 7.2:G-O) is the most common typedesignation in Arenal Phase assemblages (Hoopes1987 :403-420); however, it also serves as a more-or-less catch-all term for red-rimmed beige jar andbowl fragments with characteristic profiles. Twopartially reconstructed vessels and several largesherds indicate that rims designated as Los Her-manos Beige may have come from vessels of Mo-jica Impressed, Espinoza Red-Banded, Las PalmasRed-on-Beige, and even Bocana Incised Bichrome.Baudez (1967) places Los Hermanos Beige in theCiruelas Phase (AD 300-500) of the TempisqueValley. Red-rimmed beige vessels are also typicalof his earlier Zoned Bichrome type, Monte CristoBeige. It is not possible to distinguish MonteCristo from Los Hermanos in our assemblages.Because of the wide application of this designa-tion, we used "Los Hermanos" for vessels pro-duced as early as the Late Tronadora Phase. LosHermanos Beige is also the most abundant ce-ramic type at Sitio Bolivar, a Late Arenal site. Thelong duration of this type suggests a strong conti-nuity in Northwestern Cordillera populations, andthe tradition of red-rimmed storage vessels con-tinues into the Silencio Phase.

Vessel forms range from Incurving, direct-rimbowls to large, necked storage jars. In Late Arenalassemblages, the principal vessel forms are large,outcurving, exteriorly thickened rim jars; outflar-ing-rim jars; and open, thickened-rim bowls, usu-ally with small solid conical supports (Baudez1967: vessel groups I, 11,and ill).

Los Hermanos Beige: Espinoza VarietyThis variety was not recognized by Baudez in theTempisque Valley, nor has it been noted in assem-blages from coastal Guanacaste (Fig. 10-17 A-C!.It was first defined by Norweb (1964:559) andlater by Healy (19801, from ceramics excavated in

, the Rivas region of Nicaragua. The principal deco-rative modes are "Red painted and polished verti-

186 Tohn W. Hoopes

G

H K

s uT

w

---","dO,j

Figure 10-16.Left: Los Hermanos Beige rim profiles. A-N: iar andbowl profiles from Tronadora Viejo; 0- V: tar profilesfrom Sitio Bolivar; H'-I'; short-necked jars; I'-K': direct-rim bowls. Figures by fohn Hoopes.


Figure 10-17.Above: Late Arenal Phase: Los Hermanos Beige:Espinoza Variety: A-C; RUllo. Zoned-Punctate: D-E;unnamed incised, punctate, nmed-bichrome: P; ZelayaBichrome: G-H: Carillo Polychrome: I-I. Sherd widths:A. 4.0cD1; B. 3.2 ern; C, 6.4 em; D. 11.0 em; E. 7.0 ern;F, 4.8 em; G. 11.5 em: H, 10.2 em; I, 5.5 em; T,8.0 em.Photographs by lohn Hoopes.

188 John W. Hoopes

cal bands ... on a natural, buff colored base ...on various-sized jars" (ibid.: 115). Unlike on theNicaraguan examples, we did not note the use ofapplique on this type.

Espinoza Variety modes of vessel size and formare the same as Los Hermanos Beige (see forego-ing). Decoration consists of red-painted rims andthe use of broad strokes of red paint on vesselshoulders and sides. Strokes are usually vertical,appearing in sets of three or four linear elements;however, some examples show a rough, horizon-tall/wiping" of red paint on vessel walls. The lat-ter are the most common at Sitio Bolivar. Thedecoration on examples of Espinoza Variety sherdsand vessels from the Arenal area is usually rough,and vessel forms indicate that its principal func-tion was probably for storage.

According to Healy [ibid.: 116), Espinoza Red-Banded dates primarily to the Zoned Bichromeperiod; however, the type continues through theEarly and even into the Middle Polychrome pe-riods (though clearly reduced in importance).Healy also suggests that Espinoza is homologousto Baudez' Matazana Red-on-Brown from the Tem-pisque Valley; however, I see Matazana as equiva-lent to Las Palmas Red-on-Beige and Espinoza assomething different. Los Hermanos Beige: Espi-noza Variety is characteristic of both Early andLate Arenal phases, with a marked deteriorationin the quality of decoration over time.

Los Hermanos Beige: Cervantes VarietyDefined by Baudez (1967: 109) as the "Cervan-tes Incised-Punctate" type but assigned varietalstatus by consensus of the Greater Nicoya Ce-ramic Conference (Lange et a1. 1984), this varietyis characterized by the use of heavy incision,punctation, and (less frequently) applique to deco-rate the broad interior surfaces of open bowl rims{Fig. 1O-15E-I, Hoopes 1987:pl. 7.2:G-OJ. Whilesome punctation, especially triangular impres-sions, is reminiscent of Mojica Impressed, the in-cisions in Los Hermanos Beige: Cervantes Varietyare usually coarse, made when the clay was wetand soft. Baudez places his type in both his Cata-lina and Ciruelas phases [ibid.]. It is a principaldiagnostic of our Late Arenal Phase.

\:I~,il!

'Ii

Other Important Arenal PhaseTypes and ModesIn addition to Charco Black-on-Red, other deco-rated types that were first defined in TempisqueValley assemblages (Baudez 19671 appear in Late

Arenal contexts. These include sherds of HuilaZoned Punctate (Fig. 1O-17D-EI, Zelaya Painted:Bichrome Variety (Fig. 1O-17G-H; Hoopes 1987 :p1.7AB), Zelaya Painted: Trichrome Variety (ibid. :p1.7AA), and Carillo Polychrome (Fig. 10-I7I-f). Asnoted earlier, they suggest that the Arenal regionshould be interpreted as an eastern extension ofGreater Nicoya at this time.

A number of sherds from Sitio Bolivar arenot typical of contemporaneous assemblages inGreater Nicoya and suggest communication be-tween the Arenal region and other parts of CostaRica (Fig. 1O~18J. Among these are rim sherdsfrom wide-mouthed tripod bowls, unslipped onthe exterior but coated with a thick maroon slipon the interior. These are tentatively identified asbelonging to the Anita Fine Purple Group of theSelva Phase in the Atlantic Watershed and appearto have the same "powder-fine" paste noted at Li-nea Vieja sites [Snarskis 1978:208-209). Boththe paste and the purple slip found on these fewsherds are different from those of local Arenal-area pottery. Snarskis traces Anita Fine Purple tosoutheastern Costa Rica and cites this as a tradeware in the Atlantic region. If this is correct, theirpresence at Arenal area sites indicates wide-rang-ing interregional interaction.

Other ceramics from Sitio Bolivar indicate con-tact with the Atlantic Watershed region. Theseinclude long, hollow conical supports with an-thropomorphic adornos (d. ibid.: fig. 90, S1S1;zoo-morphic applique figures on vessel rims (ibid.:fig.111, D23), and short vertical handles with appli-que [ibid.iflg. 100, H121. All of these are diagnos-tic of late El Bosque and La Selva assemblagesfrom the Atlantic Watershed region. These modeswere found in far lower quantities than those ofthe local Arenal Phase ceramic types. They maymark trade vessels from regions to the east of theCordillera rather than local imitations of AtlanticWatershed ceramics. Atlantic-style sherds are farmore common in the Arenal area than at contem-poraneous sites to the west and their presencesuggests a significant level of trade or exchangebetween the Cordilleran and Atlantic Watershedregions around cal AD 500.

DATING THE ARENAL PHASELange {1980aJ divides the Zoned Bichrome Peri~in Greater Nicoya into three phases on the bastsof data from the Vidor site: Loma B (800-300 Bel,Orso (300 BC~AD 300), and Mata de Uva (AD300.-500). The Lorna B, or "Zoned Incised," Phase ISmarked by Bocana Incised Bichrome, 'Ioya zoned


D

Figure 10-18.Late AI/mal Phase: Miscellaneous sherds with modessuggestive of Atlantic Watershed jnfluence. Adomos: A,E, G, K; applique: B-D, H; decorated support fragments:F,1, I. hollow supports: L, M. Sherd lengths: A, 4.0 em; B,5.2 em; C, 4.8 em; D, 3.6 em; E, 4.7 em; I, 12.0 em; I, 9.5em; K, 14.5 em; L, 10.5 em; M, 11.5 em. Sherd widths:F, 4.5 em; G, 5.2 em; H, 7.7 em. Photographs by JohnHoopes.

190 John W. Hoopes

i,

j

Incised, and ceramics common to Lothrop's "Pal-mar Ware" classification. The Orso Phase is char-acterized by the appearance of fine incised orengraved zoning as found on the marker type Ro-sales Zoned Engraved. According to Lange [ibid.:40), Orso is contemporaneous with Catalina andChombo in the Tempisque Valley and Santa ElenaPeninsula, respectively, and corresponds to theZoned Bichrome Period as initially defined by Coeand Baudez (l961). The Mata de UV3, or "ZonedPainted, JI Phase corresponds to the "Linear Deco-rated" Period [Baudez 1967: 194) and is signaledby the appearance of Tola Trichrome at coastalsites. Mata de Uva, and the ceramic traits associ-ated with it, has been variously considered as thebeginning of the Early Polychrome or the end ofthe Zoned Bichrome Period. I agree with the latterinterpretation and see the "Zoned Painted" Phaseas "a continuation, or termination, of Zoned Bi-chrome patterns" (Lange 1980a:41).

The Arenal Phase is contemporaneous with allthree of Lange's coastal phases, beginning withthe appearance of Bocana Incised Bichrome andending with linear painted and trichrome decora-tion. It therefore covers the "Zoned Bichrome Pe-riod" in its broadest conception. The beginning ofthe Arenal Phase land the end of the TronadoraPhase} is placed at 500 cal BC on the basis ofthe available dates for La Montana ceramics andconservative estimates for the beginning of theZoned Bichrome Period. It should be noted, how-ever, that the period from 1000 to 500 cal BC-during which time Early Arenal traits probablydeveloped-c-is poorly defined in the Arenal areasequence.

The dates for the Arenal Phase are based asmuch on crossdating as on chronometric datesfrom project excavations. The early facet is markedby Bocana Incised Bichrome. Large, tapering hol-low supports with rectangular apertures deco-rated with red paint zoned by deep incision arereportedly identical to a support associated witha date of 1291-830 cal BC (UCLA-2177AJ from alarge "oven" feature at the Vidor site (Lange 1980a:35; Snarskis, personal communication, 1985). Anexample of one of these supports was excavated atViboriana {G-17S), where it was associated withsherds of Mojica Impressed and Las Palmas Red-an-Beige.

At Tronadora Vieia, levels with a predominanceof Tronadora ceramics were overlain by those withArenal types. This stratigraphic relationship hasparallels at only two other sites in Greater Ni-coya. At Los Angeles on Ometepe Island, Nicara-

gua, Dinarte ceramics were found beneath levelscontaining early Zoned Bichrome /IAngeles Phase"pottery (Haberland 1966). These Angeles Phaseceramics were found below levels with RosalesZoned Engraved and Schettel Incised, and they"seem to be connected with the Bocana Zoned In-cised and Toya Zoned Incised of Baudez" [ibid.:401). At Sitio Mendez, Norr (1982-1983) reportsa mixture of Lorna B- and Catalina-type cer-amics from the lowest levels of a burial mound.The 410-132 cal BC (UCLA-2163) date from Men-dez corresponds well with other Zoned Bichromedates, as well as with the Early facet of the ArenalPhase. As noted earlier, the Mendez ceramics alsoinclude a number of Tronadora Complex sherds.It seems likely that Angeles ceramics correspondto Early Arenal and Lange's Lorna B phases, Di-narte ceramics (as noted earlier] are equivalent toTronadora, and that the lowermost levels at theMendez site contain a mixture of Tronadora andEarly Arenal types.

Our earliest C-14 dates for Arenal ceramicscome from a trench tomb at Tronadora Vieja andthe lowest excavation levels at Sitio Bolivar. Thefirst, 1950 cal ac-e-cal AD 660 {Tx-5280) was as-sociated with Mojica Impressed: Mojica Varietypottery. The second, 830 cal ac-e-cal AD 1 [Tx-5271) underlay a large Late Arenal component.Unfortunately, both of these dates are of limitedvalue because of large standard deviations.

Rosales Zoned Engraved, the principal type ofLange's Orso Phase, is absent in our assemblages;however, other types diagnostic of Catalina andChombo assemblages dating to the 300 cal BC-cal AD 300 range are present and imply an occu-pation of the Arenal area at this time. The C-14dates from this time range come from three differ-ent sites. The earliest, 810 cal Bc-cal AD 630(Tx-5081) is from Tronadora Yieja. The very largeconfidence interval limits its utility, but the earlylimits of its range are consistent with the datingof associated Tronadora Phase ceramics. The next,cal AD 110-410 (Tx-5272j, was recovered fromshoreline deposits at Sitio Bolivar containing LateArenal pottery. The third date came from the hill-top cemetery at El Silencio (G-1501. It is identicalto the second at cal AD 110-410 (Tx-S078), butwas not directly associated with Arenal Phase ce-ramics (coming instead from a Silencio Phase con-text). Arenal ceramics from other contexts at thislatter site suggest that it was in use at this time,but the date suggests that early deposits may havebeen disturbed by later activities.

The best C-14 dates for crossdating come from

Level 6 at Ortega [Baudez 1967: 205), which yieldedan assemblage similar to that from the Upper 50'sstrata at Tronadora Vieja. Dates of 754-60 calBC (GsY-100: 2195 BP ± 130-average of twodates] and cal AD 132-533 IY-850: 1700 BP ± 701were associated with types Bocana, Charco, LasPalmas, and Mojica. Coeval levels at Matapaloyielded a date of 390 cal so-cal AD 598 (Y-81O:1870 BP ± 200). This suggests that the ArenalPhase occupation at Tronadora Vieja dates to thefew centuries before and after the beginning of theCommon Era.

With regard to the latest part of the ArenalPhase, it is significant that fragments of sherdsthat may be transitional into the Early Poly-chrome tradition appear in deposits at Sitio Bo-livar. Four sherds from surface collections aretentatively identified as Lopez Polychrome-theearliest of "Nicoya Polychrome" types-and foursherds in the large assemblage in Operation Bareidentified as an early variety of Carillo Poly-chrome. The presence of these types suggests anoccupation dating to the latter part of the ArenalPhase and two C-14 dates from the site supportthis. The first, cal AD 450-775 (Tx-S270), is clos-est to estimates from crossdating ceramics. Thesecond, cal AD 780-1010 (Tx-5269J, was obtainedfrom a hearth partly exposed by wave action onthe lakeshore. It is later than expected, and mayhave been contaminated by more recent organicmaterial. Early Zoned Bichrome types such as Bo-cana Incised Bichrome, Las Palmas Red-on-Beige,and certain varieties of Mojica Impressed (see fore-going) are rare or absent at this site, as are Trona-dora ceramics. Tola Trichrome, the marker typefor Lange's Mata de Uva Phase, is rare. A largenumber of other types of the "Zoned Painted"horizon are present, however, including CharcoBlack-on-Red, Guinea Incised, Cervantes Incised-Punctate, and Zelaya Bichrome. Baudez (19671dates his "Linear Decorated" period from AD 300-500, and the Early Polychrome period is currentlyplaced at roughly AD 500-800, Sitio Bolivar's ce-ramic assemblage is most closely related to theformer, although the presence of a small numberof later sherds suggests that it may have beentransitional between the two.

Like the "Zoned grchrome" period defined byLange's three phases, the Arenal Phase has a du-ration of over 1,000 years. Given the nature of theArenal assemblages and the absence of RosalesZoned-Engraved, one of Lange's marker types forthe period from 300 Be to AD 300, I am reluctantto subdivide the Arenal phase into more than two


facets; however, patterns in assemblages from sur-face collections and excavations clearly indicatethat some types were common early and otherslate. For this reason, the Arenal Phase has beenprovisionally divided into two roughly equal fac-ets. The first of these, designated "Early Arenal,"dates from approximately 500 cal BCto the begin-ning of the Common Era. The second, "Late Are-nal," dates from cal AD 1 to 600. It is important tonote that there is not a clear division betweenthese facets. Rather, the period from cal 300 BCto cal AD 300 {what might be termed "MiddleArenel"] is probably marked by characteristics ofboth, with a gradual transition from earlier tolater characteristics.

