Upload
manuel-castillo-poveda
View
36
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Regionality and monumental sculpture in Pacific and Central Nicaragua
Alexander Geurds
Leiden University
Abstract
This paper discusses ongoing research on the physical and social context of monumental stone
sculpture in Central Nicaragua in light of ongoing discussions surrounding cultural interaction
in Pacific and Central Nicaragua. First, I provide an overview of the continuous use of both
concepts and their accompanying questions for the better part of the last seventy-five years. In
the second part, I present findings from archaeological survey and excavation activities in
Central Nicaragua to question some of the existing assumptions surrounding stone sculpture.
Enabled by first data on spatial and social context of these sculptures, I outline an alternative of shifting focus to the cultural practices developed by communities at the local and regional
level rather than looking for stylistically comparable traits.
This paper considers the social context of stone sculpture in Nicaragua, at is an exercise in
examining archaeological evidence for the existence of a network of shared cultural practices
in Pacific and Central Nicaragua between AD 800 and 1522. Throughout this extensive period
Nicaragua seems to have been composed of distinctive cultural regions which nonetheless
shared several cultural practices. These ‘regions of stylistic similarity’ have dominated
archaeological narratives on prehispanic Nicaragua at least for the last seventy-five years, and
interconnect to the dominant culture area trait debates (e.g. Baudez 1970; Carmack and
Salgado 2006; Hoopes and McCafferty 1989; Lothrop 1926; Stone 1977). Recent research on
the practice of monumental stone sculpture is beginning to yield new insights into the extent
and nature of contact and interaction between these regions.
Regarding the human figures depicted on stone sculptures in Central Nicaragua it asks why
sculptures adhered to widely shared aesthetic rules. Given the apparent differences in social
context between Pacific and Central Nicaragua where anthropomorphic representations in
stone are found, such similarity in how persons were represented cannot be random; it must
relate to the social context of representation in some way. This paper thus addresses an
important, and surprisingly neglected, problem in the study of anthropomorphic stone
sculpture. What is the relationship between how persons are represented through style or
iconographic features and the context of its social world?
2
The original configuration of Pacific Nicaragua was proposed by Samuel Lothrop in his
seminal two-volume Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua and delimited by the Gulf of
Fonseca, the Nicoya peninsula and, toward the east, by the watershed (Lothrop 1926: xxvi).
At the time, the arguments for Lothrop seem to have lied principally on convenience since as
Lothrop discusses, the watershed region and the Atlantic beyond were utterly unknown at the
time. In relation to this definition-through-absence by Lothrop, it should be noted that when
speaking of Central Nicaragua in this context this is meant as a heuristic tool proposed to
accommodate the methodological agenda of the research project. That is, since at present
there are no existing ‘markers’ to border the research project within this large area of
Nicaragua, the concept of Central Nicaragua is deployed as a matrix, flexible in size, on
which social life took place during the pre-Hispanic sequence (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Nicaragua. The central region detailed in Figure 2 is indicated by the square.
The concept of Central Nicaragua, therefore, is not intended as a cultural area, but rather a
geographical one, even when the latter is also not self-evident due to the diversity in
landscapes. This rather explicit invoking of the region merely as “a concept good to think
with” (Fotiadis 1997: 106) along processual archaeology lines, is intended to keep an open
mind in looking for potential networks of contact between communities and, beyond that, to
3
allusion of identity and ethnicity. As such, the project diverges somewhat from preceding
archaeological research in that it refuses to consider cultural mapping initiatives, like drawing
lithic or ceramic zones, or cultural area borders. Preliminary results from research around
such borders in Central Nicaragua seem to warrant considerable caution in postulating
frontiers.
Research background
When compared to the Nicaraguan Pacific coastal region of Rivas, the silence of systematic
archaeological research in Central Nicaragua is deafening; in fact it is a major area of Central
America which remains virtually unknown to this day. Apart from work conducted on the
Caribbean littoral (Clemente et al 2007; Magnus 1974, 1978), a ceramic sequence consisting
of five pre-contact periods is available for the area closest to the lakeshore, based on five river
course surveys undertaken during the late 1980s (Gorin 1989; Rigat 1992). Five phases were
proposed based on this research ranging from 500 BCE to 1400 CE and one final period dated
tentatively at 1400-1600 CE (Gorin 1989:659-670). Based on the changes in this ceramic
inventory, some characteristics of the social evolution in the area have been proposed, but
overall these fall short of providing confident insights into the pre-Hispanic history of Central
Nicaragua as such. Based on the material culture as well as on ethnological and linguistic
observations by numerous scholars who passed through the region from the second half of the
19th century onward, Central Nicaragua instead appears to have been an area relatively rich in
cultural and linguistic variation. First surveys in the late 1980s and subsequent work
conducted in 2007 for the northern shore of Lake Nicaragua and some river valleys in
Chontales represented the first attempts to fill in some of the archaeological blanks (Geurds
2008; Geurds, et al. 2009) (Figure 2)
Despite different levels of analysis and using different material categories, all past
investigators conclude that cultural identities in the region are heterogeneous, a conclusion
corroborated by linguistic evidence from the early Colonial period ethnohistorical sources
(Constenla 1994; Ibarra Rojas 2001; Incer 1985; Van Broekhoven 2002), which point to
several languages being spoken at the same time, including Nahuatl, Ulua and Matagalpa.
