Style across the Disciplines

AArrtt ffoorrAArrcchhaaeeoollooggyy’’ss

SSaakkee

Material Culture and

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Chacmool Conference

Edited by

Andrea Waters-Rist, Christine Cluney, Calla McNamee and Larry Steinbrenner

CHACMOOL © 2005 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Art for Archaeology’s Sake

Material Culture and Style across the Disciplines

Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the

University of Calgary

Edited by

Andrea Waters-Rist, Christine Cluney, Calla McNamee and Larry Steinbrenner

The University of Calgary

Archaeological Association, 2005

ISBN 978-0-8895-293-9

ii

THE MEANING OF THE MIXTECA-PUEBLA STYLISTIC TRADITION:THE VIEW FROM NICARAGUA

Geoffrey G. McCafferty and Larry SteinbrennerArchaeology, University of Calgary

Archaeologists and historians of non-Western arthave struggled with the meaning of style for aslong as their disciplines have existed. What dosimilarities mean? How are 'similarities' evenidentified? One goal of this Chacmool conferencewas to grapple with questions such as these. Stylemay carry information about cultural identitieseither overtly as emblematic symbols or covertlyas shared patterns of learned behaviour.Similarly, material culture may incorporatefossilized mental templates of past societies, aswell as functional information on the technologyand practice of daily life. Archaeological objectstherefore encapsulate a range of socialinformation waiting to be decoded by nuancedand contextually informed analysis (Hodder1990).

In Mesoamerican archaeology one of the mostfamous-and controversial-'styles, is thePostclassic Mixteca-Puebla style of CentralMexico. It was first identified by George Vaillant(1938, 1941), and has been elaborated on by H.B.Nicholson in a series of publications spanning the1960s to 1990s (1960, 1982; Nicholson andQuinones Keber 1994; but see Smith and Heath­Smith 1980). The Mixteca-Puebla style is largelyreligious in theme, and is best represented in thepictorial manuscripts of the Mixtec- and Borgia­group codices from modem Oaxaca and Puebla,Mexico. The style also occurs on polychromepottery, sculpture, murals, and textiles over awide geographic area and a long temporal span.Mixteca-Puebla stylistic elements have beenidentified as far afield as the Southeastern UnitedStates (in Southern Cult iconography) and inGreater Nicoya (that is, Pacific Nicaragua andnorthwestern Costa Rica) in Nicoya polychromepottery styles dating between AD 800-1520 (Day1994).

As defined by Nicholson, the Mixteca-Pueblastyle features religious motifs characterized bythe Central Mexican pantheon of deities (e.g.,Quetzalcoatl and Tlaloc) and the 20-daycalendrical system. These are often representedmetonymically, where a symbolic element suchas a cut shell (i.e., Quetzalcoatl's pendant) orgoggle eyes (i.e., Tlaloc's facial feature) will beused to signify an entire iconographic complex.Images are depicted in colourful, caricature-likefigures that are easily recognizable. Because theiconography was used by diverse cultural groupsit has also been called the "International Style"(Robertson 1970), somewhat analogous tointernational traffic signs that carry meaningoutside of any particular linguistic system. Due tothis international nature, iconographic elementsof the Mixteca-Puebla stylistic tradition havebeen used to infer long-distance exchange as wellas shared religious principles (Ringle, GallaretaNegron, and Bey 1998; Lopez Austin and LopezLujan 2000).

Since the Mixteca-Puebla stylistic traditionwas defined in the 1930s, when explanationsbased on principles of diffusion were popular, theconcept has often been employed uncritically,with the identification of presumed Mixteca­Puebla characteristics being used to infer anentire range of cultural traits. This problem hasbeen rightly criticized by Michael Smith andCynthia Heath-Smith (1980), who recommenddividing the Mixteca-Puebla concept into threecomponents: religious iconography, pictorialmanuscript style, and polychrome pottery. Whilethese categories are not always mutuallyexclusive, the implication is that polychromepottery does not necessarily imply a total culturalpackage of'Mixteca-Puebla' traits.

282

283

This paper will take a critical look at theMixteca-Puebla style as it appears on the southernperiphery of Mesoamerica. Recent archaeologicalresearch in Rivas, Nicaragua, has recovered anassemblage of polychrome pottery that haspreviously been related to the Mixteca-Pueblastylistic tradition (e.g., Stone 1966; Day 1994).This paper will consider how 'similar' theiconography really is to more prototypicalMixteca-Puebla themes, and what the similaritiesmight mean. Finally, we will consider theimplications of Mixteca-Puebla style to thequestion of cultural complexity among migrantMexican ethnic groups in Nicaragua.

