THE SHARK-MONSTER IN OLMEC ICONOGRAPHY - Imaginary Year

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