Representations of the Natural World in Honduran Rock Art

Alejandro J. Figueroa,

Abstract

Honduran rock art is both widely distributed throughout the country and highly varied in style and
form. Representations of the natural world are present in almost every one of the over 100 sites
recorded thus far, providing us with enough material to begin inferring some of the material stimuli
experienced by prehistoric populations, with emphasis on elements of their surrounding natural
setting. While previous projects and analyses have focused their efforts solely on recording and
describing some of these representations, this paper explores what can be interpreted from what is
present, and absent, in Honduras’ rock art, regarding Mesoamerican groups’ actions, interactions,
and integration with their natural world. Finally, given the accelerated rate of destruction of
Honduran rock art, the author examines the validity and applicability of traditional iconographic,
stylistic, and statistical methodologies in the interpretation of rock art, parting from the premise set
forth by Bednarik that it is impossible to infer the substance of a complex archaeological
phenomenon merely from its observable phenomena.

Introduction

This paper will begin with a brief overview of the marginal role rock art studies have played in the
field of archaeology, and in Honduras in particular, and some inferences as to why this has been and
continues to be so. Parting from this, we propose an approach that seeks coherence between theory,
method, and praxis (Lozada 2007: 7), in the classification and subsequent analysis and interpretation
of rock art, and which integrates the theoretical postures of Latin American social archaeology,
landscape archaeology, and taphonomic logic. This paper concludes with the application of this
approach towards the study of representations of the natural world, and the basic elements that need
to be taken into account, including available archaeological and ethnographic data.

Previous Rock Art Research in Honduras

The study of rock art has always been questioned by archaeologists as to its validity to provide valid,
factual data on past human populations (Lozada 2007, Bednarik 2002). We believe these critical
postures are sometimes well-grounded, given the aesthetic valuing of this cultural manifestation –
from the very inception of the term rock “art” (Bustamante Díaz 2005) – , as well as the models used
for interpretation: iconographic identification, determination of stylistic patterns, ahistorical views of
sites, among others (Bednarik 2002: 3). This has given way to classifications, interpretations and
analyses without the critical, objective base that should characterize archaeology (Lozada 2007: 13).

In Honduras, the study of rock art has focused mostly on the recording and description of the many
sites found in all regions and areas of the country, though we argue that some degree of
interpretation has been inherent in both of these processes. There have been only a handful of
interpretative studies of Honduran rock art, beginning with Roberto Reyes Mazzoni’s several
analyses of possible Mexican (Epi-teotihuacan) influences on Honduran rock art sites, particularly
those found in the Comayagua Valley, where a tentative chronology was established for these
according to style (1976a, 1976b, 1977a, 1977b, 1980, 1994). In a study of various petroglyph sites,
also in the Comayagua Valley, Ricardo Agurcia (N.d.) has assigned a tentative chronology based on
nearby archaeological sites, and because of stylistic similarities to certain material assemblages (i.e.
ceramic styles). In her description of the site known as Piedra Floreada de Kisikisné, in northeast
Honduras, Allison McKittrick proposes a possible cultural affiliation of the rock art found at this site
to the Pech indigenous group of this region (McKittrick 1995). More recently, Rodríguez Motaet al.
analyze five representations present at the site known as La Pintada de Azacualpa in southwestern
Honduras, using an anthropophysical approach, iconographic analogy, and empirical knowledge
(Rodríguez Mota et al. 2005).

Development of a proposal for classification and interpretation of rock art

These pioneer efforts at interpretation must not and cannot be overlooked or dismissed, but taken as
a foundation from which to strengthen and develop a methodology to describe and interpret rock art.
However, we argue that they all part from certain premises and assumptions which need
reassessment and reform. There are three particular aspects we discuss in order to improve our study
and understanding of Honduras’ rock art: classification and interpretation of representations,
classification and interpretation of sites, and taphonomic logic.

