What Is Lower Central American Archaeology?

WHAT IS LOWER CENTRAL *9625 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY?

Olga F Linares

SmithsonianTropical Research Institute, Box 2072, Balboa, PanamaCanal Zone

INTRODUCTION

The archaeologyof Lower CentralAmerica is just beginningto emerge from decadesof scientificneglect and antiquatedresearch. Large tracts of hinterlandbetween eastern Hondurasand eastern Panama still remain unexplored.Much of the literaturehas been concernedalmost exclusively with ceramicsequences, tribal ascriptions, influences from nuclearAmer- ica, and impressionisticsite surveys.The assumptionthat Lower Central Americaserved only as a corridorthrough which ideas, objects,and even people moved back and forth between Mesoamericaand the Andean regioncolors much of the writing.So muchso that one is justifiedin asking if LowerCentral America will ever constitutea viablestudy unit. Is it an area with historicdepth, where groups sharing common roots underwent similar adaptiveprocesses? Are there importantproblems to be studied here? By shiftingresearch priorities from the definitionof cultureareas to the investigationof culturalprocesses, younger colleagues are just beginningto findaffirmative answers to thesequestions. But this is a veryrecent develop- ment. If I am forcedby the natureof much of the previousliterature to be somewhatcritical, it is with the hope of moving the field toward more scientificmethodologies and broadertheoretical considerations. For the new generationI hopethis essayprovides further encouragement and possi- bly some new insights.

21 0084-6570/79/1015-0021$01 .00 22 LINARES

ARE FRONTIERS NECESSARILY UNSTABLE? The Lower CentralAmerican archaeological area has been definednega- tivelyas the regionbelow and beyond the boundariesof the Mesoamerican culture area to the north. Much confusion still remains as to where Mesoamericancultures leave off and LowerCentral America begins. (For locationof places mentionedin the text, see Figure 1.) The SoutheasternMesoamerican Frontier No less than in the past, Mayanistsare still puzzlingover the problemof how far south the Mayawandered from their presumedhomeland. One of the firstto takeup this problemseriously was Lothrop(94), who placedthe farthestlimit of Maya settlementin Honduras,east of Lake Ulua-Yojoa, and in El Salvadoralong the Lempariver. Because so little was knownof the time-depthof Maya developments,his approachwas essentiallyahis- torical,linking sixteenth century accounts of Maya peopleswith what he conceivedof as Maya pottery.While taking Lothropto task for making theseconnections, Longyear (91) acceptedthe equallydoubtful proposition that linguisticgroups formed distinct archaeological cultures. Arguing that there is very little that was Maya in the Ulua-Yojoaarchaeological complexes, he put the Maya frontierduring Classic times furtherto the west in Honduras,roughly where the Maya met the Lencanpeoples. Otherarchaeologists have generally accepted the Lencaline as the Maya frontier,but not withoutmaking assumptions of their own concerningthe linguisticaffiliations of this now extinct group:that the Lenca were not Maya though they were definitelyMesoamerican (129); that they were neither Mayan nor Mesoamericanbut South American (139); that the proto-Lencaswere macro-Mayanaswho in Late Preclassictimes brought Usulutan pottery to easternSalvador and Honduras(2, 3). In all these argumentsa strangelogic prevails.While it is consideredspeculative to infershifts in socialorganization from markedchanges in communitypat- terns at a site (3), archaeologistsshow little hesitationwhen it comes to tieing in ceramictraditions with specificlanguages 3000 years ago. And whereas great ethnic and linguistic complexityis acceptedfor Spanish contacttimes (139), the tendencyhas been to simplifythe prehistoricpic- ture. Not surprisingly,recent efforts by qualifiedlinguists to definelanguage groupingsin the southeasternMaya frontier(14, 16, 54, 59, 90) revealsa situationevery bit as complexas indicatedby both the archaeologyand the ethnohistory.As Holt & Bright (54) point out, at least six genetically differentlanguage families co-existed in the Hondurean,Salvadorean region alone.These families fall into two broadphonological clusters-the Mayoid 00N 0.4

00 02 -0N

4.b 0~~~~~ (r C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a w

C) 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

0 N~~~~~~ CD~~~~~~~~~a 0 N~~~~~~~~ 2~~~~~~~~ ow~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U) LL~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~

C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 0-

2~~~~~2

4~~~~~~~~~~ 24 LINARES versusthe CentralAmerican cluster-with the linebetween them extending from Trujilloin Hondurasto Jucuaranon the Pacificcoast of El Salvador. The same authorsare carefulto point out that severallanguages, among themJicaque and Lenca,exhibit traits of both clusters,which they interpret as evidencefor a gradualtransition from one clusterto the other.There are furtherdisagreements among specialists.Thus, while Longacre(90) puts the Chorotega-Mangueof the Nicoya peninsula in Costa Rica in the Mesoamericancamp, Holt & Bright(54) put themin the CentralAmerican camp;and while Campbell(15) lists Lenca not as one but two languages and refersto them as non-Maya,Holt & Bright(54) ratherhesitantly align Lenca with the Mayoidgroup, and Kaufman(58, 60) points out that the connectionof Xincan-Lencanwith any other group,Mayan, Chibchan or Uto-Aztecan,has not been demonstrated.Finally, while Campbell(14) favors putting the Misumalpanlanguages (Cacaopera, Matagalpa, Mis- quito, and Sumu),which once occupiedparts of Salvadorand Nicaragua, with the Macro-Chibchangroup of Centraland SouthAmerica, Kaufman (59) places them with the Mesoamericanlanguages. Leavingthe questionof possibleOlmec linguistic affiliations to specialists (17), archaeologistshave paid more attentionto other problems:how to recognizeOlmec influences(93), when in the Preclassicwere these influ- encesfelt in the southeasternperipheries (143), and whatsocial factors were behindthe spreadof the Olmecstyle. Answers to the lastquestion have been diverse. It has been suggestedthat Olmec objects were disseminatedby itinerantmale sculptors(93); that tradewas facilitatedby contactbetween elites for the acquisitionof prestigegoods (31); that the Olmecset up trade control stations among autochthonousgroups (117, 118), and so forth. Whileinferences of this kindseem perfectly justified and necessary,in some instancesthey have been carriedtoo far. Culture-historicalschemes have beenbuilt upon an insufficientdata base by usingconcepts such as accultur- ation,diffusions, migrations, and trade(117, 118)as if theirmeanings were generallyagreed upon among ethnographers. Fortunately,some of the traditionalcriteria used to definethe southeastern Mesoamericanfrontiers are now beingqueried by recentscholars. Em- phasizing the fact that a great deal of ethnic complexityunderlies all culture-contactsituations, Henderson (51-53) and other membersof the CornellUniversity project in westernHonduras have begunto investigate synchronicvariation within a region.They point out that it maybe impossi- ble to defineexternal relations at a site suchas Naco (an importantPostclas- sic center)without first determining its economicand politicalrole within the Valley (51). Their conceptionof frontiersas multiethnicsituations, whereresident groups and foreignenclaves maintained symbiotic relations groundedon ecologicaldifferences and economic necessities,seems well LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 25 taken. Lange (68, 71) has also emphasizedthat frontiersare dynamic, changingthrough time. Althoughthe emphasison ceramicsimilarities has not beenabandoned, it is now a commonplacethat they maymean different things,not just a commonethnic originor a commonlanguage (53). Inci- dentally,some of the old monographs(133) are much more sophisticated on this score than more recent ones (128). Givenpresent realities, an awarenessof the needto understandhow a site functionedbefore assessing its externalrelations may have come too late. Whereasarchaeologists in the past wasted uniqueopportunities to study sites while they werestill accessibleand relativelyundisturbed, the present generationhas to make do with partialsalvage programs (119). The OutlyingAreas: Gran Nicoya and EasternHonduras There is no doubt that most of western Honduras(7, 92) and western Salvador(117, 118)were part of real Mesoamerica.Pacific coastal Nicara- gua and Costa Rica, the so-calledGran Nicoya (4, 6, 9, 19, 20, 102, 144), was also supposedto havebeen strongly influenced by Mesoamerica.More recent workers,however, are arguing for more southerlyinfluences, in Nicoya and even easternHonduras. In the Sula Valleyof Honduras,N. C. Kennedy(61) sees ties between the famousPlaya de los Muertosand South American complexes during the Early and Middle Formativeperiods. In the Bay Islands of Honduras, severalinvestigators (29, 140)note connectionswith LowerCentral Amer- ica afterA.D. 1000, a positionnot unlikethat taken earlier(28, 132). Dis- agreeingwith earlierconclusions (20), Sweeney(136, 137) arguesfor the total exclusion of the Guanacastesection of Gran Nicoya from the Mesoamericansphere of influence.Finally, in two overlappingpublications, Lange(64, 65) suggeststhat the societiesof GranNicoya, and perhaps even the Mayathemselves, were Circum-Caribbean in type.He arguesthat Maya subsistenceand social organizationwere closer to those of Circum-Carib- beanchiefdoms than to thoseof the centralMexican highland states. To this reviewerhis idea that the Maya did not develop complex civilizations, howeverloosely this termis defined,seems, to say the least,to overstatethe case. Nevertheless,Lange (65) does providea healthy reminderthat the Maya economy, with a great deal of dependenceamong the Yucatecan Mayaon marineresources (66), was more diversifiedthan had been previ- ously assumed.Freidel (36) has documentedthe same point more exten- sively. Frontiersand OutliersReconsidered Actually it may be misleadingto place too much emphasison outside connectionsand foreigninfluences. Frontiers may be stable or unstable 26 LINARES accordingto circumstances.Within the Mesoamericanfrontier area, a great dealof linguisticdiversity probably antedated 1500 B.C., by whichtime most of the importantlanguage families had long beenin the region(58). We are remindedby Kaufman(58) that the distributionof mostlanguages suggests few large-scalemigrations of peoples,and that culturalpatterns and com- plexesmove more often than nations,though individuals may move about as contactmen. The obviousexception in the areaunder consideration may have been the Uto-Aztecans,represented by the Pipil latecomers,who by the time the Spanisharrived had taken over westernSalvador and pene- tratedinto Honduras(91). It seemslikely, in fact, that most artifactsfrom MiddleAmerica found here and therewithin the frontierarea (33, 47, 67, 148) may be attributedto individualtraders or perhapsto tradingenclaves (51). The rest of the populationby and large probablystayed put most of the time. In my opinion,the difficultythat linguistshave in decidingwhether to placethe Chorotega-Mangueand Misumalpan languages in the Mesoameri- can or CentralAmerican camps may reflecta long-termstability and coher- ence of the northernfrontier. Since Salvadorand Hondurasprobably were settled as early as the Maya area, the local populationsmay have made many innovationson theirown. At any rate, thereis littlejustification for conceivingof these groupsas "poor relations"(7), even though some of theirpottery was at timesunder heavy Mayan or Mesoamericaninfluences. In reality,the groupsin the so-calledMesoamerican frontier exhibited a gradual,in situ, and successfuladaptation to coastalconditions for at least 3000 years. Beyondthe frontier,a singlelanguage phylum, Macro-Chibchan, domi- nates the area from Nicaraguathrough Panama to coastalColombia and Venezuelaand onto northernEcuador (135, 141). It may be useful to considerhow far this whole enormousregion, the so-calledIntermediate area,can be consideredto be dividedinto separatecultural subregions. We can beginby reviewingthe latestliterature on the LowerCentral American section.

