.Olmec Shark Monster - Arnold

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265224741
THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY
Article
CITATIONS READS
5 2,064
1 author:
Philip J. Arnold III

Loyola University Chicago
36 PUBLICATIONS 468 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Libro: Arqueología de La Costa del Golfo. Dinámicas de la Interacción política, económica e ideológica View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Philip J. Arnold III on 01 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography”
Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005)
PHILIP J. ARNOLD III

Department of Anthropology, Loyola University
Chicago, Chicago, IL 60626
THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
The shark supernatural is an important, albeit poorly understood, element in Olmec iconography. This paper suggests that
the shark-monster may have served as a central character in an Olmec world-creation story. As reconstructed, this story
pits the water beast against a mythic hero—the hero loses a limb but the struggle results in the formation of the earth’s
surface. Iconographic referents to the shark-monster include “V-shaped” clefts, fine-line “finning,” tooth-tipped scepters,
and sharks integrated within elite headdresses. These readings offer an important alternative to conventional accounts that
privilege terrestrial symbolism in Olmec iconography.
The eye of the beholder seems eager to take up cally related to the shark-monster or shark
where the Olmec left off. supernatural, has been undervalued in ac-
Barbara Stark 1983:72 counts of Olmec iconography. This circum-
stance may result from multiple causes, but
two factors particularly stand out. First,
Readings of Olmec iconography do not Olmec archaeology has generally empha-
want for lack of inspiration. Serpents, jag- sized the importance of terrestrial re-
uars, toads, manatees, crocodiles, and corn sources such as maize while overlooking the
are merely the first round of contenders aquatic bounty of a coastal, estuarine envi-
vying to crack the Olmec code (e.g., Coe ronment (Arnold 2000). Second, an over-
1989). Stark’s (1983) point is characteris- reliance on the “continuity hypothesis” (Coe
tically understated and certainly well taken. 1989:71) means that the Early and Middle
With the field already so congested, one is Formative (ca. 1500-400 BC) Olmec are
loath to insert one more player into the continuously recreated in the image of
melee. Nonetheless, that action is precisely groups some two millennia their junior and
the purpose of the following exercise. Be- who may share only the most distant of lin-
low I argue that piscine imagery, specifi- guistic and cultural affiliations.
1
As a consequence of these and other A Context for Reading Olmec

