Shark Teeth, Stingray Spines, and Shark Fishing in Ancient Mexico and Central America Author(S): Stephan F

Home , Shark tooth

Shark Teeth, Stingray Spines, and Shark Fishing in Ancient Mexico and Central America Author(s): Stephan F. de Borhegyi Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1961), pp. 273-296 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629046 . Accessed: 23/10/2013 16:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH, STINGRAY SPINES, AND SHARK FISHING IN ANCIENT MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA* STEPHANF. DE BORHEGYI

sharkteeth have been found in thecourse of archaeological ALTHOUGHexcavationsin NorthAmerica (Hopewell mounds), Mexico, Guatemala, CostaRica, and Panama, there have been few attempts toexplain their significance, function,and the means by which they were obtained in pre-Columbiantimes. Onlyrarely has there been an attempttoidentify the species of shark and to indicatewhether itwas of an Atlantic or Pacific origin. In Mexicoand Central America shark teeth have been reported from nine archaeologicalsites (see Fig. 1 andTable 1): Mexico: 1. Las Flores,Tampico, (Vera Cruz) 1 2. Cerrode las Mesas (Vera Cruz)2 3. La Venta(Vera Cruz) 3 4. Mayapan(Yucatan)4 5. Palenque(Chiapas)5 Guatemala: 6. PiedrasNegras (Peten) 7. Nebaj (Quiche)7 CostaRica: 8. Divala,Chiriqui8 Panama.: 9. SitioConte, Cocld9 * The authorwishes to expresshis appreciationto Drs A. V. Kidder,Gordon Ekholm, MatthewStirling, Harry Pollock, Alberto Ruz, and Nevin Scrimshaw for their help in supplying thearchaeological and nutritional data. Those who kindly provided the identification ofzoalogical specimenswere Drs William Dickinson, Bobb Schaefer, Clayton Ray, and Roberto Dorion. 1 Ekholm,1944, pp. 389-390, 486, fig. 53c'. 2 Drucker,1943, pp. 12-13. 3 Stirlingand Stirling,1942, pp. 641-642,and pl. 1; Drucker,1952, pp. 26, 162, 163, 169,196; Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, p. 272. 4 Pollockand Ray, 1957, pp. 651-652. 5 Ruz,1958, p. 79,fig. 4, pl. 18; andpp. 88, 208, 247, figs. 11, 13-14, pls. 23, 37, 68. 6 Coe,1959, p. 63,fig. 57g, and fig. 63b, 3. 7 Smithand Kidder, 1951, p. 54.fig. 42, no. 4, and fig. 69d. 8 MacCurdy,1911, p. 43,fig. 5. 9 Lothrop,1937, p. 22,99, 156,197, figs. 32-35, 129g, h, 132a,and 190. 273

VOL.17, 1961

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 274 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

S . Csp..: 'us$lots$...... : Progeso-,' -.Cap*CloeIEhe S...... ,2n~~ ' ,...... Cerro SHRK as ao ama . EETH125 AND ITINGRATISPINIE 4.IEC0SDISTRIBUTION r FgERINGS. OF (gp ai I lie Iff PRE-COLUMSIAN R L& Ventn P d N0rsAWun k ""I...... MALA OVATINcbaj A nAuIO ustin NATINA XT~zums Aa~4 VAIDOR'"""- RC4AV

Lake N1a At Graciariag** LEGEND TOWNS MENTIONED KNNTHEARTICLE 00 I I Issd TEETHARCHAEOLOGICALOFFERINGS SITESWERE WHEREFOUND. SHAR K ARCRAEOLOGICAL SITES WHERE STING- AL BA SPINE OFFERINGSWERE FOUND. " .: FOSSIL SHARKETEETH AND SNINNRAN ,".... ) .. 11Cont.0 APINES.HF N A F NW M AREAOFRECORDED SHARKFISHING. ColbaIsla 6? ~I:~ .."':." FIG. 1. Distributionalmap of pre-Columbianshark-teeth and stingrayspine finds in Mexico andCentral America. (Line drawing by Leland Tishler) IDENTIFICATION Thevarious shark teeth found at thenine archaelogical sites have been identi- fiedto threeliving and one fossil species. The factthat in themajority of cases theshark teeth were not identified inthe original publication necessitated special inquirieson the part of the author. Unfortunately, many of the original specimens had beensince misplaced with the result that not all theshark teeth could be identified.

1. Las Flores,Tampico: 14 smallshark teeth. According to Dr BobbSchaeffer, Curatorof VertebratePaleontology at the American Museum of Natural Historyin New York, it "canbe assignedto Carcharinussp. withoutmuch doubt"' (seeFig. 4, Plate1). 2. Cerrode las Mesas: Several unidentified teeth. Since they were never illustrated andtheir present whereabouts never mentioned, they could not be identified." 10 Schaeffer,personal communication, 1960. 11 Stirling,personal communication, 1960.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 275

3. La Venta:1 sharktooth. This tooth was difficult to identify due to thesmall sizeof thephotograph. The whereaboutsof the original is notknown but accordingto WilliamDickinson, Curator of Fishes at theMilwaukee Public Museum,it is probablythat of the GreatWhite Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). 4. Mayapan:5 sharkteeth. They have been examined by Dr ClaytonE. Rayof theMuseum of ComparativeZoology at Harvard.According to him,three teethare fromthe Tiger or LeopardShark (Galeocerdo arcticus), one is froma GreatWhite Shark, and one could not be identifiedas to species.12 5. Palenque:4 sharkteeth. According to Dr RobertoLlamas, Director of the BiologicalInstitute inMexico City, three of the teeth can be assignedto that ofa tertiaryfossil shark (Carcharodon megalodon), while the fourth might havecome from the Cub Shark (Carcharinus lamia).'3 6. PiedrasNegras: 3 sharkteeth. One has beenidentified by Dickinson"4as thatof a GreatWhite Shark. According toCoe, the University Museum of PennsylvaniaField Catalogue lists a questionableshark tooth from Burial 2.'I Thistooth, however, was not illustrated and couldnot be locatedfor reexamination.Thethird tooth, listed as missingby Coe,16 was located by the authorin theGuatemalan National Museum (lot X-72) andis reproduced hereas Figure2A-1. It wasfirst identified byMr Roberto Dorion in Guatemala Cityas an upperjaw tooth,left side no. 6 or 7 of theGreat White Shark. Thisidentification hassince been confirmed byDickinson. 7. Nebaj: 54 sharkteeth. These teeth have been identified as thoseof a Cub Shark.'" 8. Divala: 1 sharktooth. Original specimen lost but Dickinson has assigned this tooth,on the basis of a drawing,tothe Great White Shark (see footnote 8). 9. SitioConte, Cocl6: 3 fossilshark teeth and numerous recent shark teeth. Pro- fessorGlover M. Allenof Harvard University has identified the fossil teeth as thoseof theCarcharodon megalodon. The recentshark teeth have been tentativelyidentified by Dickinsonon thebasis of photographsto Tiger Sharkswith a possibleintermixture of Cub Sharkteeth (see footnote9). Thesame inquiries also disclosed an error. Several teeth found during archaeo- logicalexcavations at Holmul, Peten, Guatemala (Catalog no. C-5618) in Group 12 Pollock,personal communication, 1960. 13 Ruz,personal communication, 1960. 14 Basedon an illustrationbyCoe, 1959, fig. 57g. 15 Coe,1959, fig. 63b, 3. 16 Idem,1959, p. 63. 17 Smithand Kidder, 1959, p. 54.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 276 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