UPDATING PREVIOUS SYNTHESES Withinthis decadewe have seen the publicationof two differentsummary volumes(7, 130).I havealready commented upon them elsewhere (79, 80); they are very differentin organization,conception, and even content. Baudez is strict in his coverageof the area. Stone, on the other hand, includeslong sectionson Chiapas,Guatemala, and centralMexico. Well- knownsites in the Mayaheartland are discussedat some length,and many Maya objectsare includedfor illustration.Middle Americangroups are LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 27 seenas penetrating,influencing, overriding, or otherwisemaking their pres- ence felt everywhereexcept for the PanamanianIsthmus. How much can be gainedfrom this kindof approachis a matterfor conjecture.In any case, such thingsas "influences,"even if they were subjectto proof,do not take us very far in thinkingabout developmentsin an area. Neither does the strictly chronologicalapproach (7), but it is preferable.By presentinga sketchfor each subareain termsof fiveperiods (see also 5), Baudezallows us to follow with ease the regionalchronologies. His presentationis, however, marredby his division of Lower Central America into a zone of Mesoamericanand a zone of South Americantradition. In keepingwith Baudez's own interests, the first zone is covered in 30 pages, the latter in about 14. This makesfor a thin and sketchymanual, but I foundit useful as a startingpoint for this reviewof the post-1970literature. Special Works Much new work has appeared on the northern sector which can only be mentionedhere: reports on westernSalvador (117, 118), easternSalvador (1), centralHonduras (8), northwestHonduras including the upper Sula Valley (45), the Bay Islands(29), the Naco Valley(51, 52), and the site of Travesia(119, 120).In addition,Healey (48, 49) has done researchon the long-neglectedarea of northeastHonduras (see section below on coastal adaptations). For the southernsector of Gran Nicoya, three new dissertationshave substantiallychanged our viewsof developmentsin this area.Two of them, both still unpublished(46, 136), use second-handmaterials that were left largelyunanalyzed by the originalexcavators. The otherwork (64) summa- rizes the author'sown investigationsand presentsan excellentdescription of the Nicoyamacroecology (see also 67, 69). Lange'sreporting of the Sapoa Riversurvey and ceramicanalysis are particularly useful, as he managesto reduceBaudez's (6) 41 potterytypes to 21 -a serviceto mankind.In a more speculativesection, he suggeststhat maizeagriculture was very late in the SapoaRiver, an ideathat has not gonewithout comments (89) and counter- clarifications(70). His generalconclusions, repeated elsewhere (65), raise importantqueries as to the presumedMesoamericanization of the Nicoya area. Sweeney'swork on the archaeologyof the Guanacastepart of Nicoya (136) presentsthe full materialcollected by Coe (20). She offersan exhaus- tive potteryclassification, backed up by a numberof consistentradiocarbon dates (134), and discussestrading networks during the last centuriesof the Zoned Bichromeperiod. The area may have been too poorly endowedin naturalresources to participatein the later tradingspheres of developing civilizationsfurther north. But to the south,the local peoplewere in contact 28 LINARES with the Panamaniangroups of Parita Bay, and possiblywith those of Ecuadorin the SantaElena Peninsula. The supposedNicoya-Ecuadorean connectionsare perhapsdebatable. Since there does not seem to havebeen muchreciprocal trade between areas within Nicoya itself, according to both Langeand Sweeney,I findit difficultto believein significantexchanges with verydistant groups. Be that as it may, Sweeney'sremark that Nicoya never divorceditself fromits Chibchanorigin, and neverbecame part of Greater Mesoamerica,seems well supportedby the settlementpattern and linguistic evidence. Healey's(46) analysisof the materialscollected by Norweband Willey in 1959-1961in the NicaraguanNicoya, on the Isthmusof Rivas,includes excellentsummaries of the ecology, ethnohistory,and archeologyof this area,but it is essentiallyanother ceramic report, with the emphasisplaced on the time-spaceordering of the data. Referringto the connectionsbe- tweenRivas and the Nicoyapeninsula itself (sensustricto), Healey suggests that ties betweenthe two areaswere closerduring the earlierperiods than duringLate Polychrometimes (A.D. 1200).His inclusionof the Rivas area in the Mesoamericancamp may have been influencedby Longacre's(90) classificationof the Chorotegalanguages (see above).Of course,if influences are to be deducedmostly from ceramics,then it may be appropriateto includeRivas in the Mesoamericansphere. If otheraspects such as ecological adaptationsare considered,an inclusionwithin the Circum-Caribbean or IntermediateArea seems morejustified. Proceedingto the southand east, i.e. to Baudez'ssupposed zone of South Americantradition, and to the earlierof the five periodshe proposes,we learn that new Paleo-Indianpoints have been reportedfrom Turrialbain CostaRica (125)and fromMadden Lake in Panama(12, 13).Although the points were foundon the surface,they contributeto our understandingof the arrivalof earlyman in SouthAmerica. Since the techniqueof pressure flakingwas discontinuedby 5000 B.C. (13), the pointsmust be earlier.Much of the extinctPanamanian megafauna (39) was South Americanin origin; hence it is not surprisingto learn that the MaddenLake points resemble those from Fell's cave in Chile, where they were found associatedwith extinct sloth and the native horse at a radiocarbonage of 11,000 years (10). In the next preceramicperiod, Baudez (7) lists only the site of Cerro Mangotein ParitaBay (100). Since 1970, however,six more preceramic sites have been foundin Panama,in noncoastallocations. The significance of thesesites was touchedupon in the PuertoRican symposium by me (81) andby Ranere(108); I will also discussthem later. Here it maybe sufficient to note that these new preceramicsites indicatea greatervariety of subsistence adaptationsthan the presumedshellfish-gathering pattern ascribed to CerroMangote. LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 29