Cultural BackgroundMesoamerica has been defined as a culture

area corresponding to the geographic areabounded by northern Mexico to the north andCentral America to the south. Because thecultural traits used to define 'Mesoamerica'varied over time, the boundaries of the culturearea were dynamic. The southern boundary wasusually drawn at Honduras, but during thePostclassic period (AD 900-1550) culturalcharacteristics of the Greater Nicoya regionsuggest that the frontier should be drawn -furthersouth into Pacific Costa Rica. Thesecharacteristics were associated with culturalgroups known as the Chorotega and Nicarao, whoarrived in the region as the result of mythico­historical migrations beginning in the Epiclassicperiod, circa AD 800 and perhaps continuing intothe final centuries before the arrival of theSpanish in 1529. Cultural traits of these migrantMesoamericans included linguistic evidence forNahuat-speakers (Constenla Umafia 1994;Nahuatl was the language spoken by the LatePostclassic Aztecs and probably the EarlyPostclassic Toltecs of Central Mexico; Nahaut isits Nicaraguan dialect, which drops the "I"); useof the Central Mexican calendar system andrelated rituals; a pantheon of deities related tothose ofCentral Mexico, and myths oforigin withreferences to migration out of Mexico around the

ninth century AD (Lothrop 1926; Healy 1980;Fowler 1989; Hoopes and McCafferty 1989).Polychrome pottery with iconography relating tothe Mixteca-Puebla tradition provides a materialand iconographic link between Central Mexicoand the Greater Nicoya region (Day 1994).

The Epiclassic time period (AD 600-900) isnoted for the dramatic social changes that tookplace across Mesoamerica. It immediatelyfollows the fall of the great Central Mexicancentre of Teotihuacan, and it also encompassesthe end of the Classic Maya civilization. TheEpiclassic is recognized as a period of eclecticinternationalism, when iconographic motifs fromthroughout the region were combined ininnovative ways to assert new configurations ofpower as the old models were abandoned ortransformed (Lopez Austin and Lopez Lujan2000; McCafferty 2000, in press; Ringle,Gallareta Negron, and Bey 1998). New centressuch as Chichen Itza, Xochicalco, and Tuladeveloped along very different principles thantheir predecessors. At the same time the Classic­period city of Cholula, located in the PueblaValley of Mexico's central highlands,metamorphosed into an international economicand pilgrimage centre focused on its GreatPyramid, which combined architectural and otherartistic styles from different cultures ofMesoamerica to become the crucible in which theMixteca-Puebla tradition was created(McCafferty 1994, 2001a). Stamp-impressedceramics feature Mixteca-Puebla iconographybeginning by about AD 700 (McCafferty andSuarez Cruz 2001), and polychrome potteryappears by at least AD 900 (McCafferty 1996,2001a; Suarez Cruz 1994).

Ethnohistorical sources identify the culturalgroup that occupied Epiclassic Cholula as theOlrneca-Xicallanca, a multi-ethnic group from thesouthern Gulf lowlands with ties to both Mayaand Nahua cultures (Jimenez Moreno 1942, 1966;Olivera and Reyes 1969; McCafferty 1997, inpress). The Olmeca-Xicallanca were also presentat other Epiclassic centres, including Cacaxtla,

Xochicalco, and Tula (where they were known asthe Nonoalca), and were the culture brokers of thenew eclectic style (McCafferty in press; cf.McVicker 1985; Nagao 1989). Since earlyevidence for the nascent Mixteca-Puebla stylederives from Cholula during the period ofOlmeca-Xicallanca occupation, it is likely that thestyle conveys ideological principles linked to theEpiclassic transformation of pan-Mesoamericaninternationalism.

