Costa Rican Archaeology and Mesoamerica
Author(s): Michael D. Coe
Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer, 1962), pp. 170-183
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629015
Accessed: 19/09/2008 17:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND MESOAMERICA
MICHAELD. COE
BRIEF GLANCE at a linguistic map of Central America (Fig. 1) will
make it clear that Costa Rica was aboriginallya frontier country.Within
the sub-regionwhich we propose to call Greater Nicoya were a number of
languagesof purelyMesoamericanaffiliation.Choroteganlanguages,belongingto
the larger Oto-Mangueanfamily centered in southern Mexico, were spoken at
the time of the Conquest in a scattereddistributionfrom the Bay of Fonseca
down to the Nicoya Peninsulaof Costa Rica proper.Moreover,almost all of the
Rivas Peninsula as well as Ometepe Island of Nicaragua were occupiedby the
Nahua-speakingNicarao; as a matterof fact, scatteredenclavesof Nahua speakers werelocatedas far south as the Atlantic coast of Panama.1
Both the Nicarao and the Chorotegansstressedthat they were not the ancient
inhabitantsof the region, having arrivednot many centuriespast from a homeland in Mexico. As confirmationof their own testimony,it should be noted that
they were maize farmers, had elaborate markets, wore padded cotton armor,
fought with clubs set with small flint blades, practicedhuman sacrificeand selfmutilation,and had permanenttemples.The Nicarao even had the 260-day calendar, the voladorceremony,and a pantheonof Mexican gods. In other words,
they were thorough-goingMesoamericans.2
In contrastwith GreaterNicoya, in most of IsthmianCentralAmericabelow
the Nicoya Peninsula languages of the Chibchan group, a linguistic family
heavily representedin northwesternSouth America, were spoken. Among these
tribes,sweetmaniocrivaledmaizeas a staple, foods werepreparedwith the mortarand-pestleof wood ratherthan the familiarmetate-manoof GreaterNicoya, and
therewere many obviouslysoutherntraits,such as palisadedvillages, the wearing
of the penis sheath, drinkingbouts during ceremonies,and head-taking.
This distributionhas suggested to many students that Costa Rica was the
real meeting place between the cultures of North and South America. In the
originaldefinitionof Mesoamericaas proposedby Kirchoff,the boundariesof that
great culturearea actuallydip down to includeGreaterNicoya. Now, this makes
admirablesense when only the ethnographicpresentis considered,but a question
which logically comes to mind is this: if the Chorotegansand the Nicarao were
1 Lothrop, 1926, pp. 20-25.
2 Lothrop, 1926, pp. 30-86; Chapman, 1960; Stone, 1959.
170
VOL. 18, 1962
171
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
recent arrivals in the south, was the southern frontier of Mesoamericain the
very distant past exactly where it was in 1522 AD? Or was it once very much to
the north? Furthermore,just when did the above-mentionedtribes arrive in
Greater Nicoya, and from what region in Mexico were they derived? These are
questions that present and future archaeologyin Greater Nicoya perhaps can
answer.
4
FIG. 1. Linguistic Distribution in Central America
But the most significantof all the problemsto be investigatedin Costa Rica
is that of the cultural interplaybetweenMesoamericaas a whole, and the rest of
Nuclear America.Part of the story of inter-arealcontact certainlycan be traced
in Greater Nicoya. However, most of Costa Rica culturally lies within that
172
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
enormousand complex twilight zone termed by Willey3 and others the "Intermediate Area", extending the entire distance from Nicoya to the borders of
Ecuadorand Peru. Within that great province,there were no socio-politicalunits
greaterthan what Stewardand Faron4have termed"warringchiefdoms",and the
exceptionallyprovincialnature of such an organizationis reflectedin the exceedingly diversenatureof the archaeologicalremains,a complexitywhichmakeslargescalecorrelationswithinthe IntermediateArea quitedifficult.Part of this diversity
is almostcertainlydictatedby the geographyand ecologicalpotentialof the area,
whichis unusuallyvariedbecauseit lies along the volcanicbackboneof the New
World tropics. As a route for overland travelers between North and South
America, the IntermediateArea would have offered few inducements.This is
difficultterrain for travel, with swampy jungles in the lowlands and passes of
12,000 feet altitude in the highlands.
