Isla Zapatera Archaeological Project (IZAP 2013)

Isla Zapatera Archaeological Project (IZAP 2013) Geoffrey McCafferty (University of Calgary) June, 2014 Zapatera Island is located in Lake Nicaragua, south of the modern and Colonial city of Granada. It has been known to the archaeological community for more than 150 years, since initial explorations and publication by Ephraim Squier (1853). The site of Sonzapote was first described by a Swedish biologist, Carl Bovallius (1886), who noted the many monumental sculptures located around a series of mounds. Since then several scholars have discussed the statuary but relatively little archaeological attention has been paid to the site of Sonzapote itself, resulting in a weak understanding of the cultural context of the monumental art and architecture. The IZAP 2013 project was designed to address this gap by creating a topographic map of the site core, describing extant mounds and monuments, and conducting excavations to recover a sample of the material culture for dating and preliminary interpretations of site functions. Fieldwork and preliminary analysis were accomplished in August, 2013, and technical analyses are ongoing. Historical Context Zapatera Island is the largest of a series of volcanic islands that form the Zapatera Archipelago near the western shore of Lake Nicaragua south of Granada (Figure 1). It was first explored by Squier (1853) who conducted excavations at the site of Punta de Figuras on the northwest side of the island, recovering ceramics and examples of monumental sculpture that were sent to the Smithsonian Institution. Squier’s research also encompassed other parts of Nicaragua, and his publications on the ethnographic and archaeological cultures formed a foundation for subsequent investigations.

Figure 1: Zapatera Island and surrounding islets (from Bovallius 1886) 1

In 1886, Bovallius revisited Zapatera Island to explore the site of Sonzapote (Punta de Zapote) and adjacent islands. His book Nicaraguan Antiquities provides a detailed description of dozens of large stone statues, many representing standing or seated anthropomorphic figures with elaborate animistic headdresses (Figure 2). Importantly, Bovallius included a map of six mounds while noting where the statues were found relative to the mounds (Figure 3). This provides an invaluable basis for establishing the original positioning of the monuments, since they were later removed to the nearby city of Granada.

Figure 2: Sonzapote statues (from Bovallius 1886)

Figure 3: Mounds of Sonzapote, with keys to corresponding statues (from Bovallius 1886)

Since Bovallius’ publication, several scholars have commented on the statues, suggesting a variety of interpretations and concluding that they pertained to the Chorotega culture (Lothrop 2

1921; Guido Martinez 2004; Navarro Genie 2007). In 1926 many of the statues from Sonzapote were moved to Granada, and they are now on exhibit at the Ex-Convent of San Francisco Museum (Figure 4). The most detailed interpretations have been presented by Rigoberto Navarro Genie (2007) and Clemente Guido Martinez (2004), who relate the figures to the Mesoamerican religious pantheon of the Postclassic period (800-1520 CE) Chorotega and Nicarao cultures. Another noteworthy interpretation was offered by Karen Bruhns (1992) who considered the Zapatera sculpture within a larger Central American framework.

Figure 4: Statues from Sonzapote in the Ex-Convento San Francisco Museum, Granada

While numerous scholars have considered the Zapatera statuary, relatively little attention has been paid to the archaeological site itself. Julio Magdiel Castillo Barquero (1989) excavated an exploratory trench in Mound 6 (identified as Mound 1 by Bovallius) that was then used to support his interpretations in an unpublished MA thesis. Navarro Genie (2007) excavated two small stratigraphic pits in which he recovered ceramics that he used to date the occupation using a radiocarbon date of 1330 CE. This tentative chronology was then used to support his interpretation of the statuary with Postclassic cultures affiliated with Mesoamerican migrations. Based on recent research in Pacific Nicaragua (McCafferty 2008, 2010, 2011; McCafferty and Dennett 2013; McCafferty and Steinbrenner 2005; Steinbrenner 2010), the question of Mesoamerican cultural affiliation has been challenged. Using primarily domestic contexts at the sites of Santa Isabel, Tepetate, and El Rayo, clear evidence for Mexican migrants is weak, though some traits of a pan-Mesoamerican religious pantheon do appear beginning about 800 CE. Consequently, investigations at the Sonzapote site were designed to clarify religious ideology within a rigorous archaeological framework as an appropriate next step in a larger cultural historical program. Additionally, plans by the European Union to develop Sonzapote as an archaeo-tourism park made it important to construct a more solid archaeological foundation 3

for future planning and development. Theoretical Considerations and Research Objectives Until recently, Nicaraguan archaeology has not been tied to problem-oriented investigations (but see Healy 1980). Settlement pattern archaeology has produced inventories of sites in the Rivas, Masaya, and Granada regions (Niemel 2003; Roman Lacayo 2013, Salgado 1996) with interpretations of changing demographics and the development of social hierarchies. Excavation projects have often been in the form of rescue archaeology (Espinoza et al. 1999; Lange 1995, 1996; Moroney 2011a, 2011b; Zambrana Fernández 2012). As a result of these studies a basic ceramic sequence has been established for Pacific Nicaragua with close correspondence to northwestern Costa Rica (Healy 1980; Steinbrenner 2010; Zambrana Fernández 2011). Beginning in 2000, the University of Calgary began a long-term archaeological program in Pacific Nicaragua to investigate historical claims of cultural migrations from central Mexico to the Greater Nicoya region of Pacific Nicaragua and northwest Costa Rica. The overarching theoretical issues that have shaped the research include ethnicity and other aspects of social identity (McCafferty 2008, 2011; McCafferty and Dennett 2013; McCafferty and McCafferty 2009, 2011; McCafferty and Steinbrenner 2005b). This has been accomplished through excavations at the sites of Santa Isabel (2000, 2003-2005), Tepetate (2008), and El Rayo (20092010), especially focussing on aspects of domestic practice, mortuary patterns, and material culture. As a result of this extensive research, however, the expected Mesoamerican cultural practices have not been firmly established despite clear evidence of cultural changes between the Bagaces and Sapoá time periods (ca. 800 CE). Current interpretations include a more prominent role for cultural continuity from the autochthonous Chibchan population with influences from eastern Honduras, in addition to indisputable ideological traits from greater Mesoamerica. Based on existing interpretations of the Sonzapote site as a Postclassic Chorotega and/or Nicarao politico-ceremonial center, the IZAP 2013 project sought to clarify more public-scale ideology as a complement to the domestic-scale research already achieved. In this we hoped to integrate theoretical interpretations with those of a Dutch project directed by Dr. Alexander Geurds on the eastern side of Lake Nicaragua which has looked at monumentality and spatial organization at the site of Aguas Buenas (Geurds and van Broekhoven 2011). Specific objectives of the IZAP 2013 project included the creation of a detailed topographic map of the site core, an inventory of existing mounds and monuments, and excavations designed to recover material culture suitable for dating the occupation sequence and especially the mounded architecture. Methodology To address these research goals a multi-stage research methodology was developed. Based on the funding limitations and problems encountered in obtaining necessary permits for the investigation these were accomplished efficiently over a period of eight days by a research team of graduate students from the University of Calgary, undergraduate students from the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, and professional Nicaraguan archaeologists. We were assisted in the field by several community members who cleared underbrush and provided 4

