The Petroglyphs of Ometepe Island, Nicaragua
(Clicking on the 
in the article brings up a picture of the petroglyph under discussion, clicking anywhere on your screen makes the picture disappear.)
For six field seasons since 1995 my colleagues and I have been conducting an intensive archaeological survey on Ometepe Island. With the assistance of numerous volunteers in the last three years, we have to date recorded 73 sites and over 1400 boulders with petroglyphs (almost 1700 petroglyph panels). Although we are still in the data entry and initial analysis stage of our work, I welcome the opportunity to provide an introduction to a little known but exciting and unique area of rock art in Latin America. Indeed, I think Nicaragua may come to be recognized as one of the great rock art areas of the world with Ometepe Island as perhaps the center of that tradition.
Nicaragua
in general is one of the least known areas archaeologically
in Central America.
While there has been a great deal of work done in Costa Rica
to the south and El Salvador and Honduras to the north, relatively
few systematic archaeological studies have been conducted
in Nicaragua. As an intermediate area between Mesoamerica
and South America, its pre-Columbian cultures seem to have
exhibited interesting independent development as well as influences
from and to both the north and south.
Lake Nicaragua or Cocibolca is one of the largest fresh water lakes in Latin America. Naturally its shores and islands were a focus of much prehistoric as well as historic settlement. Isla Ometepe is the largest island in the lake. It has been known since the 19th century to be relatively rich in pre-Columbian sites, artifacts, and a monumental sculptural tradition and to contain numerous petroglyphs, but prior to our work there had never been a systematic site inventory, much less systematic petroglyph recording on the island. We know from excavations conducted by J.F. Bransford in the early 1880s and by Wolfgang Haberland, a German archaeologist, in the late 1960s that there has probably been settlement on the island since at least 800 B.C. and perhaps as early as 2000 B.C. There appears to have been various incursions by different groups over the millennia. Which group or groups were responsible for making the petroglyphs is presently unknown. Ometepe has generally been included within the Greater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea as proposed by Norweb (1964) and more specifically within the northern sector, as defined by Lange (1984; 1992), which is restricted to Pacific Nicaragua.
Ometepe Island is very beautiful. It is approximately 31 kilometers long and about five to ten kilometers wide. It is almost hourglass in shape, formed of two volcanoes, with a narrow isthmus between the two. The northwest half of the island contains Volcan Concepción
(once called Ometepec), a beautiful symmetrical cone-shaped
volcano, which is still active. That side of the island is currently
the most populated and has been the focus of virtually all of
the past archaeological work, although it apparently contains
few petroglyphs since its eruptions have been primarily ash
flows.
The
southeast half of the island is dominated by Volcan Madera
,
a truncated cone, which is apparently older than Concepción.
It has a volcanic crater lake and its slopes are covered with
rainforest, which shelter a diverse floral and faunal life,
including howler and blackface monkeys, gorgeous birds, and
innumerable butterflies. Because of its importance ecologically
and archaeologically, most of the Madera side of the island
has been designated a natural reserve.
Madera
was an explosive volcano, which resulted in deposition of
numerous basalt boulders on its slopes. Consequently Madera
is the main location for petroglyphs on the island and has
been the focus of our survey .
We are concentrating in an area approximately 5 kilometers
by 3 kilometers in size on the north central to northeast
slopes of Madera. The survey has covered areas from the lake
to an elevation of about 340 meters in elevation--above this
area, the slopes of the volcano are very steep and filled
with rainforest vegetation, and are logistically and physically
difficult and sometimes impossible to survey in any kind of
systematic way. Petroglyphs have been found in the deep forest
on steep slopes and it is quite possible that they may occur
at high elevations. Local guides have told us, however, that
they have never found petroglyphs around the mouth of the
crater lake at the top of the volcano.
Petroglyphs occur in a variety of circumstances:
1)
In settlement sites with mounds and/or ceramic concentrations.
One important site contains about 35 platform mounds, many
artifacts, and sculptural fragments, as well as 95 petroglyphs.
2) Sites with boulder clusters which appear devoted
solely to petroglyphs.
3) Fields with dispersed boulder petroglyphs usually
running along ridges following basalt flows. Site boundaries
are sometimes difficult to draw because of the dispersed nature
of the petroglyphs.
4)
Isolated petroglyphs.