One might reasonablyexpect that becauseof the difficultyof foot travel, the
major contact between ancient peoples in Mesoamericaand the Andean Area
would have been by sea; this seems to have been the case, as evidencedby recent
excavationsin Guatemalaand Ecuador.This contactmay have begun as early as
1500 BC and continuedas late as the Spanishconquest,mainlyalong the Pacific
Coast of Nuclear America.5But does this mean that no importantinterchange
ever took place throughthe IntermediateArea? This problemcan be investigated
in CostaRica.
As in the rest of the IntermediateArea, stratigraphicexcavationsand concern
with problemsof culturalsequenceare in theirinfancyin Costa Rica. For only the
"Mesoamerican"part of the country, that is, Greater Nicoya, do we have any
clear idea of pre-historicdevelopment.The beginnings of a sequence for the
southeasternsub-regionof the country have been establishedby the work of
Lothrop,but are as yet unpublished.Elsewhere,we must attemptto align various
ancientremains,particularlythose revealedby the brilliantexcavationsof C. V.
Hartman6at the turn of the century,within the frameworkprovidedby Greater
Nicoya. This is not entirelyimpossible,since trade items of Nicoya origin occur
with some frequencyin the Costa Rican highlands,and certain GreaterNicoya
ceramictraits appearto have horizonsignificance.At the upper end of the time
scale, contact period sites can be identifiedby the appearanceof Spanish trade
goods, such as glass beadswhich occur in graves.
3
4
5
6
Willey, 1959.
Stewardand Faron, 1959, pp. 202-238.
Coe, 1960.
Hartman, 1901,1907a.
173
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Ft
ogical
S Cosa ions in
Ric
FIG. 2. Distributionof ArchaeologicalSubdivisionsin Costa Rica
Tentatively,CostaRicahas beendividedinto fivemajorsub-regions(Fig. 2, 3),
although these will be modifiedas the archaeologybecomesbetter known. These
are GreaterNicoya, alreadymentioned;the Central Plateau, which includesthe
high valleysaroundSan Jose and Cartago;the Old Line,whichis a portionof the
Atlantic slope of the Costa Rican highlands; Diquis, in the southeasternlowlandsnear the Pacific;and Chiriqui,lying athwartthe Costa Rica-Panamaborder.
The sequencenow known for GreaterNicoya is the result of researchcarried
out by Baudez, Coe, Norweb, and Willey, and will be briefly reviewedhere.7
7 Paper read by Albert Norweb and Gordon R. Willey at the Annual Meeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, Philadelphia, 1961. The field work of Coe, Norweb, and Willey
was part of a projectof the Institute for Andean Research,supportedby a grant from the National
ScienceFoundation.
174
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
The earliestperiodthus far definedis the Zoned Bichromeperiod,which extends
from about 0 to 300 AD. The ceramicsof this period were decoratedin two
colors, usually red-and-black,outlined by engravedor incised lines. Other decorative techniquesinclude dentate rocker-stamping,fork punctation,and the use
of a multiplebrushto producewavy black or red lines. Small handmadefigurines
arealsoknown.8
The Early Polychromeperiod has been divided by Baudez and myself into
two sub-periods,mainly on the presencein the lower levels of some Tempisque
Riversitesof a distinctiveceramiccomplexcharacterizedby paintedlineardesigns.
But in generalthe period has a good deal of fine polychromepottery embellished
with bold and somewhatgeometricmotifs, as well as well-made,hollow figurines
in the same style. Of definite Early Polychromeaffiliationare the magnificent
metates,jade celts, mace heads, and other artifacts recoveredby Hartman from
secondarygraves at Las Huacas on the Nicoya Peninsula.9According to our
chronology,partly based on radiocarbondates, Early Polychromeextends from
the 4th centuryAD to about 750 AD.
Characterizingthe Middle Polychrome period are many of the so-called
"Nicoya Polychromes"which are depicted in Lothrop's great compendium;l0
in particular,the Mora and Papagayo types are representedin abundance.In
some sites on the coast, modeling and incising of monochromevessels reaches
great artistry.This period not only representsthe peak of populationdensity in
GreaterNicoya, but also marks a cultural peak, with large-scalestone sculpture
appearingfor the firsttime in the formof the well-knownalter-egorepresentations,
stone effigy seats and other works. We interpretthis efflorescencein part as a
resultof exploitationof the purple-dyeresourcesof the coast. In time, the period
extendsfrom about750 AD to 1000 AD or perhapsa little later.
