THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TOAD, Rhinella marina, IN OLMEC ART

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of ^ 0 * 2 ^ 0 the requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

In

Humanities

by

Mette Fordan

San Francisco, California

January 2020 Copyright by Mette Fordan 2020 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read The Significance of the Toad Rhinella marina in Olmec art by

Mette Foidan, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in

Humanities at San Francisco State University.

Mariana K. Leal Ferreira Ph.D. Professor THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TOAD, Rhinella marina, IN OLMEC ART

Mette Fordan San Francisco, California 2020

The Olmec inhabited Mesoamerica from approximately 1500 B.C. to 100 A.D. The theory behind this study has been that the Toad, Rhinella marina, was a sacred being to the Olmec and that it represented the concept of duality in its ability to live in two worlds, the wet and the dry, in water and on land. The biological characteristics of toads, a dual existence in water and on land, becomes, in mythology, the ability to navigate between the realms of life/death and upper/lower worlds in a mythical cosmos. These characteristics represent transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration, all-important religious concepts to the Olmec and are present in Olmec art. The toad’s capacity to symbolically traverse the different levels of the cosmos gives the animal its supernatural powers. The hallucinogenic properties of parotid gland secretions played an essential role in the iconography of transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration in shamanic rituals. These processes are a narrative of the power of a ruler/shaman and his journey into (or, emergence from) the underworld. The toad is the symbol which legitimizes his power and right to undertake such a journey. This study has identified those traits of the toad, both natural and symbolic, that would bring the animal out from obscurity and on to its rightful place in the Olmec pantheon.

I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.

'jW'reOC*! 1^/(3 1^0 Chair, Thesis Committee Date PREFACE AND/OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Mariana Ferreira, Ph.D for her interest and guidance throughout all aspects of this study. While serving as my Committee Chair, her continued support and suggestions have been vital to the completion of this thesis. Your friendship and encouragement mean more to me than I can adequately express.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Logan Hennesy, Ph.D. for serving as the committee’s second reader.

Additionally, I would like to thank Barry Fordan, my husband, for his suggestions, comments, and editing of my written work. His moral support during some trying moments at SFSU is deeply appreciated.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...... vii

List of Figures...... viii

Introduction...... 1

Chapter 1: History of Mexico and Olmec Territories...... 5

Chronology of Olmec Civilization...... 9

The Rise of Olmec Civilization During the Early Formative Period...... 15

The Middle Formative Period and the Olmec...... 16

Tres Zapotes and the Olmec During the Late Formative Period...... 20

Chaper 2: Olmec Art and the Art of the Toad...... 22

Chapter 3: Toad, Rhinella marina, Symbolism...... 43

Religious Concepts Relating to the Toad in Olmec Art...... 45

Symbolic, Mythological and Religious Theories...... 47

Conclusion...... 60

References cited...... 64 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of M esoamerican Chronology...... 6 2. Time Periods with Major Olmec Sites and Local Time Phases...... 11 3. Catalog of Material...... 27 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1. Maize God, San Bartolo, Guatemala...... 13 2. Olmec Maize God, La Venta...... 14 3. Map of La Venta...... 19 4. Figures in La Venta Complex A...... 20 5. Map of Tres Zapotes...... 21 6. Xochipala Toad Bowl...... 29 7. Toad Bowl, Paso de Amada...... 30 8. Toad Bolder...... 31 9. Olmec Shaman...... 32 10. Takalik Abaj, Izapa and Kaminaljuyu...... 33 11. Toad Altar 1...... 34 12. Toad Altar 2...... 34 13. Toad Altar 3...... 34 14. Toad Basin, Kaminaljuyu...... 36 15. Stele 6, Izapa...... 37 16. Izapa Ruler Transformation...... 38 17. Toad Yolk...... 40 18. ToadHacha...... 41 19. Toad Palett with trough...... 42 20. Toad with Bowl...... 42 21. Olmec Baby Figurine...... 45 22. Flame Brows...... 49 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

