Monumental Architecture and Social Organization at the Rivas Site, Costa Rica

8/14/2019 Monumental Architecture and Social Organization at the Rivas Site, Costa Rica

1/20

Maney Publishing

Monumental Architecture and Social Organization at the Rivas Site, Costa RicaAuthor(s): Jeffrey Quilter and Aida Blanco VargasReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 203-221Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530322.

Accessed: 07/03/2013 16:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Maney Publishingis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Field

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maneyhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530322?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530322?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maney


2/20

203

Monumental Architecture and SocialOrganizationat the RivasSite, CostaRicaJeffreyQuilterDumbarton OaksWashington, D.C.Aida Blanco VargasMuseo RegionalSan Isidro, Costa RicaResultsare reportedoffieldworkconducted n 1992 and 1993 at theRivas site (SJ-148-RV), SanJoseProvince,CostaRica. The nvestigationshave revealeda largesite, over2 km in length.Habitation areas similar to those dentifiedat othersites in theregionwere ound. Cemeteryareaswith low status burialscontrastwith highstatus inter-ments at theadjacentsite ofPantedn de La Reina. In addition, a large complexofmonumentalarchitecture hat is unlikeanything ound in the areafor the timeperiod(ca. A.C. 00-1500) has been dentified. Concentrateddepositsoffancy ceramics, nclud-ing many examplesof wares mported rom theAtlantic Watershed nd Central Valleyregions,suggestthat Rivas wasa majornode in long distanceexchangesystems.Thesevariousdata suggestthat the socialsystemof theRivas site washighlyranked orstratifiedand that the site itselfwas ofgreat significancein regionaland inter-regionalculturaldynamics.

IntroductionLower Central America is commonly characterized asthe meeting place of influences stretching north from theAndes and south from Mesoamerica (Johnson 1948a;Stone 1972; cf. Creamer and Haas 1985; Sheets 1992).This view of the region as a frontier zone is nowhere more

emphasized than in Costa Rica where, in the Nicoya re-gion, at the time of Spanishcontact groups of Mesoameri-can immigrants were found in close proximity to cultureswith distinctivelySouth Americantraits (Stone 1977: 78-95). Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, southern CostaRica was part of a larger culturalworld that shared ideo-logical beliefs, subsistence practices, and technologicalskills (notably, gold metallurgy)with regions to the south.While the rainyAtlantic slopes of the Talamancan moun-tain range have receivedrelatively ittle archaeologicalscru-tiny, the Pacific watershed (FIG. ) has achieved notoriety,particularly n the form of the large stone spheres found inthe region (Stone 1977: 106) and the gold-bearing site ofPalmarSur (Lothrop 1963).

Although many stone spheres have been removed fromtheir original contexts, to grace the front lawns of privatehomes and businesses in the more prosperous regions ofthe country, their source of origin is the arearoughly southof modern Buenos Aires, especiallythe Diquis Delta that is

the lower course of a fluvial system originating in thefoothills of the Talamancan range. This river system iscomposed of the Coto Brus which flows north, and theTUrrabawhich begins its southern journey near the base ofMount Chirrip6, the highest peak in Costa Rica. Near itssource, this river is known as the Chirrip6 del Pacifico;then, flowing through one of the largest valleys in LowerCentral America it is known as the Rio de El General,before joining with the Coto Brus to course through thedelta. The natural communication route formed by thisriversystem facilitatedcontacts with people further south,in what is now Panama,as well as influencing the directionof early Spanishforays nto the region. Through most of itscourse, this river is in tropical moist forest (Tosi 1969)which today experiences a distinct dry season from aboutDecember through March. Past environments arenot wellknown, though no doubt the area has been tropical formany centuries.The Spanish reported the existence of a territorial net-work of large communities at least some of which wereorganized into dual divisions and had sociopolitical sys-tems that included ranked leaders on communal, village,and intervillage levels (Fernandez Guardia 1964; Ferrero1981). Although the chroniclers occasionally give fairlydetailed information regarding villages they encountered,

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:32:59 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

204 Architecture and Social Organization, Costa Rica/Quilter and Vargas

2500 10003500 15002000Chirripo500 2000

San050Isidro

_

/Ai2000

o25 22

10002000 2

5 0 0

5 0 0B u e n o s

A i r e s5 0 0

T e r r a b a

5 0 0 U R C I E L A G 5 0 0

R.Trraba 500

ARCHAEOLOGICRRAL500

NALMAo5 0 0

l e v a t i o n s a r e m e t e r s

R C H E O L O G I C L S I T E S

NOR M o d e r n T o w n s

Figure 1. Map of the Diquis Region, Costa Rica.

no correlations between their reports and archaeologicaldata have yet been made with confidence. A 10-yearsurveyprogramthroughout the valleyby Robert P.Drolet (1986,1988, 1992; Drolet and Siles 1988), however, successfullyidentified 15 major settlements that bore evidence of lateprehistoric occupations (FIG.1). The archaeologicalphaseto which these sites are assigned is known as Chiriqui,dating to between about A.C.1000 and Spanish contactca. 1520 (Drolet 1992: 232) in Period VI of the CostaRican prehistoric chronology developed by Snarskis(1981: 27).The RivasArchaeological Project was designed to con-

tinue Drolet's study of late prehistory in the GeneralValley.Although much of his research focused on survey,Drolet (1986, 1988, 1992) excavated a large Period VIsite, Murcidlago, located in the midsection of the valleysystem. In order to examine variabilityn site organization,subsistence, craft specialization, and other aspects of cul-ture, the Rivassite-the uppermost settlement known forthe valley system-was selected for study.The Murcidlagosite is located on a broadterracenext toa wide stretch of alluvial bottomland. Manos and metateswere abundant outside of circular,stone house rings con-centrated in five residential sectors covering about 30 ha



4/20

Journal of FieldArchaeology/Vol.2, 1995 205

G u a d a l u p e

/,E 01000

9 0 0

900

NO~RTH800.

l e v a t i o n s a r e m e t e r s

10 Towns Surveyed Area 0 1 2w Roads A ArchaeologicalSite scale km

Figure 2. Map of the Rivas area.

