The Shark Monster in Olmec Iconography

1

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography”

Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005)

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY

ABSTRACT

The shark supernatural is an important, albeit poorly understood, element in Olmec iconography. This paper suggests thatthe shark-monster may have served as a central character in an Olmec world-creation story. As reconstructed, this storypits the water beast against a mythic hero—the hero loses a limb but the struggle results in the formation of the earth’ssurface. 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 thatprivilege terrestrial symbolism in Olmec iconography.

PHILIP J. ARNOLD IIIDepartment of Anthropology, Loyola UniversityChicago, Chicago, IL 60626

The eye of the beholder seems eager to take upwhere the Olmec left off.

Barbara Stark 1983:72

Readings of Olmec iconography do notwant for lack of inspiration. Serpents, jag-uars, toads, manatees, crocodiles, and cornare merely the first round of contendersvying to crack the Olmec code (e.g., Coe1989). Stark’s (1983) point is characteris-tically understated and certainly well taken.With the field already so congested, one isloath to insert one more player into themelee. Nonetheless, that action is preciselythe purpose of the following exercise. Be-low I argue that piscine imagery, specifi-

cally related to the shark-monster or sharksupernatural, has been undervalued in ac-counts of Olmec iconography. This circum-stance may result from multiple causes, buttwo factors particularly stand out. First,Olmec archaeology has generally empha-sized the importance of terrestrial re-sources such as maize while overlooking theaquatic bounty of a coastal, estuarine envi-ronment (Arnold 2000). Second, an over-reliance on the “continuity hypothesis” (Coe1989:71) means that the Early and MiddleFormative (ca. 1500-400 BC) Olmec arecontinuously recreated in the image ofgroups some two millennia their junior andwho may share only the most distant of lin-guistic and cultural affiliations.

2



As a consequence of these and otherfactors, corn and bloodletting are domi-nant themes in current treatments ofOlmec iconography. Still lacking, however,are viable, context-dependent accounts ofwhy these meanings were relevant to theFormative-Period Olmec. I offer one suchcontext below. Specifically, I suggest thata portion of Olmec imagery references anearly version of a possible world-creationmyth. As reconstructed, part of this storyinvolves the defeat of a shark-monsterwhose body was transformed into theearth’s surface. The shark-monster-as-earth, in turn, provides the foundation onwhich the world tree is raised, thus estab-lishing the axis mundi.

I explore this theme throughout thefollowing discussion. First, I offer archaeo-logical background to justify the statementthat aquatic resources were probably moregermane to lowland coastal Olmec groupsthan agricultural products. I focus oncoastal Olmec for the simple reason thatmost permanent Olmec artwork was in-stalled either in lowland settings or in up-land sites with strong coastal ties. My less-than-subtle working hypothesis is thatmuch of Olmec iconography originated inthe Mexican coastal lowlands (cf. Flanneryand Marcus 2000).1 I then address shark-monster imagery itself. Building on thework of previous studies (e.g., Grove 1987;Joralemon 1971; Joyce et al. 1991; Stross1994) this section sets out the evidence fora shark supernatural and reviews the suiteof motifs that may identify it. Finally, Iconsider the possible sacred role of theshark-monster, noting the various contextsin which it appears. These contexts includeritual offerings, sacred spaces, and the re-galia used by elite individuals.

A Context for Reading OlmecIconography

In 1942, scholars convened the SecondMesa Redonda in Tuxtla Gutiérrez to con-sider the temporal status of the newlycrowned “La Venta culture.” In addition totheir consensus regarding the culture’s pre-Classic status, these scholars also adoptedthe term “Olmec” as a convenient short-hand (e.g., Jiménez Moreno 1942:19). Asmany readers are aware, “Olmec” derivesfrom the Nahua word “Olman” or “land ofthe rubber” (e.g., Bernal 1969:11). Con-tact-period documents linked an indigenousgroup called the “Olmeca” with the south-ern Gulf lowlands of Veracruz and Tabasco(de Sahagún 1938:Tomo III, Libro X,133-134).

Fewer readers may realize, however,that “Olmeca” was but one of several namesfor the occupants of this coastal estuarinezone. For example, de Sahagún(1938:Tomo III, Libro X, 133, 139) alsoreferred to these people as “Uixtotin” or“olmecas uixtotin” (also Piña Chan1989:17; Scholes and Warren 1965:776).“Uixtotin” means “people of the salt wa-ter,” an apt moniker that emphasizes anequally important, albeit very different,component of Gulf lowlands life ways. In-terestingly, the Quiche Maya’s Popol Vuhoffers a parallel identification—an ances-tral group “from the east” (i.e., coastalTabasco or southern Veracruz) is referredto as both “Sovereign Oloman” (“Tepeuoloman or oliman”) (Tedlock 1985:167-177,361) and also as “Fishkeepers” (“Char [4hah]car”) (Tedlock 1985:189, 336; alsoEdmonson 1971:194).

Thus, contact-period sources clearlylinked Gulf lowland groups with a mari-

3



time lifestyle. Ironically, the decision tocall the archaeological culture “Olmec” andnot “Uixtotin” undercut this connection—it set the stage for an emphasis on terres-trial plants and animals as opposed to ma-rine life and aqua-culture. Today, a subsis-tence economy based on maize farming hasbecome the sine qua non of Gulf Olmec so-ciety (e.g., Coe and Diehl 1980a:389,1980b:144-146; Diehl 1996:31; Grove1997:80).

Unfortunately, this emphasis on maizeagriculture has not lived up to its own bill-ing (Arnold 2000, 2002). Early work atSan Lorenzo did not produce direct evi-dence for corn; instead, conclusions regard-ing an agrarian adaptation were drawn fromthe presence of ground stone artifacts (Coeand Diehl 1980b:144). Fieldwork reportedby Rust and Leyden (1994) near La Ventarecovered only minimal evidence of maizedating before the site’s Middle Formativeoccupation. More recent studies at EarlyFormative San Lorenzo produced botani-cal evidence in the form of maize phytoliths(Zurita N. 1997), but the relative paucityof that evidence speaks volumes.2 Recentsettlement archaeology around Laguna delos Cerros, located to the west of SanLorenzo, suggests that the upland zone bestsuited for corn faming was not utilized untilthe end of the Early Formative Period(Borstein 2001).

In fact, published subsistence data fromGulf Olmec sites consistently emphasizethe role of fish rather than corn; for ex-ample, snook (Centropomus sp.) was amongthe most important protein sources at an-cient San Lorenzo (Wing 1980:383). Rustand Leyden (1994) recovered considerableevidence for fish and other aquatic re-sources at La Venta. This same pattern has

been confirmed by more recent fieldworkat Isla Alor, on the outskirts of La Venta(Raab et al. 2000).

The ubiquity of aquatic resources, atthe expense of domesticated cultivars,dovetails nicely with the newest settlementpattern studies conducted at San Lorenzoand its hinterland (Symonds et al. 2002).This research indicates that small, seasonalsites (islotes) were the most common settle-ment during the Early Formative period—these sites were located in the floodplainand probably represent the exploitation ofbackwater swamps (Arnold 2000:129;Symonds et al. 2002:63, 74). Even today,flooding within the Coatzacoalcos Basinremains a serious issue, with major floodsevery 3-5 years and catastrophic floodingon the order of every 50 years (Ortiz P.and Cyphers 1997:39, Figura 1.4).

