Polychrome ceramics from the northern Gran Nicoya area, Nicaragua

A historical approach to the change of interpretation between 1840 and 2010

A thesis by Andreia !"#" $roe%en &tudent number 080''8( Presented to the )aculty of Archaeology, *eiden +ni,ersity &uper,isor- .r" A" Geurds +ni,ersitair docent *eiden, .ecember 1(, 2011
1

Contact Information E-mail address: a.h.t.kroezen@umail.leidenuniv.nl

#able of contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Geogra hical reference 5 !

2.

"heoretical frame#ork 2.1. 2.2. 2.'. % roaches to the histor& of archaeolog&

$ $ 11 15

"he histor& of archaeolog& %rchaeological inter retation

'.

"he Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod *1$+,-1-1+.

1$

+.

"he Classificator&-/istorical )eriod *1-1+-1-!,. +.1. +.2. "he Concern #ith Chronolog& *1-1+-1-+,. "he Concern #ith Conte0t and 1unction *1-+,-1-!,.

2, 2, 21

5.

"he E0 lanator& )eriod *1-!,s and 1-2,s.

2'

!.

Current Inter retations *1-$,-2,11. !.1. !.2. !.'. !.+. Ceramics Chronolog& Com arative %nal&sis Culture /istor&

2$ 2$ ', '' '!

2.

"he influence of 3esoamerica on ol&chromes from 4icaragua

+1

$.

Conclusion

+5

'

-.

%5stract -.1 6amenvatting

51 51

1,.

7i5liogra h&

5'

11.

8ist of 1igures

52

12.

8ist of "a5les

5$

1"

/ntroduction

In this 7achelor thesis m& goal is to discuss ho# the line of thought on ol&chrome otter& from the northern Gran 4ico&a area9 4icaragua *1igure 1. has changed 5et#een 1$+, and 2,11. :ne of the reasons for #anting to do this is that since larger archaeological e0cavations are 5eing organised it is ;uite useful to have concise revie#s of #hat has 5een #ritten alread&. I #ill start of #ith a cha ter that uts m& #ork into a theoretical ers ective. In order to <ustif& #hat I have done9 I #ill discuss different theories a5out using a historical a roach to archaeolog&. % art from a general histor& of archaeolog&9 the su5<ectivit& that is inevita5le in a historical Figure 1: Lower Gran Nicoya (McCafferty and Stein renner !""#$ 1%!&

a roach to archaeolog& #ill 5e discussed9 5ut also ho# this can 5e eliminated to get a higher level of o5<ectivit&. "hrough the a lication of a historical a roach in this thesis it is tried to achieve a certain level of o5<ectivit&. %ccording to "rigger a higher lever of o5<ectivit& can 5e attained since a historical a roach offers us a vantage oint from #hich #e can easil& recognise the su5<ectivities in a research so the& can then 5e eliminated. %lso the relationshi 5et#een high-level and middlelevel theories can 5e seen more clearl& in this #a&. %fter that9 I have divided m& thesis in different cha ters according to distinct modes of thought or a roaches. "he division follo#s =ille& and 6a5loff make in A History of American Archaeology *1-$,.. In "he Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod *1$+,-1-1+. I #ill not onl& discuss #hat =ille& and 6a5loff have to sa&9 5ut I #ill also incor orate some of the inter retations from 8othro >s )otter& of Costa ?ica and 4icaragua. "his 5ook is not from this time eriod9 ho#ever9 it is a classic e0am le of a classificator& and descri tive #ork. It is #ritten in a transitional stage 5et#een the Classificator&-(escri tive and the Classificator&-/istorical eriods and contains characteristics of 5oth eriods. "he Classificator&-/istorical )eriod #ill 5e divided into t#o su5cha ters: "he Concern #ith Chronolog& *1-1+-1-+,. and "he Classificator&-/istorical )eriod: "he Concern #ith Conte0t and 1unction *1-+,-1-!,.. "he fourth cha ter is "he E0 lanator& )eriod *1-!,s and 1-2,s.. "o this division I #ill add another cha ter9 called Current Inter retations *1-$,-2,11.. 5

% art from this ractical division into different time eriods9 there is one more cha ter. "he influence of 3esoamerica on ol&chromes from 4icaragua is a cha ter that discusses in further detail the influence 3esoamerica had on ol&chromes from the 4icaraguan or northern art of the Gran 4ico&a area. Com arisons #ith different cultural areas to the 4orth are often made and these #ill 5e discussed in some detail. "he o inions of different authors are listed here and the conclusion that northern Gran 4ico&a 5elongs to the eri her& of 3eseoamerica is dra#n.

1"1"

Geographical reference

"he term @Gran 4ico&a> as a geogra hical and cultural reference area #as first ro osed 5& %l5ert /olden 4or#e5 in 1-!1 and it refers to the most southern art of 4icaragua and the northern art of Costa ?ica *Aan 7roekhoven 2,,29 1-.. %ccording to 4or#e5 the Gran 4ico&a area does not have clear 5orders and restrictions9 5ut is more of an outskirt of the 3esoamerican area of influence *4or#e5 1-!1 in Aan 7roekhoven 2,,29 1-.. 8ange divides the Gran 4ico&a area in a southern and northern sector. 8anges geogra hical definition of Gran 4ico&a can 5e seen in Figure !: Gran Nicoya di'ided into northern and southern sectors$ ada(ted from Lange (1)*+& (,an -roe.ho'en !""!$ !1&

B1igure 2C9 #ith the em hasis on the lo#er and dr& areas of the )acific of Costa ?ica and 4icaragua including the eastern and north-#estern 5orders of the follo#ing #ater masses: the Gulf of 4ico&a in Costa ?ica9 and the lakes of 3anagua and 4icaragua in 4icaragua. %lso it includes the interior of the mentioned gulf and lakes. In the southern sector9 the interface of #ater and land #ith significant evidence of human occu ation the most redominant is that of salted #aters and9 in the northern sector9 the s#eet #aters *8ange 1-$+9 1!2.. %ccording to 8ange #e can further divide these sectors into zones. =e can distinguish four ceramic zones *1igure '. *8ange 1--29 5'. . Done 2 has t#o Figure %: Ceramic /ones$ ada(ted from Lange 1)*+ (,an -roe.ho'en !""!$ !1& !

main characteristics: the high ercentage of the t& e of ceramic that receded the Gran 4ico&a9 and the high ercentage of ol&chromes in com arison to Done 1 *8ange 1--29 !,.. %lso &ou find local variations that &ou #ill not find to the 4orth or 6outh of that region . "his division of the northern and southern art lies roughl& on the 5order 5et#een 4icaragua and Costa ?ica. %ccording to /eal& *1-$,. different eo les lived in the Gran 4ico&a area9 among #hich the Chorotega 3angue and the 4icarao. "he 4icarao occu ied t#o main areasE the ?ivas Isthmus and the Island of :mete e in 8ake 4icaragua. "he Chorotegans #ere the inha5itants of all of )acific 4icaragua and at one time of all 4icaragua and north#est Costa ?ica as #ell. =hen the 4icarao arrived9 the older occu ants of the ?ivas area fled to the more southern 4ico&a. "he 4icarao #ere heavil& influenced 5& 3esoamerica in rituals9 language9 art9 calendar and customs. /o#ever9 the& did also ose a num5er of traits that can 5e su5scri5ed to the southern %merican cultural heritage #hile some im ortant 3e0ican traits are missing. "his is also su orted 5& the archaeolog& of ?ivas. /eal& tells us that at the time of the con;uest9 the Chorotega occu ied a territor& that roughl& coincides #ith #hat #e toda& call the Gran 4ico&a su5area9 #ith e0ce tion of ?ivas #hich #as taken 5& the 4icarao shortl& 5efore the arrival of the 6 anish */eal& 1-$,9 ''!.. "he name FChorotegaG *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 2$+. is a corru tion of the term FCholultecaG #hich is the name for a erson from Cholula. It is also the name of a river that flo#s into south#estern /onduras9 #hich is another region that #as inha5ited 5& the Chorotega. "he names of the )re-/is anic eo les that occu ied the Gran 4ico&a area holds valua5le information. %lthough some dou5t the inter retative and e0 licative value of the conce t of a coherent Gran 4ico&a area 5ecause9 according to 7ras#ell et al.9 the elites of the 4icaraguan and Costa ?ican art did not artici ate in the same net#ork of interaction *7ras#ell et al. 2,,29 '+.. /o#ever9 8othro *1-2!.9 4or#e5 *1-!+. and 7audez *1-!2: 1-2.9 among others9 have all stated that there are a significant similarities 5et#een south#estern 4icaragua and north#estern Costa ?ica and therefore these t#o areas can 5e included under the same heading of the Gran 4ico&a %rchaeological 6u5area */eal& 1-$,9 '11.. In this thesis the conce t of Gran 4ico&a as an archaeological su5area #ill 5e maintained.

2"

#heoretical framewor0

Inter retations of archaeological data differ through time9 <ust like the theories a5out looking at that data set constantl& change. In this cha ter #e #ill look at the theories on a historical a roach to archaeolog& H #hich is the methodolog& that has 5een a lied throughout this thesis. 1or this theoretical frame#ork9 I consulted 7ruce G. "riggerIs #ork A History of Archaeological 0hought1 "rigger recognises the fact that a historical a roach to archaeolog& is su5<ective *"rigger 1-$-9 +.. /o#ever9 "rigger 5elieves that a s ecial vantage oint is offered through this historical a roach. 1rom this vantage oint the d&namic relations 5et#een archaeological inter retation and its social and cultural environment can 5e e0amined. "he ers ective of time offers a different insight in the ties 5et#een archaeolog& and societ&9 #hich cannot 5e offered 5& other disci lines such as sociolog& or hiloso h&. =ith a historical a roach a researcher can easil& identif& the su5<ective factors 5& looking at the circumstances of and changes in inter retations of the archaeological record. It is not ossi5le to full& eliminate the 5ias of the o5server9 or the 5iased influence on the o5servers inter retations9 5ut through this method the changes of gaining more o5<ective and #holesome insights into the ast are increased. % historical ers ective &ields a ers ective from #hich su5<ectivit&9 o5<ectivit& and the gradual assem5lage of kno#ledge can 5e looked at *"rigger 1-$-9 1..

2"1"

Approaches to the history of archaeology

=ille& and 6a5loffIs division of A History of American Archaeology *1-$,. into four successive eriods *6 eculative9 Classificator&-(escri tive9 Classificator&-/istorical and E0 lanator&. im lies that in archaeolog& descri tive and classificator& o5<ectives redominated for a long time 5efore the develo ment of momentous theories to e0 lain archaeological data *"rigger 1-$-9 +.. 6ome kind of theor&9 ho#ever9 is im lied 5& the mere characterisation of data as 5eing either im ortant or unim ortant9 #hich is something that occurs in ever& descri tive historical stud&. In the ast9 these theories #ere not often e0 licitl& formulated 5& archaeologists #hich contrasts #ith current #orks in #hich theoretical ro osals are s&stematicall& ela5orated *"rigger 1-$-9 5.. "rigger #rites a5out JuhnIs *1-2,. conce t of a research aradigm from his 5ook 0he Structure of Scientific 2e'olutions *"rigger 1-$-9 5.. "he definition of a research aradigm is a

commonl& acce ted canon of scientific activit&9 #hich includes la#s9 theor&9 a lications and instrumentation9 that rovides a model for a consistent tradition of scientific research. "he scientific communit& sustains this tradition and it is ro agated through te0t5ooks that are controlled 5& that ver& communit&. Kntil the 1-!,s9 theories #ere in a re- aradigmatic state and theories #ere not 5undled ro erl& and ut into a com rehensive s&stem &et. /o#ever9 "rigger is convinced that if &ou look closel& the theories from 5efore the 1-!,s reveal more com rehensive and consistent conce ts than is often thought. JuhnIs conce t of scientific revolutions is sometimes com5ined #ith an evolutionar& vie# of the develo ment of archaeolog&9 for instance 5& 6terud *1-2'. *"rigger 1-$-9 5.. %ccording his ne# theor&9 each successive hase in the advance of archaeological theor& can 5e ;ualified as a aradigm 5ecause there is enough internal consistenc& in each eriod. "his ins ired innovators to recognise anomalies and inade;uacies in common archaeological inter retations and the direction of archaeological research #as changed. "hese ne# aradigms not onl& changed the im ortance that #as given to archaeological data 5ut also determined #hich ro5lems #ere regarded as im ortant or unim ortant *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. 6ome critics argue that it is ossi5le for a disci line to 5e characterised 5& a fe# functionall& different t& es of aradigms simultaneousl&. )ossi5l&9 these are onl& loosel& related to each other and ma& 5e changing at different rates #hich roduces a general attern of change that should 5e called gradual instead of a5ru t *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. "rigger #rites a5out the three different t& es of aradigm that are differentiated 5& 3asterman *1-2,.: meta h&sical9 #hich is a5out the #orld vie# of grou s of scientistsE sociological9 #hich defines #hat is acce tedE and construct9 #hich su lies the tools and methods used to solve ro5lems *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. "hese t& es of aradigms cannot constitute ItheI aradigm of a certain era on its o#n. %nother oint of criticism on JuhnIs conce t comes from 7arnes *1-2+. #ho argues that Juhn has ignored the im ortant factor of com etition and mo5ilit& 5et#een rivalling IschoolsI as cause of change #ithin a disci line *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. 7inford and 6a5loff think the com le0it& of the su5<ect-matter of the social sciences lead to the fact that there are more conflicting schools than in the natural sciences *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. 7ecause of this9 it might 5e so that individual aradigms can e0ist ne0t to each other and re lace one another ;uite slo#l&. % different vie#9 consists of the assum tion that sciences do not undergo revolutions 5ut e0 erience rather gradual changes or rogression and argues that the histor& of archaeolog& consists of a cumulative gro#th of kno#ledge containing information a5out the ast *"rigger 1-$-9 !.. Aarious different hases succeed each other9 5ut the line 5et#een t#o hases is not ver& strictE there -

are no radical 5reaks or transformations. %ccording to some archaeologists9 the develo ment of archaeolog& itself follo#s a unilinear and inevita5le course. "he data 5ase continuousl& e0 ands and ne# inter retations are seen as the gradual ela5oration9 olishing and alteration of an e0isting 5od& of theor&. "his vie# does not deal #ith the fre;uent lack of s&stematic develo ment of ideas of archaeologists *"rigger 1-$-9 2.. "rigger discusses a third vie# #hich sees the develo ment of theor& in archaeolog& as a nonlinear and often un redicta5le rocess *"rigger 1-$-9 2.. In this vie# changes are thought to have 5een caused not 5& archaeological data 5ut 5& ne# ideas a5out human 5ehaviour #hich come from other social sciences. "hese ne# ideas ma& indicate the social values #hich sho# fluctuations in o ularit&. "his means archaeological inter retations do not change in a linear manner9 #hich means data are regarded more com rehensivel& and satisfactoril&. Instead of this9 different erce tions of human 5ehaviour can radicall& change archaeological inter retations and that ne# information sho#s that reviousl& seemed im ortant is no# of relativel& little interest. "his is in accordance #ith JuhnIs vie# that #hen a aradigm shifts it does not onl& select ne# su5<ects as 5eing im ortant9 5ut is also deflects attention from su5<ects that might have 5een seen as im ortant for stud& in the revious aradigm. "he 5ig contrast 5et#een this vie# and the evolutionar& vie#s is that in this vie# changes in theoretical orientation are not al#a&s seen as resulting in the for#ard movement of archaeological research. % grou of archaeologists are dou5tful a5out the interests and conce ts change significantl& throughout different eriods #ithin archaeolog&. 6ometimes9 ideas that are thought to 5e ;uite modern are in realit& rather old *"rigger 1-$-9 2.. /o#ever9 this does not mean that #hen ideas are ersistent and recurrent in the histor& of archaeolog& there is nothing ne# at all in the inter retation of data. "hese ideas must 5e seen in the frame#orks of the time in #hich these ideas revailed. "he significance to the disci line is derived from these frame#orks. If the frame#orks change9 their significance changes as #ell *"rigger 1-$-9 $.. 6ometimes not enough im ortance is ascri5ed to articular ideas and not enough attention is aid to the changing conte0t the& are in #hich #ill lead to archaeologists underestimating the level of significant change that characterised the develo ing inter retations of archaeological data. ?egional diversit& is seen 5& man& archaeologists as one of the main characteristics of archaeological inter retation. 1or instance9 Clarke *1-2-. and Jle<n *1-22. have treated the histor& of archaeolog& as a histor& of regional schools *"rigger 1-$-9 $.. Clarke thinks it is a recent develo ment that archaeolog& is no longer a series of different inter retations9 each #ith a local 5od& of theor& and a favoured manner of descri tion9 inter retation and e0 lanation. "hese regional 1,

traditions in archaeological inter retation have al#a&s 5een ;uite clear. %n as ect of this that has not &et 5een looked at ;uite enough9 is the nature of their variances. %lthough cultural differences are im ortant9 different inter retations from archaeologists from different national traditions can 5e assigned to a fe# general orientations. "hese t& es of general orientations are colonialist9 nationalist and im erialist or #orld-orientated. In geogra hicall& remote countries these t& es have re licated themselves. %lso the archaeolog& of one nation might s#itch 5et#een the different t& es #hen its olitical circumstances change. %ccording to "rigger these regional traditions have not taken into account the su5stantial intellectual e0change that lies at the 5asis of the develo ment of archaeolog& in ever& art of the #orld during the nineteenth and t#entieth centuries *"rigger 1-$-9 -.. %lso9 archaeological thought from =estern Euro e and the 6oviet Knion have greatl& influenced each other #hile their archaeological traditions #ere ver& ideologicall& o dangerous. ?ouse *1-22. notes that little attention has 5een aid to #hat affect the disci linar& s ecialisation #ithin archaeolog& itself has on the manner of inter reting archaeological data *"rigger 1-$-9 -.. (ifferent orientations on this account ma& cause as man& differences as the regional traditions. Each s ecialisation9 #ith the s ecialisations 5eing Classical archaeolog&9 Eg& tolog&9 %ss&riolog&9 3edieval and )alaeolithic archaeolog&9 uses its o#n methods to stud& archaeological data. %lthough several of the s ecialisations have develo ed in intellectual isolation from each other for long eriods of time the& still have shared inter retative conce ts9 even though the& have 5een estranged even further through the devision of their <argons9 historical connections9 s oradic interaction and common methodological interest *"rigger 1-$-9 12.. osed. 7oth areas influenced each other des ite the fact that ever& form of scientific contact #hatsoever #as not onl& difficult9 it #as al#a&s also