While many fields have been cleared for cultivation, in others there is heavy vegetation and vegetation patterns change from year to year. It is clear that in these circumstances we may be missing some petroglyph boulders, but we do feel we have found the majority of petroglyph concentrations in the areas we have surveyed.
Petroglyphs are almost always pecked, although there are a number with deep, smooth edged grooves which may have been manufactured with both pecking and abrasion. Petroglyph grooves are often amazingly large, with grooves 2cm deep not uncommon. Very many, however, are highly eroded and difficult to photograph and draw. Almost never do we find superimposition.
Tourism
to Ometepe has greatly increased in the last few years and
we are beginning to see chalking,
some by children and some by guides. More common are petroglyphs
which have been scratched with machetes of local campesinos.
The greatest impact by far to the rock art is agricultural
field burning, which is causing extensive exfoliation and
cracking.
I can only begin to show some of the wide variety of petroglyph types and motifs found. It is a bit premature to attempt assigning stylistic nomenclature, but there are some recognizable broad categories emerging:
1) Abstract Curvilinear
The
most ubiquitous variety of petroglyphs are abstract curvilinear
designs. They range from very simple
to very complex. They are often hard to describe because of
their complexity. A pervasive major subcategory of the abstract
curvilinear type is composed of complex meandering curvilinear
designs, sometimes open and sometimes closed
.
Very frequently they include loops and may incorporate spirals,
circles, and sometimes cupules.
Others appear highly organized and are quite beautiful
.
These few slides do not do justice to either the number or
complexity of these designs.
Ometepe
has been called the 'island of circles and spirals" (Matillo
Villa 1973) and with reason, for within the abstract curvilinear
type probably the single most common motif is the spiral,
found in virtually all sites. These range from simple single
spirals
to multiple spirals .
Concentric circles are also common and may represent a variation
on the spiral.
2) Abstract Rectilinear
Abstract
rectilinear figures occur, but in very small proportion to
other types of figures. In general they seem to be a variation
on some of the Abstract Curvilinear category--a few rectilinear
spirals ,
concentric rectangles. There are a few grid-like designs
.
Rarely, however, are there abstract rectilinear designs of
the complexity of Abstract Curvilinears.
3) Anthropomorphic
Anthropomorphic
figures are another relatively common category, occurring
often in some sites and not at all in others. Simple heads
or faces occur in considerable numbers, often represented
simply by a simple circle with three dots for eyes and mouth
.
There are stick figures, as well as anthropomorphs with fully
outlined bodies There are stick figures, as well as anthropomorphs
with fully outlined bodies There are stick figures, as well
as anthropomorphs with fully outlined bodies .
Generally there is little sexual differentiation, although
genitalia are occasionally represented. A copulating couple
is unique .
Only occasionally is body adornment found, usually what appears
to be a headdress.
In
addition to the often rather simple anthropomorphic designs
shown in the previous slides, there are a number of quite
extraordinary figures which are almost sculptural-- integrating
the three dimensional aspect of the rock and sometimes carved
in relief. This naturalistic human head is extraordinary .
Another, called the bruja or witch ,
has carving on all three sides, including hair-like carving
on the back which incorporates skulls. Then there is this
almost frightening foetus-like figure .
[These three-dimensional figures may or may not be intermediate
to the monumental sculptural tradition on the island, which
is an entire topic of its own. ]
2) Zoomorphic Figures
Zoomorphic
figures are found relatively infrequently, but do occur in
both representational and more stylized forms. Of the representational
forms the monkey is the most common ,
but whether this relates to the fact that even today there
are large numbers on the island or to some other deeper iconographic
relationship is unknown. Several show markings in the stomach
Feet, hands, and face are often realistically rendered.
Quadrupeds
are infrequent, but tend to be found in complex panels. A
figure with spots is quite distinctive and is quite likely
represents a deer, a small spotted variety of which is found
on the island
.
Lizard-like or crocodilian figures occasionally occur. Some
are simple figures which could be either lizard or crocodile,
but the crocodile is depicted in one of the more elaborate
and beautiful panels found .
Today caiman or small crocodiles can still be found in the
low swampy area of the island. There are also snake-like figures
and it is also quite possible that some of the curvilinear
designs may represent stylized snakes. Other reptiles, such
as turtles ,
and amphibians like frogs or toads are infrequent. Birds are
rare.
Some motifs are highly stylized and may represent animals.
