Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 24(1): 25, pp. 1-12, DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.472
GENERAL
Figure 3: Crocodilian tree – crocodiles used Figure 4: a) Izapa Stela 25 crocodilian fertil-
as symbol of fertility? Pugh, 2001: 250. ity symbol and b) Postclassic motif. Codice
Borgia, 1963: 27 (originally from De La
Fuente 2000:112).
(1971: 399) explanation of the 20-day signs 2000) advocates a duality among crocodil-
and the children born under them (any child ian imagery and usually relates this to maize
born under ‘Ce Cipactli’ being great tillers of symbolism, in effect pushing the idea that
the soil), in order to further underline the the crocodilian was regarded as a symbol of
view that the croc was a symbol of agricul- sustenance, fertility and abundance. Taube
tural fertility and master of crops during the (1996, 2000, 2004) refers to this imagery
Formative period. as ‘maize reptilians’. Adding to this sym-
Two characteristics of the crocodilian bolic view is the fact that crocodilians prey
which make it a good candidate for a fertil- on their food from underwater (regarded
ity symbol are the fact that a female croco- as a sacred underworld) and usually drown
dile can lay up to 70 eggs at one time and their prey before devouring them (Minton
their ability to congregate in large numbers, and Minton 1973: 58), thus conjuring a
unlike the jaguar for example, due to their supernatural affinity. Further, the booming
cold blood and their inability to over-heat; sound the crocodilians emit sounds very
imagine seeing hundreds of crocs writh- much like thunder and often startles peo-
ing around in a small swamped space, what ple at zoos (Minton and Minton 1973: 40).
would ones thoughts be regarding their fer- This may have been noted by the Olmecs and
tility? (Stone-Miller 2004: 56). maybe provided them with a rationale for
When looked at as a whole, the character the extension of the crocodilian’s powers to
traits displayed by the crocodilian make it include those of a rain deity especially since
an excellent candidate for a symbol of suste- the crocodilian was already associated with
nance, fertility and abundance. Taube (1996, fertility and abundance symbolism through
Takkou-Neofytou: Were-Jaguars and Crocodilians Art. 25, page 5 of 12
iconography (Stocker, Meltzoff and Armsey associated with cranial deformation. Murdy
1980: 748). (1981: 860) hypothesizes that a chief’s fam-
ily may have reinforced his position in soci-
Were-Jaguar versus Were-Crocodilian ety by using were-jaguar art and possibly
Now that I have established the roles that religion (if we accept that jaguars were dei-
the jaguar and the crocodilian played among ties), by linking their children’s deformities
their natural habitat and among the peoples with the ‘supernatural’ jaguar, insinuating
that shared those environments, I will look that the ruling family had ‘jaguar blood’
at issues surrounding the were-jaguar versus (Renfrew and Bahn 2012: 448). Of course
were-crocodilian argument. this cannot be proven but some scholars
Much of the work surrounding the ‘were’ share their interpretation as fact, which,
figures (anthropomorphised/zoomorphic according to Hodder (1985) makes it sub-
figures) has focused solely on the jaguar and ject to cross-cultural generalisations and
the Olmec’s ability to incorporate stylisation underlying bias, instead of being presented
and form into their art and iconography, as a possibility for further assessment and
but those generic ‘feline’ identifications still examination.
heavily influence perceptions and interpre- Taube (1996, 2000) insists that the
tations of Formative period art today (Grove v-shaped cleft is actually the ‘overlapping
2000: 278). However, Grove (2000) also iden- green husks’ (ibid., 300) that surround the
tifies some studies that have demonstrated cob. Indeed, this is very possible as are the
many other animals in anthropomorphic other interpretations that have been laid
and zoomorphic forms of art that were once forth. However, this does not mean that the
deemed ‘jaguar’, such as Stocker et al (1980) presence of maize motifs and symbolism
and Joralemon (1976, 1996). For example, alludes to a deified character that only repre-
‘the human form is the focus of Olmec art. [… sents a ‘maize god’.