2, BuildingB, Room2, werereported by Merwin and Vaillant as sharkteeth.'s Theywere reixamined by Dr ClaytonE. Rayand identified as Gray Fox teeth (Urocyoncinereoargenteus)."9 Thethree shark varieties represented bythe archaeological shark teeth finds- GreatWhite Shark, Cub Shark, and Tiger Shark-are well-known predators and scavengers.Although they are foundmore frequently in the tropical waters of theAtlantic, the Great White Shark and the Tiger Shark are also known to fre- quentthe Pacific Ocean and the waters of Australia and New Zealand. The Cub Sharkgrows to a lengthof ten feet, the Tiger Shark ranges between 15 and20 feetin length, and the Great White Shark may reach 40 feet.Adult specimens of thelatter species range in weight between 800 and 2000 pounds (see Fig. 2). METHOD OF SHARK FISHING Judgingby the good condition and relative abundance of thesearchaeological sharkteeth finds, one must assume that the teeth were extracted directly from thejaws of capturedsharks. Any teeth discarded naturally by the shark during itslifetime drop to the bottom of the sea. Occasionally sharks attack native dug- outsand while it is possible that teeth could be retrieved from the bite mark on the boat,it is usuallythe tip of the tooth that breaks off rather than the whole tooth (seeFig. 3, Plate 1) . The selachianor shark-like fishes breathe by gill sacs or pouches and possess no airbladder. The resultis thata deadshark sinks to theocean bottom. Only ifit dies stranded in shallow water close inshore is therea chanceof retrieving it. Thereare recorded cases of Cub and White Sharks attacking swimmers at river mouthsbut both are more inclined tobe pelagic. Assumingthat the sharks were captured alive in pre-Columbiantimes, the questionarises as to howthey were caught and whattype of fishinggear was necessaryto catchthem. Unfortunately, thearchaeological picture is practically blankalong these lines. There are no archaeological finds or records of harpoons, fishhooks,or any other fishing implements from the Atlantic coast of Mexico. Our onlyclue comes from an earlysixteenth century record concerning Maya fishingnear Cozumel Island, Yucatan. Peter Martyr, describing the 1518 explora- toryvoyage of Juande Grijalvain hisDe OrbeNovo (firstprinted in 1521), writes:"Off the coast of Yucatan and well on the way from the island of Cozumel, theSpaniards encountered a canoe filled with fishermen. There were nine of them, 18 Merwinand Vaillant, 1932, pl. 36g. 19 Personalcommunication, 1960.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 277

A. ..

CB.

FIG.2 Sharksreferred toin this article: (Line drawings by William Dickinson) A. Man-eater,or GreatWhite Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Maximum length: 40 feet. All warmseas. A-1. Upperjaw leftside tooth no. 6 or 7 of GreatWhite Shark. H: 5 cm (cf. MacCurdy, 1911,fig. 51; Stirlingand Stirling,1942, fig. opposite p. 648; and Coe, 1957,fig. 57g, Guate- malanMuseum Cat. no. X-72, 392-210G from Piedras Negras, Guatemala. B. Cub Shark(Carcharinus lamia). Maximum length: 10 feet.Tropical Atlantic Ocean waters. B-i. Upper and lowerjaw teethof the Cub Shark.X 1V2. (cf. Lothrop,1937, fig. 129g; Smithand Kidder, 1951, fig. 69d. C. Tigeror LeopardShark (Galeocerdo arcticus). Maximum length: 15 to 20 feet.All tropical seas. C-1. Upperjaw tooth of the Tiger Shark. X /2.(cf. Lothrop, 1937, fig. 129h).

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 278 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY and theyfished with golden hooks."20 According to Savillethe same Juan de Grijalvalater obtained by barter, among other gold objects, twenty golden fish- hooksfrom the Indians of Potonchan,near San Juande Ulua (today'sVera Cruz),Mexico.21 Lothropillustrates a golden fishhook from Veraguas, Panama, a possible tradepiece.22 He alsocites a 1502report by Columbus' son who observed various fishingactivities among the people of Veraguas,notably the use of hooksmade of tortoiseshell and the use of dragand dip nets. Fishhooks of goldwere also knownto be used on the coast of Columbia and Ecuador in pre-Columbian times.23 If harpoonswere used by the pre-Columbian native fishermen, they could very easilyhave been a fire-hardenedbamboo type. However, a harpoonwould have tobe thrown with great strength topenetrate the extremely tough hide of a shark. A daintyhook-type arrangement would also have little chance of success because of theease with which sharks break fish lines without a metal or chainleader. Thereis thepossibility, ofcourse, that the sharks swallowed the bait whole. Once thebait is in thestomach, the shark is veryeasily dominated. The ensuingpain anddiscomfort distracts itso that,with a steadypull, it can be brought alongside thecanoe and clubbed to deathwith a mallet.This technique is of considerable antiquityand has been employed widely in the seas near Scandinavia, China, India, andAfrica, even in modem times. An interestinglate nineteenth century account of Mayashark fishing by Ed- wardHerbert Thompson, pioneer American archaeologist and Consul of Yucatan mayshed some light on the pre-Columbian picture.24 Some years after his arrival in Yucatanin 1885(no exact date is given),Thompson spent a fewdays at the Mayafishing village of Chelemnear the port of Progreso.While there he was invitedto go on a fishingtrip with two natives, called Nabte and Ek, who origi- nallycame to Chelem from the region of Cape Catoche in Yucatan. Setting out aboutfour o'clock in themorning, the three pushed off for the open sea in a smalldugout canoe armed only with one big oar and with hooks which "looked as if theymight have been made from car couplings," and with "swivel chains, at- tachedfirst to thehooks and then to longcoiled ropes, which might easily have oncebeen fastened to couplingpins." "A lanceand two long objects like over- growncroquet mallets with heads of hard and heavy wood" completed the inven- 20 PeterMartyr in Saville, 1920, p. 19. 21 Idem,pp. 15-16. 22 Lothrop,1950, fig. 6, p. 5. 23 Saville,1920, p. 20. 24 E. H. Thompson,1932, Chapter IV, pp.28.34.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 279