One seems to have a snake or crocodilian figure and a possible
bird head (at the bottom) ,
another is likely a snake or bird head .
3) Mask-like Forms
This is a general category for a number of head-like motifs
which can not readily be called anthropomorphic or zoomorphic
.
4) Miscellaneous motifs.
Aside
from the above general categories there are some distinctive
and repetitive motifs, some of which seem to be associated
with particular sites and are not found widely. Among some
of the most unusual are these flower or butterfly-like designs
.
Sun-like symbols occasionally occur
,
as do cruciform figures
.
Sites
with petroglyphs also contain pecked mortars and cupules,
sometimes separate and sometimes incorporated into the petroglyph
boulder.
They undoubtedly have different functions in different sites.
There are also examples of square-cut or circular bowl-like
depressions which appear different than mortars and may in
fact have been receptacles, perhaps for offerings.
. Several are very intricately carved and appear altar-like.
Finally,
in addition to petroglyphs, we are also finding some extremely
interesting rock features which we are hard-pressed to call
petroglyphs .
Several years ago we began finding features with parallel
ridges and grooves. In 1998 we recorded one site in which
there were a number of rocks covered with this pattern.
.
We had no idea what their purpose was, but these had the appearance
of something functional. In 1999 we recorded another, very
similar site which contained numerous boulders with one or
more of these parallel ridges and grooves, as well as cut
niches. One quite large rock retained a well-cut rectangular
bar-like feature.
In my opinion, these features resulted from quarrying these
bar-like objects, which were cut and shaped prior to removal.
Once removed, they left the characteristic ridge and groove
pattern. We have been unable to find reference to such features
in the literature and would appreciate knowing whether they
have been found in other areas of Central or South America.
This has been primarily an overview. We are only now beginning to attempt analysis and classification. Dating will be difficult. There is little if any ethnographic information relative to rock art in Nicaragua. Nicaragua¹s indigenous population suffered a catastrophic decline within 50 years of the spanish conquest. It has been estimated that almost 90% of the population either died from disease or was removed by the slave trade (Newson 1978:1978). It is likely that petroglyph manufacturing halted not long after Spanish conquest, and there seems to be no one alive who remembers its iconographic or religious associations. References to what is known about religion at contact and comparisons with Mesoamerican and South American iconography may prove to have some referential utility. The neuropsychiatric model obviously may have some utility. Future excavations may eventually provide some help, but as always the coincidence of rock art with surrounding archaeological deposits is usually open to dispute. Developing techniques, such as C14-dating, may one day provide some hope, but possibilities for any C14 dating seem problematic, especially in view of the fact that field burning is having the greatest contemporary impacts on petroglyphs.
In addition to the diachronic problems, we are also handicapped by a current lack of comparative material from neighboring areas. There have been few systematic surveys and few published works pertaining to rock art in Central America. It is unknown at this time point in time whether the rock art designs and motifs found on Ometepe, especially the abstract curvilinear category, prove to be relatively unique to Nicaragua or are found throughout Central American.
At the very least, however, we hope that the large body of data being produced from our Ometepe work will provide an important starting point for the analysis and comparison of future rock art research in Nicaragua and neighboring areas of Central America.
I would like to thank my colleagues Michael Smith, James Martin, Jerry Doty, and the many other volunteers who have devoted their time and worked so hard to make the Ometepe Archaeological Project a success.
References Cited:
Bransford,
J.F.
1881 Archaeological Researches in Nicaragua. Smithsonian Contributions
to Knowledge No. 25. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Haberland,
Wolfgang
1992 Culture History of Ometepe Island. In The Archaeology
of Pacific Nicaragua. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Lange,
Frederick
1984 The Greater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea. In The Archaeology
of Lower Central America, edited by F. Lange and D. Stone.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Lange,
Frederick, Payson D. Sheets, Anibal Martinez, Suzanne
Abel-Vidor
1992 The Archaeology of Pacific Nicaragua. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Matillo Villa, Joaquin
1973 Ometepe, Isla de Círculos y de Espirales. Estas
Piedras
Hablan. Vol. III. Managua: Centro de Investigaciones Rupestres.
Newson,
Linda
1978 Indian Survival in Colonial Nicaragua. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Norweb,
Albert H.
1964 Ceramic Stratigraphy in Southwestern Nicaragua. In Actas,
35th International Congress of Américanistas 1:551-61.