The spheres or stone balls first came to light during the early 1940s, discovered during excavations in the Diquis Delta region by the United Fruit Company.  Workers on these plantations found a large number of these stone spheres, some totally exposed, and other buried.  Many were severely damaged when they were found, as in many cases it was earth moving equipment that ran into them while clearing forest for banana planting.

As early as 1948, the stone spheres were deteriorating due to exposure to alternate heat and cold (93 to 97 degrees F in the shade in the winter, much hotter in the sun). The balls were subjected to the sun's heat, and rain, as well as to fire when the United Fruit Company cleared the land in the 1940s. The stone spheres received alternate light and shade under the cultivated banana trees and they were drenched weekly by irrigation when it didn't rain. Evidence of battering and cracking was seen. Falling giant tropical trees may have shattered some balls as well.

Looting was the major problem.  To such an extent that as many as 95% were taken.  Many of the smaller and medium size balls were moved to adorn parks and gardens. To this day, you can see them throughout Costa Rica in older homes, in parks, and adorning public buildings.

Another threat was the mistaken belief that they contained treasure.  Many were blasted, or split, owing to the native belief that they somehow contained gold.  In part, this was because some claimed gold was found near the balls. 

The first major archeological data was published by Dr. Doris Z. Stone in 1943, then later by S.K. Lothrup in 1963.

Scientific Study

George P. Cittenden, who purchased the relevant land for the United Fruit Company in the 1930s, was first to note the presence of mounds and stone spheres. Dr. Doris Z. Stone visited the area in 1941 and 1943, publishing her findings in 1943. S.K. Lothrup's work stemmed from Stone's.

Dr. Stone (1943), Verneau and Rivet (1912-1922) and others discussed the distribution of stone balls, large and small, throughout the New World.  They concluded that the spheres served different functions in different areas. Large examples outside the delta area are rare. Isolated specimens up to 3 feet in diameter are known from Olmec sites in Vera Cruz Mexico. They have been reported at Zaculeu in the Guatemalan Highlands (largest 15 1/2 inches in diameter), occurring in the first level of occupation in what is regarded as Early Classic Maya.

Dr. Stone published plans of 5 sites in the Diquis Delta containing 44 stone spheres. She also reported other balls north of the Sierra Bruquena near the town of Uvita and in the flood plain of the Esquinas River. She also saw two specimens at Cavagra. 

In Costa Rica, Lothrup reported stone balls in the Diquis Delta, Camaronal Island where they were on hilltops, on the hills north of the Diquis and high up in the Cordillera Bruquena that reaches about 1,000 meters in height. The most easterly group was near Piedras Blancas.   

Stone spheres (balls to Lothrup) range in diameter from a few inches to as much as 8 feet with weights ranging from only a few pounds to 16+ tons (15,000kg).  They are made of the local igneous rock (density about 3.0) with a few exceptions. Most were of a granite. They numbered in the many hundreds if not thousands. No granite is found near where the balls were found except for small water borne stones. The granite must have been transported from the mountains. The weight of the stone blocks necessary to form spheres and the work itself reveal that the spheres are clearly the work of more than one person. The time to make the spheres with primitive tools was thought to be enormous, even with large gangs working on one example.   However, as has been proven in recent years, skilled stone masons could have created spheres with a meter diameter in relatively short periods of time, with just 2 individuals.  Smaller balls 1ft-2ft could have easily been created by one individual in less than a week.

Small (10 and 24 inches) stone balls were found individually in burial mounds as well.  In at least 2 instances, balls were placed in graves indicating individual ownership. Thus these balls represented a form of wealth.  Though this may not have been the view during the period when they were being created, but may represent the perception of later generations that looted spheres had some value.

Sometimes balls occurred singly, other times in groups. The largest group known to Lothrup contained at least 45 balls. Depressions in which balls previously stood could still be detected then. Some spheres were buried.  Per John W. Hoopes, 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.

