Jaguars and Were-Jaguars: Olmec Art and Iconography

Introduction

There is no question that jaguars were important to Mesoamerican religion and culture, and the Olmecs were no exception. However, previous interpretations of Olmec art and architecture appear to have erroneously placed more emphasis on the jaguar than is actually warranted. While a significant part of Mesoamerican culture, the jaguar did not play quite the all-encompassing role that many archaeologists have attributed to it. Specifically, the so-called "were-jaguar" motif might be representative of something other than a jaguar — or, at the very least, may contain elements of other animals in addition to the feline. Among the alternatives proposed, it has been suggested that the "were-jaguar" babies were, instead, crocodilians, toads, deformed human children, snakes, or iguanas. This essay examines the most convincing of these arguments: the possibility that the "were-jaguar" actually represents congenitally deformed babies, were-crocodilians, and toad mothers.

Background: Jaguars and Nahuales in Olmec Culture

The Olmec people are well known for their various sculptures, figurines, celts, and other artwork. At the heartland of their civilization, off the Gulf of Mexico coast near the Yucatan Peninsula, many examples of Olmec artwork have been discovered. These artworks reveal that the Olmec people were quite familiar with their jungle companions and incorporated them into their mythology on a frequent basis (Coe 2002).

The idea of animal-men — in which human traits are associated with those of one or more animals — was very prominent throughout the Olmec period. Archaeologists have also found two or more animals combined to form composite monsters. Over generations, such mythical beasts began to embody religious concepts for the Olmec and would eventually become anthropomorphic gods. These variations of animal-human and animal-animal combinations can be explained by the concept of nahual. A nahual may be an animal mythically associated with an individual human being so closely that his life depends upon that of the animal: if the animal is injured or dies, the man experiences the same injury or death. The nahual can also be the animal representation of a god. Throughout Mesoamerican prehistory, animals such as the serpent, the eagle, and the bat were revered, given special merit, associated with one another and with human beings, and effectively granted nahuales status (Bernal 1969: 98–99). As Nicholas Saunders has observed, "The physical and symbolic associations between large predatory cats, warfare, and pre-eminent social status are particularly evident in Mesoamerica, where images of felines, feline-like creatures, and humans with feline attributes, apparel, or accoutrements, are found in a number of chronologically and spatially separated cultures" (Saunders 1994: 104).

The jaguar, holding primacy among the Olmecs, could have been simultaneously the totem and the nahual of the supreme ruler. While today the jaguar is viewed as a large but seldom dangerous creature, remarkable chiefly for its spotted coat, this was not the view commonly held by prehistoric Mesoamericans. To them, the jaguar symbolized terror, the mysteries of the jungle, life, and the other world. It is no surprise that the jaguar permeates all forms of Olmec expression. As a deified animal, its essence is captured in magnificent jade sculptures, man-jaguar masks, and related objects. As Olmec culture developed, the jaguar image evolved as well, becoming far removed from a realistic representation of the animal as features characteristic of human beings and other animals — such as the bird and serpent — were added. Jaguars have even been found depicted with feathers over their eyes in place of eyebrows (Bernal 1969: 98–99). As Saunders observed, "There is nothing obvious in the way in which a culture will regard a particular animal, or in the way in which it may utilize the animal's empirical behaviour or appearance in its symbolic reasoning…" (Saunders 1994: 104). The image of the jaguar as held by the Olmec people should therefore be viewed as a cultural assessment, deriving its worth as an indicator of human activity (Saunders 1994: 104).

The "were-jaguar" is an iconic and important figure that archaeologists have unearthed from Olmec culture. This figure has come to be known by its distinctive "snarling mouth, toothless gums or long, curved fangs, and even claws," almond-shaped eyes, fleshy lips, and a cleft forehead (Coe 2002: 64). While scholars originally believed that the "were-jaguar" was linked to a religious mythology surrounding the copulation between a male jaguar and a female human, radically different interpretations have recently surfaced, along with disputes over the validity of the so-called copulation scenes themselves (Davis 1978).