(Drolet 1986: 328). Rivas, however, is in a restricted zoneon narrow river terraces in the upper valley (FIG. 2).Drolet's preliminary investigations of Rivas indicated veryfew grinding stones, and the proximity of different envi-ronmental zones suggested that a wide varietyof collectedresources would have been within easy reach of the site.Furthermore, while there was evidence of circularstruc-tures at Rivas there were also indications from surfaceinspection of large arrangementsof rivercobbles in differ-ent forms. These factors as well as apparentcontempora-neity of the sites (based on similar ceramic styles) sug-gested that valuable comparative data on variability of

Chiriqui settlements could be obtained by further work atRivas.Another aspect of the Rivas site that focused our atten-tion on it was its location next to one of the richest

gold-bearing cemeteries in Costa Rica, the Pante6n de LaReina. Many ridge top cemeteries (panteones) n the regionare famous as sources of treasure, but La Reina is re-nowned as an exceptional source of wealth (MacCurdy1911: 211-212). Although this cemeterywas badlylootedat the turn of the century, field research at Rivas, at thebase of its eastern slope, would provide good evidence ofthe kind of settlement associated with such burials. The



5/20


cemetery areasimmediately associated with Murcidlago,incontrast, were not famous in local lore, and an unlootedtomb group excavated by Drolet yielded only one small,copper-gold alloy object (Drolet, personal communica-tion, 1990).Two field seasons in a multi-yearprogramof study werecarriedout at Rivas,in 1992 and 1993. All of the Rivas siteis in land activelyused for coffee and subsistence farming.Therefore, research was focused in pasture areasand otherlocations where work would not impinge on the economicactivities of the owners. Site survey was limited, withconcentration on areaexcavations.While these conditionsimpeded a full understanding of site organization, consid-erable knowledge has been gained and sufficient trust inarchaeologists and interest in their work has developedamong the land owners that surveywill be permitted in thefuture. This report presents what we have learned to dateabout the Rivas site and its implications for understandinga number of issues in culture history and processes in theregion and beyond.Small Scale Residences

Our first work, in 1992, was focused on an area in apasture and guava grove designated as Operation A. Thisarea was selected for our initial investigations becauseandesite river cobble "house rings" were visible on thesurface of the ground. These rings are the most recogniz-able evidence of architecture in the region. They usuallyconsist of one or more lines of cobbles that defined theouter boundariesof structuresor activityareas.Three rings were found in close proximity to one an-other and excavatedin OperationA (FIG. ). While all threehad suffered some damage due to farmingactivities,Struc-ture 1 was both the largest, at 11 m in diameter,and mostcarefullyconstructed, with an apron built on its westernside. All three structures showed similar artifactpatternscontaining relativelyfew within but an abundance on topof their stone rings and immediately outside. This patternis similar to that found at Murcidlago and other sites andindicates that most activities occurred outside of resi-dences. Neither postmolds nor hearths were found instructure interiors, although an isolated postmold (8 cmin diameter) was found 6 m east of Structure 1.1 Threeareas that may have been hearths were found outsidestructures,though the greatestevidence of fire use was thepresence of abundant charcoalflecksthroughout the exte-rior excavation areas. Charred plants were the only evi-

dence of organic remains found in Operation A or any-where else at the site, though searching for pollen andphytoliths continues.A distinctive feature at the Murcidlago site was theexpansion of cobble rings around houses with concentra-tions of artifacts n these areasthat appearedto indicate theloci of specific activities,such as stone tool manufacture orrepair (Drolet 1986: 328, fig. 22.5). A somewhat similarpattern was observed at Rivasthough house rings usuallymaintained a uniform width. Concentrations of cobbles,however,were found east of the houses, between them andthe terraceedge. These areas(lines of stones, FIG.3) as wellas concentrationsof smaller cobbles around large bouldersyielded dense concentrations of pottery and stone toolfragments, suggesting they were activity areasand, possi-bly,refuse dumps.Because Operation A was in a pasture, limited shoveltest-pit survey was carried out in an area of 7200 sq mnorth of our excavations. Two more house rings, a low-status cemetery, and numerous features of uncertain na-ture-cobble pavements that may be sections of houserings, for example-were located during this work. Addi-tional house rings appearto be located immediately southof Operation A, although cultivated fields prohibited usfrom determining this with certainty.Petroglyphs and Boundaries

A distinctive style of petroglyphs, commonly consistingof circles and spiralsconnected by curvilinear ines (FIG.),is found throughout the southern zone of Costa Rica(Zilberg 1986). These petroglyphs are most frequentlyencountered on large boulders or on rock outcrops nearChiriqui sites, suggesting that the art work dates to thesame period as the archaeologicalremains, although suchspatial correlations do not guarantee contemporaneity.Our discovery of a petroglyph in the house ring of Struc-ture II in Operation A (FIG.4A) gives proof that thepetroglyphs are the product of the people represented bythe Chiriqui archaeologicalculture.2The petroglyph wascarved on a river cobble measuring 44 cm in length by29 cm in maximum width. The design, on the upward-facing side of the stone, consisted of lines carved an aver-age of 0.5 cm in depth and 1.5 cm in width. Althoughthe petroglyphwas found near the end of the ring that wasdamaged due to agriculturalactivities,it was clearly part of

1. The valley and terraceson which we work run roughly SW-NE.Allreferences to directions in regard to excavations and survey in this site,however, refer to "grid" directions which were oriented to the valley:north = up valley; south = down valley; east and west are perpendicularto these axes.

2. Payson Sheets (personal communication, 1993) reports that re-search conducted in the Volcan Baru region of the Rio Chiriqui Viejo,Panama, indicated that petroglyphs in the same style were made priorto volcanic eruptions between a.c. 900 and 1000 that covered the baseof the rocks on which the petroglyphs were made. He also notes thatmany petroglyphs were found in areasbetween villages, suggesting theymay have served as boundary markers.



6/20


- N. Mag.

_] N. Grid

m e t e r s

Petroglyph

SSJ-148-RVoo oo Operation A4O~U b L Excavations

.ooO Surface Rocks

_. * Buried Rocks? DisturbedArea

Figure 3. Operation A excavations.

the house circle. It is interesting to note that its position inthe Structure II house ring is equivalent to the location ofthe apronin Structure I and to inferredentry areas n otherstructures at the site. Furthermore, the three connectedcircleson the petroglyph resemble the pattern of the threehouse rings in Operation A, as if there was a correspon-dence between the art and the local house group organiza-tion. A similarpetroglyph of about the same size was foundduring a visit to the Pacuarsite, 20 km downstream fromRivas (FIG. 4B).Two other petroglyphs, both carved on large boulders,are known at the Rivassite. One, consisting of a largespiralwith radiating lines, is found about 300 m north of Op-eration A in the back yard of a farm household (FIG. 4D).The second is about 200 m north of Operation A on aboulder in a fallow field (FIG.4C).We chose this latterarea,Operation B, as a second place to examine in 1992, to

investigate the context in which such art works existedduring the occupation of the site.We opened a 36-sq m area immediately around thepetroglyph, a series of pits around other large boulderswithout visible petroglyphs to the west, and several largepits in a concentration of small boulders and cobbles 20 msouth of the petroglyph. No additionalpetroglyphs or anysign of structures were found during this work. Artifactdensities were light to non-existent in the pits close to thepetroglyphs and boulders, although we did encounter anactivity area where stone tool repairor production appar-ently took place, about 10 m from the petroglyph. Theexcavations among the stone concentrations did yieldquantities of artifactssimilar to those found in the stoneconcentrations in Operation A. Drolet had reported thepresence of burialsin the coffee field immediatelynorth ofthe petroglyph but we failed to relocate them.