2"2"

#he history of archaeology

"he social milieu of an archaeologist influences their inter retations9 5ecause this social milieu determines the ;uestions that are asked and the ans#ers the& find convincing *"rigger 1-$-9 1.. 4o#ada&s it is mostl& the social conte0t9 #here archaeologists #ork and live9 #hat influences the scientific research *"rigger 1-$-9 12.. )ositivists are convinced that as long as satisfactor& data are availa5le and their anal&sis is done according to scientific methods9 the results of this research is inde endent of the 5eliefs and re<udices of the researcher. :ther archaeologists9 ho#ever9 5elieve 11

changing social conditions constantl& influence the ;uestions archeologists ask as #ell as the ans#ers the& find acce ta5le. "his is so 5ecause although the findings concern the ast9 the& are seen to have im lications for the resent or im lications for human nature in general *"rigger 1-$-9 1'.. %rchaeolog& has 5een strongl& influenced 5& the attack launched 5& relativists against the conce t of science as 5eing a rational and o5<ective undertaking *"rigger 1-$-9 1'.. "hese attacks root in the anti- ositivism of the 1rankfurter 6chule that stresses that the social conditions have influence on #hat data are seen as im ortant and the inter retation that follo#s. "his vie# has 5een su orted #ith JuhnIs aradigmatic conce t and it is stated that scientific kno#ledge does not differ from other cultural 5eliefs in an& #a&. %lso 1e&era5end *1-25. argues that there is no such thing as an o5<ective criterion for the evaluation of theories so science should not care so much a5out strict rules 5ut let ersonal references and aesthetics evaluate rival theories *"rigger 1-$-9 1'.. "hese kinds of theories have gathered ;uite a follo#ing9 es eciall& among self-st&led critical archaeologists in 7ritain and the Knited 6tates. 6ome archaeologists argue that over time the a#areness of social 5ias #ill cause a higher level of o5<ectivit&9 #hile others sustain in thinking that even the most 5asic archaeological data is construction of the mind and therefore can not 5e inde endent of the social milieu in #hich the& are used *"rigger 1-$-9 1'-1+.. 3ore e0treme formulations conclude that archaeological inter retations are controlled entirel& 5& their social environment instead of 5& an& o5<ective iece of evidence. "he t#o e0tremes can 5e called h& erositivists versus h& er-relativists9 #ith the first 5elieving that solel& the ;ualit& of archaeological data and of anal&tical techni;ues can regulate the #orth of archaeological inter retations and the latter 5elieving that archaeological data should 5e given no role9 5ut instead archaeological inter retations should 5e e0 lained 5& means of social and cultural lo&alties of the archaeologist *"rigger 1-$-9 1+.. In the ast9 archaeolog& #as racticed 5& the aristocrac&9 5ut no#ada&s9 it is a science of the middle class *"rigger 1-$-9 1+.. 7ecause archaeolog& ma& &ield information a5out human origins9 the relationshi 5et#een archaeolog& and societ& is ;uite com le0 and im ortant. "herefore one could argue that archaeolog& is an utterance of the ideolog& of the middle class and also to tr& to discover to #hat oint changing archaeological inter retations #ill reflect the changing fortunes of the grou itself. "hese changes have also caused the ;uestions that are asked and the theories 5ehind them to change. %gain9 su5<ectivit& is art of the e;uation here. "hroughout histor&9 archaeolog& has 5een used to rove olitical9 social or religious oints *"rigger 1-$-9 '.. =e must note9 ho#ever9 that the conce t of a middle class is not a unitar& henomenon and that archaeolog& 12

must not 5e associated #ith the entire middle class9 5ut onl& #ith a art of it that largel& consists of rofessionals *"rigger 1-$-9 15.. "he relationshi 5et#een interests and ideas are resolved 5& man& different factors and their conte0t *"rigger 1-$-9 15.. "herefore9 a direct corres ondence 5et#een archaeological inter retations and class interest can not 5e e0 ected. Instead9 the ideas that influence archaeological inter retations should 5e seen as tools for a social grou s to accom lish their goals. "he connection 5et#een archaeolog& give #a& to e0amining the connection 5et#een archaeolog& and societ&9 #ithout having to den& the im ortance of individual s&chological characteristics and cultural tradition. %ccording to the most radical relativists archaeolog& has 5een influenced 5& man& different internal and e0ternal factors and es eciall& 5& the archaeological data 5ase itself *"rigger 1-$-9 15.. %rchaeological data have accumulated over centuries and ne# data are seen as a test of earlier inter retations. "he decision of #hat data are collected and #hat method is used to do so is determined 5& #hat an archaeologist finds im ortant9 #hich is a reflection of the theoretical assum tions of the archaeologist. % reci rocal relationshi can 5e seen 5et#een the collection of data and its inter retation #ith 5oth factors 5eing o en to social influences *"rigger 1-$-9 1!.. (ata recovered in the ast are often inade;uate or not a ro riate for the solving of ro5lems that are regarded as im ortant later in time. "his is artiall& 5ecause archaeologists #ere not familiar #ith techni;ues that #ould 5ecome im ortant in later times9 5ut also 5ecause ne# ers ectives can often o en u ne# series of investigation *"rigger 1-$-9 1!.. %lthough archaeological data are recovered continuousl&9 the results of their inter retations are often not as cumulative as man& archaeologists think. 3ostl&9 archaeologists 5ase ne# conclusions on #hat their redecessors deduced from the ast instead of on the actual evidence their redecessors used for their o#n conclusions *"rigger 1-$-9 1!.. 6ome other factors that influence #hat archaeologists can stud& are the resources that are availa5le for research9 the institutional environment of the research and the t& es of investigations that archaeologists are allo#ed to undertake form societies and governments *"rigger 1-$-9 1!.. %rchaeologists must kee their s onsors satisfied in order to kee their su ort. 1urthermore9 ?osen *1-$,. notes there are social restrictions for the e0cavation of certain sites9 for instance for cemeteries or religious laces *"rigger 1-$-9 1!.. =hen all these factors are considered it ma& 5e concluded that there ;uite a constraint ma& 5e em lo&ed on the research and inter retation of archaeologists. K until the t#entieth centur& there are not man& archaeologists that are trained in the actual 1'

disci line. Instead the& came from different disci lines and 5rought #ith them skills and vie# oints from different fields9 such as from the stud& of classical and 5i5lical material or others that had 5een educated in h&sics and 5iolog& *"rigger 1-$-9 1!-12.. %ccording to Cha man *1-2-. significant differences can 5e seen in the #ork of rofessional archaeologists that #ere trained in humanities or natural sciences *"rigger 1-$-9 12.. (evelo ments in h&sics and 5iolog& have also influenced archaeological inter retation *"rigger 1-$-9 12.. "oda& the colla5oration 5et#een archaeologists and natural scientists has 5ecome routine9 often this colla5oration is one sided an archaeologists are mere reci ients. ?esearch in the natural sciences is onl& s oradicall& instructed 5& archaeolog&9 although sometimes discoveries in the natural sciences have 5een of great im ortance archaeolog&. E0am les of this are radiocar5on dating and ollen anal&sis #hich have not 5een develo ed 5& archaeologists9 5ut have rovided ne# insights of great value. "his is a techni;ue that has 5een used and gained im ortance in 4icaraguan archaeolog& since a ro0imatel& the 1-$,s. 6ince that time9 radiocar5on dating is heavil& relied on and has caused old chronologies to 5e reevaluated and more accurate. "he ra id gro#th of electronic means of rocessing data has caused some#hat of a revolution in archaeological anal&sis #hich #as no 5igger than the revolution caused 5& radiocar5on dating *"rigger 1-$-9 1$.. 7ecause of these ne# electronic t& es of data rocessing it is ossi5le to ver& easil& correlate large amounts of data. "his allo#s archaeologists to look for detailed atterns and test com le0 h& otheses. %lso9 different mathematical a roaches have develo ed for the stud& of change although sometimes the mathematical as ects are not em hasised as much as the underl&ing conce ts for their a liance to archaeological ro5lems *"rigger 1-$-9 1$.. "he changing theories of human 5ehaviour that have come from the social sciences have also affected the inter retation of archaeological data *"rigger 1-$-9 1$.. Es eciall& conce ts from disci lines #ith #hich archaeolog& has strong ties9 i.e. ethnolog& and histor&9 have greatl& influenced archaeolog&. /o#ever9 these are not the onl& disci lines that have influenced archaeolog&: conce ts from geogra h&9 sociolog&9 economics and olitical science have had their influence on archaeolog&. =hat has 5een learned from the archaeological record is an esta5lished 5elief that also has significantl& influenced the inter retation of archaeological data *"rigger 1-$-9 1$.. :ften9 it ha ens that inter retations of the ast are ada ted to changing general vie#s9 instead of criticall& looked at even if the general vie# in #hich this inter retation #as formulated had 5een re<ected. 7ecause of this it can 5e so that s ecific thoughts can ersist and further influence archaeologic inter retations a long time after their a5andonment. 1+

2"1"

Archaeological interpretation

%rchaeolog& can 5e defined as a social science 5ecause it tries to descri5e #hat ha ened to grou s of human 5eings in the ast and dra# general conclusions a5out cultural change *"rigger 1-$-9 1-.. % difference from other social sciences is archaeologists cannot directl& o5serve the actions of the eo le the& stud& and the& also cannot reach the thoughts of these eo le in a direct #a&9 such as through #ritten te0ts. Instead of all of this9 archaeologists have to e0tra olate human 5ehaviour and ideas from the material remainder of the things used and made 5& human 5eings and #hich h&sical im act that had on the environment. "he inter retations of the archaeological data de end on ho# human 5ehaviour of toda& is understood and also of ho# this reflects in material culture. "rigger *1-$-9 1--2,. discusses three different levels of classification for archaeological theories: high9 middle and lo# theor& categories. "his devision can lead to a s&stematic understanding of archaeological theor& and the rocess of thought rocess. Jle<n *1-22. descri5es lo#-level theories as em irical research and its generalisations *"rigger 1-$-9 2,.. Generalisations are usuall& 5ased on uniformities that are o5served re eatedl& and can 5e roven #rong 5& o5serving a contrar& case. %t the 5asis of these generalisations la&s the o5servation that artefact t& es or attri5utes occur re eatedl& in association to one another and this correlates #ith a geogra hical localit& or dates to a certain eriod. % art from these generalisations9 5ehavioural assum tions can 5e made9 5ut those can often turn out to 5e incorrect9 un roved or misleading *"rigger 1-$-9 21.. 8o#-level generalisations never descri5e human 5ehaviour 5ecause form that oint of vie#9 the& are regularities that have to 5e e0 lained rather than e0 lanations on their o#n accord. ?aa5 and Good&ear *1-$+. define middle-level theories as generalisations that tr& to e0 lain the regularities 5et#een different sets of varia5les in different cases *"rigger 1-$-9 21.. Generalisations from the social sciences should hold cross-cultural validit& and refer to human 5ehaviour. "he& must also 5e ade;uatel& s ecific so the& can 5e tested through the a lication to articular data sets. "o archaeologicall& test a middle-level generalisation 7infordIs *1-$1. middlerange theor& can 5e used *"rigger 1-$-9 22.. "his theor& uses ethnogra hical data for the esta5lishment of valid relations 5et#een archaeologicall& o5serva5le events and the archaeologicall& uno5serva5le factor of human 5ehaviour. "he difference 5et#een middle-level and middle-range theor& is that middle-level theor& e0clusivel& treats human 5ehaviour and middlerange theor& must treat 5oth human 5ehaviour and traits that can 5e o5served 5& archaeolog&. 15

7infordIs middle-range theor& can 5e seen as a sort of middle-level theor&. 3iddle-range theor& is ver& useful in the testing of middle-level theor& in relation to archaeological data. /igh-level theories have 5een descri5ed as a5stract rules that clarif& the relationshi s 5et#een the theoretical ro ositions that are im ortant for the understanding of the foremost categories of henomena *"rigger 1-$-9 22.. In this level of theor& there are no theoretical formulations that relate uni;uel& to archaeolog& 5ut rather to the social sciences in general 5ecause the theories refer to human 5ehaviour e0clusivel&. :ften s&nthetic theories #ithin the social sciences are not as generall& acce ted as in the disci lines of the natural sciences. Idealist a roaches are often com osed less elegantl& than their materialist counter arts9 ho#ever9 it still is an ins iration for the social sciences. "he& resem5le religious dogmas or creeds in the res ect that the& cannot directl& 5e confirmed or falsified. "he credi5ilit& of high-level theories is influenced 5& the success or failure of the middle-level theories that are de endent on them. "he indirectness of the tests9 com5ined #ith the fluctuation in the o ularit& of high-level generalisations seems to 5ee influenced mostl& 5& social rocesses instead of scientific e0aminations of the logicall& related middle-level theories #hich makes it hard for archaeologists to distinguish 5et#een the three materialist ositions that have 5een discussed a5ove *"rigger 1-$-9 2'.. In an ideal case9 a logicall& coherent relationshi could 5e esta5lished 5et#een high9 middle and lo# levels of theor& and also a correlation 5et#een middle- and lo#-level generalisations and o5serva5le data *"rigger 1-$-9 2'.. % de5ate has 5een going on a5out #ether to construe middlelevel theor& in a deductive manner9 as 5eing interrelated conce ts from high-level theories9 or in a inductive manner9 as 5eing construed from lo#-level generalisations and data. %ccording to =atson et al. *1-21. and 7inford *1-22. the deductive a roach holds that clarifications a5out human 5ehaviour should onl& 5e 5ased on la#s #hich are stated as h& otheses and #hich are tested against sets of data *"rigger 1-$-9 2'.. "he eo le in favour of the deductive a roach tr& to esta5lish e0 licit and logical links 5et#een high- and middle-level theor&. 6almon *1-$2.9 Gi55on *1-$+. and Galla& *1-$!.9 5& contrast9 #rite that h& er-inductivists see general theor& as the ultimate goal that can onl& 5e accom lished after vast amounts of relia5le generalisations have 5een esta5lished at the lo# and middle levels *"rigger 1-$-9 2'-2+.. =hat is 5elieved to 5e a reasona5le e0 lanation of archaeological data is coloured 5& man& im licit assum tions a5out human 5ehaviour. /igh-level conce ts can easil& 5e ignored if the risk of the im licit ones distur5ing the archaeological inter retations are taken into account. "he most successful theories involve a com5ination of the t#o a roaches. E0 lanations can 5e formulated inductivel& as #ell as deductivel&. 8o#ther *1-!2. 1!

gives three criteria that must 5e ans#ered to in order for their status as scientific theories to 5e acce ted. 1irstl&9 it de ends on the logical coherence 5oth internall& and #ith other descri tions of human 5ehaviour. 6econdl&9 it de ends on the esta5lishment of a satisf&ing com ati5ilit& 5et#een them and an& other logicall& related em irical generalisations. "hirdl&9 the& have to 5e com ati5le #ith a cor us of factual evidence *"rigger 1-$-9 2+.. "he form of the generalisations are often disagreed on *"rigger 1-$-9 2+.. In the ositivistic tradition it is acce ted that la#s should 5e universal9 meaning that the statements the& rovide a5out relations 5et#een varia5les are true no matter the time eriod9 region in the #orld or s ecific cultures studied. :ften the universal generalisations are seen as a reflection of an undifferentiated human nature. %nother grou of archaeologists maintains that there are fe# general la#s a5out human nature *"rigger 1-$-9 2+.. 3ost generalisations a l& onl& to societies that have a shared or closel& related mode of roduction. It is maintained 5& economic su5stantivists9 such as )olan&i *1-++9 1-529 1-!!. and (alton *1-!1.9 that the rules and forms of economic 5ehaviour are ver& much changed 5& evolutionar& rocesses *"rigger 1-$-9 25.. "he distinction 5et#een #orld#ide generalisations and more confined ones ma& not 5e as far-fetching or a5solute as their advocates maintain. 6ometimes generalisations that are s ecific to one t& e of societ& can 5e re#ritten to a universal generalisation9 #hile universal generalisations can 5e re#ritten #ith more detail and turned into a l&ing onl& to a s ecific class of societ&. "his rocess9 ho#ever9 ma& cause a great loss in content and significance. "he third9 and last9 t& e of generalisation is a generalisation that onl& a lies to an individual culture or a grou of historicall& linked cultures *"rigger 1-$-9 25.. "his kind of generalisation is ;uite im ortant since most cultural atterning seems to 5ee of this kind. 4o ersuasive manner has 5een found to move ast s eculation in the inter reting of the meanings of such atterning #ithin the archaeological record in a situation in #hich historical documentation or ethnogra hical data are not accessi5le. =hen these are not availa5le9 these regularities sta& at the level of em irical generalisations.