The Early Arenal subphase is represented al-most exclusively by surface collections, althoughwe recovered a small amount of material in strati-graphic context at the sites of Tronadora Vieja(G·I631 and Viboriana lG-175). The two principalEarly Arenal surface assemblages come from Vi-boriana and La Isla {G-166}. Late Arenal types arerare or absent at these sites. The most importanttypes of the Early Arenal subphase are Bocana in-cised Bichrome, Las Palmas Red-on-Beige, and Mo-jica Impressed: Laguna Variety. Of these, how-ever, the latter two probably continue through theearly centuries cal AD.

We recovered the principal Late Arenal assem-blage at Sitio Bolivar (G-IMl. Definition of thissubphase is complicated by the fact that the ce-ramics from this site are almost exclusively fromthe latter part of the subphase (cal AD 300-6001·At Sitio Bolivar, the Late Arenal subphase ismarked by a combination of Charco Black-on-Red, Guinea Incised, Los Hermanos Beige: Cer-vantes Variety, Zelaya Bichrome, and the Corridaand Arrastrada varieties of Mojica Impressed. It isimportant to note, however, that some of thesetypes by themselves are not reliable chronologicalmarkers for the Late Arenal subphase. For ex-ample, Guinea Incised, Mojica Impressed, andCharco Black-an-Red all appear sometime duringthe Early Arenal subphase.

As with the early and late facets of the Trona-dora Phase, it is important to realize that this di-vision of the Arenal Phase is provisional. The re-covery of more complete stratigraphic data andadditional radiocarbon dates, especially from siteswith both Early and Late Arenal components, willgo a long way toward refining and improving ourunderstanding of Arenal Phase chronology.

192 fohn w. Hoopes

THE SILENCIO PHASE

The Silencio Phase is marked by the appearanceof polychrome ceramics and has been defined pri-marily on the basis of comparisons between theArenal basin ceramics and the well-documentedsequences of western Greater Nicoya. It is esti-mated to date from cal AD 600-1300. As with theArenal Phase, there are a significant number ofsimilarities between Cordilleran assemblages andthose from sites farther west at this time. Al-though vessels from the Atlantic Watershed re-gion appear in Late Arenal contexts, however,trade vessels from Silencio contexts are exclu-sively from the west. Greater Nicoya techniquessuch as polychrome decoration and fine incisionbecome dominant, and the presence of polychromevessels from Greater Nicoya in burials suggeststhat there was a high level of contact between thetwo areas in the Silencio Phase.

In spite of contacts with the west, however, theSilencio Phase appears to have been a time of re-gional consolidation. There is an increase in thenumber of local ceramic types over those sharedwith Greater Nicoya. Stone cist burials, unknownin Greater Nicoya, appear in special cemeteries.Locally produced vessels show modes of bothform and decoration that may be derived fromCentral Highland and Atlantic Watershed tradi-tions, rather than from those of Greater Nicoya.The blend of ceramic traits noted in Cordilleranassemblages during the Silencio Phase may reflectthe area's geographical location between two areasthat were experiencing unprecedented growth inpopulation and social complexity at this time.

The ceramic sample for the Silencio Phasecomes primarily from excavations at the Silenciocemetery (G-IS0), an essentially single-compo-nent site. Relatively few sites from the lakeshorereconnaissance showed an abundance of SilencioPhase material (Chap. 3). At £1 Silencio, SilencioPhase pottery was distributed vertically throughUnits 30 and 50, which were separated by layersof tephra (Units 40 and 41). Unfortunately, thesmall size of the ceramic sample and the heavilydisturbed nature of the site (with many deep buri-als, evidence of significant earth moving, andheavy looting) do not permit subdivisions of theSilencio Phase.

Ceramics diagnostic of the Early PolychromePeriod (AD 500-800), as it is known in GreaterNicoya, are extremely rare in the Arenal area.With the exception of a few sherds of Carillo Poly-chrome from Sitio Bolivar \G-164), the two prin-

I'ii,,';

cipal pottery types of this period, but farther tothe west-Carrillo and Galo Polychromes-arepractically absent in our samples. Decorative ele-ments of both Carillo and Galo Polychrome arepresent in a local type-Jimenez Polychrome-"identified at £1 Silencio.

At a general level, the ceramic assemblagefrom £1 Silencio is similar to Middle Polychrome(AD 800-1200) assemblages from La Guinea [Bau-dez 1967j Hoopes 1980), Vidor (Accola 1978), andLa Ceiba (Blanco et al. 1986j Guerrero and Blanco1987). Distinctive Middle Polychrome types suchas Mora, Papagayo, Altiplano, Cabuyal Binnania,and Santa Marta (Fig. 10-19) are present in signifi-cant quantities, and both polychrome and inciseddecoration on local types indicate Widespread sty-listic trends at this time.

Typical Greater Nicoya polychromes may nothave been manufactured in the Cordilleran region,however. Fancy Greater Nicoya polychromes ap-pear only at the Silencio cemetery, in either buri-als (one of which contained five miniature Cabu-yal polychrome vessels) or construction fill (Fig.10-20). Moreover, the typical Greater Nicoya do-mestic types from Middle Polychrome assem-blages such as Piches Red and Danta Beige arefound only in small quantities. The dominantmonochrome type is instead Tres Esquinas Beige,and the abundance of distinctive local polychromevessels, which are not known from sites in west-ern Greater Nicoya, implies that the high-qualitypolychromes may have arrived through trade orother special contacts.

As elsewhere in Greater Nicoya at this time,the Cordilleran region experienced an explosionof polychrome types during the Silencio Phase.With the exception of the local Jimenez Poly-chrome, all of the polychrome types at £1 Silencioare also found in Middle Polychrome assemblagesin the Tempisque Valley (Baudez 1967) and thePacific Coast of Guanacaste (Lange 1976). Manyappear as trade items at sites in the AtlanticWatershed [Snarskis 1978:289-290) and MesetaCentral (Snarskis and Blanco 1978).

A preliminary examination of the pastes ofsherds of Mora and Papagavo polychromes from EISilencio suggests that they were not locally manu-factured. The Mora examples have a compact,fine-textured paste devoid of the white flecks oftephra found in locally manufactured pottery. Pa-pagayo sherds have a fine, orange-colored pastesimilar to that found in western Guanacaste andRivas, Nicaragua. The relatively small numbers ofthese types in Silencio Phase assemblages sug-


A

•D

Figure 18-19.Silencio Phase: Fancy polychromes. BirmaniaPolychrome: A; Papagayo Polychrome: B, C, E-G; SantaMarta Polychrome: D; Mora polychrome (interior or ring-base bowl): H. Sherd widths: A, 4.2 em; B, 8.5 em. C, 5.0em; D. 3.5 ems E. 4.5 em, F, 5.5 em; G, 4.5 em. Diameterof H, 35 em. Photographs by John Hoopes.

H

194 John W. Hoopes

A B

Figure 10-20.Silencio Phase: Whole vessels from EI Silencio cemetery.Cabuyal Polychrome: A. B; Jimenez polychrome: C.Diameters: A, 6.0 em; B, 6.5 em; C, 26.0 em.Photographs by John Hoopes.

gests that these fine-paste decorated wares wereimported to the Cordilleran region from manu-facturing centers in western or northern GreaterNicoya.

SILENCIO PHASE CERAMIC TYPES

Several decorative and formal modes have beennoted that are distinctive to the Silencio Phase,and they have assisted in the definition of two lo-cal types and one local variety.

Timenez PolychromeJimenez Polychrome is the principal diagnostictype of the Silencio Phase (Figs. 1O-20C, 10-21;Hoopes 1984a:fig. 4). It combines decorativemodes of the Early and Middle Polychrome pe-riods of Greater Nicoya with formal modes thatmay have Atlantic origins. It is characterized bylarge, open bowls and restricted-neck jars withflattened or everted rims, and is decorated withpainting in red and black on a cream or buff sur-face. Painting is also found on the upper, flattenedsurface of rims with a Tcshaped cross section(Hoopes 1984a: fig. 4Fl. The lower half of the ves-sel is always slipped red, but the upper half bearsa horizontal frieze of geometric motifs executedin broad strokes in combination with sets of hori-zontal wavy lines in red or black. Multiple brush-ing is also found on the broad lip surface of flat-tened-rim bowls. Vessel supports include small,solid conical feet and large, hollow mammiformrattle forms.

The use of broad-stroke geometric motifs in Ji-menez Polychrome is similar in execution to mo-tifs on Galo Polychrome (d. Baudez 1967:pl. 38B;Lange 1976:fig. 7a), but the characteristic surfaceluster and both pear-shaped and cylindrical vesselforms of Galo are absent. Jimenez polychrome isrelated to Cabuyal Polychrome in a fashion analo-gous to that between Galo and Carillo. That is,many decorative motifs are shared, but sufficientdifferences in the way they are combined-to-gether with variables of paste, surface finish, andform-distinguish one from the other. JimenezPolychrome shares the use of multiple brushingin red on a cream or white background with Cabu-val, and small sherds of the two are often difficultto distinguish. The modal repertoire of form anddecoration for Cabuyal is substantially smallerthan that for Jimenez Polychrome, and the formercould in fact be classified as a variety of the latter{i.e., Jimenez Polychrome: Cabuyal Variety).


Jimenez Polychrome is placed earlier in the se-quence than the AD 800 date assigned to thebeginning of the Middle Polychrome Period inGreater Nicoya because of its affinities with bothGalo Polychrome and Carillo Polychrome. Strati-graphically, Jimenez Polychrome was present inboth Units 30 and 50; however, we found morethan twice as many sherds in the upper than inthe lower stratum.

Belen IncisedJimenez Polychrome and Belen Incised (Hoopes1984a:fig. 5) are the most important decorated Si-lencio Phase types. Incised vessels are as commonas polychromes in Silencio Phase lots (313 Belensherds and 325 Jimenez), and virtually all of theincised pottery falls into the newly defined BelenIncised: Ayotes Variety.

Belen Incised: Ayotes VarietyIncised decoration is the same as that defined forBelen Incised in the Tempisque Valley (Baudez1967: 129). Principal motifs are cross-hatchuredtriangles and rectangles in a frieze on the uppervessel exterior. The Belen Incised: Ayotes Variety(Fig. 10-22) is characterized by a distinct T-shapedrim profile, which is shared with Jimenez Poly-chrome and Tres Esquinas Beige. Just as JimenezPolychrome frequently bears decoration on thesurface of flattened rims, Belen Incised: AyotesVariety occasionally has incisions on the broadupper surface of the vessel lip. The most commonvessel type is the open bowl, slightly incurving atthe rim. Surfaces are slipped brown or left un-slipped and burnished. Vessels are black to reddishbrown in color. Infilling of incisions with whitepigment is common. Pastes are fine but poorlyoxidized and contain inclusions of tephra and fer-ric spherules.

Chronologically, Belen Incised enjoyed a laterpopularity than Jimenez Polychrome. We foundmore than three times as many Belen Incisedsherds in Unit 30 than in Unit 50, whereaswe found more than twice as many JimenezPolychrome sherds in Unit 50 than appeared inUnit 30.

Tres Esquinas BeigeAnother new type, Tres Esquinas Beige (Fig. 10-23; Hoopes 1984a:fig. 6:K-T], is the dominant do-mestic ceramic in Silencio Phase assemblages, al-

II I

J

I

•

!I

! I

I 1·1

III

Ii

I

196 John W. Hoopes

B

-.. -... '; . '. ", .

I I

c

D

E

F

G

SCM

Figure 10-21.Jimenez Polychrome. A-C: T-shaped bow1rims; D-F:open bowls; G: jar shoulder. Proveniences: A (G-150-Bl1), B (G-176-Al), C (G-150·G2j, D (G-169-B4). E (G-lSD-C2), F (G-150-C2). G (G-150-C2). Figures by JohnHoopes.

-.. ' .•.:», -; :.

:'. ". :",' - -.... ~.,


Figure 16-22-Belen Incised: Ayotes Variety. A-C: T-shaped bowl rims.Proveniences: A (G-150-B2), B (G-150-12). C (G-150·G2).Figures by totm Hoopes.

SCM

198 fohn w. Hoopes

F

5CMFigure 10-23.Des Esquinas Beige rim profiles. A-E: everted jar rims;F-G: T-shaped bowl rims; H-/: horizontally everted [arrims. Proveniences: A-C, E, F, H-T (G-150·C2J; D, G (G-176-Al). Figures by John Hoopes.

B

J

H

though sherds of Piches Red, Malekos Red, andDanta Beige are also present in small quantities.Tres Esquinas Beige is closely related to the Her-~anos Beige of the Arenal Phase, being character-ized by red-slipped rims on buff-paste jars andbowls. As in the earlier type, the red slip extendsto the interiors of jar rims and open bowls. Thetwo types are distinguished on the basis of rimprofiles. While Los Hermanos Beige jar rims arerounded and externally thickened, Tres EsquinasBeige rims are direct and unthickened. The earlyjars tend to have gently curving necks, while latertypes are more angular. In Tres Esquinas Beige,the rim/neck juncture is sometimes emphasizedwith a shallow groove. The most common TreeEsquinas bowl rim has the incurving, T-shapedprofile, whereas Los Hermanos rims have a broad,outturned lip. In sum, although paste and decora-tive modes are virtually the same for some Arenal~d Silencio Phase ceramics, rim forms are suffi-ciently different to allow for temporal distinctions.

DATING THE SILENCIO PHASE

The upper date for the Silencio Phase is based ona date of cal AD 1216-1295 (Tx-5077) for charcoalfrom a burial associated with a large assemblageof diagnostic ceramics at El Silencio. Previously,a terminal date of AD 1000 was suggested in theabsence of C-14 assays (Hoopes 1984a). This sug-gestion was based primarily on the absence of anumber of ceramic traits that distinguish theMiddle Polychrome/Late Polychrome transitionin Greater Nicoya. The small sample of Papagayo~olyc~rome consists entirely of early varieties,including a bowl fragment with a painted jaguaron the interior. The great majority of Mora Poly-chrome sherds are from varieties that Accola(1978) places in the Panama Phase (AD 800-1000)of the Bay of Culebra. Asientillo Polychrome, alate Middle Polychrome type common in the Tern-pisque Valley, is another type that is not present.Late Polychrome white-slipped ceramics such asVallejo, Mombacho, Pataky, and Madeira Poly-chrome are also completely absent from Cordille-ran assemblages.

Decorative modes of Jimenez Polychrome, thedominant marker for the Silencio Phase, also sug-gest that the phase as defined may be weighted to-ward the earlier half of the Middle PolychromePeriod. The principal decorative motif of bothJimenez Polychrome and Cabuyal Polychromeis wavy, multiple-brushed horizontal lines. Al-though this motif is not mentioned in the originaltype descriptions of either Carillo or Gala Poly-chrome {Baudez 1967: 119,132), an examinationof whole vessels from the collections of the Mu-seo Nacional de Costa Rica and the Institute Na-donal de Seguros reveals that it occurs frequentlyon both. Multiple brushing is diagnostic of theArenal Phase Las Palmas Red-on-Beige type, andit is also found on examples of Charco Black-on-Red from Sitio Bolivar. Its use on Silencio Phasepottery indicates a strong continuity in local ce-ramic traditions; however, multiple-brush deco-ration declines in usage sometime toward themiddle of the Middle polychrome Period acrossGreater Nicoya. This may also be true in theNorthwestern Cordillera.

DISCUSSIONThe dominance of red-rimmed ceramics and grad-ual transitions in ceramic styles over a space ofmore than 3,000 years argues strongly for a con-tinuity in populations from the Tronadora through


the Silencio phases. Domestic pottery is usually amore reliable indicator of ethnic identity than aredecorated types, which are frequently imitated ortraded. The relative scarcity in Arenal-area as-semblages of the monochrome culinary wares thatdominate Middle Polychrome assemblages in theTempisque Valley suggests that the populationsof the Arenal region had household traditions thatwere markedly distinct from those to the west.The use of rock-lined tombs in the Silencio Phaseis a major divergence from Greater Nicoya pat-terns and indicates cultural affinities with theCentral Highlands region. In ceramics, there ismore evidence of stylistic regionalization in theSilencio Phase than in the preceding ArenalPhase. Ceramic patterns suggest that the localpopulation had regular interchange with peoplesof lowland Ouanacaste, somewhat lesser interac-tion with the Atlantic region, and maintained dis-tinct local traditions.