The Were-Jaguar as Toad Mother

The V-shaped cleft on the top of the head of the "were-jaguar" and its toothless mouth — save for the fangs sometimes depicted — has inspired a different interpretation of this creature by Peter Furst. Furst asserts that this creature is not human at all, but rather the Earth Mother Goddess "in her manifestation as a jaguar-toad" (Furst 1981: 149). For Furst, the V-shaped cleft carries multiple meanings. It represents the feminine, creative portal between worlds. The Olmec acknowledged that "this cleft represents some sort of opening" connected with divinity (Furst 1981: 150). Drawing from various Mesoamerican iconographic studies, Furst determined that the V-shaped cleft functioned primarily as a "sipapu-like" place of emergence from and reentry into the divine, female earth — establishing a connection with the "earth mother." The second interpretation of the cleft that Furst advances is drawn from its strong resemblance to the V-shaped space seen at the top of a toad's head, which splits at a certain point during the molting process. He argues that the toad itself was a quite important animal in the Olmec world, with associations drawn between the toad, the earth, and fertility. Furthermore, the toad's successive amphibious metamorphosis, its toothless carnivorous nature, its frequent molting, and its long life span correspond to "some of the most fundamental aspects of Mesoamerican and Olmec cosmology and symbolism" (Furst 1981: 150).

Furst further supports his theory by pointing to the so-called "fangs" often found in the corners of the mouth of an otherwise toothless figure. He attributes the presence of these "fangs" to the natural molting process of toads: during the final stages of molting, the toad sucks any remnants of shed skin into its mouth, forming what could be mistaken for fangs by some observers. This molting process, Furst argues, was significant to the people of Mesoamerica as a representation of the cycle of death and rebirth — which explains why the toad was revered by the Olmecs. The fact that some effigies are cleft-headed but fangless while others lack a cleft but have fangs supports his thesis that the "were-jaguar" is more toad-like than anything else. These two types of effigies, Furst argues, are indicative of the same being in "different manifestations or symbolic contexts — the one the earth as genetrix…the other the earth in cyclical or seasonal renewal" (Furst 1981: 160). The process of regeneration undergone by species of toad found in Mesoamerica could have symbolized death and rebirth in the earth and its maize crops, with the toad holding an important association with both maize and rainwater in Olmec culture.

Furst's conception of the V-shaped cleft as depicting a toad stands in both unique and complementary contrast to the "were-jaguar" interpretation of the same creature. For Furst, it is not hard to conceive that the "were-jaguar" is actually an "anthropomorphically conceived toad with jaguar characteristics" that serves as a "classic example of transformation and mediation between contrasting but complementary beings, environments, and…cosmic realms" (Furst 1981: 150).

Conclusion

Whether the "were-jaguar" was indeed a jaguar, a toad, a caiman or crocodilian, a rattlesnake, or simply a deformed human being is still a matter of much debate. The arguments for and against each of these views are compelling, but we must remember that any one theory does not necessarily discount or negate the others. Cultures change, grow, evolve, and die out over time, as do the religions associated with them. It is thus quite possible that the "were-jaguar" represented each of the aforementioned possibilities at different intervals of the Olmec culture's progression through time. It is equally possible that at any given moment, more than one animal or meaning manifested concurrently in a single representation. Additionally, Olmec people living in different territories could have held different beliefs about the meanings of the figures: those from the lowlands might have seen such effigies as more crocodilian-like, while those of the highlands viewed them as more jaguar-like, reflecting the animal demographics of their respective regions.

Furthermore, as the images depict orally transmitted, culturally based religious beliefs, there may have been multiple stories using multiple symbols to represent a single myth. In Christian iconography, for example, the Christ figure can be represented by shepherds, sheep, fish, a cross, or the stereotypic image of Jesus — yet all still represent the central figure and belief of the Christian god. It could be that each of the aforementioned representations of the supposedly all-pervasive "were-jaguar" encompasses none, some, or all of the actual Olmec interpretations of this creature, while still representing different aspects of that central myth. As Saunders noted, "Form, content and style of representation can differ within and between societies, and for a variety of ecological, psychological, cultural and utilitarian reasons" (Saunders 1994: 106).

References Cited

Bernal, Ignacio. 1969. Olmec Society. In The Olmec World, pp. 86–106. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Coe, Michael. 2002. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Davis, Whitney. 1978. So-Called Jaguar-Human Copulation Scenes in Olmec Art. American Antiquity 43(3): 453–457.

Furst, Peter T. 1981. Jaguar Baby or Toad Mother: A New Look at an Old Problem in Olmec Iconography. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 149–162. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

Murdy, Carson N. 1981. Congenital Deformities and the Olmec Were-Jaguar Motif. American Antiquity 46(4): 861–871.

Saunders, Nicholas J. 1994. Predators of Culture: Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican Elites. World Archaeology 26(1): 104–117.

Stocker, Terry, Sarah Meltzoff, and Steve Armsey. 1980. Crocodilians and Olmecs: Further Interpretations in Formative Period Iconography. American Antiquity 45(4): 740–758.