With respectto developmentsduring the firsthalf of the firstmillenium B.C., there is still a gap in our knowledge.The archaeologicalcomplexes which may belong to this period (41, 64, 123) have not been securely dated. After 300 B.C. to A.D. 500, correspondingto Baudez's(5, 7) periodsIII and IV, we havenew information from the highlandsof Chiriquiin Panama (87-89). The colonizationof these cold and wet highlandsseems to have beenlate becausethey wereunsuitable for both hunting-gatheringand root cropagriculture. They were finally occupied only as a resultof demographic pressuressubsequent to the introductionof expansiveseed culturein the plains (88). The innovativeresearch of Cooke (22-24) is essential to the understandingof the prehistoryof the CentralRegion of Panama.His workhas demonstratedthe unityof this areaand the uselessnessof previouslyrecog- nized subdivisions(95, 96). His studiesof humanadaptations in the provinces borderingParita Bay have transformeda bare ceramicchronology (63) into a real developmentalcultural-ecological sequence. This workhas providedthe basisfor a reinterpretation(84) of the functionand iconography of the art objectsof the famousSitio Conte site. GeneralWorks Recentsyntheses of the archaeologyof the wholeof LowerCentral America have not takeninto accountany of the new approachesmentioned above. They still tend to emphasizecomparisons within one country only, or within one aspect of the prehistoricrecord, usually ceramics,or within spatiotemporalcorrelations. The narrowfocus of these works contrasts with Willey's(142, 144)broad perspectives on developmentsin the whole of the IntermediateArea. If we ignoresome passagesin purpleprose, and misleadingsimplifica- tions, the book on CostaRica by Stone (131) is usefulin providinga clear and orderlydiscussion of each of the three areasinto which Costa Rican archaeologyis usuallydivided, namely Nicoya, Diquis, and the Atlantic watershed.This work is easier to consult than her more generalvolume (130), and it is a beautifullyproduced guide to museumcollections. But it suffersfrom the lack of any sense of problem,or of the need for methodol- ogy. Ferrero'srevised edition (30) providesa morebasic understandingof men-environmentinteractions, and a moreup-to-date account of archaeological work in CostaRica. He is also one of the editorsof Vinculos,a new bilingualjournal which publishes articles on any part of CentralAmerica. A special issue of this journal [Volume2(1), 1976] considersceramic se- quences in 11 differentareas, from Lake Yojoa in Hondurasto central Panama.Seven out of the 11 articlesreport the conclusionsof unpublished dissertations.The rest discusswork in progressor old workthat was never fully published. 30 LINARES

The subjectof ceramicsequences seems to absorbmuch of the Central Americansynthesizer's time. Haberland'sarticle (41) on the chronologies of LowerCentral America is a case in point.Although published only very recently,it was writtenin 1973and neverrevised. It is, therefore,seriously out of date,as the bulkof publicationshas increaseddramatically in the last 5 years. His effortsare not without merit, for he presentsan excellent resumeof the historyof archaeologicalwork and does much to reconcile disparitiesin GreaterNicoya, central Costa Rica, and greaterChiriqui. But he is a firm believerin having chronologicaland distributionalproblems settledfirst, before turning to "fancyquestions" about settlement patterns, ecologicaladaptations, the natureof culturecontact, and the like. Thereis, of course,an obviousreason why chronologicaland ecologicalinterpreta- tions have not been more closely associated,to their mutualenrichment. Becauseof the preoccupationwith ceramics,little attentionis paid to the recoveryof organicremains, the reconstructionof utility areas,the func- tional study of lithic artifacts,and so forth. The result is what I call diachronicecology: deducing broad shifts in adaptations,between periods of many centuries,without adequatequantitative data. The unconscious assumptionthat spatiotemporalcorrelations are priorto, and not simulta- neous with, the study of culturalprocesses has producedpottery descrip- tions, includingsome of my own (78), of unjustifiedlength. Ecological interpretations,based on skimpyevidence, poorly recovered,and incom- pletelyanalyzed, are still beingappended to thesedescriptive works without any priorhypothesis. To say that thesechronological works are "essentially factualand narrowly historic" (145, p. 513)seems a gentlecomment indeed.

SUBSISTENCE AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS DURING THE PRECERAMIC AND FORMATIVE PERIODS The new generationof archaeologistsworking in LowerCentral America arebeginning to seekanswers to such problemsas the natureof preceramic hunting-gatheringadaptations, the transitionfrom vegeculture to seed culture, marineversus riverine lifeways along both coasts, and the basis for chiefdomformation. Their work is goingin the directionof broadertheories and morefundamental processes. Thus, they are followingin the footsteps of Willeyand Reichel-Dolmatoff,while sharingthe sameconcerns of Flan- nery, Harris,Lathrap, and others. AdaptiveVariability During the Preceramicand Formative Periods(5000 B. C. to 500 B. C.) The assumptionthat the hunting-gatheringway of life in the tropicswas fairlyuniform finds little supportin recentwork in Panama.Not only were LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 31 preagriculturalpeoples of the interiordifferent from those of the coast,but even the coastalgroups differed among themselves. The inhabitantsof CerroMangote (4800 B.C.), the first preceramicsite reportedin CentralAmerica, were thought to havebeen shellfish gatherers (100). A similaradaptation was attributedto the pottery-usingpeoples of the nearbyMonagrillo site at 2100 B.C. (146). New radiocarbondates (A. J. Ranere,personal communication) have apparentlyextended the history of Monagrilloback to the middle of the fourth milleniumB.C. If correct, these dates would makeMonagrillo pottery among the oldest in the New World.The firstgroups intermittently camped at the site when it was still an active beach. Reexcavationof the site using fine-screeningtechniques (110) pointto a heavyreliance upon fish and crustaceansas well as shellfish. Two additionaltypes of adaptationshave recentlybeen documentedin the plains and interiorlands away from the ParitaBay shoreline.At the Aguadulceshelter, about 18 kilometersfrom the presentcoastline, a prece- ramicbroad-spectrum plant-collecting and huntingpattern, with someem- phasis on fishing and catching freshwaterturtles, lasted from the fifth millenium B.C. to the middle of the third millenium B.C. (1 10, 11 1). Further inland,in the foothillsof the continentaldivide in the provinceof Cocle, at an altitude of 400 meters above sea level, a pure hunting camp was discoveredat Cueva de los Ladrones(11). Even more recently, Cooke (personalcommunication) has foundanother preceramic site which is neither a rockshelternor a cave, but a small open camp in the Chiriqui highlands. In the early 1970s,Ranere's (106) pioneeringexcavations of four prece- ramicrockshelters and one opencampsite in the canyonof the Rio Chiriqui, at elevationsbetween 600 and 900 meters,produced thousands of flakesand stone tools which he analyzedusing experimentalprocedures (107). By combiningreplication experiments with wear-pattern analysis, he concludes that duringthe Talamancanphase (4800 B.C. to 2300 B.C.) most chipped stone tools were used as grinding,pounding, or mashinginstruments to process wild plants or to work wood. In a subsequentpaper (109), he proposes the intriguingidea that the simplicity of tropical forest lithic assemblagesmay be due to the fact that thesewere tools to maketools; that is, that stone tools were manufactured,not as ends in themselves,but probablyas instrumentsin the productionof more sophisticatedimple- ments of wood such as projectilepoints. Incidentally,this may markthe beginningof man'salteration of the tropicalforest. By removingtrees for his use, for tools as well as shelter, man must have changedthe species compositionand structureof the forest,opening it to acceleratedinvasion by sun-lovingherbaceous plants. Among these were probably the ancestors of many cultivatedspecies. By hunting,he also affectedpredator-prey in- teractions,removing animals such as the agouti (Dasyproctapunctata) on 32 LINARES