Determining if this is recognizable in the material culture of Central Nicaragua is a further
long-term objective for the current project.
4
Figure 2: Central Nicaragua, with sites recorded during 2009 and 2010
Stone sculpture
Archaeological investigations in Nicaragua have traditionally focused on detecting cultural
influences through exchange and mobility of cultural traits (see Lange 1992: 7-8). The
“betwixt and between” position of southern Central America lamented by Robert Drennan,
was exemplified by archaeological studies in Nicaragua which is a country harboring frontier
zones of major culture areas. This frontier theme is reflected in Willey’s list of cultural traits
centering on the material foundations of archaeological enquiry: pottery, settlement
characteristics, political complexity, and metallurgical techniques to name a few (Willey
1971). Also included was monumental stonework.
The transition toward the practice of sculpting monumental stone figures has been identified
with particular cultural areas in different parts of Nicaragua, particularly with the Zapatera
and the Chontales styles southwest and north of Lake Nicaragua (Bruhns 1982, 1992; Falk
and Friberg 1999; Haberland 1973; Navarro 2007; Richardson 1940; Zelaya Hidalgo et al.
5
1974), although undocumented sculptures from other Nicaraguan regions are also present. As
indicated first by Bruhns context and chronology are a major impediment for advancing the
understanding of these sculptures. Franck Gorin proposed a date of 800 CE for the Chontales
sculptures, but this is based on a single sculpture fragment encountered at the multi-
component site of La Pachona, relatively dated by means of associated Monota phase
ceramics (Gorin 1989). Adequate descriptions on its stratigraphic location are lacking.
Archaeological sites documented in 2009 and 2010 are now beginning to yield solid data on
the physical and social contexts of stone sculpture in Central Nicaragua.
Proyecto Arqueológico Centro de Nicaragua (PACEN)
The PACEN focuses on surveying the watershed region of the Nicaraguan department of
Chontales, extending reconnaissance activities to reach the lake shore due west and pushing
further into Caribbean lowlands due east. By and large the project follows main river courses
on both sides of the watershed. Between 2007 and 2010 the project has accomplished
covering significant sections of the roughly triangular area northwest of the town of Juigalpa
and the border between the Chontales department and RAAS, and between the town of Cuapa
and Juigalpa to the south. The territory (approximately between 12.29 latitude and 85.38
longitude, and between 12.48 latitude and 85.39 longitude, and between 12.34 latitude and
84.44 longitude) is an area marked by an increase in population in recent times. This increase
is occurring mainly around the towns of Juigalpa, La Libertad, Santo Domingo and El Ayote,
as well as along the highway and the dirt road leading into and through the central watershed
region (sees Figure 2).1 Considering this population increase is relevant since documenting in
context stone sculpture is a primary goal of the project and there is a strong correlation
between modern population growth and looting of sculptures. As such the three main research
field objectives currently are: 1) Produce data on the central watershed region through
archaeological reconnaissance for evidence that may indicate pre-Hispanic interaction with
the Caribbean lowlands; 2) Specifically target the location and description of archaeological
sites featuring Chontales style statuary; 3) Improve the database of the statuary collection at
the Archaeological Museum Gregorio A. Barea in Juigalpa.
1 Apart from the much larger Juigalpa, all of these towns now exceed two thousand inhabitants. Even if the
region is overall still sparsely populated, the recent human activity and consequently the developing
infrastructure, has contributed to the endangerment of archaeological sites through systematic and professional
looting, which typically results in irretrievable loss of important archaeological data and irreparably damaged
architectural structures.
6
The known corpus consisted entirely of statues in public museum collections in Nicaragua
and a few other Latin American countries as well as a handful in the US and Europe. It is
estimated the current corpus stands at around 140 statues worldwide. All of these lack specific
information on provenience, and therefore architectural context and social meaning.
Documenting the original setting for some of these known statues formed a primary goal for
this field season, as did the reconnaissance of parts of the central area of Nicaragua for sites
that could potentially yield previously undocumented statuary.
The Nawawasito site
During reconnaissance activities in 2009, an archaeological site was located on a low sloping
hilltop perched between two seasonal streams, the Nawawas River and the Siquia River which
flows toward the Caribbean Sea. The site covers some 8 hectares and is marked by both
domestic as well as public mounds, making up a total of forty-two built structures (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Nawawasito. Map indicating house mounds as well as circular and semi-rectangular public
mounds. Stepped structures 1 and 2 and visible as two squares, large and small respectively.