toryof their fishing gear. Looking over this arsenal, Thompson became suspicious thatthey were after some unusually large fish. The followingdescription of the sharkhunt is taken directly from Thompson's book,25 but the italics are my own. "Lookhere, Nabti, what are you going to fishfor today?" I asked,with some- whataffected carelessness. "Sharks, white man, sharks; the big ones that we catch for theirlivers. You came over to our place once and watched us trying them out for oil, huh?"And so I had.I nowremembered having seen the big earthen pots and their seethingcontents, but the fact had not come home to me until I sawNabte and his companionclose to me in the canoe, and I realizedthat this was a smallcraft in which tohunt such big game. A blacktriangular finthat to me,sitting low in thecanoe, loomedas largeas thesail, was slowly circling at a distancefrom us. Nabte at once stoodup and threw a part of a tarpontoward it. At the splash the dark triangle turned quicklyand came toward us. A secondsplash and Ek had thrown another large piece of fish,this time with one of those immense hooks embedded init, while Nabte clutched therope fish line. The fin sank out of sight smoothly, without a ripple, and the canoe wastwitched around so suddenlythat it seemed to me my body had turned halfway roundwhile my head was yet fixed where it was when I firstsaw the approaching fin. Myneck ached from the shock, but I hadother things to occupy my attention. The littlecanoe danced like a corkon troubled waters, responding lightly to jerkingpulls thatwould have been dangerous toa clumsier,heavier craft, but even so, we were hurled andtossed and twirled about until my back was numb and my neck felt as ifit were onthe point of dislocation. The events of that day made me lose all respect for bucking broncosand man-eating sharks for, although the sharks discounted all record-bucking broncos,these two Cape Catoche fishermen, withtheir impassive chocolate faces, man- agedthem as ifthey were salmon, bluefish, oreven trout. When the huge creatures, longerthan the canoe that carried us, were whirling, darting, and raging their worst, thesefishermen were calmly discussing thelocusts that were then devastating thegrow- ingcorn crop. And then, when it seemed good to them, they quietly drew the canoe up tothe maddened pirate of the seas by a hand-over-handhaulon the line, and Nabt& stoodup with one of the long-handled mallets. Balancing himself like an acrobat,he gaveseveral quick, heavy blows at a certainplace on the shark's head. The slate-colored monstergave one agonized convulsion that made the canoe rock until it seemed as ifit mustturn over and spill us out; and then it stiffened, while tremulous thrills fluttered itsthick fins. With almost incredible quickness and dexterity, thetwo men ripped open thelivid upturned belly and with a largeiron hook tore the liver out of the body and threwitinto the canoe. Then, taking the hook out of the mouth, by a singletwist they pushedthe still quivering body away from the craft; and, while I watchedits huge outlinesgradually become indistinct as it sank into the depths, they prepared for the nextevent. r"Sharks never float when they are killed," said Nabte; "they sink like a pieceof rock." Seven monsters yielded up their lives and livers on that fishing trip and then,with full fares and deeply laden canoe, we turned homeward. 25 Idem,pp. 32-34.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 280 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY It is hardto believethat the shark catch witnessed by Thompson was an iso- latedinstance. Thompson, himself, mentioned having witnessed the boiling of sharkliver in big earthen pots, for its oil content.Whether this custom of shark fishingstill exists in Yucatanis unfortunatelynotknown. Certainly the present accountsare silent about it. It mayhave died out after the 1930's, when com- mercialoils were introduced in quantityto Mexicoand Yucatan.However, it shouldnot be overlookedthat two fishermen, armed with primitive fishing gear andwooden mallets, were able to catch with ease in a matterof a fewhours, seven sharkslonger than their own canoe. The featsuggests a wellintegrated and probablyage-old tradition of shark fishing. Thompson is silentabout the shark speciesthey caught, but judging by the color (black fins, slate color) and size of theircatch, they could easily have been Cub Sharks. NUTRITIONAL SIGNIFICANCEOF SHARK FISHING It maybe assumed that the pre-Columbian Maya fishermen ofYucatan hunted sharksnot only for their teeth, but also (oreven primarily) for their livers and theirmeat. In additionto thereference byThompson, John Lloyd Stephens, in hisbook Incidentsof Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,26 describes a shark huntfrom shipboard. He goesso faras to stateby hearsay that in Campeche, sharkmeat was "regularly inthe markets and eaten by all classes." The liverof some sharks, especially that of theCub Shark,contains a large quantityof oil (16percent by weight). Shark liver is well known for its very high nutritivevalue, for its iodine, and for its high fat-soluble vitamin content. If it formeda regularpart of thediet of thepre-Columbian and nineteenth century YucatanMayas, we canassume that it musthave played an importantrole in theirnutritional status. In a personalcommunication, dated June 1, 1960,Dr NevinS. Scrimshaw(Director of theInstitute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama,in GuatemalaCity), noted expert on presentday Maya Indian nutrition,informed the writer: "There is notthe slightest question but that con-

FIG.3 Interiorview of thejaw of theCub Shark,showing teeth pattern (25 by 25 cm) (Carcharinuslamia). Milwaukee Public Museum collection. FIG.4 13 Sharkteeth (Carcharinus sp.). Approx.natural size. Fourteen were found as offeringsin ChildBurial no. 14, associatedwith shells, copper, etc. at Las Flores,Tampico (Vera Cruz),Mexico. Photo by American Museum of NaturalHistory, New York. FIG.5 Fossilshark teeth (Carcharodon megalodon) and Cub Sharktooth (Carcharinus lamia).Found as an offering,deposited in a stonebox and vase, at Palenque(Chiapas), Mexico, in thesanctuary of TempleV (Ruz,1958, p. 247,fig. 13, and pl. 37,b,c).Photo by Ruz. 26 Stephens,1841 edition, vol. 2, p. 462,

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY: VOL. 17 BORHEGYI: PLATE 1