factors, corn and bloodletting are domi- Iconography
nant themes in current treatments of
Olmec iconography. Still lacking, however, In 1942, scholars convened the Second
are viable, context-dependent accounts of Mesa Redonda in Tuxtla Gutiérrez to con-
why these meanings were relevant to the sider the temporal status of the newly
Formative-Period Olmec. I offer one such crowned “La Venta culture.” In addition to
context below. Specifically, I suggest that their consensus regarding the culture’s pre-
a portion of Olmec imagery references an Classic status, these scholars also adopted
early version of a possible world-creation the term “Olmec” as a convenient short-
myth. As reconstructed, part of this story hand (e.g., Jiménez Moreno 1942:19). As
involves the defeat of a shark-monster many readers are aware, “Olmec” derives
whose body was transformed into the from the Nahua word “Olman” or “land of
earth’s surface. The shark-monster-as- the rubber” (e.g., Bernal 1969:11). Con-
earth, in turn, provides the foundation on tact-period documents linked an indigenous
which the world tree is raised, thus estab- group called the “Olmeca” with the south-
lishing the axis mundi. ern Gulf lowlands of Veracruz and Tabasco
I explore this theme throughout the (de Sahagún 1938:Tomo III, Libro X,133-
following discussion. First, I offer archaeo- 134).
logical background to justify the statement Fewer readers may realize, however,
that aquatic resources were probably more that “Olmeca” was but one of several names
germane to lowland coastal Olmec groups for the occupants of this coastal estuarine
than agricultural products. I focus on zone. For example, de Sahagún
coastal Olmec for the simple reason that (1938:Tomo III, Libro X, 133, 139) also
most permanent Olmec artwork was in- referred to these people as “Uixtotin” or
stalled either in lowland settings or in up- “olmecas uixtotin” (also Piña Chan
land sites with strong coastal ties. My less- 1989:17; Scholes and Warren 1965:776).
than-subtle working hypothesis is that “Uixtotin” means “people of the salt wa-
much of Olmec iconography originated in ter,” an apt moniker that emphasizes an
the Mexican coastal lowlands (cf. Flannery equally important, albeit very different,
and Marcus 2000).1 I then address shark- component of Gulf lowlands life ways. In-
monster imagery itself. Building on the terestingly, the Quiche Maya’s Popol Vuh
work of previous studies (e.g., Grove 1987; offers a parallel identification—an ances-
Joralemon 1971; Joyce et al. 1991; Stross tral group “from the east” (i.e., coastal
1994) this section sets out the evidence for Tabasco or southern Veracruz) is referred
a shark supernatural and reviews the suite to as both “Sovereign Oloman” (“Tepeu
of motifs that may identify it. Finally, I oloman or oliman”) (Tedlock 1985:167-177,
consider the possible sacred role of the 361) and also as “Fishkeepers” (“Char [4hah]
shark-monster, noting the various contexts car”) (Tedlock 1985:189, 336; also
in which it appears. These contexts include Edmonson 1971:194).
ritual offerings, sacred spaces, and the re- Thus, contact-period sources clearly
galia used by elite individuals. linked Gulf lowland groups with a mari-
2
time lifestyle. Ironically, the decision to been confirmed by more recent fieldwork
call the archaeological culture “Olmec” and at Isla Alor, on the outskirts of La Venta
not “Uixtotin” undercut this connection— (Raab et al. 2000).
it set the stage for an emphasis on terres- The ubiquity of aquatic resources, at
trial plants and animals as opposed to ma- the expense of domesticated cultivars,
rine life and aqua-culture. Today, a subsis- dovetails nicely with the newest settlement
tence economy based on maize farming has pattern studies conducted at San Lorenzo
become the sine qua non of Gulf Olmec so- and its hinterland (Symonds et al. 2002).
ciety (e.g., Coe and Diehl 1980a:389, This research indicates that small, seasonal
1980b:144-146; Diehl 1996:31; Grove sites (islotes) were the most common settle-
1997:80). ment during the Early Formative period—
Unfortunately, this emphasis on maize these sites were located in the floodplain
agriculture has not lived up to its own bill- and probably represent the exploitation of
ing (Arnold 2000, 2002). Early work at backwater swamps (Arnold 2000:129;
San Lorenzo did not produce direct evi- Symonds et al. 2002:63, 74). Even today,
dence for corn; instead, conclusions regard- flooding within the Coatzacoalcos Basin
ing an agrarian adaptation were drawn from remains a serious issue, with major floods
the presence of ground stone artifacts (Coe every 3-5 years and catastrophic flooding
and Diehl 1980b:144). Fieldwork reported on the order of every 50 years (Ortiz P.
by Rust and Leyden (1994) near La Venta and Cyphers 1997:39, Figura 1.4).
recovered only minimal evidence of maize These data suggest that water, annual
dating before the site’s Middle Formative flooding, and aquatic resources played a sig-
occupation. More recent studies at Early nificant role in Gulf Olmec life ways (e.g.,
Formative San Lorenzo produced botani- Wendt 2003). Seen in this light, we are
cal evidence in the form of maize phytoliths encouraged to consider coastal lowland
(Zurita N. 1997), but the relative paucity Olmec iconography, particularly Early For-
of that evidence speaks volumes.2 Recent mative iconography, in terms other than
settlement archaeology around Laguna de maize symbolism. In fact, such a recon-
los Cerros, located to the west of San sideration has already begun; Taube
Lorenzo, suggests that the upland zone best (2000:298-299) recently observed that
suited for corn faming was not utilized until corn motifs and referents did not become
the end of the Early Formative Period common in Olmec art until the Middle
(Borstein 2001). Formative period was underway. An in-
In fact, published subsistence data from triguing question, therefore, is what was
Gulf Olmec sites consistently emphasize Olmec iconography depicting for the half-
the role of fish rather than corn; for ex- millennium prior to ca. 700 BC?
ample, snook (Centropomus sp.) was among
the most important protein sources at an- The Olmec Shark-Monster
cient San Lorenzo (Wing 1980:383). Rust
and Leyden (1994) recovered considerable The Olmec shark-monster appears
evidence for fish and other aquatic re- among these earlier images. It can be found
sources at La Venta. This same pattern has on megalithic sculpture, on low relief
3
carved into living rock, on portable green- the upper portion of the jaw is much longer
stone celts, and on ceramic vessels. It is than the lower portion, a feature common
especially associated with the Gulf low- to sharks in general. In fact, this trait may
lands—most megalithic representations have evolved into some of the “long-lipped”
derive from Veracruz and Tabasco, where profiles seen in later Mesoamerican imag-
its depiction continued well into the Clas- ery. Second, a series of three teeth are vis-
sic Period. ible, including a single, larger tooth in front
Surprisingly, the potential role of the followed by two backwardly curved ex-
shark-monster in Olmec iconography has amples.
received only sporadic attention. Published Two additional features of Monument
papers by Joyce et al. (1991) and Stross 58 are relevant. First, it was excavated
(1994) directly address this piscine super- from a known context and can be reason-
natural, while Grove (1987) anticipated ably dated. Second, the stone tablet is
several of their observations. A two-vol- rather large, measuring just over four feet
ume treatise by Hellmuth (1987a, b) con- in length and almost a foot thick (132 cm x
siders the shark-monster and other aquatic 72 cm x 28 cm). Thus, in contrast to the
imagery dating to the Late Formative-Early portable items that form the main corpus
Classic transition. Joralemon (1996a:55) of Olmec iconography, it is doubtful that
identifies the “fish monster” as “an impor- Monument 58 circulated widely after its
tant Olmec supernatural.” installation at San Lorenzo.
Perhaps the most overt instances of Very similar shark-monster iconogra-
Olmec shark-monster imagery occur on phy occurs farther afield. For example, an
three different items whose proveniences incised blackware ceramic bottle, possibly
are separated by hundreds of miles. San from Las Bocas, Puebla, offers a compel-
Lorenzo Monument 58 (Figure 1a) was ling highland counterpart to the San
excavated atop the Group D Ridge at San Lorenzo sculpture (Figure 1b) (Joralemon
LorenzoTenochtitlán by Francisco Beverido 1996b). Again, we see the shark-monster
in 1969 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:364; in profile; its elongated body displays a
Cyphers 1997:204-205, 2004:122-124). It dorsal fin and a slightly uneven bifurcated
consists of a profile view of a shark super- tail. The crossed-band symbol is placed just
natural carved in low relief on a basalt slab behind the head, while three larger hori-
and probably dates to the Early Formative zontal bands stretch towards the shark-
Period.3 The zoomorph’s body exhibits a monster’s tail. In addition, a series of thin-
clearly marked dorsal fin as well as a bifur- ner slashes are used to accentuate the ap-
cated tail. A crossed-band motif (e.g., St. pearance of fins (e.g., Grove 1987:62); this
Andrew’s Cross) appears just behind the “finning” occurs on both the dorsal fin and
head and runs the length of the on the tail. The eye is composed of a lower
supernatural’s body. The shark-monster’s crescent with out-flaring edges; this lower
eye is rendered as an unfilled crescent or crescent is mirrored by another crescent
trough and a large, bulbous nose graces the above. The shark-monster’s lower jaw has
upper lip. The shark-monster’s opened been severely reduced, and is now indicated
mouth reveals two important traits. First, by the merest suggestion of a curve. A tri-
4
Figure 1. Lowland and Highland representations of the Olmec shark-monster: (a) San Lorenzo Monument 58. Redrawn
from The Art Museum 1995:121; (b) incised figure on a ceramic bottle from Las Bocas. Redrawn from Joralemon 1996b;
(c) incised figure on a ceramic tecomate from Las Bocas. Note wing-shaped cleft in place of pectoral fin. Redrawn from
Joralemon 1971:Figure 100.
5
Figure 2. Shark supernatural depicted on the “Young Lord” figurine. Note the swept-back head with double merlons.
Redrawn from Joralemon 1996c:Figure 4.
angular tooth adorns the front of the up- instead a series of diagonal lines associated
per jaw, followed by a curved element that with a wing-like cleft element. The lines
represents a second tooth. The shark’s bul- probably represent gills while the cleft
bous, pug nose is clearly visible. may substitute for the pectoral fin (see
A second ceramic vessel from Las below).
Bocas also carries the shark supernatural In addition to the shark iconography
(Figure 1c) (Joralemon 1971:Figure 100; from Highland Mexico and the Gulf low-
Joyce et al. 1991:Figure 4). The charac- lands, depictions of the shark-monster have
teristics of this image mimic those already also been documented along the Pacific
mentioned: a profile view that includes a Coast. One such image, also executed on
well-demarcated dorsal fin and bifurcated a portable medium, appears on the “Young
tail with finning highlights and a well de- Lord,” a greenstone figurine from the
fined, pug-like nose. The lower jaw is com- coastal region of Guatemala or El Salvador
pletely absent and the two teeth in this ren- (Figure 2) (The Art Museum 1995; Clark
dition are inordinately large and amply ser- and Pye 2000:226; Joralemon 1996a:55,
rated. The eye is more trough-shaped than 1996c). This standing sculpture exhibits a
crescent-like on this depiction. In place of complex iconography and displays incisions
the crossed-bands behind the head, we see covering its arms, legs, and feet. Here we
6
Figure 3. Highland Olmec shark-monster depicted on the interior base of a ceramic plate from Tlapacoya. Note the series
of swept-back cleft elements that substitute for dorsal and ventral fins. Redrawn from Niederberger 2000:Figure 9.
focus on the imagery that occurs on the acteristic large nose is apparent, as are the
lower half of the body. crossed bands positioned directly behind
Two incised zoomorphs are present on the shark-monster’s head. Three dots have
the legs of the Young Lord: a crocodilian/ been placed within these bands. The shark’s
earth dragon aspect on its left thigh and a eye is more half-moon than crescent-shaped
fish supernatural/shark aspect on the and is placed vertically rather than hori-
figurine’s right thigh (Joralemon zontally. An upper fringe or merlon is vis-
1996c:215; Reilly 1991, cited in The Art ible above the eye and a backward curving
Museum 1995:281). The shark represen- cleft represents a possible eyebrow. The
tation carries several of the conventions tail is bifurcated and displays the finning
mentioned above, but adds a few as well. evident on the pottery from Las Bocas.
Additional iconographic elements surround Additional images and anthropomor-
the shark-monster and validate its aquatic phic profiles surround the shark monster.4
context. Of particular note is the profile head em-
First, we recognize the opened jaw bedded along the back of the shark
with a reduced lower segment. A large supernatural’s body. The characteristics of
tooth emerges from the front of the mouth; this head are similar to the shark-monster
in this case, the tooth itself is bifurcated. itself: a long-lipped jaw with at least two
A second, curved tooth appears behind the prominent teeth; a bulbous nose; and an
first and ends in a double merlon. The char- eye composed of a vertical half moon
7
Figure 4. Stylized shark zoomorph on a ceramic bowl from a Preclassic Burial at Copan. The representation includes an
upside-down crescent eye and a flattened nose. Both the swept-back dorsal fin and the tail terminate in clefts. Note the
finning on both the dorsal and tail fins. Redrawn from Schele and Miller 1986:119, Plate 30.
crossed by a horizontal crescent. Atop the stocky and abbreviated with a rounded,
head is a double merlon, followed behind bifurcated tail.
by an outturned or swept-back cleft ele- This image is especially noteworthy for
ment. In fact, this combination of double the several appendages that emerge from
merlon and swept-back cleft graces the eyes the body. These appendages represent fins
of two of the three profiles that surround and occur on both the dorsal and ventral
the shark.5 portions of the shark-monster. The first
It may be tempting to simply gloss this two dorsal fins and the single ventral fin
swept-back cleft convention as another are cleft. Several of these fins have a
example of the oft-invoked “flaming eye- curved, swept-back appearance. The char-
brow” of Olmec art. However, another acteristics of the remaining dorsal fins are
rendering of the shark-monster from High- unclear; they are either without clefts or
land Mexico suggests an interesting alter- they may simply reflect an artistic conven-
native. This image appears on an Early For- tion whereby the bifurcated fin is depicted
mative ceramic plate from Tlapacoya (Joyce in profile.
et al. 1991:Figure 4c; Niederberger The association of swept-back clefts
2000:185). TheTlapacoya shark supernatu- and fish fins gains additional support
ral exhibits a suite of traits similar to those through an independent identification made
documented above (Figure 3). The fish by Schele and Miller (1986:119; Plate 30).
zoomorph has a reduced lower jaw and two These scholars discuss a ceramic vessel ex-
large teeth that emerge from the upper cavated from below Group 9N-B at Copan,
gum. Above the upper jaw is a large nose Honduras (Figure 4). The carved/incised
and the shark’s eye is well represented by a image on the vessel includes a down-
curved, crescent-like band. The body is turned, crescent-shaped element within an
8
outline that terminates in a bifurcation duced or abbreviated lower jaw. A single