Roughly 10 to 12 mounds significantly exceed the median sizes of the domestic mounds, and
can therefore tentatively be considered public or communal mounds. Domestic use of the
larger mounds is excluded based on excavation results. During 2010 two of the largest
7
circular mounds were test excavated by means of a centrally placed 1 x 1 m pit, yielding very
little cultural deposits of any kind. The constructive material of both mounds consisted
entirely of heavy clays, lacking any significant quantities of stone. The stratigraphy of both
mounds (both over 2 meters in height) proved to be highly comparable and suggest that both
mounds were erected in one of two instances rather than being the result of gradual
accumulation. Structures 1 and 2 by contrast were made up of dissimilarly shaped rocks
ranging in size from fist-shaped fragments to large boulders approaching a diameter of some
50 cm (Figure 4). A rare occurrence in Central Nicaragua, Structures 1 and 2 are almost
perfect squares measuring 12 x 12 and 6 x 6 meters respectively and display a form of
architectural planning by means of a step on all four sides forming a smaller flat surface
(‘platform’) on top.
Figure 4: Pit 2 on Structure 2, showing the build-up of larger rocks in the top layer and smaller rocks
mixed in with sand in the lower spectrum. Note the red clay ground surface at the bottom of the pit.
Square stepped structured are rarely documented in Nicaraguan archaeology, the only other
example being known from Garrobo Grande, some 50 kilometers south of Nawawasito.2
2 It should be noted that the Garrobo Grande site is a complicated comparison, since the principal structure
evidencing the square, stepped shape was extensively reconstructed by Museo Nacional personnel during the
8
Located in close proximity to these two square structures are over sixty fragments of both
carved and uncarved monoliths, making up at least forty-three individual sculptural objects
(Figure 5).
Figure 5: Nawawasito. Structures 1 and 2 with the locations of the forty-three monoliths and a
carved spherical boulder. Please note the fragmented state of several statues, and the two steps
in the structures’ architecture.
Of this corpus of forty-three monoliths twenty-three are stone sculptures worked in low-relief
demonstrating anthropomorphic carvings consistent with the general characteristics of the
Chontales statuary style (Figure 6a,b,c). Ten are uncarved specimens of columnar basalt, and
another ten still lack further investigation due to partial interment along the south side of
1990s. Even though the structure apparently had a stepped shape when it was initially documented (personal
communication Gustavo Villanueva), the current shape does not seem to convincingly represent the original
construction.
9
Structure 1 (Figure 7). The purposefully interred columns in Structure 1 are of particular
interest. A comparative case was documented on the Caribbean coast at the site of El Cascal
de Flor de Pino, where a similar cache of basalt columns was documented some years ago.3
Relative to the known corpus of some 140 carved statues, this significantly increases the
entire corpus based on this site alone.
Figure 6a: Fragment stone sculpture (columnar basalt) at Nawawasito. Note the exposed teeth
and decorated headband.
Figure 6b: Stone stone sculpture (columnar basalt) at Nawawasito. Note ‘closed’ eyes and
mask depiction.
3 Http://seneca.uab.es/arqueologia-nicaragua, accessed online, February 27, 2010.
10
Figure 6c: Stone sculpture (andesite) at Nawawasito.
The stone sculptures appear to have been closely associated to the two square stepped
platform mounds. Monoliths were recorded at each of the corners of Structure 1, along the
lateral sides as well as in a looting pit at the center of the platform. Comparably, Structure 2
featured several stone sculptures in its vicinity. Most objects were recorded in a partially
interred position in the surface. A series of 50 x 50cms shovel tests undertaken along the
central north-south and east –west axes of the site again yielded very little diagnostic
materials. Low densities of ceramics were recovered from most pits, all of which poorly
preserved and undecorated.
11
Rationales behind the paucity of portable material culture move in two directions. One calls
for restraint in making definitive conclusions as to the nature of the absence of materials.
More testing may still detect higher concentrations of material, most likely the southwest
sector of the site, featuring the domestic mounds. It should be noted here that the regional
climate in the Caribbean with abundant precipitations in combination with the ground
composed of heavy clays have led to severely disturbed and reworking of the original
stratigraphy. During the dry season the ground dries and cracks, while during the rains
seasonal pool form.
The second line of reasoning though takes into consideration the nature of this site, which is
clearly ceremonial in character. In fact, monumentality seems to be a primary function with
the by any standard high amount of sculpture and monoliths associated to relatively few
monumental structures. Whether ceremonial was not only the primary but only the sole
function of this site, will have to be proven during future excavations.
Figure 7: Interred columnar basalt monoliths, partially exposed on south side
of Nawawasito Structure 1.
12
Aguas Buenas
Contrasting the relatively small and geographically secluded ceremonial site of Nawawasito is
the site of Aguas Buenas.This site was already briefly visited during 2007, and was included
in this field season in light of its significant apparent size and sprawling clusters of domestic
mounds and to investigate the presence of stone sculpture in Central Nicaraguan sites with
predominantly a function as domestic settlement. Whilst initially two days were programmed
to chart its lay-out, our already ample expectations in terms of size based on previously
publishes notes were still exceeded considerably.