which severaltree species are dependentfor the dispersalof their seeds (122). Modificationsof tropical environmentsat the hunting-gathering stage must be seen in termsof subtleprocesses such as these and not only in the dramaticuse of fire in the hunt (43). Ranere'ssuggestion that the pounding-mashingtools he recoveredfrom the Rio Chiriquishelters were used to processwild plant foods finds support in the carbonizedplant remains he recovered.These have been identified by Smith (121) as belonging to two species of seasonallyflowering trees (Hymenaeacourbaril and Byrsonimasp.) and two speciesof nut-bearing palms (Acrocomiavinifera and Scheeleazonensis). The predominanceof treesis suggestive.Lathrap's argument (76) aboutthe antiquityof the bottle gourdin the New Worldshould be interpretedas pointingto the importanceof aboriculturein the tropics.Harris (43) proposesthat the harvesting of nuts, as amongthe ancientCalifornia Indians, was one of the specialized systemsof food procurementthat did not lead to agriculture.He pointsout that treesare cross-pollinatedand takea long time to yield,while herbs are fast growingand tend to be self-pollinating,which facilitatesselection by man. "As a systemof food procurementtree nut harvestingis an efficient use of availablewild resources,but in terms of the developmentof food productionit is a cul de sac" (43, p. 208). As Harrisand manyothers have pointedout, this is especiallytrue if the collectionof patchilydistributed forestresources involves maximum movement, which in itself discourages populationgrowth, retards sedentarization, and delays agriculture. To sum up, the totalnumber of excavatedpreceramic sites in the western half of the Isthmusof Panamais seven. They show a varietyof slightly differentsettlement-subsistence patterns: a woodworking,forest adaptation in the rocksheltersand opensites at midaltitudesin the Chiriquihighlands; a huntingand plant-gatheringinland adaptation in the coastalsavannas of the centralprovinces; a shorelineadaptation of fishingand collectingcrus- taceansand shellfishin ParitaBay; a purehunting camp in the foothillsof the centralprovinces. This variabilityin the preceramicrecord has been attributed(84, 110) to a probablepattern of movementby peopleswith a plant-gatheringbase in searchof proteinresources. From Hunting-Gatheringto Root CropCultivation Whetherplants were domesticated in a single(18, 75) or in multiplecenters (32, 105, 127) in the New World, most scholars would agree that Lower CentralAmerica is not likely to have been one of the earliesthearths. Incipientcultivation began in Mesoamericaand SouthAmerica by at least 7000 B.C.-5000 B.C. (112). Manioc agriculture was intensive in the eastern Amazonianlowlands by 3000 B.C. (76) and in northwestColombia and Venezuela by 2500 B.C. (35, 116) (see also 114). Lower Central America seems to have been late all along the line. LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 33

Ranere(106) suggests that the firstimportant shift in subsistencepatterns in Chiriquioccurred around 2300 B.C. The sudden appearanceof such implementsas adzes, chisels,and a stone axe indicateincreased clearance of the forest,probably for extensive(as opposedto intensive)manioc cultivation.Snarskis (126) has found budares or clay griddlesperhaps associated with manioc(see below)in Costa Rica at 1500 B.C. In the Soconuscoarea of coastalChiapas and Guatemala(97) duringthe EarlyFormative Barras phase (1500 B.C.), the presenceof manioc is inferredfrom thousandsof obsidianchips shownby replicationexperiments (25) to have been used in processinga soft substance. None of the archaeologicalevidence for manioccultivation is conclusive, however.In an exhaustivecomparison of the artifactsclassified in museums as maniocgriddles (budares) or as maize-cookinggriddles (comales), De Boer (26) concludesthat it is not possibleto distinguishbetween these two categorieson any criteriasuch as shape,size, or form. Such differencesas there are seem to be purely geographical.If the objects were found in Mesoamerica,they havebeen called comales; if in SouthAmerica, budares. De Boeralso mentionsa studyby Barrickloto the effectthat maniocgrater teeth used ethnographicallywere much smallerthan those ascribedto the samepurpose in archeologicaldeposits in Colombia(114). We shouldkeep in mind that griddlescan be used to cook other productsbesides manioc, and that graterteeth can be madeof manyproducts besides stone. Because the soft partsof tubersdo not preservewell, final proofof manioccultivation in early times is going to have to rest on the analysisof pollen and phytoliths.And even if and when these are found in databledeposits, it would not settle the problemof one vs several independentcenters of maniocdomestication. Not only the archaeologists,but also the botanists have differentthoughts on this matter.While Spath(127) suggestsat least fourcenters of domesticationfor the varitiesnow subsumedunder Manihot esculentaCrantz, other experts favor the idea of only one wild progenitor, the ColombianM. cartagenensis.On archaeologicalgrounds I tendto favor the idea of severalcenters of domestication,including Mesoamerica (where more than 100 speciesof Manihotare found at the presenttime). Whileon the subjectof manioc,I wouldsuggest that the greatphenotypic variationin this plant (127) made it possiblefor man to select against,as well as for, the more toxic strains.Lathrap (73) has emphasizedhuman selectionin favorof the "bitter"(i.e. poisonous)forms which store better and are richer in starch. He arguesthat in the easternSouth American lowlandsthe nontoxic,less productivestrains were the earlierforms. Tox- icity itself is an antipredatordevice in many "wild"plants (56). Thus, it is quiteconceivable that manyof the ancestralforms were highly toxic. They may havebecome less so undercultivation in areaswhere population densi- ties were low and there was comparativelylittle premiumon maximum 34 LINARES

starchproduction with maximumeffort. The use of "sweet"manioc as a pot vegetable,in associationwith manyother crops, may have been charac- teristicof past as it is of presentgroups in Lower CentralAmerica. In the interiorvalleys of the PanamanianIsthmus, where the fishing potentialof most riverswas reducedby their rapid and rocky course, a patternbased on the cultivationof root cropsand the huntingof terrestrial mammalsmay have lasted well into the first milleniumB.C., until the introductionof maize (89). As Harris(42) has convincinglyargued, root- crop or vegecultureis a stablesystem in contrastto seed-cropagriculture which tends to causeecological degradation and to forcepeople to expand into new areas. Early Maize in Lower Central America In the levels of the Aguadulceshelter containing Monagrillo-like ceramics and dated to slightlyafter 1680 ? 95 B.C., Piperno (personalcommunication) has recentlyisolated cross-shaped phytoliths [silica structures in the epidermalcells of some plants(104)] of a grassthat may in fact be maize. She used the same techniquesas Pearsall(104) did in identifyingphyto- liths of maizeat 2450 B.C. fromReal Alto, a Valdivia-phasesite in the Santa Elenapeninsula of coastalEcuador (77, 99). In neithercase, however, is this data relevantto the origins of maize domestication,which go back in Mesoamericato muchearlier periods (112; see also above).As Galinat(37) points out, the oldest maize cobs found in the Tehuacanvalley of south centralMexico at about7000 B.C. are in the earlycultivated rather than in the wild category.According to Pickersgill& Heiser(105), the absenceof a suitableancestor for Zea mays in South Americaand the fact that the earliestmaize dates only to 3000B.C. in the Peruvianhighlands and to 2500 B.C. in the Peruviancoast rules out, at least for the moment,a possible hearthof Zea domesticationin South America.These same authorsalso suggest that a Nal-Tel-likerace of maize spread from Mexico to Peru between5000 B.C. and 3000 B.C. Two very distinctraces-a large-kernel, eight-rowedcorn, and a smaller-kernelpopcorn-occur in the Valdivia deposits(150). TheseEcuadorean strains may representthe firstmovement south of the cultivar.The later Monagrillo-phasemaize could have come to Panamafrom eithernorth or south. There has been some confusionsurrounding the status of the so-called Pollo race of maizeof presumedColombian derivation and its diffusionto LowerCentral America. Snarskis (123, 124) mentionsthe possibilitythat the one corncobof this racefound in highlandCosta Rica at the time (more have been found since) should be interpretedas evidenceof connections with Colombia.The samecorncob has been cited elsewhere(70) as suggest- ing a possible South Americanorigin for maize farmingin the Nicoya peninsula.Dunn (27) warnsagainst the overinterpretationof a singlespeci- LOWER CENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 35 men, especiallyof a cultivarwhich is botanicallyso ill defined(see also 32). Recentlywe have foundmore than 40 or so cobs of a Pollo-like maize on living floorsand hearthsin the Chiriquihighlands where they have been dated by numerousradiocarbon dates to A.D. 300-A.D. 600 (87). Galinat (38), who has analyzedthis collection,suggests that the characteristicsof smallnessand hardnessin the Pollo race may be an adaptationto wet and cold conditionsand not necessarilya proof of primitivenessor of great antiquity. FormativePeriod Interaction Spheres The idea that duringthe Formativeperiod (3000 B.C. to 300 B.C.) a whole series of materialtraits and religiousideas were transmittedfrom Middle Americato the Andeanarea has a long historyin New Worldstudies and will not be reviewedhere (see 34). Debatestill continuesas to whetherthese presumedcontacts took place directlyby sea, bypassingsouthern Central America,or whetherthey took place by land, throughthe Isthmianarea. In one instance,an earlierargument for directsea contactshas beenrevived (103) long after the original proponenthas begun to have his doubts (21). The whole concept of two centers of New World civilization, Mesoamericaand AndeanSouth America, from which everything else was derived,has been questionedrecently by Myers (101). FollowingLathrap (74), he emphasizesthe role playedby the tropicsin earlyFormative period developments,and suggests that contactsbetween the centersof civilization took place by land, throughthe Intermediatearea, and was in the hands of traders.His argumentrests on ceramicsimilarities. I have alwaysbeen skeptical(81) of the use of simple ceramicsin tracingconnections at this time level. Peoples living in similar coastal environmentswould have at theirdisposal similar "tools" (reeds, shell, spines)to decoratetheir pottery, andwould need the samesimple vessel shapes to fulfilltheir everyday needs. In any case, Myers'sconclusion that long-distancesea-contacts need not be invokedto accountfor widespreadsimilarities in materialculture anywhere in the New Worldtropics is well taken.This cautionapplies to the spread of plants as well as pots. If Spath (127) is correct in suggestingseveral centersof maniocdomestication in the Americas,then it may not be necessary to call upon ceramicconnections as corollaryproof for the early diffusionof manioc cultivationdirectly from coastal Ecuadorto coastal Guatemala(25, 40, 97). Incidentally,sea contactsmust be high on the list of things that are not subjectto proof. Even if I doubt that simple ceramicscan be used to documentlong- distance trade or significantmovements, this does not mean that such contactsdid not take place and could not have been important.Lathrap's essay (74) is highlyrelevant. He shows that existingtrade networks in the 36 LINARES