7/20


0 cm 20 0 cm 20

C 0 cm 100D 0 cm20

Figure 4. Petroglyphs discussed in the text.

The available evidence for Operation B provides somesuggestions regardingboth the role of petroglyphsand siteorganization. Our recovery of ceramic sherds and toolfragments and the close proximity of the activityareatendto suggest that this petroglyph was not in sanctifiedspace,since such areas are usually kept clean, although the lowdensity of materials immediately in the vicinity suggeststhat the neighborhood of the petroglyph was one of rela-tively low levels of activity.Furthermore, the Operation Apetroglyph was in a location which indicates at least prox-imity to common, everydayactivities.All of these data suggest that the petroglyphs at theRivas site were as much signs as they were symbols, servingto demarcatedistinct areasand concepts within the every-day lives of the site's inhabitants.While the exact symbolicmeaning of the petroglyphs is elusive, the Operation Acarvingwas placed at a boundary in the form of the houseringwhile the Operation B petroglyphwas located close toa cemetery and somewhat apart from areas of intenseactivity.The carvings themselves resemble maps, thoughwhether a naturalor cosmic landscape is depicted remainsunknown. It is also interesting to note that despite inten-sive investigations of the monumental sector of the site, nopetroglyphs have been found there. The activities andbeliefs associated with rock carving therefore may notnecessarilyhave been linked to high status. Zilberg (1986:344) has suggested that petroglyphs are associated withcemeteries while Sheets (see note 2) has suggested thatthey were located between villages. The Rivas data suggest

that petroglyphs may have served a number of differentuses. If this art style was in use for a long period of time itsrole mayhave changed through time or variedfrom regionto region.Cemeteries

While we were unable to locate the burialsnear Opera-tion B, we were alerted to the presence of a cemetery areafarthernorth, in what came to be designated as OperationC. We were anxious to excavate in such an area for anumber of reasons. First, few collections of mortuarydatahad been scientificallyrecovered from southern Costa Rica(cf. Haberland 1959, 1976, 1984). Second, the presenceof cemetery areaswithin the Rivassite was intriguing giventhe proximity of the known, elaborate, gold bearing buri-als on the Pante6n de La Reina.

Although the Pante6n de La Reina burials had beenlooted, cursory inspection of the area and local lore indi-cated several standard features of these graves. The eliteburied on the ridge top were placed in pits commonlycovered with pavements of saucer-sizedflat cobbles, mak-ing them easy to identify by looters. In addition, pillar-shaped andesite cobbles, ranging from slightly less than1 m to almost 2 m in height, were arranged either di-rectly on top of graves or as perimeter markersaroundgroups of burials. The exact arrangement of groups ofburials is uncertain, but interviews with local looters byBlanco indicate that some patterning did exist, possiblyincluding three or more distinct cemetery areas on the



8/20


Pante6nde La Reina.The elite dead wereentombedwithgravegoods that includedgold ornamentsandfancypot-tery as the chief preservedremains. Some burialswereextremely ich n gold,otherscontained ery ittlegoldbuthadmany ancyceramics,whileothershadboth.The burialsof OperationC sharedsome but not all ofthe features f the elite burials.Cobblepavements overedindividual raves,but no pillarswereused.A line of rockson the NWedgeof thecemeterymayhaveserved o definea boundary or the area,althoughthis line could only befollowedfora distanceof 3 m. Somepavements ppearedto coverwiderareas hanthenarrow,inglegravesound nour main areaof excavationsFIG.). We do not knowifthis is due to disturbanceby farmingactivitiesor if itrepresents different orm of burial.Graveoutlineswereverydifficult o identifyandorganicmaterialswerealmostcompletelyabsentsaveforthe occa-sional soil stain in the areawhere the body had beenlocated. Pottery and occasionalstone artifactswere theprimarymaterialsound. Most cobblepavements overedareasof about 150 cm x 70 cm, whilesomewereslightlysmaller.Potteryvesselswerecommonlystackedor nestedandwereoftenlocated nwhatappearedo be thefoot andhead ends of graves.It was also common to find burialgoods at severaldifferent evels in a grave.Whether hisrepresentsmore thanone burialwithina grave haftorthepracticeof placingofferingsat different evelswithinthesameburial pisodecannot be determined tpresent.The grave goods mostly consisted of jarsand tripodbowls. Miniature esselsand singleexamplesof a whistleand a rattlewere also recovered,as were two stone axes.The jarswereusuallyplainwareswhilethe majority f theotherceramicswerefancywares,usuallyncludingpaintingorpolishedslips(CeibaRojoCafe,PapayalGrabado,Bue-nosAiresPolicromado,TurucacaBlancoSobreRojo,San-gria).These goods indicate hat the people buried n thiscemeteryhadaccess o fancypotterybut not to the finestwaresavailable r to gold. Thisstands n marked ontrastto thekindsof artifactseported o havebeenfound in thePante6nde LaReinaand, ndeed, n otherareasof thesite,aswillbe discussedbelow.

Although the cemetery areas near Operations A and Bhave not been investigated in detail, they appearto exhibitthe same general patterns found in Operation C. Droletexcavated a small number of artifacts from the cemeterynear Operation B and the inventory of artifactsrecoveredis generally similar to those found in Operation C. Thus,there are at least three separatecemetery areas within theRivas site. If the other cemeteries approximatethe 0.64 hasize calculated for the Operation C cemetery, they likelyheld a considerable number of burials.Separatecemeteries

suggest separatesocialunits. All of the Rivas cemeteries aredistinct from those on the Pante6n, and all appearto becontemporary.This suggests that there were at least threenon-elite social groups in the Rivas community that didnot have access to gold and other high-status goods. Theevidence that another, distinct, group lived at Rivas andwas buried on the Pante6n de La Reina is to be found inthe monumental architecture at the site.Monumental Architecture