More specific investigations into its architecture also remain minimal for now. The map in
Figure 8 must be treated as preliminary and incomplete until further survey, excavation and
mapping with Total Station can be completed during a subsequent field season. The present
map sketches a settlement with a total amount of domestic and public mounds of 547 (Figure
8). This is a number surpassing all other settlement known to date for the archaeology of
Nicaragua. In making this comparison, it should be noted that much remains to be determined
in terms of coevality of the residential mounds. For now it remains undetermined what the
habitational history of the site was, even if it concerns of singe or a multi component site.
That said, similar reservations are at present equally valid for a majority of the other sizeable
settlements in Nicaragua.
The 28,5 hectare site sprawls over numerous small hills in the community of San Isidro along
the Garnacha river 6 kilometers north of Juigalpa and was previously visited by personnel of
Patrimonio Cultural, subsequently by Frederick Lange and Payson Sheets in 1983 (Lange et
al 1992: 49-50), and finally by Franck Gorin in 1984 and again in 1987 (Gorin 1989:191-
192). Based on those visits the estimateson total number of mounds ranged from 200 to 300.
Regarding the dating of the site, Gorin opportunistically collected some diagnostic surface
material exclusively associated to the Cuapa phase (1400-1600 CE). This date is reinforced by
the characteristics of the lithics (Gorin 1989:192). Two test pits yielded diagnostics from the
Cuapa phase (i.e. Miragua Común), but also earlier Gran Nicoya related diagnostics from
Rivas (Papagayo Polícromo) as well as diagnostics from Northern Nicaragua and local
diagnostics including Sacasa Estriado (Figure 9a, b) making for an occupation spanning from
the Potero to Cuapa phases (400 – 1600 CE).
13
Figure 8: The Aguas Buenas site, overlay on an INEGI 1:50,000 map. Mounds indicated by generic
dots, these do not represent actual individual mound circumferences.
14
Figure 9a: Papagayo polychrome Figure 9b: Papagayo fragments
figurine fragment
In the emerging site settlement patterns, which is based on previous research (principally
Gorin 1989) and the ongoing PACEN research (Geurds et al. 2007), Aguas Buenas is an
anomalous site in size, form and occupational history. Regarding size, this settlement is
significantly larger than any other settlement documented to date in Central Nicaragua.
Moreover, it is extraordinary in its lay-out, seemingly not consisting of gradually agglutinated
clusters of domestic mounds, but instead largely defined by five or six concentric circles
which, particularly on the western half of the settlement describe near geometrically perfect
circles. The outer circle measures some 500 meters in diameter. In this western half the
individual mounds are positioned equidistant to each other (Figure 10).
In comparison to the Nawawasito site, a number of observations can be made about Aguas
Buenas. First, the latter clearly predominantly held a function of permanent settlement
indicated by the large amount of domestic mounds and the high density of materials yielded
from the two test pits. In contrast, the site has yielded no stone sculptural fragments. This may
be explained by two reasons: One is the proximity of the site to modern communities,
primarily the departmental capital of Juigalpa. This closeness significantly increases the
15
likelihood that the site was looted for stone sculpture in the more recent past. Second, the
central area of the site, marked by a roughly rectangular plaza lined by mounds, features
numerous outcrops of bedrock upon which clusters of rock art were carved. This may have
served as a proxy to the concept of the stone sculptures. Having said this, at other sites in the
vicinity outcrops of columnar basalt were documented and site are known to have held stone
sculpture many of which are presently in the collection of the archaeological museum in
Juigalpa.
Figure 10: Aguas Buenas site, core site area.
Summary Results
In sum at Nawawasito:
1. A total of forty-four intact or fragmented stelae and monoliths were recorded at or near
their in situ position.
2. A large majority of forty are specimens of columnar basalt, demonstrating a polygonal
shape and typically not exceeding a diameter of 35 cm. The remaining four are made of an
igneous rock not yet positively identified, potentially andesite.
3. In the riverbed of the nearby Siquia River, a possibly related complex of rock art was
recorded less than one kilometer from the site.
16
This research represents the first time these Chontales style statues were registered outside of
museum collections, and it opens up new avenues for improving understanding of this
insufficiently documented artifact category in Central American archaeology.
Sculpture in spatial context
Stone sculpture has been documented in Nicaragua in numerous location including Zapatera
and Ometepe Island, the area around León, Managua, Matagalpa, Sebaco, Boaco, Juigalpa,
Santo Tomás, Santo Domingo, El Ayote, and as far eastern as San Antonio Kukarawala.