12

1"

#he 2lassificatory3.escripti,e Period 4184031'145

"he s eculative mode still remained im ortant in the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod. "he main concern of this eriod9 ho#ever9 is like the title im lies: the descri tion of archaeological remains9 es eciall& monuments and architecture9 and their classification. In this eriod9 archaeologists tr& to make archaeolog& into a s&stematic and scientific disci line. "he& did not &et succeed in its entiret&9 5ut the& #ere a5le to la& the foundations for the achievements of the t#entieth centur& *=ille& and 6a5loff 1-$,9 '+.. %lthough this eriod #as concerned #ith develo ing s&stematic in classification9 descri tion and t& olog& in archaeolog& *as #ell as anthro olog&. 5ecame more defined and #ere eventuall& taught at universities9 there #as little concern for chronolog& *=ille& and 6a5loff 1-$,.. 8othro *1-2!. remarks that in the descri tive eriod not a lot of attention #as given to ro er naming. Grou s #ould 5e named after local varieties instead of com5ining grou s and naming them as an entiret&. 8othro himself tries to come u #ith correct names for different t& es of otter&. 1or 8othro *1-2!. the designation 4ico&a )ol&chrome =are includes the ainted otter& from the region 5et#een :mete e Island in 8ake 4icaragua and the Gulf of 4ico&a. "here are9 of course9 local variations9 5ut there is still such unit& that the& are discussed as one grou . "hroughout his 5ook9 8othro *1-2!. connects Gran 4ico&a ceramics to ceramics from the 3a&a area. /e es eciall& sees 3a&an influence in the iconogra h&. In Cha ter A9 for e0am le9 he states that the /uman 1igure and es eciall& the 6eated /uman 1igure are o5viousl& related to the atterns and iconogra h& that can 5e found in the 3a&a area in the eriod of the :ld Em ire. /e continues #ith a com arison of 3a&a and 4icaraguan ceramics. /e does not den& the fact that there are differences9 5ut he kee s stressing the similarities. 8othro also com ares the iconogra h& found on 4icaraguan ceramics #ith the iconogra h& in 3e0ican codices and %ztec iconogra h&. /e even com ares 4icaraguan ceramics #ith the 6outh %merican cultural area. "his last com arison is not made a lot in the first half of the t#entieth centur&9 since then it #as generall& thought that the 4icaraguan Gran 4ico&a ceramics #ere influenced 5& the 3e0ican cultural heritage. 8othro 9 ho#ever9 recognizes that the ceramics of the )acific area of Costa ?ica and 4icaragua have ver& fe# features in common #ith southern %merican ceramics *1-2!9 +11.. /e also ro oses that even if the Inca and %ztec em ires did not have direct contact9 the Isthmian eo les had contacts #ith 5oth the northern and southern areas. "his #ould e0 lain the resem5lances #ith 5oth the 4orth and the 6outh. "his conce t is called cultural diffusion.

1$

8othro states that classification is not an end in itself9 5ut it is a means to facilitate descri tion *1-2!9 1,5.. %lthough 8othro Is #ork can thus 5e ut in the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod9 he alread& has his concerns a5out chronolog& and conte0t. 7ecause of the ha hazard #a& in #hich most collections have 5een accom lished9 there is no lace for the segregation of local #ares and neither for determination and chronolog&. It is also difficult to distinguish 5et#een t#o distinct conce ts #hen conte0t and chronolog& are lost or <ust unkno#n. In his summar& 8othro discusses more general ro5lems. /e tries to <ustif& the lack of conte0t 5& stating that he kno#s it is lacking and the reader should 5e cautious of that. 8ater on9 he am lifies the im ortance of conte0t and chronolog& 5& sa&ing it is chronolog& that is the ke& to the understanding of the develo ment of culture. 6tudies on chronologies have gotten a 5oost through the deci herment of 3a&a and %ztec calendars #hich from then on could 5e linked to the Christian calendar *8othro 1-2!9 '-'.. 8othro then argues that that 4icaraguan ceramics can 5e cross-dated #ith 3a&an or other 3e0ican ceramics of #hich the dating is kno#n. "his can 5e done 5ecause of the st&listic com arisons 5et#een the ceramics of 5oth traditions. %nother thing that is not t& ical for the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod9 5ut #hich sho#s 8othro Is #ork is a transitional #ork from this eriod into the ne0t9 is the attem t to sa& something a5out the culture 5ehind the ceramics. It is no longer a5out <ust classif&ing and descri5ing the ceramics &ou find9 5ut from no# on it is also a5out tr&ing to gain kno#ledge from these ceramics to sa& something a5out the eo le #ho made them. "he 4ico&a )ol&chrome =are9 as 8othro calls it9 is found in the area of the 4icarao *1-2!9 '-,.. Certain designs9 ho#ever9 have 5een taken from 3a&a sources and indicate that the 4ico&a )ol&chrome =are antedates the arrival of the 4icarao in 4icaragua. "herefore9 8othro concludes9 most of the 4ico&a )ol&chrome =are must 5e roduced 5& the Chorotega. "he& also might 5e the ones that roduced other #ares discussed 5& 8othro . %ccording to 8othro 4icaraguan #ares are influenced 5& 3e0ican cultural heritage through 3e0ican #arriors #ho came to 4icaragua and married #omen there *1-2!9 '-1.. 6ince #omen resuma5l& #ere the otters9 this is ho# the 3e0ican religious s&m5olism #as introduced: 5& the men of the tri5e. "he #ork that 8othro has done has had a 5ig influence on further research of 4icaraguan archaeolog& and ceramics. /e asks ;uestions a5out chronologies9 nomenclature and the cultural 5ackground #hich are ;uite rare for his time. ?esearchers have icked u on these ;uestions and have tried to ans#er them more full&. 8othro is convinced that the eo le from Gran 4ico&a looked to the 4orth for cultural direction and this is a thought that still revails toda&.

1-

4"

#he 2lassificatory3!istorical Period 41'1431'605

4"1"

#he 2oncern with 2hronology 41'1431'405

=ille& and 6a5loff *1-$,. state that the 5eginning of this eriod is marked 5& the rise of stratigra hic e0cavations as the drive for chronological control of data. "his started in 1-1+ in %merican archaeolog& and from then on s read through the rest of the %mericas. 6eriation 5ecame linked to stratigra h& and together the& su orted the search of chronolog&. 6tratigra h& and seriation #ere also a lied in t& olog& and classification9 #hich dominated the revious eriod. Classification #as no longer onl& a means to descri5e artefacts9 5ut it is no# also a means to lot culture forms in time and s ace. 6ometimes it #as tried to make these culture-historical attem ts into more su5stantial cultural conte0ts. "he relationshi 5et#een archaeolog& and ethnolog&9 #hich is revalent in %merican archaeolog&9 ;uickl& led to the use of ethnogra hic anal&sis in inter retations of use and function. Ethnogra hic sources can hel us in understanding of the archaeological record9 5ut also the culture histor& of the eo les it 5elonged to. In the case of 4icaragua mostl& theories a5out different migration #aves have 5een roved 5& ethnogra hic accounts. 8othro *1-2!.9 /eal& *1-$,. and 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5. all used of this method in the conte0t of the migrations of the 4icarao and Chorotega. 8ange *1--2. also uses ethnogra hic sources to su ort his find that there is a 5ig difference 5et#een Ceramic Done ' and +9 #hich #e #ill se later on in this thesis. "his close alliance of %merican archaeolog& and ethnohistor& is called the (irect /istorical % roach *=ille& and 6a5loff 1-$,.. "he method of this a roach is #orking 5ack into rehistor& from the documented historical horizon. "his involves sites on #hich indigenous eo les have lived in earl& historical times. "he e0cavation of these sites reveals artefacts that can then 5e associated #ith these eo les. =hen other sites near5& are found that sho# resem5lances to the first one9 the& can 5e linked together. %gain9 ethnohistorical accounts come into the icture here. "his does not onl& ha en in 4icaragua9 5ut also9 for instance9 in 3e0ico #here codices can hel in inter reting and e0 laining archaeological finds. 1or the first time9 chronolog& starts to la& a role in archaeolog&. In 4orth and 3iddle %merican dating #ould 5e a5solute dating through res ectivel& dendrochronolog& and the 3a&a calendar. =hen this is not availa5le9 like in 4icaragua9 relative chronolog& revailed *=ille& and 6a5loff 1-$,.. 8othro has used st&listic features to make a relative chronolog&. /e used the 2,

method of cross-cultural dating to date ceramics. 8othro sees com arisons 5et#een st&listic features from the 3a&a and Gran 4ico&a areas and since 3a&a ceramics can 5e dated e0actl& 5ecause of the calendrical s&stem. 7& com aring ceramics of 5oth regions a chronolog& for 4icaraguan ceramics can 5e esta5lished.

4"2"

#he 2oncern with 2onte7t and )unction 41'4031'605

=ille& and 6a5loff *1-$,. sho# us that in the latter half of the Classificator&-/istorical eriod archaeolog& is seen as the eri her& of ethnolog& and social anthro olog&. %rchaeologists #ere not su osed to contri5ute to the larger ro5lems of cultural understanding. 7ecause of this liminal osition of archaeolog&9 archaeologists started to redefine their goals. 1ocus shifted to conte0t and function and #as sometimes even concerned #ith rocess. /o#ever9 the main reoccu ation of the Classificator&-/istorical eriod9 the concern #ith chronolog&9 #as not re<ected. In this eriod of time9 revolution not &et came a5out9 5ut it #as a time of transition still. "he conte0tual-functional a roach can 5e divided in three of the follo#ing headings. "he theme of the first heading is the h& othesis that artefacts are the roduct or material relics of social and cultural 5ehaviour. In other #ords9 archaeologist tried to ascri5e use and function to archaeological artefacts. In the inter retations9 conte0t la&ed a 5ig role for the first time since attem ting the achievement of this goal. 8othro *1-2!. has ackno#ledged the fact that conte0t #as missing from his research since he studied museum collections. 4or#e5 *1-!+.9 ho#ever9 uses material from e0cavations so in his case conte0t could 5e studied as #ell. "he second heading concerns itself #ith settlement atterns. "he #a& in #hich man had manifested himself in nature and landsca e in relation to other men should hold im ortant clues to the socio-economic and socioolitical understandings. (ennett et al. *2,,19 '-+. suggest that Izalco-st&le KsulutLn #ares have served as restige goods used in a local #a& to enhance status differentiation and for the regional forming or maintaining of socio-economic and socio- olitical ties. "he third a roach relates culture to the natural environment. It involves itself #ith man and his resource 5ase. %lthough this a roach is sometimes referred to as cultural ecolog& in this eriod9 it differs from the ecos&stem a roach of the more recent &ears. /eal& *1-$,. notices that shellfish remains are generall& lacking in ?ivas9 5ut in the coastal areas ha5itations #ere 5egun in the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod. "he num5er of ha5itations and of the o ulation itself might e0 lain the higher diversit& in diet and #h& the econom& #as intensified. 21

"o enforce the conte0tual-functional a roach9 archaeolog& #as su

orted 5& different

scientific disci lines. %5ove all9 radiocar5on 5ecame ver& im ortant since it could rovide a5solute dates #hich means that archaeologists #ere9 at least in art9 freed of their concerns #ith chronolog& #hich created more s ace for research on cultural histor& and develo ment. "his9 ho#ever9 does not mean the concern #ith chronolog& had com letel& disa eared. "here no# #as the ossi5ilit& to refine or correct older se;uences and ne# chronologies #ere made for regions that #ere 5efore untouched. 1or 4icaragua this means that the reliance on relative chronologies started to decline since the& could 5e checked #ith C1+ dating. In this thesis9 the first author that uses radiocar5on dating is 4or#e5 *1-!+.9 5ut more im ortant in this rocess are ALz;uez et al. *1--2-1--'. and 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5.. "he& have used radiocar5on dating to reall& change and im rove the acce ted chronolog& for Gran 4ico&a. "his #ill 5e discussed in greater detail in cha ter !.

22

("

#he 87planatory Period 41'60s and 1'90s5

In 1-!+ 4or#e5 u5lished an article a5out Ceramic Stratigra(hy in Southwestern Nicaragua1 /e starts #ith a 5rief summar& of #hat has ha ened in the field of 4icaraguan archaeolog& u until his u5lication. In this a er9 4or#e5 u5lishes the outcome of e0cavations on :mete e Island and he com ares the ceramic se;uence #ith those that have alread& 5een esta5lished for the Isthmus of ?ivas. % general outline for cultural develo ment in the Gran 4ico&a area is also is also given *4or#e5 1-!+9 551. 4or#e5 resents a chronolog& that resem5les the chronolog& that Coe resented for northern Costa ?ica *4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. "his chronolog& consists of four eriods #hich have 5een esta5lished not 5& a5solute dating 5ut is 5ased on diagnostic modes of otter& decoration. 1rom oldest to &oungest these eriods are: Doned 7ichrome )eriod9 Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod9 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod9 8ate )ol&chrome )eriod. 4or#e5 <ustifies the use of the same chronological se;uence for 5oth north#estern Costa ?ica and )acific 4icaragua 5& the similarities 5et#een the ceramic se;uences *4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. /e does9 ho#ever9 recognise the fact that the correlation 5et#een the t#o regions is not ver& e0act9 es eciall& in the 8ate )ol&chrome )eriod in #hich the ceramics from )acific 4icaragua sho# onl& slight t& ological variation #ith the 3iddle )ol&chrome9 #hich differs strongl& from from north#estern Costa ?ica. 4or#e5 goes on #ith descri5ing the different ceramic eriods *4or#e5 1-!+9 552-55'.: "he 3arly 4olychrome 4eriod is marked 5& sim le ol&chromes. "he& can 5e 5ichromes *#hite-on-red and 5lack-on-red. #ith and additional colour as a decoration. 8ater ceramics from this eriod are red and 5lack ol&chromes #ith a natural 5ackground or an orange sli . "he designs are mostl& geometric or linear and onl& no# and then a motif occurs. "he Middle 4olychrome 4eriod is defined 5& ol&chromes #ith #hite9 5uff or cream sli s and are decorated in 5lack9 red and orange. 7o#ls and ear-sha ed <ars are ver& common. "hese 5o#ls and <ars are su orted 5& conical or zoomor hic tri od feet 5ut also 5& annular 5ases. %lso9 zoomor hic adornos can often 5e seen on <ars. =ide horizontal 5ands of colour rims9 5old life motifs9 silhouettes9 dots and vertical coloured 5ands #ere used as designs for rim decoration. Ktilit& #ares #ere mostl& striated or 5rushed and include the za atero9 or shoe9 effig& form. "he first art of the Late 4olychrome 4eriod is distinguished 5& Aalle<o )ol&chrome9 #hich dis la&s a soft aste and 5lue-gra& aintings. "he second half is characterised 5& 8una )ol&chrome.