THE TILARAN PHASE

There is evidence for a marked divergence in cul-tural patterns between the cultures of GreaterNicoya and those of the Cordilleran region inthe Tilaran Phase (cal AD 1300-1S00J. There issome evidence for interaction with peoples of theGulf of Nicoya, but local ceramic assemblagesbear little resemblance to Late Polychrome as-semblages from the Pacific Coast and the Tern-pisque Valley. None of the late painted types ofGreater Nicoya, with the exception of Jicote Poly-chrome, are present in Tilaran Phase assemblages.Two sherds of Tempisque Incised hint at directcontacts between peoples of the Cordillera andthe Gulf of Nicoya. In general, the phase is char-acterized by large, coarse ceramics with applique-decorated handles that are very similar to late pre-historic ceramics from the Gulf of Nicoya.

Silencio Applique, Malekos Red, and San LuisCoarse have been placed in the Tilaran Phase onthe basis of clear stratigraphic associations. Theywere present in a large assemblage found imme-diately beneath a layer of coarse gray lapilli {Unit20) at Dos Armadillos (G-154; Chap. 7J. They alsoshow a much stronger correlation with Unit 30than with Unit SO, as does a small sample of [i-cote Polychrome-a Late Polychrome type com-mon in the Tempisque Valley.

In addition to the types described below, modesand modal combinations found in association withTilaran Phase assemblages include unslipped zoo-

200 fohn W. Hoopes

c

.,~

;. \

II.~I

o

SCM

Figure 10-24.Tilaren Phase: Silencio Applique handles. Sneed widths:A.II.Oem; B, II.Oem; C. 6.0 em; D, 7.0 em; E, 12.0cm.Photographs by John Hoopes.

Figure 10-25.Silencio Applique jar handles. Note differing degrees ofstylized design from A to C. Proveniences: A (C·166-Al),B (G-154-A2). C (G-161-Al). Figures by lohn Hoopes.


morphic supports (coati heads are common); ap-plique strips on vessel rims and body angles withtriangular impressions (possibly related to Cream-er's Gulf Incised and Princesa Incised rim modes[1983: 313-317J); and carinated, outflanng-rimbowls.

Snarskis (personal communication, 1984) feelsthat Atlantic Watershed influence on the Arenalarea increased during the Tilaran Phase, but it isdifficult to identify specific ceramic types thatthe two regions have in common. At the level ofmodes, appliqued strap handles, the use of appli-que on vessel shoulders and rims, and zoomorphicunslipped supports have a number of analogies inboth the Stone Cist Period of the Atlantic Water-shed (Snarskis 1978) and the late prehistoric pe-riod in the Gulf of Nicoya (Creamer 1983l. Theclosest relationships appear to be with the latter.Dating of the Tilaran Phase is based on stratigra-phy, tentative correlations with Snarskis' StoneCist Period, Creamer's assemblages, and absoluteC-14 chronology.

T1LAAAN PHASE CERAMIC TYPES

Silrncio AppliqueSilencio Applique is the principal decorated typeof the Tilaran Phase (Figs. 10-24, 10-25; Hoopes1984a:fig. 7). It is a dark brown to reddish pasteutilitarian ware with an often coarse, unslippedfinish. Vessels are vertical-necked jars with director slightly everted rims. Applique appears on ves-sel necks, rims, and shoulders. One diagnosticmode is a decorated strap handle with a stylizedface of applique buttons or modeled features.These handles are usually fairly crude. They aretypically narrow in the middle and expanded ateither end {Fig. lOon

Silencio Applique is very similar to Taro Appli-que, a type from sites near the mouth of theTempisque River (Baudez 1967: 168) and on is-lands in the Gulf of Nicoya (Creamer 1983:299-304, fig. 71), and may prove to be the same ce-ramic type. The representation of zoomorphicmotifs (which Creamer identifies as bats and rep-tiles] on the two types is similar. As with SilencioApplique, Taro Applique has been identified onlyfrom vessel handles.

202 fohn W. Hoopes

MalekosRedThe most common culinary type is Malekos Red,which shares outflaring-rirn jar forms with TresEsquinas Beige hut differs in having a red finish.The distinctive color is achieved in two ways,either by the use of a thick red slip or by com-plete oxidation of the vessel exterior. MalekosRed bears many similarities to the Fiches Redtype of the Tempisque Valley, especially in wide-rimmed bowl forms and shoe-shaped vessels.Handles are usually round in cross section. Ves-sels of this type are often surprisingly large.

I', I

San Luis CoarseA third utilitarian type of this phase has beentermed San Luis Coarse (Fig. 10-26). It is distin-guished principally by its crude execution. Ves-sels are principally thick-walled, vertical-neckedjars that are unslipped and dark red, brown, orblack. Both Malekos Red and San Luis Coarseshare a number of characteristics with Gulf Plain,a type from islands in the Gulf of Nicoya (Creamer1983 :311-314), suggesting further affinities be-tween late monochrome types of the Arenal areaand Gulf of Nicoya regions.

j!

I I Tempisque IncisedTwo sherds from the site of Dos Armadillos(G-154) have been identified as Tempisque Incised(Fig. 10-27 A and B], a type identified by Baudezfrom collections on Taro Island (1967: 170) andby Creamer at sites on islands in the Gulf ofNicoya (1983:286-291). These are highly pol-ished and decorated with narrow rim bands of zig-zag incisions and dots (d. Baudez 1967:pL 47E;Creamer 1983:fig. 68). They may represent ves-sels brought or traded into the highlands bypeoples from the Gulf.I

,

DATING THETILARAN PHASE

A single C-14 date, cal AD 1298-1420 (Tx-5079l,was associated with a Tilaran Phase assemblageat the site of Dos Armadillos. This sample camefrom the upper portion of Unit 30 in a depositburied under a thick layer of Unit 20 tephra. Cur-rent estimates for the date of deposition of Unit20 are based on the foregoing date and two otherscal AD 1416-1471151-576) and cal AD 1435-1619(51-577), derived from samples of charred bark

;1

buried by a pyroclastic flow from Arenal Volcano.These suggest a date of approximately cal AD

1450 for Unit 20. The late dates for this phase arein agreement with estimates for the age of the ce-ramics from the Gulf of Nicoya mentioned ear-lier. No Tilaran Phase materials were identified incontexts that clearly postdated the deposition ofUnit 20.

CERAMIC PHASEDISTRIBUTION

REGIONAL PATTERNSOF CERAMIC PHASES

Table 10-1 illustrates the distribution of ceramicsfrom each of the four phases for the forty-threesites sampled during the 1984 and 1985 seasons.We identified Tronadora Phase pottery at 20 sites,and Arenal Phase ceramics were present at all butsix. Only two sites, G-162 and G-163, yielded apredominance of sherds from the Tronadora Phase;however, a total of twenty sites proved to have amajority of ceramics from the Arenal Phase, withseven more having at least 25% of the ceramic as-semblage in this phase. There were only three siteswith strong Silencio Phase components, and fivewith predominantly Tilaran Phase components.

Of the forty-three sites sampled, few werestrictly single-component sites. Almost all siteswere occupied during two or more ceramic phases,and eleven had evidence of occupation during allfour. This suggests that there was a strong conti-nuity of site use throughout the study region, insome cases lasting as long as 3,000 years.

STRATIGRAPHIC RELATIONSHIPSOF CERAMIC PHASES

One of the principal aims of the ceramics analysiswas to correlate the ceramic sequence with tephralayers from Arenal Volcano (Chap. 1, Fig. 1-B}. Inso doing, we were able to combine interpretationsof volcanic and cultural stratigraphic units. ~ol-canic activity was responsible for the destructl.onof crops and habitations during violent eruptiVeintervals as well as for the creation of fertile,tephra-enriched soils. A recognizable sequence ofvolcanic strata was traceable throughout the stu~yarea. Although not all individual strata were VIS-ible at all sites, this sequence provided a uniqueopportunity for the calibration of stratigraphiC de-posits from a number of widely separated sites.


C

F

GFigure 10-26. d k dSan LUIS Coarse rim profiles from undecorate .nec ejars. A: iar rim and shoulder with strap handle; B:everted-nm iar, C-F: vertical iar necks and rim2 ~-texterlOrly thickened jar nms. Proveniences: A (- -GI), B (G-I61-D3), C (G-175-AI), D (G-154·A2). E (G-154-A1), F (G-161-A3), G (G-166-A2), H (G·154-A2). I (G-154-A2). Rim diameters: A (1I em). B (14 cm). C (18tT)'D (38 em), E (34 cm), F (12 em), G (16 em), H (22 cm ,(17 em). Figures by fohn Hoopes.

SCM

204 fohn W. Hoopes

TronadoraSite Sample No. %

Tronadora Phase PredominantG-162 24 16 66.7G-163 836 474 56.7

Arenal Phase Predominantc-isr 6G-lS5 18G-158 6 16.7G-159 19G-l64 6,711 6 0.1G-165 110 26 23.6G-166 224 7 3.1G-168 57 5 8.8G-110 85 3 3.5G-ill 43 1 2.3c-trz 68 2 2.9C-IlS 241 2 0.8G-176 69 1 1.4G-I?? 227 6 2.6G-t82 36G-IB3 27G-184 46C-IS? 89 5 5.6G-191 16G-192 12

Silencio Phase PredominantG-150 1,744G-152 23G·153 121

Tilaran Phase PredominantG-154 157G-160 17G-l61 294 8 2.7G-18S 9G-IBS 22

; Isn,,, ,

11t!Ii'IIi'IIIIIiieJ

~

,.~I

Figure 18-27.Tiianm Phase: Other decorated types. TempisqueIncised: A, B; tripod vessel with impression andapplique: C. Sherd widths: A, 9.5 em; B, 9.5 em.Maximum width of C, 11.6 em. Photographs by fohnHoopes.


ArenalNo. %

3 12.5210 25.1

5 83.314 77.84 66.7

10 52.65,769 86.0

55 50.092 41.141 71.955 64.734 79.154 79,4

153 63.547 68.1

166 73.124 66.7I7 63.029 63.063 70.816 100.08 66.7

104 6.0

4 3.3

SiJencioNo. %

TslaranNo. %

UnknownNo. %

12 4.1

2 9.1

0.1

5 26.327 0.46 5.5

11 4.91 1.87 8.2

15 6.215 21.7I7 7.51 2.8

2.2

1,195 68.519 82.6

114 94.2

15 9.66 35.3

23 7.8

77 35.06 30.07 18.4

230 36.22 13.3

16 32.03 10.02 9.1

43 32.15 18.s

9 27.3

16

5.6

132

783

0.21.8

34.85.3

TABLE 10-1CERAMIC PHASE REPRESENTATION FOR SITESRECORDED BYTHE PROYECTOPREHISTORICO ARENAL

Mixed Component Sites or Sites of Unknown PhaseG-156 220 47 21.4 23 10.5G-157 20 4 20.0 2 10.0G-167 38 3 7.9 14 36.8G.169 636 2 0.3 2 0.3G.173 15 4 26.7G.I74 50 13 26.0G.178 30 3.3 6 20.0G.179 22 8 36.4G-180 134 29 21.6G-181 27 3 11.1G.186 38 7 18.4G·189 33G.190 9 4 44.4

Total 12,629 620 4.9 7,106 56.3 1,879 14.9 819 6.5

N ~ 1 I h licable] Include sherds from both surface collections and excavations.ote: rota counts were appuca

13 5.4

2 0.9

4 4.5

2 16.7

62

81 51.69 52.9

208 70.79 100.0

17 77.3

22 10.02 10.02 5.3

237 37.36 40.05 10.0

14 10.4

I 2.67 21.22 22.2

1.95

13520.816.1

I 16.73 16.71 16.74 2Ll

896 13.421 19.136 16.1

7 12.320 23.5

8 18.612 17.658 24.1

6 8.736 15.911 30.610 37.016 34.8I7 19.1

2 16.7

3.6 38342

22.017.4

1.70.8

61 38.92 11.8

43 14.6

3 13.6

51 23.26 30.0

12 31.6165 25.9

3 20.016 32.020 66.712 54.548 35.819 70.430 78.917 51.53 33.3

2,205 17.5

206 fohn W. Hoopes

There was not a strong correlation betweenvolcanic activity and cultural change in the AIe-nal region. No tephra horizons marked clear tran-sitions from one cultural phase to another. Sealeddeposits were rare with the exception of the Ti-laran Phase assemblage at Dos Armadillos, how-ever, it was possible to associate the ceramic se-quence with regional volcanic stratigraphy.

We combined artifact lots of known strati-graphic affiliation for a regional sample of almost9,000 diagnostic sherds with known stratigraphicprovenience. We recovered close to 1,000 sherdsfrom Unit 30, most of these from El Silencio andDos Armadillos. We collected over 7,500 diag-nostic sherds from 50s strata sampled at EI Silen-cio, Sitio Bolivar, Tronadora Vieja, Viboriana, andother sites. We excavated over 350 diagnosticsherds from 60s horizons, virtually all from Tro-nadora Vieja. We recovered smaller numbers fromUnits 20 and 40/41, tephra horizons whose cul-tural contents were probably mixed from otherstrata.

The earliest Tronadora Phase occupation ap-pears to have occurred just prior to the initialeruptive activity of Arenal Volcano, shortly after2000 cal BC. This occupation continued through-out the deposition of the first tephras in the re-gion. We identified some 74% of diagnostic ce-ramics recovered from Units 64, 61, and 60 asbelonging to the Tronadora Phase, the remainderbeing either Arenal Phase or unclassified sherds.At Tronadora Vieja, we also found TronadoraPhase ceramics in the lower 50s horizons, al-though in small proportions relative to ArenalPhase ceramics. The frequency of Tronadora Phaseceramics is significantly greater in strata belowUnit 55 than above it, but it is not clear whetherthis tephra horizon provided a "cap" to TronadoraPhase cultural deposits. It seems safe to say, how-ever, that the 60s strata were formed during theTronadora Phase.

Ceramic associations of 50s complex strati-graphic horizons above Unit 55 and below Units40 and 41 are not as clear. Arenal Phase ceramicswere plainly situated in 50s strata at both Trona-dora Vieja and Sitio Bolivar. At Tronadora Vieja,the sample size from individual units within the50s complex was not great enough to indicate ce-ramic change or the correlation of units withEarly or Late Arenal assemblages.

At the Late Arenal site of Sitio Bolivar, thestratigraphic association of the ceramic assem-blage was somewhat clearer. Unit 50 was visibleas a separate stratum in profiles. The majority ofartifacts were situated in Unit 54. Unit 60 was

IIrI,""

, .

I ,

mostly disturbed through cultural activities suchas burials. In most places this disturbance hadpenetrated down into the Aguacate clay (Unit 65).

While we found many artifacts in Unit 54, itappears that cultural activity at Sitio Bolivar oc-curred on top of this unit and not during its for-mation. The 390-50 cal BC (51-3459) and 86 calac-e-cal AD 390 (I-I0804) dates at El Tajo (Aguilar1984: 751 were reportedly obtained from a soilthat had developed on top of Unit 8 (possiblySilencio Sequence Unit 55). These dates, whichoverlap from 86 to 50 cal BC, correspond well withestimated dates for the early facet of the ArenalPhase, and their stratigraphic position suggests alocation in Unit 54. Given a period of about 500years and the soil development that would haveoccurred during this time, an association of thecultural materials from Sitio Bolivar with Unit 53seems more likely. There was a high degree ofcompression of strata beneath Unit 50 and abovethe cultural features, which made identificationof stratigraphy difficult, but Arenal Phase materi-als appear to have been deposited sometime priorto the formation of Unit 50.

While the Upper 50s represent Arenal Phasedeposits, Unit 50 dates to the first half of the Si-lencio Phase. We found a large number of SilencioPhase sherds in Unit 50 at Bl Silencio, whereUnits 40 and 41 sealed primary deposits in thishorizon. Only a small Arenal Phase componentwas present. It should be noted that we found noSilencio Phase sherds at either Tronadora Vieja orSitio Bolivar and that we found no excavated sitesto have a significant amount of material fromboth the Silencio and the Arenal phases.