While many uncertainties still remains regarding chronology and context of these sculptures,
a number of considerations can be proposed at this time. In the appearance of these sculptures
in several areas of Nicaragua , we see that communities and groups in Nicaragua adopted a
mutually shared practice while maintaining an otherwise distinctive lifestyle. Across both
sides of the much debated Mesoamerican frontier, there appears to have been no single
cookie-cutter pattern of life “before” or “after” the appearance of stone sculpture. Instead,
post 800 CE many groups made use of various combinations of general characteristics
different from those which may have typified earlier societies:
- Practices related to more elaborate and monumental centers
- The widespread use of weaponry and ornamentation as gender symbolism on
anthropomorphic sculptures
- Limited attention to central settlement places, with many small villages and few large
villages. For Central Nicaragua, Aguas Buenas remains an anomaly for now.
- A very gradual shift in long-distance trade from stones such as obsidian and chert to
gold
- Apparently not accompanying this rise in sculpture was any form of similarly
geographically broad horizons of ceramic styles or technological innovations. The
stone sculptural tradition clearly cross-cuts these ceramic borders.
These changes created an obvious transition which has been explained in many ways.
Culture-historical explanations ascribed them to a horizon of Mesoamerican migrant-invaders
spreading along the Pacific coast southwards from Mesoamerica (Fowler 1989). While social
interpretation of these changes focus on particular aspects, such as stylistic change (Healy
1980), a shift in how relations between people were conceptualized (Lange 1984), a shift in
ethnic structures perhaps related to political changes such as from corporate to network
17
leadership strategies (McCafferty 2005), such explanations probably related only to specific
areas. On a broader scale, it is clear that a general change from one widely shared cultural
repertory to another was taking place. This is the context in which Nicaraguan stone sculpture
emerges.
During the pre-Hispanic period, the carving of monumental stone sculptures was one of the
principal goals in mining outcrops of igneous rock in Central America. These sculptures are
traditionally recognized in the archaeological literature by means of two defined styles being
the Zapatera and Chontales styles. The Zapatera style sculptures, appearing on Zapatera
Island as well as the nearby Granada area display themes of ‘alter-ego’ or human-animal
transformation (Zelaya-Hidalgo et al. 1974). Materially, they consist of basalt and andesite
columnar-shaped stones, typically between 1.5 and 2.5 m tall. The majority is carved with
anthropomorphic designs. Common carved designs are faces, arms and legs, genitalia, and a
diverse spectrum of clothing, necklaces, and weaponry. Typically the statues will consist of a
human-like figure wearing an animal of his back, often reptilians, but also monkeys and
felines occur occasionally. For Central Nicaragua, the focus lies principally on the Chontales
style sculptures. These statues are distinctive for their remarkable height and small
circumference; some are more than five meters in length and no more than fifty centimeters in
diameter. Typically, decorations consist of carved human-like depictions, some with complex
secondary iconography (Figure 11).
One of the mysteries of stone sculpture geography in Nicaragua is how widely separated but
clearly related traditions could have been maintained; one of the suggestions to explain this
could be that comparable wooden representations, not preserved archaeologically, were used
in intervening areas.
As a particular kind of material culture, stone sculptures are quite distinct from other forms of
representation known in pre-Hispanic Nicaragua – principally small figurines and rock art. In
a few contexts, they do grade into other forms of material culture; this occurs both in the
Zapatera and Chontales styles, where some examples share imagery convention and form with
the local rock art traditions (Figure 12). However, these exceptions aside, stone sculpture
forms a seemingly well-bounded, easily recognized form of human representation whose
conventions are shared over a very large part of Nicaragua.
18
Figure 11: Chontales style sculpture Figure 12:’ Rock art sculpture’
(Courtesy Museo Arqueológico Gregorio Aguilar Barea)
Stone sculptures are thus a widespread phenomenon in much of Nicaragua between an as yet
extremely tentative period of about 800 to 1520 CE. While own characteristics can be
discerned for sub-traditions within this phenomenon, there is also a set of widely shared
formal conventions which unite the more localized traditions. Archaeology has not been very
successful at explaining either of these facts. One might argue that the widespread distribution
of stone sculptures is linked to physical migrations, but the archaeological underpinning of
this are doubtful – for instance why do stone sculptures turn up in many parts of Central
Nicaragua and why are sculptures lacking in other archaeological areas seemingly more
heavily transited during pre-Hispanic times, such as the southeastern shores of Lake
Nicaragua?
Instead, we might postulate that stone sculptures appeared by a process of convergence from
varied local sources. To corroborate this however, an insight is needed into the developmental
trajectories of sculpture in Central Nicaragua. Analogies make it likely that precursors to the
monumental sculptures may be found, such as figurines or evolving patterns in rock art.
19
Crucial in creating an understanding of social life in pre-Hispanic Central Nicaragua is the
process of convergence towards a common genre by people in different communities making
parallel choices in the process of cultural transmission.
Other than development and geographical spread, more social interpretations focus on
sculpture use and meaning. The uses of stone sculptures may have varied regionally, and
central to this social question is control over good archaeological contexts which the
Nawawasito site is now beginning to provide. Evidence presented here provides first
indications of such a monumental context. Options for context of stone sculpture include:
- Stone sculptures serving as grave or mound markers.