k s

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 281 sumptionof shark'sliver would be a veryrich source of VitaminD in the diet and wouldalso makea significantcontribution to theprotein and B-complexcon- tentof a dietwhich otherwise consists primarily of cornand beans.Indeed, such a practicecould well make the difference between good nutrition and poornutri- tionfor a populationgroup, even if it wereonly a bi-weeklyoccurrence." In my opinionit is verylikely that the consumptionof sharkmeat and oil richshark liverin pre-Columbiantimes may have helpedprevent such presentlyknown Maya healthand nutritionaldiseases and proteindeficiencies as pellagra,rickets, impropermetabolism, and anemia.It mayeven have affectedgrowth factors in general.Y7It is doublyregrettable, therefore, that the Spanishconquistadores, historians,and modem ethnologists have failed to observeor recordinstances when sharkmeat and liver (or oil) wasconsumed by Maya or Mexican natives. ARCHAELOGICALSIGNIFICANCE OF SHARK TEETH Thereseems to be a basicdifference in the utilization of sharkteeth between thepre-Columbian Maya and Mexican area and that of Panama and Costa Rica. Mostof the shark teeth reported from Maya and Mexican sites were not per- foratedand werefound either as burialofferings,28 or as contentsof offering vasesand prehistoricvotive caches, usually associated with other objects of a marinenature, such as sea shells,coral, sand dollars, and stingray spines.29 This factsuggests their primarily ceremonial orvotive nature. Only at onesite, Nebaj, werethey perforated (each tooth having two slightly conical holes) and used to adornsome sort of a headband.30 On theother hand, with the exception of somefossil specimens, all of the sharkteeth found in Panama and Costa Rica were perforated (each tooth having oneconical hole) and apparently had some definite utilitarian value. They were reportedlyused as pendantsfor necklaces and braceletsat SitioConte, Cocli, Panama31and at Divala,Chiriqui in Costa Rica.32 It hasalso been suggested that, at leastin Panama,some of theperforated 27 SeeShattuck, 1938, p. 55. 28 Las Flores:in burial14; La Venta: in the basaltcolumnar tomb, Monument 7; Mayapan:burial cist No. 2; PiedrasNegras: in Burial2; Nebaj: in Mound2, Tomb1. 29 Cerrode las Mesas: in Trench34 (Drucker,1943, pp. 12-13); Palenque:in caches in theTemple of theCross; Piedras Negras: one tooth in Cache0-13-37 (Coe, 1959,fig. 57g); and anotherillustrated here as Figure2A-1 from one of theStructure 0-13 caches. 30 A totalof 54 Cub Sharkteeth in threeparallel rows, the intervening spaces filled with rowsof Spondylusshell spangles, were sewed in an overlappingshingled order to a backingpre- sumablymade of hide.This remarkable assemblage was found behind the head of SkeletonB, inTomb 1, Mound 2 (Smithand Kidder, 1951, p. 54,fig. 42, no. 4, fig.69d. 31 Lothrop,1937, figs. 129g, h, 132a. 32 MacCurdy,1911, fig. 5.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 282 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY sharkteeth may even have been used for weapons.33 Like the sharp-edged stingrayspines, they were probably attached to theshaft of heavypikes and arrows. Weaponsof this type were described by Gaspar de Espinosawho saw them used bynatives in theGulf of Chiriqui,Panama, during his punitive expedition to CoibaIsland in 1516. He states:"They had pikes and lances fashioned like pikes, as longand thick as thoseused by the Germans, studded for a distanceof halfa yardfrom the tip with the teeth of shark and other fish."34 The onlydefinitely ceremonial offering in Panama consisted of threeunper- foratedred-and-black painted fossil teeth of the extinct Giant Shark (Carcharo- donmegalodon) which, as in medievalEurope, may have been believed by the nativesto containmagical properties.35 They were found in the form of a votive depositon the floor of Grave 26, at SitioConte, Cocle, associated with an incense burner,stone ear rods, large and small stone celts, and natural stone concretions. Basedon thedating of the associated burial and cache contents, shark teeth wereused sparingly as votive offerings inthe Mexican and Maya area throughout all archaeologicalperiods. The sharktooth in thecolumnar tomb (Monument 7) at La Ventadates to thelatter part of thePre-Classic period (Construction phaseIV, approximately450-325 BC).3" The sharkteeth and shell-covered head bandat Nebaj is of EarlyClassic date (300-600AD). The burialsand caches containingshark teeth at Cerrode las Mesas,Palenque, and Piedras Negras are fromthe Late Classic period (600-900 AD), whilethe shark teeth found at Las Floresand Mayapan are from the Early and Late Post-Classic period respectively (1100-1500AD). On theother hand, the numerically more abundant shark teeth in Panama andCosta Rica were utilized primarily for non-votive, non-ceremonial purposes anddate only from shortly before the Spanish Conquest (approximately 1300- 1400AD). SHARK TEETH AND STINGRAY SPINES On examinationofthe literature, the author believes that there may be some hithertounrecognized relationship between the use of theserrated edged shark teethand the dorsal spines of thestingray. Stingray spines have been reported fromthirteen archaeological sites in Mexicoand Central America37 (see Fig. 1 33 Lothrop,1957, pp. 21-22, 99, fig. 32. 34 Idem,p. 14. 35 Lothrop,1937, p. 156. 36 Drucker,Heizer, and Squier, 1959, pp. 266-267. 37 Stingrayspine finds in tombburials and structurecaches are also reportedbut not yet publishedfrom Tikal, Peten, in Guatemala.They range from Tzakol 3 toTepeu 2 in date(Mid and LateClassic). Occasional imitation stingray spines carved of bonehave been found in Mid