These data suggest that water, annualflooding, and aquatic resources played a sig-nificant role in Gulf Olmec life ways (e.g.,Wendt 2003). Seen in this light, we areencouraged to consider coastal lowlandOlmec iconography, particularly Early For-mative iconography, in terms other thanmaize symbolism. In fact, such a recon-sideration has already begun; Taube(2000:298-299) recently observed thatcorn motifs and referents did not becomecommon in Olmec art until the MiddleFormative period was underway. An in-triguing question, therefore, is what wasOlmec iconography depicting for the half-millennium prior to ca. 700 BC?

The Olmec Shark-Monster

The Olmec shark-monster appearsamong these earlier images. It can be foundon megalithic sculpture, on low relief

4



carved into living rock, on portable green-stone celts, and on ceramic vessels. It isespecially associated with the Gulf low-lands—most megalithic representationsderive from Veracruz and Tabasco, whereits depiction continued well into the Clas-sic Period.

Surprisingly, the potential role of theshark-monster in Olmec iconography hasreceived only sporadic attention. Publishedpapers by Joyce et al. (1991) and Stross(1994) directly address this piscine super-natural, while Grove (1987) anticipatedseveral of their observations. A two-vol-ume treatise by Hellmuth (1987a, b) con-siders the shark-monster and other aquaticimagery dating to the Late Formative-EarlyClassic transition. Joralemon (1996a:55)identifies the “fish monster” as “an impor-tant Olmec supernatural.”

Perhaps the most overt instances ofOlmec shark-monster imagery occur onthree different items whose proveniencesare separated by hundreds of miles. SanLorenzo Monument 58 (Figure 1a) wasexcavated atop the Group D Ridge at SanLorenzo Tenochtitlán by Francisco Beveridoin 1969 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:364;Cyphers 1997:204-205, 2004:122-124). Itconsists of a profile view of a shark super-natural carved in low relief on a basalt slaband probably dates to the Early FormativePeriod.3 The zoomorph’s body exhibits aclearly marked dorsal fin as well as a bifur-cated tail. A crossed-band motif (e.g., St.Andrew’s Cross) appears just behind thehead and runs the length of thesupernatural’s body. The shark-monster’seye is rendered as an unfilled crescent ortrough and a large, bulbous nose graces theupper lip. The shark-monster’s openedmouth reveals two important traits. First,

the upper portion of the jaw is much longerthan the lower portion, a feature commonto sharks in general. In fact, this trait mayhave evolved into some of the “long-lipped”profiles seen in later Mesoamerican imag-ery. Second, a series of three teeth are vis-ible, including a single, larger tooth in frontfollowed by two backwardly curved ex-amples.

Two additional features of Monument58 are relevant. First, it was excavatedfrom a known context and can be reason-ably dated. Second, the stone tablet israther large, measuring just over four feetin length and almost a foot thick (132 cm x72 cm x 28 cm). Thus, in contrast to theportable items that form the main corpusof Olmec iconography, it is doubtful thatMonument 58 circulated widely after itsinstallation at San Lorenzo.

Very similar shark-monster iconogra-phy occurs farther afield. For example, anincised blackware ceramic bottle, possiblyfrom Las Bocas, Puebla, offers a compel-ling highland counterpart to the SanLorenzo sculpture (Figure 1b) (Joralemon1996b). Again, we see the shark-monsterin profile; its elongated body displays adorsal fin and a slightly uneven bifurcatedtail. The crossed-band symbol is placed justbehind the head, while three larger hori-zontal bands stretch towards the shark-monster’s tail. In addition, a series of thin-ner slashes are used to accentuate the ap-pearance of fins (e.g., Grove 1987:62); this“finning” occurs on both the dorsal fin andon the tail. The eye is composed of a lowercrescent with out-flaring edges; this lowercrescent is mirrored by another crescentabove. The shark-monster’s lower jaw hasbeen severely reduced, and is now indicatedby the merest suggestion of a curve. A tri-

5



Figure 1. Lowland and Highland representations of the Olmec shark-monster: (a) San Lorenzo Monument 58. Redrawnfrom 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 fromJoralemon 1971:Figure 100.

6



angular tooth adorns the front of the up-per jaw, followed by a curved element thatrepresents a second tooth. The shark’s bul-bous, pug nose is clearly visible.

A second ceramic vessel from LasBocas also carries the shark supernatural(Figure 1c) (Joralemon 1971:Figure 100;Joyce et al. 1991:Figure 4). The charac-teristics of this image mimic those alreadymentioned: a profile view that includes awell-demarcated dorsal fin and bifurcatedtail with finning highlights and a well de-fined, pug-like nose. The lower jaw is com-pletely absent and the two teeth in this ren-dition are inordinately large and amply ser-rated. The eye is more trough-shaped thancrescent-like on this depiction. In place ofthe crossed-bands behind the head, we see

instead a series of diagonal lines associatedwith a wing-like cleft element. The linesprobably represent gills while the cleftmay substitute for the pectoral fin (seebelow).

In addition to the shark iconographyfrom Highland Mexico and the Gulf low-lands, depictions of the shark-monster havealso been documented along the PacificCoast. One such image, also executed ona portable medium, appears on the “YoungLord,” a greenstone figurine from thecoastal region of Guatemala or El Salvador(Figure 2) (The Art Museum 1995; Clarkand Pye 2000:226; Joralemon 1996a:55,1996c). This standing sculpture exhibits acomplex iconography and displays incisionscovering its arms, legs, and feet. Here we

Figure 2. Shark supernatural depicted on the “Young Lord” figurine. Note the swept-back head with double merlons.Redrawn from Joralemon 1996c:Figure 4.

7



focus on the imagery that occurs on thelower half of the body.

Two incised zoomorphs are present onthe legs of the Young Lord: a crocodilian/earth dragon aspect on its left thigh and afish supernatural/shark aspect on thefigurine’s right thigh (Joralemon1996c:215; Reilly 1991, cited in The ArtMuseum 1995:281). The shark represen-tation carries several of the conventionsmentioned above, but adds a few as well.Additional iconographic elements surroundthe shark-monster and validate its aquaticcontext.

First, we recognize the opened jawwith a reduced lower segment. A largetooth emerges from the front of the mouth;in this case, the tooth itself is bifurcated.A second, curved tooth appears behind thefirst and ends in a double merlon. The char-

acteristic large nose is apparent, as are thecrossed bands positioned directly behindthe shark-monster’s head. Three dots havebeen placed within these bands. The shark’seye is more half-moon than crescent-shapedand is placed vertically rather than hori-zontally. An upper fringe or merlon is vis-ible above the eye and a backward curvingcleft represents a possible eyebrow. Thetail is bifurcated and displays the finningevident on the pottery from Las Bocas.

Additional images and anthropomor-phic profiles surround the shark monster.4

Of particular note is the profile head em-bedded along the back of the sharksupernatural’s body. The characteristics ofthis head are similar to the shark-monsteritself: a long-lipped jaw with at least twoprominent teeth; a bulbous nose; and aneye composed of a vertical half moon

Figure 3. Highland Olmec shark-monster depicted on the interior base of a ceramic plate from Tlapacoya. Note the seriesof swept-back cleft elements that substitute for dorsal and ventral fins. Redrawn from Niederberger 2000:Figure 9.