contextual information about past investigations and interpretations. The site map was produced by Shawn Morton, a PhD candidate at the University of Calgary and a specialist in Maya site organization. Using a standard transit he produced a topographic map of 4 hectares of the site core encompassing 17 mounds and dozens of stone monuments (including statues, petroglyphs, and culturally modified boulders). As he progressed into the outskirts of the site core he discovered well-preserved terrace walls. Due to the short field season he was not able to define site boundaries, and we estimate that he covered only about 30% of the entire site. Inventories of central mounds and monuments were accomplished by two teams. William Vasquez Moreno, a Nicaraguan archaeologist currently completing his MA at the University of Costa Rica, led a team to map and describe mounds in the central zone. These generally consisted of concentrations of igneous rocks measuring between 1 to 3 m in height. In addition to sketch maps of individual mounds indicating dimensions and general shape, the inventory also identified (and photographed) areas of architectural integrity including stacked masonry, stone alignments of ancient walls, and vertical slabs. The monument inventory was directed by Sharisse McCafferty. Monuments included extant statuary, petroglyphs, and modified boulders. Whereas most of the complete statues had previously been removed from the island, numerous statue bases and other fragments still exist across the site. These were measured and plotted by the survey team. Petroglyphs and modified boulders were similarly measured and plotted. Excavations occurred at two separate site loci, with soil screened through 5 mm mesh screens. All ceramic, lithic, and faunal remains were saved for processing in the field lab, and significant artifacts are now stored at the Museo Ex-Convento San Francisco in Granada (non-diagnostic body sherds were returned to the site for re-burial). Appendix A includes a complete inventory of the collection units. Locus 1 was associated with Mound 14, a large rectangular mound with good architectural integrity. Operation 1 was located on the southwest corner and included excavations to clear the existing architecture as well as recover material culture to date the mound and infer its functions through time. This consisted of four contiguous excavation units (Figure 5). Operation 2 involved clearing a looter’s trench on the east side of Mound 14 in order to expose its construction, and then excavate in the interior to determine construction history. Locus 2 was a stratigraphic unit (1 x 1 m) located in a pathway between Mounds 8 and 9 to recover material culture for chronological and functional interpretations. Results Despite the short period of time available for fieldwork we were able to accomplish significant progress towards all research objectives. As this represents the most scientifically focussed investigation at the site, the results offer a solid foundation for contextual interpretations as well as for future research. 5

Figure 5: Locus 1, Operation 1on southwest corner of Mound 14

The topographic map identified 17 mounds in the site core (Figure 6), while casual exploration indicated the presence of additional mounds located on artificial terraces to the north of the site core. The mounds are both circular and rectangular. No clear urban plan is apparent, though rectangular structures A1, 9, and 14 share roughly the same orientation, and possible plaza groups may exist around Mound 6 (the largest of the mounds). Terracing on the east side of the site may indicate a different site function but no excavations were conducted in that area.

Figure 6: Topographic map of Sonzapote 6

Mound Descriptions Detailed mapping of 11 mounds in the site center provide more details of architectural patterns and associated monuments. For example, most mounds retained vestiges of dry-laid stones in courses, suggesting a degree of integrity for the original structure (Figure 7). In many cases large standing stones indicate another architectural feature of the mounds (Figure 8). Alignments of stones, such as those found at Mound A1, indicate wall alignments (Figure 9). And in the case of the rectangular buildings right angle corners are occasionally preserved (Figure 10). These traits all indicate a fair degree of architectural integrity that would allow future consolidation and restoration. It is also indicative of the highest degree of architectural sophistication yet observed in Pacific Nicaragua.

Figure 7: Mound 8 with dry-laid stone architecture

Figure 8: Mound 9 with vertical stones

7

Figure 9: Mound A1 stone alignment

Figure 10: Mound 14 southeast corner

8

Mound A1 measured 14 m x 9 m, and was 1.3 m in height (Figure 11). It was roughly rectangular. Some stone alignments suggest walls, and one statue fragment was located on top of the mound. Mound A1 was not included on the Navarro (2007) map and is located between Mounds 3 and 6.

Figure 11: Mound A1 drawing and wall alignment

Mound 2 measured 11 m x 10 m (Figure 12). It is the westernmost mound of the site; a Mound 1 was indicated on the Navarro (2007) map but turned out to be a bedrock outcrop and was not included in the mound inventory. Mound 2 featured eight petroglyphs near and on the mound. There are also several standing stones and areas of multi-course architecture.

Figure 12: Mound 2 drawing and architectural features 9

Mound 3 measured 15 m x 13 m with an orientation toward magnetic north (Figure 13). It may represent the northernmost side of a mound group with Mounds A1, 9, and 6. Several possible looter’s pits were observed on the surface, and small rectangles formed by upright rocks may indicate burial cysts (time constraints prevented testing this possibility). Three petroglyphs were associated with the mound, as was a mortar stone.