- Stone sculptures occurring in groups or alignments at ceremonial sites.
- Stone sculptures erected in open country, perhaps along pathways or transit routes
At Nawawasito (Geurds 2009), the groups of sculptures recorded on a small hill top may have
accommodated up to several hundred people during rituals in a clearing in the forest in the
direct proximity of two main rivers and their point of confluence. The stone sculptures had
been erected there in association with and a range of items including large natural boulders
with rock art as well as unworked basalt columns deposited at particular locations at the site.
While Nawawasito cannot be considered a burial site as yet – no burials have been
documented to date – it is not improbable that burials will still be discovered during future
fieldwork.
To the extent that a social interpretation has been given, Central Nicaraguan stone sculptures
have alternately been regarded as representations of gods, prisoners, or ancestral figures, with
the latter view gradually becoming ascendant in recent times (Bruhns 1992; Wilke 2008). At
Nawawsito, a collection of more than 40 monoliths would have been a large undertaking to
construct and was probably done by and for a community rather than individuals or families.
Choreographically, we must imagine a group of stone sculptures as a relatively permanent and
visible component of a constructed place which was normally not inhabited but which would
have been visited periodically, a place either directly used for burying the dead or related to a
chain of operations which involved remembering or invoking them. Although sculptures may
occasionally have been moved and remodeled, it is assumed that they were predominantly
immobile, both because of their mass as large monoliths and because the few examples found
in context are still close to architecturally meaningful fixed locations. Stone sculptures were
20
thus relatively fixed, hence anchoring landscapes in which people moved rather than the
reverse. The location of the Nawawasito stone sculpture close to water may be related to the
importance of rivers and their role as facilitators of contact and interaction and thereby the
exchange of materials and ideas between communities in Pacific and Central Nicaragua.
Several sites are directly accessible by river and may have been used for trading purposes as
well as ritual purposes. Note that trade and ritual need not be mutually exclusive: trading may
well have been carried out within a ritual purpose context.
Sculpture in social context
Finally, we can now start to consider the unanswered question as to what social contexts the
tradition to stone sculpture fit into. Analogous to the archaeological lack of data, one of the
most striking effects of Central Nicaraguan stone sculpture is the lack of information given by
the sculptures themselves. A body representation can convey many kinds of information—
motion, individuality, texture, attitudes, gestures. Representations of the body are usually
associated with promotion of a simplified, powerful message. The sculptures aesthetic
qualities seem to balance conveying bits of information while simultaneously carrying out an
act of abstraction. There is generally (though not always!) very little attempt to define an
individual biography or to show people in any different categories beyond genders and
whatever category of person the sculpture generically represent. The simplification of the
body is a powerful act of abstraction.
There are two obvious broader social contexts in which to place Central Nicaraguan stone
sculpture. One is a trend toward monumentalization of the landscape. While it is still too early
to make sweeping comments on the chronological development of monumentality in
Nicaragua, there does appear to be a wave of monumentalization across much of the area with
the onset of the sculptural tradition.
Monumental constructions (in the form of earth and stone mounds), rock art complexes, and
stone sculpture are all part of this new marking of the landscape. Monumentalized landscapes
may have been linked to ancestry via the meaningful use of stone as an enduring material.
Alongside this incipient monumentality, communal burial grounds appear in Central
Nicaragua around 800 CE. In the form of secondary urn burials, the arrangement of formal
cemeteries is not only a significant difference to burial practices in Mesoamerica, but also
indicative of ceremonialism at the level of the community or of between communities. The
21
Nawawasito site has to date not yet yielded any evidence for burials, but future excavations of
in context sculptures will provide more definitive clarity regarding the association of stone
sculpture as burials markers.
The second social context for sculpture concerns display, and prestige. In the material record
an increase in social valuables can be seen, some of which appear to be marked on the
sculptures. These recurrent material symbolizations of prestige take the form of weapons and
ornaments as well as pendants and –occasionally- textiles (Figure 13). Many of these
valuables were likely to have been made of traded materials or be exchanged objects in
themselves. The predominance of weaponry such as daggers, clubs and spears likely ties in to
identity symbolisms also seen in rock art, and thus must have been a central feature of
everyday life. Additional evidence through grave goods from excavated burials remains
pending.
Figure 13: Details of stone sculpture. Note elaborately decorated dress.