Just as the 50s complex appears to have beendeposited and formed during both the Arenal an~the Silencio phases, Unit 30 is almost equally di-vided between Silencio and Tilaran Phase mate-rials. There was no dramatic change in the ce-ramic assemblage at El Silencio before and afterthe deposition of Units 40 and 41. The only typewith any significant difference in frequency be-tween the two strata is Belen Incised: Ayotes Va-riety, which is much more common in Unit 30than in Unit 50.

The association of Tilaran Phase materials withthe upper portion of Unit 30 was documented atDos Armadillos, where we found a 100% TilararrPhase assemblage in a deposit directly beneaththe coarse lapilli of Unit 20. A single C-14 date ofcal AD 1298-1420 (Tx-5079) for charcoal from anassociated habitation feature is supported by aprevious assay indicating Unit 20 was depositedprior to cal AD 1520 (Melson this volume).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Archaeological research in the Arenal area hasproduced one of the longest cultural sequences inlower Central America. It is especially notewor-thy because of the early dates for the appearanceof pottery. Arenal-area ceramics demonstrate amixture of both Greater Nicoya and AtlanticWatershed characteristics; however, the region isnot easily classified as belonging to either of theseculture areas. Shifting affinities and strong localtraditions indicate that the region had an impor-tant character of its own.

THE TRONADORA PHASEThe earliest pottery in the Arenal sequence ismixed with or superimposed on artifacts from thepreceramic Fortuna Phase. This suggests that thepreceramic/ ceramic transition around 2000 cal BC

was not accompanied by major changes in settle-ment pattern. Because Tronadora pottery does notappear to represent an incipient technology, it isunclear whether sites like Tronadora Vieja werereused or continuously occupied through the pre-ceramic/ceramic transition. The appearance of asophisticated ceramic complex in the area asearly as 2000 cal Be suggests either an expansionof pottery-using populations into a region pre-viously inhabited by preceramic societies or ex-isting preceramic population's adoption of a de-veloped ceramic technology. Our limited data onpreceramic sites throws little light on either hy-pothesis. The Tronadora pottery is clearly relatedto both Chaparron and La Montana, but the avail-able information is inadequate for determiningwhich of the three has greatest antiquity. At pres-ent, the best explanation is that they represent aregional, Costa Rican development from a stillpoorly understood Formative substrate.

Although roughly contemporaneous, Trona-dora is similar to the Panamanian complexes ofMonagrillo and Sarigua only at the level of generalmodes Ired rims, groove incision, shell stamping].Tronadora ceramics also have a general relation-ship with early ceramic complexes of northern Co-lombia, especially Barlovento (Reichel-Dolmatoff19851, with regard to an emphasis on plastic deco-ration, especially round-bottomed groove inci-sion, shell stamping, rocker stamping, and heavypunctation on large, incurving-rim bowls.

Like Chaparron [Snarskis 1984al, Tronadora'sclosest affinities are to ceramics from southernMesoamerica, especially in terms of rim .forms,the use of red paint, and plastic decoration. In


spite of some similarities between Tronadora andOcos, however, there are significant differences.The bolstered rim (Tonjibe Beige) and tall, cylin-drical vessel {Zetillal Shell-Stamped) are absentin Early Formative complexes outside of CostaRica. Figurines, ubiquitous in Ocos and other earlyMesoamerican assemblages, are completely ab-sent in Tronadora. Furthermore, the earliest datesfor Barra and Ocos (Lowe 1975J, are younger thanthose for Tronadora. If there is a linear relation-ship between the Costa Rican and the Meso-american complexes, the influence is from southto north, not the reverse.

In Costa Rica, the inland valleys of the North-western Cordillera, the Central Highlands, andthe northern plains may have had a head startover coastal regions with regard to the appearanceof sedentism and ceramic technology (Fig. 10-1).Sherds related to Chaparron and La Montana havebeen reported from "Cuacimo, Linea Vieja, Cua-yabo de Turrialba, Tatisco, near Cartage, Paves,Barrial de Heredia, and four other sites within 30kilometers of Chaparron in San Carlos" (Snarskis1984a:206). With the exception of a few sherdsfrom Lorna B levels at the Vidor site (Lange, per-sonal communication, 1985), no Early Formativeceramic complex has been defined clearly in west-ern Guanacaste. In a pattern markedly differentfrom that in other pans of the "IntermediateArea," shellfishing and other coastal adaptationsare not apparent until the Early Polychrome Pe-riod (Lange 1978). This suggests that the first sed-entary communities in Costa Rica may have hadinland-oriented economies.

The stratigraphic relation of Tronadora ce-ramics to the local tephra sequence is revealingin terms of cultural development. An initial hy-pothesis was that ceramics were brought into theregion by incipient village agriculturalists whomoved into the area to take advantage of fertilesoils weathered from volcanic tephra. Pottery ap-peared beneath the first tephra layers in some ex-cavation units, however, and sherds were embed-ded in the surface of the Aguacate Formation. TheArenal area was therefore occupied by ceramic-using cultures before significant eruptions around2000 cal BC and before the appearance of deep, fer-tile soils. The fact that Tronadora pottery is foundin the greatest quantities in Units 60 and 61 indi-cates that site use intensified with the depositionof fine tephras during explosive eruptions of Are-nal Volcano.

I'

IIi.

208 John w. Hoopes

THE ARENAL PHASEA clear relationship between the Arenal area andGreater Nicoya is apparent with the appearanceof Arenal Phase types, and the Arenal area shouldprobably be considered as the easternmost exten-sion of Greater Nicoya at this time. There is adramatic increase in the number and size of sitesin the Early Arenal Phase, indicating populationgrowth. This may spur expansion westward intothe Tempisque Valley and Pacific Coast regions.Specialized use of distinct landforms for ceme-teries like La Isla lG-166) may signal the emer-gence of differential social status. Ceramic hori-zons linking the Arenal area with areas to thewest suggest a certain amount of interactionthroughout Guanacaste. However, significant re-gional differences in the appearance of types likeSchettel Incised and Rosales Zoned-Engraved andin the use of jade and elaborate carved metatessuggest that the cultures of highland and lowlandGuanacaste were far from uniform.

While it is not clear that violent eruptions ofArenal Volcano disrupted the occupation of indi-vidual sites, the fact that few sites have both Earlyand Late Arenal components suggests that newsites may have been established in the early cen-turies cal AD. Although the number of sites ap-pears to decrease in the Late Arenal Phase, evi-dence from Sitio Bolivar (G-164) indicates that thesites that were occupied were large and heavilyutilized. An increased level of status differentia-tion in Late Arenal society is suggested by theeffort expended in the construction of stone fu-nerary structures, the presence of greenstone pen-dants, and the destruction of large quantities ofceramic vessels in cemeteries.

The Late Arenal Phase saw the continued useof ceramic types common to Greater Nicoya. Theappearance of types and modes characteristic ofthe Atlantic Watershed, however, suggests thatthe region became a true "transition zone" around300 cal Be. Central Highland contacts may havebeen an important influence at this time. EarlyPolychrome types, which dominate Greater Ni-coya assemblages from AD 500 to 800, are virtu-ally absent from Arenal assemblages, with the ex-ception of a small number of polychrome sherdsfrom S~tio B~Hvar, probably acquired throughtrade. SItes With both Arenal and Silencio Phasec.omp~nents are rare, suggesting possible popula-non displacement or consolidation.

J:,,,

,)

II

,I

THE SILENCIO PHASESilencio Phase ceramics appear in surface collec-tions at only a small number of sites in the Arenalarea. Except where cultural disturbance has oc-curred, they do not appear stratigraphically belowUnit 50. The existence of special-use localitiessuch as the Silencio cemetery suggests that re-gional integration and status differentiation, firstapparent in the Late Arenal Phase, intensifiedwith the Silencio Phase. Gold artifacts and care-fully constructed stone tombs suggest the pres-ence of high-status individuals. The appearance offancy trade ceramics from Greater Nicoya indi-cates active interregional exchange.

It is possible that the rarity of Silencio Phasesites and the lack of continuity in occupationfrom the Late Arenal to the Silencio phases donot reflect a population decrease, but a more nu-cleated settlement pattern with an emphasis ondefensible site locations. Populations may havebeen consolidated in larger villages with greatercapacity for ceremonial and defensive activities,as evidenced by the large tombs and stone wallsat £1 Silencio. This pattern would have been ac-companied by the emergence of high-status com-munity leaders and warriors and may have beena response to threats posed by expanding popu-lations from the Central Highlands or westernGreater Nicoya.

There is evidence that major volcanic erup-tions affected both western Guanacaste (Accola1978J and the Arenal area during the Middle Poly-chrome Period. In neither area, however, is thereevidence that geological events had noticeable ef-fects on nearby populations. Silencio Phase pat-terns continued more-or-Iess undisturbed throughthe deposition of Units 41 and 40, which blan-keted the Arenal area with thick layers of fine vol-canic tephra. The only changes in ceramic styleswere from predominantly polychrome to predomi-nantly incised decoration.

There is little sign of the Mesoamerican influ-ence noted by Healy (1980) for the Middle andLate Polychrome periods of Rivas. Maya jades andincised slate disks have been found at La Fortuna(Stone and Balser 1965; Stone 1977), east of Ar~-nal Volcano, but no evidence of any Mesoamen-can artifacts was found in our excavations. Meso-american motifs were absent from all silencio

Phase ceramics, with the possible exception ofMora and Papagayo polychromes, which wereprobably imported from western Guanacaste.

THE TILARAN PHASE

The final occupation of the Arenal area was char-acterized by a dispersal of local populations. Tila-ran Phase sites are more numerous than those ofthe Silencio Phase; however, they are also smallerand less specialized. There is a dramatic changein ceramic styles between these phases. Poly-chrome pottery, which reached new heights instyle and execution in western Guanacaste andRivas at this time, is completely absent from Ti-laran Phase sites. Local painting and incising tra-ditions disappear, to be replaced by an emphasison the use of modeling, applique, and adornos todecorate vessel handles and supports in a stylesimilar to that found on islands in the Gulf of Ni-coya (Creamer 1983: 299-304). The rough, mono-chrome pottery of the Tilaran Phase is totally un-like the pottery of preceding phases.

The sharing of some ceramic characteristicsbetween the Arenal area and the Gulf of Nicoyaduring the Tilaran Phase, together with the pres-ence of possible pottery imports, indicates thatcontacts between highland and lowland Guana-caste continued during the centuries immediatelyprior to the arrival of the Spanish-and after-wards. The pattern recalls a statement by Casta-neda, an early explorer who wrote of the mainlandside of the Gulf of Nicoya that lithe rest of thechiefs who live on the plain have few Indians,these people live by trade with those of the moun-tains, to whom they take ... what those who livein the hills do not have" (cited and translated byauthor, from Peralta 1883: 54).

Contact between the Gulf of Nicoya or theTempisque Valley and the Arenal area during theTilaran Phase is indicated by sherds of TempisqueIncised (Baudez 1967: 170; Creamer 1983:286-291) from the occupational floor at Dos Armadi-llos and occasional sherds of Filadelfia Polychromefrom surface collections on the shore of Lake Are-nal. Similarities in applique decoration betweenTilaran Phase ceramics and those from islands inthe Gulf of Nicoya (d. Creamer 1983:299-304)further suggest regular contact and possible eth-nic continuity between the two regions.

As on the islands in the Gulf, the fancy poly-chrome ceramics that typify assemblages in west-ern Greater Nicoya at this time are virtually un-known during the Tilaran Phase. These appearprimarily in cemeteries, however, and no funer-ary sites have yet been identified from this timeperiod.


CONCLUSIONThe ceramic evidence from 2000 cal Be throughcal AD 1500 indicates that the Arenal area had adynamic and complex prehistory, characterized byfluctuating populations with changing regionalaffiliations yet noteworthy for its long-term sta-bility. The region provides a good example ofhow cultural boundaries and population densitiescan change through time. While the Arenal areamay be understood as a transition zone betweenGreater Nicoya and the Atlantic Watershed re-gions, it is hardly "marginal" or "peripheral" tocultural development in the two regions duringthe early part of the sequence. The NorthwesternCordillera played a significant role in the devel-opment of Formative economies in Costa Ricaduring the Tronadora and Arenal phases, and con-tinued to support significant activity during theSilencio and Tilaran phases.

It has been suggested that the reason culturesin this part of Nuclear America never attained thesociopolitical complexity evident in Mesoamer-ica and the central Andes is that advanced sys-tems of resource exchange and interregional re-source exploitation were unneccesary. Accordingto Willey (1984:376), "Redundancy of resources,from niche to niche, tends to stultify trade andtrading control and, thereby, complex organiza-tional development." The evidence from the Are-nal area suggests that it was essentially self-sufficient and relatively independent from domi-nation or exploitation by outside groups. Untilthe Tilaran Phase, there is no evidence for a sig-nificant amount of population movement into orout of the region. Sociopolitical change, even ifpart of a region-Wide pattern, appears to have beenlargely autochthonous.

The Arenal area was one of a range of diverseecological settings in Costa Rica whose culturescontributed jointly to prehistoric developmentin lower Central America. Its changing culturalmanifestations are evidence for the complex tiesthat existed between cultures of prehistoric CostaRica. It is necessary to understand the nature andchronology of culture change in order to addressmore complex issues pertaining to the adapta-tions of specific cultural systems. The presentwork emphasizes the importance of understand-ing regional cul ture history as a prelude to the for-mulation of models for culture change. It is hopedthat this preliminary work will contribute to theestablishment of a foundation for future researchon the origins and configurations of lower CentralAmerican societies.

210 tobn W. Hoopes

NOTES

L All other dates in this volume are based on cali-brated radiocarbon years-dates in real calendar time.These are used to indicate the actual duration of culturalactivities in time and to allow for direct comparisons withcalendar-based chronologies, such as are being constructedfor literate Mesoamerica. In this chapter, however, bothcalibrated and uncalibrated dates are provided in order tofacilitate comparisons with published sequences. Cali-brated dates are reported with the prefix "cal" {for ex-ample, "1000 cal Bc"l, while uncalihrated dates do nothave this prefix.

It is difficult to make direct comparisons between chro-nologies based on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates and thosebased on dates calibrated to real calendar years. For ex-ample, Baudez (1967:W5) suggests a time span of 300 BC-AD 300 for the Catalina Phase in the Tempisque Valley,based in part on a highly problematic (see Hoopes 1987:328-330) interpretation of radiocarbon assays. His datesare not radiocarbon assays themselves, however, but esti-mates based on a wide range of comparative data fromCentral and South America, of which radiocarbon assaysare just a part. If we could convert his suggested phasedates to calendar years, they would be closer to 374 cal

Be-cal AD 405-a time span about 30% longer in realtime. Still, we cannot say whether this calibrated span ac-curately represents Baudez's interpretation. Although wecan calibrate the individual radiocarbon assays he tookinto consideration, a direct cahbration of his proposedchronology would be methodologically flawed. In order toevaluate new radiocarbon assays in the Hght of uncah-brated chronologies, it is therefore important to considerboth uncalibrated and calibrated values.

2. A more detailed discussion of this methodology canbe found in Hoopes 1987.

3. A more detailed discussion of these modes can befound in ibid.: 246-250.

4. See ibid. for additional information on TronadoraPhase ceramic types.

S. For the sake of accuracy, all radiocarbon dates in thischapter are presented with their calibrated, two-sigma con-fidence intervals (see Table 1-11. Dates not listed in Table1-1 are accompanied in parentheses by laboratory refer-ence numbers and uncahbrated BP dates with one-sigmaconfidence intervals (see Table I-I).

6. For a more detailed description of these characteris-tics, see Hoopes 1987:320-433.

I

':~i~j

','u1

'ill'.';,,-'i

'i

.o;

t'·,'~,,"?.'>~, '"'.c'

PAYSON D. SHEETSBRIAN R. MCKEEEDITORS

Archaeology,Volcanism,and RemoteSensing in theArenal Region,Costa Rica

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS, AUSTIN

Copyright ~ 1994 by the University of Texas PressAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of AmericaFirst edition, 1994

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this workshould be sent to Permissions, University of Tens Press, Box7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819.

e The paper used in this publication meets the minimumrequirements of American National Standard for InformationSeiences-c-Permanence of Paper for Printed library Materials,ANSI Z39.48-1984.