Origin myths for the Chorotega and Nicarao ofGreater Nicoya suggest that they were originallyinhabitants of Central Mexico--specificallyCholula-but were driven out of Mexico by the'tyrannical' Olmeca (Torquemada 1975-83; cf.Chapman 1974; Abel-Vidor 1980; Hoopes andMcCafferty 1989). The term 'Chorotega' is acorruption of 'Cholulteca,' the identifier for aperson from Cholula; 'Cholulteca' is also thename of a river that flows into the Gulf ofFonseca in southwestern Honduras-anotherregion inhabited by groups associated with thismigration. The chronology of this migration isconfounded in mythologized histories, but isinterpreted as beginning about AD 800 (Davies1977; Fowler 1989; McCafferty 1997). It remainsunclear if this was a one-time migration or ifcontact was continuous over a long period oftime, resulting in a continuous stream ofmigration (Steinbrenner 2002). Other groups ofNahua speakers, such as the Pipil who settled inEl Salvador and Pacific Honduras, may have alsobeen associated with this same pattern ofmigration (Fowler 1989)

Linguistic data also provides some clues as tothe origins of the migrant groups in GreaterNicoya. Ethnohistorical sources claim thatNahuat was spoken in the Rivas area at the timeof the Spanish conquest, and this is supported byword lists provided by early chroniclers such asBobadilla and Oviedo (Oviedo y Valdes 1851-55;cited in Healy 1980) and by the many Nahuattoponyms that still dot the Nicaraguan landscape.In the Late Postclassic period, Nahuatl was thelingua franca of most of Mesoamerica, including

the Gulf Coast heartland of the Olmeca­Xicallanca (Lastra 2001). When Nahuatl firstappeared in Mesoamerica remains a bone ofcontention, though a recent study by Dakin andWichmann (2000) argues persuasively for theNahuatl term for cacao in Maya documents asearly as AD 350. A good part of the Nahuatl­appearance debate revolves around whether ornot Nahuatl was a prominent language at theClassic urban centres of Teotihuacan andCholula. If it was, then this provides anothermeans of tying the Nicarao to Central Mexico,and Cholula in particular. Complicating. anymigration scenario, however, is the fact that theChorotega spoke an Oto-manguean language, theorigins of which are hazy (Constenla Umalia1994). While Oto-manguean languages can alsobe associated with Central Mexico, their specificassociations with the major Classic urban centreshas been no more clearly established thanNahuatl's. At any rate, however, the presence oflanguages from at least two major CentralMexican linguistic groups in Greater Nicoya doesconfirm that the migrations were multi-ethnic.

The cultural background for the Classic toPostclassic transformation indicates the key roleplayed by Cholula in the central highlands, andthe use of the Mixteca-Puebla style as a form ofvisual communication that carried culturalinformation about that transformation. The multi­ethnic Olmeca-Xicallanca, as culture brokers forthe wide-reaching changes, combined lowlandtraditions of the Gulf Coast and Maya regionswith highland traditions of the Mexican plateau.Migration myths from the Greater Nicoya areaalso allege that the Olmeca played an importantrole in uprooting Mesoamerican populations fromthe highlands and causing them to eventuallysettle in Nicaragua and Costa Rica (Torquemada1975-83; cf. Davies 1977; Fowler 1989).Problem-oriented investigations from the GreaterNicoya region can illuminate the history of themigration, and also provide information forinferring such characteristics as intensity,duration, and cause for the population movement,

284

as well as cultural changes that occurred withinthe ethnically Mexican population as it adapted toCentral America. In this way the Mixteca-Pueblastyle will be used to interpret complexity amongthe Chorotega and Nicarao of late pre-HispanicNicaragua.

The Archaeology of Mesoamerica's SouthernPeriphery

Archaeological investigations of Nahuamigrations to Greater Nicoya have been minimal,both in terms of number and intensity. Earlyexplorers and culture historians such as EphraimSquier (1852), Samuel Lothrop (1926), andWilliam Duncan Strong (1948) recognized theimportance of the migration myths and soughtarchaeological correlates from Nicaragua andCosta Rica, though much of the evidence camefrom collections without secure archaeologicalcontexts. Art historians Doris Stone (e.g., 1966)and Jane Day (1994) have concentrated on theiconography of Nicoya materials, particularly thepolychrome ceramics, and have attempted torelate them to the Mixteca-Puebla tradition.Problem-oriented archaeological research inGreater Nicoya has been conducted since the1960s (e.g., Baudez and Coe 1962; Coe 1962;Healy 1980; Lange et al. 1992; Salgado 1996;Niemel, Roman-Lacayo, and Salgado 1997), butdue to political, economic, and environmentaldifficulties they have tended to be small in scaleand sporadic in duration. One epistemologicalissue that has directed research away from theMixteca-Puebla question is a recent orientationtoward Central America as an 'IntermediateArea' that is not dependent on eitherMesoamerica or South America for its culturalidentity (Lange 1992, 1994).