We encountered monumental architecture at Rivasabout half-way through our 1992 field season. Although"monumental architecture"may bring to mind pyramidsand megaliths, the term as used here refers to humanconstructions that require significantly greater energy in-vestments to build than quotidian structures.Monumentalarchitecture entails the labors of more than the minimalsocial unit to build, takes up significantlymore space thanother constructions, and commonly is elaborated by fea-tures, such as decorations, that distinguish it from non-monumental works. The constructions at Rivasfulfillthesecriteriaand compare favorablyto those structures cited asmonumental by Renfrew (1973, 1974) for NeolithicWessex and Bronze Age Malta.It is likely that sections of the Rivasmonumental struc-tures were identified by Drolet when he did his initialworkat the site, but dense vegetation cover at the time of hiswork inhibited him from identifying the magnitude of hisfind. The monumentality of these structures s expressedinthree ways. First, although some sections of architectureare constructed of stones similar in size to those used inareas such as Operation A, many are much larger, someweighing more than a ton. Rivercobbles found in Opera-tion A average between 30 and 40 cm in length whilethose in the monumental sector arefrequentlymore than ameter in length. Second, the size of structures is muchgreater in the monumental area. The average diameter ofhouse rings in Operation A and at most Chiriqui sites isabout 10 m whereas the typical ring in the monumentalsector at Rivasis 20 m in diameter.Third, monumentalityis expressed by a continuous flow of architecture,so thatone ring or line of stones intersects with another. Thiscreates an areaof continuous artificeimparting a dramaticsense of a densely structuredspace. This sense of artificial-ity is heightened by the incorporation of naturalfeatures,such as linear mounds of earth (ballenas) produced byancient erosional processes, into the features of the builtenvironment.

We spent most of our availabletime in 1992 mappingand conducting selected excavations in an area of themonumental sector that we designated as Operation D.



9/20


' o,0 ON . M ag.

00 0...

N.d o 0000T00 0

S~0 Une fRocks

oT7% oT

006

S-N.Mag. T

N.-0r0O

metersd 2N ", G 0SJ 148 RVCS T3OperationC T5 0 T2 T

C- excavations "0 .0I lootedareas0 (

-00

Figure 5. Operation C excavations.

This work identified a variety of features. They includecircularstructures (FIG. : I; FIG.7), an artificialcauseway(FIGS., 8), a cobble drain between two circularstructures,a retaining wall that created different horizontal planes inthe area, a large mound of stones, and a quadrangularstructure (FIG.7: III). We also identified a large space(approximately 50 x 70 m) that appearsto be modified

and built on natural terraces formed into a plaza-likearea(FIG. 7: IV).The forms of many structurescommonly diverge from acircle to take on oval or even non-symmetricalshapes. Inaddition, many appearnot to be completely closed, withgaps in the lines of stones on some sides while others havepatio-like extensions on them. We placed trenches cutting



10/20


SPit N 40-411W41

C a u s e w a y

oQ

oCobble Drain

SJ -148 - RV N. Mag.Operation D

E] excavations

-

N. Grid .ooy Pi rocks 0O 3x fences

Buried Structure Wall?B u r i e d S t r u c t u r e W a l l

Figure 6. Operation D excavations. The illustration shows a relativelysmall section of the monu-mental sector, Complex I, and the causeway.

across the walls of these and other architecturalforms inOperation D and, as in OperationA, found dense accumu-lations of artifacts outside walls but not inside. Theseartifacts consisted of both ceramic sherds and stone toolfragments.

Although analyses are preliminary and ongoing thereappear to be distinct differences between the materialsfound in Operations D and A. The former has a higher

proportion of fancy, polychrome pottery; many largeopen-mouthed bowls, some as much as a meter in diame-ter; and a higher proportion of stone tools than the latter.Only 60 linear m separate Operation A from the firstidentifiable features in the monumental sector. Neverthe-less, the areasappearto be distinct;perhapssocial bounda-ries defined the end of one area and beginning of another,for, at present, there is no observable architecturalpattern



11/20


..V:W:WR:-- -:--- .

.....................................................%,*.*.*.,.*.*.*.................................................- ............. .. ... ...... ........... ....... . .....................

.... . . . ... ":::::::::::::iiiii?... ?..?.?...........,???.????,.,.??? ....?

... .. .... .. ..

..,.... .. .. ..

: i i f ~ ~ ~ : : : : : : ~ ~ ~ f ~ i i i i i i i i i ii j i i i i j ii ~ i ~ i i j i i i ~ i i i ~~ i i i i l i i iijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .? .. .. . ..? . o. .? ..? . ..-? . ....

."........................... . . . .. . . . .."""'i" "........ . . . . . . . ..iit i ~ciii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~iBI ti~iiii iiiitiiiiiiiitiNfIi~irir

. . . . . i i~riiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iiizitll~f~I~~~~i15 ::::::::::::::: e r~e:::tI:I~iiisiiii iiiciri~iiililiiiiiiiiiiiiiiien[:g t

....-'''. . . . .....W alls..... .... ..

?.. .?.???? . . . . . . . . W.~ii'::'~Co.fee Fields.

. ....... .... .... h... (l....et....) ... ....&. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .ri.d(r..i.h..). . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .I .e.. . .s._

. . . .

Figure 7. Schematic map of the D-E monumental architecture.D is lower area, E upper.Complexes in D are marked with roman numerals.

that demarcates distinct boundaries save for an apparentgap in architecturalremains.Near the end of our first field season we encounteredclear evidence of stratifieddeposits in some of our excava-tion pits. These consisted of an upper 40 cm deposit ofdark brown soil, as had been found in Operation A,followed by an orange-red layer containing virtually noartifacts.This second layer varied in depth but was com-monly about 40 cm in thickness. Below this layer, how-ever, was another darklevel, 20-40 cm in thickness, con-taining refuse similarto the uppermost level.

Intrigued by the evidence of stratigraphyat Rivas, wedecided to devote our entire 1993 field season to excava-tions in the monumental sector. North of Operation D we

had found evidence for monumental architecture in acoffee field, but we were prevented from working theredue to the value of the field to the land owners. Thearchitecture continues in uncultivated land north of thefield so we worked there, designated as Operation E. Anareaof 40 x 100 m was completely clearedof vegetation,including removal of the root layer.All partiallyexposedwalls in this areawere cleared to establish the architecturalpattern;less intensive work was carriedout on architecturein an additional area of 5000 sq m. Excavation pits andtrencheswere placed throughout these areasand soils weresifted through 1/4"-mesh ardwarecloth.The same pattern of great amounts of artifacts mmedi-ately outside of structures with few materials inside oc-



12/20


Figure 8. The causeway connecting Complexes I and II. Looking east, to Complex I.



