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 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
PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography” Mesoamerican Voices, 2 (2005) 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
Page 1 and 2: PHILIP J. ARNOLD III, “The Shark-
Page 7: 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?