In the summer of 2000, archaeologists fromthe University of Calgary initiated a project at thesite of Santa Isabel, on the cpast of LakeNicaragua near modem Rivas, in the southwestportion of the country (Figure 1). While one goalof the project was to test the feasibility ofarchaeological investigations in the area, the

overarching objective was to recover informationthat could be used to evaluate the cultural contextof late pre-Conquest materials relating to theChorotega and/or Nicarao occupation. Theresearch builds on previous work in the area byGordon Willey and Edward Norweb (Healy1980) and, more recently, by Karen Niemel(2003). Previous work at Santa Isabel resulted ina sketch map of the area with low moundsfollowed by three stratigraphic pits (Healy 1980),and Niemel's survey of the site as part of a largerregional settlement pattern survey. Paul Healy'spublished dissertation (1980) based on Willeyand Norweb's brief study forms the foundationfor local archaeological reconstructions, primarilybecause of its detailed ceramic descriptions.

The first field season lasted only two weeks,and included a series of 65 shovel test pits dug at10m intervals in a fallow field that includedHealy's Mound 3, followed by five 1 x 1 m unitsexcavated to investigate shovel tests with possiblearchitectural features (McCafferty andSteinbrenner 2003; Steinbrenner 2002). In 2003 alonger and more intensive investigation exploredadjacent mounds to the south, using additionalshovel tests and seven operations that exposed 25m2 that included living surfaces and relatedfeatures. The site provides outstandingpreservation of faunal remains, including fish,bird, amphibian, and mammal. Ceramic and lithicremains were also recovered in abundance,providing what is already the best collection ofarchaeological material culture for interpretingthe Chorotega and Nicarao occupation.

In the deepest of the Mound 3 stratigraphicpits, N20E30, a transition occurred in ceramicfrequencies between levels below 1.40 m andthose above, with Ometepe Period (AD 1350­1550) ceramics such as Castillo Engraved andVallejo, Madeira, and Mombacho polychromesonly appearing in the upper levels. Sap6a Period(AD 800-1350) Papagayo Polychrome ceramicswere found below this level, but continued inbarely diminished frequencies throughout thesequence. This transition between Sap6a and

,

I,

285

Ometepe is believed to relate to the transitionfrom Chorotega to Nicarao occupation in Rivas,and is estimated to date to about AD 1350;radiocarbon samples from N20E30 are beingtested to further evaluate this chronology. The2003 excavations recovered primarily Ometepe­Period materials, even in the deepest levels ofMound 6. Based on the continuity of thePapagayo ceramics, as well as of utilitarian plainwares, it can be inferred that the arrival of theNicarao added cultural traits to the Santa Isabelcomplex but did not represent a large-scalecultural replacement.

Mixteca-Puebla style iconography first appearson Sap6a Period Papagayo Polychrome pottery,and continues on other related types during theOmetepe Period. However, the Santa Isabelassemblage features relatively few clearindicators of Mixteca-Puebla style: some 'cut­shell' design elements were present on GranadaPolychrome, possibly relating to the wind godEhecatl (Figure 2). On the other hand, less iconicdesign configurations were found on Papagayovarieties Casares (Figure 3) and Mandador(Figure 4) that were very close to pottery knownfrom Early Postclassic period Cholula, especiallythe type Cuaxiloa Matte.

In addition to the polychrome ceramics fromSanta Isabel, other elements of material culturealso support cultural similarities with CentralMexico. A ceramic bead featured the distinctivegoggle eyes and fangs of the Mexican storm god,Tlaloc (Figure 5). While 'Tlaloc' was not amongthe named deities of the Nicarao pantheon asrecorded in the ethnohistorical chronicles, anavatar called Quiahuit, derived from the Nahuatlterm for rain, does appear. It might therefore berelated to the Cholula deity associated with theGreat Pyramid during the Late Postclassic periodwho was known as Chiconauquiahuitl, meaning 9Rain (McCafferty 200Ib).

Fifteen spindle whorls were found in the SantaIsabel excavations, made of reworked andperforated potsherds, bone, and two that wereformed and decorated. One ·of the decorated

whorls featured a design of crossed lines identicalto a woven pattern found in the Nahua andMixtec codices (McCafferty and McCafferty inpress).