decorated with thin line finning. A second, large tooth usually erupts from the front
smaller cleft erupts from the top of the upper portion of the jaw; on occasion this
image and is also curves backwards. Schele tooth is bifurcated. One or more smaller
and Miller (1986:119) describe it thus: teeth are placed behind the large front
“The third vessel from the south building tooth. These secondary teeth are often
has an odd design terminating in a bifur- curved backwards toward the interior of
cated shape scored with parallel lines. This the jaw.
motif and a smaller version to its left seem The shark-monster often carries a bul-
to be fish tails, but the remainder of the bous or pug-like nose. This nose may be
design does not correspond to a known clearly depicted or it may only be suggested
naturalistic form.” Given the above discus- by a curved line. A crossed-band element
sion it is possible to identify the Copan frequently occurs behind the head of the
image as a stylized shark-monster, complete shark-monster. In some cases this band is
with crescent eye (in this case down- replaced by a series of lines and “wing-like”
turned) and a cleft dorsal fin. David Grove elements. These wing-like motifs are re-
(cited in Fash 1991:69) offers the same ally the top of clefts and represent fins. The
conclusion regarding the Group 9N-B ves- shark-monster’s tail is bifurcated. Other
sel. fins, especially the dorsal fin, are commonly
The realization that clefts may substi- portrayed as backward curving appendages.
tute for dorsal fins encourages us to re-visit Fins can be augmented with a series of fine
theYoung Lord figurine and reconsider the lines; this process of finning occurs on the
profile head on the back of the shark-mon- dorsal fins as well as the shark-monster’s
ster. I suggest that this profile head, with tail.
its swept-back cleft and crossed-crescent
eye, may either depict an anthropomorphic The Shark-Monster as a Sacred
shark supernatural or a personified version Entity
of the shark-monster’s dorsal fin. In ei-
ther case, such representations suggest an Although useful, the shark-monster
early perception of the shark as a sacred identification made above is by no means
and powerful entity (e.g., Schele and Miller novel—as already noted, several scholars
1986:43-44). In addition, the possibility recognized the particular piscine charac-
that the tails and dorsal fins of the Olmec ter of this zoomorph. Rather, based on the
shark-monster have a personified or anthro- prior discussion it is now possible to de-
pomorphic variant raises the question of tect the shark supernatural with greater
whether there are frontal versions of these confidence and perhaps even distinguish
same supernaturals. some of its geographical and chronological
In sum, a complex of several traits de- variants. We are also better equipped to
notes the shark-monster in Olmec iconog- consider the circumstances within which
raphy (also Joyce et al. 1991:9). These traits Olmec shark-monster imagery occurs.
include an elongated upper jaw and a re- These circumstances are considered
9
below. First I address the rarer instances jaw, a single large tooth emerging from the
in which the provenience of relevant Olmec upper gum, and an unfilled crescent that
material is well established. This exercise serves as the eye. Although this image is
underscores the apparent sacred nature of still occasionally characterized simply as a
the shark-monster in Olmec thought. I “Death God” (e.g., de la Fuente 1996:170),
then investigate several images in which the most scholars now accept it as the shark-
shark-monster interacts with human fig- monster (Joralemon 1996a:55; Coe
ures. These representations imply a 1989:76; Grove 2000:279-280).
Mesoamerican world-creation event in The presence of the shark supernatu-
which a deity or mythic hero subdues the ral on the Las Limas figure bespeaks the
shark-supernatural, ultimately resulting in central relevance of this entity to coastal
the formation of the world’s surface. Fi- Olmec ideology. This importance is ech-
nally, I explore the association of the shark- oed in additional Gulf lowlands contexts.
monster and ritual regalia. One set of ex- For example, a shark-monster effigy occurs
amples involves scepters and batons tipped within the spectacular jade cache from
with a shark’s tooth. The second group of Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker 1955:Figure
examples includes headdresses in which 4, Plate 40c). This cache was discovered
shark imagery plays a central role. In these when excavations trenched Mound 1 at the
cases the ruler appropriates the shark-su- site (Drucker 1943, 1955). Although this
pernatural imagery to exemplify and rein- offering dates to the Classic Period, it con-
force his position as axis mundi. tained many greenstone artifacts that ap-
pear to be Olmec in origin. The inclusion
Shark Imagery from Known of the shark supernatural in this offering,
Contexts as well as the presence of shark-monsters
on Cerro de las Mesas stelae (see below),
In a series of studies dating to the indicates the powerful longitudinal impact
1970s, Peter David Joralemon (1971, 1976) of this water beast along the Gulf lowlands.
tentatively identified a suite of It should not be surprising, however,
supernaturals that occurred in Olmec ico- that shark remains per se are rare; as mostly
nography. Among these representations cartilaginous creatures, sharks have few
was “God VIII,” one of four images that also parts that will survive the ravages of time.
appeared on the Las Limas figure. This Shark teeth, therefore, are the most com-
sculpture, uncovered by children in the mon direct evidence for this fish in archaeo-
small village of Las Limas,Veracruz in 1965, logical contexts (e.g., de Borhegyi 1961).7
consists of a seated, cross-legged individual Excavations at La Venta produced shark
holding a smaller individual across his lap teeth in a highly ritualized context. Dur-
(de la Fuente 1996; Joralemon 1996a). The ing the 1942 field season, workers explored
God VIII profile is located on the left knee the area known as Complex A, located to
of the Las Limas figure (Figure 5).6 Its the north of the great Mound C-1 (Drucker
defining characteristics are simple, but 1952). A trench placed in Mound A-2 re-
should now be familiar: a reduced lower vealed a closed “tomb” constructed entirely
10
Figure 5. The Olmec shark-monster (“God VIII”) on the left knee of the Las Limas figure. Redrawn from The Art Museum
1995: Catalog 35, Figure 1 and Joralemon 1971:Figure 253.
of basalt columns. The remains of two this was the tooth of a great white shark
bundle burials were found within this fea- (Carcharodon carcharias). Coe (1989:79)
ture—based on osteological and dental in- reports that “great white shark teeth, per-
dicators, Drucker (1952:23) concluded haps in some cases of fossil origin, have
that both individuals were probably juve- been excavated at both La Venta and San
niles. Lorenzo.” Coe’s reference to “fossil ori-
Each bundle included a variety of ob- gin” suggests that some of these examples
jects. Among the items associated with are megalodon (Carcharodon megalodon)
Bundle #2 was a single shark’s tooth, the teeth; these teeth are particularly large
only such tooth in either of the burials (some exceed 10 cm in length) and derive
(Druker 1952:26, 196). A later investiga- from Miocene sharks. Megalodon teeth
tion by de Borhegyi (1961) indicated that also occur as offerings at Palenque within
11
Figure 6. Wooden scepter from El Manatí with shark tooth embedded in one end. Redrawn from Ortiz C. et al. 1997:Foto
21.
the Temple of the Cross, the Temple of the shark’s tooth was embedded into one end
Foliated Cross, and Temple V, North Group of the baton; this end is ovoid and bulbous,
(de Borhegyi 1961:Table 1; Ruz-Lhuillier recalling the characteristic nose of many
1958). Formative shark images (Figure 6). The
Another relevant example of the asso- baton was covered with red paint and may
ciation between shark teeth and ideologi- have been purposefully interred between
cal contexts comes from the Early Forma- two separate groups of wooden busts
tive site of El Manatí, located just to the (Ortiz C. and Rodríguez 1999:243-244;
east of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán and south- Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). The tooth-tipped
west of La Venta (Ortiz C. et al. 1997). scepter straddled strata X and IX, a posi-
The El Manatí locale apparently served as tion that dates the baton to the site’s Manatí
a sacred location, a place where ritual ob- phase (pre-1200 BC).
jects including wooden busts, greenstone The El Manatí finding, again under
celts, and rubber balls were placed as of- controlled excavation conditions, confirms
ferings. The waterlogged conditions of El that Olmec staffs were occasionally sancti-
Manatí provide a preservation-friendly con- fied through their association with the
text, yielding unparalleled information on shark-monster. The placement of the tooth
Olmec artifacts made from organic mate- on the end of a three-foot long pole also
rials. suggests that these batons were overt sym-
Among the items recovered from the bols of power and prestige, rather than ev-
sacred spring is a cylindrical wooden ba- eryday bloodletters. The fact that Olmec
ton or scepter more than three feet long staffs were tipped with shark teeth also has
(110 cm) (Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). A implications for conventional identifica-
12
Figure 7. The Aztec world creation story and the Cipactli shark monster as depicted in the Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer. Note
heterocercal tail and absence of saurian legs. After Nicholson 1985:107
tions of “torches” and “feather bundles,” to interaction comes from the Codex
be discussed below. Ferjérváry-Mayer, a Postclassic-Period
document from Mexico. According to Karl
The Shark-Monster and the World Taube (personal communication, 2004)
Creation Folio 42 of the Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer
depicts Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli struggling
The above examples demonstrate that with the great water beast Cipactli (Figure
shark referents were sacrosanct; they were 7). Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli ultimately looses
incorporated into rituals and marked hal- his foot to the supernatural’s terrible maw.
lowed contexts. Nonetheless, shark-mon- A parallel rendition of this event occurs on
ster imagery is manifest in other ways. One Folio 26 of the Codex Vaticanus B. This
such context involves depictions of the interaction is strongly reminiscent of an
shark supernatural engaged with an anthro- Aztec world creation myth. According to
pomorphic actor. one version of the story, Quetzalcoatl and
Perhaps the clearest example of this Tezcatlipoca engage Cipactli, ultimately
13
Figure 8. The Olmec world creation story as depicted on Chalcatzingo Monument 5. Note pectoral fin behind the head
and cleft-fin markings on the tail of the shark-monster. Redrawn from Joralemon 1971:Figure 262.
tearing off its lower jaw. This jaw, in turn, crocodile, and from this fish they
is transformed into the surface of the earth made the earth…Afterwards,
(e.g., Nicholson 1985:107). During the when all four gods were together,
struggle Tezcatlipoca loses his leg to the they made the earth from the fish
water beast’s mouth (e.g., Miller and Taube Cipactli, which they called
1993:164). The fact that Tlaltlecuhtil, and they painted it
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli substitutes for as a god of the earth, lying on top
Tezcatlipoca in these images reminds us that of a fish, since it was made from
the continuity hypothesis must be applied it” (Maria Garibay 1965:25-26,
with caution. cited in López Luján 1994:254).8
The zoomorph depicted in the Codex Thus, while the Cipactli water beast of
Ferjérváry-Mayer exhibits the tell-tale Postclassic accounts is often understood as
traits of the shark-monster: a reduced jaw; a crocodile, it is instead a fish with some
a single, large tooth emanating from the crocodilian attributes.
front of the upper gums with smaller teeth Similar world-creation narratives per-
behind; and a bifurcated tail. According meate Mesoamerican ideology. One ver-
to the Historia de los mexicanos por sus sion among the Yucatecan Maya holds that
pinturas: Itzam Cab Ain (“Giant Fish Earth Caiman”
And then they created the skies, [Taube 1993:69]) is slain by Bolon-ti-ku.9
beyond the thirteenth, and they Five trees are then raised on the back of
made water and created a great the dispatched creature to support the sky.
fish, called Cipactli, that is like a Perhaps the best-known version of the
14
Mesoamerican world-creation story comes displays a long, larger tooth at the front
from the Popul Vuh of the Quiché Maya followed by several backward curving teeth
(e.g., Edmonson 1971; Tedlock 1985). In (compare with Figure 1). Also present is
this telling the hero twins battle a water- the accentuated nose common to Olmec
monster named Zipacna. Most scholars versions of the shark-monster. Just behind
agree that Zipacna and Cipactli are low- the head are the crossed-bands that often
land and highland variants of the same accompany the shark-supernatural and a
word; nonetheless, their etymology re- bifurcated/cleft dorsal fin adorns the back
mains unclear. Interestingly, Edmonson of the creature.12 The tail is rounded at the
(1971:36) indicates that a prior translation end, but it carries two parallel clefts that
glossed Zipacna as “wise fish earth.”10 For are consistent with a fin identification.
his part, Tedlock (1985:372) simply notes While some might be tempted to read these
that the Quiche Maya term for crocodile is marks as a snake’s rattles, Angulo V.
“ayin” rather than “zipacna” and observes (1987:147) astutely observes that, if they
that the word “ayin” is absent from the depict rattles, the rattles are inverted. A
Popul Vuh. Thus, as de Borhegyi greenstone Olmec “bloodletter handle” also
(1961:293) proposed over forty years ago, shows a cleft on a shark-monster’s tail
it is quite possible that the shark-monster (Reilly 1995:Figure 35). In this case, a fig-
played an early role in the Mesoamerican ure with a swept-back head “rides” the back
world creation myth. of the shark supernatural. As discussed
The examples just noted derive, of below, such “riders” may occasionally serve
course, from the Postclassic Period. None- as personifications of the shark’s dorsal fin.
theless, several Formative-Period images Another fin appears just behind the
represent a struggle between a human form shark-monster’s head on Chalcatzingo
and a shark supernatural; these renditions Monument 5. Elsewhere this appendage
may recount an earlier version of the story. has been characterized as a “wing” or “paw-
For example, Chalcatzingo Monument 5 wing” motif (e.g., Joralemon 1971:83).
depicts a long, sinuous zoomorph with an According to Angulo V. (1987:147), how-
almost beak-like mouth apparently in the ever, it is “a clearly carved, fish-like fin.”
act of devouring an individual (Figure 8). Taube (1995:84) flirts with a similar iden-
A long bifurcated element extends just tification for Monument 5: “On the Olmec
behind the head of the human.11 The Avian Serpent, the paw-wings are imme-
zoomorph has occasionally been identified diately behind the head, like the pectoral
as a “feathered” or “avian” serpent (e.g., Coe fins of fish.”13 The swirls just below the
1989:76; Joralemon 1996a:58; Taube Chalcatzingo Monument 5 zoomorph have
1995:84), but an alternative reading is pos- also been used to support a presumed aerial
sible based on the following observations context; such swirls are sometimes associ-
(also Joyce et al. 1991:5). ated with clouds or rain (e.g., The Art
First, the creature on Chalcatzingo Museum 1995:121). Given the additional
Monument 5 exhibits several of the traits evidence, however, I agree with Grove
common to the shark-monster. Although (1968:489) and Angulo V. (1987:148) that
the lower jaw is not reduced, the mouth in the present context the swirls are best
15
Figure 9. The Olmec world creation story as depicted on La Venta Monument 63. Redrawn from Follensbee 2000:Figure
81.
16
read as water symbols. Reminiscent scrolls depicts a smaller human who is facing and
adorn Olmec fish effigy ceramic vessels apparently struggling with a creature al-
from Highland Mexico (e.g., The Art Mu- most twice his height (Figure 9). The hu-
seum 1995:178, Plates 52 and 54; Benson man may sport a small pointed beard and
and de la Fuente 1996:190). wears a headdress topped by a tied bundle.
The interaction between the zoomorph His left arm is raised and his fist is clenched;
and the individual depicted on Chalcatzingo the arm awkwardly raps around the back
Monument 5 provides additional clues to of the fish zoomoph. His right arm hangs
its meaning. At first glance it may appear down toward the lower register of the stela
that the shark-monster is in the process of and may actually grab the attenuated tail
devouring the human. However, a particu- of the water creature. A fan-like element
larly insightful comment regarding this ac- behind the human represents one of the
tion allows for an alternative scenario: shark supernatural’s fins. The shark-mon-
Esta feroz criatura está ster represented on La Venta Monument
representada en el momento de 63 towers over the human figure, look-
devorar o de regurgitar a una ing down with menacing intent. The
figura humana. Este personaje está creature has the long upper jaw and re-
claramente delineado, excepto su duced lower jaw of Gulf lowland shark-
pierna izquierda que está monsters; it also displays the bulbous
profundamente en la garganta del nose associated with those same images.
monstruo (Reilly 1994a:249, em- A series of teeth erupt from the upper
phasis added). jaw. A large dorsal fin appears at the top
Thus, with the individual’s leg deep in the of the shark-monster’s head and several
shark supernatural’s throat, we encounter smaller fins are visible along its body.
the same relationship between actors indi- In their description of La Venta Monu-
cated in the Ferjérváry-Mayer andVaticanus ment 63, Williams and Heizer (1965:19)
B codices. Coupled with the evidence al- quote Carlos Pellicer who simply describes
ready discussed, it is reasonable to propose the image as “a man hugging a monster.”
that Chalcatzingo Monument 5 represents Piña Chan (1989:239, Plates 78 and 79)
an Olmec version of the world-creation identifies the stela as “a figure holding an
story. enormous mythical fish with shark-like
A second artistic rendering may also teeth.” More recently, Follensbee
represent this primordial clash. La Venta (2000:207) presents it as a “profile figure
Monument 63 is a rarely discussed stela holding a huge, monstrous supernatural
reported by Williams and Heizer (1965). fish.” Although the human image is not
The monument was found within the cen- depicted as one-legged, the scene clearly
tral area of La Venta, although the specific conveys a sense of impending peril.
location is not indicated. It stands over A third lowland monument, Izapa Stela
seven feet tall (256 cm) and is sculpted on 3, may also represent this interaction. The
a basalt column. sculpture comes from the Pacific Coast
The image on La Venta Monument 63 piedmont just along the Chiapas-Guatemala
17
Figure 10. The Izapan world creation story as depicted on Izapa Stela 3. Note obscured (i.e., missing) leg of standing
figure. Redrawn from Norman 1976:Figure 3.4.
border (Norman 1973, 1976). Izapa is shaped object.