Rotundity varied, and the surfaces varied in smoothness.  Because the all context has been lost, it is all but impossible to determine over how long a period of time, these balls were being created.  It is possible that the rougher worked balls were either created before or after those of finer detail.  As is the case elsewhere, an individual group or guild may have perfected the craft, only to be copied later on by those without the skills and knowledge needed for the same level of perfection.

Per Lothrup, age of the balls is estimated according to associated pottery types. Evidence suggests the spheres represent a span of many centuries. Some are of relatively great age, others the handiwork of the 16th Century inhabitants. This suggests a stable population and cultural continuity over a long period of time.

Per local Diquis legend, the spheres represent the sun but this is not believed because disks universally represent the sun in the New World. The spheres were highly valued and probably had a religious or magical significance.  Probably successive generations labored to enlarge the number of balls in individual assemblies.   The large groups may have ritual significance as they were set in formal alignments. The lines may mark astronomical sight lines.   Although, this website author believes they had another function.

The stone balls and mounds were too heavy to move for the crews that cleared the ground for banana farming in the early 1940s. Lothrup's group found evidence that some stone spheres had been placed on top of mounds as well as groups of spheres where no trace of mounds existed at the time.

Per Lothrup, the natives of the Diquis Delta were capable stone cutters because of their great stone balls and numerous statues, but they did not apply stone cutting skills to construction of dwellings.  Per John W. Hoopes, 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.

Some new-age believers have implied that the balls may date as early as 12,000 years ago.  Per John W. Hoopes, 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. 

Please refer to: Lothrup, S. K , Archeology of The Diquis Delta, Costa Rica, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard, University, Vol. L1, 1963.

Dr. Tim McGuinness
Florida, 1999-2007

Also visit Dr. John W. Hoopes website for additional information.

Portions Copyright Notice: ©2000-2003 Landmarks Foundation.  All rights reserved.
http://www.landmarksfoundation.org
 

A dialog on ancient stone spheres
From Archaeology List, February, 1996
Reprinted for further clarification.

Sadly, these objects are no longer unearthed "on a regular basis". Most of the sites where they were found have been completely wiped out as a result of industrial agriculture. However, new technologies like ground-penetrating radar may in the future reveal more under layers of fine alluvium.

For a general discussion of Costa Rican archaeology that includes description and interpretation of the stone balls, see:

Stone, Doris Z.

1977 Precolumbian Man Finds Costa Rica. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The most complete discussion of the stone balls in print remains:

Lothrop, Samuel K.

1963 Archaeology of the Diquis Delta, Costa Rica. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 51. Harvard University, Cambridge.

This monograph is based on fieldwork undertaken in the late 1950s (actually 1940's), at which time there were still a reasonably large number of spheres still in situ. Lothrop estimated that there were at least 300 of these known, ranging in size from a few centimeters to over two meters in diameter. Unfortunately, since the time of his research, virtually all of the stone balls (I'm told that mathematicians define "spheres" as hollow forms...) have been removed from their precolumbian contexts. It is likely that these balls were in use over a period of over a thousand years (between about AD 200 and 1500), and I like to think of them as artifacts that are still in use. In Costa Rica, these monuments are ubiquitous "status" markers in the gardens of the homes of the elite. They also adorn official buildings such as the Asamblea Legislativa, hospitals, and schools.

At present, only six of these objects are known to be in precolumbian contexts. Most are located at a site called Finca 6 (Farm 6) near the town of Palmar Sur in southern Costa Rica. A recent monograph on this site and a comprehensive catalog of Costa Rican stone balls is in the final stages of its completion by Ifigenia Quintanilla, an archaeologist at the National Museum of Costa Rica.

After Lothrop, the next most useful references are (one old and one new):

Stone, Doris Z.

1943 A Preliminary Investigation of the Flood Plain of the Rio Grande de Terraba, Costa Rica. American Antiquity 9(1):74-88.