Late Polychromemarks a retrogressionboth in culture and in population,
perhapsreflectingdisturbanceswhichwe have reasonto believewere taking place.
The period is protohistoricto historic,extendingprobablya few decadesbeyond
the SpanishConquestitself, as demonstratedby Spanishgoods found in association with the characteristicpottery type, Luna Polychrome.11Much monochrome
potterywas producedat this time; the usual color was black and the vesselswere
highly modeled, with extensive applique ornament.Shoe-shapedvessels appear
8 Coe and Baudez, 1961.
9 Hartman, 1907a.
10 Lothrop, 1926. As examples of characteristicallyMiddle Polychrome vessels shown in
this volume, see plates 14, 41, 46, and 81. Early Polychrometypes are representedby plates 40, 69,
75, and Figs. 72, 73, 75.
11 See Lothrop, 1926, pl. 88.
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
175
also at this time. There is little reasonto doubt that in Costa Rica proper,at any
rate, these remains representthe culture of the Chorotega themselves,whose
modeledblackpotterywas praisedso extravagantlyby the Spaniards.
I will mention briefly the probable time placement of other archaeological
manifestations,as they are knownin termsof the GreaterNicoya sequence.In the
Central Plateau, an extravagantlymodeled, largely monochromepottery termed
Curridabat Ware may be the earliestmaterialthus far.12More clearlyplaced in
our schemeare the stone cist cemeteriesassociatedwith distinctivesculptures,excavated by Hartman near Cartago.13 The earliest of these burial grounds, or
graveswithin them, sometimeshave obvioustrade pottery of Middle Polychrome
date from GreaterNicoya. The very latest, the cemeteryof Orosi, has glass beads
in one grave.14Glass beads placed in one of the graves at the rich burial ground
of Mercedes,in the Old Line, offer evidencethat the whole cemeterywas in use
after the Spanish conquest,and that the famous stone sculptureassociatedwith
the site is very late indeed.l5There is no reasonto believethat these late materials
from the CentralPlateau and the Old Line were producedby any other than the
historicinhabitantsof the region, the Chibchan-speakingGiietar.
Until Lothrop'swork in the Diquis zone is published,little can be said about
the successionin southern Costa Rica. But it is clear that several phases are
presentin his cuts, extendingfrom a very early ceramicculturewith clear affinities
both to Zoned Bichromeand to the obviouslyancientScarifiedWare Complexof
the Chiriquizone, throughsomethinglike the Middle PolychromePeriod, to the
protohistoricperiod,characterizedby Palmar-stylesculpture.16In Chiriquicountry,
Haberland'sAguas Buenas complex is probably later than the Scarified Ware
complex,and has resemblancesto the Zoned Bichromeculturesof GreaterNicoya,
but is difficultto place in generaland may representa mixtureof severaldistinct
archaeologicalphases.l7The "Classic"Chiriquipottery types, such as Alligator
Ware, definitelyare very late, the latter having even been found associatedwith
irontools.18.
Thus far, the Mesoamericanaffiliationof these Costa Rican cultureshas not
been discussed.Nevertheless, resemblancesare present, and are especially close
12 Hartman, 1907b.
13 Hartman, 1901, pp. 51-186.
14 Hartman, 1901, pl. 60 (Grave43).
15 Hartman, 1901, pl. 5 (glass beads in Grave 5).
16 These statements are based on the paper given by S. K. Lothrop at the Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, New Haven, 1960, and on photographskindly provided
by Dr. Lothrop.
17 Haberland, 1959.
18 Stone, 1958, fig. 7.
176
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
and frequent for GreaterNicoya. There is no questionthat, given its full time
depth and not merelythe "ethnographicpresent,"GreaterNicoya was as clearly
a part of the Mesoamericanco-traditionas were, let us say, the Guerreroor
Huasteca regionsof Mexico.It was one of the many fringe areasof Mesoamerica
which failed to share in the more spectaculardevelopmentssuch as cities, largescale ceremonialcenters, or dated stone monuments.Greater Nicoya has been
for many centuriestoo closely bound up with Mesoamericanculture to be anythingbut partof it.