particularly noteworthy for its extensive Only the upper portion of the shark-
body of megalithic monuments; although monster’s body is represented; it emerges
lacking inscriptions, Stela 3 probably dates from between the human figure’s legs. The
to the end of the Formative Period (e.g., result of this arrangement is that only one
Norman 1976:324-325; Smith 1984:45- leg of the human is visible—the other leg
47). Several figures appear on the stela; is effectively missing.14 The shark-monster
nonetheless, the main activity takes place has a long upper jaw, a reduced lower jaw,
between a large human figure facing toward and a bulbous nose. A single, large bifur-
the viewer’s left and an equally large sinu- cated tooth erupts from the front of the
ous creature with a gaping jaw (Figure 10). gum line. As with the Chalcatzingo Monu-
The human figure wears an elaborate mask ment 5, a second, long bifurcated element
and headdress and, with his left arm raised, is present. A fish barbel is clearly visible
seems to threaten the creature with an L- behind the shark-monster’s jaw. One ad-
18
ditional aspect of Izapa Stela 3 supports the the battle’s outcome is the formation of the
identification of an aquatic context. Di- earth’s surface and a place to raise the axis
rectly above the opened jaws of the shark- mundi.
monster is the profile of a human head po- One final aspect of the A-2 tomb burial
sitioned within a U-shaped outline. The at La Venta is relevant here. As noted above,
human profile looks toward the action, as a shark’s tooth was found with Bundle #2
if intently watching the outcome. Accord- within the Mound A-2 basalt column tomb.
ing to Smith’s (1984:27) analysis of Izapan According to Reilly (1994b:7), Bundle #2
sculpture, the “canoe-shaped U element included an “unusually large shark’s
with a human head…always appears in the tooth…on which was placed a translucent
context of water.” blue jade standing figurine…” The fact that
The shark-monster’s dorsal fin is par- the standing figurine was positioned on top
ticularly interesting in this rendition. Izapa of the tooth is consistent with the inter-
Stela 3 includes a personified version of the pretation that the tooth (i.e., the shark pars
shark-monster’s dorsal fin, a depiction that pro toto) represents the interface of water
recalls the shark-monster engraved on the and terra firma.
“Young Lord” figure (see Figure 2). The Finally, it is worth emphasizing that
dorsal fin profile on Izapa Stela 3 is large these non-portable renditions of the pri-
and sweeps backwards; it displays a promi- mordial struggle appear at La Venta, Izapa,
nent nose and behind the head is a back- and Chalcatzingo. La Venta and Izapa are
ward curving double merlon. The personi- lowland sites situated along the Gulf Coast
fied dorsal fin displays its own large tooth and Pacific Coast, respectively.
to emphasize its association with the shark- Chalcatzingo is well-known for its Gulf
monster. Although rendered using distinct lowlands connections—for example,
styles, the similarities between the two Chalcatzingo is the only site outside the
images are noteworthy. Given that both Gulf lowlands that contains a version of the
Izapa Stela 3 and theYoung Lord were found lowland table-top throne (Grove
along the Pacific Coast, the personified, 2000:287). Thus, it is reasonable to sug-
profile dorsal fin may well be a particu- gest that this world-creation story origi-
lar artistic convention of this coastal re- nated in the isthmian lowlands but may have
gion. later traveled to other areas. It is also quite
In sum, at least three different Forma- possible that, as it traveled through space
tive-Period sculptures represent the and time, the story changed with each re-
struggle between a shark-monster and a telling. As these recountings took place,
human figure.15 Moreover, in two of the cultural groups likely replaced the coastal
three cases only one of the human’s legs is shark-monster with other mythological
clearly visible. Thus, it is quite possible that creatures more consistent with their re-
these Formative monuments represent ver- spective environmental settings (e.g., de la
sions of a creation myth whose later Aztec Fuente 2000).
telling pits a mythic hero against Cipactli.
The hero loses his leg in the struggle, but
19
Figure 11. Olmec tooth-tipped scepters: (a) detail of scepter carried by Olmec “swimmer”. Redrawn fromTaube 2000:Figure
11b; (b) detail of tooth-tipped scepter. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Figure 11d; (c) scepter worn by Olmec figure from
Puebla. Redrawn from Piña Chan 1989:Figure 56; (d) bas-relief figures carrying scepters from El Salvador. Redrawn from
Bernal 1969:Figure 39; (e) tooth-tipped scepter from El Manatí (see Figure 6).
Tooth-Tipped Scepters Grove 1987; Joralemon 1971:16; Schele