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 283

andTable 1). Of thenine occurrences of shark teeth from archaeological sites, sixwere associated in cachesor burialswith stingray spines. These sites are: La Venta,8Mayapan,39 Palenque,40 Piedras Negras,41 Nebaj,42 and SitioConte, Cocl.43Although the dorsal spines of thestingray may have served as "spear and arrowpoints" for the natives in CostaRica and Panama,as suggestedby Lothrop,44among the Mayas they were used as sacrificialimplements inceremonial scarificationsand bloodletting-topierce the tongue, the nose, ears, and possibly mutilatethe penis.45 The associationof sharkteeth with stingray spines suggests thatthe unperforated shark teeth from the caches and burials at Las Flores,Cerro de lasMesas, La Venta,Mayapan, and Piedras Negras, as wellas thefossil shark teethfrom Palenque and Cocle may have been used for similar bloodletting and penitentialpurposes. After use in penitential rites, shark teeth, like stingray spines, weredeposited invotive caches, offering vases, or in the tombs of deceased persons. Asidefrom the possibility that stingray spines and shark teeth may have been tradedtogether from the Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas to theinterior, they mayeven have been caught together by accident. According to theobservations of a sharkfisherman,46 sharks are frequentlyencountered with stingray barbs embeddedin theirjaws. 4 The Tigeror LeopardShark and theGreat White Sharkare apparently quite adept at catchingstingrays. According to Dorionhe foundin one instance as manyas threestingray barbs, or dorsal spines, in the jaws ofa Man-eaterShark. The convenienceoflocating stingray spines in the jaws of sharks is thatthey are alreadycleaned of anypoisonous or toxicsubstances-in contrast to fresh specimenswhich can inflict those who touch them or stepon themwith painful andpoisonous wounds, sometimes even producing dangerous necrosis of thetis- Classicburials and structurecaches (Hattula Moholy-Nagy, personal correspondence, 1961). Anotherunpublished stingray spine is in theVaillant collection in theAmerican Museum of NaturalHistory. It is fromChiconautla, Mexico, and probably dates from the Early Post-Classic orToltec period (Gordon Ekholm, personal correspondence, 1961). 38 Drucker,Heizer, and Squier, 1959, p. 272. 39 ProskouriakoffandTemple, 1955, pp. 327-328. 40 Ruz,1958, p. 79,and pl. 18. 41 Coe,1959, pp. 65-66, fig. 63b. 42 In fillabove Tomb 1, Mound 2, Smithand Kidder, 1951, p. 57. 43 Lothrop,1937, Grave 5, fig. 32 bottom. 44 Idem,pp. 97-99. 45 Forthe association of stingrayspines with the pelvic area of skeletalremains in burials, and fortheir distribution and ceremonialuse, see Kidder,Jennings, and Shook,1946, p. 156; Coe,1959, pp. 64-66; also Landa in Tozzer, 1941, pp. 190-191, and fn. 1003. 46 RobertoDorion of Guatemala City, personal communication, 1958. 47 Seealso Norman and Fraser, 1949, p. 43.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 284 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY sue.48If thepre-Columbian inhabitants ofMexico, Yucatan, Panama, and Costa Ricawere capable of capturingsharks for food, oil, shark teeth, or evenacci- dentallywhile fishing for some other fish, they very likely plucked the cleaned andharmless stingray spines directly from the shark's jaws. SUMMARY 1. Sharkteeth and stingray spines were used in Central America as ceremonial orvotive deposits in burialsand caches beginning in theLate Pre-Classic period and continuingprobably until the Spanish Conquest (from about 500 BC to 1520AD). 2. Sharkteeth offerings inburials and caches were frequently associated with stingrayspines and other marine products, such as Spondylusshells, corals, sand dollars,etc. 3. Likestingray spines, shark teeth were probably used as weaponsin Panama andCosta Rica, and as ceremonialand sacrificial bloodletting implements in the Mayaand Mexican areas. 4. Sharkand stingray fishing in pre-Columbiantimes must have been fairly commonon boththe Atlantic and Pacific shores of Mexico,Yucatan, Panama, andCosta Rica. Shark fishing was probably done in sea-goingdugouts, with the useof bait, probably on hard wood or metal (gold) hooks. The sharks were very likelyclubbed to death with heavy wooden mallets. Cub Sharks, Tiger or Leopard Sharks,and Great White Sharks were probably the most frequent catches. 5. Sharkteeth, stingray spines, Spondylus shells, and other marine products weretraded from the Atlantic and Pacific shores to such inland sites as Palenque, PiedrasNegras, and Nebaj and at leasta portionof thepre-Columbian stingray spinesupply was probably retrieved from the jaws of dead sharks.49 6. Sharkmeat and shark liver probably formed a regular part of thediet of theinhabitants ofthe Atlantic coastal parts of Mexicoand Yucatan. The shark liverwas most likely boiled in bigearthenware pots to extractthe nutritious oiL 7. Theconsumption ofshark meat and shark liver oil could have supplied the nativesof pre-Columbian andnineteenth century Yucatan, Vera Cruz, and Cam- pechewith a richsource of A, D, andB-complex vitamins. This, in turn,may haveprevented, at leastamong the coastal population, such generally known present-dayhealth problems as pellagra, rickets, low metabolism, and anemia. 48 Forkilling stingrays on thecoast of Yucatan with bow and arrowand for the danger of beingcut by their spines, see Landa in Tozzer, 1941, p. 191. 49 Fordistribution of Spondylus shell finds in pre-ColumbianMesoamerica see Boekelman, 1935.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 1 Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingrayspine finds in ancientMexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines Site Quan. SharkSpecies Natureof Find Period Quan. Natureof Find Period References 1. Las Flores, 14 Carcharinus,sp. As offeringsin Burial Early Ekholm, 1944, pp. 389- Tampico, # 14.With shells, copper Post 390, 486 and fig.53c1 Veracruz etc. (The burialis that Cl. Illustratedin thispaper MEXICO of a smallchild enclosed as Fig. 4 C, between2 largebowls.) Cat. #30.2-6852 td 2. Cerrode las "S" Unidentified In Trench#34. With Late Drucker,1943, pp. 12-13 Mesas, offeringsin open tripod Cl. rTi Veracruz vessels(vessels are cov- - - - C) MEXICO eredwith bowls as lids) z 3. La Venta, 1 GreatWhite In basaltcolumnar tomb, Late 6 Perforatedspeci- Late Stirling and Stirling, Veracruz Shark Monument#7. Foundin Pre- mens. In same Pre- and M 1942,pp. 641, 642, Z MEXICO (Carcharodon associationwith jade fig- Cl. tomb.Monument Cl. pl. 1 oppositep. 648 z carcharias) urines,beads, clay ear- #7. Probablyused Drucker, Heizer and spools, obsidian orna- as a necklace. Squier,1959, p. 272 Z ments,etc. Drucker,1952, pp. 26, 162,163,169,196 o 4. Mayapan, 2 Tigershark As offerings(?) in a ves- Late Thompson,1954, p. 75, Yucatan (Galeocerdo sel. In a presumedresi- Post- and fig.2i c0 MEXIco arcticus) denceof thenobility. Cl. -- - Pollockand Ray, 1957, 00 Cat. #54-68.Lot A-95 pp.651-652 tJIZ 1 In an undisturbedLate Shookand Irving,1955, cachein Str. Q- Post- p. 152, fig. 2e, and p. 151. With other Cl. Oo I 144,fig. 2cA offerings.In a red- Pollockand Ray, 1957, warepot. pp. 651-652 Lots C-85a, b, c Note: "S" in the quantitycolumn means several.The exactquantity is not givenin the publication.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE1 (continued) 0# Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingrayspine finds in ancient Mexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines Site Quan. SharkSpecies Natureof find Period Quan. Natureof find Period References 4. Mayapan, 1 GreatWhite In a residentialmound, Late Proskouriakoffand Tem- Yucatan Shark Str.R-86a. With iguana Post- ple, 1955,pp. 312, 325, MExico (Carcharodon bones. Cl. - -- 339,362a, and fig.24a carcharias) Cat. #55-81. Lot A-233 1 1 In same Tem- Unidentifiedas to As an offering.From Late cist,Bur- Late Proskouriakoffand 'II species. BurialCist #2 in Str. Post- ial Cist #2, in Post- ple,1955, pp. 327-328 R-86,Lot A-191 Cl. Str. R-86, Lot Cl. Pollockand Ray, 1957, H 1 Tigershark tooth FromCache 3, LotA-208 " A-191 p. 652 Proskouriakoffand Tem- z ple,1955, p. 328 0 "S" Several vertebraeIn a pit froma house Late Smithand Ruppert, 1953, z fragments. mound.Str. K-52a. With Post- p. 195,fig. 8e Misidentifiedas shells,sherds, and pound- Cl. -- - Pollock,personal com- z sharkvertebrae ingstones. Lot A-82 munication,1960 "S" Severalspines in 7 Late Pollockand Ray, 1957, 0 differentlots. Post- p. 652 Z Fromburials and Cl. caches 5. Late Palenque,Chiapas Mytiobatis,sp. Ruz,1958, p. 79,figs. 4h, 0 - - - 4 fossil. Cl. hi,and pl. 18a MEMco OfferingNo. 1. FromTemple of C) the Cross. With shellsand pearls 1 Fossilshark tooth OfferingNo. 2. From Late 1 Myliobatis,sp. Late Ruz, 1958,p. 79, fig.4i, 7 and7 sharkverte- Templeof the Cross C1. fossil. Cl. andpl. 18,b, c, d brae OfferingNo. 2. p (Carcharodon FromTemple of megalodon) theCross