Classification and interpretation of representations

The analysis and interpretation of rock art has usually begun with some form or taxonomic
classification, generally based on iconographic style as defined by the researcher/observer, according
to his/her subjective perspective. Researchers interpret phenomena beyond their observable
elements in a seemingly ethnocentric fashion, thus rendering these taxonomic categories invalid
(Bednarik 2002: 5, Lozada 2007: 10). As a result, we have classification systems that use de-
contextualized cultural designations such as “shamans”, “dwarves”, “rulers” and “warriors” instead
of “anthropomorphic figures”; and terms like “weapons”, “staffs”, and “musical instruments” instead
of “appendages” or “appendices”. How then, do we define our classificatory instances so that they
dismiss any a priori interpretative connotations?

Latin American social archaeology, which is founded on dialectical materialism, and parts from the
premise that archaeology is a social science (Patterson 1994), offers a classificatory system that
groups elements according to their units of description (UoD) which are based solely on the intrinsic
properties and attributes of representations through the basic principle of presence-absence (Lozada
2007: 10). These properties and attributes do not provide us with completely objective systems of
classification, but coupled with additional data – archaeological, ethnographic, or ethnohistoric –
they help close the gap between the etic interpretations of the researcher, and the emic perspective of
the producers of the representation, leading towards a better classification and interpretation of the
representations present at a site.

Classification and interpretation of sites

Analysis of a rock art site, however, should not only take into account the representations themselves
or the rock support on which they were created, but also the natural surroundings of the site itself
and the various connections between these (Bradley et al. 1994). Most rock art studies have focused
on the representations alone, separating these from the site and treating them like artifacts (Bradley
et al. 1994: 374), thus basing site interpretations solely on the interpretations of these.

Because rock art sites are inherently the result of the interactions between humans and their natural
environment, and because the human experience cannot be considered outside the framework of its
natural surroundings (Bustamante Díaz 2005: 1, Rocchietti 2003: 1-2), we propose an integral
approach to the study of these sites, one which takes into account interactions and interrelations
between humans and their landscape. These interactions and interrelations are dynamic and
particular to each site, and can hold valuable information about economic and sociopolitical order,
modes of life, and ideology, otherwise not found in the rock art representations alone (Alvarez
Gonzalez 1993: 268, Bradley et al. 1994: 384, Rocchietti 2003: 1-2). Moreover, because “the
landscape was permeated by meanings and was not simply a source of provisions” (Bradley et al.
1994: 387), it might have also served as a symbolic inspiration for both settlement and production,
thus reinforcing the idea that rock art “…cannot be viewed simply as illustrations of everyday life”
(Bradley et al. 1994: 384).

Taphonomic logic

The basic premise behind taphonomic logic dictates that it is “impossible to infer the substance of a
complex archaeological phenomenon from its surviving ‘observable phenomena’ alone” (Bednarik
2002: 2). This means that only a portion of the original rock art has survived through time, either
through “selective survival” or natural alteration. We mention taphonomic logic only briefly,
emphasizing the need to observe, record, and analyze changes and alterations; and the responsibility
of including absent elements – also termed “silences” (Rodríguez Mota et al. 2005: 9) – into
attempts at interpretation of a site and its representations.

Representations of the natural world in Honduras’ rock art

Honduras’ rock art reflects the dynamic relationships of cultures inhabiting prehistoric Honduras in
the spatial arrangement and occurrence of sites, and in the range of representations present, and
absent, at each of these. Honduras is geographically situated at the heart of the transition zone
between the two largest cultural spheres in Central America: Mesoamerica and Intermediate Area
(Figure 1) (Hasemann et al. 1996). Although there is no clear division between these,
archaeological, ethnohistoric and ethnographic data have provided us with some of their basic
characteristics (Figure 2).

Despite Honduras’ rich cultural past, interpretation of archaeological finds – including rock art sites
– has been mostly based on models of Mesoamerican predominance. As a result, Honduran rock art
sites are classified according to two broad categories: those with Mesoamerican (i.e. Classic Period
Maya) influence; or into the larger, more elusive category of figures with “shamanistic” qualities.
This widely accepted model for classification is anachronic, and fails to take into account the data –
albeit limited – we have available regarding the various cultural groups that inhabited Honduras.

