THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

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