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 1 (continued) Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingray spine finds in ancient Mexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines Site Quan. SharkSpecies Natureof find Period Quan. Natureof find Period References 5. Palenque, 1 Fossilshark tooth. As an offering.In a bowl Late Ruz, 1958,p. 88, figs. Chiapas (Carcharodon coveredwith a vase.From Cl. - - - d, d, andpl. 23 megalodon) Templeof the Foliated MEXICO Cross 1 Fossilshark tooth As an offering.In a stone Late Ruz, 1958,p. 247, fig. Cn (Carcharodon boxand vase. From Tem- Cl. and c p 13, pl.37, b, megalodon). ple V. North Group. Illustratedin thispaper 1 Cub sharktooth OfferingNo. III, insanc- as Fig. 5, Plate1 (Carcharinus tuary nIl lamia) Z 1 Fossilstingray Late Ruz, 1958,p. 208, fig. spine.From CI. 14v,and pl. 68m TombIII inTem- Z plodel Conde. m (Badlycorroded ni specimen) Z 6. Pomona 9 FromTomb I. Early Kidder and Ekholm, -With shells,jade, Cl. 1951,pp. 128-129 BRITISH pottery,etc. HONDURAS 7. Holmul,Peten "S" Mistakenlyillus- Bldg.B, GroupII, Room "S" Withskeletons 1, Proto- Merwin and Vaillant, tratedas shark 2. Cat. #C-5618 - 2, 5, 16. In Bldg. Cl. and 1932,pp. 31, 32, 37, 89 GUATEMALA teeth.They are B, GroupII. One Early and 90; pl. 36g shark jawbones of Gray barb (withskel. Cl. teeth;identified by Clay- Fox (Urocyon #5) has glyphic tonRay in 1960as jaw- cinereoarganteus) inscriptions. bonesof the GrayFox Many werenear ibid.: pl. 34d, 36e and pelvicarea fig.30b (stingraybarbs) ,-4

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 00 TABLE 1 (continued) o00 Distributionalchart of shark teeth and stingrayspine findsin ancientMexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines Site Quan. SharkSpecies Natureof find Period Quan. Natureof find Period References 8. 19 In burials Uaxactun, various Early Kidder,1947, p. 59, fig. (f)O0 Peten - and caches (fre- Pre-Cl. 75. R. E. Smith,1937, C GUATEMALA quentlynear the Early figs.8 and 14. Ricketson pelvicarea) Cl. and and Ricketson,1937, pp. Late 205-206,and fig. 134a tt1 Cl. M 9. PiedrasNegras, 1 GreatWhite From Cache 0-13-37. Late Coe,1959, p. 63,fig. 57g zo Peten Sharktooth Cat. #E-1-42 CI. t-- GUATEMALA 0 (Carcharodon C? chariLs)(?) 1 Unidentified FromBurial #2. Near Late 1 FromBurial #2. Late Coe, 1959, p. 63, fig. " pelvicarea, withsting- Cl. Nearpelvic area Cl. 63b,3-4 or0 ray spine, shell disks, beads, ornamentsand O jadeitebeads 01 1 GreatWhite FromCache in Str. Late Illustratedin thispaper " Sharktooth #0-13. Cl. as Fig.2 0Z (Carcharodon GuatemalaNational charias) Museum r- Cat. #392-210G. 0 LotX-72 "S" Most of themin Early Coe,1959, pp. 64-67, fig. - - burialsand caches Cl. and 55c,f, and fig.56 (with " in Str.#0-13, a. Late hieroglyphicinscriptions) Nearpelvic area in Cl. Burial#5

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 1 (continued) Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingrayspine finds in ancient Mexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines Site Quan. Sharkspecies Natureof find Period Quan. Natureof find Period References 10. Nebaj,Quichi 54 Cub Shark FromTomb I, in Mound Early 2 Fromthe fill above Early Smithand Kidder,1951, GUATEMALA (Carcharinus 2. With spondylusshell Cl. TombI, in Cl. pp. 54, 57, fig.69d and lamia)teeth spangles.Found behind Mound2 fig.42, no. 4 (perforated) head of male Skeleton "B." Headband decora- tion(?) 11. SanAugustin 4 In potteryoffer- Late Smithand Kidder,1943, Acasaguastlin, ing-box, Cl. pp. 145,170, and fig. 41c tr El Progreso - belowTomb I, in GUATEMALA Str.24. on Withlizard bones, obsidian,etc. 12. Kaminaljuyu, FromTomb II, in Late Shookand Kidder,1952, Guatemala 7 MoundE-III-3. Pre- p. 117,and fig.15, no. C) Near pelvicarea Cl. 158 GUATEMALA a:m OfSkeleton # 1 H 40 FromMounds A Early Kidder, Jenningsand - - - andB; 4 tombs. Cl. Shook,1946, p. 156,and Severalfound near fig. no. 26, 66, fig.27, 00 pelvicarea of skel- no. 28, fig.29, no. 50, etons andfig. 31 13. Copan,Copan "S" From Tomb II Early Longyear,1952, pp. 43, and in cachesun- Cl. and 51, 112,fig. 109i HONDURAS derStelae M and Late I Cl. 14. Tazumal "S" Fromvarious bur- Coe, 1959,p. 63 ials CI. EL SALVADOR

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE I (continued) Fo Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingrayspine finds in ancient Mexico and Central America Sharkteeth Stingrayspines N Site Quan. SharkSpecies Natureof Find Period Quan. Natureof Find Period References itl 15. Divala,Chiriqui, I GreatWhite Froma burial Post- Province Sharktooth - - '0 CI. MacCurdy,1911, p. 43, 0 CosTAaMc (Carcharodon fig.51 carcharias) C (perforatedtooth) 0 16. SitioConte, 3 Fossilshark FromGrave Post- 1937, 197, teeth, #26. Lothrop, p. H Cocl4 (Carcharodon In an associationwith an Cl. fig.190 and fig.29 megalodon) incenseburner, stone con- o PANAMA (Teethare painted cretions,stone ear rods, redand black) and stonecelts "S" A mixtureof teeth From burials.Used as Post- Lothrop,1937, pp. 99, >z ofthe Cub Shark necklacesor bracelets Cl. 156,fig. 132a (Carcharinus - - - TigerShark: fig. 129h 0 lamia) Cub Shark:fig. 129g andTiger Shark z) (Galeocerdo 0rJ arcticus) o 0I A mixtureof From burials (Grave Post- "S" Fromburials Post- Lothrop,1937, pp. 22, teethof the Cub #32, etc.). Mixedwith CI. (Grave#32, Cl. 97-99,figs. 32 to 35. Shark stingrayspines. Probably etc.). Mixedwith (Carcharinus used as arrow-pointsor sharkteeth. Prob- lamia) and Tiger spike-heads ably used as ar- Shark row-pointsor (Galeocerdo spike-heads arcticus) (perforatedteeth)

