Jenks Hehmeyer
ANTH 281
Professor Foias
Animal Coessence in The Seeds of Divinity: Naturalism, the Gods, and the Souls
Introduction
In this essay, I provide my analysis of three pieces from the upcoming The Seeds of
Divinity exhibit at the Williams College Museum of Art (WCMA). The exhibit includes objects from five Precolumbian Mesoamerican civilizations: the Aztec, Maya, Teotihuacan, Zapotec, and West Mexico/Nayarit.
One of the pieces covered by this paper, WAM 1966.52, is of Aztec origin. The Aztec empire was founded by the Mexica people of central Mexico in 1428, and lasted less than a century, with the Spanish conquest marking its end in 1521 (Conrad and Demarest 1984). During this short time, the Aztec developed great military strength, a massive central urban center at the capital Tenochtitlan, and a complex set of religious practices that often involved human sacrifice.
The Aztec pantheon of gods features many well-known deities, including the feathered serpent
Quetzalcoatl, the rain god Tlaloc, and the Mexica patron god Huitzilopochtli. Worship of these gods often involved the creation of localized embodiments, or teixiptlahuan, in which a human being or an inanimate object took on the appearance of a god, and in doing so, could temporarily become that god. Human teixiptlahuan were often sacrificed themselves, while inanimate teixiptlahuan were often worshiped with sacrifices of humans or animals, and by other rituals
(Bassett 2015). Hehmeyer 2
The other two pieces—WAM 1985.100 and 1929.77—are Zapotec effigy urns. The
Zapotec civilization lasted from approximately 700 B.C. to the time of the Spanish conquest.
Comprised of a group of villages and cities in the Valley of Oaxaca in Southern Mexico. The
Zapotec people are marked by their shared language and beliefs. Its most important urban center,
Monte Alban, was constructed in what was likely a response to nearby military activity. The city would gradually grow over time, conquering neighboring groups and expanding its influence, before collapsing in about 900. The two Zapotec urns likely originate from what archeologists have designated as the second period of Monte Alban, or “Monte Alban II”, lasting from 100
B.C. to 200 A.D. (1929.77, 1985.100). By this time, Monte Alban had grown to a population of over 14,000 and featured major social stratification, including a powerful ruling class (Marcus and Flannery 1996).
The exact meaning of the famous Zapotec effigy urns has only recently been uncovered.
Although commonly found in a mortuary context, the urns likely were used in important religious rituals, before being buried alongside deceased members of the ruling class (Sellen
2002). It is believed that these urns are representations of deities, or, at the very least, of venerated ancestors impersonating deities. They all have specific attributes that likely are associated with specific gods, and were likely involved with religious rituals meant to contact such gods (Lind 2015: 53).
Ancient Mesoamericans believed in multiple types of souls. Each soul has its own properties and locations where it can be found within the human body. One soul recognized by several civilizations is the animal coessence, a soul shared between a person and their companion animal. This soul was referred to as the nahualli by the Aztec and the way by the Maya Hehmeyer 3
(Monaghan 1998). The existence of this type of soul is of great significant for the pieces analyzed in this paper.
Mesoamericans also had a concept of animacy, something that is closely related to the souls but was applied much more broadly to the natural world. The capacities of sight and breath, for example, were seen as clear indications of animacy. It is for this reason that many Aztec pieces, including WAM 1966.52, contain indentations at the locations of the eyes and inside of the mouths. Stone or shell insets would have been placed within such places. With such insets, an inanimate object can see and/or breath, and therefore is on the way to being an animate being.
For sight, this concept goes the other way as well. To be animate, something must not only see animately, but also be animately seen: giving something the appearance of vitality was also necessary to make it so (Bassett 2015).
These pieces may seem like artwork to western audiences, but to the ancient Mexica and
Zapotec who made and used these objects, they were sacred living things, a means of interacting with the gods. This paper explores how the forms and meanings of these pieces closely align with the natural world, and how they so effectively convey the animacy and divinity that
Mesoamericans saw in everything.
The Composite Animal: The Nahual of the Morning Star
WAM 1966.52 is an Aztec volcanic stone sculpture (Figure 1). Little is known of the piece’s origin. The sculpture is similar in style to two other known Aztec animal sculptures, both also of unknown provenance (Figure ). These sculptures all share a smooth connected relief style, stylized spiraling ears, intended eyes, and talon-like claws. The exact use of these Hehmeyer 4 sculptures is not known, though one could speculate that they were kept in temples as minor effigies.
