http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Strange Artifacts: The Stone Spheres of Costa Rica
The Stone Spheres
of Costa Rica
Introduction
One of the strangest mysteries in archaeology was discovered in the
Diquis Delta of Costa Rica. Since the 1930s, hundreds of stone balls
have been documented, ranging in size from a few centimetres to over
two meters in diameter. Some weigh 16 tons. Almost all of them are
made of granodiorite, a hard, igneous stone. These objects are
monolithic sculptures made by human hands.
Balls in the Courtyard of National Museum, San José, Costa Rica.
Photo courtesy of John W. Hoopes .
Copyright ©2001 John W. Hoopes. All rights reserved.
The spheres number over 300. The large ones weigh many tons. Today, they
decorate official buildings such as the Asamblea Legislativa, hospitals
and schools. You can find them in museums. You can also find them as
ubiquitous status symbols adorning the homes and gardens of the rich and
powerful.
The stones may have come from the bed of the Térraba River , to where
they were transported by natural processes from sources of parent
material in the Talamanca mountains. Unfinished spheres were never
found. Like the monoliths of the Old World, the Costa Rican quarry was
more than 50 miles away from the final resting place of these mysteries.
WERE COSTA RICAN SPHERES ANCIENT RECEIVERS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunking the "Mystery" of the Stone Balls
/ by John W. Hoopes /
<#top>
The stone balls of Costa Rica have been the object of pseudoscientific
speculations since the publication of Erich von Däniken's Chariots of
the Gods
in 1971. More recently, they have gained renewed attention as the result
of books such as Atlantis in America- Navigators of the Ancient World
,
by Ivar Zapp and George Erikson (Adventures Unlimited Press, 1998), and
The Atlantis Blueprint: Unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of a Long-Lost
Civilization,
by Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath (Delacorte Press, 2001). These authors
have been featured on television, radio, magazines, and web pages, where
they do an incredible disservice to the public by misrepresenting
themselves and the state of actual knowledge about these objects.
Although some of these authors are often represented as having
"discovered" these objects, the fact is that they have been known to
scientists since they first came to light during agricultural activities
by the United Fruit Company in 1940. Archaeological investigation of the
stone balls began shortly thereafter, with the first scholarly
publication about them appearing in 1943. They are hardly a new
discovery, nor are they especially mysterious. In fact, archaeological
excavations undertaken at sites with stone balls in the 1950s found them
to be associated with pottery and other materials typical of the
Pre-Columbian cultures of southern Costa Rica. Whatever "mystery" exists
has more to do with loss of information due to the destruction of the
balls and their archaeological contexts than lost continents, ancient
astronauts, or transoceanic voyages.
Hundreds of stone balls have been documented in Costa Rica, ranging in
size from a few centimeters to over two meters in diameter. Almost all
of them are made of granodiorite, a hard, igneous stone. These objects
are not natural in origin, unlike the stone balls in Jalisco, Mexico
that were described in a 1965 National Geographic article. Rather, they
are monolithic sculptures made by human hands.
The balls have been endangered since the moment of their discovery. Many
have been destroyed, dynamited by treasure hunters or cracked and broken
by agricultural activities. At the time of a major study undertaken in
the 1950s, fifty balls were recorded as being in situ. Today, only a
handful are known to be in their original locations.
Frequently Asked Questions
/ by John W. Hoopes /
<#top>
Where are the balls found?
They were originally found in the delta of the Térraba River, also known
as the Sierpe, Diquís, and General River, near the towns of Palmar Sur
and Palmar Norte. Balls are known from as far north as the Estrella
Valley and as far south as the mouth of the Coto Colorado River. They
have been found near Golfito and on the Isla del Caño. Since the time of
their discovery in the 1940s, these objects have been prized as lawn
ornaments. They were transported, primarily by rail, all over Costa
Rica. They are now found throughout the country. There are two balls on
display to the public in the U.S. One is in the museum of the National
Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. The other is in a courtyard near
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, at Harvard University
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
How big are they?