2'

% regional se;uence is resented for the ?ivas region #hich is 5ased on e0cavations on the Isthmus of ?ivas *4or#e5 1-!+9 55'.. 1our eriods are resented9 5ut 4or#e5 recognises that there are some ga s in the cultural continuum. "his se;uence has 5een summarised in the follo#ing ta5le: :8G/;NA* &8<+8N28& /N &;+#!=8&#8:N N/2A:AG+A Ma5or 4eriods 8ate )ol&chrome 12,, H 1!,, %.(. 3iddle )ol&chrome $,, H 12,, %.(. Earl& )ol&chrome +,, H $,, %.(. Doned 7ichrome , H +,, %.(. 2i'as M 8as 8a<as El ?osario 8a Airgen % om ua M )alos 4egros 6an ?o;ue 6an Norge %vilOs M 6mete(e M %lta Gracia El ?osario M M )alos 4egros 6an ?o;ue M

0a le 1: 2egional se7uences in southwestern Nicaragua (Ada(ted from: Norwe 1)8+$ ##%&

4or#e5 goes on discussing the results of an e0cavation on :mete e Island in 1-!1 *4or#e5 1-!+9 555.. "he ceramic material that has 5een recovered indicates the four eriods listed a5ove9 5ut does not sho# a cultural continuum. "here is a a arent 5reak 5et#een the Earl& )ol&chrome 6an ?o;ue and )alos 4egros and the 3iddle )ol&chrome El ?osario eriods. %ll three hases are greatl& resem5le their counter arts from the ?ivas area. "he end of the )alos 4egros hase #as set on %( 2-2 5& means of radiocar5on dating. "he ne0t section of 4or#e5s article rovides a chronolog& for south#estern 4icaragua and com ares it #ith that of 3esoamerica *4or#e5 1-!+9 55!.. /e takes the dates from radiocar5on dating done 5& 7odez and Coe in 1-!1 *4or#e5 1-!+9 55!.. "he com arative chronolog& he ro oses can 5e seen in "a5le '. "he Earl& )ol&chrome coincides #ith most of the 3a&a Classic and is dated on %( +,,-$,,. "he 4icaraguan 6an ?o;ue and )alos 4egros t& es sho# little similarities #hich suggests localised develo ment *4or#e5 1-!+9 55!.. /o#ever9 4or#e5 sees some influences from 3esoamerica 5et#een the end of the )alos 4egros eriod and the 5eginning of the 3iddle )ol&chrome. 7& the 5eginning of the 3iddle )ol&chrome of %( $,,-12,,9 #hich corres onds to the 3a&a

2+

Classic and much of "oltec Chichen9 most evidence of earlier ceramic st&les has 5een #i ed out and 3esoamerican control is a5solute *4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. )a aga&o )ol&chromes dis la& man& Classic 3a&an designs9 #hile other traits9 i.e. zoomor hic tri od feet9 seem to come from the Cholula-Aera Cruz region in 3e0ico. 2;::8*A#/;N ;) &;+#!=8&# N/2A:AG+A =/#! >8&;A>8:/2A 9ate 1!,, 1+,, 12,, 1,,, $,, !,, +,, 2,, %.(. , 7.C. 2,, "e eu Earl& )ol&chrome "zakol 3atzanel Chicanel ?egional Doned 7ichrome 8ate 1ormative 4eten :ucatan Con;uest 3a&a an "oltec Chichen 1lorecent S1 ;1 Nicaragua 8ate )ol&chrome 3iddle )ol&chrome

0a le !: Correlation of southwest Nicaragua with Mesoamerica (Ada(ted from: Norwe 1)8+$ ##8&

"he 8ate )ol&chrome )eriod s ans the latter half of the 3esoamerican )ostclassic and earl& historic times and is dated on %( 12,,-1!,, and is characterised 5& the intensification of Central %merican relationshi s dis la&ing 3i0teca-)ue5la motifs on Aalle<o )ol&chrome in its initial hases and includes Puetzalcoatl and Earth 3onsters as the =ind God *Coe 1-!2 in 4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. In the ultimate hases of the 8ate )ol&chrome cultural associations 5ecome indistinguisha5le. "he 8una )ol&chrome com5ines forms from the 3iddle )ol&chrome of #hich no Central or 3esoamerican rotot& e is kno#n *4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. %t the end of his article 4or#e5 ver& 5riefl& discusses FCultural develo ment in south#estern 4icaraguaG *4or#e5 1-!+9 552.. 4or#e5 starts off #ith sa&ing that although the eo le from the Doned 7ichrome )eriod re resented the first validated cultures9 there must have 5een eo les in 4icaragua 5efore that time. :f this no accounts have 5een found ho#ever. /e then states that the cultures from the Doned 7ichrome #ere not at all rimitive *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. =hat is sur rising is the a arent lack of roof for inci ient cultivation or high de endence on food collecting. "his is sur rising 5ecause of the relativel& late start of the se;uence in com arison to )eru or 3esoamerica. 3etates9 manos and sedentar& villages a sta5le societ& that #as 5ased on maize roduction *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. 4or#e5 e0 lains this level of develo ment not so much 5& a result of local culture 25

hases9 5ut rather 5& diffusion or migration from outside eo les. (uring the Doned 7ichrome sites #ere #ere scarce #hich indicates a relativel& small o ulation *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. 1rom the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod9 ho#ever9 o ulations started to gro#. "his can 5e seen in the increase of villages in num5er and size. "hese develo ments might 5e aralleled 5& the regional gro#th #hich is also characteristic for the 3e0ican and 3a&a Classic eriods9 a uniform and indigenous culture reaches from the Gulf of 1onseca to north#estern Costa ?ica *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. "he Gran 4ico&a area 5ecomes an integrated art of 3esoamerica for the first time 5& the time of the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. "his takes lace shortl& 5efore the colla se of the 3a&a Classic and might even 5e a conse;uence of the cultural disru tions to the 4orth. Coe does not agree on thisE he feels that the entire develo ment of Gran 4ico&a is 3esoamerican in nature *Coe 1-!2 in 4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. "he o ulation reaches its highest oint in this time eriod and fre;uent9 heavil& occu ied sites occur. In contrast to the Earl& )ol&chrome9 regional variation in ceramic st&les is no# #ides read *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. "he 5eginning of the 8ate )ol&chrome is not marked 5& a strong 5reak #ith the revious eriod *4or#e5 1-!+9 55$.. "he regional distri5ution is ;uite the same as that from the 3iddle )l&chrome. "he 5iggest difference 5et#een the t#o eriods is that in the 8ate )ol&chrome strong 3e0ican elements a ear on some local t& es. In this eriod 8una )ol&chrome #as manufactured in a artiall& of total historical conte0t and this ma& account for some inundation of unidentified e0ternal influences. 6ites are fe#er and are t& icall& found on islands such as Da atero and :mete e9 #hich ma& indicate a declining o ulation that retreated to more rotected areas *4orman 1-!+9 55$.. In 1-2, 7audez #rote a 5ook on Central %merica and although this falls under the heading of FE0 lanator& )eriodG9 it is more of a descri tive than an e0 lanator& #ork. 7audez lists different t& es of ceramics and some other artefacts throughout different eriods of time in different areas9 5ut there is no further e0 lanation or conte0t of the ceramics. 7audez shortl& states that 4icaragua and Central %merica in general have 5een under the influence of 3esoamerica9 5ut he does not reall& s ecif& or under in #h& this is so9 a art from some small e0am les #hich he does not su ort 5& further evidence. 8ater on9 he gives some information a5out the 4icarao and the orted argument or Chorotega9 5ut this does not go into grate detail and does not turn into a #ell su from 6outh %merica9 5ut again9 these statements are not full& su

cultural histor&. % art from the influence of 3esoamerica9 he also a&s attention to the influence orted 5& other evidence.

2!

"he difference 5et#een the t#o u5lications discussed a5ove is ver& a arent and this could 5e e0 lained 5& the o5<ective or audience for #ho the te0ts #ere #ritten. 4or#e5s article is a scientific u5lication dealing #ith the results of e0cavations and addressing scientific ro5lems such as chronologies or seriation and the culture histor&. "he 5ook 7audez #rote9 on the contrar&9 #as not #ritten for a scientific audience. /is 5ook #as #ritten for a series of 5ooks that are an introduction to different culture areas #orld#ide. "herefore it is not so strange that his 5ook does not go into as much detail as 4or#e5s u5lication.

22

6"

2urrent /nterpretations 41'80320115

6"1"

2eramics

/eal& *1-$,. takes a ne# a roach to anal&sing ceramics. /e com5ines t#o s&stems into #hat he thinks is the 5est #a& to anal&se ceramics9 although he recognizes that others ma& not 5e entirel& satisfied #ith his a roach. "here are t#o main #a&s of anal&sing ceramics. "he first is 3odal %nal&sis9 in #hich the most 5asic unit to classif& are individual ceramic traits #hich are called modes. % mode can 5e an& significant trait9 such as sli 9 form or a class of vessel su orts. 3odal %nal&sis is articularl& useful #hen ceramics are 5adl& reserved and all that is availa5le is one s ecific mode. It can also 5e a lied in com uterized cluster anal&sis. "here are9 ho#ever9 some disadvantages9 es eciall& for inter-site com arisons. It is an eas& method to anal&se individual sherds or grou s of sherds from one site9 5ut 5ecause the modes are so s ecific and hard to recognize this method is not ver& useful to com are different sites. "he com aring of different sites9 ho#ever9 is e0actl& #hat /eal& tries to do. "he second is the "& e-Aariet& s&stem of ceramic anal&sis #hich #as in use in studies on southern 3esoamerica and #as develo ed in the late 1-5,s and earl& 1-!,s. "his is a s&stem that is 5ased u on Fattri5ute clusteringG. In this s&stem9 the significance of attri5ute clusters is stressed. Ceramics are divided according to com5inations of decorative9 sha e9 technical and design modes. "he& are named9 ho#ever9 after decorative modes such as sli 9 colour and surface mani ulation *6a5le 1-25 in /eal& 1-$,.. In 0he Archaeology of the 2i'as 2egion$ Nicaragua /eal& himself uses the "& e-Aariet& s&stem. /e tries to 5alance 5et#een detailed descri tions and a more general a roach. 1or ever& t& e of ceramics9 he has a list of criteria he discusses. "his list does not onl& contain a classification of ceramics and a descri tion of form9 materials and roduction9 5ut it also contains a discussion of its conte0t and a cultural as ect. /e has the criteria of intra and inter site locations and conte0ts and cultural significance. "his method is something ;uite ne# since it contains different a roaches all in one anal&sis. %nother thing that is ;uite ne# in /eal&Is a roach is the fact that he not onl& descri5es the outer a earance of the ceramics9 5ut he has also done research on #hat kind of cla& it is made of9 #hat kind of tem er is used and ho# it is fired. "his kind of a roach is a more com ositional a roach to ceramics. /eal& tries to achieve #hat he calls a F#edding of the t#o ma<or classificator& s&stemsG in order to come to a more com lete and e0act image of the ceramic 2$

assem5lages */eal& 1-$,9 $,.. In 1--2 8ange et al. have u5lished a 5ook on the Archaeology of 4acific Nicaragua1 Nust like /eal&Is u5lication this is a #ork that integrates all arts of archaeolog& and does not onl& focus on ceramics. In contrast to /eal& #ho focusses on ?ivas9 8ange discusses the entire 4icaraguan art of Gran 4ico&a9 i.e. )acific 4icaragua. /e divides the entire Gran 4ico&a area in different sectors and zones. 8ange divides Gran 4ico&a in a northern9 i.e. )acific 4icaraguan and southern9 i.e. Costa ?ican zone *8ange 1-$+9 1!2. *see also: 1igure 2.. 8ange then further divides the northern sector in to four different zones *see also: 1igure '. and shortl& discusses the s ecific traits of that zone *8ange 1--29 5$-!2.. In Ceramic Done 19 the 8eQnRChinandega to 3anagua area9 Gran 4ico&a ceramics are generall& lacking9 a art from an occasional #hite-sli ed )a aga&o or Aalle<o )ol&chrome *8ange 1--29 5$.. =ith the use of chemical anal&sis the differences 5et#een the ceramics from this zone and com ara5le ceramics from other zones can 5e seen. 1or instance9 the KsulutLn ceramics from Done 1 consist of finer aste and tem er than KsulutLn ceramics from the south. Ceramic Done 2 consists of the areas aroun northern 8ake nicaragua and 8ake 3anagua and has a higher ercentage of Gran 4ico&a ceramic t& es9 5ut also local t& es such as 3anague )ol&chrome that do not a ear outside this zone *8ange 1--29 !,.. Chemical anal&sis su orts the strength of the local ceramic traditions and that of the regional Gran 4ico&a t& es. In com arison to Done 19 there are much more ol&chrome ceramics in Done 29 although KsulutLn-like ceramics are fe#er here *8ange 1--29 !,.. Ceramic Done ' stretches from 6anta 8eQnor to ?ivas and :mete e and Da atera islands are included in Ceramic Done '. "his zone full& lies #ithin the Gran 4ico&a su5area9 5ased on ceramic records *8ange 1--29 !,.. %gain9 this is strengthened 5& chemical anal&sis. Ceramic Done + lies #ithin the area of Chontales *8ange 1--29 !2.. "& ical for Done + is the fact that some sites have a5undant otsherds #hile the& are almost a5sent on other sites. % characteristic incised #are has 5een roven chemicall& distinct from the rest of the Gran 4ico&a chemical grou s. "he little #hitesli ed otter& re resents the 3iddle and initial 8ate eriod )a aga&o )ol&chrome #hich demonstrates that there #ere some isthmian ceramics on the eastern shore of 8ake 4icaragua. E0ce t for the fe# )a aga&o )ol&chromes there is a great contrast #ith Done ' at the #estern side of 8ake 4icaragua. "his division is su lake *8ange 1--29 !2.. (ennett9 )latz and 3cCaffert& *2,11. have recentl& #ritten an article that anal&ses the ceramics of the site of 8a %renera in a ver& different manner than the authors discussed 5efore. "he 2orted 5& ethnohistorical sources in #hich a social9 economic9 olitical and religious 5oundar& #as indicated 5et#een the eo les of 5oth sides of the

core of their anal&sis is a reliminar& com ositional anal&sis. "his means that the e0act com osition of different sherds is dissected and the origins of the sherds are traced ;uite recisel&. "he goal of this article is to understand more of the rovenience of the KsulutLn-t& es and ?osales Doned Engraved ceramics *(ennett et al. 2,,19 '-+.. )ro5a5l& ?osales t& e ceramics have 5een roduced and then im orted from the Isthmus of ?ivas. 1or the KsulutLn-st&le t#o different aste t& es have 5een distinguished and 5oth a ear to have 5een manufactured in )acific 4icaragua. "his conclusion had alread& 5een made 5& /eal& *1-$$. and 8ange *1--2.9 5ut this #as the first time etrological com ositional rovenience #as studied in this much detail *(ennett et al. 2,,19 '-+.. In this stud& of rovenience the influence from 3esoamerica is seen once again9 at least of the ceramic s here of the southeastern eri her& *i.e. /onduras and El 6alvador. of 3esoamerica. "he suggestion is made that Izalco-st&le KsulutLn #ares have ro5a5l& served as restige goods used for local status differentiation and for the regional forming or maintaining of socio-economical and socio- olitical ties *(ennett et al. 2,,19 '-+.. "he a roach used in the article could 5e seen as a modern variant of #hat /eal& has done in his research. "he a roach of (ennett et al. is a 5eta scientific a roach #hich does not onl& discuss the individual traits9 or modes9 5ut also uses different clusters of attri5utes to descri5e ceramics. "he methods used in this cha ter differ from the methods used in earlier cha ters. 1rom the this time on#ards a 5eta scientific a roach 5ecomes more and more im ortant to anal&se ceramics. Earlier9 st&listic features #ere at the 5ase of anal&sing ceramics and from there on information a5out cultures and interaction 5et#een cultures #as deducted. 4o# other9 more e0act methods of anal&sing are added to this #hich makes the information more com lete and is su orted 5& a 5roader s ectrum of evidence. %nother thing that has 5ecome more im ortant is com aring different sites. "his9 again9 is not onl& done 5& st&listic com arisons9 5ut also 5& com aring for instance com osition and rovenience of the materials that have 5een used.