Figure 13: Mound 3 drawing and photos of possible burial cyst and standing stones

Mound 5 is located in the southwest part of the site core, near an existing school building (Figure 14; Mound 4 on the south side of the site core was not mapped due to time constraints). It was roughly circular and measured 11 m in diameter. Three vertical stones were aligned in the southwest part of the mound.

Figure 14: Mound 5 drawing 10

Mound 6 was the largest mound in the site center, measuring 23 m x 20 m (Figure 15). It appears round, but several alignments of stones suggest straight sides. Mound 6 (originally known as Mound 1 in Bovallius’ publication) was the subject of a MA thesis by Castillo Barcero (1989) of the University of Texas. A “looter’s trench” on the east side may in fact be remnants of an excavation by Castillo Barcero. Mound 6 may represent the southernmost side of a mound group with Mounds A1, 3 and 9, while a level area to its east may indicate a plaza shared with Mound 13 and bounded by Mounds 7 and 8.

Figure 15: Mound 6 drawing and photos of looter’s trench and architectural features

Mound 7 is a small circular mound that measured 8 m x 9 m (Figure 16). It featured a looter’s pit at its center. A statue lies on its side just to the north of the mound. A line of upright stones is on the eastern edge of the mound.

Figure 16: Mound 7 drawing amd photo of wall alignment

11

Mound 8 is a rectangular mound that measured 17 m x 8 m (Figure 17). It is the best preserved of the mounds in the site core with an extensive area of exposed multi-course architecture on the south side. A statue is on the northwest corner of the mound.

Figure 17: Mound 8 drawing and architectural features

Mound 9 is a low rectangular mound that measured 13 m x 7 m (Figure 18). It forms the east side of the possible mound group with Mounds A1, 3, and 6, and is parallel to Mound A1. Two statues remain associated with this mound, and numerous upright stones serve to delineate the structure. A large upright slab associated with other stones on the mound may indicate a tomb.

Figure 18: Mound 9 drawing and architectural features

12

Mound 10 is the northernmost mound in the site center, and is located in an area of high artifact density (Figure 19). It is roughly circular, measuring 10 m in diameter. Nine petroglyphs are associated with this mound, and several are located at the periphery. Several mortar stones are also present.

Figure 19: Mound 10 drawing

Mound 11 is another rounded mound that measured 15 m in diameter (Figure 20). It is located nearly due east of Mound 6 across a level area that may have been a plaza. A fallen statue is located to the north of Mound 11, and several areas of preserved architecture were recorded.

Figure 20: Mound 11 drawing and architectural features

13

Mound 14 was a large rectangular mound that measured 22 m x 12 m (Figure 21). It had a similar alignment to Mounds A1 and 9. Mound 14 was originally mis-identified as #13 in initial fieldwork, as reflected on some of the photo boards. The architecture was well preserved, especially on the south corners. A looter’s trench was dug into the east side through a possible staircase, and another looter’s pit was observed on the top of the mound. Excavations (described below) exposed the looter’s trench and the southwest corner of the structure.

Figure 21: Mound 14 drawing an architectural features

The eleven mounds described during the architectural inventory represent over half of the 17 mounds mapped during the topographic survey. The major distinction between the mounds was in terms of shape, with some exhibiting rounded shapes while Mounds A1, 8, 9, and 14 were rectangular. Three of these rectangular mounds had roughly similar alignments, and all have roughly 2:1 length to width ratios. Other than this distinction there is no reason to believe that the mounds were not all part of a single construction phase. Based on Bovallius’ 1886 map which indicated that the monumental statues were placed around the base of the mounds, some scholars have interpreted the statues as possible pillars used to support a roof. While this remains a possible interpretation, two statues found associated with Mound 9 appear to have been placed at ground level in inset niches. While they were both fragmentary it seems unlikely that the statues would have been more than 2 m in height, and therefore not tall enough to support a roof above even a low mound such as Mound 9. Monument Inventory For the purpose of the site inventory, monuments were defined as statues, petroglyphs, or modified boulders. 14

According Bovallius’ original report (1886), the statuary from Sonzapote was arranged around six low mounds that ranged in size, with [his] Mound 1 being the largest at 50 m by 30 m. Six statues were arranged around Mound 1 (though the placement suggested that there may originally have been as many as 12), and Bovallius described these as facing out from the edge of the mound and with a ‘tenon’ on their heads that he proposed was functional to support the ‘wall plate’ of a thatched roof. The other mounds were smaller, and had fewer statues on their periphery. Based on ethnohistoric sources dating to the 16th century, Bovallius concluded that the Zapatera monuments were created by the “Niquirans,” a Nahuat-speaking cultural group associated with the Aztecs that are now referred to as Nicarao. Note that Bovallius did not attempt to ascribe temporality to the statues beyond simply pointing out that they were “preSpanish.” In the 1920s many of the sculptures from Sonzapote and Punta de las Figuras were moved to the mainland city of Granada, where they are now exhibited at the Ex-Convent of San Francisco Museum. At that time the leading Central Americanist archaeologist, Samuel Lothrop (1921), published an analysis of the sculptures that linked them to Mesoamerican traditions, and especially to the Maya long-count chronology. While noting similarities with some Classicperiod Maya sculpture, Lothrop concluded that the best cultural assignation was to the Chorotega group, a group that he believed originated in South America based on problematic linguistic ties; it is now recognized that the Chorotega spoke a dialect of Oto-manguean with links to southern Mexico. The Chorotega were identified as the “ancient and indigenous” population that occupied the region at Spanish contact, and the Maya long count date indicated that the sculptures pre-dated the relatively late arrival of the Nahuat-speaking Nicarao. Since Lothrop, several scholars have discussed the symbolic meanings that may have been associated with the sculpture, generally following his suggestion that they were created by the ancient Chorotega. Clemente Guido Martinez (2004) attempted to identify the different sculptural figures with deities from the Nahua Mexican pantheon. The most complete discussion of Nicaraguan monumental art, including the statuary of Zapatera Island, is found in the PhD dissertation by art historian Rigoberto Navarro Genie (2007). Both Guido Martinez and Navarro Genie use current dating of the Chorotega culture as arriving in Nicaragua about 800 CE with affiliations with the Oto-Manguean language family from southern Mexico. Karen Bruhns (1992) included Zapatera sculpture in a broader discussion of Central American sculpture. As indicated by Bovallius, most of the statue fragments were located in proximity to the mounds, although the local guides commented that some of the fragments had been moved by earlier investigators. No complete statues were discovered by the IZAP 2013 project. Those that were recorded were consistent with the ones illustrated by Bovallius and on exhibit at the museum in Granada. They are made of solid blocks of gray basalt which is abundantly available on and around the site. The complete statues in the museum range from about two to four meters in height, and are carved on at least three sides. Most of the statues are anthropomorphic, but the more complete examples from the museum in Granada feature animal imagery on the head. Many of the figures are depicted as seated, and both males and females are represented. 15