Among the utilitarian vessels there seems to belittle similarity with Central Mexican forms.Vessels similar to the ubiquitous Greater Nicoyantype, Sacasa Striated, are unknown in CentralMexico. A form that should be found inabundance is the comal, a low profile griddleused for heating tortillas. In Central Mexicotortillas were a staple of Nahua foodways, andcomal rim sherds make up about 20 per cent of atypical domestic assemblage (McCafferty 2001a).No comals were identified in the Santa Isabelassemblage (Steinbrenner 2002).

While there are certainly some elements ofMixteca-Puebla style used in the material cultureof Santa Isabel, it was not an overwhelmingfeature in either the decorated ceramics or otherartifact classes. And while there does seem to bea stylistic disjunction between Sap6a and theearlier Bagaces Period (AD 300-800) ceramicstyles (few examples of which were recoveredfrom Santa Isabel), the transition from Sap6a toOmetepe seems to be relatively smooth, with theaddition of certain types but with relatively littleloss. This evidence is consistent with at least twowaves of migration, the first occurring during theMesoamerican Epiclassic and another followingthe Early Postclassic. In terms of Mesoamericanculture history, this could correspond to adiaspora following the fall of Teotihuacan,followed by another following the fall of Tula,though these events would have taken place far tothe northwest and are not necessarily the bestexplanations for cultural change in GreaterNicoya.

Style and Complexity at RivasLinguistic, historical, and archaeological

evidence support the idea of cultural affiliationbetween the Greater Nicoya area and CentralMexico, beginning in the Sap6a Period (ca. AD800) and continuing through the Ometepe Period

286

until the Spanish conquest in the early 1500s. Thehistorical accounts describe Nicarao society ashierarchically organized around a teyte, or'chief', and with a religious system derived fromCentral Mexican Nahua religion (Fowler 1989;van Broekhoven 2002). The question remains: towhat extent did the Chorotega and Nicarao ofPacific Nicaragua share Central Mexicanconcepts of complexity? And if they arrived witha state-level social system, did it continue at thatlevel as the ethnic groups adapted to the realitiesoflife in lower Central America?

The Nahua of Central Mexico are associatedwith complex state-level societies, includingmonumental architecture tied to the constructionof a symbolic landscape, and an expansionisticmilitary apparatus geared toward conquest for thepurpose of procuring tribute. This model certainlydescribes the Aztec and Toltec, and may alsorelate to the Teotihuacan empire, especially ifrecent decipherments of Maya inscriptions atTikal and Copan relate to military intervention inClassic Maya politics (Fash and Fash 2000; Stuart2000).

At the Pipil site of Cihuatan in El Salvador,Nahua attributes such as monumental architectureand a large ball court have been discovered(Bruhns 1980; Kelley 1988; Fowler 1989). InGreater Nicoya, however, such features areunknown. The mounded architecture at SantaIsabel measured only a few meters in height at themost, and seems as likely to have been domesticas ritual in function. The settlement data collectedby Niemel (2003) indicates at least a two-tiersystem, with the Santa Isabel site as the largestsettlement in the region, but Niemel did not find astate-level four-tier system. If the dominant ethnicgroup at Santa Isabel was Nahua, it seems to havelost (or rejected) the level of complexity that ithad in Central Mexico, and which it even carriedas far south as El Salvador.

As an alternative explanation to the large-scalepopulation movement model attested in theethnohistorical sources, we propose a differentscenario. As has been established, the Mixteca-

Puebla style was a characteristic of the Olmeca­Xicallanca, a group with origins on the GulfCoast. This group operated throughoutMesoamerica as traveling merchants workingunder the umbrella of the Quetzalcoatl cult,spreading an ideology of elite interaction that wassymbolically represented through the iconicimages of the Mixteca-Puebla religious complex.The Olmeca-Xicallanca merchants (later knownas pochteca) traveled long distances, trading forexotic goods that they then exchanged at certainregional markets such as Cholula and Xicalango.Among the commodities that they sought outwere quetzal feathers, jade, and cacao, the beanused as currency by Postclassic peoples as well asfor ritual chocolate drinks. Maya texts indicatethat cacao was an important commodity at leastby the Early Classic (Dakin and Wichmann2000). It should be noted that quetzal feathers,jade, and cacao are all found in Central America,and that cacao in particular was a key crop alongthe Pacific coast from El Salvador to Nicaragua(Fowler 1987; Steinbrenner in press). It is stillgrown in Rivas, near Santa Isabel.