The piece has been given the title “Composite Animal” because of its chimeric makeup.
Most noticeably, the body is covered with protective plates like an armadillo. It features the segmented anatomy of the nine-banded armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus, but most closely resembles the body of the northern naked-tailed armadillo, Cabassous centralis, with a cusp to its plates, and long claws (Figure 5).
But what about the head? Its sharp carnivorous teeth, round spiraling ears, and a raised but stubby nose are certainly not traits of an armadillo. When purchased, a curator at the
Worchester Museum of Art identified the head as that of a dog (Worchester 1966.52). While it does not seem that the Mexica creator intended to represent a dog’s face, this assessment is not entirely incorrect. The face of the animal closely resembles that of the free-tailed or mastiff bats of the Molossidae (Figure 6a), so called because of the resemblance of their face to that of certain breeds of Old World dogs. New World dogs, however, do not share appearance with these bats nor with the sculpture (Figure 6d). It is also possible that this is the face of a vampire bat, subfamily Desmodontinae (Figure 6c), which had special significance amongst the Mexica due to its habit of drinking blood, the medium of the tonalli soul and the material sacrificed to the gods.
While the armadillo does not have any known religious meaning among the Mexica, one god is known to take a bat form. In an analysis of Aztec codices, Seler identifies four versions of the planet Venus, one for each of the four quadrants of the Mesoamerican Earth. The Eastern form is a “bat man”, as seen in the Precolumbian codices Vaticanus B, Borgia, and Fejervary-
Mayer (Figure 7). This bat god wears articles of Quetzalcoatl, and is always seen holding Hehmeyer 5 sacrificial victims. In the Codex Borgia, the bat god makes a sacrifice by the use of a throwing spear, while standing next to the sun god Tonatiuh (Seler 1902: 197).
The imagery of the throwing spear—demonstrative of a moving celestial body—and the sacrifice to the sun allowed Seler to identify this easterly bat god as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, god of Venus when it is visible in the morning. The appearance of Venus as seen from Earth demonstrates why Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli has these traits. Venus is an inferior planet; it is closer to the sun than Earth. As such, it would appear to move with the sun across the sky if it could be seen at all times. However, the brightness of the sun generally prevents Venus from being seen.
Instead, Venus is visible from Earth at two times, depending on the stage of its 582 day cycle.
When on one side of the sun relative to the Earth, Venus appears as the evening star. As the sun sets and the sky darkens, the evening star Venus becomes visible in the west above the sun.
Trailing behind the sun, it slowly dips below the horizon over the first one to three hours of the night. When on the other side of the sun, Venus appears as the morning star. The morning star appears in the east at the end of the night. It rises upwards over the horizon and is followed one to three hours later by the sun, which gradually brightens the sky until Venus is no longer visible
(Cain 2015).
Venus as the morning star was understood to be Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli by the Aztec.
Venus moving above the horizon was interpreted as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli exiting his home—the underworld—followed by a sacrificially re-energized Tonatiuh.
Current literature relates Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli to the bat but not the armadillo. However,
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli is not the only Mesoamerican Venus god. Working with the Mayan
Dresden Codex, Finley identifies the morning star Venus as a way of five gods. Each god holds a spear which he is about to throw, and the glyphs next to them relate to the sunrise. Quetzalcoatl Hehmeyer 6 was introduced to the Maya during the Post-Classic, and these gods are likely impersonating
Quetzalcoatl’s Morning Star Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli form (Finley 2005).
One of these Maya Venus gods is God L. Kerr and Kerr identify the armadillo as the way of God L based on several Maya vases and a figurine: in most portrayals, God L actually bears resemblance to an armadillo, with a shell-like cloak, a long nose, and claw-like fingers (Kerr and
Kerr 2006: 78). God L is also an underworld god, just like Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli (Finley 2002;
Kerr and Kerr 2006: 75).
There is evidence that the existence of a Venus god with armadillo attributes is not restricted to the Maya pantheon. A group of three figures made by the Veracruz Remojadas have been identified as sun, moon, and Venus deities (Mursell 2009; Figure 8). The smallest of the three features a zoomorphic face, with a long nose and almond-shaped eyes.