The publication of this book was assisted by funds from theCommittee on University Scholarly Publications of the Uni-versity of Colorado and from the Stennis Space Center ofNASA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataArchaeology, volcanism, and remote sensing in the Arenal Re-

gion, Costa Rica I Payson D. Sheets and Brian R. McKee,editors. - 1st ed.

p. em.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBNo-292-77667-5Ialk. paperlI. Indians of Central America-Costa Rica-Arenal,

Lake, Region-Antiquities. 2. Arenal, Lake, Regionleosta Rical-Antiquities. 3. Archaeology-Remotesensing. 4. Volcanism-Costa Rica. I. Sheets, PaysonD. II. McKee, Brian R.IBrian RossI, date.F1545.I.A7A73 1994972.860I-dc20 93·15655

For Fran

t

1

References Cited

ABEL-VIDOR, s.1980 The Historical Sources for the Greater Nicoya Ar·

chaeological Sub-Area. VincuJos 611-2): 155-169.1981 zehnobtsrcncel Approaches to the Archaeologyof

Greater Nicoya. In Between Continents/BetweenSeas: Precolumbian Art of Costa Rica. Edited byE. Benson, pp. 85-92. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

1988 Conzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes: His Workand His Nicaragua, 1527-1529. In Costa RiconArt and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Frede·rick R Mayer. Edited by Frederick W. Lange,pp. 261-290. Boulder: University of Colorado.

ABEL-VIDOR,S., C. BAUOU, R. BISHOP, L. BONILLAV., M.CALVO M., W. CREAMER, ,. DAY, J. GUERRERO, P. HEALY, J.HOOPES, F. LANGE, S. SALGADO, R. STROESSNEIl, AND A. T1LLET

1987 Pnncipales tipos ceramicos Yvariedades de la GranNicoya. Vinculos 13(1-21:35-318.

ACCOLA, RICliAllD1978 Una revision de los tipos de cerarnica del periodo

poltcromo medic en Guanacaste. Vinculos 4: SO-105.

ADAMS, RICHARD E. w.1977 Prehistoric Mesoamerica. Boston: Little, Brown

and CO.AGUILAR P., c.1972 Guayabo de Turria/ba. san Jose: Editorial Cosu

Rica.1976 Relaciones de las culturas precolombianas en el

intennontano central de Costa Rica. Vincu/oS2(1):75-86.

1984 Introduccion a [a arqueologia de la region del vol·can Arenal. Anales. Academia de Geagrafia eHistona de Costa Rica (5an Jose).

ALLEN, KAREN K.1948 Lauraceae- Flora of Panama. Part V. Fascicle I. An'

nals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 35.2-5.

ALLEN, PAUL H.1977 The Rain Forests of Golfo Dulce. Stanford. Cal1f.:Stanford University press.

328 References Cited

ANDERSON, W. R.1983 Byrsonima crassifolia [Nance, Nancite, Shoemak-

er's tree). In Costa Rican Natural History. Editedby Daniel Janzen, pp. 202-204. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

ANDREWS V,! E. WILLEYS, AND NORMAN HAMMOND

1990 Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Be-lize. American Antiquity 55(3]:570-584.

BALSER, CARLOS1974 E1iade de Costa Rica. San Jose: Libreria Lehmann.BARKLEYI FRED A.1934 The Statistical Theory of Pollen Analysis. Ecology

15(31:283-289.BARTLETT, ALEXANDRA 5./ AND ELsa S. BARGHOORN

1973 Phytogeographic History of the Isthmus of Pan-ama during the Past 12,000 Years. In Vegetationand Vegetational History of Northern Latin Amer-ica. Edited by Alan H. Graham, pp- 203-299. NewYork: Elsevier Scientific Publishing CO.

BAUDEZ, CLAUDE f.1967 Recherches archeologiques dans la vallee du

Tempisque, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Travaux etMemoires de l'Instttut des Hautes Etudes del'Amerique Latine, no. 18. Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique, Paris.

BAUDEZ, CLAUDE e., AND MICHAEL D. COl'.

1962 Archaeological Sequences in Northwestern CostaRica. Akter, 34th International Congress of Amen-canists, pp. 366-373. Vienna.

1966 Incised Slate Disks from the Atlantic Watershedof Costa Rica: A Commentary. American Antiq-uity 31 :441-443.

BERNSTEIN, DAVID

1980 Artefactos de piedra pulida de Guanacaste, CostaRica: una perspectiva funcional. Vinculos 6(1-2):141-154.

BINfORD, L. R.

1971 Monuary Practices: Their Study and Their Po-tential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensionsof Mortuary Practices. Edited by J. A. Brown,pp. 6-29. Memoirs of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, no. 25.

1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press,New York.

BISCHOf, HENNING

1966 Canapote-an Early Ceramic Site in NorthernColombia. Preliminary Report. Aetas y Memo-tias, 36 1/2 Congreso lnternacional de Amerrcc.nistas 1:484-491. Seville.

1972 The Origins of Pottery in South America: RecentRadiocarbon Dates from Southwest Ecuador Pro-ceedings of the 40th lntemational Congr~.% ofAmericanists 1: 269-281. Genoa: Tilgher.

BISHOP, RONALD L., f. W. LANGE, AND P. C. LANGE

1988 Ceramic Paste Compositional Patterns in GreaterNicoya Pottery. In Costa Rican Art and Archae·ology. Edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 11-44. Boulder'University of Colorado Museum. .

BLACK, KEVIN D.

1983 The Zapotitan Valley Archeological Survey. In Ar-cheology and Volcanism in Central America Ed-ited ,by Payson D. Sheets, pp. 62-97. Austin: Uni-versIty of Texas Press.

BLANCO VARGAS, AIDA M., JUAN VICENTE GUERRERO MI-

RANDA, AND SILVIA SALGADO GONzALEZ.

1986 Patrones funerarios del policromo medio en elsector sur de Gran Nicoya. Vinculos 12(1-21:135~158.

BURTON, I., R. KATES, AND G. WHITE

1978 The Environment as Hazard. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

CAMERON, H. L.1958 History from the Air. Photogrammetric Engineer-

ing 24: 366-375.CAPPER, COL. J. E.1907 Photographs of Stonehenge as Seen from a War

Balloon. Archaeologia: 571.CARLSON, JOHN B.1981 Olmec Concave Iron-Ore Mirrors: The Aesthetics

of a Lithic Technology and the Lord of the Mirror.In The Olmec and Their Neighbors. Edited byElizabeth P. Benson, pp. 117-148. Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-lections, Trustees for Harvard University.

CARR, M. J., AND I. A. WALKER1987 Intra-eruption Changes in the Composition of

Some Mafic to Intermediate Tephras in CentralAmerica. Journal of Volcanic and Geothermal Re-search 33: 147-159.

CARSON, M. A., AND M. J. KIRKBY1972 Hillslope Form and process. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University PressCARSTENS, K. c., T. C. KIND, AND N. V. WEBER1982 Using Remote Sensing in a Predictive Model: The

Jackson Purchase Region, Kentucky. Proceedingsof Pecora VII Symposium, pp. 494-507. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

CASTILLO-MUNOZ, R.1983 Geology. In Costa Rican Natural History. Edi~ed

by Daniel Janzen, pp. 47-62. Chicago: Ijniversttyof Chicago Press.

CATER, JOHN D.n.d. Groundstone Artifacts from Site 5MT2, Yellow

Jacket, CO. Manuscript. University of ColoradoMuseum, Boulder.

CHAC6N, JUAN BRAVO1982 Geomorfologia de la Hoja Fortuna. Trabajo de In-

vestigaci6n para el Grado de Licen~iado en G.eo-grafia. Campus Omar Dengo, Heredia, Costa Rica.

CHANG, K. c.1968 Toward a Science of Prehistoric Society. In Settle-

ment Archaeology. Edited by K.C. Chang, pp- 1-9.Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press.

CHAPMAN, R.1981 The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the

"Problem" of Megalithic Tombs in PrehistoricEurope. In The Archaeology of Death. Edited byR. Chapman, I. Kinnes, K. gandsborg pp. 71-81.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHENAULT, MARK L.1984a Ground and Polished Stone from the Cuenca de

Arenal. Vinculos 10(1_2):167-186.. .1984b Test Excavations at Neblina and Las Piedras. Vm-

culos 10\1-21:115-120.1986 Technical Analysis of Precolumbian Costa Ric~

Jadeite and Greenstone Artifacts. M.A. theSIS,University of Colorado.

1988 Jadeite, Greenstone and the Precolumbian CostaRican Lapidary. In Costa Rican Art and Archae-ology: Essays in Honor of Frederick R. Mayer. Ed-ited by Frederick W. Lange, pp. 89~1l0. Boulder:University of Colorado.

BLANTON, RICHARD E.1972 prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Ixtapalapa

Peninsula Region, Mexico. Occasional Papers ofthe Department of Anthropology, no. 6. Univer-sity Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

BLONG, RUSSELL J.1984 Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook on the Effects of

Eruptions. New York: Academic Press.BORGIA, A., C. POORE, M. CARR, W. MELSON, AND G.

ALVARADO1988 Structural, Stratigraphic, and Petrologic Aspects

ot the Arenal-Chato Volcanic System, Costa Rica:Evolution of a Young Stratovolcanic Complex.Bulletin of Volcanology 50: 86~105.

BOUCHER, D. H., M. HANSEN, S. RISCH, AND J. H.

VANDERMEER1983 Agriculture; Introduction. In Costa Rican Natu-

ral History. Edited by Daniel H. Janzen, pp. 66-73.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BOZARTH, s.1986 Morphologically Distinctive Phaseolus, Cucur-

bita, and Hehanrhus Phytoliths. In Plant OpalPhytolith Analysis in Archaeology and Paleo-ecology. Edited by 1. Rovner, pp. 56-66. Occa-sional Papers No.1 of the Phytolitharian, NorthCarolina State University.

BOZZOLI DE WILLIE, MARIA EUGENIA

1975 Birth and Death in the Belief System of the BribriIndians of Costa Rica. Ph.D. dissertation (Anthro-pology), University of Georgia, Athens.

BRADLEY, JOHN1984 The Silencio Funerary Sites. Vinculos 1011-2):

93-114.BRADLEY, IOHN E., JOHN E. HOOPES, AND PAYSON SHEETS

1984 Lake Site Testing Program. Vinculos 10 (1-2):75-92.

BRAY, WARWICK

1978 An Eighteenth-Century Reference to a FlutedPoint from Guatemala. American Antiquity 43:457-460.

1981 Gold Work. In Between Continents/BetweenSeas: Precolumbian Art of Costa Rica. Edited hyE. Benson, pp. 153-166. New York: Harry N.Abrams.

1984 Across the Darien Gap: A Colombian View ofIsthmian Archaeology. In The Archaeology ofLower Central America. Edited by F. W. Lange andD. Z. Stone, pp. 305-340. Albuquerque: Univer·sity ot New Mexico Press.

BRUSH, c. f.

1965 Pox Pottery: Earliest Identified Mexican Ceramic.Science 149: 194-195.

1969 A Contribution to the Archeology of Costal Gue-rrero, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia Uni-versity.

BRYANT, VAUGHN M., fR., AND RICHARD G. HOLLOWAY

1983 The Role of Palynology in Archaeology. In Ad·vances in Archaeological Method and Theory,Vol. 6. Edited hy Michael D. Schiffer, pp. 191-224.Orlando: Academic Press.

Archaeology in the Arena] Region, Costa Rica 329

CHENAULT, M., AND M. MUELLER1984 Jewelry hom the Cuenca de Arena!. Vinculos

10(1-21: 187-192.CHIESA, s.1987 Estudio de las capas piroclasticos (tefras) del Vol-

can Arena! (Costa Rical con enfasis en la Unidada20. Report no. 276, Institute Costamcense deElectricidad.

CLARK, fOHN E., MiCHAEL BLAKE, PEDRO GUZY, MARTA CUE-

VAS, AND TAMARA SALCEDOn.d. Final Report to the Instiuto Nacional de Antro-

polcgia e Historia of the Early Preclassic PacificCoastal Project. Manuscript. New World Archaeo-logical Foundation, Brigham Young University.

CLARY, KAREN H.1986 An Analysis of Pollen from Core 2, from the Na-

cascolo Archaeological Area, on the Nicoya Pen-insula, Northwestern Costa Rica. Manuscnpt.University Museum of Archaeology/Anthropol-ogy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In prog- Pollen Studies from Coastal Cores from the Bay oftess. Parita, Panama.COE, MICHAE~ D.1960 Archaeological Linkages with North and South

America at La Victoria, Guatemala. AmericanAnthropologist 62:363-393.

1961 La Victoria, an Early Site on the Pacific Coast ofGuatemala. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ar-chaeology and Ethnology, vol. 53. Cambridge:Harvard University.

COE MiCHAEL D., AND C. BAUDEZ1961 The Zoned Bichrome Period in Northwestern

Costa Rica. American Antiquity 26: 505-515.COl'. MICHAEL D., AND RICHARD DIEHL1980 In the Land of the Glmec. Austin: University of

Texas Press.COE MICHAEL D., AND KENT V. fLANNERY1967 Early Cultures and Human Ecology in So.uth

Coastal Guatemala. Smithsoman ConmbutlOnsto Anthropology, vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution.

CONANT, f. P. -1976 Satellite Analysis of Human Ecosystems III the

Sahel of East Africa. proposal submitted to theNational Science Foundation.

CONANT, f. P., AND T. K. CARY .,-1977 A First Interpretation of East Africa SWlddemng

Via Computer-assisted Analysis of 3 LandsatTapes. Proceedings, 1977. Machi.ne Processing ofRemotely Sensed Data Symposium. pp. 36-43.West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University.

COOKE, R.1984 Archaeological Research in Central and Eastern

Panama: A Review of Some Problems. In The Ar·chaeology of Lower Central America. Edited by F.Lange and D. Stone, pp. 263-302. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

COOKE, R. G., AND A. J. RANERI'. _. . .1984 The Proyecto Santa Maria: A Multldlsclplm.ary

Analysis of Prehistoric Adaptations to a Troplc~lWatershed in Panama. In Recent Developments mIsthmian Archaeology: Advances in the Prehis-tory of Lower Central America. Edited by frede-rick W. Lange, pp. 1~30. Proceedings of the 44thCongress of Americanists, Manchester, 1982.B.A.R. Series 212.


CORRALES, FRANCISCO u.1985 Prospecci6n y excavaciones esuatignificas en el

Sino Curre (P·62-Ce), Valle Diquis, Costa Rica.Vinculos 11(1-2):1-16.

1989 La ocupaci6n agricola temprana del sitio arqueo-lcgico Curre, Valle del Diquis. Tesis de Lie., Es-cuela de Antropologfa y Sociologia, Facultad deCiencias Sociales, Universidad de Costa Rica, SanJose.

CRAWFORD, o. C. s.1923 Air Survey and Archaeology. Geographical lour-

00161 :342-366.1924a Archaeology from the air. Nature 114:580-582.1924b Air Survey and Archaeology. Ordinance Survey

Professional Papers, no. 7.1929 Air Photography for Archaeologists. Ordinance

Survey Professional Papers, no. 12.CRAWFORD, o. G. 5./ AND ALEXANDER KEILLl'.R

1928 Wessex from the Air, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CREAMER, WINIFRED

1979 Preliminary Survey Near Upala [Alajuela], CostaRica. Paper Presented at the 44th Annual Meeting,Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

1983 Production and Exchange on Two Islands in theGulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica, A.D. 1200-1550. Ph.D.dissertation. Tulane University. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity Microfilms.

CREAMER, W., AND S. DAWSON

1982- Preliminary Survey near Upala, Alajuela, Costa1983 Rica. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Costa

Rica. Edited by F. W. Lange and L. Norr. Journalof the Steward Anthropological Society 14(1-2):161-166.