Several indigenous groups existed in Honduras at the time of the arrival of the Spanish, at the
beginning of the 16th century (Figure 3); of these, the Maya, Lenca and Chorotega have been
classified as “chiefdoms”, with possible Mesoamerican affiliation (Newson 1992). Despite the
ongoing debate as to the cultural affiliation of these groups, we will briefly outline some of the basic
elements that need to be taken into account with respect to the relationships between these groups
and their natural surroundings, and their representation in rock art.

Archaeological, ethnohistoric and ethnographic studies tell us that the population density and
subsequent hierarchization of the societies of the Mesoamerican Culture Area contributed to the
development of intensive agricultural systems (irrigation, terraces, etc.) at the Formative Period
(1000 B.C.E. – 250 A.C.E). This in turn allowed for a development of a shared cosmology, which
emphasized a close relationship between humans and nature at both the community and individual
levels (Chapman 1978:34, Newson 1992). At the community level, there was an emphasis on: (1)
participation in activities that promoted social cohesion and reinforced existing socioeconomic
hierarchies, which were linked to solar, lunar and agricultural (maize) cycles; and, (2) respect
towards natural resources, both flora and fauna, during their extraction and use. At the personal
level, this relationship was reinforced through the figure of naguales or “guardian spirits”,
represented by animals with strong symbolic significance, such as the puma, jaguar, coyote, snake,
as well as certain birds and reptiles, giving way to polytheistic religious systems (Newson 1992: 89,
Chapman 1978:33).

Landscape archaeology and Honduran rock art: an initial approach

Parting from the definition of these cultural areas, and from the posture of landscape archaeology,
specifically by linking rock art to its local topography (Bradley et al. 1994), we begin to see certain
patterns emerge as to the locations where rock art is found today. Most documented rock art sites are
located in central Honduras, in the departments of Francisco Morazan and Comayagua, and
comprise sites located in sedimentary (volcanic tuff) caves and rock shelters, in places that usually
command views of the area (Figures 4-5). Five of these sites were visited in 2005 by a geologist and
a chemist specializing in the conservation of stone, who informed the author that these are all located
not only within the same geological formation, but also within the same strata of this formation
(personal communication Sigfrido Sandoval and Ivan Guerrero, November 2005). Rock art sites in
the least studied southern and eastern areas of Honduras include caves and rock shelters, as well as
isolated rocks and rock outcrops, usually found near or at the edge of bodies of water, such as rivers
and creeks (Figures 6-7).

This dichotomy in topographic location of rock art sites may be linked to past cultural dynamics
taking place in the Honduran landscape, though more specific affiliations would be too premature at
this point, to say the least. However, we believe that similar local ecosystems present similar
material stimuli to human populations, and agree with Bednarik (2002: 2) in that these stimuli
contribute to the formation of human concepts of reality. Because of this, the importance of certain
aspects of the natural landscape in the ideologies of prehistoric societies (i.e. the cosmological
significance assigned to caves by Mesoamerican groups) needs to be accounted for, including how
these influence site location and settlement patterns.

Conclusions

Despite ongoing archaeological and ethnographic research in most of Honduras, particularly the
areas surrounding known rock art sites, there exists a solid body of knowledge from which
interpretative studies of rock art can part from. We have thus presented some points of departure so
as to spark interest and debate in deepening the classification and interpretation of representations of
nature in Honduras’ rock art. What can be interpreted from these representations should be framed
within adequate theoretical and methodological frameworks, which must take into account the
existing potentials and limitations of data from archaeological, ethnographic and ethnohistoric
research. Lastly, we argue that because rock art sites are archaeological sites embedded within a
larger cultural and natural landscape, these must be addressed in their totality, as opposed to locally
(i.e. sites as separate from their local or regional context) or micro-locally (i.e. representations
separated from their immediate context within a site).