The balls range in size from only a few centimeters to over two meters
in diameter. It has been estimated that the largest ones weigh over 16
tons (ca. 15,000 kg).
What are they made of?
Almost all of the balls are made of granodiorite, a hard, igneous stone
that outcrops in the foothills of the nearby Talamanca range. There are
a few examples made of coquina, a hard material similar to limestone
that is formed from shell and sand in beach deposits. This was probably
brought inland from the mouth of the Térraba-Sierpe delta. (The
background image for these pages is a photograph of the surface of a
stone ball in Palmar Sur, Costa Rica.)
How many of them are there?
Samuel Lothrop recorded a total of approximately 186 balls for his 1963
publication. However, it has been estimated that there may be several
hundred of these objects, now dispersed throughout Costa Rica. It was
reported that one site near Jalaca had as many as 45 balls, but these
have now been removed to other locations.
How were they made?
The balls were most likely made by reducing round boulders to a
spherical shape through a combination of controlled fracture, pecking,
and grinding. The granodiorite from which they are made has been shown
to exfoliate in layers when subjected to rapid changes in temperature.
The balls could have been roughed out through the application of heat
(hot coals) and cold (chilled water). When they were close to spherical
in shape, they were further reduced by pecking and hammering with stones
made of the same hard material. Finally, they were ground and polished
to a high luster. This process, which was similar to that used for
making polished stone axes, elaborate carved metates, and stone statues,
was accomplished without the help of metal tools, laser beams, or alien
life forms.
Who made them?
The balls were most likely made by the ancestors of native peoples who
lived in the region at the time of the Spanish conquest. These people
spoke Chibchan languages, related to those of indigenous peoples from
eastern Honduras to northern Colombia. Their modern descendants include
the Boruca, Téribe, and Guaymí. These cultures lived in dispersed
settlements, few of which were larger than about 2000 people. These
people lived off of fishing and hunting, as well as agriculture. They
cultivated maize, manioc, beans, squash, pejibaye palm, papaya,
pineapple, avocado, chilli peppers, cacao, and many other fruits, root
crops, and medicinal plants. They lived in houses that were typically
round in shape, with foundations made of rounded river cobbles.
How old are they?
Stone balls are known from archaeological sites and buried strata hat
have only pottery characteristic of the Aguas Buenas culture, whose
dates range from ca. 200 BC to AD 800. Stone balls have reportedly been
found in burials with gold ornaments whose style dates from after about
AD 1000. They have also been found in strata containing shreds of Buenos
Aires Polychrome, a pottery type of the Chiriquí Period that was made
beginning around AD 800. This type of pottery has reportedly been found
in association with iron tools of the Colonial period, suggesting it was
manufactured up until the 16th century. So, the balls could have been
made anytime during an 1800-year period. The first balls that were made
probably lasted for several generations, during which time they could
have been moved and modified.
What were they used for?
Nobody knows for sure. The balls had ceased to be made by the time of
the first Spanish explorers, and remained completely forgotten until
they were rediscovered in the 1940s. Many of the balls were found to be
in alignments, consisting of straight and curved lines, as well as
triangles and parallelograms. One group of four balls was found to be
arranged in a line oriented to magnetic north. This has led to
speculation that they may have been arranged by people familiar with the
use of magnetic compasses, or astronomical alignments. Unfortunately,
all but a few of these alignments were destroyed when the balls were
moved from their original locations, so measurements made almost fifty
years ago cannot be checked for accuracy. Many of the balls, some of
them in alignments, were found on top of low mounds. This has led to
speculation that they may have been kept inside of houses built on top
of the mounds, which would have made it difficult to use them for making
observations. Ivar Zapp's suggestions that the alignments were
navigational devices pointing to Easter Island and Stonehenge are almost
certainly wrong. Lothrop's original measurements of alignments of balls
only a few meters apart were not accurate or precise enough to allow one
to control for errors in plotting such long distances. With the
exception of balls located on the Isla del Caño, most of the balls are
too far from the sea to have been useful to ocean-going navigators.
Why are the balls endangered?
