THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

Recommendations

Info

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography” Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005) 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
PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography” Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005) 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
Page 1 and 2: PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-
Page 13: PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?