From the Sonzapote inventory, 16 statue fragments were identified (some in more than one piece; Appendix B). Nine of these were anthropomorphic, and all but one were of the lower portion of either seated or standing figures (Figure 22); one head with headdress was found. Two statue bases were identified, two were zoomorphic, one had a geometric motif, and two statues were unidentifiable. The two zoomorphic statues depicted a lizard/crocodile and a possible feline. Two of the statues were found at Mound 9 in positions that could have been original contexts. Others appear to have been moved, according to local guides. The two zoomorphic statues appear to be modified boulders. It is possible that some of the statues may have been abandoned before they were completed, including the unidentifiable ‘statues.’

Figure 22: Statue bases from Sonzapote

Sonzapote is also littered with petroglyphs, many of which are associated with the mounds (see Appendix C for photos). It is unclear if the petroglyphs were originally part of the mound contexts, or if they were simply placed there after the site was abandoned. Several of the petroglyphs feature anthropomorphic images (Figure 23), while others are simply eccentric carved lines. The majority, however, depict linear arrangements of pecked holes (Figure 24). We speculate that these may have been a preliminary production step in petroglyph manufacture, but welcome other possible interpretations.

Figure 23: Anthropomorphic figures on petroglyphs 16

Figure 24: Pecked dots as petroglyphs

The final category of ‘monuments’ in the inventory were natural bedrock outcrops distributed around the site that featured evidence of cultural modification (see Appendix D for photos). The most typical element was circular holes in the boulders that were usually about 15 to 20 cm in diameter and about 10 to 15 cm in depth bored into the native stone (Figure 25). Occasionally these were in a roughly linear arrangement. A few of the holes also featured shallow channels that appear to have been for run-off. Other rare features included basin-like depressions, and another has deep, linear grooves. Modified outcrops were generally located in close proximity to the seasonal stream that flows through the site, so water may have been important to whatever activity was conducted at the outcrops. Specialized grinding is the logical interpretation for the holes, though mano and metate fragments are also found at the site. Domestic artifacts are not abundant at the site center, raising doubts about the function of the mound cluster. We speculate that the modified outcrops were indeed used for grinding, but perhaps for a ritual practice, such as special foods, plants, or pigments. Residue analysis from the interior of the holes is planned.

Figure 25: Holes and hole with drain from work areas

As an example of one of these modified outcrops, Monument 20 was the largest of the bedrock work areas, measuring 3.1 m by 4.3 m (Figure 26). It featured 24 holes ranging in size from 8 to 28 cm in diameter. One of the holes abutted a natural depression that fed into another hole, that in turn had an artificial channel that drained off the side of the outcrop. On the southwest portion 17

of the outcrop were two arcing alignments of shallow pecked holes, similar to those of the petroglyphs. Shallow petroglyphs were also inscribed onto the surface of the outcrop. Two adjacent outcrops featured additional modifications.

Figure 26: Monument 20 work area

If the revised chronology for mound construction, and by extension the statuary, is correct (see discussion below), then the site center was built during the late Tempisque period, ca. 1-300 CE. Hopefully this dating will be confirmed by radiocarbon dates, currently being processed. This early date would have dramatic impact on current interpretations of the site and associated monuments. Based on accepted culture historical reconstructions, for example, the Chorotega arrived in the Greater Nicoya region about 800 CE, and this date for cultural change is supported by recent excavations at the site of El Rayo, located on the Asese peninsula about 10 km from Zapatera Island. Prior to the arrival of the Chorotega, the dominant cultural group in the region was probably affiliated with the greater Chibchan language family (though another possible affiliation could be with the Lenca of El Salvador). Assuming that the site was much earlier than previously believed, and associated with a non-Mesoamerican cultural group, then previous interpretations of the symbolic context of the statues must be abandoned, and new interpretations developed. Similarly, the petroglyphs from the site deserve further consideration. If they are associated with the cultural contexts of the mounds, then this provides a temporality for them, as well. The function of the mounds has not yet been clearly established, but the relative lack of domestic debris from excavated contexts suggests that the mounds may have been the foundation platforms for civic-ceremonial structures. As petroglyphs typically occur in non-site settings, such as on rocky promontories, the Sonzapote petroglyphs provide an interesting cultural context that may aid in larger functional interpretations of these enigmatic monuments. Finally, the culturally modified outcrops offer insight into another dimension of cultural activity that took place at the site. The dating of these work areas is again problematic, but if associated with the Late Tempisque period occupation then they would be indicative of some sort of 18