Based on its significance in other Mesoamerican cultures, it is likely that the armadillo was also associated with the Aztec god Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, and that the chimeric bat- armadillo portrayed in WAM 1966.52 is his nahual. Both bats and armadillos actually have an observable relationship with Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli. Although commonly considered nocturnal, many species of armadillos and mastiff bats are better described as crepuscular, or most active at dawn and dusk (Esbérard and Bergallo 2010: 1012; McBee and Baker 1982: 5). Bats and armadillos also often both live underground: many bats nest in caves, and armadillos dig burrows. As crepuscular animals, bats and armadillos would be seen coming out of the ground approximately when Venus appeared in the sky, and going back into the ground at about the time when Venus disappeared. To the ancient Aztecs, bats and armadillos would appear to rise from the underworld with Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, the god with which they share a soul.
Hehmeyer 7
The Urn with Canid Snout: An Animal Transformation
WAM 1985.100 is an incomplete Zapotec effigy urn (Figure 2). It is broken at the neck, such that the standing or seated body that once supported the head is missing. Still, much can be gleamed from what is available. For one thing, the piece has both human and animal aspects.
Despite human ears, the face has the traits of a carnivorous mammal. Once wrongly interpreted as being a jaguar, it is evident that the urn features the snout of a canid, with twelve circles representing whiskers both on the snout and above the eyes. Furthermore, the waving mouth, highly visible teeth, and curved lines between the whiskers—representing folded over skin— demonstrate that this animal is baring its teeth, as an aggressive canid will do. Which of the wild canids found in Mexico is being depicted cannot be narrowed down for certain, as all have the fur coloration patterns that match those indicated by the incised lines on the urn face (Figure 9).
However, the coyote is known from at least one major Zapotec myth (Falconi 2013: 632), and countless others from the rest of Mesoamerica and the New World. As the most mythologically significant canid, it is most likely that the coyote is the mammal being portrayed here.
The combined human and canid characteristics suggest that this urn could represent an individual impersonating his or her animal coessence. The Zapotec are known to have animal coessences, which they refer to as tona (Lind 2015: 220). It was the job of the colani, or community priest, to bring children to the countryside to help them identify their companion animal. A child’s imitation of their animal “sealed the pact between the companion animal (Lind
2015: 220). It is quite likely that ancient Zapotec rituals involved impersonating one’s animal coessence, possibly with the assistance of drug- or bloodletting-induced trances.
A broken blood glyph (Sellen 2007: 255) may be found on the right ear. The left ear likely also had one before the piece broke. This glyph—or, perhaps more accurately, this stylized Hehmeyer 8 drop of blood—indicates that the figure is partaking in a bloodletting ritual. Additionally, a hole is visible in the middle of the tongue, which protrudes from the center of the mouth. Zapotec people were known to carry out autosacrificial bloodletting in colonial times; the two most popular body parts from which to draw blood were the tongue and the ears (Lind 2015: 87).
Sellen believes that Zapotec urns were used to burn incense and autosacrificial blood, amongst other materials, depending on the ritual (Sellen 2002: 17). The Chamula Tzotzils, contemporary
Mayans, identify one of the three souls, the ch’ulel, as being found on the tip of the tongue.
Every person has a unique ch’ulel, except that one’s ch’ulel is identical to the ch’ulel of one’s animal companion, who also has its ch’ulel on its tongue (Gossen 1996: 94). It is possible that, for the Zapotec too, the tongue, mouth, or breath represented a location of shared soul with one’s animal coessence; in such a case, bloodletting while impersonating one’s animal coessence would be powerful ritual. Alternatively, the bloodletting ritual portrayed in this piece may be what is allowing the individual to transform into their tona.
The mouth features two other protrusions that are quite different from the tongue. At the end of each side of the mouth is a rounded element with three incised lines (Figure 10a). These curling projections are probably meant to show the flow of air out of the mouth. The Maya believed in ik’, or the “breath of life”, a concept paralleled by the Aztec ihiyotl, a soul that took the form of breath and speech (Furst 1995: 156). In Maya iconography, a strong scent—whether pleasant or foul—is depicted as a symmetric pair of outward-turning spirals (Figure 10b, c).