13/20


14/20


rior face of the inner wall or at the same level beneath theouter wall. All of the stratigraphicevidence suggests thatthe features were made at the time of the construction oruse of the (earlier) interior. They consisted of entire ornearly complete pottery vessels that had either been delib-eratelysmashed or had broken afterdeposition. We believethat many more such vessels were located outside the innerwall but had not been recorded as features during our firstwork in the area. The ceramics are predominantly typesfrom the Atlantic Watershed or Central Valley regions ofCosta Rica. Numerous other sherds from these areashadbeen previously noted during clearing of the walls, beforethe features were uncovered. In addition, two fragmentsofstone statues that appearto be in Atlantic slope styles werealso found in this area of Operation E. There was also anapparently much higher percentage of elaborately deco-rated Chiriqui pottery, including many fragments of ce-ramic figurines of seated women.The pattern of light and dark stratigraphy noted inOperation D was observed again in Operation E. Thanksto the carefulstudy of Larry Conyers, project geologist, wewere able to develop a theory as to the nature and sig-nificance of these deposits. The central red-orange layer,containing virtuallyno artifacts,consists of weathered an-desite, reduced to soil, with occasional small inclusions of

chunksof decomposedandesite hat were not completelydisintegrated.Localpeoplereferto thismaterial,particu-larlythe decomposedmaterialhat still retains ts originalshape,aspiedramuerta deadrock).The fact thatvariousareasof the monumental ectorcontaina layerof thissoilsandwichedbetween two artifact-bearingayers ndicatesthat the middle layerwas deliberatelyplaced there byhumanagency,and we havedesignated his layeras the"piedramuerta ill" PMF).We noticedin OperationD that the PMF occurred nsome areas but not others. In 1993 we were able todetermine hat the PMF was found only withinthe ovalareadefinedbythe arcof four ines of stonesandtheinner(northern) ineof stones,discussedabove. Otherarchitec-turalunits containedonly dark soils. The PMF layerinOperationD also was found only in areaswith distinctboundaries,nparticular, ithinstone arcson thenorthernside of the causeway(FIG.).The identification f PMF depositsis significant or anumber of reasons. First, it indicates an even greateramountof laborexpenditureor the monumental ectorofthe Rivassite, an amount that was alreadyconsiderablegiventhe numberof rocksandcobblesmoved to formthestructures.As in the caseof the two walls n OperationE,PMFdeposits ndicate hat therewasa significant mount

Figure 10. Detail of excavations in Operation E. The rocks shown as stippled were at least partly exposedbefore excavation. Rocks shown as clear were mostly buried. Circled numbers indicate the locations offeatures.

l j dm0

N 0 2 E l 4 I - Yr ~~SO=,O

o 1 D2 0 o

|1 p

metersr

~ ~meters:??1



15/20


of reorganization of space in the monumental sector afterinitial constructions. The organicallyand artifactuallyrichdeposits above and below the PMF are the results ofhuman actions that built up refuse; once, before the PMFwas laid down, and then again after it was deposited.Because some areas contain layersof PMF but not oth-ers,we believe that its presence may help to indicate roofedand non-roofed areas at the site. A consistent difficultyinexcavatingand reconstructing monumental architecture nCosta Ricais the determination of which areaswere roofedand which were not. Often, archaeologists are forced tospeculate on such patterning, since postmolds are rarelyencountered. We think it highly likely,however, that PMFwas in areas that were not roofed. The visual effect oforange-red soil would have been heightened in open areaswhere the bright color would have stood in marked con-trast to the blacker soils or grassoutside of PMF areas. Inaddition, the low nutrient values of PMF likely discour-aged the growth of vegetation, making it more useful inopen areas than in closed ones where the reduction ofsunlight would naturallyreduce plant growth. Especially nthe case of the oval structure in Operation E, the amountof roofed area to be covered was considerable. Thoughprobably not beyond the engineering abilities of the site'sinhabitants, such a construction should have left traces ofvery large or numerous roof support posts; yet none werefound, despite careful efforts on our part to excavate inareas where they were most likely to have been placed.Takentogether, these considerations have led us to suggestthat PMF areas were not covered by roofs.The area of concentrated architecturein Operation E isbounded by a row of large boulders trending N-s. Excava-tion units were placed to the west of this row, where therewas no evidence of large scale constructions. One unit, onthe southern end of our cleared area,however, revealed aseries of stone alignments of considerable importance for

understanding activities in the rest of the monumentalarea. This was a large pit in which we uncovered whatappearsto have been a stone pathway comprised of threelines of stones running roughly SE-NW.This likely was apath placed in the area because it is and was one of thelowest points in this sector of the site, receiving largeamounts of run-off during rains. The path runs directlyunder a boulder 2 m in length and 1 m wide. The factthat this boulder is directlyon top of the path suggests thatit was deliberatelymoved there. There is little to suggestthat an earthquake could have placed the boulder in itspresent location because the area is generally devoid oflarge stones. The large size of this boulder is furthertestament to the tremendous efforts devoted to construct-ing the monumental sector of the site and suggests thatmany such boulders which appearto be in "natural" oca-tions may have been moved there by human agency.Dates

A total of 12 radiocarbonassayshave been conducted onmaterials retrieved at the Rivas site (TABLE). All sampleswere carbonizedvegetation. Because distinct hearthswererarelyfound at the site, most samples were from areas ofcharcoal concentrations. Taking the assaysas a group andignoring two dates that differradically rom the rest (M5-92 and M4-93) the double standarddeviations of the datessuggest occupation at Rivas site spanned the uncorrectedradiocarbon years from about a.c. 900 to 1400. Such aspan conforms to the general assessmentsof the length ofChiriqui occupation in Diquis. Taking a more adventure-some view by considering the dates themselvesand a singlestandard deviation would place the occupation of Rivasbetween about A.C.1050 and 1250, which would date tothe middle of the Chiriquiphase.Three dates deserve specialmention becausethe sampleswere carefully retrieved in order to examine the PMF

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates for the Rivas site.Level C14 yearsLab No. SampleNo. Operation Unit (in cm.) (b.p.)

Beta-54745 M4-92 A S44/E14 42-53 900 ? 80Beta-54746 M5-92 A S64-65/E18-19 30-35 3380 ? 60Beta-54747 M6-92 A S40-41/E30.5-31.5 30-40 660 ? 70Beta-54748 M7-92 C Burial 5 125 710 ? 70Beta-54742 M1-92 D N34-35/W25-26 40-50 970 ? 60Beta-54743 M2-92 D N50-51/E6-7 65-75 870 ? 80Beta-54744 M3-92 D N38-39/W31-32 100-110 920 ? 110Beta-65944 M2-93 E S06-07/E36-37 40-50 980 ? 70Beta-65943 M1-93 E N00/E17 40-50 820 ? 50Beta-65947 M5-93 E N02/E14 10-24 690 + 70Beta-65946 M4-93 E N02/E14 24-51 1250 ? 70Beta-65945 M3-93 E N02/E14 51-53 900 ? 110



16/20


related stratigraphy n Operation E. A single 1 x 1 m pit,N02/E14 (FIG. o10),was excavated primarily to recovercharcoal that was present in the form of small fragmentsthroughout the deposits. Carbon was taken only in theupper black zone immediately above the PMF layer (M5-93), in the upper section of the PMF zone (M4-93), andin the upper centimeters of the lower black zone (M3-93).This was done in the hope of chronicling the timing of thefill and construction sequence at the site. While the sam-ples from the upper and lower layers chronologically con-form to their stratigraphic sequence, the PMF date doesnot. Given that the PMF was extracted from an arearelativelydistant from Operation E it is quite possible thatnaturallyor culturallycarbonized materialswere partof thefill material,producing the anomalous date.