6"2"

2hronology

Chronolog& is one of the fre;uentl& discussed to ics in 4icaraguan archaeolog&. In 3esoamerica the calendrical s&stem is used to link artefacts to our o#n Gregorian calender. "his method rovides us #ith e0act dating in archaeolog&. % s&stem like this9 ho#ever9 is a5sent in 4icaragua 5ecause there is no 4icaraguan e;uivalent to the 3esoamerican calendrical s&stem. 1rom the start of archaeological research in the Gran 4ico&a su5area9 there have 5een discussions a5out chronolog& ',

and man& different chronologies have 5een ro osed and then re<ected. /eal& ro oses a relative and a5solute chronolog& for the ?ivas region and com5ines techni;ues such as cross dating and seriation #ith C1+ dating */eal& 1-$,9 2-5.. "he use of C1+ dating often functions as a cross-check on validit& to see if the relative seriation dates are via5le. 6eriation is a method that laces artefacts in a ro0imate chronological order that is 5ased on the small-scale changes in form or st&le *(arvill 2,,29 '$5.. "he assum tion is that single artefacts or assem5lages that have the most similarities must 5e the closest to another in time and s ace. :nce the seriated se;uence has 5een accom lished9 one has to decide #hich is oldest and #hich is &oungest */eal& 1-$,9 2-!.. 7ased on seriation9 se;uences can 5e linked to a5solute chronologies if one or more of the artefacts can 5e dated. "he roduct of seriation is a relative cultural frame#ork #hich makes chronological differences visi5le in a geogra hic form. "his t& e of chronolog& is es eciall& useful in regions #here there has 5een little or no rior field#ork */eal& 1-$,9 2-!.. =hen a lied to the ?ivas region9 this s&stem tells us the change and re lacement of ceramic t& es is orderl& and onl& at some oint sho#s more dramatic changes. /eal& has made a four- eriod chronological frame#ork. "he chronological se;uence had 5een su5divided into a ro riate eriods and sometimes into smaller9 tem oral units or hases. "hrough seriation one can never tell e0actl& #hen a certain ceramic t& e is introduced and #hen it vanished 5ecause there are some s oradic e0am les #hich sho# u 5efore or after the areas of more continuous distri5ution on the chart. It is9 ho#ever9 ossi5le to indicate the eak concentrations of a t& e>s roduction */eal& 1-$,9 2--.. 6eriation does sho# the introduction9 culmination and decline of a ceramic t& e. "he ne0t ste in the making of the chronolog& of the ?ivas region #as the cross-cultural anal&sis. In this anal&sis9 the dating of units from one area is done 5& correlating them #ith units of another area of #hich the dating is kno#n. ?ouse descri5es this t& e of anal&sis as s&nchronization */eal& 1-$,9 2--.. %fter this9 radiocar5on dating #as used to verif& the relative se;uence and to lace ?ivas on stead& ground for cross-cultural com arisons. %lthough /eal& 5ases his a5solute chronolog& of the ?ivas region on the C1+ dating of '- sherds of different diagnostic otter& t& es9 there is onl& one among them of the ?ivas region */eal& 1-$,9 ',5.. /o#ever9 /eal& states that the similarities 5et#een the ceramic se;uences of 4icaragua and Costa ?ica strongl& suggest a close relationshi 5et#een the t#o regions and their dating is arallel or ma&5e even similar */eal& 1-$,9 ',5-',!.. "he method used for dating of ceramics from 5oth regions is cross-cultural dating. :ver a decade later ALz;uez et al. *1--2-1--'. resent a ne# chronolog& of the entire Gran 4ico&a area *"a5le +. in the conte0t of the 0aller so re el Futuro de las <n'estigaciones Ar7ueol=gicas y 3tnohistoricas en Gran Nicoya in )la&a Cua<ini;uil9 Guanacaste. :ne of the main '1

differences in the nomenclature of the revious and the ne# chronologies is that in the ne# chronolog& the eriods are named after geogra hical features or areas #hich9 through archaeolog&9 seem to have 5een the most im ortant at that time9 instead of naming them after the most revalent t& e of otter&. "his ne# chronolog& seems9 therefore9 more useful for archaeolog& in general instead of <ust ceramics. "his different mode of thought is not onl& a lied to the chronolog&9 5ut #:AN&);:>A2/;N8& .8* 8&<+8>A 2:;N;*;G/2; .8 G:AN N/2;?A 4KEA% C?:4:8:GI% Per@odo ;metepe 411(031((0 d"2"5 *:mete e )eriod. Per@odo &apoA 4800311(0 d"2"5 *6a oL )eriod. Per@odo agaces 41003800 d"2"5 *7agaces )eriod. Per@odo #empisCue 4(00 a"2"3100 d"2"5 *"em is;ue )eriod. Per@odo ;ros@ 420003(00 a"2"5 *:rosS )eriod. Per@odo Arcaico 4800032000 a"2"5 *%rchaic )eriod. Per@odo Paleoindio 4D10 000E38000 a"2"5 *)aleoindian )eriod. C?:4:8:GI% %4"E?I:? Per@odo Policromo #ard@o *8ate )ol&chrome )eriod. Per@odo Policromo >edio *3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. Per@odo icromo en Bonas y Policromo Antiguo *8inear (ecorated and Earl& )ol&chrome. Per@odo icromas en Bonas *Doned 7ichrome )eriod. Per@odo )ormati,o >edio *3iddle 1ormative )eriod. Arcaico Paleoindio

0a le %: 0ransformaciones del es7uema cronologico de Gran Nicoya (0ransformations of the chronological scheme of Gran Nicoya& (Ada(ted from: 2icardo ,>/7ue/ et al1 1))!?)%$ !+*&

throughout the article. "he ne# chronolog& is not onl& 5ased on ceramics9 5ut also on other classes of data9 like settlement atterns9 funerar& customs and cali5rated C1+ dating *ALz;uez et al. 1--21--'9 2+!.. Even #ith this ne# method of incor orating different t& es of information9 the amount of a5solute dates remains ;uite lo#. "here is a dis5alance 5et#een the northern and southern art of the Gran 4ico&a area in #hich the a5solute dates of the 4icaraguan9 i.e. the northern9 art are ver& fe# *ALz;uez et al. 1--2-1--'9 2+!.. In this art9 the de endence on cross-dating is much higher9 mostl& the correlation of ceramics. 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner * 2,,5a. #rote an article #ith the main argument that the ceramics #hich are diagnostic of the :mete e eriod are su osed to 5e in the 6a oL eriod. "he& osedl& #ere of the :mete e eriod '2 validate their argument through C1+ dating of ceramics that su

5ut #ere actuall& dated much earlier *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,5a9 1'1.. "his oses a ro5lem to the relationshi 5et#een the t#o eriods. "here are further im lications than <ust the nomenclature or eriodisation. 7oth :mete e and 6a oL eriod are associated #ith certain #aves of migration. "he migrations of the Chorotega and the 4icarao had 5een linked to the acce ted chronological se;uence of Gran 4ico&a as ro osed 5& ALz;uez et al. "he 5eginning of the 6a oL eriod is associated #ith the migration of the Chorotega9 #hile the :mete e eriod is associated #ith the arrival of the 4icarao *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,5a9 1'5.. If the correlation 5et#een the eriods and their diagnostic t& es of ceramics is correct9 this ne# find not onl& has im act on the inter retation and eriodisation of ceramics9 5ut also on the inter retation of sites #here these t& es of ceramics are found.

6"1"

2omparati,e Analysis

%s #e have seen earlier9 8othro *1-2!. alread& makes a com arison 5et#een the cultural areas of 4icaragua and Costa ?ica and other cultural centres9 such as 3esoamerica and 6outh %merica. /eal& icks u the track in com aring different cultural areas and tr&ing to sa& something a5out the relationshi s 5et#een those areas */eal& 1-$,9 '11.. /e e0amines the relationshi the ?ivas region has #ith all of the surrounding areas9 inside and outside of 4icaragua. /eal& com ares the ceramic se;uences and hases9 ceramic t& es and chronologies of different areas #ith each other9 #ithout contrasting the more general cultural 5ackground. In this cha ter9 ceramic se;uences of different areas are com ared9 5ut in the ne0t cha ter it is tried to sa& more a5out the culture to #hich the ceramic se;uences 5elonged. /eal& does not take the Gran 4ico&a area as a #hole9 5ut he makes a se aration 5et#een the 4icaraguan and Costa ?ican arts9 although the ceramic se;uences and chronologies are ver& alike */eal& 1-$,9 '11.. /eal& states that the hases and eriods of 5oth the northern en southern sectors of Gran 4ico&a are ver& alike and the ceramic t& es are often identical to each other. Conse;uentiall&9 the fluctuations and interrelationshi s 5et#een the northern en southern sectors can 5e seen and also #ith regions farther a#a& */eal& 1-$,9 '12.. In the most general sense9 /eal& sa&s that the 5ond 5et#een the ?ivas and Guanacaste areas is the closest in the Doned 7ichrome )eriod9 ;uite similar in the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod and least similar in the rest of the )reColum5ian eriods *1-$,9 '12.. %lthough this correlation is noted9 there are9 of course9 also some differences. 1or instance9 some im ortant Guanacaste t& es are missing from the ?ivas region ''

*/eal& 1-$,9 '1'.. In Earl& )ol&chrome ceramic assem5lages there is a little less correlation 5et#een the t#o regions than in the receding eriod. "his ma& 5e due to the gro#th of the local traditions. 6omething that stands out in /eal&Is com arative anal&sis is the fact that the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod F4ico&a )ol&chromesG *8othro 1-2!. or )a aga&o )ol&chromes */eal& 1-$,. seem to have 5een manufactured or at least originated in 4icaragua and then s read out over a large area */eal& 1-$,9 '1+.. "his st&le #as traded as far out as /onduras and El 6alvador and even Central 3e0ico */eal& 1-$,9 '15.. "he Gran 4ico&a su5area is unified through the #ide distri5ution of mostl& )a aga&o )ol&chrome during the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. "he traditions that started in the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod #ere also maintained throughout the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. "he reason #h& this eriod stands out from the rest9 is the #ide distri5ution of its ceramics #hich is something that is largel& unkno#n in other eriods. %lthough contact 5et#een ?ivas and Guanacaste remains in the 8ate )ol&chrome )eriod9 a s litting of the t#o regions can 5e seen */eal& 1-$,9 '15.. In the entire 8ate )ol&chrome )eriod9 there is less intermi0ture of ceramic t& es than #as the case in earlier eriods. It also seems that 5& the 8ate )ol&chrome eriod Guanacaste looked south#ard and ?ivas north#ard for cultural direction */eal& 1-$,9 215.. 1rom a5out %( 12,, the northern and southern regions of Gran 4ico&a graduall& drifted into different directions and fell into t#o contrasting cultural s heres of influence: res ectivel& the 3esoamerican and 8o#er Central and 6outh %merican areas. /eal& also researches the relationshi 5et#een the ?ivas region and the %tlantic art of 4icaragua *1-$,9 '1!.. /e suggests that there is little roof of trade connections or other forms of contact 5et#een the Gran 4ico&a su5area and the eastern lo#lands 5et#een $,, and 12,, %( and as it seems9 )acific coastal 4icaragua has 5een ;uite isolated. "here has also 5een little contact #ith another ro0imate area9 namel& the (i;uis (elta on Costa ?icas )acific coast. ?egarding the cultural areas to the 6outh of ?ivas9 /eal& states that there are onl& general similarities in ceramic se;uences */eal& 1-$,9 '12.. 6ometimes the ainted st&les are vaguel& similar. It seems as though in the 1ormative horizon in 3iddle %merica #e have the Doned 7ichrome #ares #hich are closel& related to the 3esoamerican cultural tradition and the 6carified =ares #hich are related to 8o#er Central %merica and 6outh %merica */eal& 1-$,9 '1-.. /eal& ro oses to dra# a line to demarcate the 5oundar& of 3esoamerican influence right under the ?ivas region. %lthough Guanacaste has close ties #ith ?ivas9 it is not under a real influence from 3esoamerica */eal& 1-$,9 '2,.. "he similarities 5et#een ?ivas and other areas ra idl& declines to the 6outh of the 4ico&a )eninsula. '+

/eal& notes some alliance 5et#een ?ivas and El 6alvador9 although this remains ;uite limited */eal& 1-$,9 '21.. "he 6alvadorian KsulutLn =are is an im ortant earl& 3esoamerican and Central %merican trade #are. "his is also found in the ?ivas region9 ho#ever in small ;uantities */eal& 1-$,9 '21.. %nother similarit& comes from the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. "here is a similarit& 5et#een the motif on an eastern 6alvadoran ol&chrome sherd and on 3andador variet& )a aga&o )ol&chromes from ?ivas */eal& 1-$,9 '22.. "he motif ro5a5l& is an a5stract toad or frog9 #hich is also common in other areas of 3esoamerica. %fter the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod9 ho#ever9 there is not an& other clear evidence of contact 5et#een ?ivas and 6alvador. %ccording to /eal& there are not man& ties 5et#een ?ivas and /onduras */eal& 1-$,9 '2'.. "he most a arent is from the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod in #hich a )a aga&o )ol&chrome vessel #as recovered from a tom5 in Co an9 along #ith some "ohil )lum5ate vessels */eal& 1-$,9 '2+.. /o#ever9 no Classic 3a&a otter& has 5een found and therefore it must 5e dated after the colla se of Co an9 during the Earl& )ostclassic )eriod of 3esoamerica *-,,-12,, %(.. /eal& sho#s that resem5lances of the ?ivas region ceramics can 5e found as far 4orth as the 3a&a area */eal& 1-$,9 '25.. In earl& eriods9 this onl& concerns monochrome and 5ichrome otter&. 1rom the Earl& )ol&chrome horizon *',,-$,,. there are some connections 5et#een the 3a&a and ?ivas regions */eal& 1-$,9 '25.. "hese are9 ho#ever9 ;uite general. "he 3a&a orange 5ase ol&chromes vaguel& remind us of the first ?ivas ol&chromes s ecificall& the Gonzales )ol&chrome */eal& 1-$,9 '2!.. "he change from monochrome and 5ichrome ainting to ol&chrome ceramics seems to have ha ened around the same time in 5oth regions. :ther things that a ears at roughl& the same time in 5oth regions9 are flanged 5o#ls and com osite silhouette 5o#ls. It seems like there has 5een overla in the Gran 4ico&a 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod and the 3a&a 8ate Classic */eal& 1-$,9 '2!.. "his can 5e seen in similar vessel forms9 5ecause of the use of 3a&an or 3a&oid motifs in the ?ivas region. In 3iddle and 8ate )ol&chrome )eriods the influ0 of some central 3e0ican motifs is visi5le as #ell. "here are instances in #hich the Fste fretG and Fste ed &ramidG are found on )a aga&o )ol&chrome varieties9 as #ell as on 3om5acho )ol&chrome-Incised */eal& 1-$,9 '2!.. "here even are some e0am les of vessels that have 3e0ican deities de icted or a lumed ser ent on them. %lso there is a strong resem5lance in the geometric motifs of ?ivas ceramics and the 3i0teca-)ue5la designs from Cholula.

'5

6"4"

2ulture !istory

1or decades9 archaeologists have tried to e0tract information from the otter& a5out the culture to #hich it 5elongs. 4o longer is the sole o5<ective to descri5e and classif& or the function of the otter&9 5ut from no# on the eo le 5ehind the ceramics are e0 lored. 7& com aring different t& es of ceramics in different times and regions the stor& 5ehind the otter& is e0tracted. "he first erson to reall& tr& this for south#estern 4icaragua is /eal& in 1-$,. /e researched the artefacts that =ille& and 4or#e5 e0cavated in the ?ivas region9 5ut #hich the& themselves never anal&sed */eal& 1-$,9 5.. In doing this9 he not onl& looked for the eo le 5ehind the otter&9 5ut he also tried to find connections #ith other cultural regions to the 4orth and 6outh. /is o5<ective is to identif& the inha5itants of ?ivas of the Doned 7ichrome )eriod in the larger conte0t of a more general Central %merican culture */eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. In contrast to the revious cha ter9 #hich #as a5out different st&les of ceramics9 this cha ter is a5out the eo le that roduced these ceramics. /eal& ro oses a culture histor& of the ?ivas region */eal& 1-$,9 '2-.. /e tried to trace 5ack all the #a& to #hen Earl& 3an entered Central %merica9 5ut unfortunatel&9 and unlike 4orth and 6outh %merica9 there is not a lot of evidence for this. "here is onl& little data on Earl& 3an mostl& from fluted ro<ectile oints. =hat makes it even harder to e0tract information a5out Earl& 3an is the fact that the conte0ts of these finds most of the time are far from ideal since the& have 5een lost #hen the artefacts ended u in rivate collections. "he artefacts do not tell us an a#ful lot a5out the life #a&s of the eo les to #hich the& 5elonged. /eal& #rites that there #as virtuall& nothing kno#n a5out the re-ceramic times in 4icaraguan rehistor&. Even though the earliest testimon& of otter& making eo les in the %mericas dates from roughl& ',,, 7C as far 6outh as Ecuador9 the earliest evidence of occu ation in the ?ivas area dates to the Doned 7ichrome )eriod *'5, 7C H %( ',,. */eal& 1-$,9 '',.. "he main evidence for this derives from otter&9 #hich #as #ell made and recognisa5le 5& its zonal decoration. (es ite 5eing the first evidence of a5original occu ation in ?ivas9 the otter& is definitel& not crude. "his seems arado0ical9 5ut considering the relativel& late a earance of ceramics in contrast to other 3esoamerican or )eruvian regions9 it is not that odd */eal& 1-$,9 '',.. /eal& also oints out the man& st&listic ties Doned 7ichrome otter& has to a otter& st&le that revailed in 3esoamerica in the 3iddle )reclassic )eriod *1,,, 7C.9 in s ite of the 5ig time lag 5et#een the 4icaraguan and 3esoamerican otter& st&les */eal& 1-$,9 '',.. "he greatest similarities9 ho#ever9 are found in near5& Guanacaste9 Costa ?ica. "hrough the finds of arallel or identical *traded. t& es of otter& it is suggested that the Gran 4ico&a su5area might originall& have 5een settled 5& one and the same '!