1995:106;Taube 2000). And while it would
As noted above, archaeological data be unrealistic to suggest that all such de-
from El Manatí demonstrate that a shark’s pictions are tooth-tipped scepters, the El
tooth was affixed to the end of long wooden Manatí evidence indicates that at least some
scepters and batons. Although the unpar- of them are.
alleled preservation at El Manatí makes this The tips of many such staffs are trian-
find almost unique, portrayals of such items gular, sometimes blunted at the end, and
are not. To date, similar artifacts have been carry lateral tick markings (Figure 11). The
identified as “torches,” “vegetation,” “feather tick markings may represent the serrations
bundles,” and “maize ear fetishes” (e.g., on the shark-monster teeth. Among the
20
Figure 12. Olmec scepters with a shark’s tooth and double merlons: (a) detail of headdress on Rio Pesquero figurine. Note
triple-dot motif. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Fig.13a; (b) detail of El Salvador bas-relief (see Figure 11d); (c) scepter from
Teopantecuanitlán figure (Schele 1995:4c); (d) scepter held by Young Lord. Note triple-dot motif and series of double
merlons. From Schele 1995:Figure 5a; (e) scepter on vase from Chalcatzingo. Redrawn Taube 2000:Figure 11e.
best candidates for tooth-tipped scepter are Bernal (1969:73) observed that the most
those staffs that also carry a double merlon common forms of Formative-Period hu-
(Figure 12). As noted above, the double man dental mutilation include a double
merlon is associated with the personified merlon-like cut (A-2) on the end of the
dorsal fin of the shark-monster and also incisor and a series of ticks (D-4) along the
marks the second tooth of theYoung Lord’s laterals sides of the tooth.
shark-monster (see Figure 2). In his dis- Taube (1995:90-91, Figure 9) notes
cussion of “torches,” Grove (1987:64) pro- that double merlons form earth bands at
posed that the double merlon may have the bottom of several Formative-Period
served as a tooth referent. Interestingly, lowland stelae. Quirarte (1973:13-15;
21
Figure 13. Lowland earth bands consisting of shark’s teeth embedded in double merlons: (a) earth band from the Alvarado
Stela. Redrawn from Taube 1995:Figure 9e; (b) earth band from Izapa Stela 5. Redrawn from Smith 1984:Figure 33f; (c)
earth band from Chiapa de Corzo Stela 7. Redrawn from Taube 1995:Figure 9f; (d) earth band from Tepatlaxco monument.
Redrawn from Quirarte 1973:Figure 7c and Coe 1965:Figure 43h.
1976:78-79) reduces these “base-line de- crocodilian (here identified as the shark-
signs” into smaller components that include monster). The observation that the shark
“stepped frets” and “triangles.” When dis- tooth at the end of a scepter should be “em-
aggregated in this manner, the earth bands bedded” within a double merlon gum line
can be read as a series of triangular shark’s is perfectly consistent with these readings.
teeth embedded within double merlons In some instances the tooth-tipped
(Figure 13). Double merlons set within scepter is paired with “knuckle-dusters” or
triangles also flank the mouth of the image “manoplas” (e.g., Grove 1987; Joralemon
on Stela C from Tres Zapotes (e.g., Coe 1971; Piña Chan 1989:Figure 150). Ac-
1965:Figure 42). Double merlons appear cording to Schele (1995:107), E. Wyllys
on the mosaic masks from La Venta Andrews proposed the now-widely ac-
(Drucker 1952; Drucker et al. 1959). cepted interpretation that these objects are
Reilly (1994b:10-11) relates these double horizontal sections of large conch shells.
merlons to the open mouth of the earth- The precise function of these items remains
22
Figure 14. Shark-monster headdress on the La Mojarra Stela 1 (After Stross 1994:Figure 1). Note four smaller sharks
along the spine of the larger piscine zoomorph.
enigmatic; nonetheless, the conch shell south central Veracruz. Although better
identification is consistent with the marine know for its glyphic text (e.g., Justeson and
context of the shark supernatural. Kaufman 1993), La Mojarra Stela 1 also
contains complex iconography dating to the
Headdress Shark-Monsters second century AD. The bas-relief image
presents a figure facing toward the viewer’s
Several Gulf lowlands sculptures mani- right, clad in an elaborate costume and
fest the shark-monster as an integral com- wearing an immense headdress.
ponent of an individual’s headdress. La A representation of the shark-monster
Mojarra Stela 1 is an excellent example hangs off the upper, rear portion of that
(Figure 14); this sculpture was recovered headdress (e.g., Stross 1994). Although the
between Tres Zapotes and Cerro de las zoomorph’s eye is difficult to discern, the
Mesas, in the Papaloapan River drainage of shark supernatural exhibits the diacritic
23
Figure 15. Classic-Period Gulf Coast shark-monsters positioned atop headdresses: (a) Cerro de las Mesas Stela 3. After
Miller 1991:Figure 2.10a; (b) San Miguel Chapultepec Stela. After Miller 1991:Figure 2.10e.
long upper-jaw and lower, reduced jaw ruler’s headdress. These sculptures are
noted previously.16 Still more explicit are Cerro de las Mesas Stela 3 and the
the four smaller shark-monsters perched unprovenienced San Miguel Chapuletpec
along the back of the larger fish zoomorph. Stela (Miller 1991; Sterling 1943). Al-
Each of these four smaller versions is de- though the two monuments may have come
picted with a large tooth that erupts from from different locales, they clearly depict
an extended upper jaw. These shark the same scene or commemorative event
supernaturals also display the characteris- (Figure 15). Each stela contains a standing
tic bulbous nose and a backward arching figure in profile, facing toward the viewer’s
dorsal fin. Finally, several of the images left. The left side of the monuments car-
exhibit a heterocercal tail that occasionally ries a glyph column—unfortunately, these
accompanies shark-monster and other pis- glyphs are mostly eroded and have not been
cine representations from the Late Forma- deciphered. The figures’ headdresses, al-
tive onward (compare with Figure 7).17 though not exact copies, are strikingly simi-
Two additional stelae include the shark- lar. Seated atop a zoomorphic mask is the
monster as an integral component of the shark-monster. The creature has an opened
24
Figure 16. Early Classic Maya shark-monsters as headdress elements and personified trees: (a) image from a Dumbarton
Oaks jade pectoral; (b) image from Kaminaljuyu Stela 11. Redrawn from Schele and Miller 1985:Plate 32a.
mouth with large upper jaw. The charac- Stross 1994:12-13). In both cases the shark-
teristic nose is better represented on the monster retains is place atop an individual’s
Cerro de las Mesas stela (Figure 15a), while headdress. Both images depict the shark su-
the large front tooth is easier to identify pernatural with an opened mouth, clearly
on the San Miguel Chapultepec monument showing the extended upper jaw and reduced
(Figure 15b). Like their La Mojarra coun- lower jaw. Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Figure 16b)
terparts, the bodies of both shark-monsters also indicates the large front tooth of the
hang down toward the nape of the neck of shark-monster. Moreover, both images carry
the standing figure and exhibit a bifurcated three dots on their body, reminiscent of the
tail. shark-monster imagery on theYoung Lord and
The shark-monster-as-headdress also the tri-dot motifs on several tooth-tipped
occurs within the Maya region. These rep- scepters.
resentations reveal an interesting diver- The most notable similarity among the
gence from the Gulf examples; within the two Maya versions of the shark-monster
Maya area the Late Formative-Early Clas- headdress is that their dorsal fins and tails
sic shark-monster images are explicitly in- are morphed into sprigs of foliage. Thus,
corporated into the world tree (Figure 16). these shark-monsters have become “world
Two examples that clearly mark this inte- trees”; by donning this image, rulers de-
gration are found on the Dumbarton Oaks clare themselves to be the axis mundi of their
Pectoral and Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Coe realm (e.g., Schele 1995; Schele and Miller
1966; Schele and Miller 1986:Plate 32a; 1986:108-109).
25
Figure 17. Shark-monster tails serving as foundations for the world tree: (a) unprovenienced celt with crossed bands and
finning found on the Young Lord shark monster. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Figure 6d; (b) detail of incised celt from Rio
Pesquero with finning. Redrawn from Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Catalog 117; (c) detail of incised headdress on a celt
from Tabasco. Note bifurcated tail and crossed-band motif adopted from Las Bocas shark-monster. Redrawn from Benson
and de la Fuente 1996:Catalog 116.
26
It seems that Olmec iconography an- more literal shark-monster zoomorph per-
ticipates these later depictions of the tran- sisted within headdress depictions (e.g.,
sition from shark-monster to world-tree stelae at La Mojarra and Cerro de las Me-
headdress. Several of the greenstone celts sas). In the Maya area, however, the image
reported in the literature appear to include was transformed into a more obvious world
elaborate headgear. Such regalia have been tree (e.g., shark tail sprouting vegetation).
particularly difficult to decipher; our un-
derstanding of Olmec shark-monster im- Conclusion
agery, however, may provide a clue. The
cleft head is one of the most widely recog- It is said that, were a fish to become
nized elements of Olmec iconography. As self aware, the last thing it might notice
we have seen, in certain contexts such a would be its own watery milieu. This
cleft may also substitute for the fin or the axiom is also applicable to Olmec research.
tail of the shark-monster. This association With the innocent adoption of the very
is reinforced when additional elements are name Olmec, scholars’ attention was irre-
added, such as thin-line finning and/or the sistibly drawn towards the terrestrial
crossed-band motif (e.g., Figures 1b, 1c, realm. Only recently have Olmec studies
2a, 3, 4). begun to appreciate the relevance of a mari-
Several Olmec figures wear these head- time adaptation.
dress combinations (Figure 17). For ex- This new awareness spills over into all
ample, the tail of the shark-monster on the aspects of research, including iconography.
Young Lord is very similar to the headdress Again, visions of terrestrial denizens tra-
on an unprovenienced celt (Figure 17a) and ditionally rule Olmec readings; in fact,
a celt from Rio Pesquero (Figure 17b). The Jiménez Moreno (cited in Bernal 1969:12)
former includes both finning and the once suggested that the name Olmec be
crossed-band design while the latter is ac- replaced with “Tenocelome” or “people of
companied by finning. The image on the the jaguar mouth.” With a greater appre-
Rio Pesquero celt also serves as a basis for ciation of coastal lifeways, however, we are
a world tree. A third celt from Tabasco able to approach this Formative-Period
(Figure 17c) incorporates the crossed-band imagery anew. So, it should come as no
motif seen on a Las Bocas shark-monster surprise that, when we take a second look,
and likewise provides a foundation for the aquatic motifs and referents become appar-
axis mundi. ent.
As these examples demonstrate, In this paper I have suggested that shark
Olmec iconography foreshadowed later imagery ranks among the most important
depictions of the shark-monster as the ba- of these marine referents. But while sharks
sis for the world tree headdress. But these may be intimidating, that fact alone is no
depictions are not constant through time. cause to celebrate them on megalithic
For example, an interesting divergence sculpture, on greenstone celts, on ceramic
marks the Late Formative-Early Classic vessels, and on headdresses and ritual re-
transition. Along the Gulf lowlands, the galia. The permeation of shark imagery in
27
Olmec iconography owes itself to some- Acknowledgements