but] Olmec sculptures often portray compos- Alternatives to the jaguar were dismissed
ite beings that are biologically impossible, until Lathrap (1971) demonstrated that the
mingling human traits with characteristics of Atlihuayan figure from Morelos wore a cai-
various animals’ (Joralemon 1996: 51). Here, man pelt rather than a jaguar pelt. Muse
Joralemon is also referring to ‘were-jaguars’ and Stocker (1974) took Lathrap’s work fur-
that are often displayed with cleft foreheads ther by comparing the iconographic traits of
and an upturned, open mouth. The body is the ‘were-jaguar’ to the biological forms of
usually sexless and rotund. Scholars such as the caiman and successfully identified the
Murdy (1981) and Renfrew and Bahn (2012) major traits of the Olmec ‘were-jaguar’ as
believe that the were-jaguar artistic form is being caiman (e.g. hand-paw, flame-eyebrow,
evidence of congenital deformities, but it cleft-head, upturned-snout/lip, and usually
is only possible to use limited pieces of art, crossed teeth (see figures 5a, 5b and 6)).
such as the Las Limas Monument 1, to sup- This type of development in interpretations,
port this theory. On the other hand, Taube including re-assessment of previous interpre-
(1996) makes a case for reinterpretation of tation, is epitomised by Grove. Chalcatzingo
some anthropomorphised art work as hav- Monument 1 was first described by Grove
ing ‘maize god’ features, or even being whole (1968: 486) as an ‘earth monster mouth’,
maize gods. His reasoning relates to politi- then as a ‘jaguar monster mouth’ (1972:
cally motivated artwork aimed at attracting 161), and finally reinterpreted as a ‘serpent
foreign peoples into the Olmec economic mouth’ (2000: 278) after he had synthesised
network through trade and exchange of agri- the newly understood features of serpent
culture (ibid., 76). representations.
Coe (1972) has argued that the cleft- At this point it is important to note that
forehead represents spina bifida, which is I have no intention of diminishing the
Art. 25, page 6 of 12 Takkou-Neofytou: Were-Jaguars and Crocodilians
Figure 5: a) jaguar3 and b) caiman: note the ‘were’ qualities of the caiman.4 The cleft in the
forehead region and the upturned snout are clearly noticeable on the caiman, whereas the
jaguar does not have the features most scholars would label ‘were-jaguar’. In fact, check
every crocodilian related figure in this paper and note the upturned snout and the spots on
the skin of the crocodilians that may sometimes be misconstrued as jaguar spots.
Figure 11: a) Potrero Neuvo Monument 2, c.1000–800 BC8 and b) the El Azuzul twins
c.1200–800 BC.9
Evans, S. T. 2004 Ancient Mexico and Central and Some Speculations on their Possible
America: Archaeology and Culture His- Significance’. World Archaeology 5, 170–
tory. Thames and Hudson: London. 186. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00
Furst, P. T. 1968 ‘The Olmec Were-jaguar 438243.1973.9979564
Motif in Light of Ethnographic Reality’. In Lathrap, D. 1973 ‘Gifts of the Cayman’. In
Benson, E. (ed.) Conference on the Olmec. Lathrap, D. and Douglas, J. (eds) Variation
Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 143–175. in Anthropology. Urbana: Illinois Archaeo-
Grove, D. C. 1968 ‘Chalcatzingo, Morelos, logical Survey, 96–106.
Mexico: A Reappraisal of the Olmec Rock Maarten, J. 2001 ‘Borgia, Codex’. In Car-
Carvings’. American Antiquity 33, 468– rasco, D. (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopaedia
491. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civiliza-
278598 tions of Mexico and Central America. Vol-
Grove, D. C. 1970 ‘The Olmec Paintings of ume 1. Oxford and New York: Oxford
Oxtotitlan Cave, Guerrero, Mexico’. Stud- University Press, 94–98.
ies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology McEwan, C. 2009 Ancient American Art in
6, 2–26. Detail. London: British Museum Press.
Grove, D. C. 1973 ‘Olmec Felines in High- Minton, S. A. and Minton, M. R. 1973 Giant
land Mexico’. In Benson., E (ed.) The Cult Reptiles. New York: Charles Scribner’s
of the Feline. Washington: Dunbarton Sons.