There can be little doubt that the Zoned Bichromeculturesof GreaterNicoya
are but extensionsof a generalizedMesoamericanLate Formative.Such traits as
zoned dentate rocker-stampingand bichromezoning are clearly older in Mesoamericathan anywhereelse, and must have been introducedinto Costa Rica from
the northwest.In corroboration,the importantblack-and-redpotterytype, Rosales
Zoned Engraved,may be cited; this is very similarto Utatlan Ware, presentat a
much earlierdate in the Guatemalanhighlands.It is suggested that during this
periodGreaterNicoya, and perhapsCosta Rica as a whole, were sharingin some,
but not all, traits of the Formativeperiod in Mesoamerica.Missing are some of
the more elaborate concepts which found their way into Chavin from central
Mexico, or some of the highly complex decorative techniqueswhich reached
Ecuadorfrom Guatemalaeven earlier.These presumablydiffused southwardby
sea, bringingto South Americareally importantitems like improvedvarietiesof
maize.The difficultoverlandroute of Costa Rica was not a channelfor the great
Formativediffusionfirst hypothesizedby Spinden.l9
The EarlyPolychromemaybe one of the few periodswhenCosta Rica and the
IntermediateArea as a whole were contributingsomethingto Mesoamerica.The
very earliestpolychromein the Maya area appearssuddenlyin the Holmul I or
Proto-Classicperiod at sites in the eastern Peten and British Honduras. Since
Vaillant's first study,20it has been recognized that the Holmul I complex is
intrusiveand as a whole ratherforeign in termsof the earlierFormativecultures
of Mexico.Vaillant consideredthese traits to be part of the "Q Complex,"hypothesizedby Lothropand himselfas a groupof elementsincludingswollentetrapod
feet, high annularbases,and spouts, which spreadat a very ancienttime into the
southernpart of Mesoamericabut not into the Valley of Mexico.It was suggested
that this complexwas of South Americanorigin. As a matterof fact, there is at
19 Spinden, 1917. For a generaldiscussionof the problemof diffusion within Nuclear America, see Willey, 1955.
20 Merwin and Vaillant, 1932. The analysis (pp. 54-96) was by Vaillant. A more recent
study of the Holmul I horizon is by Willey and Gifford, 1961.
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
177
least one vessel with the Holmul I burials,21pointed out to the writer by G. R.
Willey, which is almost certainlyallied with severalceramictypes decoratedwith
wavyblacklinesproducedby a multiplebrush,all belongingto the ZonedBichrome
period in Greater Nicoya; moreover,since the Zoned Bichrome period largely
predatesthe approximately300 AD time position for Holmul I, we can suggest
intrusion from the south. Although the Costa Rican data on the beginning of
polychromedecorationitself is not conclusive,there is enough evidencefrom both
the Intermediateand Caribbeanareas to suggest a "sloping horizon" for this
importanttrait-that is, from the Venezuelancoast up into the Maya area. South
of centralMexico, polychromingapparentlybegins with the Tocuyano culture of
Venezuela, radiocarbon-datedat 220 BC - 200.22 West along the Caribbean
coastto Colombiaand up to Panamfithereis a closely relatedseriesof polychrome
styles obviously related to Tocuyano. One of these, the Black-Linestyle polyto 227 AD.23
chromeat Venado Beach in the Canal Zone, is radiocarbon-dated
in the Maya
for
the
first
time
as
And,
previouslystated, polychromeappears
southern
300
in
a
at
about
Holmul
I, clearlysuggesting
AD,
origin,perhaps
region
throughEarly PolychromeA of GreaterNicoya. As for the "Q-Complex"itself,
present evidence is against an origin outside of southern Mesoamerica,for few
of the traits mentionedare of any greaterage in Costa Rica or further south.
The cultures of the subsequentEarly PolychromeB sub-periodin Greater
Nicoya are under powerfulMaya influence,while naturallyretainingsome traces
of southernelements.This influencewas perhapsin part the resultof trade, for at
least one Early Classic Maya jade from the Guatemalanhighlandswas recovered
in the Early Polychromecemeteryat Las Huacas.24In ceramics,Maya influence
is to be seen in the appearancein GreaterNicoya of polychromesreflectingprototypes of the Tzakol 3 - Tepeu 1 phasesof the Peten, and above all, polychromes
modeledon the stylesof the Ulua-Yojoa region.Closestof all are the resemblances
betweenYojoa Polychromeand Galo Polychromevesselsof the Early Polychrome
B sub-period25-these are so close that the Nicoya peninsulaat this time seems
like a ceramicoutpost of the easternMaya frontier.
