THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

Recommendations

Info

PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography” Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005) 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-
PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography” Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005) 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
Page 1: PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-
Page 5 and 6: PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-

THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?