cultural or ethnic grou #hich roduced otter& */eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. It seems as though the ?ivas eo les have 5een influenced 5& 3esoamerica9 and no matter #hich ethnic grou the& 5elonged to9 it does not look like the& have enetrated Central %merica further 6outh than north#est Costa ?ica */eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. In conclusion9 #e could sa& that ?ivas #as develo ing #ithin and influenced 5& #ider cultural traditions9 5ut at the same time it #as relativel& isolated from the e icentre and develo ments of those cultures */eal& 1-$,9 '11E 8ange 1--2.. If &ou relate the eri heral geogra hical osition of ?ivas to the %ndean and 3esoamerican areas9 this characterization is not ina ro riate. In general it a ears that the cultural ties have 5een more northerl& than southern. Evidence for this can 5e found in the ceramic st&les and from the solid9 modelled figurines */eal& 1-$,9 '11.. /eal& goes on #ith sa&ing that the Doned 7ichrome )eriod sites are located close to the isthmus shores of 8ake 4icaragua and also on :mete e Island itself */eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. %lthough there #as no faunal or floral evidence recorded9 there #as a fragment of a metate that oints to maize roduction. %lso9 FsinkersG #ere found #hich hints to reliance u on fishing. /unting has ro5a5l& al#a&s 5een im ortant9 although ro<ectile oints seem to have lacked throughout the ?ivas se;uence9 5ut this is not unusual for 8o#er Central %merica */eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. "his lack of stone ro<ectile oints might 5e e0 lained 5& the em lo&ment of 5one or fish oints and firehardened #ooden shafts instead of using stone ones. Else#here in the su5area9 manos and metates or other indicators for su5sistence seemed to 5e lacking *7audez and Coe 1-!1 in /eal& 1-$,9 ''1.. "he ceramic remains from ?ivas sho# a com le0it& that suggests an advanced cultural achievement of the region in Doned 7ichrome times */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. "his high cultural level is generall& onl& attained #ith a su5sistence 5ased on farming9 #hich #as not the case here. %lthough archaeological roof is not al#a&s found9 /eal& is convinced the o ulation of the Doned 7ichrome )eriod of ?ivas relied on su5sistence farming */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. "he& com lemented this #ith #ith fishing9 hunting and gathering ractices to com lete their diet. % ne# t& e of ceramics marked the 5eginning of the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod *%( ',,-$,,. */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. "he Earl& )ol&chrome Fcus idorG 5o#l form and hollo#9 mammiform su orts together #ith ne# t& es of otter& mark a different eriod in ?ivas ceramics. %nother commonl& em lo&ed feature of this eriod is a gloss&9 gra hite 5lack aint #hich is found on several Earl& )ol&chrome ceramic t& es. Aer& t& ical for this eriod is the Gonzales )ol&chrome9 #hich is characterized 5& a5stract designs ainted in red9 outlined in 5lack9 on an orange to cream ground. In Guanacaste there is a similar t& e of otter&9 called Galo )ol&chrome9 #hich is also an im ortant '2

otter& t& e. "his hel s to solidif& the statement that Gran 4ico&a su5area is one unified cultural zone during this time. % art from these t& es9 it is mostl& localized otter& #hich does not seem to have 5een e0changed 5e&ond regional 5oundaries */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. (uring this time9 it a ears the reliance on maize roduction #as greater */eal& 1-$,9 '''.. "his is su orted 5& a larger diversit& in mano and metate t& es in ?ivas9 5ut also there is a more diverse tool assem5lage #hich im lies #orking of the land and the clearing of the forest #ere intensified. "ri od chili graters #ere found in ?ivas and 4ico&a for the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod. %ll of this suggests an increase in reliance u on foodstuffs such as e ers9 nuts9 5erries and erha s even acorns #hich #ere 5eing utilized more during this eriod. 8ange oints out9 ho#ever9 that the shift might not sho# a change in su5sistence9 5ut it might as #ell 5e a shift from #ooden tools to non erisha5le ones *8ange 1-21 in /eal& 1-$,9 '''.. "here is not a lot of evidence for shellfish gathering in the ?ivas region9 5ut outside that area it increased and coastal ha5itations #ere founded. "he num5er of ha5itations and thus ro5a5l& also their o ulations ma& e0 lain #h& the diet gre# more diverse and the econom& #as intensified */eal& 1-$,9 '''.. 1or the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod it is hard to see e0ternal cultural ties. 8ocal ?ivas otter& t& es are not suita5le for the tracing of cultural contacts */eal& 1-$,9 '''.. /eal& sees resem5lances9 ho#ever general9 5et#een ?ivas Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod ceramic and Classic 3a&a orange 5ase ol&chromes */eal& 1-$,9 ''+.. It is interesting that the hollo#9 mammiform feet a ear in the 3a&a lo#lands at a5out %( 1,,-',, for the first time9 #hich is <ust rior to their a earance on the Earl& )ol&chrome graters of ?ivas. /eal& gives a fe# e0am les of contact #ith the 4orth. 1irstl&9 there is the occurrence of Fna kin-ringG ear s ools #hich sho# u in ?ivas in the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod9 5ut are alread& resent in 3esoamerica for man& centuries */eal& 1-$,9 ''+.. 6econdl&9 the solid9 red ainted figurines seem to have a FchacmoolG-like de ression in their chest9 #hich until toda& is inter reted as evidence for human sacrifice and heart removal9 #hich is o5viousl& an im ortant feat in 3esoamerican ceremonialism. %lso9 <ades have 5een found in the 4ico&a area #hich are reminiscent of Earl& Classic <ades from the 3a&a region. %ll ut together9 ;uite some data suggest continued 3esoamerican contact 5et#een %( ',,$,,9 #hich roughl& coincides #ith the 3a&an Classic )eriod */eal& 1-$,9 ''+.. (es ite all of these indicators of e0ternal influence and contact9 #e should kee in mind that ?ivas #as a rising o#er in the 8o#er Central %merican region that started to gain im ortance9 #hich develo ed mostl& inde endentl& until a5out %( $,,.

'$

"he 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod gives #a& to ne# t& es of ceramics and there is some#hat of a shar 5reak #ith the earlier traditions in ?ivas otter& */eal& 1-$,9 ''+.. "#o different t& es of otter& come into e0istence: #hite 5ased )a aga&o )ol&chrome and a utilitarian #are called 6acasa 6triated. Aessel forms are also su5<ected to change. In these ne# forms9 chronological ties #ith the 3esoamerican 1ine :range ceramics can 5e seen *6mith 1-5$ in /eal& 1-$,9 ''5.. )ol&chrome otter& flourished in the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. )a aga&o )ol&chrome seems to have 5een highl& valued9 since #e see a distri5ution of the otter& t& e throughout Central %merica. 1rom no# on9 ol&chrome ainting is no longer restricted to otter&9 5ut it is also a lied to other kinds of ceramics such as figurines */eal& 1-$,9 ''5.. "hese figurines are mouldmade and hollo# and are found in larger ;uantities. "he num5er of stone artefacts like manos9 metates9 estles and celts increase in the ?ivas 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. % ro<ectile oint fragment and the onl& o5sidian #ere also recovered from this eriod. %nother difference from the revious eriod can 5e seen in the large amount of 5one and shell that has 5een found */eal& 1-$,9 ''5.. :n man& of these skeletal remains evidence of additional human activit& can 5e found9 such as knife 5lade cut marks and 5reak oints. It seems that 5oth fishing and hunting #ere im ortant in this eriod. "he num5er of marine molluscs has increased as #ell. 6tring sa# cuts on shells sho# us there must have 5een a #ell develo ed shell industr& #hich must have roduced shell 5ead9 among other things. /eal& thinks the e0 lanation for the drastic change in ?ivas cultural atterns could 5e intrusion from 3e0ico */eal& 1-$,9 ''5.. In the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod #e see a ver& large amount of 3a&an and 3e0ican motifs. "hese have alread& 5een noted 5& 8othro *1-2!.9 among others. %ccording to /eal&9 the 3esoamerican motifs are im ortant evidence of the Chorotegan migrations to the ?ivas area at around %( $,, */eal& 1-$,9 ''!.. It is not <ust the o5vious alteration of almost all facets of ?ivas cultural traits9 5ut this is also su orted and clarified 5& ethnohistoric legends. "his means that the eo le of the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod must have 5een a#are of #hat #as ha ening in the 3a&a area to a fair e0tent. "herefore9 the& must have 5een settled in the 4ico&a su5area a little #hile rior to the Classic 3a&a colla se of a5out %( -,, *Cul5ert 1-2' in /eal& 1-$,9 ''!.. "he Chorotegans came from Chia as9 3e0ico and migrated to 8o#er Central %merica. "his gave #a& to contact 5et#een the Chorotega and the 3a&a *or at least 3a&oid eo les. that lived along the coastal and overland route to the 4ico&a su5area. % art from the 3a&a motifs that are found9 /eal& also s eaks a5out designs that could 5e classified as 3e0ican. %n e0am le of this is the 3i0tec-looking Fste ed fretG motif #hich is seen in ?ivas ceramics for the first time during the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. "his '-

suggests that there #as contact 5et#een or at least kno#ledge of ?ivas and )ostclassic 3e0ico. If &ou take this into consideration9 a terminal date of %( 12,, for this eriod seems validated. In conclusion9 /eal& states that the F3esoamericanizationG of the ?ivas region 5egun a fe# centuries 5efore the 6 anish arrival under the Chorotega and #as further intensified #hen the 3e0icanized 4icarao arrived */eal& 1-$,9 ''-.. "he 4ahua s eaking 4icarao #ere a 3esoamerican tri5e that fled the 3e0cian lateau 5ecause of its insta5ilit& right after the colla se of "ula in the )ostclassic )eriod. %fter a long migration throughout Central %merica the& dis laced the Chorotega around 8ake 4icaragua and in the ?ivas area.

+,

9"

#he influence of >esoamerica on polychromes from northern Gran Nicoya

3ost authors have tried to find links 5et#een rehistoric 4icaragua and cultures either to the 4orth or the 6outh. 3ostl&9 authors attem ted to link the 4icaraguan culture histor& to 3esoamerica9 or to the Intermediate %rea in case of the lo#er )acific coast *8ange 1--2.. Es eciall& 3a&a or9 in more general terms9 3e0ican influences are often em hasised. =e also find this em hasis on 3esoamerican influence on Gran 4ico&a in <ust a5out all the literature on 4icaraguan otter&9 and thus throughout this thesis. 6ome authors think this influence #as more significant than others9 5ut nevertheless9 it is al#a&s stressed that such an influence e0isted. "he idea of 4icaragua looking 4orth for cultural guidance goes 5ack to the 5eginning #ith 8othro *1-2!. and carries all the #a& to 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5.. 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5. argue that the cultural affiliation 5et#een Gran 4ico&a and Central 3e0ico can 5e seen in linguistic9 historical and archaeological evidence. "his cultural affiliation 5egins in the 6a oL )eriod *ca. $,, %(. and continues into the :mete e )eriod to the 6 anish con;uest in the earl& 15,,s. 3ost authors #rite a5out Gran 4ico&a as 5eing the outskirt of 3esoamerica. "his is generall& acce ted since there are ;uite a fe# similarities 5et#een Gran 4ico&a and the 3a&a area9 5ut often the& are not ver& striking. 8othro *1-2!9 1'2. remarks the likeness of the 3a&a and 4icaraguan de ictions of Fthe seated human figure motiveG. %nother reason #h& 8othro is convinced the eo les from 4icaragua had a connection #ith those of the 3a&a area9 is the t& ical long nose that is found on ol&chromes of ure 3a&a t& e9 5ut is also not eculiar to 4icaragua. /eal& *1-$,. also discusses the similarities 5et#een the ?ivas region ceramics and those of the 3a&a area. 1rom the Earl& )ol&chrome horizon *',,-$,, %(. some general connections 5et#een the t#o regions can 5e seen. "he 3a&a orange 5ase ol&chromes9 for instance9 remind us in a #a& of the first ?ivas ol&chromes such as the Gonzales )ol&chrome. "he change from monochrome and 5ichrome decorating to ol&chrome decorating seems to have ha ened at roughl& the same time in 5oth regions. 1langed 5o#ls and com osite silhouette 5o#ls are also found at the same time in 5oth regions. "his makes us think there must have 5een an overla in the Gran 4ico&a 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod and the 3a&a 8ate Classic. "his 5ecause 3a&an or 3a&oid motifs are to 5e found throughout the ?ivas region. In some instances #e can see the Fste fretG and Fste ed &ramidG motifs on the )a aga&o )ol&chrome varieties9 as #ell as on 3om5acho )ol&chromeIncised. 6ometimes 3e0ican deities or lumed ser ents are de icted on vessels. %lso strong resem5lances can 5e seen in the geometric motifs of ?ivas ceramics and the 3i0teca-)ue5la designs from Cholula. +1

/eal& suggests that the Gran 4ico&a eo les must have looked mostl& to the 4orth for cultural direction and according to him ;uite some data suggest continued 3esoamerican contact 5et#een %( ',,-$,,9 #hich roughl& coincides #ith the 3a&an Classic )eriod */eal& 1-$,9 ''+.. In s ite of these e0am les of influence from the 4orth9 #e cannot sa& that the Gran 4ico&a area #as influenced 5& the 3a&a area to a great e0tent. /eal& #rites that ?ivas develo ed #ithin and #as influenced 5& #ider cultural traditions9 5ut #as relativel& isolated from the e icentres and develo ments of those cultures all at the same time */eal& 1-$,9 '11E 8ange 1--2.. /eal& *1-$,. thinks intrusion from 3e0ico might have caused some drastic change in ?ivas cultural atterns. 8othro *1-2!. alread& notes a lot of 3a&an and 3e0ican motifs in the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod. /eal& thinks of the 3esoamerican motifs as 5eing im ortant evidence of the migrations of the Chorotegans to ?ivas around %( $,,. "his is su culture and su orted 5& the change in material orted 5& ethnohistoric legends. % art from the 3a&a motifs9 /eal& also s eaks

a5out designs that could 5e classified as 3e0ican. %n e0am le of this is the 3i0tec-looking Fste ed fretG motif #hich is seen in ?ivas ceramics for the first time during the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod */eal& 1-$,9 ''2.. "his suggests that there #as contact 5et#een or at least kno#ledge of ?ivas and )ostclassic 3e0ico. 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner see similarities 5et#een the 3i0teca-)ue5la st&listic tradition and some ?ivas st&les. "he 3i0teca-)ue5la st&le concerns itself #ith religious themes9 the antheon of deities *Puetzalcoatl and "laloc. and the 2,-da& calendrical s&stem and is 5est re resented in 3i0tec- and 7orgia-grou codices originating from modern :a0aca and )ue5la9 3e0ico *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,5.. "he st&le9 ho#ever9 is not limited to codices9 5ut is also found on ol&chrome otter&9 scul tures9 murals and te0tiles. Elements from the 3i0teca)ue5la st&listic tradition have 5een identified on ol&chrome otter& st&les from Gran 4ico&a dating 5et#een %( $,,-152, *(a& 1--+ in 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,5.. "hese elements are often de icted as s&m5ols9 i.e. a cut shell for PuetzalcoatlIs endant or goggle e&es for "laloc. 1igures are easil& recognisa5le 5ecause of their colourful and caricature-like de iction. "hese s&m5ols #ere used 5& man& different cultural grou s. "he 3i0teca-)ue5la st&le and its s&m5ols and iconic images #ere s read throughout 3esoamerica 5& the :lmeca-Ticallanca9 #ho #ere traveling merchants that o erated in the area #here the Puetzalcoatl cult #as resent *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 2$2.. 3ost ro5a5l& there #as no such thing as a large-scale movement of 4ahua 4icarao that resulted in a o ulation re lacement9 more likel& is the idea that there #as minor contact9 erha s through elite interaction #ith trading artners to secure restige goods for international e0change */elms 1--' in 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 2$2.. "his theor& +2