Instead of a large-scale movement of NahuaNicarao resulting in population replacement, itseems more likely, based on current information,that there was minor contact, perhaps on the levelof elite interaction for establishment of tradingpartners in order to secure exotic or valuedcommodities such as jade, gold, and/or cacao forinternational exchange (Helms 1993). As thelingua franca of the Olmeca-Xicallanca andNahua merchants, Nahuatl--or rather, itsdoppelganger Nahuat-may have been adoptedby local groups in areas of the most intenseinteraction, such as Rivas. This could haveresulted in a facade of 'Mesoamericanization' inGreater Nicoya that was more apparent than real.

Ongoing research will continue to explore thediachronic changes at Santa Isabel. Researchobjectives will target the transition from theSap6a to the Ometepe periods, in order tointerpret the relationship between the Chorotegaand the Nicarao. Excavations will continue to

I

-II

287

Figure 3. Papagayo Polychrome: Casares Variety.

Figure 4. Papagayo Polychrome: Mandador Variety.

target domestic areas in order to better understandethnicity on the household level. With additionalmaterial culture from systemic contexts, therelation of Mixteca-Puebla stylistic elements toChorotega and Nicarao culture will become morereadily understood.

288

Figure 1. Nicaragua and Costa Rica, showing theapproximate boundaries ofGreater Nicoya.

Figure 2. 'Cut-shell' design elements on GranadaPolychrome (design panel around base of the bowl),possibly relating to Ehecatl.

289

Figure 5. Bead with 'Tlaloc' image.

References Cited

Abel-Vidor, S. 1980. The Historical Sources for theGreater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea. Vinculos6:155-176.

Baudez, C.F., and M.D. Coe. 1962. ArchaeologicalSequences in Northwestern Costa Rica. Acta, 34thInternational Congress of Americanists (Vienna1960), pp. 366-373.

Bruhns, K.O. 1980. Cihuatan: An Early PostclassicTown of El Salvador. Monographs in Anthropology,No.5. Museum of Anthropology, University ofMissouri, Columbia, MO.

Chapman, A.M. 1974. Los Nicarao y los Chortegasegun los fuentes historicos. Ciudad Universitaria,Costa Rica.

Coe, M.D. 1962. Costa Rican Archaeology andMesoamerica. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology18:170-183.

Constenla Umana, A. 1994. Las lenguas de la GranNicoya. Vinculos 18-19:209-227.

Dakin, K., and S. Wichmann. 2000. Cacao andChocolate: An Uta-Aztecan Perspective. AncientMesoamerica 11(2):55-76.

Davies, N. 1977. The Tollecs, Until the Fall of Tula.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Day, J.S. 1994. Central Mexican Imagery in GreaterNicoya. In Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Researchin Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, edited byH.B. Nicholson and E. Quinones Keber, pp. 235-248.Labyrinthos Press, Culver City, CA.

Fash, W.L., and BJ. Fash. 2000. Teotihuacan and theMaya: A Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica's ClassicHeritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited byD. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 433-464.University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Fowler, W.R. Jr. 1987. Cacao, Indigo, and Coffee:Cash Crops in the History of El Salvador. Research inEconomic Anthropology 8:139-167.

1989. The Evolution of Ancient NahuaCivilizations: The Pipil-Nicarao of Central America.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Healy, P.F. 1980. Archaeology of the Rivas Region,Nicaragua. Wilfred Laurier University Press,Waterloo, Ontario.

Helms, M.W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art,Trade, and Power. University of Texas Press, Austin,TX.

Hodder, I. 1990. Reading the Past: CurrentApproaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Hoopes, J.W., and G.G. McCafferty. 1989. Out ofMexico: An Archaeological Evaluation of theMigration Legends of Greater Nicoya. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, April 1989, Atlanta, GA.

Jimenez Moreno, W. 1942. El enigma de los Olmecas.Cuadernos Americanos 1(5):113-145.---. 1966. Mesoamerica before the Toltecs. Translatedby M. Bullington and C.R. Wicke. In Ancient Oaxaca:Discoveries in Mexican Archeology and History,edited by 1. Paddock, pp. 3-82. Stanford UniversityPress, Stanford.