Other spirals can also represent speech or breath. Similar imagery can be found in works from most major Mesoamerican civilizations (Houston et al. 2006: 147). This includes the Zapotec; speech scrolls are seen in the Arroyo group murals at Mitla (Lind 327), and spirals are seen coming out of the mouth of a deer in a Zapotec lintel of unknown provenance (Figure 10d). Hehmeyer 9
In the case of WAM 1985.100 the breath scrolls could allude to the breath scroll, speech, or smell. The scrolls could refer to the particularly repugnant scent of canid breath, as the popular notion goes. A mural of unknown provenance depicts a coyote with an elaborate scroll flowing from his jaws. However, as flowers are seen, the scroll of that coyote, as well as those of
WAM 1985.100, may not convey smelliness but the agreeable odors associated with divinity. In some Mesoamerican civilizations, nocturnal predatory animals like coyotes were only the animal coessences of members of the ruling class (Gossen 1996: 97), who would have strived to have aromatic breath like a god.
Whether or not scent is associated with the air being expelled, sound most certainly is.
The aggressive facial features establish that the figure is growling; compare the urn to an image of a growling coyote (Figure 9d). A growl, as a low-pitched noise made through closed teeth, does feel like it emanates out of the two edges of the mouth rather than through the middle. In this way, the “growling scrolls” of WAM 1985.100 give breath and therefore animacy to the coyote-person while also serving as a comprehensible embodiment of an invisible but real feature of the animal.
Not all of the features of this piece can be explained by realism. Besides being a hybrid human/canid, the face has noticeable supernatural features in the form of its large round eyes and swirling eyebrows. These traits are known elsewhere in Zapotec imagery. The Xicani, a serpent- or turtle-like character, also sports these features (Figure 11a). However, little is known about the
Xicani. The Xicani could be a deity, mythological creature, or other supernatural being. Sellen has proposed that Xicani are associated with shapeshifting due to the creature’s similarity to the
Mixtec Yahui (Sellen 2015: 162). Lind suggests that Xicani is not a being but an ability bestowed upon individuals by Pitao Peeze, god of sorcerers, allowing them to transform into animals (Lind Hehmeyer 10
2015: 22). An urn is known from Monte Alban that features a headdress fronted with a Xicani head and two bat faces (Figure 11c). These bat faces also have curling stylized eyebrows. Other animal-faced urns are known that display identical mystic eyebrows, while, like this piece, otherwise lacking Xicani imagery (Figure 11b, d). It is possible that WAM 1985.100 and these other pieces represent humans or deities using the power of Xicani to transform into animals.
Whether or not this is the case, these eyebrows have a strong connection to zoomorphic figures and masks, and may relate to the assumption of animal form by a human. The combined zoomorphic, bloodletting, and supernatural imagery suggests that WAM 1985.100 represents an individual partaking in ritualistic and trance-induced transformation into a coyote or other wild canid.
The Urn with Buccal Mask: A Zapotec Xok
WAM 1929.77 is an urn fragment in the form of a realistic human face with a buccal mask (Figure 3). This mask is nearly identical to that of a previously studied Zapotec urn, MO 6-
462, which is not missing its body (Figure 12). This urn also has a complete tongue, unlike
WAM 1929.77: WAM 1929.77 has a three-segmented tongue that is broken off below the chin, while the tongue of MO 6-462 is smooth but trifurcated, or splitting into three parallel lobes at its end. Another bodied piece, IV-56 No. 2, is of the same facial style and three-segmented tongue, although its tongue and mask are chipped (Figure 13).
Due to their similarities, it seems safe to assume that these three pieces, in their original form, depicted the same figure, and that WAM 1929.77 and IV-56 No. 2 also had trilobal tongues before they were broken. Additionally, as MO 6-462 and IV-56 No. 2 both sport a Hehmeyer 11 beaded necklace, and IV-56 No. 2 also has beaded bracelets. Thus, WAM 1929.77 likely wore some of this jewelry as well.
While the beads and cylindrical headdress, along with a blood glyph hanging from the
WAM 1929.77’s single present ear, confirm the general assumption as to what the urn is displaying—an individual of power partaking in a ritual—the buccal mask provides more specific meaning. Caso and Bernal list the “god with buccal mask of a snake” as one of the main classes of Zapotec urns, and propose that it represents a Zapotec adaptation of the Aztec god
Quetzalcoatl (1952:145). However, Sellen (2007) notes that urn figures with serpent masks may wear many different types of clothing and other adornments. Sellen asserts that the serpent mask is not a diagnostic feature but an element that can be added to many types of urns representing different gods or rituals, presumably as some sort of supplementary meaning. Sellen notes that there is no evidence that it is a mask of Quetzalcoatl, nor that the Zapotec even recognized a serpent deity (Sellen 2007: 181). Instead, he speculates that the mask could relate to Pitao Peeze, deity of omens: serpents were considered bad omens in ancient Mesoamerican culture (Sellen
2007).