specialized production activity. Some holes have the possible run-off channel suggestive of the need to drain liquids as part of the process. Local signage indicates that at least one of these boulders was an ‘area of sacrifice,’ though there is no evidence to support this identification or ethnohistorical evidence that such a practice would have been associated with a boulder. Testing of residues from within the holes is planned, though the likelihood of success is tenuous. As a tentative interpretation, we believe that the holes were used for grinding. Their location in proximity to the stream indicates that water may have been important to the process, and the occasional run-off channels would have carried away excess perhaps as a way of leaching. Local informants told us that stone manos were occasionally found in association with the holes, though this may be from post-abandonment disturbance. Excavation Results In order to recover a sample of material culture to date the site occupation and to ascertain the construction history of the architectural features, three operations were excavated. Two were associated with Mound 14 (designated Locus 1, Operations 1 and 2), while the third was located between Mounds 8 and 9 (Locus 2, Operation 1). These were excavated using hand tools (e.g., shovels, trowels, hand picks, and brushes) and soil was inspected using a standing screen with 5 mm wire mesh. Locus 1, Operation 1 was located near the southeast corner of Mound 14, a large rectangular mound selected for its relatively good architectural integrity. The operation consisted of four 2 m x 2 m excavation units designed to expose the base of the mound and identify the corner, and to extend away from the mound in order to recover artifacts useful for interpretation of the construction history and building functions. Unit A exposed the lower slope of the mound, including some stacked stones above a shallow slope of large stones (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit A

Unit B was divided into two 1 m x 2 m sections (B1 and B2), with initial excavation in B2. This excavation exposed a reconstructable urn designated as Feature 1 (Figure 28). The urn was identified by Jorge Zambrana Fernández (personal communication) as Espinoza Red Banded 19

type, diagnostic of the Late Tempisque/Early Bagaces period. Excavation within the urn recovered poorly preserved human skeletal remains and two samples of carbonized wood that will be submitted for radiocarbon dating. The urn was found to be resting on a compacted earth and cobble walking surface believed to correspond with the mound construction.

Figure 28: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit B2, Feature 1 urn

A second human burial was found on the east side of B2 so a small 50 x 50 cm extension was excavated into B1 in order to fully expose the remains for removal. Beneath the burial was another packed earth and cobble surface that was above the one from B2, suggesting that the Feature 1 urn was deposited through the upper B1 surface (Figure 29). This provides a solid date for the surfaces, and by extension Mound 14, in the Late Tempisque/Early Bagaces period. Radiocarbon dating of associated carbon samples will be processed to refine this date.

Figure 29: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit B1 packed earth and cobble surface

Unit C was cleared to expose the mound architecture and especially the corner. No artifacts were recovered from this unit.

20

The southernmost excavation unit (D) was also divided into four 1 x 1 m segments (D1, D2, D3, and D4; Figure 30). D1 was closest to the southwest corner of the mound, and contained part of one large urn and remains of two human long bones (Figure 31). D2 was located in the southeast quadrant of the unit and featured two more urns that extended into D3 (Figure 32). D4 contained an urn that contained six greenstone beads (Figure 33). While this was a fairly dense clustering of vessels, they did not seem to have been placed as a single burial element, but rather may represent distinct burial episodes. The urns were also above the occupation of Mound 14, and therefore represent post-abandonment deposition. The Sacasa Striated urns are consistent with a Sapoá or Ometepe burial event, also supported by the use of Castillo Engraved and polychrome pottery.

Figure 31: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit D1, Feature 2 human long bones

Figure 32: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit D2/D3, Feature 6 burial urn

21

Figure 33: Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit D4 Burial urn

Locus 1, Operation 2 was located on the east side of Mound 14 where a looter’s trench exposed the inner core of the mound at about the mid-point, disturbing large stones that may have been a staircase (Figure 34). An excavation unit was placed over the trench and rubble was removed to expose the mound construction to a level below the mound’s base. No evidence was found of earlier mound construction, indicating a single episode with no interior features.

Figure 34: Locus 1, Operation 2 looter’s trench exposure

Locus 2, Operation 1 was a 1 x 1 m pit located between Mounds 8 and 9, in a modern pathway. The goal of this excavation was to sample material culture from another part of the site. The 22

excavation reached sterile soil at about 40 cm below surface (Figure 35). No evidence of earlier architecture was revealed, and the artifact quantity was low.

Figure 35: Locus 2, Operation 1 sterile bedrock at base of unit

Ceramic Analysis Ceramics were collected during surface reconnaissance and especially from the excavation units. Following protocols established in previous projects, emphasis was placed on rim sherds for the purpose of classification and quantification, while decorated body sherds were collected if they were diagnostic or had significant designs. 654 rim sherds were classified by type (Table 1); based on previous studies rim sherds make up approximately 15% of recovered ceramics suggesting that the total number of vessel fragments collected totalled about 4360. The ceramics of Pacific Nicaragua are well-known based on publications by Healy (1980), and Zambrana Fernández (2011), among others. This is especially true for the Postclassic Sapoá and Ometepe periods. However, in the case of the Sonzapote ceramics 43% of the rims were unidentified; these were divided into utilitarian and serving vessel forms and further divided into plain and orange slip. The high frequency of unidentified types indicates either that the site may have related to an under-studied time period, or that it was inhabited by a cultural group not characteristic of the region. It adds further support to the interpretation that the main site occupation pre-dated the better known Sapoa/Ometepe period, against the traditional interpretation that the site related to the Postclassic period. The most numerous of the identified ceramics were of the Castillo Engraved type (14%). These are characterized by fine line engraving in a panel around the exterior rim on a brown to black burnished serving vessel (Figure 36). Two reconstructable Castillo bowls were recovered, and at least one of these functioned as a cover for a burial urn. Castillo has traditionally been considered a diagnostic of the Late Postclassic Ometepe period (Zambrana Fernández 2011), but excavations at Santa Isabel and El Rayo clearly demonstrate that it was also prominent during the Sapoá period (McCafferty and Steinbrenner 2005a). In Navarro Genie’s (2007) excavation Castillo was also abundant, leading him to conclude a Late Postclassic occupation for the site based on the traditonal ceramic chronology. The prominence of Castillo is consistent with a 23

Figure 36: Castillo Engraved ceramics

secondary Postclassic occupation, especially associated with the urn burials. The second most abundant identifiable type was Sacasa Striated (13%), a Postclassic utilitarian ware that is often re-used as a mortuary vessel, especially in the ovoid ‘shoe-pot’ form (McCafferty and McCafferty 2012). Several of the reconstructable vessels from Locus 1, Operation 1 were Sacasa Striated, consistent with its interpretation as a mortuary context. In other sites from Pacific Nicaragua, Sacasa Striated vessels have been found with applique decoration (Figure 37), and several body sherds with applique were recovered. Sacasa burial urns are often associated with other ceramic vessels as protective covers, and the reconstructable Castillo bowl from Feature 6 was probably such a cover.