thing more basic, more fundamental, than
the bad press of a particular fish. This per- A previous version of this paper was
vasive iconography is rendered intelligible presented at the 2002 Midwest
when we consider the role of the shark- Mesoamerican Archaeology and Ethnogra-
monster in ancient stories of world cre- phy conference in Ann Arbor. Many par-
ation. Versions of this creation myth ticipants there offered positive comments
abound in Mesoamerica—in one form or and suggested additional avenues to pur-
another someone struggles with a fantas- sue. I would especially like to thank Joel
tic water monster and usually has one less Palka for his unflagging encouragement.
limb to show for their efforts. But through Without his support and patience this ef-
their victory the land surface is established fort may never have come to fruition.
and the world tree is raised. Such a feat Conversations with David Mora-Marin
certainly merits immortalizing in iconog- have also been quite beneficial. Thanks to
raphy and appropriation by the powers that Julia Kappelman and Elizabeth Brumfiel for
be. The selfless act implied by this story forwarding copies of unpublished papers or
may also account for the frequent associa- hard-to-acquire articles and to Karl Taube
tion of shark-monster imagery and blood- and David Grove for comments on an ear-
letting. By letting blood, one recreates the lier version of this paper. Finally, thanks to
sacrificial act of losing a limb or other body Shannon Fie, who not only offered insight-
part. A possible function of bloodletting, ful comments on the paper and assisted
therefore, is to replay the origin story and with the figures, but graciously tolerated
reaffirm the cosmic order. my incessant prattle about sharks and
In sum, shark-monster representations Olmec iconography.
are ubiquitous throughout Olmec iconog-
raphy. But the case need not be over-
stated—jaguars, crocodiles, harpy eagles,
and corn also have their place. In some
cases these entities may substitute for the
shark-monster; in other instances they rep-
resent different stories and other associa-
tions. The trick, of course, is teasing apart
these differences. Stark (1983) is correct
that beholders are eager to take the bait of
Olmec iconography. By emphasizing arti-
facts from valid archaeological contexts,
and by judiciously invoking the “continuity
hypothesis,” we help to insure that such
readings offer more than just another fish
story.
28
Notes
1. Although it may be tempting to do so, my comment here should not be construed as advocating the role of the
Gulf Olmec as “Mother Culture” to the rest of Mesoamerica. Elsewhere I have argued against that simplistic view (Arnold
2002). Thus, while I suggest that much of Olmec iconography originated in the coastal lowlands, it does not necessarily
follow that Olmec ideology or complexity followed a similar path.
2. To account for the lack of plant remains, some scholars might point to the acidic, destructive soils of the Gulf
lowlands. While it is certainly true that these soils take their toll on archaeological material, acidic soils cannot shoulder
the entire blame. After all, significant numbers of fragile fish bones and other delicate faunal items were recovered from
San Lorenzo excavations (e.g., Wing 1980).
3. Although a recent description of this sculpture dates the image to the Middle Formative Period (Castro-Leal
1996), archaeological data suggest that San Lorenzo and its environs were only superficially occupied at that time (Coe and
Diehl 1980a; Symonds et al. 2002). In keeping with the main Olmec occupation at San Lorenzo, an Early Formative date
for this monument is more likely.
4. These images include two scalloped shells (Joralemon 1996c:215) as well as an odd, snail-like entity. Joralemon
suggests that this latter image may be an early version of an “oyster dragon” depicted in Late Classic Mayan art. Schele
(1979, cited in Hellmuth [1987a:147]) refers to a similar image as a “shell-winged dragon.” Regardless, these readings
support the aquatic context of the shark supernatural on the Young Lord.
5. Grove (2000:286) suggests that this swept-back cleft may be associated with legless (“underworld’) zoomorphs,
in contrast to the legged (“upperworld’) creature depicted on left thigh of theYoung Lord. Grove (2000:286) refers to the
image on the Young Lord’s right thigh as a “serpent and/or fish” representation.
6. The position of images on the Las Limas figure is strongly reminiscent of the images on theYoung Lord. Specifically,
the Las Limas figure includes a profile on each leg which, like the images on the Young Lord’s thighs, are thought to
represent the lower portions of the world. These images are mirrored, however: a crocodilian earth dragon is represented
on the left leg of theYoung Lord but occurs on the right knee of the Las Limas figure, while the shark monster is found on
the right leg of the Young Lord but on the left knee of the Las Limas figure. Given that these two sculptures are separated
in space, time, and probably cultural affiliation, such variation should not be surprising.
7. It is not my intention to detail all of the Mesoamerican sites in which shark’s teeth are found. Stephan de
Borhegyi (1961) offers what is now a forty-year-old accounting; among the sites most relevant to our discussion are Cerro
de las Mesas, Palenque, and Piedras Negras. An updating of this list would certainly include many additional Olmec and
Maya sites, not to mention the Templo Mayor (e.g., Broda 1987; Lopez Lujan 1994).
8. Several different “water-monsters” were apparently recognized during the Postclassic Period. Offerings within
the Temple Mayor, for example, include remains of sharks, swordfish, and crocodiles (Broda 1987; Lopéz Luján 1994).
However, it is not clear if all of these entities substitute for one another, or if they represent different avatars of a more
generic “water-monster.” The possibility that the Fejérváry-Mayer Codex originated in Veracruz (e.g., Taube 1993:18;
Thompson 1970:46) is consistent with the shark-supernatural variant of the water monster.
9. Conventional translations would gloss Itzam Cab Ain as “Giant Earth Caimain.” However, Taube (1992:36-37)
notes that in the Colonial Yucatecan dictionaries, the term Itzam Cab Ain is defined as “ballena” or whale (also Thompson
1970:21). Thus, it is not unreasonable to associate Itzam Cab Ain with a decidedly non-crocodilian water-monster.
29
10. This reading was offered by George Raynaud (1925), of whose translation Edmonson (1971:x) speaks favorably.
Although the association of “wise” and “earth” may ring odd to Western ears, it is certainly in keeping with indigenous
Mesoamerican beliefs. For example, Lipp (1991, cited in Tate 1999:178) reports that, among the contemporary Mixe, the
earth’s surface is considered to be an important supernatural called Na·š w i·ñ. To the Mixe, Na·š w i·ñ is “all knowing
of human affairs and the maternal repository of primordial wisdom.” Among the Postclassic Maya, the deity Itzamna (e.g.,
God D) was a soothsayer who “commonly appears with the sacred world tree, frequently identified with the nadir, zenith,
of the four quarters in Mesoamerican thought” (Taube 1992:36). According to Taube (1992:35), during both the Classic
and Postclassic periods Iztamna was “closely identified with wisdom and esoteric knowledge.” Taube (1992:36-40) also
discusses the strong linkages between Iztamna, Itzam Cab Ain, and Cipactli.
11. At first glance this motif appears to be a bifurcated tongue. However, Chalcatzingo Monument 4, just 10 m west
of Monument 5, allows for a different interpretation. Monument 4 represents two human images, each engaged with a
single feline zoomorph (Grove 1968:489; Grove and Angulo V. 1987:121-122). The humans’ position in all three renditions
is quite similar; moreover, a series of ribbon-like elements emerge just behind the head of the lower human figure in
Monument 4 (Grove 1968:Figure 5). These motifs, as well as the motif behind the head of the human-like figure on
Monument 5, may represent blood rather than a tongue.
12. Joyce et al. (1991:Figure 5) correctly relate Chalcatzingo Monument 5 to the shark-monster image displayed in
Painting I-c from Oxtotitlán Cave in Guerrero (Grove 1970:Figure 12). To aid their comparison Joyce et al. (1991) use a
depiction of Painting I-c redrawn from Joralemon (1971:Figure 244), which includes two crossed bands on the Oxtotitlán
image. The image provided in Grove (1970:Figure 12), however, does not include these crossed bands. Nonetheless,
Grove (1970:16) offers a footnote indicating that these crossed bands may be present. Thus, discussions that rely exclusively
on the Oxtotitlán image from Grove (1970) may miss the important crossed-band diacritic of the Olmec shark-monster.
13. In many languages fins and wings are identified by similar terms. This pattern it true for Tzotzil Maya (e.g., šik’
[Laughlin 1975:321]) and Yucatecan Maya (e.g., xik’ [Barrera Vasquez 1980:943]), as well as Spanish (e.g., aleta).
14. Miller (1986:61) and Coe and Koontz (2002:99) both suggest that the zoomorph on Izapa Stela 3 is actually the
serpent foot of the human figure. Thus, they may dispute the interpretation of the zoomorph as a shark-monster, but they
would agree that Stela 3 represents a variant of Tezcatlipoca/God K. Norman (1976:96) hedges his bets: he indicates that
the zoomorph “begins…as if from between [the standing figure’s] legs,” but he goes on to say that the close positioning
could suggest “a symbolic extension or consort of the standing deity.”
15. In fact, it is quite likely that a fourth sculpture, dating to the Classic Period sculpture and also from the coastal
lowlands, depicts the same interaction. This image comes from Panel 3 of the Pyramid of the Niches at El Tajn. It shows a
long zoomorph actively engaged with a human figure (e.g., Kampen 1972:Figure 6a; Ladrón de Guervara G. 1999:Figura
5). In fact, the human figure extends his foot towards the zoomorph, in an apparent attempt to ward off the shark-
monster. Joralemon (1976:Figure 25) would place this El Tajín zoomorph within his God I category, thereby linking it to
the shark-monsters on Chalcatzingo Monument 5 and on Oxtotitlán Painting I-c.
16. Although clearly piscine, the identification of this particular image as a shark-monster remains tentative. Not
only is it less obvious than the four shark-monsters the ride its back, the “dorsal fin” curves slightly forward in a reversed
position and appears to have been tied to the back of the fish (e.g., Stross 1994:13). Similarly, the tail apparently comprises
two items affixed with a knot (e.g., Stross 1994:13). However, if not a shark-monster per se, the zoomorph substitutes for
the same creature in this particular context.
30
17. Hellmuth (1987a:125-126) refers to the heterocercal tail as a “hooked” tail or a “crab claw” tail. Surprisingly, he
expresses concern that the “hooked” tail is “unlike that of any Caribbean Sea, Pacific Ocean or fresh water fish.” Although
the Early Classic Maya images are certainly stylized, these tailfins easily concord with the uneven, bifurcated tail of sharks
(e.g., Stross 1994:13, Figure 7b).
Had it been clear that the uneven bifid tail can denote a shark, Hellmuth (1987a:127-129) might have been able
to make better sense of the creatures he calls “slug snails” or “forehead slugs.” In fact, such bifid creatures, positioned atop
two Homul shell carvings (Hellmuth 1987b:Figure 74e, 74f), are almost identical to the four sharks that sit atop the La
Mojarra Stela 1. Of course, Hellmuth (1987a, b) was unable to discuss the La Mojarra Stela 1, as it was reported after his
dissertation was finished.
References Cited
Angulo V., Jorge