Oaks, 153–165. Murdy, C. N. 1981 ‘Congenital Deformi-
Grove, D. C. 2000 ‘Faces of the Earth at Chal- ties and the Olmec Were-Jaguar Motif’.
catzingo, Mexico: Serpents, Caves, and American Antiquity 46/4, 861–871. DOI:
Mountains’. In Clarke, J. and Pye, M.E. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280112
Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamer- Muse, M. and Stocker, T. 1974 ‘The Cult of
ica. Washington: National Gallery of Art the Cross: Interpretations in Olmec Ico-
and New Haven/London: Yale University nography’. Journal of the Steward Anthro-
Press. pological Society 5, 67–98.
Hodder, I. 1985 ‘Postprocessual Archae- Pugh, T. W. 2001 ‘Flood Reptiles, Serpent
ology’. In Schiffer, M (ed) Advances Temples, and the Quadripartite Uni-
in Archaeological Method and Theory. verse’. Ancient Mesoamerica 12, 247–258.
Volume 8. New York: Academic Press, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S09565
1–26. 36101122042
Joralemon, P. D. 1976 ‘The Olmec Dragon: A Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1975 The Shaman
Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography’. In and the Jaguar: A Study of Narcotic Drugs
Nicholson, H. B. (ed.) Origins of Religious Among the Indians of Colombia. Philadel-
Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoa- phia: Temple University Press.
merica. Los Angeles: UCLA, 27–72. Renfrew, C. and Bahn, C. 2012 Archaeology:
Joralemon, P. D. 1996 ‘In Search of the Theories, Methods and Practice. London:
Olmec Cosmos: Reconstructing the Thames and Hudson.
World View of Mexico’s First Civilization’. Sahagún, B. 1950–1982 Florentine Codex:
In Benson, E.P. and de la Fuente, B (eds.) General History of the Things of New
Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington: Spain (Translation of and introduction
National Gallery of Art. to Historia General De Las Cosas De La
Kubler, G. 1973 ‘Jaguars in the Valley of Nueva España; 12 volumes in 13 books,
Mexico’. In Benton, E. (ed.) The Cult of by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. O
the Feline. Washington: Dunbarton Oaks, Anderson.) Salt Lake City: University of
19–49. Utah Press.
Lathrap, D. 1971 ‘Complex Iconographic Saunders, N. J. 1994 ‘Predators of Culture:
Features Shared by Olmec and Chavin Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican
Art. 25, page 12 of 12 Takkou-Neofytou: Were-Jaguars and Crocodilians
Elites’. World Archaeology 26/1, 104–117. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29/30,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/004382 39–81.
43.1994.9980264 Taube, K. 2000 ‘Lightning Celts and Corn
Stocker, T., Meltzoff, S. and Armsey, S. 1980 Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the
‘Crocodilians and Olmecs: Further Inter- Development of Maize Symbolism in Mes-
pretations in Formative Period Iconogra- oamerica and the American Southwest’.
phy’. American Antiquity 45/4, 740–758. In Clarke, J. and Pye, M.E. (eds) Olmec Art
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280145 and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Wash-
Stone-Miller, R. 2004 ‘Human-Animal ington: National Gallery of Art and New
Imagery, Shamanic Visions, and Ancient Haven/London: Yale University Press.
American Aesthetics’. RES: Anthropology Taube, K. 2004 Olmec Art at Dumbarton
and Aesthetics 45, 47–68. Oaks: Pre-Columbian Art at Dumbarton
Taube, K. 1996 ‘The Olmec Maize God: The Oaks. No.2. Washington: Harvard Univer-
Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica’. sity Press.
How to cite this article: Takkou-Neofytou, R 2014 Were-Jaguars and Crocodilians: A Need
to Redefine. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 24(1): 25, pp. 1-12, DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.5334/pia.472
Copyright: © 2014 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology is a peer-reviewed
open access journal published by Ubiquity Press
OPEN ACCESS