Examining the dates for the black layers above andbelow the PMF does not readily clarify the timing ofconstruction phases in Operation E. Considering the dou-ble standarddeviations, it is possible that the constructionand fill sequence could have taken place during a veryshort time span, but it is also possible that a century ormore transpiredbetween one construction phase and theother. It may be significant, however, that six of the 10acceptable dates all fall within the 900s in radiocarbonyearsand all but one of these is associated with monumen-tal architecture.This at least suggests that the primarytimeduring which the monumental sector was in use was the11th century.Conclusions

Given our original interest in studying variability inChiriqui settlements, we have found marked contrasts be-tween Murcidlago and Rivas, primarily n the presence ofmonumental architecture at the latter site. While the clus-ter of circular houses of Operation A is very similar inpattern to dwelling groups at Murcidlago, the monumen-tal architecture is unprecedented for the region. Themonumental area of Rivas has counterpartsat sites in theCentral Valley and Atlantic Slope regions of Costa Rica(Ferrero 1981; Snarskis 1992). Furthermore, before ourinvestigations, not a single sherd from these other regionshad been reported for the Southern Zone. Our researchhas uncovered many examples, including several whole ornearly complete vessels, with only a fraction of our120,000 sherds analyzed to date. We have also recoveredsherds from Nw Costa Rica (Nicoya-Guanacaste) and asingle example of what appearsto be a ceramic fragmentfrom central Panama, but the preponderance of exoticpottery appears to be from areas east and NE of Rivas,across the Talamancanrange.The simplest explanation for the monumental structures

at Rivas is that the site served as an important node inlong-distance exchange networks. As the highest-knownlarge site in the drainage system, Rivas could have capital-ized on its location, controlling communications across amajor pass through the mountains. Local tradition statesthat three such passeswere significantin the lives of nativeinhabitants of the southern Pacific region. The north-ernmost was at Rivas,a second was located at the site of themodern town of Buenos Aires, and a third was near thePanamanian border. Furthermore, the site of Ta'Lari(Gonzalez C. and Gonzalez V. 1992: 62-63) is located atroughly the same elevation as Rivas,across the mountains,on the Atlantic side of the Talamancanrange, and perhapsthe two-or a site similar to Ta'Lari-were "sister" sitesengaged in an exchange system.The Atlantic and CentralValley regions contain numer-ous large complexes resembling the monumental sector atRivas. The social and cultural significance of the times ofconstruction and use of these sites, variations in architec-turalstyles, and differencesin materialculture remain to befully examined. For many of these sites, only the centralcore of monumental constructions is well documented,although evidence for extensive areas of constructionaround them and, in some cases, paved roads stretchingseveral kilometers from the central areas, are known. Ingeneral, these sites consistently yield radiocarbon datesthat conform to the time of monumental construction atRivas, between the 10th and 13th centuries (see Snarskis1992: 151-160).

Despite the presence of many ceramics from outside theregion, the majorityof the ceramic inventory at the site isclearly Chiriqui. Chiriqui ceramics are thus found withinthe context of architecture that has not been reported forthe region previously.Given the great amount of work stillto be done in the region, it is possible that Rivasis not asunique as it seems, and monumental constructions resem-bling those found on the other side of the mountains maybe more common than is currentlyperceived. If it is not,however, then Rivas represents a unique melding of thecultural traditions of two regions at a key point in theexchange and communication routes between them.The question of culture area is further complicated bysignificant variation within the Diquis region itself. Thestone balls,mentioned above as one of the hallmarksof theregion, are found predominantly in the section of thevalley system from Buenos Aires to the delta (Drolet 1992:232), while the use of natural "pillars" n cemetery areasappearsto be more common in the region upstream fromBuenos Aires. Furthermore, although the Chiriquiceram-ics found at Rivasappearto be generallythe same as thosefound at contemporaneous sites throughout the valley,not



17/20


a single sherd of Tarag6 Biscuit Ware has been recoveredfrom Rivas. This finely made pottery is more frequentlyencountered in the Buenos Aires-Palmarregion. Ferrero(personal communication, 1992) reported observing asmall sample of this pottery on the Pante6n de La Reina,next to a looted burial,but we have yet to identify a singlesherd from our excavationsat Rivas.

Given the very long distances some of the exotic goodsat Rivastraveled to reach the site, it seems odd that there issuch scant evidence for the presence of one of the region'smost prestigious ceramics, Tarag6 Biscuit Ware, suggest-ing that temporal factors may be the most likely explana-tion. Alternatively,the patterning may indicate rather dis-tinct and significantcultural and politicalprocesses at workwhich will be elucidated in future research.The distinctive"CentralValley-AtlanticWatershed"architecture,in com-bination with the predominance of Chiriqui artifactstylescertainly offers the opportunity to discern rather specificculture processes at work.The monumental sector at Rivas also raises questionsregardingthe nature of social organization at the site. Theevidence suggests that there were at least two differentsocial groups living very different lives in close proximityto each other. While we still need to conduct a thoroughsurvey of the site area, the available radiocarbon datessuggest contemporaneity of monumental structuresand ofless imposing ones.

Operations D and E contain abundant evidence fordomestic activities. Charcoal-blackened sherds have beenrecovered as well as ceramics that almost certainly wereused for domestic activities, and lithic debris indicatescutting and scraping were carried out in monumentalsectors. In fact, a higher incidence of stone tool fragmentsin monumental sectors of the site suggests that the inhabi-tants of such large structures had greater access to goodsand servicesnecessaryto sustainlife, or makeit easier,thanthose outside of them. It thus appearsthat the monumen-tal sector was an area in which people carried out dailyactivities. The great amounts of fancy ceramics, such aspolychrome wares, even discounting the exotic materials,as well as the presence of fragments of very large openmouth bowls, suggest that the status and activities of theinhabitants of Operations D and E were distinct fromthose who lived nearby, however. Additional significantpatterns include the location of cemeteries near less im-pressive structures, the absence of cemeteries in similarspatial patterning with respect to the monumental archi-tecture, and the absence of complete metates throughoutthe site.