easternSouth Americanlowlands cover thousandsof miles. This trade includesperishable materials such as manioc flour. On severaloccasions I have expressedmisgivings as to the explanatory value of terms such as diffusion,contact, influence,and so forth. These conceptsare diversionaryand may discourageus from searchingfor in- teractionmodels of greatergenerality and resolvingpower. For instance, "gravitymodels" of severalkinds may be useful (57). Anotherpromising line of investigationmight be the role played by trade in the growth of regionalcenters (149). Much of the tradeamong tropical forest groups in South Americaseems to have been subsistencerelated, or relatedto the communalceremonial life, and to have been relatively"democratic." By contrast,much of the Mesoamericanor AndeanSouth American trade may have been status relatedand controlledby elites in regionalcenters (31). The growthof comparablecenters in lowlandtropical South America and the Intermediatearea may have been discouraged by the widespreaddisper- sion of the resourcestraded and by the relativelyslow demographicincrease.Models that take into accountthe size and proximityof resource areas,the methodsof exploitingand distributingthese resources,the uses to which they wereput, and their possibleeffects on demographicincrease are likely to be more satisfactorythan unicausalexplanations. What I believeshould be stressedis that small groupsize, dispersionof populations,flexibility in resourceuse, and so forth,is a pan-tropicalstrat- egy of great adaptivevalue.

COASTALVERSUS INLAND ADAPTATIONS If any singlefactor characterizes the ecologyof LowerCentral America, it is the relativeamount of landthat is coastalrather than inland. Not surprisingly, coastal adaptationswere diverseand important.The mountainsof LowerCentral America are also relativelynarrow, with only small valleys and poorlydeveloped river systems. Nowhere in the regiondo we find the wide expansesof fertilesoils of such areas as the Caucain Colombiaor Oaxacain southernMexico. Neither do we encounterfloodplains on the immensescale of the Orinocoand Magdalena,not to mentionthe Amazon. The contrastbetween highlands and lowlandsmay also be less pronounced in southernCentral America than elsewhere(71). Such as they are, the highlandsmay be consideredfirst. Sites with extensivemound complexes,carved monuments,elaborate pottery and the like were describedfrom moderatelyhigh elevationsin CostaRica at the beginningof this century(44). They wouldseem to have been producedby minimallyranked societies, roughly equivalentto the "chiefdoms"of Colombia(113, 115). Recent researchconfirms the initial impressionthat these complexeswere late in the archaeologicalrecord, LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 37 datingfrom a few centuriesbefore the Christianera (72) to a few centuries after(62). It maybe a generalrule that wet and cold highlandenvironments werecolonized late, after the introductionof maize(see above).A complete survey of all the sites occurringin two highland valleys of Chirquiin Panamahas revealeda site distributionalpattern which relatesboth to naturaland to social factors(89). The largerand apparentlymore ranked villagesoccurred in the drier,more seasonal of the two valleys.Despite the availabilityof good cultivableland, the area betweenthe two valleyswas sparselysettled, a phenomenonwe have attributedto territorialboundary maintenancerather than to environmentalcauses. All the otherareas of LowerCentral America that havebeen studiedin recentyears are on or nearthe coast.Within this decade,three studies have pointedout the great diversityof prehistoricadaptations on the Atlantic coast. Healey(48-50), workingon northeastHonduras with a quantifiable faunalcollection, provides an excellentdiscussion of the prehistoricuse by one group of three differentecological zones: a freshwaterlagoon, the mangrovecoast, and the lowlandforest. The prosperousgroups he describes are very differentfrom the societiesof the Bocasarea on the Atlanticcoast of Panama.This area was a backwaterbecause of its wet, nonseasonal climate and distancefrom any river. The local peoples had to relie on certainparticular techniques. I have appliedthe term"garden-hunting" to a techniquefor takinganimals from cultivatedplots (82). This strategyin effectincreased the numbersand biomassof terrestrialmammals, permitting the croppingof the animalsas well as of the plants.In a more recent article,Wing (147) has emphasizedthat this techniquewas complementary to the use of marineresources. Magnus(98) has developedan interestingmodel for the Miskitoarea of coastalNicaragua, comparing archaeological remains with modem ethno- graphicdata. In the prehistoricpast, therewere inlandpermanent villages and coastalfishing camps; the reversesituation holds today.This is a good reminderof the fact that very differentadaptations can coexist within relativelysmall areas, and that drasticchanges can occur,especially in the tropicswhere many settlementalternatives are possible. Two studiesof GranNicoya have an ecologicalbias. Lange(70) gives a generalsummary of subsistencethrough 3000 years.Sweeney's discussion (138) of the Guanacastearea is based on an actualbut incompletefaunal samplethat includesmarine and terrestrialforms. Her reconstructionof huntingand fishingpractices is convincing,despite the deficienciesin the materialsleft to her. We have attemptedcontrolled comparisons of culturaldevelopments on both coasts of Panama(83, 86, 147) and between differentparts of the Pacificcoast (85). These comparisonsseem to indicatethat systemsbased on highspecies diversity but low biomasstend to stay generalizedand stable 38 LINARES for longerperiods of time than systemsbased on more abundantbut less diverseresources permitting intensive cropping. The most populatedarea, wherethe more"developed" chiefdoms appeared, was the centralregion of Panamabordering on Parita Bay (22, 23, 55). This is the area of most abundantresources, and it has the longestrecord of changesin subsistence patterns.I have also discussedthe processof chiefdomformation in the centralPanamanian provinces using published evidence from archaeology, ecology, ethnohistory,and iconography(84). My suggestionthat the so- calledConte style of potteryand gold decorationreflected a rankedsociety is being tested furtherby P. Briggs(personal communication). It is not enoughto ask when or wherethe Circum-Caribbeantype chief- domsarose in LowerCentral America (62). It is moreimportant to consider how and why they did so. A properapproach to these problemsshould combinea knowledgeof ecologywith an appreciationfor the dynamicsof social and religiousorganization.

CONCLUSIONS The archaeologyof LowerCentral America so far has not producedmany interestingideas or novel approaches.There has been too much miscella- neous descriptionand not enoughanalytic thought. Too often the ancient peoples of the region have been regardedas "backward,"pale country cousins of their more "civilized"Mesoamerican contemporaries. As any anthropologistshould know, these are meaninglesslabels. LowerCentral Americansocieties evolved their own successfuland complexsystems. The resourcesof the regionsupported peoples in considerableabundance. Fu- ture workwill need to be focusedcarefully on testablehypotheses of some real theoreticalimport. There are alreadyencouraging signs of progressin this direction. The whole stretch from El Salvadorto Panama resemblesnorthwest SouthAmerica. Similar ecological adaptations and a singlelanguage family, Macro-Chibchan,were dominant throughout.Other common features were: an ancient coastal-inlandsymbiosis, combined root and seed crop systems,developed ceramic and metallurgicalcrafts, small nonhereditary chiefswhose powerwas ritualand consensualrather than "coercive,"and contingentpolitical alliances.It would seem best to abandonparochial distinctionsand talk aboutthe IntermediateArea as a whole. (I hope this is the last paperto treat Lower CentralAmerica per se). The real interestof the IntermediateArea is that it illustratesa whole seriesof ecologicaland culturaladaptations within a well-definedrange. If anythingis worth studying,it is the developmentof local variationsand theircorrelated social forms. It is only by understandingthe particularthat useful generaltheory can emerge. LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the staff of the Tozzer Library, and to the Peabody Mu- seum, Harvard University, for providing me with facilities and assistance during the research for this paper. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute gave encouragement and financial support. I am indebted to M. H. Moynihan for reassurance and his editorial scissors. This paper would have never been completed had I not been trapped in a hotel room in Mahaballipuram,India, by the northeast monsoon. I must thank whoever was responsible.