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cultural areas and Honduras (Newson 1992)

Figure 2. Cultural characteristics of the Mesoamerica and Intermediate Area (Hasemann et al. 1996)
Figure 3. Distribution of indigenous groups at the beginning of the 15th century (Newson 1992)
Figure 4. The site of Cuevas Pintadas de Ayasta, Francisco Morazan.
Figure 5. View from the site of Santa Elena de Izopo, Francisco Morazan.
Figure 6. Site of Las Pintadas, Choluteca.
Figure 7. Site of La Poza del Letrero, El Paraíso.

Sources Cited

Agurcia Fasquelle, Ricardo.

N.d. Los Petroglifos de Valladolid, Comayagua. Unpublished manuscript, archives of the
Honduran Institute of Anthropology and Historia (IHAH), Tegucigalpa.

Alvarez Gonzalez, Yolanda.

1993. Arqueología del paisaje: modelos de ocupación y explotación de los Castros del Valle de
Noceda (León). Complutum 4: 265-278.

Bednarik, Robert G.
2002. Rock art, taphonomy and epistemology. Electronic document,
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/epistem/web/index.html, accessed October 15, 2007.

Bradley, Richard, Felipe Criado Boado and Ramon Fabregas Valcarce.

1994. World Archaeology 25(3): 374-390.

Bustamante Díaz, Patricio.

2005 ¿Arte? Rupestre, Análisis de la eficacia de un complejo actualmente en uso. Electronic
document. http://rupestreweb.tripod.com/obrasrupestres.html, accessed May 31, 2007.

Chapman, Anne.
1978. Estudios Antropológicos e Históricos No. 2: Los Lencas de Honduras en el Siglo XVI.
Tegucigalpa: Honduran Institute of Anthropology and Historia (IHAH).
Hasemann, George, Gloria Lara Pinto y Fernando Cruz Sandoval.
1996. Los Indios de Centroamérica. San José: Editorial MAPFRE.

Lozada, Josuhe.
2007. Fundamentos teórico-metodológicos para la consolidación de una terminología rupestre.
Paper presented at the 8th Annual Colloquium of Guatemalan Rock Art, Guatemala City,
September 5-8.

McKittrick, Alison.
1995. Los Petroglifos de la Piedra Floreada: Un Rastro del Pasado. Yaxkin XIII(1-2): 127-131.

Newson, Linda.
1992. El Costo de la Conquista. Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras.

Patterson, Thomas C.
1994. Social Archaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation. American Antiquity, 59(3): 531-
537.

Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.

1976a. Representación de Deidades Mesoamericanas en los Petroglifos de Santa Rosa de
Tenampúa, Honduras. Boletín de la Academia Hondureña de la Lengua, 19(19): 185-235.
Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.
1976b. Influencias Mayas y Mexicanas en los Petroglifos de la Quebrada Santa Rosa Tenampúa,
Honduras. Katunob, IX(3): 38-51.

Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.

1977a. Observaciones Adicionales sobre los Petroglifos de la Quebrada de Sta. Rosa, Honduras.
Boletín del Museo del Hombre Dominicano, 4(8): 47-61.

Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.

1977b. Posibles Influencias Epi-Teotihuacanas en Petroglifos de Honduras. Vínculos, 3(1-2): 48-
65.

Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.

1980. Petrograbados de Serpientes y su Asociación con el Agua: del Centro y Sur de Honduras.
Una Interpretación Iconográfica Arqueológica. Boletón de la Academia Hondureña de la
Lengua, 23(24): 71-80.

Reyes Mazzoni, Roberto.

1994. Un Portal Lenca al Inframundo. Paper presented at the Jornadas de Homenaje a Don
Antonio Pompa, Bibliotecario Emérito de México, Mexico.

Rocchietti, Ana Maria.

2003. Sistematización de la documentación del ambiente rupestre. Electronic document,
http://rupestreweb.tripod.com/ambiente.html, accessed march 20, 2006.
Rodríguez Mota, Francisco, Alejandro Figueroa and Ranferi Juárez.
2005. El Arte Rupestre de Honduras: Metodología para su Estudio, Conservación e Interpretación.
Yaxkin, XXII (1): 74-91.