CREAMER, W" AND I. HAAS

1985 Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central AmericaAmerican Antiquity 50: 738-754. .

CROAT, THOMAS B.

1978 Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford Calif'Stanford University Press. , ..

CRUMLEY, CAROLE L.

1983 Archaeological Reconnaissance at Mont DardonFrance. Archaeology (MaY-June): 12-17. '

DAHLGREN, B. E.

1936 Index of ~erican Palms. In Field Museum ofNatural HIstory Botanical Series 14(35):406-409

DAHLIN, e. H. •

I980 S~rveYing the Vol~an Region with the Post HoleDIgger. In AdaptIve Radiations in PrehistoricPanama, pp. 2~6-279. Peabody Museum Mono-graph 5. Cambndge: Harvard University.

DAY, I. s.1984 New Approaches in Stylistic Analysis: The Late

Polychrome Penod Ceramics from H . ".'Ii . aClenuaemplsque, Guanaeaste Province Costa R·

Ph D d's . U ' leaA bo

·. Vi s.ertat~on, niversity of Colorado. An~r r: Diversity Microfilms.

DECKER, R. W., AND D. HADIKUSUMO

1961 Results of the 1960 Expedition to KraknaJ {G h . 1 atau. lour-o eop YSlca Research 66:3497-3511

DENEVAN, WILLIAM M. •

1961 The Upland Pine Forests of Nicaragu" V· .{ C 1·{" G. ntversJty

a a I orma Publications in G h251-320. eograp y 12(4]:DEUEL, LEO

1969 Flights into Yesterday The Stor o{ Achae%gy. New Y,o-k S, Y ellaI Ar-• MartlO's Press.

DILLON, BRIAN D.1984 Island Building and Villages of the Dead: Living

Archaeology in the Comarca de San Bias, Panama.toumal of New World Archaeology 6(2):49-65.

DROLET, ROBERT P.1983 AI otro lado de Chiriqui, El Diquis: nuevas datos

para la integracion cultural de Ia region Gran Chi-riqui. Vinculos 90 -2]:25-76.

1984a Investigations in Diquis. In The Archaeology ofLower Central America. Edited by Frederick W.Lange and Doris Stone, pp. 33-60. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

1984b Community Life in a Late Phase Agricultural Vil-lage, Southeastern Costa Rica. In Recent Devel-opments in Isthmian Archaeology: Advances inthe Prehistory of Lower Central America. Editedby Frederick W. Lange, pp. 123-152. Proceedingsof the 44th Congress of Americanists. B.AR. Se-ries 212, Manchester.

EARLE, T., AND A. W. IOHNSON1982 Research and Technology: Annual Report Fiscal

Year 1982. National Space Technology Laborato-ries, National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion. NSTL Station.

1987 The Evolution of Human Soci.eties: From Forag-ing Group to Agrarian State. Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, Stanford Earth Re·sources Laboratory.

EASBY, ELIZABETH K.

1968 Pre-Columbian lade from Costa Rica. New York:Andre Emmerich.

1981 Jade. In Between Continents/Between Seas: Pre-columbian Art of Costa Rica. Edited by E. Benson,pp. 135-151. New York: Harry R. Abrams.

EBERT, JAMES

1984 Remote Sensing Applications in Archaeology. InAdvances in Archaeological Method and Theory,vol. 7. Edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 293-362.Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

EBERT, lAMES, AND THOMAS R. LYONS

1983 Archaeology, Anthropology, and Cultural Re-sources Management. In Manual of RemoteSensing. Edited by Robert N. Colwell, pp. 1233-1304. Vol. II, Interpretation and Applications.Falls Church, Va.: American Society of photo·grammetry.

EDlENE, BERNARD

1956 Une Methode practique pour la detection aeriennedes sites archaeologiques, en particuIier par laphotographie sur films en cauleurs et sur filmsinfrarogues. Bulletin de 1a Societe PrehistonqueFrafl(;aise 53: 540-546.

HOT, R. c.1984 Advances in Abandoned Settlement Analysis:

Application to Prehistoric Anthrosols in Colom-bia, South America. Milwaukee: UniversitY ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Latin America.

F.lNHAUS, C. SHELTON

1980 Stone Tools from La Pitahaya (lS-3]. In AdaptiveRadiations:in Prehistoric Panama. Edited by OlgaLinares and Anthony Ranere, pp. 429-466. Pea-body Museum Monograph 5. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity, Peabody Museum.

ERDTMAN, G.

1952 Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy. .Angio-sperms. Waltham, Mass.: Chronica BotaDlca Co.

FANALE, R.1974 Utilization of ERTS-l Imagery in the Analysis of

Settlement and Land Use of the Dogan of Mali.M.S. thesis [Anthropology], Catholic University.

FERRERO, A. L.1977 Costa Rica Precolomb:ina. San Jose: Editorial

Costa Rica.1981 Costa R:ica Precolombina. 4th edition. San Jose:

Editorial Costa Rica.FINCH, WILL o.1982- A Preliminary Survey of Hacienda Jeric6. In Pre-1983 historic Settlement Pattems in Costa Rica. Edited

by F. W. Lange and 1.Norr.Journal of the StewardAnthropological Society 1411-21:97-104.

FlNDLOW, FRANK I., M. I. SNARSKIS, AND P. MARTIN

1979 Un amiIisis de zonas de explotaci6n relacionadascon algunos sitios prehist6ricos de Ia vertiente at-lantica de Costa Rica. Vinculos 5121:53-71.

FLANNERY, KENT, ED.1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Aca-

demic Press.FLANNERY, KENT, AND IOYCE MARCUS1983 The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Za-

potec and Mixtec Civilizations. New York: Aca-demic Press.

FONSECA Z., OSCAR1981 Guayabo de Turrialba and Its Significance. In Be-

tween Continents/Between Seas: PrecolumbianArt of Costa Rica. Edited by E. Benson, pp- 104-Ill.New York: Harry N. Abrams.

FORD, TAMES A.1969 A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the

Americas: Diffusion or the Psychic Unity of Man?Smithsonian Institution Contributions to An-thropology, vol. 2. Washington, nc.: Smithson-ian Institution.

FORD, RICHARD l.1984 Prehistoric Phytogeography of Economic plants in

Latin America. In Pre_Columbian plant Migra-tion. Edited by Doris Stone, pp. 175-183. Papersof the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth-nology, vol. 76.

FOSHAG, WILLIAM1957 Mineralogical Studies on Guatemalan lade.

Sm:ithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 145(5).FRIEDMAN, I., AND r. GLEASON1984 Cl3 Analysis of Bone Samples from Site G-lS0, El

Silencio. Vinculos 10(1-2]: 113-114.FUDALI, R., AND W. G. MELSON1972 Ejecta Velocities, Magma Chamber Pressure, and

Kinetic Enelgy Associated with the 1968 EruptIOnof Arenal Volcano, Costa Rica. Bulletin Volcano-logique 35(2):383-401.

GALINAT, w. c.1980 The Archaeological Maize Remains from Volcan

Panama-A Comparative Perspective. In Adap-tive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama. Edited byOlga Linares and Anthony Ranere, pp. 175-180.Peabody Museum Monograph 5. Cambridge: Har-vard University, Peabody Museum.

GARNETT, D. {ED.l1938 The Letters of T. E. Lawrence. London: Spring

Books.GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA1948 Goddard Rock Color Chart. Boulder: Geological

Society of America.

Archaeology in the Arenal Region, Costa Rica .131

GOLDSTEIN, LYNNE1981 One-Dimensional Archaeology and Mulu-Dimen-

sional People: Spatial Organization and MortuaryAnalysis. In The Archae%gy of Death. Edited byR. Chapman, I. Kinnes, K. Ransborg, pp. 53-69.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GRAHAM, MARK1981 Traditions of Costa Rican Stone Sculpture. In Be·

tween Continents/Between Seas: PrecolumbianArt of Costa Rica. Edited by E. Benson, pp. 113-134. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

GREEN, DEE F., AND GARETH W. LOWE1967 Altamira and Padre Piedra, Early Preclassic Sites

in Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Ar-chaeologlcaI Foundation, no, 20.

GUERRERO, J.1982- Recientes investigaciones en eI Valle de Nosara,1983 Guanacaste. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in

Costa Rica. Edited by F, W. Lange and 1. Non.Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society1411-2):369-386.

GUERRERO, T., AND A. BLANCO1987 La Ceiba: un asentamiento del policromo medio

en el Valle del Tempisque con acnvidades tune-rarias. Thesis (Anthropology and Sociology), Uni-versity of Costa Rica, San lose.

GUERRERO, J., A. BLANCO, AND S. SALGADO1986 "parrones funerarios del policromo medic en eI

sector sur de Gran Nicoya," Vinculos 12: 135-157.GUMERMAN, GEORGE I., AND lAMES A. NEELY1972 An Archaeological Survey of the Tehuacan Valley,

Mexico: A Test of Color Infrared Photography.American Antiquity 37 .520-527.

HABERLAND, WOLFGANG1966 Early Phases on Ometepe Island. Actas y Memo-

nos. 36 1/2 Congreso tntemacsonol de America-nistas I:399-403.

1969 Early Phases and Their Relationship in SouthernCentral America. Proceedings and Transac/Jonsof the 38th International Congress of America-nists I:229-242.

1978 Lower Central America. In Chronologies in NewWorld Archaeology. Edited by R. E. Taylor andC. W. Meighan, pp. 395-430. New York: Aca-demic Press.

1982- Settlement Patterns and Cultural History of Orne-1983 tepe Island, Nicaragua: A Preliminary Sketch., In

Prehistoric Settlement Patterns m Costa Rica.Edited by F. W. Lange and L. Non. Tournai ofthe Steward Anthropological Society 1411-2):

369-386.1983 To Quench the Thirst: Water and Settlement in

Central America. In Prehistoric Settlement Pat-terns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. Ed-ited by E. Vogt and R. Levanthal, pp. 79-88. Al-buquerque and Cambridge: University of NewMexico and Peabody Museum Press,

HABICHT-MAUCHE, JUDITH, IOHN W. HOOPES, AND MICHAEL

GESELOWITZ1987 Where's the Chief?: The Archaeology oi Complex

Tribes. Paper Presented at the 52nd Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, To-rontO, May 6-10.

HAGGETT, PETER1965 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. Lon-

don: Arnold.


HAMMOND, NORMAN, DUNCAN PRING, RICHARD WILK, SONA

DONAGHEY, FRANK P. SAUL, ELIZABETH S. WING, ARLENE V.

MILLER, AND LAWRENCE H. FELDMAN

1979 The Earliest Lowland Maya! Definition of theSwasey Phase. American Antiquity 4411)92-110.

HARNER, MICHAEl I.1970 Population Pressure and the Social Evolution of

Agriculturalists. Southwestern icumal of Anthro-pology 26: 1- 106.

HARRIS, D.1973 The Prehistory of Tropical Agriculture: An Eth-

noecological Model. In The Explanation of Cul-ture Change. Edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 391-417.London: Duckworth.

HARTMAN, c.190! Archaeological Researches in Costa Rica. Stock-

holm: Royal Ethnographical Museum,1907 Archaeological Researches on the Pacific Coast of

Costa Rica. Memoirs, Carnegie Museum, no. 3.HARTSHORN, G.

1983 Plants: Introduction. In Costa Rican Natural His-tory. Edited by D. Janzen, pp. 118-157. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

HEALY, PAUL

1974 Archaeological Survey of the Rivas Region, Nica-ragua. PhD. dissertation (Anthropology) HarvardUniversity. '

1980 Archaeology of the Rivas Region, Nicaragua. Wa-terloo, On~ario: Winfred Laurier University Press.

1988 Greater Nicoya and Mesoamerica: Analysis of Se-lected Ceramics. In Costa Rican Art and Archae-ology. Edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 291-302. Boul-der: University of Colorado Museum.

HEIZER, ROBERT F., AND JONAS E. GULLBERG

1981 Concave Mirrors from the Site of La Venta "I.bas.co: Their Occurrence, Mineralogy, Optical D:-scnpnon, and Function. In The Dlmec and TheirNeighbors. Edited by Elizabeth P. Bensonpp. 109-11~. Washington, D.C.: Dumbartnn Oak~Research Library and Collections, Trustees forHarvard University.

HELMS, M.

1979 Ancient Pan.ama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Aus-un: Urnversiry of Texas Press.

HERTZ, ROBERT

1960 Death and the Right Hand. Translated by Rodneand Claudia Needham. Glencoe, IlL Free P y

HESTER, T. ress.1986 On the Misuse of Projectile Point Typolo ' M'. gym e-

soamcnca. American Antiquity 51 :412-415HEUSSER, CALVIN j. •

1971 Pollen and Spores of Chile. Tucson' U' . fArizona. . lllversity 0

HOOPES, J.

1979 Recent Archaeolo~caI Investigations at the Site ofLa GUinea, Templsque River Valley GuC t R' BA h ' ' anacasteos a Ica.... t eSIS,Yale University. '

1980 Archaeological ,Investigations at the Site of LaGumea, Templsque River Valley GC R

· , uanacasteosta Ica. MSon file National M f'Rica. ' useum 0 Costa

1984a A Preliminary Ceramic Sequence lor the Cude Arenal. Cordillera de Tilaran Re . encaRica., Vincu/os 10(1-2): 129-148. glOn, Costa

1984b Prehistoric Habitation Sites in th .. R' SD' V' ... 10 anta Rosaramage. mculos 10(1-2):121-128.

1985 El Complejo Tronadora: ceramica del pcrfodn for-mativo en el cuenca de Arenal, Guanacaste, CostaRica. Vinculos 11(1-2):111-118.

1987 Early Ceramics and the Origins of Village Life inLower Central America. ph.D. dissertation IAn-thropology), Harvard University. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity Microfilms.

n.d. Early Formative Cultures in the IntermediateArea: A Background to the Emergence of SocialComplexity. Manuscript.

1988 The Complex Tribe in Prehistory: SociopoliticalOrganization in the Archaeological Record. Paperpresented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the So-ciety for American Archaeology, Phoenix, April27-May 1.

HORDER, ALAN (ED.I1971 The Manual of Photography. Philadelphia:

Chilton.HORTON, R. E.

1945 Erosional Development of Streams and TheirDrainage Basins: Hydrophysical Approaches toQuantitative Morphology. Bulletin of the Geo-logical Society of America 56: 275-370.

HUMMER, ANNE G.

1983 Ground Stone of the Zapotitan Valley. In Arche-ology and Volcanism in Central America. Editedby Payson D. Sheets, pp. 229-253. Austin: Uni-versity of Texas Press.

HUNTINGTON, RICHARD, AND PETER METCALF

1979 Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mor·tuary Rituals. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

IMESON, A. c., AND M. VIS

1982 Factors Influencing the Erodibility of Soils inNatural and Semi-Natural Ecosystems at Differ-ent Altitudes in the Central Cordillera of Colom·bia. In Applied Geomorphology in the Tropics.Edited by I. Douglas and T. Spencer, pp. 91-lO6.Berlin: Gebruder.

JANZEN, DANIEL H.

1983 Crescentia alara [Iicaro, Cuacal, Gourd tree). InCosta Rican Natural History. Edited by Daniel H.Janzen, pp. 222-224. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

1ENSEN, JOHN R.

1986 Introductory Digital Image Processing: A RemoteSensing Perspective, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren-tice-Hall.

IESSUP, T.

1981 Why Do Apo Kayan Shifting Cultivators Move?Borneo Research Bulletin 1311): 16-32.

10YCE, A.

1983 Remote Sensing of Forest Dynamics in TropicalRe.gions. Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of SpaceSCIence and Applications

KAHLE, A. B., AND A. F. H. GOETZ .

1983 Mineralogic Information from a New AirborneThermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner. Science222:24-27.

KAPp, RONALD O.

1969 Pollen and Spores. Dubuque, la : Wm. C. Brown·KENNEDY, WILliAM I.

1968 ~chaeological Investigations in the Reventazon~ver Drainage Area, Costa Rica. ph.D. disserta-tIOn (Anthropology), Tulane University.

KIDDER, A, v.