Literature Cited 1. Andrews V., E. W. 1971. The Ar- tritode La Pintada,Provincia de Coclk, cheologyof Quelepa,El Salvador.New Rep. de Panama'Informe prelim. Inst. Orleans:Middle Am. Res. Inst. 199pp. Nac. de Cult., Panama 2. AndrewsV., E. W. 1972. Correspon- 12. Bird,J. B., Cooke,R. G. 1977.Los ar- denciasfonologicas entre el Lencay una tefactosmas antiguosde Panama.Rev. lenguamayence. Estud. Cult.Maya 8: Nac. Cult. 6:7-31 341-87 13. Bird,J. B., Cooke,R. G. 1977.The oc- 3. AndrewsV., E. W. 1977. The south- currencein Panamaof two types of eastern peripheryof Mesoamerica:a Paleo-Indianprojectile points. In Early viewfrom eastern El Salvador.In Social Man in Americafrom a Circum-Pacific Processin Maya Prehistory:Studies in Perspective,ed. A. L. Bryan.Dep. An- Honourof Sir Eric Thompson,ed. N. thropol.Univ. Alberta Occas. Pap. 1, pp. Hammond,Chap. 7, pp. 113-34. New 263-72 York:Academic 14. Campbell, L. 1975. Cacaopera.An- 4. Baudez,C. F. 1962. Rapportprelimi- thropol.Ling. 17(4):146-53 nairesur les recherchesarch6ologiques 15. Campbell,L. 1976.The last Lenca.Int. enterprisesdans la valleede Tempisque, J. Am. Ling. 42(l):73-78 Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Akt. Int. 16. Campbell,L. 1977.Quichean linguistic Amerikanistenkongr.,34th, Wien, pp. prehistory.Univ. Calif. Publ. Ling. 81. 344-57 132 pp. 5. Baudez,C. F. 1963.Cultural develop- 17. Campbell,L., Kaufman,T. 1976.A lin- ment in Lower CentralAmerica. In guisticlook at the Olmecs.Am. Antiq. Aboriginal Cultural Developmentin 41(l):80-89 Latin America:an InterpretativeRe- 18. Carter,G. F. 1977. A hypothesissug- view, ed. B. J. Meggers, C. Evans. gestinga singleorigin of agriculture.In Smithson.Misc. Collect.146(1):45-54 Originsof Agriculture,ed. C. A. Reed, 6. Baudez, C. F. 1967. Recherchesar- pp. 89-133. The Hague:Mouton che'ologiquesdans la vallee du Tem- 19. Coe,M. D. 1962.Costa Rican archaeol- pisque, Guanacaste,Costa Rica PhD ogy andMesoamerica. Southwest. J. An- thesis. Fac. Lett. et Sci. Hum., Univ. thropol.18(2):170-83 Paris 20. Coe,M. D. 1962.Preliminary report on 7. Baudez,C. F. 1970. CentralAmerica. archeologicalinvestigations in coastal Geneva:Nagel. 256 pp. Guanacaste,Costa Rica. See Ref. 4, pp. 8. Baudez,C. F., Becquelin,P. 1973.Ar- 358-65 cheologiede Los Naranjos,Honduras. 21. Coe, M. D. 1977. Discussion.In The EtudesMesoame'ricaines, Vol. 2. Sea in the Pre-ColumbianWorld; A 9. Baudez,C. F., Coe, M. D. 1962. Ar- Conferenceat bumbartonOaks, 1974, cheologicalsequences in northwestem ed. E. P. Benson,pp. 163-66.Washing- Costa Rica. See Ref. 4, pp. 366-73 ton DC: DumbartonOaks 10. Bird,J. B. 1969.A comparisonof south 22. Cooke,R. G. 1972. TheArchaeology of Chileanand Ecuadorean"fishtail" pro- WesternCocle Province, Panama. PhD jectile points. KroeberAnthropol. Soc. thesis.Univ. London,England Pap. 40, pp. 52-71 23. Cooke, R. G. 1976. El hombre y la 11. Bird,J. B., Cooke,R. G. 1974.Excavac- tierraen el Panamaprehistorico. Rev. ionesen la Cuevade los Ladrones,dis- Nac. Cult. 2:17-38 40 LINARES

24. Cooke, R. G. 1976. Panama:regi6n ama. Smithson.Inst. Ann. Rep. 1956, Central.Vinculos 2(1):122-41 pp. 341-54. WashingtonDC 25. Davis, D. D. 1975. Patternsof early 40. Green,D. F., Lowe, G. W. 1967. Al- Formative subsistence in southem tamiraand PadrePiedra, early Preclas- Mesoamerica 1500-1100 B.C. Man sic sitesin Chiapas,Mexico. New World (N.S.) 10:41-59 Archeol.Found. Pap. 20(15). 133 pp. 26. De Boer,W. R. 1975.The archaeologi- 41. Haberland,W. 1978. Lower Central cal evidencefor Manioccultivation: a America.In Chronologiesin New World cautionary note. Am. Antiq. 40(4): Archaeology,ed. R. E. Taylor,C. W. 419-33 ' Meighan,pp. 398430. New York:Aca- 27. Dunn,M. E. 1978.Suggestions for eval- demic uatingarchaeological maize. Am. Antiq. 42. Harris,D. R. 1973. The prehistoryof 43(1):97-99 tropicalagriculture: an ethnoecological 28. Epstein,J. F. 1959. Dating the Ulua model. In TheExplanation of Culture Polychrome Complex. Am. Antiq. Change,ed. C. E. Renfrew,pp. 391- 25(l):125-29 417. London:Duckworth 29. Epstein,J. F., Veliz,V. 1977.Reconoci- 43. Harris,D. R. 1977. Alternativepath- mientoarqueol6gico en la Isla de Roa- ways towardagriculture. See Ref. 18, tin, Honduras.Yaxkin 2(1):28-39 pp. 179-243 30. Ferrero,M. 1978.Costa Rica Precolom- 44. Hartman,C. V. 1901. Archaeological bina San Jose:Editorial Costa Rica Researchesin CostaRica. Stockholm: 31. Flannery,K. V. 1968.The Olmecand Royal Ethnogr.Mus. the Valleyof Oaxaca:A modelfor inter- 45. Hasemann,G., Veliz, V., Van Gerpen, regionalinteraction in Formativetimes. L. 1978.Informe preliminar, Curruste: In DumbartonOaks Conference on the Fase 1. Honduras:San Pedro Sula Olmec, ed. E. P. Benson,pp. 79-110. (Mimeo).78 pp. WashingtonDC: DumbartonOaks 46. Healey,P. F. 1974.Archaeological sur- 32. Flannery,K. V. 1973. The origins of veyof theRivas region, Nicaragua PhD agriculture.Ann. Rev. Anthropol.2: thesis. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, 271-310 Mass. 567 pp. 33. Fonseca,Z. O., Richardson,J. B. III. 47. Healey,P. F. 1974. The CuyamelCa- 1978.South American and Mayancul- ves: Preclassicsites in northeastHon- turalcontacts at LasHuacas site, Costa duras.Am. Antiq. 39(3):435-47 Rica. Ann. CarnegieMus. 47(13):299- 48. Healey,P. F. 1975.H-CN-4 (Williams 317 RanchSite): Preliminary report on a Se- 34. Ford,J. 1969.A comparisonof the For- lin periodsite in the Departmentof Co- mativecultures in the Americas.Smith- lon, northeastHonduras. Vinculos 1(2): son. Contrib.Anthropol. Vol. 11 61-71 35. Foster, D. W., Lathrap,D. W. 1973. 49. Healey,P. F. 1978.Excavations at Rio- Furtherevidence of a well-developed Claro,northeast Honduras: preliminary tropical forest culture on the north report.J. FieldArchaeol. 5:16-28 coast of Colombiaduring the firstand 50. Healey,P. F. 1978. Preliminaryreport secondmillenium B. C. J. StewardAn- on the paleoecologyof the Selin Farm thropol.Soc. 4(2):160-99 Site (H-CN-5), Departmentof Colon, 36. Freidel,D. A. 1978.Maritime adapta- Honduras. Presentedat Ann. Meet. tion and the rise of Mayacivilization: Soc. Am. Archaeol.,43d, Tucson the viewfrom Cerros, Belize. In Prehis- 51. Henderson,J. S. 1976. Pre-columbian toricCoastal Adaptations: the Economy trade networksin northwesternHon- and Ecologyof MaritimeMiddle Amer- duras.J. FieldArchaeol. 3:34246 ica, ed. B. L. Stark,B. Voorhies,chap. 52. Henderson,J. S. 1976.Vinculos comer- 11, pp. 179-243.New York:Academic ciales precolombinosen el noroestede 37. Galinat,W. C. 1977.The origin of corn. Honduras.Yaxkin 1(3):14-20 In Cornand CornImprovement, ed. G. 53. Henderson,J. S. 1977. Northwestern F. Sprague,pp. 1-47. Madison:Am. Hondurasand the easternMaya fron- Soc. Agron. tier. Presentedat Ann. Meet.Soc. Am. 38. Galinat,W. C. 1979.The archaeologi- Archaeol.,42nd, New Orleans cal maize remainsfrom Volcan, Pan- 54. Holt, D., Bright,W. 1976. La lengua ama-a comparativeperspective. See Paya y las fronteraslinguisticas de Ref. 87 Mesoamerica.Yaxkin 1(2):35-42 39. Gazin,C. L. 1957.Explorations for the 55. Ichon,A. 1974.Arche'ologie du sudde la remainsof giantground sloths in Pan- Prninsuled'Azuero, Panama PhD the- LOWERCENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 41