With the Middle PolychromePeriod,roughlyequivalentto the last part of the
21 Merwin and Vaillant, 1932, pl. 18a.
22 Cruxent and Rouse, 1958-9, p. 248 and figs. 122-127. The polychromepottery of Chupicuaro in central Mexico (Porter, 1956) is either contemporary with, or slightly later than,
Tocuyano.
23 Lothrop, 1959.
24 Hartman, 1907, pl. 45.
25 See Lothrop, 1926, plates 40 and 69, for examples of Galo Polychrome and Strong,
Kidder, and Paul, pl. 12b, for an almost identical specimenof Yojoa Polychrome.
178
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
GreaterNicoya
Classicand to the wholeof the Toltec Periodof Mesoamerica,
is evenmorecloselyboundup withthe fortunesof the latterregion.While it is
evidentthat the dominantceramictype on the CostaRicanside of the border,
bothin shapeanddecois a copyof a Tepeu3 polychrome
MoraPolychrome,26
of otherMiddle
affiliations
rativemotifs (emphasizing
the MayaKancross),the
Polychrome
paintedtypesrangeevenfurtherafieldin Mexicoproper.Particularly
in form (i.e.,the bowl
hardto explainarethe affinitiesof PapagayoPolychrome
vaseon annularbase)and
withfeetintheshapeof animalheadsorthepear-shaped
in decoration
withpost-Classic
potterystylesextendingin a broadbandfromIsla
de Sacrificios
on theGulf Coast,acrossthehighlandsat Cholula,anddownto the
PacificCoastof Mexico.Eitherwemustpostulatea directmigrationfromMexico
or else
at thistime,the kindclaimedby the Chorotegaand Nicaraothemselves,
intensivetradebetweenGreaterNicoyaandcentral
wemustlookto a particularly
Mexico-and for the latterthereis not muchevidence.
Nevertheless,Middle Polychromepotteryfrom GreaterNicoya has been
to thenorthwest,
notonlyin easternHondurasandeasternEl Salvador,
discovered
whereit wouldbe expected,but withinthe Mayaareaproper.PapagayoPolywithTohilPlumbate
chromevesselshavebeenfoundin gravesorcachesassociated
at Cerro del Zapote, El Salvador27;at Copan28;and at Zacaleu,29all of which
testifyto somesortof tradeacrossthe Mayaborderin the EarlyPost-Classic.
The LatePolychrome
Periodof GreaterNicoyais equivalentin timeto the
LatePost-Classic,
and one findsfurtherMexicantraitsappearingthereand in
othersub-regions
of CostaRica.Particularly
strikingaremotifstakenfromthe
which
embellish
some
Mixteca-Puebla
codices
examplesof VallejoPolychrome
in GreaterNicoya.Theseincludethe MexicanEarthMonster,as well as Quetlate sculptures
zalc6atlin his guiseas the Wind God.Amongthe demonstrably
of Mercedes,on the Atlanticside of the Cordillerain Giietarterritory,thereis
evena ChacMool-altered,it is true,fromtheToltec-Aztec
prototypebutclearly
Fromtheseexamples,
it is apparentthatnot manycenturiesbefore
recognizable.30
the conquesttherewasa renewalof contactwithMexico,or perhapsanothermigration.We willreturnto thisin a moment.
What can be said aboutthe introduction
of metallurgyinto Mesoamerica,
from the CostaRicanstandpoint?Giventhe meagredata now at hand, it is
believedthatthe entireIsthmianregionhadlittle or nothingto do withsuchan
26 Mora Polychromecan be seen in Lothrop, 1926, pl. 80, c-f.
27 Boggs,1944,fig.3d.
28 Longyear,
1952,p. 43 (in Tomb10).
29 WoodburyandTrik, 1953,pp. 194-195(in Grave15-1).
30 Mason,1945,Plate35c.
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
179
I
b
Ntu4
oo ? ? o ?o8
aI
-(
0X_
I
CZZ
a?.--'?""
c
",
f
S
D!
s^ss^SR^S^s0^^~~~~~
00000
00
0
180
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
introduction.The antiquityof metal-workingin northwesternSouth Americahas
been conclusivelydemonstratedby Lothrop31and others; its lateness in Mesoamericais likewisecertain.Becauseit is highly likely that the art was diffusedfrom
south to north,it has usuallybeen assumedthat this was overland,via the Isthmian
countriesof the IntermediateArea. However, in Costa Rica at any rate, there is
every reason to believe that metallurgy,particularlythe lost-wax technique of
castinggold objects,is very late indeed,certainlynot earlierthan 1100 AD. It has
not yet been found associatedwith Middle Polychromecultures or with other
cultures on that time level. In southernCosta Rica, furthermore,gold objects,
from what little is known, are associatedwith the kind of pottery that was in
use at contact times, and there is testimonyby Columbus and others that the
Isthmian peoples were still making and using gold pendants as late as that.