Although noting that some of the serpent masks feature a single central tooth rather than the two symmetrical fangs expected for a snake, Sellen fails to reference the connotations this configuration had for other Mesoamerican civilizations. Figure 14 shows two examples of Maya pieces featuring xok masks. The xok, (Maya for “shark”) was an important creature in Maya mythology. Although referring to the real animal, inland Mayas, as well as the Olmec, conceived of the xok as a sort of shark-monster, as it featured both “real and imagined” traits (Newman
2016: 1522). Kovac notes that the xok could be inspired by the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas, as it is capable of surviving in fresh water and could have occasionally swam up rivers far inland Hehmeyer 12
(2013: 151). However, it is more likely that the image of the xok evolved through the sharing of stories—and occasionally shark teeth—amongst coastal and inland peoples. For one thing, the xok only has teeth on its overly sized upper jaw, and has one very large tooth in the center of its mouth. Newman suspects inland Maya only saw incomplete halves of shark jaws, and therefore thought of the xok as only having an upper jaw (2015: 1530). Additionally, these people likely encountered the massive fossil teeth of extinct sharks, as these objects are known from Olmec and Maya sites (Arnold 2005; Newman 2015). However, these teeth are generally found alone— as sharks lose and replace teeth constantly one by one—such that “if the teeth from extant sharks were commonly transported inland as singular elements, the Maya the jungles of Chiapas may have logically suspected that enormous, single-toothed sharks continued to dominate the seas”
(Newman 2015: 1533).
WAM 1929.77 and the two related urns clearly fit within this understanding of a xok.
The central tooth is shark-like, and the downwardly curling elements are similar to the labial furrows that surround a shark’s mouth (Figure 16). The one inconsistent element is the three- segmented tongue, which, as previously noted, originally ended in a trilobal shape. Stocker and
Spence, working with trilobal eccentrics from the Toltec site of Tula, related the shape with water and blood, based on similarities to Teotihuacan and Olmec glyphs (1974: 90). Urcid instead asserts that the shape represents maize (2001:171). The Mayans associated the xok with the watery underworld. The central xok tooth evolved into an attribute of several Maya deities, especially the nighttime form of the sun god Kinich Ahau (Kovac 2013: 160): for Mesoamericans living on a west coast, the setting sun dropped below the ocean’s surface, entering the underworld through the depths of the sea. That sharks are most active at night must have supported the association. Connections of the xok with the Maize god were also common (Kovac Hehmeyer 13
2013: 160). The xok mask of these Zapotec urns could serve to associate with an underworld deity, a sun deity, or a maize deity. The trilobal tongue could relate to any of these; moreover, the Zapotec pantheon includes each of these deities, although little is known about them (Lind
2015).
However, there is another possibility. Arnold identifies a creation myth, referenced in
Olmec, Aztec, and Maya pieces, in which a hero (or two Hero Twins) battles a sea monster
(2005: 19). The creature is sometimes portrayed as serpentine (Figure 15b) and sometimes as crocodilian (Figure 15c), but it always bears some resemblance to a shark. Arnold notes that, as this story spread across Mesoamerica, “cultural groups likely replaced the coastal shark-monster with other mythological creatures more consistent with their respective environmental settings”
(2005:19). At the end of this myth, the hero ultimately emerges victorious, and the Earth level of the universe is formed from either the dead creature’s body or a ripped-off half of its jaw, with the axis mundi rising from this new surface. Maya headdresses are known that depict this early stage of the Earth with a xok base to a three-branching tree (Figure 15d). While the existence of
Zapotec creator gods is confirmed, and the Zapotec do believe in a multi-layered universe, there is no information on the plot of the Zapotec creation story (Lind 2015). Still, it seems possible that this Zapotec xok mask could be evoking comparable imagery. The base of the buccal mask could represent a shark-and-snake-like monster’s jaw that formed the surface of the Earth, while the extending tongue could represent a world tree or similar conduit between the earth and the other levels of the universe.
Ultimately, the existence of WAM 1929.77, alongside two similar urns, confirms the existence of a xok in the Zapotec cosmos. Though it is not known whether this creature played any role in the Zapotec creation myth or had affinities with any of the gods, it suggests that the Hehmeyer 14 xok played a role in Zapotec mythology in ritual, as it did amongst many other Mesoamerican groups.