sis. Univ. Paris. Lille: Serv. Reprod. 74. Lathrap,D. W. 1973.The antiquity and Thises importanceof long-distancetrade rela- 56. Janzen, D. H. 1973. Tropical agro- tionshipsin the moist tropics of Pre- ecosystems.Science 182:1212-19 ColumbianSouth America. WorldAr- 57. Johnson,G. A. 1977. Aspects of re- chaeol. 5(2):170-86 gional analysis in archaeology.Ann. 75. Lathrap,D. W. 1975.Ancient Ecuador: Rev.Anthropol. 6:479-508 Culture,Clay and Creativity.Chicago: 58. Kaufman, T. 1973. Areal linguistics Field Mus. Nat. Hist. and Middle America. In Current 76. Lathrap,D. W. 1977. Our father the Trendsin Linguistics,ed. T. Sebeok, cayman,our mother the gourd:Spinden 2:459-83.The Hague:Mouton revisted, or a unitary model for the 59. Kaufman,T. 1974.Meso-american In- emergenceof agriculturein the New dian languages.Encyclopedia Britan- World.See Ref. 18, pp. 713-51 nica 11:952-63.15th ed. 77. Lathrap,D. W., Marcos,J. G., Zeidler, 60. Kaufman,T. 1976.Archaeological and J. A. 1977.Real Alto: an ancientcere- linguisticcorrelations in Maya-landand monialcenter. Archaeology 30(1):3-13 associated areas of Meso-america. 78. Linares,0. F. 1968.Cultural chronol- WorldArchaeol. 8(1):101-18 ogy in the Gulf of Chiriqui,Panama. 61. Kennedy,N. C. 1977.On the frontier of Smithson.Contrib. Anthropol. Vol. 8 Playa de los Muertos,Honduras. Pre- 79. Linares,0. F. 1971.Review of Central sentedat Ann. Meet.Soc. Am. Archa- America by C. F. Baudez. Am. An- eol., 42nd, New Orleans thropol.73(6):1413-14 62. Kennedy,W. J. 1974.The appearance 80. Linares,0. F. 1973. Review of Pre- of the chiefdomand its environmental ColumbianMan Finds CentralAmerica setting in the RaventazonRiver area, by D. Stone. Am. J. Archaeol. CostaRica. Proc. Int. Congr.American- 77(3): ists, 41st, Mexico, 1:560-67 361-62 63. Ladd, J. 1964. Archaeologicalinvesti- 81. Linares,0. F. 1976. From the Late gationsin the Paritaand SantaMaria Preceramicto the Early Formativein zones of Panama.Bur. Am. Ethnol. the IntermediateArea: some issues and Bull. 193 methodologies.In Proc. PuertoRican 64. Lange,F. W. 1971.Cultural history of Symp.Archaeol., Ist, San Juan, 1974, the SapoaRiver Valley, Costa Rica. Lo- ed. L. S. Robinson,pp. 65-77 gan Mus.Anthropol. Occas. Pap. 4 82. Linares,0. F. 1976."Garden hunting" 65. Lange,F. W. 1971.Northwestern Costa in the Americantropics. Hum. Ecol. Rica: Pre-ColumbianCircum-Carib- 4(4):331-49 bean affiliations.Folk 13:43-64 83. Linares,0. F. 1977.Adaptive strategies 66. Lange,F. W. 1971.Marine resources: a in western Panama. WorldArchaeol. viable subsistencealternative for the 8(3):304-19 prehistoriclowland Maya. Am. An- 84. Linares,0. F. 1977. Ecology and the thropol.73(3):619-39 Artsin AncientPanama. Studies in Pre- 67. Lange,F. W. 1972.The salvagearchae- ColumbianArt and Archaeology,17. ology of a Zoned Bichromecemetery, WashingtonDC: DumbartonOaks CostaRica. Am. Antiq. 37(2):240-45 85. Linares, 0. F., Cooke, R. G. 1975. 68. Lange,F. W. 1976.The northernCen- Differentialexploitation of lagoon-estu- tralAmerican buffer: a currentperspec- ary systemsin Panama Presentedat tive. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 11:177-83 Ann. Meet. Soc. Am. Archaeol.,40th, 69. Lange, F. W. 1977. Estudios ar- Dallas queologicos en el Valle de Nosara, 86. Linares,0. F., Ranere,A. J. 1971.Hu- Guanacaste,Costa Rica. Vinculos2(1- man adaptationsto the tropicalforests 2):27-36 of westernPanama. Archaeology 24(4): 70. Lange, F. W. 1978. Coastal settlements 346-55 in northwesternCosta Rica. See Ref. 87. Linares,0. F., Ranere,A. J., eds. 1979. 36, Chap.6, pp. 101-19 AdaptiveRadiations in WesternPan- 71. Lange,F. W. 1979.Theoretical and de- ama PeabodyMus. Monogr. Ser. 5. In scriptiveaspects of frontierstudies. Lat. press Am. Res. Rev. 14(1):221-25 88. Linares, 0. F., Sheets, P. D. 1979. 72. Lange,F. W., Murray,T. A. 1972.The Highland agriculturalvillages in the archaeologyof SanDimas Valley, Costa VolcanBaru region. See Ref. 87 Rica. Katunob7:50-91 89. Linares,0. F., Sheets,P. D., Rosenthal, 73. Lathrap,D. W. 1970. The UpperAma- E. J. 1975. Prehistoricagriculture in zon. New York:Praeger tropicalhighlands. Science 187:137-45 42 LINARES