8



crossed by a horizontal crescent. Atop thehead is a double merlon, followed behindby an outturned or swept-back cleft ele-ment. In fact, this combination of doublemerlon and swept-back cleft graces the eyesof two of the three profiles that surroundthe shark.5

It may be tempting to simply gloss thisswept-back cleft convention as anotherexample of the oft-invoked “flaming eye-brow” of Olmec art. However, anotherrendering of the shark-monster from High-land Mexico suggests an interesting alter-native. This image appears on an Early For-mative ceramic plate from Tlapacoya (Joyceet al. 1991:Figure 4c; Niederberger2000:185). The Tlapacoya shark supernatu-ral exhibits a suite of traits similar to thosedocumented above (Figure 3). The fishzoomorph has a reduced lower jaw and twolarge teeth that emerge from the uppergum. Above the upper jaw is a large noseand the shark’s eye is well represented by acurved, crescent-like band. The body is

stocky and abbreviated with a rounded,bifurcated tail.

This image is especially noteworthy forthe several appendages that emerge fromthe body. These appendages represent finsand occur on both the dorsal and ventralportions of the shark-monster. The firsttwo dorsal fins and the single ventral finare cleft. Several of these fins have acurved, swept-back appearance. The char-acteristics of the remaining dorsal fins areunclear; they are either without clefts orthey may simply reflect an artistic conven-tion whereby the bifurcated fin is depictedin profile.

The association of swept-back cleftsand fish fins gains additional supportthrough an independent identification madeby Schele and Miller (1986:119; Plate 30).These scholars discuss a ceramic vessel ex-cavated from below Group 9N-B at Copan,Honduras (Figure 4). The carved/incisedimage on the vessel includes a down-turned, crescent-shaped element within an

Figure 4. Stylized shark zoomorph on a ceramic bowl from a Preclassic Burial at Copan. The representation includes anupside-down crescent eye and a flattened nose. Both the swept-back dorsal fin and the tail terminate in clefts. Note thefinning on both the dorsal and tail fins. Redrawn from Schele and Miller 1986:119, Plate 30.

9



outline that terminates in a bifurcationdecorated with thin line finning. A second,smaller cleft erupts from the top of theimage and is also curves backwards. Scheleand Miller (1986:119) describe it thus:“The third vessel from the south buildinghas an odd design terminating in a bifur-cated shape scored with parallel lines. Thismotif and a smaller version to its left seemto be fish tails, but the remainder of thedesign does not correspond to a knownnaturalistic form.” Given the above discus-sion it is possible to identify the Copanimage as a stylized shark-monster, completewith crescent eye (in this case down-turned) and a cleft dorsal fin. David Grove(cited in Fash 1991:69) offers the sameconclusion regarding the Group 9N-B ves-sel.

The realization that clefts may substi-tute for dorsal fins encourages us to re-visitthe Young Lord figurine and reconsider theprofile head on the back of the shark-mon-ster. I suggest that this profile head, withits swept-back cleft and crossed-crescenteye, may either depict an anthropomorphicshark supernatural or a personified versionof the shark-monster’s dorsal fin. In ei-ther case, such representations suggest anearly perception of the shark as a sacredand powerful entity (e.g., Schele and Miller1986:43-44). In addition, the possibilitythat the tails and dorsal fins of the Olmecshark-monster have a personified or anthro-pomorphic variant raises the question ofwhether there are frontal versions of thesesame supernaturals.

In sum, a complex of several traits de-notes the shark-monster in Olmec iconog-raphy (also Joyce et al. 1991:9). These traitsinclude an elongated upper jaw and a re-

duced or abbreviated lower jaw. A singlelarge tooth usually erupts from the frontupper portion of the jaw; on occasion thistooth is bifurcated. One or more smallerteeth are placed behind the large fronttooth. These secondary teeth are oftencurved backwards toward the interior ofthe jaw.

The shark-monster often carries a bul-bous or pug-like nose. This nose may beclearly depicted or it may only be suggestedby a curved line. A crossed-band elementfrequently occurs behind the head of theshark-monster. In some cases this band isreplaced by a series of lines and “wing-like”elements. These wing-like motifs are re-ally the top of clefts and represent fins. Theshark-monster’s tail is bifurcated. Otherfins, especially the dorsal fin, are commonlyportrayed as backward curving appendages.Fins can be augmented with a series of finelines; this process of finning occurs on thedorsal fins as well as the shark-monster’stail.

The Shark-Monster as a SacredEntity

Although useful, the shark-monsteridentification made above is by no meansnovel—as already noted, several scholarsrecognized the particular piscine charac-ter of this zoomorph. Rather, based on theprior discussion it is now possible to de-tect the shark supernatural with greaterconfidence and perhaps even distinguishsome of its geographical and chronologicalvariants. We are also better equipped toconsider the circumstances within whichOlmec shark-monster imagery occurs.

These circumstances are considered

10



below. First I address the rarer instancesin which the provenience of relevant Olmecmaterial is well established. This exerciseunderscores the apparent sacred nature ofthe shark-monster in Olmec thought. Ithen investigate several images in which theshark-monster interacts with human fig-ures. These representations imply aMesoamerican world-creation event inwhich a deity or mythic hero subdues theshark-supernatural, ultimately resulting inthe formation of the world’s surface. Fi-nally, I explore the association of the shark-monster and ritual regalia. One set of ex-amples involves scepters and batons tippedwith a shark’s tooth. The second group ofexamples includes headdresses in whichshark imagery plays a central role. In thesecases the ruler appropriates the shark-su-pernatural imagery to exemplify and rein-force his position as axis mundi.

Shark Imagery from KnownContexts

In a series of studies dating to the1970s, Peter David Joralemon (1971, 1976)tentatively identified a suite ofsupernaturals that occurred in Olmec ico-nography. Among these representationswas “God VIII,” one of four images that alsoappeared on the Las Limas figure. Thissculpture, uncovered by children in thesmall village of Las Limas, Veracruz in 1965,consists of a seated, cross-legged individualholding a smaller individual across his lap(de la Fuente 1996; Joralemon 1996a). TheGod VIII profile is located on the left kneeof the Las Limas figure (Figure 5).6 Itsdefining characteristics are simple, butshould now be familiar: a reduced lower

jaw, a single large tooth emerging from theupper gum, and an unfilled crescent thatserves as the eye. Although this image isstill occasionally characterized simply as a“Death God” (e.g., de la Fuente 1996:170),most scholars now accept it as the shark-monster (Joralemon 1996a:55; Coe1989:76; Grove 2000:279-280).

The presence of the shark supernatu-ral on the Las Limas figure bespeaks thecentral relevance of this entity to coastalOlmec ideology. This importance is ech-oed in additional Gulf lowlands contexts.For example, a shark-monster effigy occurswithin the spectacular jade cache fromCerro de las Mesas (Drucker 1955:Figure4, Plate 40c). This cache was discoveredwhen excavations trenched Mound 1 at thesite (Drucker 1943, 1955). Although thisoffering dates to the Classic Period, it con-tained many greenstone artifacts that ap-pear to be Olmec in origin. The inclusionof the shark supernatural in this offering,as well as the presence of shark-monsterson Cerro de las Mesas stelae (see below),indicates the powerful longitudinal impactof this water beast along the Gulf lowlands.

It should not be surprising, however,that shark remains per se are rare; as mostlycartilaginous creatures, sharks have fewparts that will survive the ravages of time.Shark teeth, therefore, are the most com-mon direct evidence for this fish in archaeo-logical contexts (e.g., de Borhegyi 1961).7

Excavations at La Venta produced sharkteeth in a highly ritualized context. Dur-ing the 1942 field season, workers exploredthe area known as Complex A, located tothe north of the great Mound C-1 (Drucker1952). A trench placed in Mound A-2 re-vealed a closed “tomb” constructed entirely

11



of basalt columns. The remains of twobundle burials were found within this fea-ture—based on osteological and dental in-dicators, Drucker (1952:23) concludedthat both individuals were probably juve-niles.

Each bundle included a variety of ob-jects. Among the items associated withBundle #2 was a single shark’s tooth, theonly such tooth in either of the burials(Druker 1952:26, 196). A later investiga-tion by de Borhegyi (1961) indicated that

this was the tooth of a great white shark(Carcharodon carcharias). Coe (1989:79)reports that “great white shark teeth, per-haps in some cases of fossil origin, havebeen excavated at both La Venta and SanLorenzo.” Coe’s reference to “fossil ori-gin” suggests that some of these examplesare megalodon (Carcharodon megalodon)teeth; these teeth are particularly large(some exceed 10 cm in length) and derivefrom Miocene sharks. Megalodon teethalso occur as offerings at Palenque within

Figure 5. The Olmec shark-monster (“God VIII”) on the left knee of the Las Limas figure. Redrawn from The Art Museum1995: Catalog 35, Figure 1 and Joralemon 1971:Figure 253.

12



the Temple of the Cross, the Temple of theFoliated Cross, and Temple V, North Group(de Borhegyi 1961:Table 1; Ruz-Lhuillier1958).

Another relevant example of the asso-ciation between shark teeth and ideologi-cal contexts comes from the Early Forma-tive site of El Manatí, located just to theeast of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán and south-west of La Venta (Ortiz C. et al. 1997).The El Manatí locale apparently served asa sacred location, a place where ritual ob-jects including wooden busts, greenstonecelts, and rubber balls were placed as of-ferings. The waterlogged conditions of ElManatí provide a preservation-friendly con-text, yielding unparalleled information onOlmec artifacts made from organic mate-rials.

Among the items recovered from thesacred spring is a cylindrical wooden ba-ton or scepter more than three feet long(110 cm) (Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). A

shark’s tooth was embedded into one endof the baton; this end is ovoid and bulbous,recalling the characteristic nose of manyFormative shark images (Figure 6). Thebaton was covered with red paint and mayhave been purposefully interred betweentwo separate groups of wooden busts(Ortiz C. and Rodríguez 1999:243-244;Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). The tooth-tippedscepter straddled strata X and IX, a posi-tion that dates the baton to the site’s Manatíphase (pre-1200 BC).

The El Manatí finding, again undercontrolled excavation conditions, confirmsthat Olmec staffs were occasionally sancti-fied through their association with theshark-monster. The placement of the toothon the end of a three-foot long pole alsosuggests that these batons were overt sym-bols of power and prestige, rather than ev-eryday bloodletters. The fact that Olmecstaffs were tipped with shark teeth also hasimplications for conventional identifica-

Figure 6. Wooden scepter from El Manatí with shark tooth embedded in one end. Redrawn from Ortiz C. et al. 1997:Foto21.

13



tions of “torches” and “feather bundles,” tobe discussed below.

The Shark-Monster and the WorldCreation

The above examples demonstrate thatshark referents were sacrosanct; they wereincorporated into rituals and marked hal-lowed contexts. Nonetheless, shark-mon-ster imagery is manifest in other ways. Onesuch context involves depictions of theshark supernatural engaged with an anthro-pomorphic actor.

Perhaps the clearest example of this

interaction comes from the CodexFerjérváry-Mayer, a Postclassic-Perioddocument from Mexico. According to KarlTaube (personal communication, 2004)Folio 42 of the Codex Ferjérváry-Mayerdepicts Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli strugglingwith the great water beast Cipactli (Figure7). Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli ultimately looseshis foot to the supernatural’s terrible maw.A parallel rendition of this event occurs onFolio 26 of the Codex Vaticanus B. Thisinteraction is strongly reminiscent of anAztec world creation myth. According toone version of the story, Quetzalcoatl andTezcatlipoca engage Cipactli, ultimately

Figure 7. The Aztec world creation story and the Cipactli shark monster as depicted in the Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer. Noteheterocercal tail and absence of saurian legs. After Nicholson 1985:107

14



tearing off its lower jaw. This jaw, in turn,is transformed into the surface of the earth(e.g., Nicholson 1985:107). During thestruggle Tezcatlipoca loses his leg to thewater beast’s mouth (e.g., Miller and Taube1993:164). The fact thatTlahuizcalpantecuhtli substitutes forTezcatlipoca in these images reminds us thatthe continuity hypothesis must be appliedwith caution.

The zoomorph depicted in the CodexFerjérváry-Mayer exhibits the tell-taletraits of the shark-monster: a reduced jaw;a single, large tooth emanating from thefront of the upper gums with smaller teethbehind; and a bifurcated tail. Accordingto the Historia de los mexicanos por suspinturas:

And then they created the skies,beyond the thirteenth, and theymade water and created a greatfish, called Cipactli, that is like a

crocodile, and from this fish theymade the earth…Afterwards,when all four gods were together,they made the earth from the fishCipactli, which they calledTlaltlecuhtil, and they painted itas a god of the earth, lying on topof a fish, since it was made fromit” (Maria Garibay 1965:25-26,cited in López Luján 1994:254).8

Thus, while the Cipactli water beast ofPostclassic accounts is often understood asa crocodile, it is instead a fish with somecrocodilian attributes.

Similar world-creation narratives per-meate Mesoamerican ideology. One ver-sion among the Yucatecan Maya holds thatItzam Cab Ain (“Giant Fish Earth Caiman”[Taube 1993:69]) is slain by Bolon-ti-ku.9

Five trees are then raised on the back ofthe dispatched creature to support the sky.

Perhaps the best-known version of the

Figure 8. The Olmec world creation story as depicted on Chalcatzingo Monument 5. Note pectoral fin behind the headand cleft-fin markings on the tail of the shark-monster. Redrawn from Joralemon 1971:Figure 262.

15



Mesoamerican world-creation story comesfrom the Popul Vuh of the Quiché Maya(e.g., Edmonson 1971; Tedlock 1985). Inthis telling the hero twins battle a water-monster named Zipacna. Most scholarsagree that Zipacna and Cipactli are low-land and highland variants of the sameword; nonetheless, their etymology re-mains unclear. Interestingly, Edmonson(1971:36) indicates that a prior translationglossed Zipacna as “wise fish earth.”10 Forhis part, Tedlock (1985:372) simply notesthat the Quiche Maya term for crocodile is“ayin” rather than “zipacna” and observesthat the word “ayin” is absent from thePopul Vuh. Thus, as de Borhegyi(1961:293) proposed over forty years ago,it is quite possible that the shark-monsterplayed an early role in the Mesoamericanworld creation myth.

The examples just noted derive, ofcourse, from the Postclassic Period. None-theless, several Formative-Period imagesrepresent a struggle between a human formand a shark supernatural; these renditionsmay recount an earlier version of the story.For example, Chalcatzingo Monument 5depicts a long, sinuous zoomorph with analmost beak-like mouth apparently in theact of devouring an individual (Figure 8).A long bifurcated element extends justbehind the head of the human.11 Thezoomorph has occasionally been identifiedas a “feathered” or “avian” serpent (e.g., Coe1989:76; Joralemon 1996a:58; Taube1995:84), but an alternative reading is pos-sible based on the following observations(also Joyce et al. 1991:5).

First, the creature on ChalcatzingoMonument 5 exhibits several of the traitscommon to the shark-monster. Althoughthe lower jaw is not reduced, the mouth

displays a long, larger tooth at the frontfollowed by several backward curving teeth(compare with Figure 1). Also present isthe accentuated nose common to Olmecversions of the shark-monster. Just behindthe head are the crossed-bands that oftenaccompany the shark-supernatural and abifurcated/cleft dorsal fin adorns the backof the creature.12 The tail is rounded at theend, but it carries two parallel clefts thatare consistent with a fin identification.While some might be tempted to read thesemarks as a snake’s rattles, Angulo V.(1987:147) astutely observes that, if theydepict rattles, the rattles are inverted. Agreenstone Olmec “bloodletter handle” alsoshows a cleft on a shark-monster’s tail(Reilly 1995:Figure 35). In this case, a fig-ure with a swept-back head “rides” the backof the shark supernatural. As discussedbelow, such “riders” may occasionally serveas personifications of the shark’s dorsal fin.

Another fin appears just behind theshark-monster’s head on ChalcatzingoMonument 5. Elsewhere this appendagehas been characterized as a “wing” or “paw-wing” motif (e.g., Joralemon 1971:83).According to Angulo V. (1987:147), how-ever, it is “a clearly carved, fish-like fin.”Taube (1995:84) flirts with a similar iden-tification for Monument 5: “On the OlmecAvian Serpent, the paw-wings are imme-diately behind the head, like the pectoralfins of fish.”13 The swirls just below theChalcatzingo Monument 5 zoomorph havealso been used to support a presumed aerialcontext; such swirls are sometimes associ-ated with clouds or rain (e.g., The ArtMuseum 1995:121). Given the additionalevidence, however, I agree with Grove(1968:489) and Angulo V. (1987:148) thatin the present context the swirls are best

16



Figure 9. The Olmec world creation story as depicted on La Venta Monument 63. Redrawn from Follensbee 2000:Figure81.

17



read as water symbols. Reminiscent scrollsadorn Olmec fish effigy ceramic vesselsfrom Highland Mexico (e.g., The Art Mu-seum 1995:178, Plates 52 and 54; Bensonand de la Fuente 1996:190).

The interaction between the zoomorphand the individual depicted on ChalcatzingoMonument 5 provides additional clues toits meaning. At first glance it may appearthat the shark-monster is in the process ofdevouring the human. However, a particu-larly insightful comment regarding this ac-tion allows for an alternative scenario:

Esta feroz cr iatura estárepresentada en el momento dedevorar o de regurgitar a unafigura humana. Este personaje estáclaramente delineado, excepto supierna izquierda que estáprofundamente en la garganta delmonstruo (Reilly 1994a:249, em-phasis added).

Thus, with the individual’s leg deep in theshark supernatural’s throat, we encounterthe same relationship between actors indi-cated in the Ferjérváry-Mayer and VaticanusB codices. Coupled with the evidence al-ready discussed, it is reasonable to proposethat Chalcatzingo Monument 5 representsan Olmec version of the world-creationstory.

A second artistic rendering may alsorepresent this primordial clash. La VentaMonument 63 is a rarely discussed stelareported by Williams and Heizer (1965).The monument was found within the cen-tral area of La Venta, although the specificlocation is not indicated. It stands overseven feet tall (256 cm) and is sculpted ona basalt column.

The image on La Venta Monument 63

depicts a smaller human who is facing andapparently struggling with a creature al-most twice his height (Figure 9). The hu-man may sport a small pointed beard andwears a headdress topped by a tied bundle.His left arm is raised and his fist is clenched;the arm awkwardly raps around the backof the fish zoomoph. His right arm hangsdown toward the lower register of the stelaand may actually grab the attenuated tailof the water creature. A fan-like elementbehind the human represents one of theshark supernatural’s fins. The shark-mon-ster represented on La Venta Monument63 towers over the human figure, look-ing down with menacing intent. Thecreature has the long upper jaw and re-duced lower jaw of Gulf lowland shark-monsters; it also displays the bulbousnose associated with those same images.A series of teeth erupt from the upperjaw. A large dorsal fin appears at the topof the shark-monster’s head and severalsmaller fins are visible along its body.

In their description of La Venta Monu-ment 63, Williams and Heizer (1965:19)quote Carlos Pellicer who simply describesthe image as “a man hugging a monster.”Piña Chan (1989:239, Plates 78 and 79)identifies the stela as “a figure holding anenormous mythical fish with shark-liketeeth.” More recently, Follensbee(2000:207) presents it as a “profile figureholding a huge, monstrous supernaturalfish.” Although the human image is notdepicted as one-legged, the scene clearlyconveys a sense of impending peril.

A third lowland monument, Izapa Stela3, may also represent this interaction. Thesculpture comes from the Pacific Coastpiedmont just along the Chiapas-Guatemala

18



border (Norman 1973, 1976). Izapa isparticularly noteworthy for its extensivebody of megalithic monuments; althoughlacking inscriptions, Stela 3 probably datesto the end of the Formative Period (e.g.,Norman 1976:324-325; Smith 1984:45-47). Several figures appear on the stela;nonetheless, the main activity takes placebetween a large human figure facing towardthe viewer’s left and an equally large sinu-ous creature with a gaping jaw (Figure 10).The human figure wears an elaborate maskand headdress and, with his left arm raised,seems to threaten the creature with an L-

shaped object.Only the upper portion of the shark-

monster’s body is represented; it emergesfrom between the human figure’s legs. Theresult of this arrangement is that only oneleg of the human is visible—the other legis effectively missing.14 The shark-monsterhas a long upper jaw, a reduced lower jaw,and a bulbous nose. A single, large bifur-cated tooth erupts from the front of thegum line. As with the Chalcatzingo Monu-ment 5, a second, long bifurcated elementis present. A fish barbel is clearly visiblebehind the shark-monster’s jaw. One ad-

Figure 10. The Izapan world creation story as depicted on Izapa Stela 3. Note obscured (i.e., missing) leg of standingfigure. Redrawn from Norman 1976:Figure 3.4.

19



ditional aspect of Izapa Stela 3 supports theidentification of an aquatic context. Di-rectly above the opened jaws of the shark-monster is the profile of a human head po-sitioned within a U-shaped outline. Thehuman profile looks toward the action, asif intently watching the outcome. Accord-ing to Smith’s (1984:27) analysis of Izapansculpture, the “canoe-shaped U elementwith a human head…always appears in thecontext of water.”

The shark-monster’s dorsal fin is par-ticularly interesting in this rendition. IzapaStela 3 includes a personified version of theshark-monster’s dorsal fin, a depiction thatrecalls the shark-monster engraved on the“Young Lord” figure (see Figure 2). Thedorsal fin profile on Izapa Stela 3 is largeand sweeps backwards; it displays a promi-nent nose and behind the head is a back-ward curving double merlon. The personi-fied dorsal fin displays its own large toothto emphasize its association with the shark-monster. Although rendered using distinctstyles, the similarities between the twoimages are noteworthy. Given that bothIzapa Stela 3 and the Young Lord were foundalong the Pacific Coast, the personified,profile dorsal fin may well be a particu-lar artistic convention of this coastal re-gion.

In sum, at least three different Forma-tive-Period sculptures represent thestruggle between a shark-monster and ahuman figure.15 Moreover, in two of thethree cases only one of the human’s legs isclearly visible. Thus, it is quite possible thatthese Formative monuments represent ver-sions of a creation myth whose later Aztectelling pits a mythic hero against Cipactli.The hero loses his leg in the struggle, but

the battle’s outcome is the formation of theearth’s surface and a place to raise the axismundi.

One final aspect of the A-2 tomb burialat La Venta is relevant here. As noted above,a shark’s tooth was found with Bundle #2within the Mound A-2 basalt column tomb.According to Reilly (1994b:7), Bundle #2included an “unusually large shark’stooth…on which was placed a translucentblue jade standing figurine…” The fact thatthe standing figurine was positioned on topof the tooth is consistent with the inter-pretation that the tooth (i.e., the shark parspro toto) represents the interface of waterand terra firma.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing thatthese non-portable renditions of the pri-mordial struggle appear at La Venta, Izapa,and Chalcatzingo. La Venta and Izapa arelowland sites situated along the Gulf Coastand Pacific Coast, respectively.Chalcatzingo is well-known for its Gulflowlands connections—for example,Chalcatzingo is the only site outside theGulf lowlands that contains a version of thelowland table-top throne (Grove2000:287). Thus, it is reasonable to sug-gest that this world-creation story origi-nated in the isthmian lowlands but may havelater traveled to other areas. It is also quitepossible that, as it traveled through spaceand time, the story changed with each re-telling. As these recountings took place,cultural groups likely replaced the coastalshark-monster with other mythologicalcreatures more consistent with their re-spective environmental settings (e.g., de laFuente 2000).

20



Tooth-Tipped Scepters

As noted above, archaeological datafrom El Manatí demonstrate that a shark’stooth was affixed to the end of long woodenscepters and batons. Although the unpar-alleled preservation at El Manatí makes thisfind almost unique, portrayals of such itemsare not. To date, similar artifacts have beenidentified as “torches,” “vegetation,” “featherbundles,” and “maize ear fetishes” (e.g.,

Grove 1987; Joralemon 1971:16; Schele1995:106; Taube 2000). And while it wouldbe unrealistic to suggest that all such de-pictions are tooth-tipped scepters, the ElManatí evidence indicates that at least someof them are.

The tips of many such staffs are trian-gular, sometimes blunted at the end, andcarry lateral tick markings (Figure 11). Thetick markings may represent the serrationson the shark-monster teeth. Among the

Figure 11. Olmec tooth-tipped scepters: (a) detail of scepter carried by Olmec “swimmer”. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Figure11b; (b) detail of tooth-tipped scepter. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Figure 11d; (c) scepter worn by Olmec figure fromPuebla. Redrawn from Piña Chan 1989:Figure 56; (d) bas-relief figures carrying scepters from El Salvador. Redrawn fromBernal 1969:Figure 39; (e) tooth-tipped scepter from El Manatí (see Figure 6).

21



best candidates for tooth-tipped scepter arethose staffs that also carry a double merlon(Figure 12). As noted above, the doublemerlon is associated with the personifieddorsal fin of the shark-monster and alsomarks the second tooth of the Young Lord’sshark-monster (see Figure 2). In his dis-cussion of “torches,” Grove (1987:64) pro-posed that the double merlon may haveserved as a tooth referent. Interestingly,

Bernal (1969:73) observed that the mostcommon forms of Formative-Period hu-man dental mutilation include a doublemerlon-like cut (A-2) on the end of theincisor and a series of ticks (D-4) along thelaterals sides of the tooth.

Taube (1995:90-91, Figure 9) notesthat double merlons form earth bands atthe bottom of several Formative-Periodlowland stelae. Quirarte (1973:13-15;

Figure 12. Olmec scepters with a shark’s tooth and double merlons: (a) detail of headdress on Rio Pesquero figurine. Notetriple-dot motif. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Fig.13a; (b) detail of El Salvador bas-relief (see Figure 11d); (c) scepter fromTeopantecuanitlán figure (Schele 1995:4c); (d) scepter held by Young Lord. Note triple-dot motif and series of doublemerlons. From Schele 1995:Figure 5a; (e) scepter on vase from Chalcatzingo. Redrawn Taube 2000:Figure 11e.

22



1976:78-79) reduces these “base-line de-signs” into smaller components that include“stepped frets” and “triangles.” When dis-aggregated in this manner, the earth bandscan be read as a series of triangular shark’steeth embedded within double merlons(Figure 13). Double merlons set withintriangles also flank the mouth of the imageon Stela C from Tres Zapotes (e.g., Coe1965:Figure 42). Double merlons appearon the mosaic masks from La Venta(Drucker 1952; Drucker et al. 1959).Reilly (1994b:10-11) relates these doublemerlons to the open mouth of the earth-

crocodilian (here identified as the shark-monster). The observation that the sharktooth at the end of a scepter should be “em-bedded” within a double merlon gum lineis perfectly consistent with these readings.

In some instances the tooth-tippedscepter is paired with “knuckle-dusters” or“manoplas” (e.g., Grove 1987; Joralemon1971; Piña Chan 1989:Figure 150). Ac-cording to Schele (1995:107), E. WyllysAndrews proposed the now-widely ac-cepted interpretation that these objects arehorizontal sections of large conch shells.The precise function of these items remains

Figure 13. Lowland earth bands consisting of shark’s teeth embedded in double merlons: (a) earth band from the AlvaradoStela. 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.

23



enigmatic; nonetheless, the conch shellidentification is consistent with the marinecontext of the shark supernatural.

Headdress Shark-Monsters

Several Gulf lowlands sculptures mani-fest the shark-monster as an integral com-ponent of an individual’s headdress. LaMojarra Stela 1 is an excellent example(Figure 14); this sculpture was recoveredbetween Tres Zapotes and Cerro de lasMesas, in the Papaloapan River drainage of

south central Veracruz. Although betterknow for its glyphic text (e.g., Justeson andKaufman 1993), La Mojarra Stela 1 alsocontains complex iconography dating to thesecond century AD. The bas-relief imagepresents a figure facing toward the viewer’sright, clad in an elaborate costume andwearing an immense headdress.

A representation of the shark-monsterhangs off the upper, rear portion of thatheaddress (e.g., Stross 1994). Although thezoomorph’s eye is difficult to discern, theshark supernatural exhibits the diacritic

Figure 14. Shark-monster headdress on the La Mojarra Stela 1 (After Stross 1994:Figure 1). Note four smaller sharksalong the spine of the larger piscine zoomorph.

24



long upper-jaw and lower, reduced jawnoted previously.16 Still more explicit arethe four smaller shark-monsters perchedalong the back of the larger fish zoomorph.Each of these four smaller versions is de-picted with a large tooth that erupts froman extended upper jaw. These sharksupernaturals also display the characteris-tic bulbous nose and a backward archingdorsal fin. Finally, several of the imagesexhibit a heterocercal tail that occasionallyaccompanies shark-monster and other pis-cine representations from the Late Forma-tive onward (compare with Figure 7).17

Two additional stelae include the shark-monster as an integral component of the

ruler’s headdress. These sculptures areCerro de las Mesas Stela 3 and theunprovenienced San Miguel ChapuletpecStela (Miller 1991; Sterling 1943). Al-though the two monuments may have comefrom different locales, they clearly depictthe same scene or commemorative event(Figure 15). Each stela contains a standingfigure in profile, facing toward the viewer’sleft. The left side of the monuments car-ries a glyph column—unfortunately, theseglyphs are mostly eroded and have not beendeciphered. The figures’ headdresses, al-though not exact copies, are strikingly simi-lar. Seated atop a zoomorphic mask is theshark-monster. The creature has an opened

Figure 15. Classic-Period Gulf Coast shark-monsters positioned atop headdresses: (a) Cerro de las Mesas Stela 3. AfterMiller 1991:Figure 2.10a; (b) San Miguel Chapultepec Stela. After Miller 1991:Figure 2.10e.

25



Stross 1994:12-13). In both cases the shark-monster retains is place atop an individual’sheaddress. Both images depict the shark su-pernatural with an opened mouth, clearlyshowing the extended upper jaw and reducedlower jaw. Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Figure 16b)also indicates the large front tooth of theshark-monster. Moreover, both images carrythree dots on their body, reminiscent of theshark-monster imagery on the Young Lord andthe tri-dot motifs on several tooth-tippedscepters.

The most notable similarity among thetwo Maya versions of the shark-monsterheaddress is that their dorsal fins and tailsare morphed into sprigs of foliage. Thus,these shark-monsters have become “worldtrees”; by donning this image, rulers de-clare themselves to be the axis mundi of theirrealm (e.g., Schele 1995; Schele and Miller1986:108-109).

mouth with large upper jaw. The charac-teristic nose is better represented on theCerro de las Mesas stela (Figure 15a), whilethe large front tooth is easier to identifyon the San Miguel Chapultepec monument(Figure 15b). Like their La Mojarra coun-terparts, the bodies of both shark-monstershang down toward the nape of the neck ofthe standing figure and exhibit a bifurcatedtail.

The shark-monster-as-headdress alsooccurs within the Maya region. These rep-resentations reveal an interesting diver-gence from the Gulf examples; within theMaya area the Late Formative-Early Clas-sic shark-monster images are explicitly in-corporated into the world tree (Figure 16).Two examples that clearly mark this inte-gration are found on the Dumbarton OaksPectoral and Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Coe1966; Schele and Miller 1986:Plate 32a;

Figure 16. Early Classic Maya shark-monsters as headdress elements and personified trees: (a) image from a DumbartonOaks jade pectoral; (b) image from Kaminaljuyu Stela 11. Redrawn from Schele and Miller 1985:Plate 32a.

26



Figure 17. Shark-monster tails serving as foundations for the world tree: (a) unprovenienced celt with crossed bands andfinning found on the Young Lord shark monster. Redrawn from Taube 2000:Figure 6d; (b) detail of incised celt from RioPesquero with finning. Redrawn from Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Catalog 117; (c) detail of incised headdress on a celtfrom Tabasco. Note bifurcated tail and crossed-band motif adopted from Las Bocas shark-monster. Redrawn from Bensonand de la Fuente 1996:Catalog 116.

27



It seems that Olmec iconography an-ticipates these later depictions of the tran-sition from shark-monster to world-treeheaddress. Several of the greenstone celtsreported in the literature appear to includeelaborate headgear. Such regalia have beenparticularly difficult to decipher; our un-derstanding of Olmec shark-monster im-agery, however, may provide a clue. Thecleft head is one of the most widely recog-nized elements of Olmec iconography. Aswe have seen, in certain contexts such acleft may also substitute for the fin or thetail of the shark-monster. This associationis reinforced when additional elements areadded, such as thin-line finning and/or thecrossed-band motif (e.g., Figures 1b, 1c,2a, 3, 4).

Several Olmec figures wear these head-dress combinations (Figure 17). For ex-ample, the tail of the shark-monster on theYoung Lord is very similar to the headdresson an unprovenienced celt (Figure 17a) anda celt from Rio Pesquero (Figure 17b). Theformer includes both finning and thecrossed-band design while the latter is ac-companied by finning. The image on theRio Pesquero celt also serves as a basis fora world tree. A third celt from Tabasco(Figure 17c) incorporates the crossed-bandmotif seen on a Las Bocas shark-monsterand likewise provides a foundation for theaxis mundi.

As these examples demonstrate,Olmec iconography foreshadowed laterdepictions of the shark-monster as the ba-sis for the world tree headdress. But thesedepictions are not constant through time.For example, an interesting divergencemarks the Late Formative-Early Classictransition. Along the Gulf lowlands, the

more literal shark-monster zoomorph per-sisted within headdress depictions (e.g.,stelae at La Mojarra and Cerro de las Me-sas). In the Maya area, however, the imagewas transformed into a more obvious worldtree (e.g., shark tail sprouting vegetation).

Conclusion

It is said that, were a fish to becomeself aware, the last thing it might noticewould be its own watery milieu. Thisaxiom is also applicable to Olmec research.With the innocent adoption of the veryname Olmec, scholars’ attention was irre-sistibly drawn towards the terrestrialrealm. Only recently have Olmec studiesbegun to appreciate the relevance of a mari-time adaptation.

This new awareness spills over into allaspects of research, including iconography.Again, visions of terrestrial denizens tra-ditionally rule Olmec readings; in fact,Jiménez Moreno (cited in Bernal 1969:12)once suggested that the name Olmec bereplaced with “Tenocelome” or “people ofthe jaguar mouth.” With a greater appre-ciation of coastal lifeways, however, we areable to approach this Formative-Periodimagery anew. So, it should come as nosurprise that, when we take a second look,aquatic motifs and referents become appar-ent.

In this paper I have suggested that sharkimagery ranks among the most importantof these marine referents. But while sharksmay be intimidating, that fact alone is nocause to celebrate them on megalithicsculpture, on greenstone celts, on ceramicvessels, and on headdresses and ritual re-galia. The permeation of shark imagery in

28



Olmec iconography owes itself to some-thing more basic, more fundamental, thanthe bad press of a particular fish. This per-vasive iconography is rendered intelligiblewhen we consider the role of the shark-monster in ancient stories of world cre-ation. Versions of this creation mythabound in Mesoamerica—in one form oranother someone struggles with a fantas-tic water monster and usually has one lesslimb to show for their efforts. But throughtheir victory the land surface is establishedand the world tree is raised. Such a featcertainly merits immortalizing in iconog-raphy and appropriation by the powers thatbe. The selfless act implied by this storymay also account for the frequent associa-tion of shark-monster imagery and blood-letting. By letting blood, one recreates thesacrificial act of losing a limb or other bodypart. A possible function of bloodletting,therefore, is to replay the origin story andreaffirm the cosmic order.

In sum, shark-monster representationsare ubiquitous throughout Olmec iconog-raphy. But the case need not be over-stated—jaguars, crocodiles, harpy eagles,and corn also have their place. In somecases these entities may substitute for theshark-monster; in other instances they rep-resent different stories and other associa-tions. The trick, of course, is teasing apartthese differences. Stark (1983) is correctthat beholders are eager to take the bait ofOlmec iconography. By emphasizing arti-facts from valid archaeological contexts,and by judiciously invoking the “continuityhypothesis,” we help to insure that suchreadings offer more than just another fishstory.

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this paper waspresented at the 2002 MidwestMesoamerican Archaeology and Ethnogra-phy conference in Ann Arbor. Many par-ticipants there offered positive commentsand suggested additional avenues to pur-sue. I would especially like to thank JoelPalka for his unflagging encouragement.Without his support and patience this ef-fort may never have come to fruition.Conversations with David Mora-Marinhave also been quite beneficial. Thanks toJulia Kappelman and Elizabeth Brumfiel forforwarding copies of unpublished papers orhard-to-acquire articles and to Karl Taubeand David Grove for comments on an ear-lier version of this paper. Finally, thanks toShannon Fie, who not only offered insight-ful comments on the paper and assistedwith the figures, but graciously toleratedmy incessant prattle about sharks andOlmec iconography.

29



Notes

1. Although it may be tempting to do so, my comment here should not be construed as advocating the role of theGulf Olmec as “Mother Culture” to the rest of Mesoamerica. Elsewhere I have argued against that simplistic view (Arnold2002). Thus, while I suggest that much of Olmec iconography originated in the coastal lowlands, it does not necessarilyfollow 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 Gulflowlands. While it is certainly true that these soils take their toll on archaeological material, acidic soils cannot shoulderthe entire blame. After all, significant numbers of fragile fish bones and other delicate faunal items were recovered fromSan Lorenzo excavations (e.g., Wing 1980).

3. Although a recent description of this sculpture dates the image to the Middle Formative Period (Castro-Leal1996), archaeological data suggest that San Lorenzo and its environs were only superficially occupied at that time (Coe andDiehl 1980a; Symonds et al. 2002). In keeping with the main Olmec occupation at San Lorenzo, an Early Formative datefor this monument is more likely.

4. These images include two scalloped shells (Joralemon 1996c:215) as well as an odd, snail-like entity. Joralemonsuggests 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 readingssupport 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 the Young Lord. Grove (2000:286) refers to theimage 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 the Young Lord. Specifically,the Las Limas figure includes a profile on each leg which, like the images on the Young Lord’s thighs, are thought torepresent the lower portions of the world. These images are mirrored, however: a crocodilian earth dragon is representedon the left leg of the Young Lord but occurs on the right knee of the Las Limas figure, while the shark monster is found onthe right leg of the Young Lord but on the left knee of the Las Limas figure. Given that these two sculptures are separatedin 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 deBorhegyi (1961) offers what is now a forty-year-old accounting; among the sites most relevant to our discussion are Cerrode las Mesas, Palenque, and Piedras Negras. An updating of this list would certainly include many additional Olmec andMaya 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 withinthe 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 moregeneric “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 Thompson1970:21). Thus, it is not unreasonable to associate Itzam Cab Ain with a decidedly non-crocodilian water-monster.

30



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 indigenousMesoamerican beliefs. For example, Lipp (1991, cited in Tate 1999:178) reports that, among the contemporary Mixe, theearth’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 knowingof 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 Classicand Postclassic periods Iztamna was “closely identified with wisdom and esoteric knowledge.” Taube (1992:36-40) alsodiscusses 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 westof Monument 5, allows for a different interpretation. Monument 4 represents two human images, each engaged with asingle feline zoomorph (Grove 1968:489; Grove and Angulo V. 1987:121-122). The humans’ position in all three renditionsis quite similar; moreover, a series of ribbon-like elements emerge just behind the head of the lower human figure inMonument 4 (Grove 1968:Figure 5). These motifs, as well as the motif behind the head of the human-like figure onMonument 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 inPainting I-c from Oxtotitlán Cave in Guerrero (Grove 1970:Figure 12). To aid their comparison Joyce et al. (1991) use adepiction of Painting I-c redrawn from Joralemon (1971:Figure 244), which includes two crossed bands on the Oxtotitlánimage. 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 exclusivelyon 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 theserpent foot of the human figure. Thus, they may dispute the interpretation of the zoomorph as a shark-monster, but theywould agree that Stela 3 represents a variant of Tezcatlipoca/God K. Norman (1976:96) hedges his bets: he indicates thatthe zoomorph “begins…as if from between [the standing figure’s] legs,” but he goes on to say that the close positioningcould 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 coastallowlands, depicts the same interaction. This image comes from Panel 3 of the Pyramid of the Niches at El Tajn. It shows along zoomorph actively engaged with a human figure (e.g., Kampen 1972:Figure 6a; Ladrón de Guervara G. 1999:Figura5). 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 tothe 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. Notonly is it less obvious than the four shark-monsters the ride its back, the “dorsal fin” curves slightly forward in a reversedposition and appears to have been tied to the back of the fish (e.g., Stross 1994:13). Similarly, the tail apparently comprisestwo items affixed with a knot (e.g., Stross 1994:13). However, if not a shark-monster per se, the zoomorph substitutes forthe same creature in this particular context.

31



17. Hellmuth (1987a:125-126) refers to the heterocercal tail as a “hooked” tail or a “crab claw” tail. Surprisingly, heexpresses concern that the “hooked” tail is “unlike that of any Caribbean Sea, Pacific Ocean or fresh water fish.” Althoughthe 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 ableto make better sense of the creatures he calls “slug snails” or “forehead slugs.” In fact, such bifid creatures, positioned atoptwo Homul shell carvings (Hellmuth 1987b:Figure 74e, 74f), are almost identical to the four sharks that sit atop the LaMojarra Stela 1. Of course, Hellmuth (1987a, b) was unable to discuss the La Mojarra Stela 1, as it was reported after hisdissertation 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 ofArt, Washington, D.C.

2002 “Got Olmec?”: Comments on the Heartland Homogenized. Paper presented at the 100th annual meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association, New Orleans.

The Art Museum 1995 The Young Lord. In The Olmec World: 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 Olmec World. 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.

32



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. Universityof Texas Press, Austin.

1966 An Early Stone Pectoral from Southeastern Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, NumberOne. 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 JohnE. 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

33



1943 Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 141. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

1952 La Venta, Tabasco: A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153. SmithsonianInstitution, 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 La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170. Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.

Edmonson, Munro S. 1971 The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh 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 of World Prehistory 11:51-101.

2000 Faces of the Earth at Chalcatzingo, Mexico: Serpents, Caves, and Mountains in Middle Formative PeriodIconography. 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.

34



1987a The Surface of the Underworld: Iconography of the Gods of Early Classic Maya Art in Peten, Guatemala, vol I. Foundationfor 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. Foundationfor 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 deAntopología, 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 PreclassicMesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, pp.27-71. Latin American Center Publications, University of Californiaat Los Angeles.

1996a In Search of the Olmec Cosmos: Reconstructing the World View of Mexico’s First Civilization. In Olmec Art ofAncient 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 laFuente, 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 byElizabeth 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 en Veracruz, 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.

35



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, editedby 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 andHudson, 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. NationalGallery 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 NacionalAutónoma de México, México, D.F.

Piña Chan, Román 1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. Rizzoli, New York.

Quirarte, Jacinto1973 Izapan-Style Art: A Study of its Form and Meaning. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 10, Dumbarton

Oaks, Washington, D.C.

36



1976 The Relationship of Izapan-Style Art to Olmec and Maya Art: A Review. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconographyin Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, pp.73 -86. Latin American Center Publications, University of Californiaat 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 SixthPalenque 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 theFunction 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 ArtMuseum, 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 PrehistoricNew World, 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 byMerle Greene Robertson, pp. 41-70. Pre-Columbian Art Research Center, Palenque.

1995 The Olmec Mountain and Tree of Creation in Mesoamerican Cosmology. In The Olmec World: 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 TexasPress, Austin.

Smith, Virginia G.

37



1984 Izapa Relief Carving: Form, Content, Rules for Design, and Role in Mesoamerican Art History and Archaeology. Studies inPre-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 Ancient Yucatan. 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 Olmec World: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 inMesoamerica and the American Southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clarkand 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, Contributions1:1-39. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.

38



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, Judith1997 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.

The Shark Monster in Olmec Iconography

Documents

Transcript of The Shark Monster in Olmec Iconography