I]'

Kelley,1.H. 1988. Cihuatim, El Salvador: A Study ofIntrasite. Variability. Vanderbilt UniversityPublications in Anthropology, No. 35, Nashville, TN.

Lange, F. 1992. The Intennediate Area: AnIntroductory Overview of Wealth and HierarchyIssues. In Wealth and Hierarchy in the IntermediateArea, edited by F.W. Lange, pp. 1-14. DumbartonOaks Research Library and Collection, Washington,D.C.---. 1994. Evaluacion historica del concepto GranNicoya. Vinculos 18-19(1992-93):1-8.

Lange, F., P.D. Sheets, A. Martinez, and S. Abel­Vidor. 1992. The Archaeology of Pacific Nicaragua.University ofNew Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM.

Lastra, Y. 2001. Linguistics. In The OxfordEncyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, editor-in­chief D. Carrasco, pp. 123-131. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Lopez Austin, A., and L. Lopez Lujan. 2000. TheMyth and Reality of Zuyua: The Feathered Serpentand Mesoamerican Transfonnations from the Classicto the Postclassic. In Mesoamerica's ClassicHeritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited byD. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 21-87.University of Colorado Press, Boulder, CO.

Lothrop, S.K. 1926. The Pottery of Costa Rica andNicaragua. 2 vols. Heye Foundation, Museum of theAmerican Indian Memoir 8, New York, NY.

McCafferty, G.G. 1994. The Mixteca-Puebla StylisticTradition at Early Postclassic Cholula. In Mixteca­Puebla: Discoveries and Research in MesoamericanArt andArchaeology, edited by H.B. Nicholson and E.Quinones Keber, pp. 53-78. Labyrinthos Press, CulverCity, CA.---. 1996. The Ceramics and Chronology of Cholula,Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7(2):299-323.---. 1997. Giants, Tyrants, and Toltecs: Ethnic Changein ClassiclPostclassic Cholula. Paper presented in theLiminal States: Central Mesoamerica during theClassicIPostclassic Transition workshop, University ofTexas-Austin Maya Meetings, Austin, TX.---. 2000. Tollan Cholollan and the Legacy ofLegitimacy during the ClassicIPostclassic Transition.In Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: From

Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by D. Carrasco,M.L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 341-367. UniversityPress of Colorado, Boulder, CO.---. 2001a. Ceramics ofPostclassic Cholula, Mexico:Typology and Seriation of Pottery from the UA-lDomestic Compound. Monograph 43, The CotsenInstitute of Archaeology, University of California, LosAngeles, CA.---. 2001b. Mountain of Heaven, Mountain of Earth:The Great Pyramid of Cholula as Sacred Landscape.In Landscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica,edited by R. Koontz, K. Reese-Taylor, and A.Headrick, pp. 279-316. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.---. in press. So What Else is New? A Cholula-centricPerspective on Lowland/Highland Interaction in theClassici Postclassic Transition. Manuscript forRethinking Tula, Tollan, and Chichen Itza, edited byC. Kristan-Graham and 1. Kowalski. DumbartonOaks, Washington, D.C.

McCafferty, S.D., and G.G. McCafferty. in press.Weaving Space: Textile Imagery and Landscape in theMixtec Codices. Manuscript for 2001: An Odyssey ofSpace, edited by E. Robertson, D. Fernandez, and M.Zender. Proceedings of the 34th Annual ChacmoolConference, University of Calgary, AB.

McCafferty, G.G., and L. Steinbrenner. 2003. N-Rl­44-00, Informe Preliminar. Report submitted to theDireccion de Patrimonio Cultural, Managua,Nicaragua.

McCafferty, G.G., and S. Suarez Cruz. 2001. StampBottom Bowls of Cholula, Mexico. La Tinaja: ANewsletter ofArchaeological Ceramics 13(2):4-10.

McVicker, D. 1985. The 'Mayanized' Mexicans.American Antiquity 50(1):82-101.

Nagao, D. 1989. Public Proclamation in the Art ofCacaxtla and Xochicalco. In Mesoamerica after theDecline of Teotihuacan, AD 700-900, edited by R.A.Diehl and J.C. Berlo, pp. 83-104. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, D.C.