Virtually all of the known balls have been moved from their original
locations, destroying information about their archaeological contexts
and possible alignments. Many of the balls have been blown up by local
treasure hunters who have believed nonsensical fables that the balls
contain gold. Balls sitting in agricultural fields have been damaged by
periodic burning, which causes the once smooth surface of the balls to
crack, split, and erode--a process that has contributed to the
destruction of the largest known stone ball. Balls have been rolled into
gullies and ravines, or even into underwater marine locations (as at
Isla del Caño). The vast majority have been transported far from their
zone of origin, separating them even further from the consciousness of
the descendants of the people who made these balls.
Common Misconceptions
/ by John W. Hoopes /
<#top>
Several authors have now contributed to widespread misinformation about
the stone balls of Costa Rica, leading to unfounded speculation about
their nature and origin.
The Size of the Balls
In an article in Atlantis Rising Online, George Erikson makes
exaggerated claims for the size of the stone balls, writing that they
are "weighing up to 30 tons and measuring up to three meters in
diameter" According to Samuel Lothrop, author of the most extensive
study of the balls, "A 6-foot ball is estimated at about 7.5 tons, a
4-foot ball at 3 tons and a 3-foot specimen at 1.3 tons" (1963:22).
Lothrop estimated the maximum weight for ball was around 16 tons. The
largest known ball measures 2.15 m in diameter, which is substantially
smaller than three meters.
John W. Hoopes with the largest known stone ball.
Photo courtesy of John W. Hoopes .
Copyright ©2001 John W. Hoopes. All rights reserved.
The Roundness of the Balls
Erikson also states that these objects "were perfect spheres to within 2
millimeters from any measurement of both their diameter and
circumference." This claim is false. No one has ever measured a ball
with a sufficient degree of precision to make it. Neither Ivar Zapp nor
George Erikson has proposed a methodology by which such measurements
could be made. Lothrop (1963:17) wrote: "To measure the rotundity we
used two methods, neither completely satisfactory. When the large balls
were deeply buried in the ground, it might take several days to trench
around them. Hence, we exposed the upper half only and then measured two
or three more diameters with tape and plumb bob. This revealed that the
poorer specimens, usually with diameters ranging between 2 and 3 feet
(0.6-0.9 meters), varied in diameters as much as one or 2 inches
(2.5-5.1 centimeters)." It should be clear that this method assumed that
the portion under ground was spherical. Lothrop also measured balls that
were more completely exposed by taking up to five circumferences with a
tape measure, from which he then calculated their diameters. He writes,
"Evidently, the larger balls were the product of the finest
craftsmanship, and they were so nearly perfect that the tape and
plumb-bob measurements of diameters did not reveal imperfections.
Therefore, we measured circumferences horizontally and, if possible, at
a 45-degree upward slant toward the four cardinal points. We did not
usually ascertain the vertical circumference as the large balls were too
heavy to move. This procedure was not as easy as it sounds because
several people had to hold the tape and all measurements had to be
checked. As the variation in diameters was too small to be detected by
eye even with a plumb bob, the diameters have been computed
mathematically". The source of claims for precise measurements may stem
from misinterpretations of Lothrop's tables, in which he presents the
calculated diameters in meters to four decimal places. However, these
are mathematically calculated estimates, not direct measurements. They
have not been rounded to reflect the actual precision with which the
actual measurements were taken. It should be obvious that differences
"too small to be detected by eye" cannot be translated into claims about
precision "to within 2 millimeters". In fact, the surfaces of the balls
are not perfectly smooth, creating irregularities that plainly exceed 2
millimeters in height. As noted above, some balls are known to vary over
5 cm (50 mm) in diameter. In the photograph of the largest ball
<#largest> on this web site, it is clear that the surface has been badly
damaged. It is therefore impossible to know how precisely formed this
ball might have been.
The Makers of the Balls
George Erikson states that "archaeologists attributed the spheres to the
Chorotega Indians". No archaeologist familiar with the evidence has ever
made this claim. The Chorotega were an Oto-Manguean speaking group that
occupied an area of Guanacaste, near the Gulf of Nicoya in northwestern
Costa Rica. The peoples who lived in the area where the balls are found
were Chibchan speakers. The balls have been found in association with
architectural remains, such as stone walls and pavements made of river
cobbles, and both whole and broken pottery vessels that are consistent
with finds at other sites associated with the Aguas Buenas and Chiriquí
cultures. These are believed to represent native peoples ancestral to
historical Chibchan-speaking group of southern Costa Rica.
The Dating of the Balls
George Erikson and others have implied that the balls may date as early
as 12,000 years ago. There is no evidence to support this claim. Since
the balls cannot be dated directly by methods such as radiocarbon
dating, which can be applied directly only to organic materials, the
best way to date them is by stratigraphic context and associated
artifacts. Lothrop excavated one stone ball that was located in a soil
layer separated from an underlying, sherd-bearing deposit that contained
pottery typical of the Aguas Buenas culture (200 BC - AD 600). In the
soil immediately beneath this ball he found the broken head of a painted
human figurine of the Buenos Aires Polychrome type, dated to AD
1000-1500 (examples have reportely been found associated with iron
tools). This suggests the ball was made sometime between AD 600 and 1500.
The Balls are "Out of Context"
Since their discovery in 1940, the vast majority of these balls have
been removed from their archaeological contexts to serve as lawn
ornaments across Costa Rica. Many of the balls studied by Lothrop
appeared to have rolled off of nearby mounds. Several had been covered
by layers of fine silt, apparently from flood deposits and natural
erosion. Naturally, they are "out of context" in the sense of having few
good archaeological associations.
Scholars Have Ignored Them
It is not unusual for authors who write about the stone balls to claim
that these objects have received inadequate attention from serious
scholars. While this is undoubtedly true, it is not true that these
objects have been ignored. It is also not true that scholarship
regarding them has been somehow hidden from the general public. The
first scholarly study of the balls was undertaken by Doris Stone
immediately upon their discovery by workers for the United Fruit
Company. Results of her investigation were published in 1943 in American
Antiquity, the leading academic journal for archaeology in the United
States. Samuel Lothrop, an archaeologist on the staff of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography at Harvard University, undertook
major fieldwork concerning the balls in 1948. The final report on his
study was published by the Museum in 1963. It contains maps of sites
where the balls were found, detailed descriptions of pottery and metal
objects found with and near them, and many photographs, measurements,
and drawings of the balls, their alignments, and their stratigraphic
contexts. Additional research on the balls by archaeologist Matthew
Stirling was reported in the pages of National Geographic in 1969. In
the late 1970s, archaeological survey on Isla del Caño (published in
1986) revealed balls in offshore contexts. Sites with balls were
investigated and reported in the 1980s by Robert Drolet in the course of
surveys and excavations in the Térraba Valley. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, Claude Baudez and his students from the University of Paris
returned to the locations of Lothrop's earlier fieldwork in the Diquís
delta to undertake a more careful analysis of the pottery of the area,
producing more refined dates for the contexts of the balls. This
research was published in Spanish in 1993, with an English summary
appearing in 1996. Also in the early 1990s, the author undertook
fieldwork around Golfito, documenting the existence of the easternmost
examples of these balls. At this time, Enrico Dal Lago, a student at the
University of Kansas, defended a Master's thesis on the subject of the
balls. The most careful study of the balls, however, has been fieldwork
undertaken from 1990-1995 by archaeologist Ifigenia Quintanilla under
the auspices of the National Museum of Costa Rica. She was able to
excavate several balls in situ, documenting the process of their
manufacture and their cultural associations. Quintanilla's research has
been the most complete field study of these objects since Lothrop. While
still mostly unpublished, the information she collected is currently the
subject of her graduate research at the University of Barcelona. Even
with current research pending, the list of references on this Web site
makes it clear that the stone balls have received a great deal of
serious, scholarly attention.
/The content of the article above is ©2001 by John W. Hoopes.
All rights reserved. * Reprinted by Permission.*
Source: /http://www.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/
Stone Ball References (by
John W. Hoopes )