References Cited
Arnold, P.J. III 2005 The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography. Mesoamerican Voices 2: 1-38. Bassett, M.H. 2015 The Fate of Earthly Things: Aztec Gods and God-Bodies. University of Texas Press, Austin. Cain, F. 2015 Venus, the Morning Star and Evening Star. Universe Today.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Kerr, H. and J. Kerr 2006 The Way of God L: The Princeton Vase Revisited. The Record of the Princeton Art Museum 64: 71-79. Kovac, M. 2013 Ah Xok, Transformaciones de un dios acuatico del Tiburon olmeca a la sirena lacandona. Contributions in New World Archaeology 5: 151-164. Marcus, J. and K.V. Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, New York. McBee, K. and R.J. Baker 1982 Dasypus novemcinctus. Mammalian Species 162: 1 – 9. Monaghan 1998 The person, destiny, and the construction of difference in Mesoamerica. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 33: 137-146. Mursell, I. 2009 A family of deities? Mexicolore. < http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/artefacts/family- of-deities> Newman, S.E. 2016 Sharks in the jungle: real and imagined sea monsters of the Maya. Antiquity 90.354: 1522-1536. Ruiz, R.G. 1978 El senor 9 flor en Zaachila. Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Mexico. Seler, E. 1902 Codex Fejenvary- Mayer: An Old Mexican Picture Manuscript. Duke of Loubat, London. Sellen, A.T. 2002 Storm God Impersonators from Ancient Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 3 – 19. 2005 Online Catalogue of Zapotec Effigy Vessels.
Hehmeyer 16
Appendix
Figure 1: WAM 1966.52. From
Figure 2: WAM 1985.100, from
Figure 3: WAM 1929.77, from
Hehmeyer 19
a
b
Figure 4: two examples of other Aztec animal relief sculptures. A) Dog, from the Museo Regional de Puebla,
a
b
c
d
Figure 5: a) WAM 1966. b) a northern naked-tailed armadillo, from
a b
c
d
Figure 6: a) Velvety free-tailed bat (Molossus molossus), from
c
Figure 7: a) Bat god in Codex Vaticanus B,
Hehmeyer 23
a
b
Figure 8: a) Veracruz sun, moon, and Venus deities, from
Hehmeyer 24 a b
c
d
e
Figure 9: Canids native to Mexico, all displaying fur coloration patterns similar to those indicated on WAM 1985.100. a) Coyote, Canis latrans. Note the whiskers on the snout and above the eyes, from
Hehmeyer 25 a b c
d e
f
Figure 10: a) close-up of breath scroll of WAM 1985.100. b) Deity expelling breath on Mayan monument (Houston et al. 2006: 148). c) flower with scent scrolls from Mayan vase (Houston et al. 2006: 148). d) Mayan figure with speech scroll, from stela (Houston et al. 2006: 140). e) deer with breath scroll from Zapotec lintel, from
Hehmeyer 26 a b
c d
Figure 11: a) Xicani in a Zaachila mural (Ruiz 1978: 87) b) Urn of creature with duck bill, Lám (Caso and Bernal 1952: 221) c) Urn with Xicani/bat headdress. MA t/104, from Monte Albán. (Sellen 2005) d) urn with jaguar face, provenance unknown (Caso and Bernal 1952: 323).
Hehmeyer 27
Figure 12: urn with buccal mask nearly identical to mask of WAM 1929.77. 6-462, Museo de las Culturas de Oaxaca. Provenance: Tlacochahuaya. (Caso and Bernal 1952: 145).
Hehmeyer 28
Figure 13: Urn with broken nose, buccal mask, and tongue. Headdress and tongue are similar to those of WAM 1929.77. From Monte Alban, IV-56 No. 2 (Caso and Bernal 1952: 151).
Hehmeyer 29
Figure 14: a) Mayan xok sun deity, from
Figure 15: Portrayals of the xok shark-monster. a) Olmec xok from San Lorenzo Monument 58, redrawn (Arnold 2005: 5). b) Olmec serpentine xok at Chalcatzingo Monument 5, redrawn (Arnold 2005: 14). c) Aztec crocodilian xok-like Cipactli monster in the Codex Ferjevary- Mayer, redrawn (Arnold 2005: 13). d) Mayan headdress in the form of xok with a three-branched tree. From Kaminaljuyu stela 11, redrawn (Arnold 2005: 25). Hehmeyer 31
Figure 16: The labial furrows of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum, for comparison to WAM 1929.77, from