90. Longacre,R. 1974. Systemiccompari- cultivation in Formative Ecuador. son andreconstruction. In Handbookof Science 199:177-78 MiddleAmerican Indians, Vol.5: Lin- 105. Pickersgill,B., Heiser,C. B. Jr. 1977. guistics,ed. N. McQuown,pp. 117-59. Originsand distributionof plants do- Austin:Univ. TexasPress mesticatedin the New World tropics. 91. Longyear,J. M. III. 1947.Cultures and See Ref. 18, pp. 803-35 peoplesof the southeasternMaya fron- 106. Ranere,A. J. 1972.Early human adap- tier. TheoreticalApproaches to Prob- tationsto theNew Worldtropicalforest. lems. CarnegieInst. No. 3 (Mimeo) PhD thesis. Univ. California,Davis, 92. Longyear,J. M. III. 1966.Archaeologi- Calif. cal surveyof El Salvador.In Handbook 107. Ranere, A. J. 1975. Toolmakingand of MiddleAmerican Indians, Vol. 4: Ar- tool use amongPreceramic peoples of chaeologicalFrontiers and External Panama.In LithicTechnology: Making Connections,ed. G. Ekholm,G. R. Wil- and UsingStone Tools, ed. E. Swanson, ley, Chap.7, pp. 132-56.Austin: Univ. pp. 173-209.The Hague:Mouton TexasPress 108. Ranere,A. J. 1976.The Preceramicof 93. Longyear,J. M. III. 1969.The problem Panama:the viewfrom the Interior.See of Olmec influencesin the potteryof Ref. 81, pp. 103-37 western Honduras.Proc. Int. Congr. 109. Ranere,A. J. 1979.Preceramic shelters Americanists,38th, Stuttgart1:491-97 in the TalamancanRange (5000 B.C. to 94. Lothrop,S. K. 1939.The southeastern 300 B.C.) See Ref. 87 frontierof the Maya.Am. Anthropol. 110. Ranere,A. J., Hansell,P. 1978. Early 41(1):42-54 subsistencealong the Pacific coast of 95. Lothrop,S. K. 1948.The archaeology Panama.See Ref. 36, pp. 43-59 of Panama. In Handbookof South 111. Ranere,A. J., McCarty,R. 1976. In- American Indians, ed. J. Steward, formepreliminar sobre la excavacionde 4:143-67 un sitio preceramicoen Panam'a.Actas 96. Lothrop,S. K. 1959.The archaeologi- IVSimp.Nac. Antropol., Arqueol. Etno- cal picturein southernCentral Amer- hist. Panamd,1973, Panama 483-93 ica. Proc. Int. Congr. Americanists, 112. Reed, C. A. 1977. Originsof agricul- 33rd,San Jose, 1:165-72 ture:discussion and some conclusions. 97. Lowe,G. W. 1975.The early Preclassic See Ref. 18, pp. 879-953 BarraPhase of Altamira,Chiapas: a re- G. 1953. view with new data. Pap. New World 113. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Colombia: Archaeol.Found. 38:1-39 PeriodoIndigena. Mexico: Inst. Panam. 98. Magnus,R. W. 1978. The prehistoric Geog. e Hist. and modernsubsistence patterns of the 114. Reichel-Dolmatoff,G. 1957. Momil, a Atlanticcoast of Nicaragua:a compari- Formativesequence from the SinuVal- son. See Ref. 36, pp. 61-80 ley, Colombia.Am. Antiq.22:226-34 99. Marcos,J. G., Lathrap,D. W., Zeidler, 115. Reichel-Dolmatoff,G. 1961. The agri- J. A. 1976.Ancient Ecuador revisited. culturalbasis of the sub-Andeanchief- Bull. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 47(6):3-8 doms of Colombia. In The Evolution of 100. McGimsey,C. R. III. 1956.Cerro Man- HorticulturalSystems in NativeSouth gote:a preceramicsite in Panama.Am. America,Causes and Consequences,ed. Antiq. 22(2):151-61 J. Wilbert, pp. 83-100, Caracas:La 101. Myers,T. P. 1978.Formative-period in- Salle teractionspheres in the Intermediate 116. Roosevelt,A. 1977.La Gruta:an early Area:archaeology of CentralAmerica tropicalforestcommunity in the middle and adjacentSouth America. In Ad- Orinocobasin. Presented at Ann. Meet. vancesin Andean Archaeology, ed. D. L. Am. Anthropol.Assoc., 76th, Houston Browman, pp. 203-34. The Hague: 117. Sharer,R. J. 1974.The prehistory of the Mouton SoutheasternMaya periphery. Curr. 102. Norweb,H. A. 1964.Ceramic stratigra- Anthropol.15(2):165-87 phy in southeasternNicaragua. Proc. 118. Sharer,R. J. 1978.Pottery and conclu- Int. Congr.Americanists, 35th, Mexico, sions.In ThePrehistory of Chalchuapa, pp. 551-61 El Salvador,ed. R. J. Sharer,3:209. 103. Paulsen,A. C. 1977.Patterns of mari- Philadelphia:Univ. PennsylvaniaPress time tradebetween south coastal Ecua- 119. Sheehy,J. J. 1976.Direcciones temati- dor and western Mesoamerica,1500 cas en los estudiosde las poblaciones B.C.-A.D. 600. See Ref. 21, pp. 141-60 mayas. Yaxkin 1(3):42-54 104. Pearsall,D. 1978.Phytolith analysis of 120. Sheehy, J. J. 1976. Excavationsat archaeological soils: evidence for maize Travesfa:a preliminaryreport. Pre- LOWER CENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 43

sented at Ann. Meet. Soc. Am. Ar- ramicsfrom the Northwest Coast. PhD chaeol.,42nd, New Orleans thesis. Univ. Pennsylvania,Philadel- 121. Smith,C. E. 1979.Plant remains from phia, Pa. the Chiriquisites and ancientvegeta- 137. Sweeney,J. W. 1976.Ceramic analysis tional patterns.See Ref. 87 from three sites in northwestcoastal 122. Smythe,N. E. 1978. TheNatural His- Guanacaste.Vinculos 2(l):37-44 tory of the CentralAmerican Agouti 138. Sweeney,J. W. 1976. Subsistencein (Dasyproctapunctata). Smithson. Con- three villagesin Precolumbiancoastal trib. Zool. 257. 52 pp. Guanacaste.Presented at Ann. Meet. 123. Snarskis,M. J. 1975.Excavaciones es- Soc. Am. Archaeol.,42nd, New Or- tratigrificasen la vertienteAtlantica de leans Costa Rica. Vinculos1(1):2-17 139. Thompson,J. E. S. 1970.Maya History 124. Snarskis,M. J. 1976.Stratigraphic ex- and Religion. Norman: Univ. Okla- cavations in the eastern lowlands of homa Press Costa Rica. Am. Antiq.41(3):342-53 140. Veliz, V., Willey,G. R., Healey,P. F. 125. Snarskis, M. J. 1977. Turrialba(9- 1977.Clasificacion descriptiva prelimi- FG-T),un sitio Paleoindioen el este de nar de la cerimicade Roatan. Yaxkin Costa Rica. Vinculos3(1-2):13-25 2(1):7-18 126. Snarskis,M. J. 1978. The earliestce- 141. Wheeler,A. 1972.Proto-Chibchan. In ramicsfrom CostaRica: La Montana,a ComparativeStudies in AmericanLan- middle Formativesite on the Atlantic guages, ed. E. Mattronet al, pp. 93- watershed.Presented at Ann. Meet. 108. The Hague:Mouton Soc. Am. Archaeol.,43rd, Tucson 142. Willey,G. R. 1959.The "Intermediate 127. Spath,C. D. 1973.Plant domestication: Area" of nuclearAmerica; its prehis- the case of Manihotesculenta. J Stew- toric relationshipsto MiddleAmerica ard Anthropol.Soc. 5(1):45-67 and Peru. See Ref. 96, pp. 184-94 128. Stone,D. 1957.The archaeology of cen- 143. Willey,G. R. 1969.The mesoamerican- tral and southernHonduras. Pap. Pea- ization of the Honduran-Salvadorean bodyMus. Archaeol.Ethnol, Harvard, periphery:a symposiumcommentary. 49(3) 129. Stone,D. 1959.The easternfrontier of See Ref. 93, pp. 537-42 Mesoamerica.Mitteilungen aus dem 144. Willey,G. R. 1971.An Introductionto 25:118-21. Hamburg:Mus. Volker- AmericanArchaeology, Vol. 2, South kunde America.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- 130. Stone, D. 1972. Pre-ColumbianMan tice Hall Finds Central America Cambridge: 145. Willey,G. R. 1978.A summaryscan. PeabodyMus. Press.231 pp. See Ref. 41, pp. 513-63 131. Stone,D. 1977.Pre-Columbian Man in 146. Willey, G. R., McGimsey,C. R. III. CostaRica Cambridge:Peabody Mus. 1954. The Monagrilloculture of Pan- Press ama.Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Eth- 132. Strong,W. D. 1935.Archaeological in- nol. 49(2) vestigationsin the BayIslands, Spanish 147. Wing,E. 1979.Aquatic fauna and rep- Honduras. Smithson. Misc. Collect. tiles fromthe Atlanticand Pacificsites. 92(14). 176 pp. See Ref. 87 133. Strong,W. D., Kidder,A. II, Paul, A. 148. Wyckoff,L. L. 1974.The Nicaraguaar- J. D. Jr. 1938. Preliminaryreport of chaeologicalsurvey, a preliminaryre- the SmithsonianInstitution-Harvard port. IndianNotes 10(4):99-107 Universityexpedition to northwestern 149. Zeitlin,R. N. 1978. Long-distanceex- Honduras,1936. Smithson. Misc. Col- change and the growth of a regional lect. 97(1):1-29 center;an examplefrom the southern 134. Struiver,M., ed. 1977.Radiocarbon, p. Isthmusof Tehuantepec.See Ref. 36, 219 pp. 183-210 135. Suarez,J. A. 1974.South American In- 150. Zevallos,C. M., Galinat, W. C., La- dian languages.Encyclopedia Britan- thrap,D. W., Leng, E. R., Marcos,J. nica 17:105-12.15th ed. G., Klumpp,K. M. 1977.The San Pa- 136. Sweeney,J. W. 1975.Guanacaste, Costa blo corn kerneland its friends.Science Rica: an Analysisof PrecolumbianCe- 196:385-89