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 2 Distributionalchart of shark teeth and stingrayspine representationsin ancientMexico and Central America Sharkrepresentations Stingrayspine representations Site Quan. Typeof representation Period Quan. Typeof representation Period References 1. La Venta, 1 Perforated,stingray spine Late Stirling and Stirling, Veracruz reproduction.Made of trans- Pre- 1942,p. 641, and pl. 1 lucentgreen jade. In a neck- Cl. oppositep. 648 MEXIco lace made from6 actual Drucker,1952, pp. 162, stingrayspines. Found in ba- 163,169 V1 salt columnartomb, Monu- ment#7. m 2. Caletade Ak, 1 Potteryshark figurine. Late Sanders,1955, p. 203 QuintanaRoo Froma trenchin front Post- MEXICO ofan altarplatform Cl. - tC- 3. ChichenItza Stingrayrepresentations. On Early Morris, Chariot, and Z Yucatan "S" Chacmoolmurals along with Post- Morris,1931, p. 471,and otheraquatic forms Cl. pl. 139and 159 Z MEXICO m 4. Santa Rita "S" Small potteryvessels and Post- Tozzer and Allen, 1910, C-) 0? BRITISH figurines,in the shape of Cl. p. 307,pl. 6, fig.9 HONDURAS sharks.From Mounds 2 Gann,1897-1898, pl. 34, ? and6. Withother animal figs.1, 3, 4, 7; pl.35, fig. figures,such as tigers,tur- 2,and pp. 680-685 ties,etc. 5. Seibal,Peten 1 An enormousstingray barb Maler,1908, p. 14,pl. 3, - - - (?) (or sawfishrostrum?), fig.1 xO GUATEMALA used as spearheadin right Coe,1959, p. 66 handof beardedindividual depictedon Stela#1 Note:"S" inthe quantity column means several. The exactquantity is notgiven in thepublication.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 (continued) NO TAB, I'.) Distributionalchart of sharkteeth and stingrayspine representations in ancient Mexico and CentralAmerica Sharkrepresentations Stingrayspine representations Site Quan. Typeof representation Period Quan. Typeof representation Period References 252- 6. Alta Gracia, 1 Shark-likemonster. Rep- Post- Lothrop,1926, pp. 0Cn OmotepeIsland, resentedas an effigyhan- Cl. - - - 253,and fig. 142 LakeNicaragua die, on top of conical, NICARAGUA incense-burnercover 7. Sitio,Conte, 2 Polychromeshark-effigy Post- "S" Polychromeand "smoked- Post- Lothrop,1942, pp. 113- Cocli jars (spouted). From Cl. ware"effigy and painted ves- Cl. 115.Sharks: figs. 214a, b, PANAMA Grave# 26 sels.From various graves and 285a,and 485. Rays: figs. O 1 Black-and-whiteon red- caches (Graves5 and 19; 97b,213, 215 and328. ware cup. From Grave Cache# 28) O #58 z 1 Imitationstingray spine. Post- Lothrop,1937, p. 201, - - - Carvedof bone Cl. fig.199 0

8. Southern 5 Gold pendants.In the Post- Lothrop,1950, pp. 66-67, Z Veraguas formof shark-likefishes Cl. - figs.103 and 104 PANAMA 0 9. 1 Polychromepottery bowl. Post- I Polychromepottery bowl, Post- Lothrop,1942, p. 297, o0 Probablyrepresenting a Cl. fromParita Cl. figs.443, a, b 0 l ]HammerheadShark, 0 fromParita 10. Colombia 6 Imitationshark teeth Post- Lothrop,1937, p. 156, SOUTHAMERICA (perforated).Cast in Cl. - - - fig.133 solid gold. In the Mu- seumof the American In- dian,Heye Foundation

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARKTEETH IN ANCIENTMEXICO 293

8. The sharkas a mythologicalmonster may have played a moreimportant rolein Maya religious life than previously supposed. The monsteranimal associatedwith the day Muluc was the xoc (orxooc) which, according to theVienna dictionary,was a speciesof shark.The samexoc also played an importantrole in theprophecies in theChilam Balam of Tizimin,5oand in theMaya glyphic and rebuswriting and countingsystem."' There is evena possibilitythat the Mexican"Earth-monster," thecipactli (or "alligator-fish") wasoriginally a shark. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOEKELMAN,HENRY J. 1935 Ethno-and Archeo-Conchological Noteson Four Middle American Shells (MayaResearch, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 257-277, Middle American Research In- stitute,Tulane University, New Orleans). COE, WILLIAM R. 1959 PiedrasNegras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials (Museum Monographs,The University Museum, Philadelphia). DRUCKER, PHILIP 1943 CeramicSequences at TresZapotes, Veracruz, Mexico (Smithsonian In- stitution,Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin 140, Washington, D. C.) . 1952 La Venta,Tabasco: a Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art (Smithsonian In- stitution,Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin 153, Washington, D. C.) . DRUCKER,PHILIP, ROBERT F. HEIZER,AND ROBERT J. SQUIER 1959 ExcavationsatLa Venta,Tabasco, 1955 (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 170, Washington, D. C.). EKHOLM, GORDONF. 1944 Excavationsat Tampicoand Panuco in theHuasteca, Mexico (Anthropo- logicalPapers, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 38, pt. 5, New York). GANN, THOMAS 1897-98Mounds in NorthernHonduras (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of AmericanEthnology, 19th Annual Report, Part 2, pp. 661-691, Washing- ton,D. C.). KIDDER,ALFRED V. 1947 The Artifactsof Uaxactun,Guatemala (Carnegie Institution of Washing- ton,Publication 576, Washington, D. C.). KIDDER, A. V. AND GORDON F. EKHOLM 1951 SomeArchaeological Specimens from Pomona, British Honduras (Car- negieInstitution of Washington,Notes on Middle AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology,vol. 4, note102, pp. 125-143,Cambridge). 50 J.E.S.Thompson, 1950, pp. 162, 163. 51 Idem,1944, pp. 15-17 and fig. lg-j.