Discussion
The stone sculpture found in context opens up the possibility of interpreting their social and
spatial meaning. Even though fragments of Chontales style statuary have been recorded in site
22
contexts on previous occasions, including the unpublished removal of a group of seven statues
at the El Salto site near Juigalpa during the 1990s, no contextualized descriptions of were
until now available. In particular the documentation of the forty-three monoliths at the
Nawawasito ceremonial center and the rock art clusters at the primate settlement of Aguas
Buenas offers unprecedented interpretative potential for improving our understanding of stone
sculpture in Central Nicaragua and the expression of memory through monumental sculpture
in Nicaragua on both sides of the Mesoamerican frontier. For Nawawasito, this expression
must have taken place with a considerable investment of time and energy on behalf of the
local populations, given the extraordinarily high amount of monoliths, each weighing several
hundreds of kilos and having been quarried at an as yet unidentified location at some distance
from the settlement core. In light of the number of sculptures known previous to the
documentation of this group, either this site is an exception in terms of statue quantity or, and
this seems more likely at this time, there are in fact comparable sites still undiscovered in the
surrounding Caribbean lowlands.4 It strongly suggests that the total amount of stone
sculptures per settlement is substantially larger than assumed until now. To investigate this
hypothesis, the Caribbean lowlands of the autonomous RAAS department are the region with
the highest potential to yield such archaeological sites, yet undisturbed by modern
infrastructure and semi-commercial looting practices.
It can be proposed here that the Chontales style sculptural tradition is a stylistic phenomenon
which:
a) Requires further definition of what this style constitutes, since it concerns an extremely
heterogeneous corpus of sculptures;
b) Spread across a much wider area of Nicaragua than previously assumed, extending beyond
the modern department boundary of Chontales far into the Caribbean lowlands and northward
in the direction of Matagalpa.
Prior to the work reported here, we lacked an understanding of almost all functional aspects of
this statuary, not knowing their contextual setting, precise use, inter-relationships, and history
of use.We can now begin to study some of these issues. Further, we have documented cases of
sites where residential mound clusters are associated and indeed aligned according to non-
residential public structures of monumental dimensions. This was documented at Aguas
4 Preliminary surveying in the direction of Tortuguero and San Antonio Kukarawala has already provided further
sites with stone sculpture in context. These will be subject to further investigation in 2011.
23
Buenas as well as at Nawawasito and provides a general sense of the internal architectural
hierarchies and the associated social dynamics.
Settlement hierarchy is still a topic requiring further attention through additional
reconnaissance. When following general conventions of settlement hierarchy though, and
assuming at least a two level hierarchy, we can preliminarily conclude that Aguas Buenas
must have occupied a role at the apex of this hierarchy, with its extensive size and population.
How the site of Nawawasito operated in a regional social network is less straightforward
issue; the settlement itself is not particularly extensive, yet the amount of energy invested in
creating the two monumental structuring and associating them with over forty monoliths, begs
the question whether this was a ceremonial site, perhaps attracting inhabitants from
throughout the wider region. The convenient location at the confluence of the Nawawas and
Siquia rivers adds to the likelihood of such a regional function as a destination of ritual
pilgrimage. Stone sculpture may have reinforced concepts of belonging and connections
between symbolic locales and community level identity.
Overall, when taking into account the present results and previous investigation the definition
of a settlement hierarchy is decidedly less straightforward than it has been in comparative
studies. Smaller sized centers, featuring low densities of residential mounds, demonstrate a
high density of public architecture, and in contrast extensive sites such as Aguas Buenas show
little evidence of monumental of even public architecture. This seems to render traditional
typologies of settlement characteristics rather unfit for Central Nicaragua. It suggests that
settlements in Central Nicaragua followed alternative material expressions of complexity,
perhaps emphasizing rock art in contrast to monumental mounds as is the case at Aguas
Buenas. Further, the hierarchical distinctions between settlements in Central Nicaragua may
not even be a structural feature of political control as it is commonly applied. Rather, it is
possible that smaller and larger settlements were not administered from primary centers like
Aguas Buenas but that both operated mutually through a shared cognitive corporate code (cf.
Blanton et al. 1996), but more research is needed to clarify this issue primarily through more
contextual descriptions of stone sculpture sites and subsequent excavation programs.
Conclusion
This paper suggests an understanding for both the spatial and social context of stone sculpture
in Central Nicaragua and beyond. During a period of as yet undetermined length, people in
24
pre-Hispanic Nicaragua transported massive monoliths from stone quarries and outcrops,
sculpted them into statues, and erected or buried them in particular landscape locations to
function in rituals surrounding leadership, the deceased and community identity. Their
aesthetics varied throughout Central and wider Nicaragua, but the cultural practice was a
powerful and comparable reality. These anthropomorphic sculptures conveyed an idea of
personhood shared throughout Central and Pacific Nicaragua. As such, these statues may have
held a shared meaning to whole communities across otherwise largely separated fields of
interaction, like those of the Mesoamerican frontier. The Nawawasito sculptures share both
uniform in appearance indicating the lack of any sharp social distinctions visible in communal
settings, suggesting a divergent but coexistent pattern of social relations; a pattern which may
be valid for wider Central Nicaragua.
25
Sources Cited
Baudez, C.
1970. Central America. Barrie & Jenkins, New York.
Bruhns, K.