But more occurred in the monumental sectors thansimple dailylife. A great amount of effort was expended to

elaborate areas with PMF fill and with large boulder con-structions, including unroofed areas. Fragments of large,open-mouthed bowls, as much as a meter in diameter,suggest the preparationand consumption of food or drinkfor largenumbers of people. The largeoval areaof PMF fillin Operation E suggests a public stage for the performanceof dances or ritualsthat could have included many dozensof people as participants and perhaps even more as ob-servers. The deposition of complete or near-complete ex-otic pottery vessels outside of this areaindicates conspicu-ous consumption of not only the vessels themselves butalso, very likely,their contents.Neither our extensive excavations nor the continuouslabors of the farm owners have discovered any cemeteriesresembling Operation C near the monumental sector ofthe site. It thus seems more than likely that the burials onthe Pante6n de La Reinaare the remainsof the occupantsof the monumental architecture, especially as there arereports of gravesnot only on the top of the Pante6n butalso along its slopes near the monumental sector. Reportsof artifacts found next to looted graves on the Pante6nsuggest contemporaneitywith the Rivasoccupation whileall of the Rivasradiocarbondates support contemporaneityfor monumental architectureand other areas of the site, asdiscussed above. As also mentioned above there arereportsof a high degree of variabilityn the burials n the ridge topcemetery, with differences in the nature and quantities ofgrave goods in individual interments. At the same time,there was an apparentsegregation of groups of burials onthe ridge top, possibly corresponding to different socialunits.

Taken together, the available evidence suggests that ahypothetical outline of the sociopolitical structure of theRivascommunity can be sketched. There were two majordivisions represented by those buried on the Pante6n andthose buried at the Rivas site. Among those on Pante6nthere were, possibly, three social divisions within whichaccess to prestige goods varied. For those buried at Rivas,we can currently detect at least three social units repre-sented by the cemeteriesreported for OperationsA, B, andC. At present, we cannot determine notable differencesbetween the kinds of burialgoods found for each cemeteryunit. Within the Operation C cemetery, however, therewere cleardifferences in the amounts of artifactsper gravealthough little variation in the nature of observable gravegoods.While there is some heterogeneity within each of thetwo major classes of mortuary data, there are greaterdifferences between them. If the Pante6n burials are theremains of the inhabitants of the monumental sector, thenthere are additional marked contrasts between the two



18/20


groups. The inhabitantsof the monumental sector lived inbigger and more elaboratelyconstructed houses that wereintegrated into a landscape that included areasfor publicdisplayand ceremonies. They very likely did not constructthis area themselves but were able to convince or coerceother people, possibly the inhabitants of other sectors ofthe site, to transport PMF fill and move large boulders.The inhabitants of the monumental sector also used anddisposed of great amounts of elaborate, exotic potterywhile the other residents of Rivas had no access to suchceramics,not even as mortuary goods.All of this information suggests that the nature of thesociopolitical system of Rivas was highly hierarchical.Whether the inhabitants of the monumental sector held amonopoly of power and controlled the labor and productsof the residentsof the non-monumental sector cannot fullybe determined at present. The marked contrast in theavailable data, however, suggests a stratified society inwhich the members of the lower-rankingsocial unit couldnot easilyenter the ranks of the upper one. The gradationsof wealth in graveswithin each major unit suggests, how-ever, that a relatively egalitarian, kin-based social systemwas operative in lower-order social groups. Such groupswere apparentlydistinguished, in part, by separate ceme-tery areas at Rivas, and they likely were roughly sociallyequivalent. Whether a similar organization existed withinthe elite sector, buried on the Pante6n, or if there was ascalarrankingof them, remains to be investigated in futurework.This attempt at reconstructing sociopolitical organiza-tion is an initial formulation in an ongoing researchpro-gram. If it only approximates the final conclusions of ourresearchit is still of interest given the marked contrasts itpresents with the Murcidlagodata, where hierarchywithinthe community is not in evidence. The other markeddifference between the two sites is that Murcielagoabounds in manos and metates while there are very few atRivas. In fact, less than a half-dozen metates have beenfound at Rivas.All show signs of damage and almost alwaysare found incorporated into walls as part of the construc-tion. While it is possible that the Rivasoccupants processedmaize in metates made of wood or away from dwellings,these alternatives seem unlikely. Reconnaissance of thestream banks has not revealed bedrock mortars, and theriver is not an easy walk from many areas on the third andfourth terraces. The possibility of metates made of perish-able materials also seems unlikely because very few stonemanos have been found, in addition to the absence ofmetates. Drolet (1992) has suggested village specializationin craftproduction. It may also be that there were commu-nities specializing in food production and that Rivas was a

recipientof such food. How the exchange system operateddemands further study.While it could be that particularcultural practices re-quired totally different maize-preparation techniques atRivas than at Murcidlagoand other sites, it is also possiblethat the inhabitants engaged in little maize preparationatall. It is a traditionalpracticeamong the native inhabitantsof the region that religious specialistsreceivedfood as giftsfor divination and other services. The use of gold artifactsalso was reserved for religious specialists.Thus, the occu-pants of the monumental sector of Rivas may have heldhigh rank because of their expertise in religious activity.Available ethnohistoric and ethnographic documents(Johnson 1948b) indicate that the Cabecar-Bribri,nowresiding on the Atlantic slopes of the Talamancanrange,were organized in a complex system of ranked orders ofreligious specialists complemented by another group ofnon-elite commoners. The dual division of elite and non-elite at Rivasmay reflect an ancient variantof this system.Control of sacred knowledge by members of the Rivascommunity would have been part of a complex culturalweb that also included control and manipulation of long-distance exchange systems. Such systems included the im-portation of exotic pottery and their contents that wereconspicuously consumed, with the containers perhaps be-ing ceremonially destroyed as were stone statues. Suchactivitiesmay have taken place within the context of large-scale feasting and public ceremonies as evidenced by thelarge pottery bowl fragments from Operations D and Eand the ceremonial spaces in these areas. Long distanceexchange may have included not only goods but alsoesoteric knowledge from farawaylands (Helms 1979). Allof these activities were carried out in a spectacularsettingthat likely drew upon concepts of a symbolically charged,sacredlandscape,at the junction of rivers, n the shadow ofthe tallest mountains, in the upper reaches of the valley,near the ancestorson the knife ridge of the Pante6n de LaReina, and in the mountains beyond.Acknowledgments

The 1992 phase of the Rivas project was supportedthrough a Fulbright Senior ResearchFellowship to Quilterand grants from the H. John Heinz III CharitableTrust,Continental Coffee Products (a wholly owned subsidiaryof Quaker Oats), and Ripon College. The 1993 researchwas supported by grants from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities, Archaeology Program; the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; Conti-nental Coffee; and Ripon College. Research was madepossible by a permit granted by the Comisi6n Ar-queol6gica Nacional de Costa Rica and by the warm



19/20

220 Architecture nd SocialOrganization,CostaRica/Quilter and Vargas

support offered by their personnel as well as numerousCosta Rican and North American colleagues. Specialthanks is also given to the Associated Colleges of theMidwest Latin American Program; the FlotographTMCompany; and Larry Conyers, Project Geologist, all ofwhom rendered technical assistance and more.