1987 The Chalcatzingo Reliefs: An Iconographic Analysis. In Ancient Chalcatzingo, edited by David C. Grove, pp.
132-158. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Arnold, Philip J., III

2000 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Gulf Olmecs: A View from the Tuxtla Mountains,Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec
Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 117-135. National Gallery of
Art, Washington, D.C.
2002 “Got Olmec?”: Comments on the Heartland Homogenized. Paper presented at the 100th annual meeting of the
American Anthropological Association, New Orleans.
The Art Museum

1995 The Young Lord. In The OlmecWorld: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 278-283. The Art Museum, Princeton University,
New Jersey.
Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo

1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Ediciones Cordemex, Merida.
Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente (editors)

1996 Olmec Art of Ancient Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Bernal, Ignacio
1969 The OlmecWorld. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Borstein, Joshua
2001 Tripping over Colossal Heads: Settlement Patterns and Population Development in the Upland Olmec Heartland. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, College Station.
Broda, Johanna
1987 The Provenience of the Offerings: Tribute and Cosmovisión. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill
Boone, pp. 211-236. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Castro-Leal, Marcia
1996 San Lorenzo Monument 58—Relief Carving of a Fish. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Elizabeth P.
Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pg. 180. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
31
Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye

2000 The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E.
Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 217-251. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Coe, Michael D.
1965 The Olmec Style and its Distribution. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, part Two, edited by Gordon R.
Willey, pp. 739-775. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, Robert Wauchope, general editor. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
1966 An Early Stone Pectoral from Southeastern Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, Number
One. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1989 The Olmec Heartland: Evolution of Ideology. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J.
Sharer and David C. Grove, pp. 68-82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl

1980a In the Land of the Olmec, vol. 1:The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1980b In the Land of the Olmec, vol. 2:The People of the River. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Coe, Michael D., and Rex Koontz

2002 Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, fifth edition. Thames and Hudson, London.
Cyphers, Anne
1997 Los felinos de San Lorenzo. In Población, Subsistencia, y Medio Ambiente en San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, edited
by Ann Cyphers, pp. 195-225. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.
2004 Escultura Olmceca de San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.
de Borhegyi, Stephan F.
1961 Shark teeth, stingray spines and shark fishing in ancient Mexico and Central America. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 17:273-296.
de la Fuente, Beatriz
1996 Las Limas Monument 1—Seated Figure Holding Were Jaguar Infant in Lap. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico,
edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 170-171. National Gallery of Art,Washington, D.C.
2000 Olmec Sculpture: The First Mesoamerican Art. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John
E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 253-263. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
de Sahagún, Fr. Bernardino

1938 Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España,Tomo III, Libros X y XI. Editorial Pedro Robredo, México, D.F.
Diehl, Richard A.
1996 The Olmec World. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp.
29-33. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Drucker, Philip
32
1943 Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas,Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 141. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
1952 LaVenta,Tabasco: A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
1955 The Cerro de las Mesas Offerings of Jade and Other Materials. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157,
Anthropological Paper No. 44. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Drucker, Philip, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier

1959 Excavations at LaVenta,Tabasco, 1955. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Edmonson, Munro S.
1971 The Book of Counsel:The PopolVuh of the Quiche Maya of Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute Publication
35. Tulane University, New Orleans.
Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus

2000 Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the “Mother Culture.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
19:1-37.
Fash, William L.
1991 Scribes,Warriors, and Kings:The City of Copán and the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.
Follensbee, Billie J. A.
2000 Sex and Gender in Olmec Art and Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland. UMI Dissertation
Services, Ann Arbor.
Grove, David C.
1968 Chalcatzingo, Morelos, Mexico: A Reappraisal of the Olmec Rock Carvings. American Antiquity 33:486-491.
1970 The Olmec Paintings of Oxtotitlan Cave, Guerro, Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, Number Six.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1987 “Torches,” “Knuckledusters” and the Legitimization of Formative Period Rulership. Mexicon Vo. IX, Nr. 3:60-
65.
1997 Olmec Archaeology: A Half Century of Research and Its Accomplishments. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 11:51-
101.
2000 Faces of the Earth at Chalcatzingo, Mexico: Serpents, Caves, and Mountains in Middle Formative Period
Iconography. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 277-
295. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Grove, David C., and Jorge Angulo V.