Figure 37: Example of Sacasa Striated shoe-pot urn from Santa Isabel

The most abundant decorated type found at Postclassic sites from Pacific Nicaragua are of the Papagayo Polychrome type, which is generally divided into multiple varieties. Papagayo was present at Sonzapote as 6% of the total sample of rim sherds. Most of the fragments were highly eroded, however, making it generally impossible to subdivide this category into varieties (one example of Casares variety was noted). Papagayo type is characterized by a cream color slip 24

over which polychrome decoration is painted. The relatively low frequency of Papagayo is suggestive that the Sonzapote site may have had a distinctive function as compared to the residential sites previously studied along the lake shore. Another Postclassic serving ware type that appeared in moderate amounts is tentatively identified as Lago Negro Modelled (6%), although in fact the examples were neither black in color nor with modelled decoration (Figure 38). Lago is often found in small superhemispherical bowls with modelled decoration on the exterior. At Sonzapote the rim sherds identified as Lago ranged in color from a dark tan to a dark gray. These colors are also common to the Castillo Engraved type. Vessel forms include constricted neck bottles as well as shallow bowls and dishes.

Figure 38: Example of Lago Negro Modelled from El Rayo

The only other type present in more than a trace (defined as less than 2% of the total [cf. McCafferty 2001]) was an unusual type identified as Jobo Rojo Excised (Zambrana Fernandez, personal communication 2013). This is a plain type with a grayish body, but the diagnostic feature is a broad rim with excised lines and dots on the lip (Figure 39). Zambrana Fernández recognized this type as coming from the Chontal region on the east side of Lake Nicaragua, and dating to the Late Tempisque/Early Bagaces time period (ca. 100-500 CE). This time frame is consistent with the Espinoza Banded Red urn from Feature 1, and may also relate to the many Unidentified sherds in the collection. Collection unit #049 featured seven sherds of Jobo Rojo Excised (out of 30 total) as well as 9 examples of Unidentified Orange-slip Utilitarian ware. While this Unidentified type remains problematic, it may relate to a large number of examples on display at Mi Museo (where they call it Indeterminate), and which features an annular ring base; ring bases were also common in the Sonzapote collection. A partially reconstructable vessel of this type featured a series of slits along the lip and also on an applique bead around the body, and an applique head of a probable crocodilian (Figure 40); Carrie Dennett (personal communication 2013) tentatively associates this type with Early Bagaces period Costa Rica. More typical Bagaces period red wares such as Tola Black on Red, Leon Punctate, and Chavez White on Red were present in trace amounts, and were notable in that the typically burnished red slip was poorly preserved. 25

Figure 39: Examples of Jobo Rojo Incised

Figure 40: Jobo Rojo vessel with applique head

A key ceramic for dating the early occupation of the site is the burial urn found in association with the compact walking surface in Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit B2 (Feature 1). This vessel is tentatively identified as an Espinoza Red Banded, that dates to the Late Tempisque/Early Bagaces period (Jorge Zambrana Fernández, personal communication). It was a globular jar with wide red painted bands (Figure 41). At present this vessel provides the strongest evidence for dating the mound construction, and by extension the monumental sculpture.

Figure 41: Fragment of Espinoza Red Banded urn, and example from Mi Museo

26

In addition to discussing the ceramics that were present, it is also worth noting some that were not present, or were found in surprisingly low numbers. Recent excavations in Managua at sites such as La Arenera (McCafferty 2009) and Las Delicias (Moroney 2011a) have investigated Late Tempisque deposits, where a resist decorated pottery has been found similar to that known as Usulutan Resist in El Salvador. This pottery has been studied for its mineral composition and been found to be a locally made imitation (Dennett et al. 2011). Although prominent in the Managua collections, this Usulutan-like resist ware was not found at Sonzapote. Instead, as observed by Zambrana Fernández, the Late Tempisque pottery such as Jobo Rojo Excised has stronger ties to the Chontal region. As noted above, the red wares typical of later Bagaces contexts (e.g., Chavez, Leon, Tola) are present in trace amounts and are poor examples compared to the more typical lustrous surface finish found at sites along the western shore of the lake. Instead, an unidentifed orange-slipped ware was abundant and, based on possible comparisons with examples from Costa Rica, may have been a Bagaces diagnostic, especially in the form of large urns. Finally, white-slipped pottery such as Papagayo Polychrome is the predominant serving ware used in the Sapoa period, yet was found in relatively low amounts. One example of Luna Polychrome was found (Figure 42); Luna is a diagnostic of the Ometepe Period (1250-1530 CE). In contrast, Castillo Engraved was most common, along with the possibly related Lago type. This suggests a Postclassic period occupation, probably as a mortuary site, but with a dramatic distinction in ceramics assemblage from other contemporary sites in the area such as Santa Isabel and El Rayo.

Figure 42: Luna Polychrome from mortuary context at Mound 14

Ceramic objects included re-worked sherd net weights (Figure 43), similar to those recovered from other lake shore sites such as Santa Isabel and El Rayo (Wilke 2012). Modelled ceramic heads were also found, and were probably appliques or vessel supports (Figure 44). Bird heads were the predominant form. Notably absent were mold-made human figurines typical of the Postclassic period.