Furthermore,such objects are almost non-existentin the region betweencentral
Costa Rica and the Maya-Mexicanarea.
On the other hand, recent information32suggests that metalworkinghad
alreadyreachedthe Pacific Coast of Mexico by the end of the Late Classic, implying a spread of the techniquesinvolved directly by sea from coastal Peru or
Ecuador,skirting Isthmian Central America. The Panamanianobjects of gold
that werecast into the SacredCenote at ChichenItza at some unknownbut probably very late date may also have been traded by boat, this time along the Atlantic.33At any rate, metallurgywas definitelynot a contributionof Costa Rica
to Mesoamerica.
To summarize,Greater Nicoya can best be consideredas the southernmost
sub-regionof Mesoamerica,being throughoutits prehistoryin the culturalshadow
thrownby the highercivilizationsof the Maya and Mexicans.Its closest contacts,
as one would expect,werealwayswith the Maya area, althoughnone of the more
advancedtraits such as masonrytemples and dated stelae were diffused to these
frontier people. There is some indication, although it is hardly conclusive,for
the kind of directmigrationfrom centralor southernMexico which the linguistic
and ethnohistoricevidencesuggest.The firstwavemay have broughtin the Chorotega aroundthe 8th centuryAD to initiate the Middle Polychromeperiod. The
secondcould have resultedin the invasionof Nahua speakers,later known as the
Nicarao;34if this happenedat about the beginningof the 12th century AD, it
31 Lothrop, 1950.
32 Meighan, 1960.
33 Lothrop, 1952, pp. 94-105.
34 See discussionin Chapman, 1960, pp. 74-76, 91-96. This author also sees an initial migration from southern Mexico by the Chorotega, and an influx of Nahua-speaking Nicarao from the
Cholula region several centuries later. Utilizing early sources (G6mara and Motolinia), she fur-
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
181
wouldexplainthe suddenappearanceof motifs in the style of the Mexicancodices
on Late Polychromepottery. This latter migrationmight have been correlated
with the collapse of the Toltec state and the subsequentfall of central Mexico
into a conditionof feudalism,at which time we know that many Mexicangroups
were dispersedfar beyond their tribal frontiers.
Finally, it can be said that extra-NicoyaCosta Rica had no really profound
effectsuponMesoamerica,otherthanthe possibleintroductionof polychrome.Previous theoriesof a northerninfluxof traits from South America,such as werepostulatedby Lothropand Kidderin 1940,35cannotbe justifiedin the light of present
evidence.On the otherhand,a hypothesisof movementof high culturetraitsto the
south throughthe IntermediateArea, proposedby Spindenand revivedby Willey,
Strong, Porter, and others, is apparentlyalso untenable.The truth seems to be
that Mesoamericadid exert an early and really important influenceon South
America,and that the latter did at later dates exportto the north such techniques
as mold-manufactureof figurines and metalworking,but these flows of culture
traits were entirely sea-borne.Most of Costa Rica, and the IntermediateArea
itself, remaineda cul-de-sacopen at both ends, within which civilizationnever
appeared.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOGGS,STANLEYH.
1944 A Preconquest Tomb on the Cerro del Zapote, El Salvador (Carnegie
Institutionof Washington,Notes on MiddleAmericanArchaeologyand
Ethnology,no. 32).
CHAPMAN, ANNE
M.
1960 Los Nicaraoy Los ChorotegaSegzinlas FuentesHistoricas(Universidad
de CostaRica,SerieHistoriay Geografia,no. 4).
COE, MICHAEL D.
1960 ArcheologicalLinkageswith North and South Americaat La Victoria,
Guatemala(AmericanAnthropologist,
vol.62, pp. 363-393).
COE, MICHAEL D., AND CLAUDE F. BAUDEZ
1961 The Zoned BichromePeriod in NorthwesternCosta Rica (American
Antiquity,vol. 26, pp. 505-515).