contrasts #ith 8othro Is theor& on ho# the 4icaraguan #ares have 5een influenced 5& #hat he calls 3e0ican cultural heritage. 8othro *1-2!9 '-1. argues that 3e0ican #arriors took the cultural heritage to 4icaragua. "hese #arriors married 4icaraguan #omen and since #omen #ere otters this is ho# 3e0ican religious s&m5olism #as introduced in 4icaraguan otter&. 3ichael 6mith and C&nthia /eath-6mith divide the conce t of 3i0teca-)ue5la into three com onents: religious iconogra h&9 ictorial manuscri t st&le and ol&chrome otter& *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 2$2.. "hese categories are not al#a&s mutuall& e0clusive9 5ut it im lies that #hen ol&chrome otter& is found9 it does not necessaril& mean the total cultural ackage of I3i0teca-)ue5laI traits is resent. 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5. tell us 3i0teca-)ue5la st&le iconogra h& in Gran 4ico&a first a eared on 6a oL )eriod )a aga&o )ol&chrome otter& and e0tends into the :mete e )eriod on related t& es. "he 6anta Isa5el assem5lage does not feature man& clear indicators of 3i0teca)ue5la st&le. 6ome Icut shellI designs are to 5e seen on Granada )ol&chrome #hich ossi5l& relates to Ehacatl9 the #ind god. /o#ever9 less iconic design configurations have 5een found on )a aga&o varieties such as Casares and 3andador. "hese closel& resem5le otter& from the Cua0iloa 3atte t& e from CholulaIs Earl& )ostclassic eriod. %s said 5efore9 most authors tr& to link the Gran 4ico&a area to the 3a&a or 3e0ican cultural areas. /o#ever9 there is an e0ce tion9 namel& 7ras#ell et al. *2,,2. #ho s ecif& this and argue that there are definitel& similarities 5et#een the otter& st&les of 4icaragua and 3e0ico throughout different time eriods9 5ut the& see most similarities #ith /onduras and El 6alvador instead *7ras#ell et al. 2,,29 2-.. "his conclusion is also su orted 5& (ennett et al. *2,11.. "he similarities 5et#een ceramics of 4icaragua and /onduras are not limited to technolog& or common forms9 5ut are also seen in the decoration techni;ues and s ecific iconogra hic motives. "he arallel evolution of the ceramics of 5oth regions indicates that the relation 5et#een the t#o regions #as more than <ust commercial or s oradical e0change. "his im lies a shared ideolog& and shared notion of aesthetics during a long eriod throughout several centuries *7ras#ell et al. 2,,29 ''.. "he interregional interaction #as ;uite intensive a long time 5efore the eo les of 3esoamerica *i.e. the 4icarao and Chorotega from 3e0ico. came to Gran 4ico&a. In conclusion #e can sa& that throughout time authors have searched for the culture areas that ins ired the Gran 4ico&a area. "he level of agreement among the different authors is ;uite striking. %lthough 8othro *1-2!. shortl& discusses the influence from )eru to the 6outh9 the thought that Gran 4ico&a sought its cultural direction to the 4orth is most revalent. 3an& e0am les of influence from the 3a&a area9 or more general from 3e0ico9 have 5een given. "his evidence9 in +'

short9 consists of otter& st&les and motifs9 migration streams9 e0change and linguistic evidence. "he main e0ce tion to this is the article of 7ras#ell et al. in #hich the& argue that the influence from /onduras and El 6alvador is greater than that of 3e0ico9 a conclusion that is su orted 5& (ennett et al. *2,11.. El 6alvador and /onduras have 5een descri5ed 5& (ennett et al. as 5eing Fthe traditional southeastern eri her&G of the 3esoamerican cultural area *(ennett et al. 2,119 '-1.. %lthough there ma& 5e some differences in o inion and the evidence ma& var&9 it almost seems as though the influence from 3esoamerica on ol&chromes from the northern sector of Gran 4ico&a is resu su osed 5& ever& archaeologist and that research is 5ased on finding evidence to su ort this osition or h& othesis. "his is influence from 3esoamerica is the common factor in all the

research done on ol&chrome ceramics from northern Gran 4ico&a9 4icaragua9 since the line of evidence starts in the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod #ith 8othro and continues all the #a& to Current Inter retations #ith the last u5lication in 2,11. %lthough there are man& e0am les of similarities 5et#een northern Gran 4ico&a and the cultural areas to the 4orth9 4icaragua has develo ed in a relative isolation. %lthough the Gran 4ico&a area has had links to the 4orth9 it has never 5een heavil& influenced 5& this area9 5ut has develo ed on its o#n ace. It al#a&s has had a liminal osition. "herefore I think #e could conclude that Gran 4ico&a can 5e classified as the eri her& of 3esoamerica9 <ust like /onduras and El 6alvador9 instead of 5eing in the cultural centre. %lthough there is a lot of evidence that su orts the h& othesis that the 4icaraguan art of

Gran 4ico&a is influenced 5& the 4orth9 #e should also kee in mind that there is a discre anc& in information from the cultural areas to the 4orth and the direct 6outh of the Gran 4ico&a area. "he dissimilarit& in the amount of data availa5le from 5oth areas does not necessaril& mean there is less or no correlation #ith one of those areas "o full& rove that the cultural influence came from 3esoamerica and not from for instance Costa ?ica and )anama9 further research should 5e conducted there so the hiatus in information can 5e filled.

++

8"

2onclusion

"he Gran 4ico&a area is the area around lakes 4icaragua and 3anagua and stretches into northern Costa ?ica. :ften the 4icaraguan art of Gran 4ico&a is referred to as the northern art and the Costa ?ican art as the southern art. "he Gran 4ico&a area has 5een inha5ited 5& man& eo les9 among #hich the 4icarao and Chorotega. "he migration of these eo les has 5een studied 5& different authors and resuma5l& the& come from 3e0ico9 #hich can also 5e seen in the st&listic tradition of the ol&chrome otter& that is found in 4icaragua. In the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod *1$+,-1-1+. 8othro looks at ceramics from 4icaragua and Costa ?ica in a ver& s&stematic manner for #hich he uses a classificator&-descri tive a roach. % art from descri5ing and classif&ing ceramics9 8othro also concerns himself #ith the naming of ceramics. /e starts naming ceramics after local variations instead of naming them after a 5igger grou of com5ined st&les. Influence from the 3a&a area is alread& resumed 5& 8othro . In order to do this9 he does not onl& look at ceramics 5ut also at iconogra h&. /e also sees similarities 5et#een 4icaraguan ceramics and the iconogra h& from 3e0ican codices and the %ztec cultural area. %lthough 8othro does look 6outh for a cultural connection9 he does not see strong ties #ith the )eruvian area. 8othro concerns himself #ith chronolog& and conte0t9 #hich is #h& he is a little ahead of his time. "he ro5lem #ith this9 ho#ever9 is that conte0t is lost in the collections 8othro has researched and #ith that a lot of information a5out #ares and seriation is lost. 8othro notes that conte0t and chronolog& are im ortant in understanding the develo ment of culture. %ccording to 8othro 4icaraguan ceramics can 5e cross-dated to 3a&a and %ztec ceramics *and thus their calender. 5ecause of the st&listic com arisons 5et#een the st&les. %nother rogressive com onent in 8othro Is #ork is the concerne #ith the culture 5ehind the ceramics. 8othro concludes that the 4ico&a )ol&chrome =are has 5een made 5& the Chorotega 5ecause of the clear resem5lance #ith 3a&a st&les that antedate the arrival of the 4icarao. /e also argues that 3e0ican cultural thought has 5een 5rought to 4icaragua through #arriors that married #omen there. 3e0ican religious s&m5olism got introduced to 4icaraguan otter& st&les 5& the #omen that married 3e0ican #arriors9 #ho #ere otters. %lthough 8othro Is #ork is mainl& a classificator&-descri tive #ork9 it also holds as ects #hich sho# that he #as ahead of his contem oraries. It is not mainstream to include chronolog&9 conte0t or cultural histor& into a classificator&-descri tive #ork9 5ut this is e0actl& #hat 8othro +5

has done. In later times9 these concerns are common ground for all archaeologists. In the first half of the Classificator&-/istorical )eriod *1-1+-1-!,. there #as a Concern #ith Chronolog& *1-1+-1-+,.. 6eriation and stratigra h& #ere linked together and the& the& #ere used for chronolog&9 t& olog& and classification. Classification had changed from sim l& descri5ing artefacts to a means to lot culture forms in time and s ace. Ethnolog& #as used in archaeolog& to su ort migration theories. "his connection 5et#een archaeolog& and ethnolog& is called the (irect roach. 6ince no a5solute dating through a calendrical s&stem #as ossi5le in /istorical %

4icaragua *unlike in 3e0ico.9 relative chronologies #ere relied u on. In Current Inter retations *1-$,-2,11. ceramics9 chronolog&9 com arative anal&sis and culture histor& are of the 5iggest interest. It starts #ith /eal&Is ne# method for anal&sing ceramics: 5& com5ining the 3odal %nal&sis and "& e-Aariet& s&stem into one. % art from decorations and the h&sical form of the ceramics9 he also discusses conte0t and cultural traits. /eal& looks tries to find connections 5et#een sites and their cultural significance. /e also starts researching the methods that are used to roduce the ceramics such as the t& e of cla&9 tem ering and firing. In 2,11 (ennett et al. used a ne# a roach to anal&sing ceramics called reliminar& com ositional anal&sis and it is used to trace the origins of the ceramics 5& looking at the material of #hich it consists. "he rovenience of the KsulutLn-t& es and ?osales Doned Engraved ceramics has 5een researched in articular. %gain9 influence from the 4orth can 5e seen9 es eciall& from /onduras and El 6alvador9 the eri her& of 3esoamerica. In 4icaragua dates cannot 5e linked directl& to the Gregorian calender. ?elative chronologies #ere most im ortant until C1+ dating gained im ortance from the 1-$,s on#ards. 6eriation has also 5ecome im ortant as a tool for chronolog& and rovides #ith a relative cultural frame#ork #hich makes differences in chronolog& visi5le. /eal& does not see man& drastic changes in the ?ivas se;uence. 6eriations are used for cross-cultural anal&sis or s&nchronization. /eal& used C1+ dating to verif& the relative se;uence. ALz;uez et al. *1--2--'. come u #ith a ne# chronolog&. "he eriods are no# named after the most im ortant laces of a certain time instead of after the t& e of otter& that #as most revalent9 making this chronolog& more useful for archaeolog& as a #hole instead of <ust ceramics. "he de endence on cross dating is still ;uite high #hich is caused 5& the fact that there are less data availa5le from the northern sector than the southerns sector of Gran 4ico&a. In 2,,5 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner #rote an article #hich again changes the chronolog&. %ccording to them9 the diagnostic ceramics of the :mete e eriod actuall& 5elong to the 6a oL +!

eriod. "he& validate this through C1+ dating on sherds that #ere from the :met e eriod 5ut turned out much earlier. "his is not <ust a ro5lem of nomenclature since 5oth 6a oL and :mete e eriods are associated #ith certain migration #aves: the 6a oL eriod #as linked to the arrival of the Chorotega9 #hile the arrival of the 4icarao to the :mete e eriod. /eal& makes a Com arative %nal&sis 5et#een the cultural areas of Gran 4ico&a and other cultural centres to the 4orth and 6outh. In order to do so9 he com ares ceramic se;uences and hases9 ceramic t& es and chronologies of different areas. "he com arison of more general cultural 5ackgrounds is saved for the heading of culture histor&. /eal& divides the Gran 4ico&a area into a northern and a southern area9 although the 4icaraguan and Costa ?ican arts have man& similarities. "he 5ond 5et#een the ?ivas and Guanacaste areas is the closest in the Doned 7ichrome )eriod9 the areas are ;uite similar in the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod and least similar in the rest of the )re-Colum5ian eriods. %ccording to /eal& the )a aga&o )ol&chromes have 5een manufactured or at least originated in 4icaragua and then s read out over a larger area. )a aga&o )ol&chome #as found in /onduras9 El 6alvador and as far 4orth as Central 3e0ico. "he #ide distri5ution of ceramics in this eriod is unkno#n to other eriods. /eal& sees ties 5et#een ?ivas and El 6alvador9 es eciall& in KsulutLn #are9 #hich is an im ortant earl& 3eso- and Central %merican trade #are. %fter the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod9 ho#ever9 there is not an& other clear evidence of contact 5et#een ?ivas and 6alvador. /e does not see man& ties #ith /onduras. 1rom the Earl& )ol&chrome horizon *',,-$,,. there are some general connections 5et#een the 3a&a and ?ivas regions. "he 3a&a orange 5ase ol&chromes vaguel& remind us of the first ?ivas ol&chromes s ecificall& the Gonzales )ol&chrome. "he change from monochrome and 5ichrome ainting to ol&chrome ceramics seems to have ha ened at a5out the same moment in the ?ivas and 3a&a areas. It seems like there has 5een overla in the Gran 4ico&a 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod and the 3a&a 8ate Classic. 6te fret and ste ed &ramid motifs occur in the 3iddle and 8ate )ol&chrome )eriods im l&ing influence from central 3e0ico. /e also sees resem5lances in the geometric motifs of ?ivas and the 3i0teca-)ue5la designs from Cholula. In the su5cha ter Culture /istor& the o5<ective of descri5ing the eo les 5ehind the otter& is discussed. (ifferent t& es of ceramics from different times are com ared to find out the stor& 5ehind the ceramics. "he main evidence of the earliest occu ation of the ?ivas area is from the Doned 7ichrome )eriod *'5, 7C H ',, %(. and consists of otter&. %lthough this is the first +2

otter& that has 5een found in this region9 it is not crude at all. "his is so 5ecause ceramics a ear relativel& late in this area. Identical st&les in ?ivas and Guanacaste suggest that the entire Gran 4ico&a area #as occu ied 5& one ethnic grou at that time. ?ivas #as develo ing rather isolated although it lies 5et#een t#o cultural traditions. /eal& sees more ties #ith the cultural areas to the 4orth than to the 6outh. 1rom the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod *%( ',, H $,,. ne# t& es of ceramics started develo ing. Characteristic for this eriod is the Gonzales )ol&chrome9 #hich is defined 5& a5stract designs ainted in red9 outlined in 5lack9 on an orange to cream ground. In Guanacaste a similar t& e of otter&9 called Galo )ol&chrome9 e0ists. "his t& e is also im ortant and hel s to solidif& cultural unit& of the Gran 4ico&a su5area during this time. "he increased num5ers of manos and metates indicate a higher reliance on maize roduction. %lso more tools that are related to farming have 5een found. "his shift might not 5e a shift in su5sistence9 5ut a shift in choice of material. 1or the Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod it is hard to see e0ternal cultural ties and onl& fe# have 5een found. 7audez and Coe sa& the 5lack-on-red 5ichromes can 5e linked to 7lack 8ine st&les of )anama. /eal& sees resem5lances9 ho#ever general9 5et#een ?ivas Earl& )ol&chrome )eriod ceramic and Classic 3a&a orange 5ase ol&chromes. "he hollo#9 mammiform feet a ear in the 3a&a lo#lands at a5out %( 1,,-',, for the first time9 #hich is <ust 5efore their a earance on the Earl& )ol&chrome graters of ?ivas. Puite some data suggest continued 3esoamerican contact 5et#een %( ',, H $,,9 #hich roughl& coincides #ith the 3a&an Classic )eriod. (es ite all of these indicators of e0ternal influence and contact9 #e should kee in mind that ?ivas #as a rising o#er in 8o#er Central %merican region9 #hich develo ed mostl& inde endentl& until a5out %( $,,. /eal& e0 lains the changes in cultural atterns 5& intrusion from 3e0ico. In the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod a ver& large amount of 3a&an and 3e0ican motifs can 5e seen. "hese 3esoamerican motifs are evidence for the migration of the Chorotega around %( $,,9 #hich is also su orted 5& ethnogra hic accounts. "he initiators of the 3iddle )ol&chrome )eriod must have 5een a#are of #hat #as ha ening in the 3a&a area and herefore the& must have settled in the 4ico&a su5area a little #hile rior to the Classic 3a&a colla se of a5out %( -,,. "he Chorotegans came from Chia as and migrated to 8o#er Central %merica. In this #a& contact #as esta5lished 5et#een the Chorotega and the 3a&a *or at least 3a&oid eo les. that lived along the coastal and overland routes to the 4ico&a su5area. 3ost authors have tried rove influence on 4icaragua from cultures either to the 4orth or the +$