Baudez, Claude F., Nathalie Borgnino, Sophie Laligant & Valerie Lauthelin

1993 Investigaciones Arqueologicas en el Delta del Diquis. Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Mexico, D.F.

The latter is a small book that is a bit difficult to obtain, but it is an excellent report on stratigraphic excavations in the area where the balls are found. It presents a new ceramic sequence with radiocarbon dates and includes a comprehensive summary of what is known about the prehistory of the Diquis Delta. The authors located a few of the balls in areas where drainage ditches for banana irrigation were being dug. A summary of the results in English (and another chapter by me that describes the culture responsible for the initial manufacture of the balls) will appear in:

Lange, Frederick W. (ed.)

1996 Paths Through Central American Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Wolfgang Haberland. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. (Still in press).

The balls are found primarily in the Diquis Delta. However, examples have also been found on the Isla del Caño, some 30 km offshore. In 1990 and 1992, I recorded the southernmost examples of these monuments at sites near Golfito, on the Golfo Dulce of southern Costa Rica. Seven of these, all moved short distances from their precolumbian contexts, were found. The largest was about 120 cm in diameter.

The vast majority the balls are made of a granodiorite that outcrops in the lower Terraba River. Quintanilla has located the raw material source and some boulders that may be unfinished balls. In her excavations, she also found flakes from the balls that suggested a method of manufacture. The stone from which they are made, when heated and then rapidly cooled (as with fire and cold water), exfoliates in thin, onion-like layers. Done repeatedly, this technique could have been used to shape boulders into their near-perfect sphericity. After this, they were polished to a high luster with ground stone tools.

The use of the balls remains highly speculative. A graduate student of mine, Enrico Dal Lago, wrote an M.A. thesis comparing the cultural context of the Costa Rican balls to other societies that shaped and moved large stones (the Olmec, Neolithic Europe, Polynesia, etc.) He also reviewed the limited but intriguing evidence, first explored by Lothrop, that the balls were placed in astronomically significant alignments.

I suspect the balls had multiple purposes, which changed over time. They are likely to have served as status markers in front of communal or private houses or in town plazas. Their manufacture may have been ritualized, and perhaps as important as the final product. (Helaine Silverman's hypotheses regarding the Nazca lines provide intriguing comparative models). For me, the spherical shape probably evolved in response to the need to move these objects. After all, spheres roll in all directions with minimum resistance. We find spheres weighing several tons atop 100 m high hills, so transport was an important consideration.

Spheres have been found at other sites in Central America, including Tonina in the Maya lowlands, but nowhere with the quantity or quality with which they are found in southern Costa Rica.

I am currently at work on a book in which I discuss these objects in detail. I'd appreciate any suggestions about their interpretation or additional questions.

John Hoopes
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Kansas

A couple of corrections to my post:

The title of Stone's book is "Precolumbian Man in Costa Rica".

S.K. Lothrop's fieldwork was conducted in the late 1940s, not 1950s.

John Hoopes

 

A Speculation On The Use Of Stone Balls In Pre-Columbian Costa Rica

While there is little context from which to work, there remains the stone balls themselves.  Having explored this subject for more than 30 years, I have come to several possible explanations for their existence.   These are shared for the sake of expanding the dialog, and are not presented as scientific fact, though are supported by observation, and analysis.

1. Land marks - highway markers.
   
   In cultures throughout the Americas, stone statues were used as route markers and indicators of territory. 
   
   Interestingly, a sphere has unique qualities that make it well suited to rain forest use.  It resists soil deposition, and it can not be laid down or fall over.  It can be moved, but it always remains upright.  Also a sphere is an unusual shape in a forest, and lends itself to easy identification - particularly if they were painted/coated with lime - they would be very strikingly visible.
   
   Thus smaller balls, which would have been needed in quantity, could easily have formed a network of markers through dense forest.
    