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 294 SOUTHWESTERNJOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

KIDDER,ALFRED V., JESSED. JENNINGS,AND EDWIN H. SHOOK 1946 Excavationsat Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala (Carnegie Institution ofWash- ington,Publication 561, Washington, D. C.). LINNk,S. 1942 MexicanHighland Cultures: Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacan, Calpulalpanand Chalchicomula in1934-35 (The Ethnographical Museum ofSweden, Stockholm, new series, Publication no.7, Stockholm). LOTHROP, SAMUEL KIRKLAND 1926 PotteryofCosta Rica and Nicaragua (Contributions fromthe Museum of theAmerican Indian, Heye Foundation, vol. 8, nos.1-2, Museum of the AmericanIndian, Heye Foundation, New York). 1937 Cocli:An ArchaeologicalStudy of CentralPanama, Part I (Memoirs, PeabodyMuseum of American Archaeology andEthnology, Harvard Uni- versity,vol. 7, Cambridge). 1942 Cocld:an ArchaeologicalStudy of CentralPanama, Part II (Memoirs, PeabodyMuseum of American Archaeology andEthnology, Harvard Uni- versity,vol. 8, Cambridge). 1950 ArchaeologyofSouthern Veraguas, Panama (Memoirs, Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology andEthnology, vol.9, no. 3, Cambridge). LONGYEAR,JOHN M., III 1952 CopanCeramics: A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery (Carnegie Insti- tutionof Washington, Publication 597, Washington, D. C.). MACCURDY, GEORGEGRANT 1911 A Studyof ChiriquianAntiquities (Memoirs, Connecticut Academy of Artsand Sciences, vol. 3, New Haven). MALER, TEOBERT 1908 Explorationofthe Upper Usumatsintla andAdjacent Region (Memoirs, PeabodyMuseum of America Archaeology andEthnology, Harvard Uni- versity,vol. 4, no. 1, Cambridge). MERWIN, RAYMOND E., AND GEORGE C. VAILLANT 1932 TheRuins of Holmul, Guatemala (Memoirs, Peabody Museum of Ameri- canArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol.3, no. 2, Cam- bridge). MORRIS, EARL H., JEAN H. CHARLOT, AND ANN AXTELL MORRIS 1931 TheTemple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan (Carnegie Institu- tionof Washington, vols. 1, 2, Publication406, Washington, D. C.). NORMAN,J. R., AND F. C. FRASER 1949 FieldBook of Giant Fishes (G. P. Putnam'sSons, New York). POLLOCK,H. E. D., ANDCLAYTON E. RAY 1957 Noteson VertebrateAnimal Remains from Mayapan (Carnegie Institu- tionof Washington, Department ofArchaeology, Current Reports, vol. 2, no.41, pp. 633-660, Cambridge.)

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SHARK TEETH IN ANCIENT MEXICO 295

PROSKOURIAKOFF,TATIANA, AND CHARLES R. TEMPLE 1955 A ResidentialQuadrangle, Structures R-85 to R-90 (Carnegie Institution of Washington,Department of Archaeology, Current Reports, vol. 2, no.29, pp. 289-362, Cambridge). RICKETSON,OLIVER G., ANDEDITH BAYLESRICKETSON 1937 Uaxactun,Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931(Carnegie Institution of Washington,Publication no.477, Washington, D. C.). RuZ-LHUILLIER, ALBERTO 1958 ExploracionesArquel6gicas en Palenque; 1953-56 (Anales del Instituto Nacionalde Antropologiae Historia, vol. 10, no. 39,de la Collecci6n, Mexico). SANDERS,WILLIAM T. 1955 AnArchaeological Reconnaissance ofNorthern Quintana Roo (Carnegie InstitutionofWashington, Department ofArchaeology, Current Reports, vol.2, no. 24, pp. 179-224, Cambridge). SAVILLE,MARSHALL H. 1920 TheGoldsmith's Art in Ancient Mexico (Indian Notes and Monographs, Museumof the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Miscellaneous Series, no.7, New York). SHATTUCK,GEORGE CHEEVER 1938 A MedicalSurvey of the Republic of Guatemala (Carnegie Institution of Washington,Publication 499, Washington, D. C.). SHOOK, EDWIN M., ANDWILLIAM N. IRVING 1955 ColonnadedBuildings at Mayapan (Carnegie Institution ofWashington, DepartmentofArchaeology, Current Reports, vol. 2, no. 22, pp. 127-168, Cambridge). SMIrH,LEDYARD A.,AND ALFRED V. KIDDER 1951 Excavationsat Nebaj, Guatemala (Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publication594, Washington, D. C.). SMITH, A. L.,AND A. V. KIDDER 1943 Explorationsinthe Motagua Valley, Guatemala (Contributions toAmeri- canAnthropology andHistory, vol. 8, no. 41, pp. 101-182, Publication 546, CarnegieInstitution ofWashington, Washington, D. C.). SMITH, A. L., AND KARL RUPPERT 1953 ExcavationsinHouse Mounds at Mayapan:II (CarnegieInstitution of Washington,Department ofArchaeology, Current Reports, vol. 1, no. 10, pp.180-206, Cambridge). SMITH,ROBERT E. 1937 A Studyof Structure A-I Complex at Uaxactun,Peten, Guatemala (Con- tributionstoAmerican Archaeology, vol.3, no. 19,pp. 189-231, Publica- tion456, Carnegie Institution ofWashington. Washington, D. C.).

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 296 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

STEPHENS,JOHN LLOYD 1841 Incidentsof Travelin CentralAmerica, Chiapas, and Yucatan (vol. 2, Harperand Brothers, New York). STIRLING, MATTHEW W., AND MARION STIRLING 1942 FindingJewels of Jade in a MexicanSwamp (National Geographic Maga- zine,vol. 82, no. 5, November, Washington, D. C.). THOMPSON,EDWARD HERBERT 1932 Peopleof the Serpent; Life and Adventure Among the Mayas (Houghton MifflinCorporation, Boston and New York). THOMPSON,J.ERIC S. 1944 TheFish as a MayaSymbol for Counting and Further Discussion of Di- rectionalGlyphs (Carnegie Institution of Washington, Theoretical Ap- proachestoProblems, no.2, Cambridge). 1950 MayaHieroglyphic Writing, Introduction (Carnegie Institution ofWash- ington,Publication 589, Washington, D. C.). 1954 A PresumedResidence ofthe Nobility at Mayapan(Carnegie Institution of Washington,Department of Archaeology, Current Reports, vol. 2, no.19, pp. 71-88, Cambridge). TOZZER,ALFRED M. 1941 Landa'sRelacidn de las Cosasde Yucatan(Papers, Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology andEthnology, Harvard University, vol.18, Cam- bridge). TOZZER, ALFRED M., ANDGLOVER M. ALLEN 1910 AnimalFigures in the Maya Codices (Papers, Peabody Museum of Ameri- canArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol.4, no. 3, Cam- bridge). MILWAUKEEPUBLIC MUSEUM MILWAUKEE,WISCONSIN

This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:29:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions