THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

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 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 

where the Olmec left off. 

Barbara Stark 1983:72 

Readings of Olmec iconography do not 

want for lack of inspiration. Serpents, jaguars, 

toads, manatees, crocodiles, and corn 

are merely the first round of contenders 

vying to crack the Olmec code (e.g., Coe 

1989). Stark’s (1983) point is characteristically 

understated and certainly well taken. 

With the field already so congested, one is 

loath to insert one more player into the 

melee. Nonetheless, that action is precisely 

the purpose of the following exercise. Below 

I argue that piscine imagery, specifi- 

1 

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III 

Department of Anthropology, Loyola University 

Chicago, Chicago, IL 60626 

cally related to the shark-monster or shark 

supernatural, has been undervalued in accounts 

of Olmec iconography. This circumstance 

may result from multiple causes, but 

two factors particularly stand out. First, 

Olmec archaeology has generally emphasized 

the importance of terrestrial resources 

such as maize while overlooking the 

aquatic bounty of a coastal, estuarine environment 

(Arnold 2000). Second, an overreliance 

on the “continuity hypothesis” (Coe 

1989:71) means that the Early and Middle 

Formative (ca. 1500-400 BC) Olmec are 

continuously recreated in the image of 

groups some two millennia their junior and 

who may share only the most distant of linguistic 

and cultural affiliations.



As a consequence of these and other 

factors, corn and bloodletting are dominant 

themes in current treatments of 

Olmec iconography. Still lacking, however, 

are viable, context-dependent accounts of 

why these meanings were relevant to the 

Formative-Period Olmec. I offer one such 

context below. Specifically, I suggest that 

a portion of Olmec imagery references an 

early version of a possible world-creation 

myth. As reconstructed, part of this story 

involves the defeat of a shark-monster 

whose body was transformed into the 

earth’s surface. The shark-monster-asearth, 

in turn, provides the foundation on 

which the world tree is raised, thus establishing 

the axis mundi. 

I explore this theme throughout the 

following discussion. First, I offer archaeological 

background to justify the statement 

that aquatic resources were probably more 

germane to lowland coastal Olmec groups 

than agricultural products. I focus on 

coastal Olmec for the simple reason that 

most permanent Olmec artwork was installed 

either in lowland settings or in upland 

sites with strong coastal ties. My lessthan-subtle 

working hypothesis is that 

much of Olmec iconography originated in 

the Mexican coastal lowlands (cf. Flannery 

and Marcus 2000). 1 I then address sharkmonster 

imagery itself. Building on the 

work of previous studies (e.g., Grove 1987; 

Joralemon 1971; Joyce et al. 1991; Stross 

1994) this section sets out the evidence for 

a shark supernatural and reviews the suite 

of motifs that may identify it. Finally, I 

consider the possible sacred role of the 

shark-monster, noting the various contexts 

in which it appears. These contexts include 

ritual offerings, sacred spaces, and the regalia 

used by elite individuals. 

2 

A Context for Reading Olmec 

Iconography 

In 1942, scholars convened the Second 

Mesa Redonda in Tuxtla Gutiérrez to consider 

the temporal status of the newly 

crowned “La Venta culture.” In addition to 

their consensus regarding the culture’s pre- 

Classic status, these scholars also adopted 

the term “Olmec” as a convenient shorthand 

(e.g., Jiménez Moreno 1942:19). As 

many readers are aware, “Olmec” derives 

from the Nahua word “Olman” or “land of 

the rubber” (e.g., Bernal 1969:11). Contact-period 

documents linked an indigenous 

group called the “Olmeca” with the southern 

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 names 

for the occupants of this coastal estuarine 

zone. For example, de Sahagún 

(1938:Tomo III, Libro X, 133, 139) also 

referred to these people as “Uixtotin” or 

“olmecas uixtotin” (also Piña Chan 

1989:17; Scholes and Warren 1965:776). 

“Uixtotin” means “people of the salt water,” 

an apt moniker that emphasizes an 

equally important, albeit very different, 

component of Gulf lowlands life ways. Interestingly, 

the Quiche Maya’s Popol Vuh 

offers a parallel identification—an ancestral 

group “from the east” (i.e., coastal 

Tabasco or southern Veracruz) is referred 

to as both “Sovereign Oloman” (“Tepeu 

oloman or oliman”) (Tedlock 1985:167-177, 

361) and also as “Fishkeepers” (“Char [4hah] 

car”) (Tedlock 1985:189, 336; also 

Edmonson 1971:194). 

Thus, contact-period sources clearly 

linked Gulf lowland groups with a mari-



time lifestyle. Ironically, the decision to 

call the archaeological culture “Olmec” and 

not “Uixtotin” undercut this connection— 

it set the stage for an emphasis on terrestrial 

plants and animals as opposed to marine 

life and aqua-culture. Today, a subsistence 

economy based on maize farming has 

become the sine qua non of Gulf Olmec society 

(e.g., Coe and Diehl 1980a:389, 

1980b:144-146; Diehl 1996:31; Grove 

1997:80). 

Unfortunately, this emphasis on maize 

agriculture has not lived up to its own billing 

(Arnold 2000, 2002). Early work at 

San Lorenzo did not produce direct evidence 

for corn; instead, conclusions regarding 

an agrarian adaptation were drawn from 

the presence of ground stone artifacts (Coe 

and Diehl 1980b:144). Fieldwork reported 

by Rust and Leyden (1994) near La Venta 

recovered only minimal evidence of maize 

dating before the site’s Middle Formative 

occupation. More recent studies at Early 

Formative San Lorenzo produced botanical 

evidence in the form of maize phytoliths 

(Zurita N. 1997), but the relative paucity 

of that evidence speaks volumes. 2 Recent 

settlement archaeology around Laguna de 

los Cerros, located to the west of San 

Lorenzo, suggests that the upland zone best 

suited for corn faming was not utilized until 

the end of the Early Formative Period 

(Borstein 2001). 

In fact, published subsistence data from 

Gulf Olmec sites consistently emphasize 

the role of fish rather than corn; for example, 

snook (Centropomus sp.) was among 

the most important protein sources at ancient 

San Lorenzo (Wing 1980:383). Rust 

and Leyden (1994) recovered considerable 

evidence for fish and other aquatic resources 

at La Venta. This same pattern has 

3 

been confirmed by more recent fieldwork 

at Isla Alor, on the outskirts of La Venta 

(Raab et al. 2000). 

The ubiquity of aquatic resources, at 

the expense of domesticated cultivars, 

dovetails nicely with the newest settlement 

pattern studies conducted at San Lorenzo 

and its hinterland (Symonds et al. 2002). 

This research indicates that small, seasonal 

sites (islotes) were the most common settlement 

during the Early Formative period— 

these sites were located in the floodplain 

and probably represent the exploitation of 

backwater swamps (Arnold 2000:129; 

Symonds et al. 2002:63, 74). Even today, 

flooding within the Coatzacoalcos Basin 

remains a serious issue, with major floods 

every 3-5 years and catastrophic flooding 

on the order of every 50 years (Ortiz P. 

and Cyphers 1997:39, Figura 1.4). 

These data suggest that water, annual 

flooding, and aquatic resources played a significant 

role in Gulf Olmec life ways (e.g., 

Wendt 2003). Seen in this light, we are 

encouraged to consider coastal lowland 

Olmec iconography, particularly Early Formative 

iconography, in terms other than 

maize symbolism. In fact, such a reconsideration 

has already begun; Taube 

(2000:298-299) recently observed that 

corn motifs and referents did not become 

common in Olmec art until the Middle 

Formative period was underway. An intriguing 

question, therefore, is what was 

Olmec iconography depicting for the halfmillennium 

prior to ca. 700 BC? 

The Olmec Shark-Monster 

The Olmec shark-monster appears 

among these earlier images. It can be found 

on megalithic sculpture, on low relief



carved into living rock, on portable greenstone 

celts, and on ceramic vessels. It is 

especially associated with the Gulf lowlands—most 

megalithic representations 

derive from Veracruz and Tabasco, where 

its depiction continued well into the Classic 

Period. 

Surprisingly, the potential role of the 

shark-monster in Olmec iconography has 

received only sporadic attention. Published 

papers by Joyce et al. (1991) and Stross 

(1994) directly address this piscine supernatural, 

while Grove (1987) anticipated 

several of their observations. A two-volume 

treatise by Hellmuth (1987a, b) considers 

the shark-monster and other aquatic 

imagery dating to the Late Formative-Early 

Classic transition. Joralemon (1996a:55) 

identifies the “fish monster” as “an important 

Olmec supernatural.” 

Perhaps the most overt instances of 

Olmec shark-monster imagery occur on 

three different items whose proveniences 

are separated by hundreds of miles. San 

Lorenzo Monument 58 (Figure 1a) was 

excavated atop the Group D Ridge at San 

Lorenzo Tenochtitlán by Francisco Beverido 

in 1969 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:364; 

Cyphers 1997:204-205, 2004:122-124). It 

consists of a profile view of a shark supernatural 

carved in low relief on a basalt slab 

and probably dates to the Early Formative 

Period. 3 The zoomorph’s body exhibits a 

clearly marked dorsal fin as well as a bifurcated 

tail. A crossed-band motif (e.g., St. 

Andrew’s Cross) appears just behind the 

head and runs the length of the 

supernatural’s body. The shark-monster’s 

eye is rendered as an unfilled crescent or 

trough and a large, bulbous nose graces the 

upper lip. The shark-monster’s opened 

mouth reveals two important traits. First, 

4 

the upper portion of the jaw is much longer 

than the lower portion, a feature common 

to sharks in general. In fact, this trait may 

have evolved into some of the “long-lipped” 

profiles seen in later Mesoamerican imagery. 

Second, a series of three teeth are visible, 

including a single, larger tooth in front 

followed by two backwardly curved examples. 

Two additional features of Monument 

58 are relevant. First, it was excavated 

from a known context and can be reasonably 

dated. Second, the stone tablet is 

rather large, measuring just over four feet 

in length and almost a foot thick (132 cm x 

72 cm x 28 cm). Thus, in contrast to the 

portable items that form the main corpus 

of Olmec iconography, it is doubtful that 

Monument 58 circulated widely after its 

installation at San Lorenzo. 

Very similar shark-monster iconography 

occurs farther afield. For example, an 

incised blackware ceramic bottle, possibly 

from Las Bocas, Puebla, offers a compelling 

highland counterpart to the San 

Lorenzo sculpture (Figure 1b) (Joralemon 

1996b). Again, we see the shark-monster 

in profile; its elongated body displays a 

dorsal fin and a slightly uneven bifurcated 

tail. The crossed-band symbol is placed just 

behind the head, while three larger horizontal 

bands stretch towards the sharkmonster’s 

tail. In addition, a series of thinner 

slashes are used to accentuate the appearance 

of fins (e.g., Grove 1987:62); this 

“finning” occurs on both the dorsal fin and 

on the tail. The eye is composed of a lower 

crescent with out-flaring edges; this lower 

crescent is mirrored by another crescent 

above. The shark-monster’s lower jaw has 

been severely reduced, and is now indicated 

by the merest suggestion of a curve. A tri-



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 upper 

jaw, followed by a curved element that 

represents a second tooth. The shark’s bulbous, 

pug nose is clearly visible. 

A second ceramic vessel from Las 

Bocas also carries the shark supernatural 

(Figure 1c) (Joralemon 1971:Figure 100; 

Joyce et al. 1991:Figure 4). The characteristics 

of this image mimic those already 

mentioned: a profile view that includes a 

well-demarcated dorsal fin and bifurcated 

tail with finning highlights and a well defined, 

pug-like nose. The lower jaw is completely 

absent and the two teeth in this rendition 

are inordinately large and amply serrated. 

The eye is more trough-shaped than 

crescent-like on this depiction. In place of 

the crossed-bands behind the head, we see 

6 

instead a series of diagonal lines associated 

with a wing-like cleft element. The lines 

probably represent gills while the cleft 

may substitute for the pectoral fin (see 

below). 

In addition to the shark iconography 

from Highland Mexico and the Gulf lowlands, 

depictions of the shark-monster have 

also been documented along the Pacific 

Coast. One such image, also executed on 

a portable medium, appears on the “Young 

Lord,” a greenstone figurine from the 

coastal region of Guatemala or El Salvador 

(Figure 2) (The Art Museum 1995; Clark 

and Pye 2000:226; Joralemon 1996a:55, 

1996c). This standing sculpture exhibits a 

complex iconography and displays incisions 

covering its arms, legs, and feet. Here we



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 

lower half of the body. 

Two incised zoomorphs are present on 

the legs of the Young Lord: a crocodilian/ 

earth dragon aspect on its left thigh and a 

fish supernatural/shark aspect on the 

figurine’s right thigh (Joralemon 

1996c:215; Reilly 1991, cited in The Art 

Museum 1995:281). The shark representation 

carries several of the conventions 

mentioned above, but adds a few as well. 

Additional iconographic elements surround 

the shark-monster and validate its aquatic 

context. 

First, we recognize the opened jaw 

with a reduced lower segment. A large 

tooth emerges from the front of the mouth; 

in this case, the tooth itself is bifurcated. 

A second, curved tooth appears behind the 

first and ends in a double merlon. The char- 

7 

acteristic large nose is apparent, as are the 

crossed bands positioned directly behind 

the shark-monster’s head. Three dots have 

been placed within these bands. The shark’s 

eye is more half-moon than crescent-shaped 

and is placed vertically rather than horizontally. 

An upper fringe or merlon is visible 

above the eye and a backward curving 

cleft represents a possible eyebrow. The 

tail is bifurcated and displays the finning 

evident on the pottery from Las Bocas. 

Additional images and anthropomorphic 

profiles surround the shark monster. 4 

Of particular note is the profile head embedded 

along the back of the shark 

supernatural’s body. The characteristics of 

this head are similar to the shark-monster 

itself: a long-lipped jaw with at least two 

prominent teeth; a bulbous nose; and an 

eye composed of a vertical half moon



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 

head is a double merlon, followed behind 

by an outturned or swept-back cleft element. 

In fact, this combination of double 

merlon and swept-back cleft graces the eyes 

of two of the three profiles that surround 

the shark. 5 

It may be tempting to simply gloss this 

swept-back cleft convention as another 

example of the oft-invoked “flaming eyebrow” 

of Olmec art. However, another 

rendering of the shark-monster from Highland 

Mexico suggests an interesting alternative. 

This image appears on an Early Formative 

ceramic plate from Tlapacoya (Joyce 

et al. 1991:Figure 4c; Niederberger 

2000:185). The Tlapacoya shark supernatural 

exhibits a suite of traits similar to those 

documented above (Figure 3). The fish 

zoomorph has a reduced lower jaw and two 

large teeth that emerge from the upper 

gum. Above the upper jaw is a large nose 

and the shark’s eye is well represented by a 

curved, crescent-like band. The body is 

8 

stocky and abbreviated with a rounded, 

bifurcated tail. 

This image is especially noteworthy for 

the several appendages that emerge from 

the body. These appendages represent fins 

and occur on both the dorsal and ventral 

portions of the shark-monster. The first 

two dorsal fins and the single ventral fin 

are cleft. Several of these fins have a 

curved, swept-back appearance. The characteristics 

of the remaining dorsal fins are 

unclear; they are either without clefts or 

they may simply reflect an artistic convention 

whereby the bifurcated fin is depicted 

in profile. 

The association of swept-back clefts 

and fish fins gains additional support 

through an independent identification made 

by Schele and Miller (1986:119; Plate 30). 

These scholars discuss a ceramic vessel excavated 

from below Group 9N-B at Copan, 

Honduras (Figure 4). The carved/incised 

image on the vessel includes a downturned, 

crescent-shaped element within an



outline that terminates in a bifurcation 

decorated with thin line finning. A second, 

smaller cleft erupts from the top of the 

image and is also curves backwards. Schele 

and Miller (1986:119) describe it thus: 

“The third vessel from the south building 

has an odd design terminating in a bifurcated 

shape scored with parallel lines. This 

motif and a smaller version to its left seem 

to be fish tails, but the remainder of the 

design does not correspond to a known 

naturalistic form.” Given the above discussion 

it is possible to identify the Copan 

image as a stylized shark-monster, complete 

with crescent eye (in this case downturned) 

and a cleft dorsal fin. David Grove 

(cited in Fash 1991:69) offers the same 

conclusion regarding the Group 9N-B vessel. 

The realization that clefts may substitute 

for dorsal fins encourages us to re-visit 

the Young Lord figurine and reconsider the 

profile head on the back of the shark-monster. 

I suggest that this profile head, with 

its swept-back cleft and crossed-crescent 

eye, may either depict an anthropomorphic 

shark supernatural or a personified version 

of the shark-monster’s dorsal fin. In either 

case, such representations suggest an 

early perception of the shark as a sacred 

and powerful entity (e.g., Schele and Miller 

1986:43-44). In addition, the possibility 

that the tails and dorsal fins of the Olmec 

shark-monster have a personified or anthropomorphic 

variant raises the question of 

whether there are frontal versions of these 

same supernaturals. 

In sum, a complex of several traits denotes 

the shark-monster in Olmec iconography 

(also Joyce et al. 1991:9). These traits 

include an elongated upper jaw and a re- 

9 

duced or abbreviated lower jaw. A single 

large tooth usually erupts from the front 

upper portion of the jaw; on occasion this 

tooth is bifurcated. One or more smaller 

teeth are placed behind the large front 

tooth. These secondary teeth are often 

curved backwards toward the interior of 

the jaw. 

The shark-monster often carries a bulbous 

or pug-like nose. This nose may be 

clearly depicted or it may only be suggested 

by a curved line. A crossed-band element 

frequently occurs behind the head of the 

shark-monster. In some cases this band is 

replaced by a series of lines and “wing-like” 

elements. These wing-like motifs are really 

the top of clefts and represent fins. The 

shark-monster’s tail is bifurcated. Other 

fins, especially the dorsal fin, are commonly 

portrayed as backward curving appendages. 

Fins can be augmented with a series of fine 

lines; this process of finning occurs on the 

dorsal fins as well as the shark-monster’s 

tail. 

The Shark-Monster as a Sacred 

Entity 

Although useful, the shark-monster 

identification made above is by no means 

novel—as already noted, several scholars 

recognized the particular piscine character 

of this zoomorph. Rather, based on the 

prior discussion it is now possible to detect 

the shark supernatural with greater 

confidence and perhaps even distinguish 

some of its geographical and chronological 

variants. We are also better equipped to 

consider the circumstances within which 

Olmec shark-monster imagery occurs. 

These circumstances are considered



below. First I address the rarer instances 

in which the provenience of relevant Olmec 

material is well established. This exercise 

underscores the apparent sacred nature of 

the shark-monster in Olmec thought. I 

then investigate several images in which the 

shark-monster interacts with human figures. 

These representations imply a 

Mesoamerican world-creation event in 

which a deity or mythic hero subdues the 

shark-supernatural, ultimately resulting in 

the formation of the world’s surface. Finally, 

I explore the association of the sharkmonster 

and ritual regalia. One set of examples 

involves scepters and batons tipped 

with a shark’s tooth. The second group of 

examples includes headdresses in which 

shark imagery plays a central role. In these 

cases the ruler appropriates the shark-supernatural 

imagery to exemplify and reinforce 

his position as axis mundi. 

Shark Imagery from Known 

Contexts 

In a series of studies dating to the 

1970s, Peter David Joralemon (1971, 1976) 

tentatively identified a suite of 

supernaturals that occurred in Olmec iconography. 

Among these representations 

was “God VIII,” one of four images that also 

appeared on the Las Limas figure. This 

sculpture, uncovered by children in the 

small village of Las Limas, Veracruz in 1965, 

consists of a seated, cross-legged individual 

holding a smaller individual across his lap 

(de la Fuente 1996; Joralemon 1996a). The 

God VIII profile is located on the left knee 

of the Las Limas figure (Figure 5). 6 Its 

defining characteristics are simple, but 

should now be familiar: a reduced lower 

10 

jaw, a single large tooth emerging from the 

upper gum, and an unfilled crescent that 

serves as the eye. Although this image is 

still occasionally characterized simply as a 

“Death God” (e.g., de la Fuente 1996:170), 

most scholars now accept it as the sharkmonster 

(Joralemon 1996a:55; Coe 

1989:76; Grove 2000:279-280). 

The presence of the shark supernatural 

on the Las Limas figure bespeaks the 

central relevance of this entity to coastal 

Olmec ideology. This importance is echoed 

in additional Gulf lowlands contexts. 

For example, a shark-monster effigy occurs 

within the spectacular jade cache from 

Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker 1955:Figure 

4, Plate 40c). This cache was discovered 

when excavations trenched Mound 1 at the 

site (Drucker 1943, 1955). Although this 

offering dates to the Classic Period, it contained 

many greenstone artifacts that appear 

to be Olmec in origin. The inclusion 

of the shark supernatural in this offering, 

as well as the presence of shark-monsters 

on Cerro de las Mesas stelae (see below), 

indicates the powerful longitudinal impact 

of this water beast along the Gulf lowlands. 

It should not be surprising, however, 

that shark remains per se are rare; as mostly 

cartilaginous creatures, sharks have few 

parts that will survive the ravages of time. 

Shark teeth, therefore, are the most common 

direct evidence for this fish in archaeological 

contexts (e.g., de Borhegyi 1961). 7 

Excavations at La Venta produced shark 

teeth in a highly ritualized context. During 

the 1942 field season, workers explored 

the area known as Complex A, located to 

the north of the great Mound C-1 (Drucker 

1952). A trench placed in Mound A-2 revealed 

a closed “tomb” constructed entirely



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 

bundle burials were found within this feature—based 

on osteological and dental indicators, 

Drucker (1952:23) concluded 

that both individuals were probably juveniles. 

Each bundle included a variety of objects. 

Among the items associated with 

Bundle #2 was a single shark’s tooth, the 

only such tooth in either of the burials 

(Druker 1952:26, 196). A later investigation 

by de Borhegyi (1961) indicated that 

11 

this was the tooth of a great white shark 

(Carcharodon carcharias). Coe (1989:79) 

reports that “great white shark teeth, perhaps 

in some cases of fossil origin, have 

been excavated at both La Venta and San 

Lorenzo.” Coe’s reference to “fossil origin” 

suggests that some of these examples 

are megalodon (Carcharodon megalodon) 

teeth; these teeth are particularly large 

(some exceed 10 cm in length) and derive 

from Miocene sharks. Megalodon teeth 

also occur as offerings at Palenque within



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 

Foliated Cross, and Temple V, North Group 

(de Borhegyi 1961:Table 1; Ruz-Lhuillier 

1958). 

Another relevant example of the association 

between shark teeth and ideological 

contexts comes from the Early Formative 

site of El Manatí, located just to the 

east of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán and southwest 

of La Venta (Ortiz C. et al. 1997). 

The El Manatí locale apparently served as 

a sacred location, a place where ritual objects 

including wooden busts, greenstone 

celts, and rubber balls were placed as offerings. 

The waterlogged conditions of El 

Manatí provide a preservation-friendly context, 

yielding unparalleled information on 

Olmec artifacts made from organic materials. 

Among the items recovered from the 

sacred spring is a cylindrical wooden baton 

or scepter more than three feet long 

(110 cm) (Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). A 

12 

shark’s tooth was embedded into one end 

of the baton; this end is ovoid and bulbous, 

recalling the characteristic nose of many 

Formative shark images (Figure 6). The 

baton was covered with red paint and may 

have been purposefully interred between 

two separate groups of wooden busts 

(Ortiz C. and Rodríguez 1999:243-244; 

Ortiz C. et al. 1997:89). The tooth-tipped 

scepter straddled strata X and IX, a position 

that dates the baton to the site’s Manatí 

phase (pre-1200 BC). 

The El Manatí finding, again under 

controlled excavation conditions, confirms 

that Olmec staffs were occasionally sanctified 

through their association with the 

shark-monster. The placement of the tooth 

on the end of a three-foot long pole also 

suggests that these batons were overt symbols 

of power and prestige, rather than everyday 

bloodletters. The fact that Olmec 

staffs were tipped with shark teeth also has 

implications for conventional identifica-



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 

be discussed below. 

The Shark-Monster and the World 

Creation 

The above examples demonstrate that 

shark referents were sacrosanct; they were 

incorporated into rituals and marked hallowed 

contexts. Nonetheless, shark-monster 

imagery is manifest in other ways. One 

such context involves depictions of the 

shark supernatural engaged with an anthropomorphic 

actor. 

Perhaps the clearest example of this 

13 

interaction comes from the Codex 

Ferjérváry-Mayer, a Postclassic-Period 

document from Mexico. According to Karl 

Taube (personal communication, 2004) 

Folio 42 of the Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer 

depicts Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli struggling 

with the great water beast Cipactli (Figure 

7). Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli ultimately looses 

his foot to the supernatural’s terrible maw. 

A parallel rendition of this event occurs on 

Folio 26 of the Codex Vaticanus B. This 

interaction is strongly reminiscent of an 

Aztec world creation myth. According to 

one version of the story, Quetzalcoatl and 

Tezcatlipoca engage Cipactli, ultimately



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, 

is transformed into the surface of the earth 

(e.g., Nicholson 1985:107). During the 

struggle Tezcatlipoca loses his leg to the 

water beast’s mouth (e.g., Miller and Taube 

1993:164). The fact that 

Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli substitutes for 

Tezcatlipoca in these images reminds us that 

the continuity hypothesis must be applied 

with caution. 

The zoomorph depicted in the Codex 

Ferjérváry-Mayer exhibits the tell-tale 

traits of the shark-monster: a reduced jaw; 

a single, large tooth emanating from the 

front of the upper gums with smaller teeth 

behind; and a bifurcated tail. According 

to the Historia de los mexicanos por sus 

pinturas: 

And then they created the skies, 

beyond the thirteenth, and they 

made water and created a great 

fish, called Cipactli, that is like a 

14 

crocodile, and from this fish they 

made the earth…Afterwards, 

when all four gods were together, 

they made the earth from the fish 

Cipactli, which they called 

Tlaltlecuhtil, and they painted it 

as a god of the earth, lying on top 

of a fish, since it was made from 

it” (Maria Garibay 1965:25-26, 

cited in López Luján 1994:254). 8 

Thus, while the Cipactli water beast of 

Postclassic accounts is often understood as 

a crocodile, it is instead a fish with some 

crocodilian attributes. 

Similar world-creation narratives permeate 

Mesoamerican ideology. One version 

among the Yucatecan Maya holds that 

Itzam Cab Ain (“Giant Fish Earth Caiman” 

[Taube 1993:69]) is slain by Bolon-ti-ku. 9 

Five trees are then raised on the back of 

the dispatched creature to support the sky. 

Perhaps the best-known version of the



Mesoamerican world-creation story comes 

from the Popul Vuh of the Quiché Maya 

(e.g., Edmonson 1971; Tedlock 1985). In 

this telling the hero twins battle a watermonster 

named Zipacna. Most scholars 

agree that Zipacna and Cipactli are lowland 

and highland variants of the same 

word; nonetheless, their etymology remains 

unclear. Interestingly, Edmonson 

(1971:36) indicates that a prior translation 

glossed Zipacna as “wise fish earth.” 10 For 

his part, Tedlock (1985:372) simply notes 

that the Quiche Maya term for crocodile is 

“ayin” rather than “zipacna” and observes 

that the word “ayin” is absent from the 

Popul Vuh. Thus, as de Borhegyi 

(1961:293) proposed over forty years ago, 

it is quite possible that the shark-monster 

played an early role in the Mesoamerican 

world creation myth. 

The examples just noted derive, of 

course, from the Postclassic Period. Nonetheless, 

several Formative-Period images 

represent a struggle between a human form 

and a shark supernatural; these renditions 

may recount an earlier version of the story. 

For example, Chalcatzingo Monument 5 

depicts a long, sinuous zoomorph with an 

almost beak-like mouth apparently in the 

act of devouring an individual (Figure 8). 

A long bifurcated element extends just 

behind the head of the human. 11 The 

zoomorph has occasionally been identified 

as a “feathered” or “avian” serpent (e.g., Coe 

1989:76; Joralemon 1996a:58; Taube 

1995:84), but an alternative reading is possible 

based on the following observations 

(also Joyce et al. 1991:5). 

First, the creature on Chalcatzingo 

Monument 5 exhibits several of the traits 

common to the shark-monster. Although 

the lower jaw is not reduced, the mouth 

15 

displays a long, larger tooth at the front 

followed by several backward curving teeth 

(compare with Figure 1). Also present is 

the accentuated nose common to Olmec 

versions of the shark-monster. Just behind 

the head are the crossed-bands that often 

accompany the shark-supernatural and a 

bifurcated/cleft dorsal fin adorns the back 

of the creature. 12 The tail is rounded at the 

end, but it carries two parallel clefts that 

are consistent with a fin identification. 

While some might be tempted to read these 

marks as a snake’s rattles, Angulo V. 

(1987:147) astutely observes that, if they 

depict rattles, the rattles are inverted. A 

greenstone Olmec “bloodletter handle” also 

shows a cleft on a shark-monster’s tail 

(Reilly 1995:Figure 35). In this case, a figure 

with a swept-back head “rides” the back 

of the shark supernatural. As discussed 

below, such “riders” may occasionally serve 

as personifications of the shark’s dorsal fin. 

Another fin appears just behind the 

shark-monster’s head on Chalcatzingo 

Monument 5. Elsewhere this appendage 

has been characterized as a “wing” or “pawwing” 

motif (e.g., Joralemon 1971:83). 

According to Angulo V. (1987:147), however, 

it is “a clearly carved, fish-like fin.” 

Taube (1995:84) flirts with a similar identification 

for Monument 5: “On the Olmec 

Avian Serpent, the paw-wings are immediately 

behind the head, like the pectoral 

fins of fish.” 13 The swirls just below the 

Chalcatzingo Monument 5 zoomorph have 

also been used to support a presumed aerial 

context; such swirls are sometimes associated 

with clouds or rain (e.g., The Art 

Museum 1995:121). Given the additional 

evidence, however, I agree with Grove 

(1968:489) and Angulo V. (1987:148) that 

in the present context the swirls are best



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 

adorn Olmec fish effigy ceramic vessels 

from Highland Mexico (e.g., The Art Museum 

1995:178, Plates 52 and 54; Benson 

and de la Fuente 1996:190). 

The interaction between the zoomorph 

and the individual depicted on Chalcatzingo 

Monument 5 provides additional clues to 

its meaning. At first glance it may appear 

that the shark-monster is in the process of 

devouring the human. However, a particularly 

insightful comment regarding this action 

allows for an alternative scenario: 

Esta feroz criatura está 

representada en el momento de 

devorar o de regurgitar a una 

figura humana. Este personaje está 

claramente delineado, excepto su 

pierna izquierda que está 

profundamente en la garganta del 

monstruo (Reilly 1994a:249, emphasis 

added). 

Thus, with the individual’s leg deep in the 

shark supernatural’s throat, we encounter 

the same relationship between actors indicated 

in the Ferjérváry-Mayer and Vaticanus 

B codices. Coupled with the evidence already 

discussed, it is reasonable to propose 

that Chalcatzingo Monument 5 represents 

an Olmec version of the world-creation 

story. 

A second artistic rendering may also 

represent this primordial clash. La Venta 

Monument 63 is a rarely discussed stela 

reported by Williams and Heizer (1965). 

The monument was found within the central 

area of La Venta, although the specific 

location is not indicated. It stands over 

seven feet tall (256 cm) and is sculpted on 

a basalt column. 

The image on La Venta Monument 63 

17 

depicts a smaller human who is facing and 

apparently struggling with a creature almost 

twice his height (Figure 9). The human 

may sport a small pointed beard and 

wears a headdress topped by a tied bundle. 

His left arm is raised and his fist is clenched; 

the arm awkwardly raps around the back 

of the fish zoomoph. His right arm hangs 

down toward the lower register of the stela 

and may actually grab the attenuated tail 

of the water creature. A fan-like element 

behind the human represents one of the 

shark supernatural’s fins. The shark-monster 

represented on La Venta Monument 

63 towers over the human figure, looking 

down with menacing intent. The 

creature has the long upper jaw and reduced 

lower jaw of Gulf lowland sharkmonsters; 

it also displays the bulbous 

nose associated with those same images. 

A series of teeth erupt from the upper 

jaw. A large dorsal fin appears at the top 

of the shark-monster’s head and several 

smaller fins are visible along its body. 

In their description of La Venta Monument 

63, Williams and Heizer (1965:19) 

quote Carlos Pellicer who simply describes 

the image as “a man hugging a monster.” 

Piña Chan (1989:239, Plates 78 and 79) 

identifies the stela as “a figure holding an 

enormous mythical fish with shark-like 

teeth.” More recently, Follensbee 

(2000:207) presents it as a “profile figure 

holding a huge, monstrous supernatural 

fish.” Although the human image is not 

depicted as one-legged, the scene clearly 

conveys a sense of impending peril. 

A third lowland monument, Izapa Stela 

3, may also represent this interaction. The 

sculpture comes from the Pacific Coast 

piedmont just along the Chiapas-Guatemala



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 

particularly noteworthy for its extensive 

body of megalithic monuments; although 

lacking inscriptions, Stela 3 probably dates 

to 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 place 

between a large human figure facing toward 

the viewer’s left and an equally large sinuous 

creature with a gaping jaw (Figure 10). 

The human figure wears an elaborate mask 

and headdress and, with his left arm raised, 

seems to threaten the creature with an L- 

18 

shaped object. 

Only the upper portion of the sharkmonster’s 

body is represented; it emerges 

from between the human figure’s legs. The 

result of this arrangement is that only one 

leg of the human is visible—the other leg 

is effectively missing. 14 The shark-monster 

has a long upper jaw, a reduced lower jaw, 

and a bulbous nose. A single, large bifurcated 

tooth erupts from the front of the 

gum line. As with the Chalcatzingo Monument 

5, a second, long bifurcated element 

is present. A fish barbel is clearly visible 

behind the shark-monster’s jaw. One ad-



ditional aspect of Izapa Stela 3 supports the 

identification of an aquatic context. Directly 

above the opened jaws of the sharkmonster 

is the profile of a human head positioned 

within a U-shaped outline. The 

human profile looks toward the action, as 

if intently watching the outcome. According 

to Smith’s (1984:27) analysis of Izapan 

sculpture, the “canoe-shaped U element 

with a human head…always appears in the 

context of water.” 

The shark-monster’s dorsal fin is particularly 

interesting in this rendition. Izapa 

Stela 3 includes a personified version of the 

shark-monster’s dorsal fin, a depiction that 

recalls the shark-monster engraved on the 

“Young Lord” figure (see Figure 2). The 

dorsal fin profile on Izapa Stela 3 is large 

and sweeps backwards; it displays a prominent 

nose and behind the head is a backward 

curving double merlon. The personified 

dorsal fin displays its own large tooth 

to emphasize its association with the sharkmonster. 

Although rendered using distinct 

styles, the similarities between the two 

images are noteworthy. Given that both 

Izapa Stela 3 and the Young Lord were found 

along the Pacific Coast, the personified, 

profile dorsal fin may well be a particular 

artistic convention of this coastal region. 

In sum, at least three different Formative-Period 

sculptures represent the 

struggle between a shark-monster and a 

human figure. 15 Moreover, in two of the 

three cases only one of the human’s legs is 

clearly visible. Thus, it is quite possible that 

these Formative monuments represent versions 

of a creation myth whose later Aztec 

telling pits a mythic hero against Cipactli. 

The hero loses his leg in the struggle, but 

19 

the battle’s outcome is the formation of the 

earth’s surface and a place to raise the axis 

mundi. 

One final aspect of the A-2 tomb burial 

at La Venta is relevant here. As noted above, 

a shark’s tooth was found with Bundle #2 

within the Mound A-2 basalt column tomb. 

According to Reilly (1994b:7), Bundle #2 

included an “unusually large shark’s 

tooth…on which was placed a translucent 

blue jade standing figurine…” The fact that 

the standing figurine was positioned on top 

of the tooth is consistent with the interpretation 

that the tooth (i.e., the shark pars 

pro toto) represents the interface of water 

and terra firma. 

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that 

these non-portable renditions of the primordial 

struggle appear at La Venta, Izapa, 

and Chalcatzingo. La Venta and Izapa are 

lowland sites situated along the Gulf Coast 

and Pacific Coast, respectively. 

Chalcatzingo is well-known for its Gulf 

lowlands connections—for example, 

Chalcatzingo is the only site outside the 

Gulf lowlands that contains a version of the 

lowland table-top throne (Grove 

2000:287). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest 

that this world-creation story originated 

in the isthmian lowlands but may have 

later traveled to other areas. It is also quite 

possible that, as it traveled through space 

and time, the story changed with each retelling. 

As these recountings took place, 

cultural groups likely replaced the coastal 

shark-monster with other mythological 

creatures more consistent with their respective 

environmental settings (e.g., de la 

Fuente 2000).



Figure 11. Olmec tooth-tipped scepters: (a) detail of scepter carried by Olmec “swimmer”. Redrawn from Taube 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 

As noted above, archaeological data 

from El Manatí demonstrate that a shark’s 

tooth was affixed to the end of long wooden 

scepters and batons. Although the unparalleled 

preservation at El Manatí makes this 

find almost unique, portrayals of such items 

are not. To date, similar artifacts have been 

identified as “torches,” “vegetation,” “feather 

bundles,” and “maize ear fetishes” (e.g., 

20 

Grove 1987; Joralemon 1971:16; Schele 

1995:106; Taube 2000). And while it would 

be unrealistic to suggest that all such depictions 

are tooth-tipped scepters, the El 

Manatí evidence indicates that at least some 

of them are. 

The tips of many such staffs are triangular, 

sometimes blunted at the end, and 

carry lateral tick markings (Figure 11). The 

tick markings may represent the serrations 

on the shark-monster teeth. Among the



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 

those staffs that also carry a double merlon 

(Figure 12). As noted above, the double 

merlon is associated with the personified 

dorsal fin of the shark-monster and also 

marks the second tooth of the Young Lord’s 

shark-monster (see Figure 2). In his discussion 

of “torches,” Grove (1987:64) proposed 

that the double merlon may have 

served as a tooth referent. Interestingly, 

21 

Bernal (1969:73) observed that the most 

common forms of Formative-Period human 

dental mutilation include a double 

merlon-like cut (A-2) on the end of the 

incisor and a series of ticks (D-4) along the 

laterals sides of the tooth. 

Taube (1995:90-91, Figure 9) notes 

that double merlons form earth bands at 

the bottom of several Formative-Period 

lowland stelae. Quirarte (1973:13-15;



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 designs” 

into smaller components that include 

“stepped frets” and “triangles.” When disaggregated 

in this manner, the earth bands 

can be read as a series of triangular shark’s 

teeth embedded within double merlons 

(Figure 13). Double merlons set within 

triangles also flank the mouth of the image 

on Stela C from Tres Zapotes (e.g., Coe 

1965:Figure 42). Double merlons appear 

on the mosaic masks from La Venta 

(Drucker 1952; Drucker et al. 1959). 

Reilly (1994b:10-11) relates these double 

merlons to the open mouth of the earth- 

22 

crocodilian (here identified as the sharkmonster). 

The observation that the shark 

tooth at the end of a scepter should be “embedded” 

within a double merlon gum line 

is perfectly consistent with these readings. 

In some instances the tooth-tipped 

scepter is paired with “knuckle-dusters” or 

“manoplas” (e.g., Grove 1987; Joralemon 

1971; Piña Chan 1989:Figure 150). According 

to Schele (1995:107), E. Wyllys 

Andrews proposed the now-widely accepted 

interpretation that these objects are 

horizontal sections of large conch shells. 

The precise function of these items remains



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 

identification is consistent with the marine 

context of the shark supernatural. 

Headdress Shark-Monsters 

Several Gulf lowlands sculptures manifest 

the shark-monster as an integral component 

of an individual’s headdress. La 

Mojarra Stela 1 is an excellent example 

(Figure 14); this sculpture was recovered 

between Tres Zapotes and Cerro de las 

Mesas, in the Papaloapan River drainage of 

23 

south central Veracruz. Although better 

know for its glyphic text (e.g., Justeson and 

Kaufman 1993), La Mojarra Stela 1 also 

contains complex iconography dating to the 

second century AD. The bas-relief image 

presents a figure facing toward the viewer’s 

right, clad in an elaborate costume and 

wearing an immense headdress. 

A representation of the shark-monster 

hangs off the upper, rear portion of that 

headdress (e.g., Stross 1994). Although the 

zoomorph’s eye is difficult to discern, the 

shark supernatural exhibits the diacritic



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 

noted previously. 16 Still more explicit are 

the four smaller shark-monsters perched 

along the back of the larger fish zoomorph. 

Each of these four smaller versions is depicted 

with a large tooth that erupts from 

an extended upper jaw. These shark 

supernaturals also display the characteristic 

bulbous nose and a backward arching 

dorsal fin. Finally, several of the images 

exhibit a heterocercal tail that occasionally 

accompanies shark-monster and other piscine 

representations from the Late Formative 

onward (compare with Figure 7). 17 

Two additional stelae include the sharkmonster 

as an integral component of the 

24 

ruler’s headdress. These sculptures are 

Cerro de las Mesas Stela 3 and the 

unprovenienced San Miguel Chapuletpec 

Stela (Miller 1991; Sterling 1943). Although 

the two monuments may have come 

from different locales, they clearly depict 

the same scene or commemorative event 

(Figure 15). Each stela contains a standing 

figure in profile, facing toward the viewer’s 

left. The left side of the monuments carries 

a glyph column—unfortunately, these 

glyphs are mostly eroded and have not been 

deciphered. The figures’ headdresses, although 

not exact copies, are strikingly similar. 

Seated atop a zoomorphic mask is the 

shark-monster. The creature has an opened



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 characteristic 

nose is better represented on the 

Cerro de las Mesas stela (Figure 15a), while 

the large front tooth is easier to identify 

on the San Miguel Chapultepec monument 

(Figure 15b). Like their La Mojarra counterparts, 

the bodies of both shark-monsters 

hang down toward the nape of the neck of 

the standing figure and exhibit a bifurcated 

tail. 

The shark-monster-as-headdress also 

occurs within the Maya region. These representations 

reveal an interesting divergence 

from the Gulf examples; within the 

Maya area the Late Formative-Early Classic 

shark-monster images are explicitly incorporated 

into the world tree (Figure 16). 

Two examples that clearly mark this integration 

are found on the Dumbarton Oaks 

Pectoral and Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Coe 

1966; Schele and Miller 1986:Plate 32a; 

25 

Stross 1994:12-13). In both cases the sharkmonster 

retains is place atop an individual’s 

headdress. Both images depict the shark supernatural 

with an opened mouth, clearly 

showing the extended upper jaw and reduced 

lower jaw. Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 (Figure 16b) 

also indicates the large front tooth of the 

shark-monster. Moreover, both images carry 

three dots on their body, reminiscent of the 

shark-monster imagery on the Young Lord and 

the tri-dot motifs on several tooth-tipped 

scepters. 

The most notable similarity among the 

two Maya versions of the shark-monster 

headdress is that their dorsal fins and tails 

are morphed into sprigs of foliage. Thus, 

these shark-monsters have become “world 

trees”; by donning this image, rulers declare 

themselves to be the axis mundi of their 

realm (e.g., Schele 1995; Schele and Miller 

1986:108-109).



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 anticipates 

these later depictions of the transition 

from shark-monster to world-tree 

headdress. Several of the greenstone celts 

reported in the literature appear to include 

elaborate headgear. Such regalia have been 

particularly difficult to decipher; our understanding 

of Olmec shark-monster imagery, 

however, may provide a clue. The 

cleft head is one of the most widely recognized 

elements of Olmec iconography. As 

we have seen, in certain contexts such a 

cleft may also substitute for the fin or the 

tail of the shark-monster. This association 

is reinforced when additional elements are 

added, such as thin-line finning and/or the 

crossed-band motif (e.g., Figures 1b, 1c, 

2a, 3, 4). 

Several Olmec figures wear these headdress 

combinations (Figure 17). For example, 

the tail of the shark-monster on the 

Young Lord is very similar to the headdress 

on an unprovenienced celt (Figure 17a) and 

a celt from Rio Pesquero (Figure 17b). The 

former includes both finning and the 

crossed-band design while the latter is accompanied 

by finning. The image on the 

Rio Pesquero celt also serves as a basis for 

a world tree. A third celt from Tabasco 

(Figure 17c) incorporates the crossed-band 

motif seen on a Las Bocas shark-monster 

and likewise provides a foundation for the 

axis mundi. 

As these examples demonstrate, 

Olmec iconography foreshadowed later 

depictions of the shark-monster as the basis 

for the world tree headdress. But these 

depictions are not constant through time. 

For example, an interesting divergence 

marks the Late Formative-Early Classic 

transition. Along the Gulf lowlands, the 

27 

more literal shark-monster zoomorph persisted 

within headdress depictions (e.g., 

stelae at La Mojarra and Cerro de las Mesas). 

In the Maya area, however, the image 

was transformed into a more obvious world 

tree (e.g., shark tail sprouting vegetation). 

Conclusion 

It is said that, were a fish to become 

self aware, the last thing it might notice 

would be its own watery milieu. This 

axiom is also applicable to Olmec research. 

With the innocent adoption of the very 

name Olmec, scholars’ attention was irresistibly 

drawn towards the terrestrial 

realm. Only recently have Olmec studies 

begun to appreciate the relevance of a maritime 

adaptation. 

This new awareness spills over into all 

aspects of research, including iconography. 

Again, visions of terrestrial denizens traditionally 

rule Olmec readings; in fact, 

Jiménez Moreno (cited in Bernal 1969:12) 

once suggested that the name Olmec be 

replaced with “Tenocelome” or “people of 

the jaguar mouth.” With a greater appreciation 

of coastal lifeways, however, we are 

able to approach this Formative-Period 

imagery anew. So, it should come as no 

surprise that, when we take a second look, 

aquatic motifs and referents become apparent. 

In this paper I have suggested that shark 

imagery ranks among the most important 

of these marine referents. But while sharks 

may be intimidating, that fact alone is no 

cause to celebrate them on megalithic 

sculpture, on greenstone celts, on ceramic 

vessels, and on headdresses and ritual regalia. 

The permeation of shark imagery in



Olmec iconography owes itself to something 

more basic, more fundamental, than 

the bad press of a particular fish. This pervasive 

iconography is rendered intelligible 

when we consider the role of the sharkmonster 

in ancient stories of world creation. 

Versions of this creation myth 

abound in Mesoamerica—in one form or 

another someone struggles with a fantastic 

water monster and usually has one less 

limb to show for their efforts. But through 

their victory the land surface is established 

and the world tree is raised. Such a feat 

certainly merits immortalizing in iconography 

and appropriation by the powers that 

be. The selfless act implied by this story 

may also account for the frequent association 

of shark-monster imagery and bloodletting. 

By letting blood, one recreates the 

sacrificial act of losing a limb or other body 

part. A possible function of bloodletting, 

therefore, is to replay the origin story and 

reaffirm the cosmic order. 

In sum, shark-monster representations 

are ubiquitous throughout Olmec iconography. 

But the case need not be overstated—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 represent 

different stories and other associations. 

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 artifacts 

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 

Acknowledgements 

A previous version of this paper was 

presented at the 2002 Midwest 

Mesoamerican Archaeology and Ethnography 

conference in Ann Arbor. Many participants 

there offered positive comments 

and suggested additional avenues to pursue. 

I would especially like to thank Joel 

Palka for his unflagging encouragement. 

Without his support and patience this effort 

may never have come to fruition. 

Conversations with David Mora-Marin 

have also been quite beneficial. Thanks to 

Julia Kappelman and Elizabeth Brumfiel for 

forwarding copies of unpublished papers or 

hard-to-acquire articles and to Karl Taube 

and David Grove for comments on an earlier 

version of this paper. Finally, thanks to 

Shannon Fie, who not only offered insightful 

comments on the paper and assisted 

with the figures, but graciously tolerated 

my incessant prattle about sharks and 

Olmec iconography.



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 the Young 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 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 to 

represent the lower portions of the world. These images are mirrored, however: a crocodilian earth dragon is represented 

on the left leg of the Young 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 sharkmonster. 

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 100 th annual meeting of the 

American 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. 

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 La Venta, 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 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 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, 


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 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. 

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 

New 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 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 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 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, 


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, 


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 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

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?