2. Light House
   
   Another interesting aspect of some balls, was that a small number had residual lime coatings.  The author examined 3 medium sized balls in private hands in 1976 that had recently been looted.  Two of the three still had significant line coatings (powered and "painted" onto the balls).  The looter informed the author that they had not been cleaned or otherwise treated, and that this was how they were found on his finca (farm) a couple of months before.  These spheres were each measure and found to be: .72 meters in diameter, .69 meters diameter, and .71 meters diameter.  All but one was near perfect (in this case near perfect being defined as +/- 3cm round).
   
   A series of experiments were undertake to determine the potential value of a white sphere as a stationary beacon in varying contexts:
   1. An approximately  2 meter (6.5ft) diameter large weather balloon was used in one, which was white painted and placed atop a hill with one km line of sight visibility.  The painted sphere was clearly visible under overcast skies, and stood out like a light house under the sun!
   2. A large (20 inch diameter) beach ball was used, and painted white.  It was taken into dense forest (in the Orosi Valley - though this was for convenience sake).  Straight line visibility was limited to no more that 20 meters (65 ft).  Placed atop a small platform of stones, the white sphere was distinctly visible in the dim light on the forest floor.

   The result of the above was that stone balls could easily have proven useful as markers and signal beacons.  This does not prove they were used that way, only that their effectiveness was evident.
    

3. Balls As Bearings
   
   One recent correspondent suggested that the balls might have been used as bearings or wheels of some kind.
   
   It is possible to use a sphere contained in a socket as a load bearing motive device - in short a wheel (just look at the cars in the recent movie "I Robot").  HOWEVER, using a sphere for that purpose brings some serious engineering requirements:  lubricant, and polish.  The Costa Rican sphere were not sufficiently polished to realistically permit this.  The socket would have to be constructed of either stone or wood, and thus the ball would have ground down the inner surface of the socket to such an extent to be unusable very quickly.
   
   However, it does point out another possible use for smaller balls: as grinding stones for use on metates.  But the balls would have to be small enough to be managed.  This is plausible, though a ball is not the most obvious choice for this purpose.
    
4. Balls As Weapons
   
   There is little doubt that the cultures of the region engaged in warfare.  And frankly, it is likely our own bias to believe that ONLY modern cultures could use spheres as weapons.  Spheres were used in catapults going back thousands of years.  The problem is the lack of written and clear pictorial records.
   
   Building a catapult is not extreme engineering.  Though using them with effectiveness is a skill.  But another way of using a sphere as a weapon is with a sling. 
   
   During that same summer of 1976, and repeated later, the author and associated, attempted to work out how a ball could be used as a weapon.  The results proved interesting and possible:
   1. Ball in a basket:  weave a basket wound the ball, and attach a liana/vine.  The ball could not be more than about 25kg.  Pick up the ball with the vine, extend the vine out a foot or two.  Start to spin, extend the vine to give greater centripetal force and momentum to the ball.   When you have achieved enough momentum, release the vine - you have a guided missile!  We believe that larger balls could have been used, possibly with tandem individuals holding the vine - but there is a point at which the woven basket and the vive fail.
   2. Bowling:  Another useful tactic is to use the balls as gravity weapons, by simply rolling them down hill.  It is possible to construct simple guiding devices to increase effectiveness.  But the simple approach does work especially on a concentrated attacking force.
       
5. Astronomical Devices
   
   Ironically, while the sphere seems a natural choice in astronomical observations, it is probably also the least likely use of these balls.
   
   It is important to remember where these balls were made and deployed.  This is a region of dense tropical rain forests.  Placing a large number of spheres in an astrological alignment, presumes that you can view this alignment.  In most cases, that would be prohibitive, unless there were large tracks of cleared lands in this region 1,000 years ago.  It is not impossible, just very improbable.

While the above is speculation, it is based upon observation, experimentation, and rational understanding of the cultures of the region.  However, since there is such a lack of context, you are allowed to speculate yourself! 

Do you have a better idea?  Share it with us at:  http://cryptoarchaeo.ning.com

Dr. Tim McGuinness
Florida USA
1999-2007