27

Figure 43: Ceramic net sinkers

Figure 44: Ceramic figurines and appliques

Based on the recovered ceramics, Mound 14 exhibits utilization from at least the Late Tempisque period (0-300 CE) and the Sapoa/Ometepe period (800-1530 CE). Much of the evidence is in the form of mortuary vessels, however, so it is unclear if the mound was actively used throughout this long period of time or simply visited sporadically for ceremonial use. The site chronology will remain tentative until more absolute dates are processed (e.g., radiocarbon dating), and until a wider range of contexts are sampled. Mortuary Analysis (with Jessica Manion) The skeletal remains of approximately eight human individuals were found during the 2013 excavations. Remains were found at the southwest corner of Mound 14 (Locus 1, Operation 1), and excavations revealed that the individuals were interred in at least two distinct burial contexts: inside of vessels and extended with legs crossed. When skeletal remains were exposed, further excavations were conducted using wooden implements; if teeth were exposed, or if it was expected that there would be teeth, gloves and masks were worn to limit the amount of modern contamination with the expectation of future aDNA studies (Figure 45). Many of the long bones when found in situ were too fragile to remove in one piece, and were instead removed either by individual fragments, or by keeping the soil in place to keep the pieces together for subsequent cleaning in the lab.

28

Figure 45: Jessica Manion and Oscar Pavón excavating burial in Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit B2

Preservation at the site was very poor, and for many of the burials only fragments and/or teeth remained. Bone was difficult to excavate, as it was fragile and had often been disturbed by root action. In one case a root had grown through the middle of femur and tibia shafts (Figure 46). Whole bones were rare and limited to small specimens such as phalanges (Table 2). For these reasons it was difficult to accurately establish the number of individuals, much less more detailed information on basic identification of age or sex of the individuals. Because of the preservation, it was difficult to know whether more than one individual was interred in a particular context (such as within ceramic vessel). Some burials included evidence of commingling, for example three distal tibias in Feature ???, while others indicated only one individual, such as the presence of only deciduous teeth within an urn (Feature ???).

Figure 46: Long bone with root from Locus 1, Operation 1 Unit D2

Work conducted in the lab first required a 24-48 hour drying period, followed by careful cleaning of the bones using toothpicks and soft-bristled toothbrushes. Teeth were cleaned using a new surface wiped with antiseptic cloths, a previously unused toothpick, and gloves and mask were worn. Teeth were only minimally cleaned, then placed in individual foil bags for storage. Some of these have been submitted for ancient DNA and stable isotope analysis.

29

Only minimal information could be gathered about the individuals excavated, as the preservation did not allow for an in-depth investigation of age, sex, or pathology. Age could be estimated by the teeth, and in one case by the cranial sutures as well. It would appear that there was at least one child, based on the presence of unworn deciduous teeth found with no associated adult teeth. One other individual had several unfused cranial sutures, which indicates an individual probably under the age of 20-30 years, but this is not an accurate measure. With the exception of Feature 1, all of these burials appear to date to the Postclassic period (it was impossible to distinguish between Sapoa and Ometepe period ceramics based on the small sample). Since this is long after the proposed construction date of Mound 14 it is hypothesized that the majority of these burials were interred after the site’s abandonment, and may instead be a re-use of the site as evidence of a social memory of past significance. More investigation is required to properly evaluate this possibility. Conclusion Recent investigations at Sonzapote have established the architectural complexity of the site center, including at least 17 densely packed and well-constructed stone platform mounds. Dozens of monumental sculptures associated with these mounds indicate a ceremonial significance for the mounds, while a relative lack of domestic debris supports an interpretation that these were not residential mounds. Diagnostic ceramics from occupational contexts suggest that Mound 14, at least, dated to the Late Tempisque period, almost 1000 years earlier than previous interpretations. The architectural complexity of Sonzapote in association with monumental sculpture indicates incipient urbanism unprecedented in the region, though possibly related to the complex site of Aguas Buenas in the Chontal region near Juigalpa, currently being explored by Geurds. Much more needs to be learned about Sonzapote, but the potential is great for important discoveries about the rise of political and/or ideological complexity. By re-dating the site to the Late Tempisque period, previous interpretations of the sculpture as relating to Mesoamerican deities must be discarded. While biological and cultural affinities of Nicaragua’s early occupants have been minimally theorized, it is likely that they were members of a greater Chibchan cultural group with ties to southern Central America. The pervasive theme of standing and seated figures, oftentimes wearing animal insignia, is probably an indication of political authority. That these statues were arranged around the mounds, especially the large Mound 6, may indicate that these served as public structures, perhaps council houses or related civic/ceremonial buildings. Additional excavations to recover associated material culture will be necessary to clarify building functions. However, the presence of both Espinoza Red Banded and Jobo Incised pottery in the early contexts of Mound 14 are more typical of the Chontal region on the east side of Lake Nicaragua, as opposed to the diagnostic ceramic types found on the western shore. Long after this initial site occupation, Mound 14 was reutilized as a burial site, perhaps as a form 30

of social memory celebrating a revered symbolic landscape. The use of Sacasa Striated shoe-pot urns is typical of mortuary practices of the Greater Nicoya region during the Postclassic period, as seen at nearby El Rayo on the Asese Peninsula about 10 km north of Zapatera Island. What is less common, however, is the relatively low frequency of whiteware polychrome pottery, and the relatively high frequency of Castillo Engraved. At El Rayo, miniature vessels were often placed in and around the burial urns, a trait that was not found at Sonzapote. The implication is that these later burials may represent a cultural difference from the more common residential cemetery found at El Rayo. In conclusion, Sonzapote represents an early form of incipient urbanism, as defined by architectural complexity and monumentality. The symbolic trappings of power and authority found at Sonzapote are unprecedented at this early date, at least until absolute dating is obtained from other sites such as Aguas Buenas. It is clear, however, that whereas Nicaragua has tended to be a backwater in terms of theoretical conceptualizations of social hierarchy in Central America, sites such as Sonzapote have the potential to add important new dimensions to developing perspectives on political complexity.