1929 Air Exploration of the Maya Country. Bulletin ofthe Pan Amencen Union 63 1200~ 1205,

1930a Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh Aid ArchaeologistsMasterkey 3161:5-17. .

1930b Five Days over the Maya Country. ScientificMonthly 30: 193-205.

KIDDER, A. v., IESSE D. JENNINGS, AND EDWIN M. SHOOK

1946 Excavations at Kaminatiuvu, Guatemala. Carne-gie Institution of Washington, Publication 561.Washington, D.C.

KIRKBY, M. J.

1969 Erosion by Water on Hillslopes. In Introductionto Fluvial Processes. Edited by Richard Chorley,pp. 229-238. Suffolk: Mithuen.

KNIGHTLEY, P., AND C. SIMPSON

1971 The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia. NewYork: Bantam Books.

LANGE, F.

1971 Culture History of the Sapoa River Valley CostaRica, Occasional Papers in Anthropology: no. 4.Beloit, Wise.: Logan Museum, Beloit College.

1976 Bahias y valles de la Costa de Cuanacaste. Vincu-los 2 :45-66.

1978 Coastal Settlement in Northwestern Costa Rica.In Coastal Adaptations: The Economy of Mari-time Middle America. Edited by B. Stark andB. Voorhies, pp. 101-119. New York: AcademicPress.

1980a The Formative Zoned Bichrome Period in North-western Costa Rica (800 BC to AD 5001, Based onExcavations at the Vidor Site, Bay of Culebra. Vin-coles 6(1-2):33-42.

1980b Una ocupacion del policromo tardio en sito Ruiz,cerca de Bahia Culebra. Vinculos 61I -2):81-96.

1982- The GuanacastefSan Carlos Corridor Project. In1983 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Costa Rica.

Edited by F. W. Lange and L. NOIT. Ioumal of theSteward Anthropological Society 14(1-2):93-96.

1984a Cultural Geography of Pre-Columbian LowerCentral America. In The Archaeology of LowerCentral America. Edited by F. Lange and D. Stone,pp. 33-60. Albuquerque: University of New Mex-ico Press.

1984b The Greater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea. InThe Archaeology of Lower Central America. Ed-ited by F. Lange and D. Stone, pp. 165-194. Albu-querque: University of New Mexico Press.

LANGE, F.lw.)

1980c Vinculos, Vol. 6. Special issue on the Bahia Cule-bra Area, Guanacaste.

LANGE, F., AND S. ABEL-VIDOR

1980 The Formative Zoned Bichrorne Period in North-eastern Costa Rica (800 BC to AD 500). Vinculos6:33-42.

LANGE, F., S. ABEL-VIDOR, CLAUDE F. BAUDEZ, RONALD L.

BISHOP, WINIFRED CREAMER, JANE S. DAY, JUAN VICENTE

GUERRERO M., PAUL F. HEALY, SILVIA SALGADO G., ROBERT

STROESSNER, AND ALICE T1LLET

1984 New Approaches to Greater Nicoya Ceramics. InRecent Developments in Isthmian Archaeology:Advances in the Prehistory of Lower CentralAmerica. Edited by F. W. Lange. Proceedings of the44th International Congress of Americanists.Manchester, 1982. 8.A.R International Series212: 199-21410xfordl.

Archaeology in the Arenal Re!{ion. Cos/o:J RICa .l.B

LANGE, F., AND RICHARD M. ALCOLA

1979 Metallurgy in Custa Rica. h..... Arc <Je%x\" .\21<;1'26-3.\.

LANGE, F., AND RONALD L. BISHOI'

n.d. Papers ofthe Greater Nicoya Ceramic Cooft'renceManuscnpt, Smithsonian Institutioo

1982- A Search for Jade Sources and Prchrstonc Settle-1983 ment on the Santa Elena Peninsula. In /'ulmriJrJc

Settlement Pal/ems in Costa Rica, Edited hy FLange and L. Non. Inumal of the .~re\\"ard Amino,pologlcal Society, vel. 14, nos. I and 2. Umversuvof Illinois, Urbana.

LANGE, F., AND 1. MURRAY

1972 Archeology of the San Dimas Valley, Costa RicaKatunob 7(41:50-91.

LANGE, F., AND l. NORR (£Os,11982- Prehistoric Settlement Partem., in Costa Rica,1983 (oumal of the Steward Anthropolo!{icaJ Socier\',

vol. 14, nos. 1 and 2. University of IllinoisUrbana. '

LANGE, F., AND C. RYDBERG

1972 Abandonment and Post-Abandonment Behavior ata Rural Central American House-Site. AmencanAntiquity 37(31:419-431.

LANGE, F., AND K. SCHElDENHE.LM1972 The Salvage Archaeology of a Zoned Bichrome

Cemetery. American Antiquity 37(21 240-245.LANGE, F., AND D. STONE [aos.I1984 The Archaeology of Lower Central Amwca. AI·

buquerque: University 01 New Mexico Press.LAWRENCE, GEORGE H, M.

1951 Taxonomy of Vascular Plants, New York:Macmillan,

LEON,IORGE1968 FundamenlOs botanicos de los cultivos tropi·

caies. San Jose: Instituto lnteramericano de Cien-etas Agricolas de la O.E.A.

LEOPOLD, E. G., AND R. A. SCOTT1957 Pollen and Spores and Their Use in Geology, An-

nual Report of the Smithsonian Institution1957:303-323.

LEYDEN, BARBARA1987 Man and Climate in the Maya Lowlands. Quater-

nary Research 28:407-414.LILLESAND, THOMAS M., AND RALPH W, KIEfER1979 Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. New

York: JIJhn Wiley and Sons.LINARES, 0., AND A. RANERE IEDs.)1980 Adaptive Radiations in Prehistoric Panama. Pea-

body Museum Monograph 5. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.

LINARES, 0., AND P. SHEETS1980 Highland Agricultural Villages in the Volcan Baru

Region. In Adaptive Radiations in PrehistoricPanama. Edited by O. Linares and A. Ranere,pp. 44-55. Peabody Museum Monographs, no. 5.Cambridge: Harvard University.

LINARES, 0., P, SHEETS, AND J. ROSENTHAL1975 Prehistoric Agriculture in Tropical Highlands,

Sci.ence 187(41721: 137-145.LIND, A.1981 Applications of Aircraft and Satellite Data for the

Study of Archaeology and Environment, MekongDelta, Vietnam. In International Symposium onRemote Sensing of Environment, Proceedings,vol. 3: 1529-1537.


II •IiI

LINDBERGH, C. A.1929 The Discovery of Ruined Maya Cities. Science

70: 12-13.LINES, JORGE A.1936 Una huaca en Zapandi. Notas preliminares toma-

das a prop6sito de las excavaciones arqueol6gicashechas a raiz de la inundaci6n del Rio Tempisqueen 1933, Filadelfla, Provincia de Cuanacaste, Pe-ninsula de Nicoya, Costa Rica. San Jose: ImprentaLehmann.

LOTHROP, SAMUEL K.1926 Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Contribu-

tions from the Museum of the American Indian,no. 8. 2 vols. New York: Heye Foundation.

1950 Archaeology of Southern Veraguas, Panama.Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyond Ethnology 9131.Cambridge: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

1963 Archaeology of the Diquis Delta, Costa Rica. Pa-pers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology, vol. 51. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.

1966 Archaeology of Lower Central America. In Ar-chaeological Frontiers and External Connections.Edited by Gordon R. Willey and Gordon F. Ek-holm, pp. 180-208. Handbook of Mi.ddle Ameri-can Indians, Volume 4. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

LOWE, GARETH w.1959 Archaeological Exploration of the Upper Grijalva

River, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, no. 2.

1971 The Civilizarional Consequences of Varying De-grees of Agricultural and Ceramic Dependencywithin the Basic Ecosystem of Mesoamerica. InObservations on the Emergence of Civilization inAmerica. Edited by Robert F. Heizer and John A.Graham, pp. 212-248. Contributions of the Uni-versity of California Research Facility, no.II :212-248. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer-sity of California Press.

1975 The Early Preclassic Barra Phase of Altamira,Chiapas: A Review with New Data. Papers of theNew World Archaeological Foundation, no. 38.

1978 Eastern Mesoamerica. In Chronologies in NewWorld Archaeology. Edited by R. E. Taylor andC. W. Meighan, pp. 331-393. New York: Aca-demic Press.

LYONS, T. R., ANDT. W. AVERY1977 Remote Sensing: A Handbook for Archeologists

and Cultural Resource Managers. Washington,D.C.: National Park Service.

MACARTHUR, R. H.1972 Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribu-

tion of Species. New York: Harper and Row.MACNElSH, RICHARP S., ANTOINETTE NELKEN-TERNER, ANDIRMGARD W. JOHNSON1967 The Prehistory of the Tehuacdn Valley, Vol. 2:

Nonceramic Artifacts. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

MACNElSH, RICHARD 5., F. A. PETERSON, AND K. V. FLANNERY1970 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 3: Ce-

ramics. Austin: University of Texas Press.

MACNUSH, RICHARD S., IEFFERY K. WILKERSON, AND ANTOI-NETTE NELKEN-TERNER1980 First Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Ar-

chaeological Reconnaissance. Andover, Mass.:Robert E. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology,Phillips Academy.

MADRY, SCOTT L. H.1983 Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Archaeology

[May-Iune]: 18-20.MALAVASSI, E.1979 Geology and Petrology of Arenal Volcano. M.A.

thesis, University of Hawaii.MARKGRAF, VERA, AND HECTOR L. D'ANTONI1978 Pollen Flora of Argentina. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press.MARTIN, P. s., AND I. SCHOENWETTER1960 Arizona's Oldest Cornfield. Science 132 :33-34.MASON, J. ALDEN1927 Mirrors of Ancient America. The Museum tour-

na1 18(2):201-209. Museum of the University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1945 Costa Rican Stonework: The Minor C. Keith Col-lection. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 39.

MATTHEWS, MEREDITH H.1984 Results of Macrobotanical Analysis for the Pro-

yecto Prehist6rico Arenal: Preliminary Evidenceof Resource Use and Subsistence Strategies. Vin-culoe 10(1-2]: 193-205.

MCIt. BIRD, ROBERT1984 South American Maize in Central America. In

Pre-Columbian Plant Migration. Edited by DorisStone, pp. 39-66. Papers of the Peabody Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 76.

MEGGERS, BETTY J., CUFFORD EVANS, AND EMILIO ESTRADA1965 Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador.

Smithsonian Institution Contributions to An-thropology, vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Smithson-ian Institution.

MEHRINGER, P. r.1967 Pollen Analysis on the Tule Springs Site, Nevada.

In Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada. Ed-ited by H. M. Wormington and D. Ellis, pp. 130-200. Carson City: Nevada State Museum Anthro-pological Papers 13.

MELENDEZ, CARLOS1984 Papel de los Zopilotes en la religi6n de los indios

del Pacifico Sur de Costa Rica. In yo Centenario deGonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, Memoria del Con-greso sobre el Mundo Centroamericano de suTiempo, pp. 79~87. San Jose, Costa Rica: EditorialTexto Ltda.

MELSON, w.1978 Eruption of Arenal Volcano, Costa Rica, 1968-

1973. National Geographic Society Research Re-ports, pp. 433-446.

1982 Alternation between Basaltic Andesite and Dacitein Historic and Prehistoric Eruptions for ArenalVolcano, Costa Rica. Manuscript. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

1984 Prehistoric Eruptions of Arenal Volcano, CostaRica. Vinculos 10:35-59.

MELSON, W., J. BARQUERO, R. SAENZ, AND E. FERNANDEZ1986 Erupciones explosivas de importancia en volcanes

de Costa Rica. Boletin Volcano10gia 16: 15-22.

MELSON, W., AND R. SAENZ1968 The 1968 Eruption of Arenal Volcano, Costa Rica:

Preliminary Summary of Field and LaboratoryStudies. November 7, report. Smithsonian Insti-tution Center for Short-lived Phenomena.

1973 Volume, Energy, and Cyclicity of Eruptions of Are-nal Volcano, Costa Rica. Bulletin Volcanologique37(3):416-437.

MELTZER, 0.1., D. D. FOWLER, AND f. A. SABLOFF (EDS.)1986 American Archaeology Past, Present, and Future.

Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archae-ology and Smithsonian Institution Press.

MINAKAMI, T., S. UTiBORI, AND S. HlRAGA1969 The 1968 Eruption of Volcano Arenal, Costa Rica.

Bulletin of Earthquake Research 47: 783-808.MUELLER, MARILYNN1984a Laguna de Arenal Shoreline Survey. Vinculos 10

[1-21'61-74.1984b Appendix A. The Silencio Stratigraphic Sequence.

Vinculos 10(1-2):51-55.1986 Settlement in the Cuenca de Arenal, North-

western Costa Rica. M.A. thesis, University ofColorado.

MURRAY, THOMAS A., AND EDWARD W. JESS1976 Preliminary Report of the Rio Sabalo Valley Sur-

vey. Manuscript, Dept. of Anthropology, SUNY,Binghamton.

MYERS, THOMAS P.1978 Formative Period Interaction Spheres in the Inter-

mediate Area: Archaeology of Central Americaand Adjacent South America. In Advances in An-dean Archaeology. Edited by D. L. growman. TheHague: Mouton.

NEWHALL, c. G., AND W. MELSON1983 Explosive Activity Associated with the Growth of

Volcanic Domes. tcumal of Volcanic and Ceo-thermal Research 17: 111-131.

NOLAN, MARY LEE1979 Impact of Paricutin on Five Communities. In Vol-

canic Activity and Human Ecology. Edited by P.Sheets and D. Grayson, pp. 293-338. New York:Academic Press.

NORDENSKJOLD, ERLAND1926 Miroirs convexes et concaves en Amerique. Tour-

nal de 1a Societe des Ameticatustes de Paris18:103-110.

NOAA, LYNETTE1979 Stone Burial Mounds and Petroglyphs of the

Zoned Bichrome Period. Paper presented at the44th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Vancouver.

1982- Archaeological Site Survey and Burial Mound1983 Excavations in the Rio Naranio-Bijagua Valley.

In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in CostaRica. Edited by F. W. Lange and L. Norr. Toumalof the Steward Anthropological Society, vel. 14:135-156.

NORWEll, ALBERT1964 Ceramic Stratigraphy in southwestern Nicaragua.

Proceedings and Transactions of the 35th lnter-national Congress of Americanists 1 :551-561.

ODtO, EDUARDO1989 La Pochota: un sitio temprano en el Valle de

Tempisque. Manuscript, Museo Nacional, SanJose.

Archaeology in the Arenal Region, C05ta Rica 33'

PASZTORY,ESTHER1983 Aztec Art. New York: Henry N. Abrams.PEARSALL,D. M.1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures.

San Diego: Academic Press.PEARSON, G. W., J, R. PILCHEk, M. G. L. IIAILLll. n. M. coa-IIETI, AND F. QUA1986 High-Precision C" Measurement of Irish Oaks to

Show the Natural C" Variations lrom An 1840-5210 BC. Radiocarbon 28(2B}:911-934.

PEARSON, G. W., AND M. STUlVEk1986 High-Precision Calibration 01 the Radiocarbon

Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC Radiocarbon l8(lBl:805-838.

PERALTA, M. M.1883 Costa Rica, Nicaragua y Panama en el siglo XVI.

su historia y sus limites segun los documentos dearchivo de las Indias de Sevilla. del SimanclJs.etc .. recogidos y publicados con notes y aclara·ciones historicas y geogrdficas. Madrid: librtriade M. Murillo.

PIPERNO, D.1984 A Comparison and Differentiation of Phytoliths

from Maize and wild Grasses: Use of Morphologi-cal Criteria. American Antiquity 49:361-383.

1985a Phytolith Analysis and Tropical Paleo-Ecology:Production and Taxonomic Significance of Sili·ceous Forms in New World plant Domesticatesand Wild Species. Review of Paleobotany andPalynology 45: 185-228.

1985b Phytolith Taphonomy and Distributions in Ar·chaeological Sediments from Panama. 'oumal ofArchaeological Science 12:247-267.

1985c Phytolithic Analysis of Geological Sedimentsfrom Panama. Antiquity 59:13-19.

1988 Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological Perspec·uve. San Diego: Academic Press.