1987 A Catalog and Description of Chalcatzingo’s Monuments. In Ancient Chalcatzingo, edited by David C. Grove,
pp. 114-131. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hellmuth, Nicholas M.
33
1987a The Surface of the Underworld: Iconography of the Gods of Early Classic Maya Art in Peten, Guatemala, vol I. Foundation
for Latin American Anthropological Research, Culver City, California.
1987b The Surface of the Underworld: Iconography of the Gods of Early Classic Maya Art in Peten, Guatemala, vol II. Foundation
for Latin American Anthropological Research, Culver City, California.
Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto

1942 Relación entre los olmecas, los toltecas y los mayas, según las tradiciones. In Mayas y Olmecas: segunda reunión de
mesa redonda sobre problemas antropológicos de México y Centro Amémerica, pp. 19-23. Sociedad Mexicana de
Antopología, Mexico, D.F.
Joralemon, Peter David

1971 A Study of Olmec Iconography. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, 7. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,
D.C.
1976 The Olmec Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic
Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, pp.27-71. Latin American Center Publications, University of California
at Los Angeles.
1996a In Search of the Olmec Cosmos: Reconstructing the World View of Mexico’s First Civilization. In Olmec Art of
Ancient Mexico, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pg. 51-59. National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C.
1996b Bottle with Carved Fish Monster. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la
Fuente, pg. 199. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
1996c Young Lord (Tall Standing Figure Carrying a Scepter and Bloodletter). In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by
Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pg. 212-216. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Joyce, Rosemary A., Richard Edging, Karl Lorenz, and Susan D. Gillespie
1991 Olmec Bloodletting: An Iconographic Study. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, edited by Virginia M. Fields.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. On-line version accessed June 2003 at www.mesoweb.com/pari/
publications/RT08/Bloodletting.pdf
Justeson, John, and Terrence Kaufman

1993 A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing. Science 257:1703-1711.
Kampen, Michael Edward

1972 The Sculpture of El Tajín,Veracruz, Mexico. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Ladrón de Guevara G., Sara

1999 Las deidades del Tajín. In Antropología e Historia enVeracruz, edited by Raul Hernandez Viveros, pp. 197-218.
Instituto de Antropología e Historia de la Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, México.
Laughlin, Robert M.
1975 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 19.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Lipp, Frank J.
1991 The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing. University of Texas Press, Austin.
34
Lopéz Luján, Leonardo

1994 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.
Maria Garibay, Angel (editor)

1965 Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. In Teogonía e historia de los mexicanos, pp. 91-120. Editorial Porrúa,
México, D.F.
Miller, Mary Ellen

1986 The Art of Mesoamerica from Olmec to Aztec. Thames and Hudson, London.
1991 Rethinking the Classic Sculptures of Cerro de las Mesas,Veracruz. In Settlement Archaeology of Cerro de las Mesas, edited
by Barbara L. Stark, pp. 26-38. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 34, University of California at Los Angeles.
Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube

1993 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Nicholson, Irene
1985 Mexican and Central American Mythology, revised edition. Peter Bedrick Books, New York.
Niederberger, Christine
2000 Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico toward 1200 BC. In
Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 169-191. National
Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Norman, V. Garth
1973 Izapa Sculpture, Part 1: Album. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 30. Provo, Utah
1976 Izapa Sculpture, Part 2:Text. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 30. Provo, Utah.
Ortiz C., Ponciano and Maria del Carmen Rodríguez

1999 Olmec Ritual Behavior at El Manatí: A Sacred Space. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by David
C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 225-254. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Ortiz C., Ponciano, Maria del Carmen Rodríguez M., and Alfredo Delgado C.
1997 Las investigaciones arqueológicas en el Cerro Sagrado Manatí. Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, México.
Ortiz Perez, Mario Arturo and Ann Cyphers

1997 La geomorfología y las evidencias arqueológicas en la región de San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, Veracruz. In Población
Subsistencia, y Medio Ambiente en San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, edited by Ann Cyphers, pp. 31-53. Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, México, D.F.
Piña Chan, Román

1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. Rizzoli, New York.
Quirarte, Jacinto
1973 Izapan-Style Art:A Study of its Form and Meaning. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 10, Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
35
1976 The Relationship of Izapan-Style Art to Olmec and Maya Art: A Review. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography
in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, pp.73 -86. Latin American Center Publications, University of California
at Los Angeles.
Raab, L. Mark, Matthew A. Boxt, Katherine Bradford, Brain A. Stokes, and Rebecca B. González Lauck
2000 Testing at Isla Alor in the La Venta Olmec Hinterland. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:257-270.
Raynaud, Georges
1925 Les dieux, les héros et les hommes dans l’ancien Guatémala d’après le Livre de Conseil (Popol Vuh). Paris.
Reilly, F. Kent, III

1991 Olmec Iconographic Influences on the Symbols of Maya Rulership: An Examination of Possible Sources. In Sixth
Palenque Round Table, 1986, edited by Virginia M. Fields, pp. 151-166. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1994a Cosmología, soberanismo y espacio ritual en la Mesoamérica del Formativo. In Los Olmecas en Mesoamérica,
edited by John E. Clark, pp. 239-259. Citibank, México, D.F.
1994b Enclosed Ritual Spaces and the Watery Underworld in Formative Period Architecture: New Observations on the
Function of La Venta Complex A. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia M.
Fields. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. On-line version accessed June 2003 at www.mesoweb.com/
pari/publications/RT09/EnclosedSpaces.pdf
1995 Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 27-45. The Art
Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.
Rust, William R., and Barbara F. Leyden

1994 Evidence of Maize Use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric
NewWorld, edited by Sissel Johannessen and Christine Hastorf, pp. 181-201. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Ruz-Lhuillier, Alberto
1958 Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque; 1953-1956. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, vol.
10, no. 39. México, D.F.
Schele, Linda
1979 Genealogical Documentation on the Tri-Figure Panels. In Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, 1978,Vo. IV, edited by
Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 41-70. Pre-Columbian Art Research Center, Palenque.
1995 The Olmec Mountain and Tree of Creation in Mesoamerican Cosmology. In The OlmecWorld: Ritual and Rulership,
pp. 105-117. The Art Museum, Princeton University, New Jersey.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller

1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas.
Scholes, France V., and Dave Warren

1965 The Olmec Region at Spanish Contact. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, part 2, edited by Gordon R.
Willey, pp. 776-787, Handbook of Middle American Indians, volume 3, Robert Wauchope, general editor. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Smith, Virginia G.
36
1984 Izapa Relief Carving: Form, Content, Rules for Design, and Role in Mesoamerican Art History and Archaeology. Studies in
Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 27. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Stark, Barbara L.
1983 Comments. In The Manatee in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, by Richard Bradley, pp. 71-73. Papers in Anthropology
Vol. 24, No. 1. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Sterling, Matthew
1943 Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 138, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Stross, Brian
1994 The Iconography of Power in Late Formative Mesoamerica. RES 25:10-35.
Symonds, Stacey, Ann Cyphers, and Roberto Lunagómez

2002 Asentamiento prehispánico en San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.
Tate, Carolyn E.
1999 Patrons of Shamanic Power: La Venta’s Supernatural Entities in Light of Mixe Beliefs. Ancient Mesoamerica
10:169-188.
Taube, Karl A.
1992 The Major Gods of AncientYucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 32, Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, D.C.
1993 Aztec and Maya Myths. British Museum Press, London.
1995 The Rainmakers: The Olmec and their Contribution to Mesoamerican Belief and Ritual. In The OlmecWorld:
Ritual and Rulership, pp. 83-103. The Art Museum, Princeton University, New Jersey.
2000 Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the Development of Maize Symbolism in
Mesoamerica and the American Southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark
and Mary E. Pye, pp. 297-337. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Tedlock, Dennis (translator)

1985 Popol Vuh:The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings. Simon and
Schuster, New York.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1970 Maya History and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Wendt, Carl J.
2003 Early Formative Domestic Organization and Community Patterning in the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Region,Veracruz, Mexico.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, College Station.
Williams, Howell, and Robert F. Heizer

1965 Sources of Rocks used in Olmec Monuments. University of California, Archaeological Research Facility, Contributions
1:1-39. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.
37
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1980 Faunal Remains from San Lorenzo. In In the Land of the Olmec, vol. 1:The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán by
Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl, pp. 375-386. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Zurita Noguera, Judith

1997 Los fitolitos: indicaciones sobre dieta y vivienda en San Lorenzo. In Población, Subsistencia, y Medio Ambiente en San
Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, edited by Ann Cyphers, pp. 75-87. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México,
D.F.
38
View publication stats

.Olmec Shark Monster - Arnold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.Olmec Shark Monster - Arnold

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

.Olmec Shark Monster - Arnold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY

Philip J. Arnold III

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY

As a consequence of these and other A Context for Reading Olmec

outline that terminates in a bifurcation duced or abbreviated lower jaw. A single

border (Norman 1973, 1976). Izapa is shaped object.

Tooth-Tipped Scepters Grove 1987; Joralemon 1971:16; Schele

Olmec iconography owes itself to some- Acknowledgements

Angulo V., Jorge

Arnold, Philip J., III

The Art Museum

Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo

Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente (editors)

Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye

Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl

Coe, Michael D., and Rex Koontz

de Sahagún, Fr. Bernardino

Drucker, Philip, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier

Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus

Grove, David C., and Jorge Angulo V.

Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto

Joralemon, Peter David

Justeson, John, and Terrence Kaufman

Kampen, Michael Edward

Ladrón de Guevara G., Sara

Lopéz Luján, Leonardo

Maria Garibay, Angel (editor)

Miller, Mary Ellen

Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube

Ortiz C., Ponciano and Maria del Carmen Rodríguez

Ortiz Perez, Mario Arturo and Ann Cyphers

Piña Chan, Román

Reilly, F. Kent, III

Rust, William R., and Barbara F. Leyden

Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller

Scholes, France V., and Dave Warren

Symonds, Stacey, Ann Cyphers, and Roberto Lunagómez

1993 Aztec and Maya Myths. British Museum Press, London.

Tedlock, Dennis (translator)

Williams, Howell, and Robert F. Heizer

Zurita Noguera, Judith

View publication stats

You might also like