Jeffrey Quilter receivedhis Ph.D. from the UniversityofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. He has conducted severalprojects n Latin America with a particular interest inthe nature of non-state complexsocieties.He is SeriesEdi-tor of Case Studies in Archaeology. Mailing address:Pre-Columbian Studies,Dumbarton Oaks,1703 32nd Street,Washington,D. C.Aida Blanco Vargasreceivedher Licenciatura degree

from the Universityof Costa Rica and hasparticipatedin numerousarchaeologicalprojects n Central America.Her special interest is archaeobotanyn tropicalAmerica.Sheis Director of the MuseoRegional Del Sur andteachesat the Universidad Nacional, Pirez Zeleddn.Mail-ing address:MuseoRegional del Sur, SedeRegi6nBrunca, Universidad Nacional, Apdo. 34-8000 SanIsidro de El General, Costa Rica.

Creamer, Winifred, and Jonathan Haas1985 "Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central America,"AmericanAntiquity50: 738-754.Drolet, Robert P.1986 "Social Grouping, Domestic Centers, and Residential Ac-tivities within a Late Phase Polity Network: Diquis Valley,Southeastern Costa Rica," Prehistoric Settlement Patternsin Costa Rica. Journal of the StewardAnthropological

Society14 (1-2) (1982-1983). Urbana: University of Illi-nois, 325-338.1988 "The Emergence and Intensification of Complex Societiesin Pacific Southern Costa Rica," in Frederick W. Lange,ed., CostaRican Art and Archaeology, ssaysn HonorofFrederick R. Mayer. Boulder: University of ColoradoPress, 163-188.1992 "The House and the Territory: The Organizational Struc-ture for Chiefdom Art in the Diquis Subregion of Greater

Chiriqui," in Frederick W. Lange, ed., Wealthand Hierar-chy n the Intermediate Area. Washington, D.C.: Dumbar-ton Oaks, 207-241.

Drolet, Robert P., and Jackeline Siles1988 ProyectoArqeuoldgico irraba-CotoBrus.SanJose, CostaRica: National University of Costa Rica Press.Fernindez Guardia, Ricardo1964 CartasdeRelaci6nsobrea Conquistade CostaRica. SanJose, Costa Rica: Academia de Geografia e Historia deCosta Rica.

Ferrero, Luis A.1981 "Ethnohistory and Ethnography in the Central High-lands-Atlantic Watershed and Diquis," in Elizabeth Ben-son, ed., BetweenContinents/Betweeneas:PrecolumbianArt of Costa Rica. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,93-103.

Gonzalez Chaves, Alfredo, and Fernando Gonzalez Vasquez1992 PobladosAmerindios De Costa Rica, AntecedentesAr-queoldgicosE Histiricos. San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial DeLa Universidad De Costa Rica.

Haberland, Wolfgang1959 ArchiologischeUntersuchungenn Siidost-Costa ica. ActaHumboldtiana 1. Wiesbaden, West Germany.1976 "Gran Chiriqui," Vinculos 2(1): 115-121. San Jose,Costa Rica.1984 "The Valle de General and Panamanian Chiriqui: Tempo-ral and Regional Differences," in Esther Skirboll andWinifred Creamer, eds., Inter-Regional Ties in CostaRican Prehistory, AR InternationalSeries226, Oxford:B.A.R., 261-276.

Helms, Mary1979 Ancient Panama, Chiefs n Search f Power.Austin:Uni-versity of Texas Press.

Johnson, Frederick1948a "Central American Cultures: An Introduction," in J. H.Steward,ed., Handbookof SouthAmericanIndians,Vol-ume 4. The Circum-Caribbean Tribes.Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 43-68.1948b "The Caribbean Lowland Tribes, the Talamanca Divi-

sion," in J. H. Steward, ed., Handbook of South AmericanIndians,Volume4. TheCircum-Caribbean ribes.Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 231-251.

Lothrop, Samuel K.1963 Archaeologyf theDiquisDelta, CostaRica. Papersof thePeabodyMuseumofArchaeologynd Ethnology 1. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University.

MacCurdy, George G.1911 A Studyof ChiriquianAntiquities.ConnecticutAcademyofArts and Sciences,Memoir 3. New Haven: Yale Univer-sity Press.

Renfrew, Colin1973 "Monuments, mobilisation, and social organization inneolithic Wessex," in C. Renfrew, ed., TheExplanation ofCulture Change. London: Duckworth, 539-558.

1974 BeforeCivilization. New York:Alfred A. Knopf.Sheets, Payson D.1992 "The Pervasive Perjorative in Intermediate Area Studies,"in Frederick W. Lange, ed., Wealthand Hierarchy in theIntermediate Area. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks,15-41.Snarskis, Michael J.1981 "The Archaeology of Costa Rica," in Elizabeth Benson,ed., BetweenContinents/Betweeneas:PrecolumbianArt

of Costa Rica. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 15-84.1992 "Wealth and Hierarchy in the Archaeology of Eastern and



20/20


Central Costa Rica," in Frederick W. Lange, ed., Wealthand Hierarchyin the Intermediate Area. Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 141-164.Stone, Doris1972 Pre-ColumbianMan Finds CentralAmerica.Cambridge,MA: Peabody Museum Press.

1977 Pre-Columbian Man in Costa Rica. Cambridge, MA: Pea-body Museum Press.Tosi, Joseph A., Jr.1969 Ecological Map of Costa Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica: Tropi-cal Science Center.Zilberg, Jonathan L.1986 "The Diquis Petroglyphs: Distribution, ArchaeologicalContext and Iconographic Content," in Frederick W.Lange and Lynette Norr, eds., PrehistoricSettlement Pat-terns n CostaRica.JournaloftheStewardAnthropologicalSociety14 (1-2) (1982-1983). Urbana: University of Illi-nois, 339-358.

Documents

Monumental Architecture and Social Organization at the Rivas Site, Costa Rica