PIPERNO, D., AND V. STARCZAK .1985 Numerical Analysis of Maize and Wild Grass Phy-

toliths Using Multivariate Techniques. Paper pre-sented at the znd Phytolith Research Workshop,Duluth.

PLOG, FRED .1968 Archaeological Surveys: A New Perspective. M.A.

thesis, University of Chicago.POSEY, D. d De I1983 Indigenous Ecological Knowledge an ve op-

ment in the Amazon. In The Dilemma of Ama·zonian Development. Edited by E. Moran, pp. 225-257. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

P!lANCE, GHIUEAN T. .1984 The Pejibaye, Guilielrna gasipaes IH.B.Kl Batl~.

and the Papaya, Carica papaya L. In, Pre-Colum-bian Plant Migration. Edited by Dons Stone. Pa-pers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnology 76:85-104.

RECORD, SAMUEL r., AND kOBERT W. HESS1943 Timbers of the New World. New Haven: Yal~

University Press.R!.£S, ,.1979 Effects of the E.ruption of Paricutin Volcano on

Landforms, Vegetation, and Human OccU~cy. InVolcanic Activity and Human Ecology. Edited byP. Sheets and D. Grayson, pp. 249-292. NewYork: Acad~mic Press.


REiCHEL-DOLMATOFF, GERARDO1955 Excavaciones en los conchales de la costa de Bar-

lovento. Revista Colombiana de Anttopologia 4:249-272-

1965a Columbia. Ancient Peoples and Places. NewYork: Praeger.

196sb Excavaciones arqueoJ6gicas en Puerto Hormiga,Depcnumemo de Bolivar. Publicaciones dela Uru-versidad de Los Andes, Antrcpologfa 2 (Bogota).

1985 Monsu: lin sitio arqueoiogico. Bogota: Fondo dePromocion de la Cultura del Banco Popular.

REINING, P.1973 Utilization of ERTS·1 Imagery in Cultivation and

Settlement Site Identification and Carrying Ca-pacity Estimates in Upper Volta and Niger.Springfield, Va.: National Technical InformationCenter.

1974a Human Settlement Patterns in Relation to Re-sources of Less Developed Countries. Proceedings:CaSPAR Meetings, Sao Paulo, Brazil. On file atInternational Office, American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

1974b Use of ERTS-l Data in Carrying Capacity Esti-mates for Sites in Upper Volta and Niger. Paperpresented at the 1974 Annual Meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association, MexicoCity.

RICHARDS, P.

1966 The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RICHARDSON, FRANCIS B.

1940 Non-Maya Monumental Sculpture of CentralAmerica. In The Maya and Their Neighbors. Ed-ited by C. L. Hay et al., pp. 395-416. New York:D. Appleton-Century.

RICKETSON, OLIVER, IR., AND A. V. KIDDER

1930 An Archeological Reconnaissance by Air in Cen-tral America. Geographical Review 20l21.

RITTER, DALE F.

1986 Process Geomorphology. Dubuque, Ia.: W. C.Brown.

ROWE, IOHN HOWLAND1953 Technical Aids in Anthropology: A Historical Sur-

vey. In Anthropology Today. Edited by Alfred L.Kroeber, pp. 895-940. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

RYDER, PETER1982- Hacienda Mojica. In Prehistoric Settlement Pat-1983a terns in Costa Rica. Edited by F. W. Lange and

L. Non. loumal of the Steward AnthropologicalSociety 14(1-2): 105-120.

1982- Guayabo de Bagaces. In Prehistoric Settlement1983b Patterns of Costa Rica. Edited by F. W. Lange and

1. Norr. !oumal of the Steward AnthropologicalSociety 1411-2):121-134.

SABINS, FLOYD F., JR.1987 Remote Sensing: Principles and Interpretation.

2d ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.SABLOFF, J. A., AND R. E. SMITH1969 The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic

Classification in the Type-Variety System. Ameri·can Antiquity 34(31: 278-285.

SAENZ, R.1976 Erupci6n del Volcan Arenal en el ana 1968. Re-

vista Geografica de America CentralS: 149-188.

,i!

SAENZ, R., AND W. MELSON

1976 La erupci6n del Volcan Arenal, Costa Rica en ju-lio, 1968. Revista Geograiica de America Central5:55-148.

SIEGEL, B. S., AND A. R. GILLESPIE

1980 Remote Sensing in Geology. New York: Wiley.SMITH, C. E.1980 plant Remains from the Chiriqui Sites and An-

cient Vegetational Patterns. In Adaptive Radia-tions in Prehistoric Panama. Edited by Olga F.Linares and Anthony J. Ranere, pp. 151-174. Pea-body Museum Monographs No.5. Cambridge:Havard University.

SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, AND I. C. GIFFORD

1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for theAnalysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity25(3): 330-340.

SNARSKIS, MICHAEL J.1976 La vernente atlantica de Costa Rica. Vinculos

2: 101-114.1978 The Archaeology of the Central Atlantic Water-

shed of Costa Rica. Ph.D. dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity.

1979 Turrialba: A Paleo-Indian Quarry and WorkshopSite in Eastern Costa Rica. American Antiquity44: 125-138.

1981a Archaeology of Costa Rica. In Between Conti-nents/Between Seas: Precolumbian Art of CostaRica. Edited by E. Benson, pp. 15-84. New York:Harry N. Abrams.

1981b Catalogue. In Between Continents/Between Seas:Precolumbian Art of Costa Rica. Edited by E. Ben-son, pp. 178-227. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

1982 La ceramica precolombina en Costa Rica/Preco·lumbian Ceramics in Costa Rica. Bilingual ed.San Jose: Instituto Naciooal de geguros.

1984a Central America: The Lower Caribbean. In TheArchaeology of Lower Central America. Edited byF. Lange and D. Stone, pp. 195-232. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press. .

1984b Prehistoric Microsettlement Patterns m the Cen-tral Highlands-Atlantic Watershed ~f Costa Rica.In Recent Developments in Isthl1l1an Archaeol-ogy. Edited by F. Lange. B.A.R. International Se-ries, 212: 153-178 [Oxford].

1985 Symbolism of Gold inCosta Rica and Its Archa~o-logical Perspective. In The Art of PrecolumbJa~Gold. Edited by Julie Jones, pp. 22-33. London.Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

SNARSKIS MICHAEL J., AND AIDA lILANCO1978 Data sobre ceramics policromada guanacasteca ex-

cavada en la Meseta Central. Vinculos 4: 106-114.SOUTHWARD, JUDITH . .. U· Etb1982 Identifying Food-Preparation ACtlVltleS SlOg -

nographic and Archaeological Data Bases. M.A.thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.

SQUIER, EPHRAIM GEORGE .1860 Some Account of the Lake of YojDaor Taulebe, 10

Honduras, Central America, !oumal of the RoyalGeographical Society 30: 58-63.

STANDLEY, PAUL c. f ,]1937 Flora of Costa Rica. Field Museun:'" 0 Natur

History, Botanical Series, vol. 18, Chicago.STOCKMAllR, lENS . 1 ~U1971 Tablets with Spores Used 10 Abso ute ru en

Analysis. Pollen et Spores 13141:615-621.

SAXE, A.1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor:University Microfilms.

SCHIFFER, MICHAEL D.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Rec-

ord. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

SCHWONGERDT, R.

1983 Techniques for Image Processing and Cl assiiicu-non in Remote Sensing. London: Academic Press.

SEGERSTROM, K.

1950 Erosion Studies at Paricutin. U.S. Geological Sur-vey Bulletin 965-A. Washington, D.C.: Govern-ment Printing Office.

SEVER, T., AND J. WISEMAN

1985 Conference on Remote Sensing: Potential for theFuture. Manuscript. NASA Earth Resources Li-brary Report, NSTL Station, Miss.

SHARER, R. (ED.l1978 The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador. 3

vols. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

SHAZLY, E. M.1983 Space Borne Imagery Interpretation of Mega Fea-

tures Related to Egyptian Archeology. Interna-tional Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sympo·sium, vol. I.New York: Institute of Electrical andElectronic Engineers.

SHEETS, PAYSON D.1978 Artifacts. In The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, £1

Salvador, vol. 2. Edited by R. Sharer, pp. 2-133.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1982- Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Cuenca de Are-1983 nal 1981-1982.1n Prehistoric Settlement Patterns

in Costa Rica. Edited by F. W. Lange and L. Norr.icumal of the Steward Anthropological Society1411-2):157-159.

1983 Settlement, Subsistence, and Volcanism near Are-nal, Costa Rica. Proposal submitted to the Na-tional Science Foundation.

1984a Proyecto Prehistorico Arenal, an Introduction.Vinculos IO(I~21:17-30.

1984b Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Cordillera de Ti-laran. Vinculos 10(1-2):149-166.

1984c Summary and Conclusions. Vinculos 10(1-2):207 -223.

SHEETS, PAYSON D. (ED.]1983 Archeology and Volcanism in Central America:

The Zapotitan Valley of £1 Salvador. Austin: Uni-versity of Texas Press.

SHEETS, PAYSON D., AND M. MUELLER (EDS.I

1984 Archeological Investigations in the Cordillera ofTilanin, Costa Rica, 1984. Special issue of Vincu-los 10(1-21.

SHEETS, PAYSON D., E.I. ROSENTHAL, AND A. J. RANERE

1980 Stone Tools from Volcan Baru. In Adaptive Radia·tions in Prehistoric Panama. Edited by Olga F.Linares and Anthony J. Ranere, pp. 404-428. Pea-body Museum Monographs No.5. Cambridge:Havard University.

Archaeology in the Arenal Region, Costa Rica 337

STONE, DORIS1972 Pre-Columbian Man Finds Central America.

Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum Press.1977 Precolumbian Man in Costa Rica. Cambridge,

Mass.: Peabody Museum Press.STONE, DORIS, AND CARLOS BALSER1965 Incised Slate Discs from the Atlantic Watershed of

Costa Rica. American Antiquity 30:310-329.STRAUSS, JOYCE R.n.d. A Mirror Tradition in Pre-Columbian Art. M.A.

thesis, University of Denver.STUIVER, M., AND G. W. PEARSON1986 High·Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon

Time Scale, AD 1950-500 Be. Radiocarbon 2812Bl:805-838.

SWAUGER, JAMES t., AND WILLIAM J. MAYER-OAKES

1952 A Fluted Point from Costa Rica. American An-tiquity 17:264-265.

SWEENEY, lEANNE w.1975 Guanacaste, Costa Rica: An Analysis of Preco-

tumbian Ceramics from the Northwest Coast.Ph.D. dissertation [Antbrcpologv], University ofPennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

TAINTER, I. .1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patreming at

Kaloko, North Koua, Hawaii. Archeology andPhysical Anthropology of Oceania 8: .1-11.

1977 Modeling Change in Prehistoric SOCial Systems.In Formal Theory Building in Archaeology. Editedby 1. Binford, pp. 327-351. New York: AcademicPress.

1978 Mortuary Practices and the Study of PrehistoricSocial Systems. In Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, no. 1. Edited by M. B. Schif-fer, pp. 105-143. New York: Academic Press.

TARTAGLIA, LOUIS I.1977 Infrared Archeological Reconnaissance. In Re-

mote Sensing Techniques in Archeology. Editedby T. R. Lyons and R. Hitchcock, pp. 35-50. Al-buquerque: Chaco Center.

TOLSTOY P., AND s. FISH1975 Surface and Subsurface Evidence for Community

Size at Coapexco, Mexico. Tournai of Field Ar·chaeology 2: 97-104.

TOSI, I.1980 £Studio eeo16gico integral de las zonas de aieaa-

cron del Proyecto Arenal. San Jose: Centro Cten-nfico Tropical.

TSUKADA MATSUO, AND JOHN R. ROWLEY1964 identification of Fossil Maize Pollen. Grana Paly-

nologica 5(3]:406-412.VAILLANT, G. c.1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. AnthropologiCAlI Pa-

pers, vol. 32: Pt. I. New York: American Museumof Natural History.

VAN DER MERWE, N.1982 Carbon I&otopes, Pholosyntheslli, and Archaeol-

ogy. American SClenti.if 70: 596-606.VOORHIES, BARBARA .1976 The Chantuto Pwple: An ArchaiC Period Society

of the Chiapas Littoral, MeXICO.New World Ar·chaeological Foundation Paper, no. 41


WAGNER, PHILIP L.1985 Nicoya, a Cultural Geography. University of Cal-

ifornia Publications in Geography 12: 193-250.WALLACE, HENRY, AND RICHARD M. ACCOLA1980 Investigaciones arqueo16gicas preliminares de Ne-

cascolo, Bahia Culebra, Costa Rica. Vinculos 611-21'51-67.

WEILAND, DORIS1984 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Santa Ma-

ria Drainage of Central Panama: A PreliminaryAnalysis. In Recent Developments in IsthmianArchaeology: Advances in the Prehistory of LowerCentral America. Edited by F. W. Lange, pp. 31-53.Proceedings of the 44th Congress of Americanists.B.A.R. Series 212, Manchester.

WEST, 11.., AND', AUGELLI1966 Middle America: Its Lands and Peoples. Engle-

wood Cliffs, N.f.: Prentice-Hall.WILLEY, G.1971 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Vol-

ume 2: South America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.

1984 A Summary of the Archaeology of Lower CentralAmerica. In The Archaeology of Lower CentralAmerica. Edited by F.Lange and D. Stone, pp. 341-378. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

WILLEY, G., W. BULLARD, J. GLASS, AND J. GIFFORD1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Val-

ley. Peabody Museum Papers, voL 54. Cambridge:Harvard University.

WILLEY, G., AND C. R. MCGIMSEY1954 The Monagrillo Culture of Panama. Peabody

Museum Papers, vol. 54. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.

WILLEY, G., AND J. SABLOFF1971 A History of American Archaeology. San Fran-

cisco: Freeman.WINTER, MARCUS c.1976 The Archaeological Household Cluster in the Val-

ley of Oaxaca. In The Early Mesoamerican va.loge. Edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 25-31. NewYOlk: Academic Press.

WU, S., AND S. SADER1987 Multipolarization SAR Data for Surface Feature

Delineation and Forest Vegetation Characteriza-tion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re-mote Sensing, vol. GE-25, no. 1. New York: insti-tute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

YOUNG, R. A., AND C. K. MUTCHER1969 Soil Movement on Irregular Slopes. Water Re-

sources Research 5: 1084-1089.ZEITLIN, R.1984 A Summary Report on Three Seasons of Field in-

vestigations into the Archaic Period Prehistoryof Lowland Belize. American Anthropologist 86:359-369.

ZEVALLOS MENENDEZ, CARLOS, W. C. GALINAT, D. W. LATH-RAP, E. R. UNG, J. G. MARCOS, AND K. M. KLUMPP1977 The San Pablo Com Kernel and Its Friends. Sci-

ence 196(4288):385-389.

Notes on Contributors

AIDA BLANCO VARGAS is an archaeologist working inCosta Rica.

JOHN E. BRADLEY is a Southwestern archaeologist.

MARK. L. CHENAULT is receiving his Pb.D. at the Uni-versity of Colorado and is an archaeologist with SWCA.Inc., Environmental Consultants, in Tucson, Arizona.

KAREN H. CLARY is a botanist at the University of Texas,Austin.JOHN W. HOOPE.S is an associate professor of anthropol-ogy at the University of Kansas.

BRIAN R. MCKEE. is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in an-thropology at the University of Arizona.

NANcY MAHANEY is an assistant curator in anthropol-ogy at the Arizona State Museum inTucson and does con-tract archaeology in the U.S. Southwest.

MEREDITH H. MATIliEWS is a contract archaeologistworking in the U.S. Southwest.

WILUAM G. MELSON is a volcanologist at the Museumof National History, Smithsonian Institution.

MARILYNN MUELLER is a contract archaeologist work-ing inHawaii.DOLORES PIPERNO is a pbytolith analyst with theSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.

TIlOMAS L. SEVER is a sector research scientist at theEarth Resources Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, NASA.

PAYSON D. SHEETS is a professor of anthropology at theUnivenity of Colorado.

,

l

ceramic analysis and culture history 10 · ceramic analysis and culture history 159 assemblages...

Documents