References Cited Bovallius, Carl 1886 Nicaraguan Antiquities. Serie Arqueologica No. 1, Swedish Society of Anthropology and Geography. Stockholm, Sweden. Bruhns, Karen Olsen 1992 Monumental Sculpture as Evidence for Hierarchical Societies. In Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, edited by Frederick W. Lange, pp. 331-355. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. Castillo-Barquero, Julio Magdiel 1989 The Context and Meaning of the Zapatera Sculptures: Punta del Zapote. Mound I. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Dennett, Carrie L., Lorelei Platz, and Geoffrey G. McCafferty 2011 Preliminary ceramic compositional analysis from the La Arenera site, Pacific Nicaragua. La Universidad 14-15: 373-397. Universidad de El Salvador. Espinoza P., Edgar, Ramiro García V., and Fumiyo Suganuma 1999 Rescate Arqueológico en el Sitio San Pedro, Malacatoya, Granada, Nicaragua. Instituto Nicaraguense de Cultura, Museo Nacional de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua. Geurds, Alexander, and Laura van Broekhoven

31

2011

Chontales en su sentido etnico. Mi Museo y Vos 5(16): 6-10.

Guido Martínez, Clemente 2004 Los dioses vencidos de Zapatera: Mitos y realidades. Academia Nicaragüense de la Lengua, Managua, Nicaragua. Healy, Paul F. 1980 Archaeology of the Rivas Region, Nicaragua. Wilfred Laurier Press, Waterloo, ON. Lange, Frederick W. (Editor) 1995 Descubrimiendo las Huellas de Nuestros Antepasados: El Proyecto “Arqueología de la Zona Metropolitana de Managua.” Alcaldía de Managua, Nicaragua. 1996

Abundante Cooperación Vecinal: La Segunda Temporada del Proyecto “Arqueología de la Zona Metropolitana de Managua.” Alcaldía de Managua, Nicaragua.

Lothrop, Samuel K. 1921 The Stone Statues of Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 23(3): 311-319. McCafferty, Geoffrey G. 2001 The Ceramics of Postclassic Cholula, Mexico: Typology and Seriation of Pottery from the UA-1 Domestic Compound. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 43, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 2008

Domestic Practice in Postclassic Santa Isabel, Nicaragua. Latin American Antiquity 19(1): 64-82.

2009

La Arenera, Nicaragua. Website: http://arky.ucalgary.ca/mccafferty/miscellaneous/la-arenera-nicaragua

2010

Diez Años de Arqueología en Nicaragua. Mi Museo y Vos 14:2-15.

2011

Etnicidad chorotega en la frontera sur de Mesoamerica. La Universidad 14-15: 91-112. Universidad de El Salvador.

McCafferty, Geoffrey G. and Carrie L. Dennett 2013 Ethnogenesis and Hybridity in Proto-Historic Nicaragua. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28(1):191-215. McCafferty, Geoffrey G. and Sharisse D. McCafferty 2009 Crafting the Body Beautiful: Performing Social Identity at Santa Isabel, Nicaragua. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social Phenomena, edited by Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, pp. 32

183-204. University Press of Florida Press, Gainesville. 2011

Bling and Things: Ornamentation and Identity in Pacific Nicaragua. In Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Chamool Archaeology Conference, edited by Lindsey Amundsen-Meyer, Nicole Engel and Sean Pickering, pp. 243-252. Chacmool Archaeology Association, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, CA.

2012

Ollas en forma de zapato tipo Sacasa Estriada: funcion y significado. Mi Museo y Vos 20:5-17.

McCafferty, Geoffrey G. and Larry Steinbrenner 2005a Chronological Implications for Greater Nicoya from the Santa Isabel Project, Nicaragua. Ancient Mesoamerica 16 (1):131-146. 2005b The Meaning of the Mixteca-Puebla Style: A Perspective from Nicaragua. In Art for Archaeology’s Sake: Material Culture and Style across the Disciplines, edited by Andrea Waters-Rist, Christine Cluney, Calla McNamee and Larry Steinbrenner; pp. 282-292. Proceedings of the 2000 Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Moroney Ubeda, Bosco 2011a Informe Preliminar de los Avances del Rescate Arqueologico Sitio Quezalguaque - Leon. Report submitted to the Instituto Nicaraguaense de Cultura. Managua, Nicaragua. 2011b Las Delicias: Poblado Indigena Mas Antiguo de Managua. Direccion de Cultura y Patrimonio Historico Municipal, Alcaldia de Managua, Nicaragua. Navarro Genie, Rigoberto 2007 Les Sculptures préhispaniques en pierre du versant Pacifique du Nicaragua et du nord ouest du Costa Rica et leur contexte archéologique. PhD Thesis, Universidad de París I (Panthéon-Sorbonne), Paris, France Niemel, Karen Stephanie 2003 Social Change and Migration in the Rivas Region, Pacific Nicaragua (1000 BC AD1522). PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Roman Lacayo, Manuel Antonio 2013 Social and Environmental Risk and the Development of Socal Complexity in Precolumbian Masaya, Nicaragua. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

33

Salgado González, Silvia 1996 Social Change in the Region of Granada, Pacific Nicaragua (1000 B.C. - 1522 A.D.). Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Albany, NY. Squier, Ephraim G. 1853 Observations on the Archaeology and Ethnology of Nicaragua. Reprinted 1990 by Labyrinthos, Culver City, California. Steinbrenner, Larry Leonard 2010 Potting Traditions and Cultural Continuity in Pacific Nicaragua, AD 800 – 1350. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Wilke, Sacha 2011 Cambiando la tipologia de las peses de red de El Rayo, Nicaragua. Mi Museo y Vos 17:6-9. Zambrana Fernández, Jorge 2011 Ceramica Prehispanica del Pacifico de Nicaragua: Coleccion Mi Museo/Prehispanic Ceramics of Pacific Nicaragua: Mi Museo Collection. In Ceramica Prehispanica del Pacifico de Nicaragua, edited by Nora Alejandra Zambrana. Mi Museo, Granada, Nicaragua. 2012

Estudios Arqueologicos en el Sitio "Los Martinez," Sector el Pantanal - Managua. Alcaldia, Managua, Nicaragua.

34