6outh. 3ostl&9 4icaraguan culture histor& is linked to 3esoamerica9 or to the Iintermediate areaI in case of the lo#er )acific coast *8ange 1--2.. Es eciall& 3a&a or 3e0ican influences are often em hasised. "his em hasis on 3esoamerican influence on Gran 4ico&a can 5e found in <ust a5out all the literature on 4icaraguan otter&. "he degree of influence differs according to various authors9 5ut nevertheless9 the fact that this influence e0ists is never reall& dou5ted. "he idea of 4icaragua looking 4orth for cultural guidance goes 5ack to the 5eginning #ith 8othro *1-2!. and remains in current times #hen #e look at for instance 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5.. 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner *2,,5. argue that the cultural affiliation 5et#een Gran 4ico&a and Central 3e0ico can 5e seen in linguistic9 historical and archaeological evidence. "his cultural affiliation 5egins in the 6a oL )eriod *ca. %( $,,. and continues into the :mete e )eriod to the 6 anish con;uest in the earl& 15,,s. "he influence from the 3i0teca-)ue5la st&listic tradition9 ho#ever9 is not discussed as often as that of 3esoamerica9 5ut is discussed 5& 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner in 2,,5. "he 3i0teca)ue5la tradition concerns itself #ith religious themes9 deities and the calendrical s&stem. "he tradition can 5e seen on a variet& of artefacts9 among #hich ol&chrome otter&. 3i0teca-)ue5la elements have 5een identified on 4icaraguan ol&chromes 5et#een %( $,,-152,. "hese elements are often de icted as s&m5ols. "he :lmeca-Ticallanca s read the 3i0teca-)ua5la st&le through 3esoamerica. In Gran 4ico&a9 the iconogra h& of the 3i0teca-)ue5la st&le first a eared on 6a oL )eriod )a aga&o )ol&chrome otter& and e0tends into the :mete e )eriod on related t& es. /o#ever9 less iconic design configurations have 5een found on )a aga&o varieties such as Casares and 3andador. "hese closel& resem5le otter& from the Cua0iloa 3atte t& e from CholulaIs Earl& )ostclassic eriod. 7ras#ell et al. *2,,2. recognise the most clear evidence of influence in the ceramic traditions not of 3e0ico 5ut of /onduras and El 6alvador. "he arallel evolution of the ceramics of 5oth regions indicates that the relation 5et#een the t#o regions must have 5een more than <ust commercial or s oradic. It im lies a shared ideolog& and shared notion of aesthetics throughout several centuries. In conclusion #e can sa& that #hat 5inds all authors together is the search for the culture areas that ins ired and influenced the Gran 4ico&a area. It is ;uite remarka5le that most authors agree on this oint9 #hich is not something #e see often in science. 3an& authors research different ossi5ilities9 5ut the h& othesis that cultural influence comes from the 4orth revails. 3an& e0am les of 3a&an influence9 or more general from 3e0ico have 5een given 5& various authors such as 8ange9 /eal&9 4or#e59 3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner. "his evidence9 in short9 consists of +-

otter& st&les and motifs9 migration streams9 e0change and linguistic evidence. "he main e0ce tion to this is the article of 7ras#ell et al. in #hich the& argue that the influence from /onduras and El 6alvador is greater than that of 3e0ico. (ennet et al. descri5e El 6alvador and /onduras as 5eing Fthe traditional southeastern eri her&G of the 3esoamerican cultural area *(ennet et al. 2,119 '-1.. %lthough o inions and evidence ma& some#hat from one author to another9 the influence from 3esoamerica seems resu osed 5& all archaeologists #hen it comes to the northern sector of ort this su osition Gran 4ico&a. It seems as though research is 5ased on finding evidence to su

or h& othesis. :nce again9 this is influence from 3eseoamerica is the common factor in all the research done on ol&chrome ceramics from northern Gran 4ico&a9 4icaragua. "he line of evidence starts in the Classificator&-(escri tive )eriod #ith 8othro and continues all the #a& to Current Inter retations #ith the last u5lication in 2,11. %lthough there are man& e0am les of similarities 5et#een northern Gran 4ico&a and the cultural areas to the 4orth9 4icaragua has develo ed in a relative isolation. "herefore I think #e could conclude that Gran 4ico&a can 5e classified as the eri her& of 3esoamerica9 <ust like /onduras and El 6alvador9 instead of 5eing in the centre of its cultural influence.

Future research :ne of the main ro5lems in the stud& of the archaeolog& of 4icaragua9 including the ol&chromes9 is the fact that there is not an a#ful lot of literature availa5le on this su5<ect9 es eciall& if it is com ared to the rest of 3esoamerica. "he ro5lem #ith 8othro Is #ork is that it consists out of museum collections and also /eal&Is #ork oses a ro5lem since he uses material that is e0cavated 5& others and much of the conte0t has 5een lost. :nl& in more recent &ears9 archaeologists have 5een e0cavating and immediatel& researching and u5lishing their finds. "his is e0actl& #hat should ha en more often. "he revalent h& othesis that the 4icaraguan art of Gran 4ico&a has 5een highl& influenced 5& 3esoamerica9 and es eciall& 3e0ico9 is also something that can 5e attested 5& more research. 4ot onl& in the 3a&a and Gran 4ico&a areas themselves9 5ut also in the areas to the 6outh of Gran 4ico&a. In this #a& it can 5e made sure that the high level of similarities #ith the 3esoamerican cultural area is indeed caused 5& cultural influence and not 5& the fact that information of the cultures to the 6outh is scarcer.

5,

'"

Abstract

"he research of ol&chrome ceramics from northern Gran 4ico&a9 4icaragua started in a classificator& and descri tive manner9 had *and has. man& concerns #ith chronolog& 5ut has slo#l& 5ut steadil& evolved into a disci line that tries to e0 lain the culture 5ehind the otter&. In order to do so9 man& different techni;ues have 5een used. (ecorations and forms are e0amined and com ared to those of other culture areas from the ver& 5eginning. %lso9 the function of the ceramics are researched. In later times the cla& of #hich the ceramics are made itself is also e0amined and conclusions a5out rovenience and links 5et#een different areas can 5e made. %lthough the methods that each author a lies are different9 the common thought in all of the research on ol&chrome ceramics from northern Gran 4ico&a is the h& othesis that it is influenced 5& the 3esoamerican culture area to the 4orth9 more than the )eruvian culture area to the 6outh. "he main influence is thought to come from the 3a&a area and a art from that %ztec influences can 5e seen. "he 3i0teca-)ue5la st&listic tradition has also left its mark on 4icaraguan ceramic st&les. :ther authors stress the high level of resem5lance #ith ceramic t& es from /onduras and El 6alvador. In s ite of the man& e0am les of influence from the 4orth9 Gran 4ico&a has still develo ed in a rather isolated fashion. "herefore I think Gran 4ico&a 5elongs to the eri her& of 3esoamerica9 <ust like /onduras and El 6alvador9 instead of 5eing in the centre of its cultural influence. It is also generall& acce ted that the 4icarao and Chorotega came to 4icaragua in different migration #aves. "his is su orted 5& archaeological as #ell as ethnogra hic evidence. 1urthermore9 a general theor& of the histor& of archaeolog& is discussed #hich leads us to the conclusion that the historical a roach to the stud& of ceramics rovides a s ecial vantage oint from #hich su5<ectivities from different authors can 5e filtered out so a higher level of o5<ectivit& is achieved.

'"1

&amen,atting

/et onderzoek naar ol&chroom aarde#erk van noordeli<k Gran 4ico&a9 4icaragua is 5egonnen met een classificerende en descri tieve aan ak en heeft veel ro5lemen *gehad. met de chronologie9 maar langzaam maar zeker veranderde de disci line in een die de cultuur achter het aard#erk uit ro5eert te leggen. :m dit te kunnen 5ereiken9 zi<n vele technieken ge5ruikt. (ecoraties en vormen zi<n onderzocht en van meet af aan vergeleken met andere cultuur ge5ieden. :ok zi<n de functies van het ceramiek onderzocht. 8ater #erd de klei #aarvan het aarde#erk gemaakt is onderzocht en conclusies over de herkomst en links met verschillende ge5ieden kunnen zo getrokken #orden. 51

:ndanks dat elke auteur zi<n eigen methodes ge5ruikt9 loo t er een rode draad door al het onderzoek naar ol&chroom aarde#erk van noordeli<k Gran 4ico&a. (it is de h& othese dat noordeli<k Gran 4ico&a is 5eUnvloed door het 3esoamerikaanse cultuurge5ied in het noorden9 meer dan door het )eruaanse cultuur ge5ied in het zuiden. Er #ordt gedacht dat de grootste invloed van het 3a&a ge5ied komt en dat daarnaast ook %zteekse invloeden gezien kunnen #orden. (e 3i0teca-)ue5la st&listische traditie heeft ook haar stem el gedrukt o 4icaraguaanse ceramiek sti<len. %ndere auteurs 5enadrukken het hoge niveau van overeenkomsten met aarde#erkt& en van /onduras en El 6alvador. :ndanks de vele voor5eelden van invloed van het noorden9 heeft Gran 4ico&a zich nog steeds in een relatieve isolatie ont#ikkeld. (aarom denk ik dat Gran 4ico&a tot de eriferie van 3esoamerika 5ehoort9 net al.s /onduras en El 6alvador9 in laats van tot het centrum van culturele invloed. (at de 4icarao en Chorotega naar 4icaragua k#amen in verschillende migratie golven is ook algemeen geacce teerd. (it #ordt ondersteund door zo#el archeologisch als etnografisch 5e#i<s. Aerder is er een algemene theorie van de geschiedenis van de archeologie 5es roken #aaruit #i< de conclusie kunnen afleiden dat een historische aan ak van de studie naar aarde#erk een s eciaal stand unt 5ied van #aaruit de su5<ectieve factoren van verschillende auteurs eruit gefilterd kunnen #orden zodat een hogen niveau van o5<ectiviteit #ordt 5ereikt.

52

10"

ibliography

7arnes9 7.9 1-2+. Scientific @nowledge and Sociological 0heory1 8ondon: ?outledge V Jegan )aul.

7audez9 C. 1-!2. ?echerches %rchOologi;ues dans la AallOe du "em is;ue9 Guanacaste9 Costa ?ica. 0ra'auA et Memoires$ 'ol1 1*1 )aris: 8IInstitut des /autes Wtudes de lI%mOri;ue 8atine.

7audez9 C.9 1-2,. Mittelameri.a1 3Xnchen: 4agel. "ranslation from 1rench 5& ?uth Jo5el6treiff.

7inford9 8.?.9 1-22. An Archaeological 4ers(ecti'e1 4e# York: 6eminar )ress. 1-$1. -ones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths1 4e# York: %cedemic )ress.

7ras#ell G.E. et al.9 2,,2. 8a antigua 4icaragua9 la eriferia sudeste de 3esoamOrica & la regiQn ma&a: interacciQn interregional *1-1522 d.C.. Maye 159 1--'-.

Aan 7roekhoven9 8.4.J.9 2,,2. Con7uistando lo <n'enci le1 Fuentas hist=ricas so re las culturas indBgenas de la regi=n Central de Nicaragua1 8eiden: C4=6 )u5lications 8eiden Kniversit&9 "he 4etherlands.

Cha man9 ?.9 1-2-. I%nal&tical %rchaeolog&I and after H Introduction in (l.8. Clarke9 1,--+'.

Clarke9 (.8.9 1-2-. %nal&tical %rchaeologist. 4e# York: %cademic )ress.

Coe9 3.(.9 1-!2. Costa ?ican archaeolog& and 3esoamerica. Southwest Cournal of Anthro(ology. Aol. 1$9 4Z 2 9 12,-1$'. %l5u;uer;ue.

Cul5ert9 ".).9 1-2'. 0he Classic Maya Colla(se. %l5u;uer;ue: Kniversit& of 4e# 3e0ico )ress. 5'

(alton9 G.9 1-!1. Economic theor& and rimitive societ&. American Anthro(ologist1 Aol. !'9 1-25. (arvill9 ".9 2,,2. 0he Concise 6Aford 9ictionary of Archaeology1 4e# York: :0ford Kniversit& )ress Inc.

(ennett9 C.8.9 )latz9 8. and 3cCaffert&9 G.G.9 2,11. )reliminar& ceramic com ositional anal&sis from the 8a %renera site9 )acific 4icaragua. La Dni'ersidad 1+-15$ '2'-'-2. Kniversidad de El 6alvador.

1e&era5end9 ).J.9 1-25. Against Method: outline of an Anarchistic 0heory of @nowledge1 8ondon: 487.

Galla&9 %.9 1-$!. LEArchFologie demain1 )aris: 7elfond.

Gi55on9 G.9 1-$+. Anthro(ological Archaeology1 4e# York: Colum5ia Kniverist& )ress.

/eal&9 ).1.9 1-$,. Archaeology of the 2i'as 2egion1 =aterloo9 :ntario9 Canada: =ilfrid 8aurier Kniversit& )ress.

Jle<n9 8.6.9 1-22. % anorama of theoretical archaeolog&. Current Anthro(ology1 Aol. 1$: 1+2.

Juhn9 ".6.9 0he Structure of Scientific 2e'olutions1 2nd edn. Chicago: Kniversit& of Chicago )ress.

8ange9 1.=.9 1-$+. 0he Archaeology of Lower Central America1 %l5u;uer;ue: Kniversit& of 4e# 3e0ico )ress. 1--2. 0he Archaeology of 4acific Nicaragua1 %l5u;uer;ue: Kniversit& of 4e# 3e0ico )ress.

5+

8othro 9 6.J.9 1-2!. 4ottery of Costa 2ica and Nicaragua9 2 vols. 4e# York: 3useum of the %merican Indian /e&e 1oundation. Areeland )ress9 Inc.

8o#ther9 G.?.9 1-!2. E istemolog& and archaeological theor&. Current Anthro(ology. Aol ': +-5-5,-.

3asterman9 3.9 1-2,. "he nature of a aradigm. In Criticism nd the Growth of @nowledge ed. 7& I. 8akatos and %. 3usgrave9 . 5--$-. Cam5ridge: Cam5ridge Kniversit& )ress.

3cCaffert&9 G.G. and 6tein5renner9 8.9 2,,5a. Chronological Im lications for Gran 4ico&a from the 6anta Isa5el )ro<ect9 4icaragua. Ancient Mesoamerica 1!9 1'1-1+!. Cam5ridge Kniversit& )ress. 2,,55. "he 3eaning of the 3i0teca-)ue5la 6t&listic "radition: the Aie# from 4icaragua. Art for ArchaeologyEs sa.e. Edited 5& %. =ater-?ist et al.

)olan&i9 J.9 1-++. 0he Great 0ransformation1 4e# York: 1errar and ?einhart. 1-!!. 9ahomey and the Sla'e 0rade: An Analysis of an Archaic 3conomy1 6eattle: Kniversit& of =ashington )ress.

)olan&i9 J.9 %rens5erg9 C.3.9 and )earson /.=.9 1-52. 0rade and Mar.et in the 3arly 3m(ires1 Glencoe: 1ree )ress.

?aa59 8.3. and Good&ear9 %.C.9 1-$+. 3iddle-range theor& in archaeolog&: a critical vie# of origins and a lications. American Anti7uity1 Aol. +-: 255-!$.

?osen9 8.9 1-$,. "he e0cavation of %merican Indian 5urial sites: a ro5lem of la# and rofessional res onsi5ilit&. American Anthro(ologist. Aol. $2: 5-22.

?ouse9 I.7.9 1-22. <ntroduction to 4rehistory1 4e# York: 3cGra#-/ill. 6almon9 3./.9 1-$2. 4hiloso(hy and Archaeology1 4e# York: %cademic )ress. 55

6mith9 =.6.9 1-5$. 0he Art and Architecture of Ancient 3gy(t1 7altimore: )enguin. 6mith9 3.E9 /eath-6mith9 C.3.9 1-$,. =aves of Influence in )ostclassic 3esoamericaM % Criti;ue of the 3i0teca-)ue5la Conce t. Anthro(ology IA*2.:15-5,.

6terud9 E.8.9 1-2'. % aradigmatic vie# of rehistor&. In %.C. ?enfre# 0he 3A(lanation of Culture Change: Models in 4rehistory1 1-2'9 '-12. 8ondon: (uck#orth.

"rigger9 7.G.9 1-$-. A History of Archaeological 0hought1 Cam5ridge: Kniversit& )ress Came5ridge.

ALz;uez et al.9 1--2-1--'. /acia 1uturas Investigaciones en Gran 4ico&a. Ainculos vol. 1$1-9 2+5-222.

=atson9 ).N.9 8e7lanc9 6.%.9 and ?edman9 C.8.9 1-21. 3A(lanation in Archaeology: An 3A(licitly Scientific A((roach1 4e# York: Colum5ia Kniversit& )ress.

=ille&9 G.?. %nd 6a5loff9 N.%.9 1-$, B1-2+C. A History of American archaeology1 8ondon: "hames and /udson 8td.

5!

11"

*ist of )igures

1igure

)age

8o#er Gran 4ico&a *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 1'2.

1ront age

8o#er Gran 4ico&a *3cCaffert& and 6tein5renner 2,,59 1'2.

'

Gran 4ico&a divided into northern and southern sectors9 ada ted from 8ange 1-$+ *Aan 7roekhoven 2,,29 2,.

Ceramic zones9 ada taded from 8ange 1-$+ *Aan 7roekhoven 2,,29 21.

52

12"

*ist of #ables

"a5le

)age

?egional se;uences in south#estern 4icaragua *%da ted from: 4or#e5 1-!+9 55'.

2+

Correlation of south#est 4icaragua #ith 3esoamerica *%da ted from: 4or#e5 1-!+9 55!.

25

'

"ransformaciones del es;uema cronologico de Gran 4ico&a *%da ted from: ?icardo ALz;uez et al. 1--2--'9 2+$.

'2

5$