Nicholson, H.B. 1960. The Mixteca-Puebla Conceptin Mesoamerican Archaeology: A Re-Examination. InMen and Cultures: Selected Papers from the FifthInternational Congress of Anthropological andEthnological Sciences, Philadelphia, September 1-9,

290

291

1956, edited by A. F. C. Wallace, pp. 612-617.University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.---. 1982. The Mixteca-Puebla Concept Re-visited. InThe Art and Iconography ofLate Post-Classic CentralMexico, edited by E.H. Boone, pp. 227-254.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Nicholson, H.B., and E. Quinones Keber. 1994.Introduction. In Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries andResearch in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology,edited by H. B. Nicholson and E. Quinones Keber, pp.vii-xv. Labyrinthos Press, Culver City, CA.

Niemel, K. 2003. Social Change and Migration in theRivas Region, Pacific Nicaragua (l000 BC-AD 1522).Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York,Buffalo, NY.

Niemel, K., M. Roman-Lacayo, and S. SalgadoGonzalez. 1997. El migraclOn de gruposmesoamericanos hacia el pacifico de Nicaraguadurante el periodo posclasico temprano: una revisionde la secuencia ceramica de Gran Nicoya. In XISimposio de Investigaciones Arqueo16gicas enGuatemala, 1997, edited by J.P. Laporte and H.Escobedo. Museo Nacional de Arqueologia eEtnologia, Guatemala.

de Olivera, V.M., and C. Reyes. 1969. Los Choloquesy los Cholultecas: Apuntes sobre las RelacionesEtnica en Cholula hasta el Siglo XVI. Anales delINAR, Epoch 7, vol. 1 (1967-8):247-274.

Oviedo y Valdes, G.F. de. 1851-55. Historia Generaly natural de los Indios, islas tierra firme del maroceano. 4 vols. 1. Amador de los Rios, editor. Madrid.

Ringle, W.M., T. Gallareta Negron, and G. Bey III.1998. The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for theSpread of a World Religion during The EpiclassicPeriod. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183-232.

Robertson, D. 1970. The Tulum Murals: TheInternational Style of the Late Postclassic. In XXXVIIIInternationalen Americanisten Kongresses (Stuttgart­Munich) 1968, Verlandlungen 2:77-88.

Salgado Gonzalez, S. 1996. Social Change in theRegion of Granada, Pacific Nicaragua (1000 BC-

1522 AD). Ph.D. dissertation, State University ofNewYork, Albany, NY.

Smith, M.E., and C.M. Heath-Smith. 1980. Waves ofInfluence in Postclassic Mesoamerica? A Critique ofthe Mixteca-Puebla Concept. Anthropology IV(2):15­50.

Squier, E.G. 1852. Nicaragua: Its People, Scenery,Monuments, and the Proposed Interoceanic Canal. 2vols. Appleton Co., New York.

Steinbrenner, L. 2002. Ethnicity and Ceramics inRivas, Nicaragua, AD 800-1550. M.A. thesis,Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary,Alberta.---. in press. Cacao in Greater Nicoya: Ethnohistoryand a Unique Tradition. In Cacao in Mesoamerica,edited by C. McNeil.

Stone, D.Z. 1966. Introduction to the Archaeology ofCosta Rica. Revised ed. Museo Nacional de CostaRica, San Jose.

Strong, W.O. 1948. The Archaeology of Costa Ricaand Nicaragua. In Handbook of South AmericanIndians, vol. 4, edited by J. Steward, pp. 121-142.Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 143.Washington, D.C.

Stuart, D. 2000. "The Arrival of Strangers":Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. InMesoamerica's Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacanto the Aztecs, edited by D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S.Sessions, pp. 465-515. University of Colorado Press,Boulder, CO.

Suarez Cruz, S. 1994. El Policromo Laca de Cholula,Puebla. In Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Researchin Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, edited byH.B. Nicholson and E. Quifiones Keber, pp. 45-52.Labyrinthos Press, Culver City, CA.

Torquemada, Fray J. de. 1975-83. Monarquia Indiana.2 vols. (1615). Coordinated by M. Leon-Portilla.Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas, UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico D.F.

Vaillant, G.C. 1938. A Correlation of Archaeologicaland Historical Sequences in the Valley of Mexico.American Anthropologist 40:535-573.---. 1941. Aztecs of Mexico: Origin, Rise and Fall ofthe Aztec Nation. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

Van Broekhoven, L.N.K. 2002. Conquistando 10Invencible: Fuentes historicas sobre las culturasindigenas de la region Central de Nicaragua. CNWSPublications, Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseumvoor Volkenkunde, Leiden, The Netherlands.

292