CRUXENT, J. M., AND IRVINGROUSE
1958 An ArcheologicalChronologyof Venezuela (2 vols., Pan American
no. 6).
Union, SocialScienceMonographs,
HABERLAND, WOLFGANG
1959 ArchiologischeUntersuchungenin Siidost Costa Rica (Acta Humboldet Ethnographica,
no. 1).
tiana,SeriesGeographica
ther suggests a third and final influx of Nahua speakers,who were said to have arrivedby canoes
as late as a hundred years before the Spanish Conquest.
35 Lothrop, 1940; Kidder, 1940.
182
SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
HARTMAN,C. V.
1901 Archaeological
Researches
in CostaRica (RoyalEthnographical
Museum,
Stockholm).
1907a ArchaeologicalResearcheson the PacificCoastof CostaRica (Memoirs
of theCarnegieMuseum,vol. 3, no. 1).
1907b The Alligator as a Plastic DecorativeMotive in Costa Rican Pottery
(American Anthropologist,n.s., vol. 9, no. 2).
KIDDER, ALFRED II.
1940 "South American Penetrations in Middle America" (in The Maya and
Their Neighbors, pp. 441-459. New York: Appleton-Century).
LONGYEAR,
JOHN M., III
1952 Copan Ceramics, A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery (Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication597).
LOTHROP, SAMUEL K.
1926 Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua (2 vols., Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation).
1940 "South America as Seen from Middle America" (in The Maya and Their
Neighbors, pp. 417-429, New York: Appleton-Century).
1950 Ancient American Gold and Jade (Cincinnati: Taft Museum).
1952 Metals from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan (Memoirs,
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 10, no. 2).
1959 "A Re-Appraisalof Isthmian Archaeology" (in AmerikanistischeMiszellen, pp. 87-91, Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fur Volkerkunde in Hamburg, 25).
MASON,
J. ALDEN
1945 Costa Rican Stonework (American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers,vol. 39, pt. 3).
MEIGHAN, CLEMENT W.
1960 Prehistoric Copper Objects from Western Mexico (Science, vol. 131, p.
1534).
MERWIN, R. E., ANDGEORGEC. VAILLANT
1932 The Ruins of Holmul, Guatemala (Memoirs, Peabody Museum of American Archaeologyand Ethnology, vol. 3, no. 2).
PORTER,MURIELNOE
1956 Excavations at Chupicuaro, Guanajuato, Mexico (Transactions of the
AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, n.s., vol. 46, pt. 5).
SPINDEN, H. J.
1917 The Origin and Distribution of Agriculture in America (19th International Congressof Americanists,pp. 269-276, Washington).
STEWARD,JULIANH., ANDLOUISC. FARON
1959 Native Peoples of South America (New York: McGraw-Hill).
COSTA RICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
183
STONE, DORIS
1958 Introductionto the Archaeologyof Costa Rica (San Jose: Museo Nacional).
1959 "The EasternFrontierof Mesoamerica"(in Amerikanistische
Miszellen
pp. 118-121,Mitteilungenaus dem Museumfur Volkerkundein Hamburg,25).
D., ALFRED KIDDER II, AND A. J. DREXEL PAUL, JR.
1938 PreliminaryReporton the SmithsonianInstitution-Harvard
University
Archaeological
Expeditionto NorthwesternHonduras,1936 (Smithsonian
Miscellaneous
Collections,vol.97, no. 1).
STRONG, W.
WILLEY, GORDON R.
1955 The PrehistoricCivilizationsof NuclearAmerica(AmericanAnthropologist,vol. 57,pt. 1, pp. 571-593).
1959 The "IntermediateArea"of Nuclear America.Its PrehistoricRelationshipsto MiddleAmericaandPeru (Actasdel xxxiiiCongresoInternacional
vol. 1, pp. 184-194,SanJose).
de Americanistas,
WILLEY, GORDON R., AND JAMES C. GIFFORD
1961 "Potteryof the Holmul I Style from BartonRamie,BritishHonduras"
Art and Archaeology,pp. 152-170,SamuelK.
(in Essaysin Pre-Columbian
HarvardUniversityPress).
Lothropandothers,Cambridge:
WOODBURY, R. B., AND AUBREY S. TRIK
1953 The Ruinsof Zaculeu,Guatemala(Richmond:ByrdPress).
YALE UNIVERSITY
NEWHAVEN,CONNECTICUT