1982 A view from the bridge: Intermediate area sculpture in thematic perspective. In
Baessler Archiv, Neue Folge, Band XXX: 147-180.
1992 Monumental sculpture as evidence for hierarchical societies. In Wealth and hierarchy
in the Intermediate Area, edited by F. Lange, pp. 331-356. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington DC.
Carmack, R., and S. Salgado.
2006. A World-systems perspective on the archaeology and ethnohistory of the
Mesoamerican/Lower Central American border in Ancient Mesoamerica 17(2): 219-
229.
Clemente Conte, E. Gassiot, V. Garcia Diaz
2007 Población pre-colombina en el sur de la costa Atlántica de Nicaragua en el cambio de
era. In Informes de Trabajo de la Biblioteca del Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico
Español, Madrid.
Constenla, A.
1994 Las Lenguas de la Gran Nicoya. In Vinculos 19(1-2):191-208.
Ehrenborg, J.
1996 A new stratigraphy for the Tertiary volcanic rocks of the Nicaraguan highlands. In
Bulletin Geological Society of America 108(7):830-842.
Falk, P. and L. Friberg.
1999. La estatuaria aborigen de Nicaragua. Academia Nicaragüense de la Lengua, Managua.
Fotiadis, M.
1997 Cultural identity and regional archaeological projects. In Archaeological Dialogues
4:102-113.
Fowler, W.
1989 The cultural evolution of ancient Nahua civilizations: The Pipil-Nicarao of Central
America. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Geurds, A. J. Zambrana, and L.N.K. Van Broekhoven.
2009 La historia y el patrimonio en el departamento de Chontales. Resultados de la primera
temporada del Proyecto Arqueológico Chontales. In Mi Museo 3(8): 4-7.
26
Gorin, F.
1989 Archeologie de Chontales, Nicaragua. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of
Paris, Paris.
Geurds, A.
2008 Proyecto Arqueologico Rio Mayales, Juigalpa, Chontales, Nicaragua. Manuscript on
file. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Managua.
Geurds, A. J. Zambrana, and L.N.K. Van Broekhoven
2009 La historia y el patrimonio en el departamento de Chontales. In Mi Museo y vos 3(8).
Healy, P.
1980. Archaeology of the Rivas region, Nicaragua. Wilfrid Laurier University
Press,Waterloo.
Hoopes, J. W., and G. McCafferty
1989 Out of Mexico: An Archaeological Evaluation of the Migration Legends of Greater
Nicoya. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Atlanta.
Ibarra Rojas, E.
2001 Fronteras etnicas en la conquista de Nicaragua y Nicoya. Editorial de la Universidad
de Costa Rica, San Jose.
Incer, J.
1985 Toponimias Indígenas de Nicaragua. Editorial Libro Libre, San José.
Lange, F.W.
1984 The greater Nicoya archaeological subarea. In The archaeology of Lower Central
America, edited by F. Lange and D. Stone, pp. 165-194. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Lange, F. W., P. D. Sheets, A.Martinez, and S. Abel-Vidor (eds.)
1992 The Archaeology of Pacific Nicaragua. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Lothrop, S.
1926 Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Vol. 1. Heye Foundation Museum of American
Indian Memoir 8, New York.
Magnus, R.
1974 The prehistory of the Miskito coast of Nicaragua. A study in cultural relationships.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.
27
1978 The prehistoric and modern subsistence patterns of the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua: a
comparison. In Prehistoric coastal adaptations: The economy and ecology of maritime
Middle America, edited by B. Stark and B. Voorhies, pp. 61-80. Academic Press, New
York.
McCafferty, G.
2005 Buscando los Nahua de Nicaragua, …encontrando??? In Proceedings of the Primero
Congreso Arqueológico Centro Americano de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador.
CD published by the Museo Nacional de Antropologia, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Navarro G., R.
2007 Estatuaria prehispanica de la isla de Ometepe. Managua.
Richardson, F.
1940. Non-Maya monumental sculpture of Central America. In The Maya and their
neighbors, edited by Samuel Lothrop and Harry Shapiro, pp. 395-416. Appleton, New
York.
Rigat, D.
1992 Prehistoire au Nicaragua: Region Juigalpa. 3 volumes. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
University of Paris, Paris.
Stone, D.
1977 Pre-Columbian man in Costa Rica. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Van Broekhoven, L.N.K.
2002 Conquistando lo invencible. Fuentes historicas de la Fuentes históricas de las culturas
indígenas de la region central de Nicaragua. CNWS Publications, Leiden
Wilke, S.
2008 Nicaraguan stone sculptures: Mesoamerican influence or local design? Unpublished
paper in possession of the author, Calgary.
Willey, G.
1971 South America. An Introduction to American Archaeology, vol. 2. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Zelaya-Hidalgo, G., K. Olsen-Bruhns, J. Dotta
1974 Monumental art of Chontales: A description of the sculpture style of the Department
of Chontales Nicaragua. Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 14. San Francisco
State University.