23. Chalcatzingo Relief...... 52 24. Chac with Amphibian Tongue...... 52 25. Earth Monster with an Open Mouth...... 55 26. La Venta Monument 4...... 57 27. Toad Ingesting Molted Skin...... 58 1

Introduction

The rainforests of Central America and Mexico harbor a ferocious and dangerous predator. A traveler to these regions would likely encounter the animal since it breeds prolifically and at great speed. When threatened, it secretes a dangerous milky substance from a pair of parotid glands on the head that can cause heart attack and death in humans. This predator is the Toad, Rhinella marina. Heavily built with short legs, this species has no web between its toes. Adult animals have a rough, warty skin of tan, dull green, or black color. They can grow up to 9 inches in length and weigh more than two pounds (Ufwildlife, 2011). Like other amphibians, toads depend on bodies of water in which to lay their eggs. They exist equally well on land. Toads are omnivorous and will eat almost anything available, such as insects, other smaller amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Ufwildlife, 2011). Throughout Central America, Mesoamerican people created a wealth of highly expressive art around this omnipresent animal.

Bufo marinus L. (1758) was the toad species inhabiting the Olmec territory. At some point in time, 2000-2017, taxonomists in biology re-classified the animal as Rhinella marina L. (1758). Such re-classifications exist whenever one species is determined by taxonomists to be misclassified and is identical to another species. The species, Bufo alvarius, is a separate, different species from Rhinella marina and is indigenous to the

Sonoran region of Mexico but, does not inhabit the Olmec territories. The study of

Mesoamerican art has produced a large corpus of material on the importance and meaning of animal and human imagery ever since systematic studies began in the early 2

1900s. Academic research on the role of animals in the art of the Olmec, Maya, and

Aztec have centered on the jaguar (Panthera onca). Michael Covarrubias, a Mexican artist and art historian, speculated that the Olmec believed they descended from the union of a jaguar and a proto-Olmec woman (Covarubbias, 1957). The jaguar was the

Olmec shape-shifter, known as “Nahual” (Covarubbias, 1957). Some scholars have argued that the jaguar was the most important and revered animal in Mesoamerica

(Miller and Taube, 1993). From this perspective, the jaguar is a totem animal. On the other hand, scholars, such as Allison Kennedy and Peter Joralemon, have argued for the role of the toad, Rhinella marina, as being equally important to that of the jaguar. In the words of Allison Kennedy, one of this view’s main proponents, “the typical attributes of the so-called were-jaguar are, in fact,... clear and diagnostic of the toad” (Kennedy,

1982: 274). Proponents believe that the clear and indelible traits of the toad have been overlooked, misunderstood, and wrongly identified as jaguar characteristics.

The theory behind this thesis is that the toad was a sacred being to the Olmec people. Biological characteristics and the ability to live on land and in water become, in mythology, the ability to symbolically traverse the different levels of a mythical cosmos, between the underworld and the upper world. Though I concede that the jaguar played an important role in Olmec life, I still maintain that the toad was an especially important animal in everyday life and expansion of this civilization from the Early Formative

Period (1500-900 B.C.), through the Middle Formative (900-400 B.C.), to the Late

Formative (400-100 B.C.). Although some scholars may object that a lowly toad should occupy such an exalted position in Mesoamerican mythologies, I would suggest that the 3

toad’s powers may not have been immediately noticeable, and are open to a greater interpretation in terms of their status in Olmec history and cosmology for over 11 centuries.

The Olmec people were the predominant society in Central America during the period from 1500 B.C. up to the rise of the Maya civilization around 900 A.D. Unlike the Maya people, the Olmec had no formal system of writing but created impressive artwork, including monumental architectural pieces, large scale sculptures, and exquisite small figurines. One important issue explored in this thesis is, in what manner does a society without a written language express its religious beliefs, mythologies, and cosmologies? Is it possible to study the artwork of a society and distill its concepts concerning the dual nature of life and death, transformation and renewal using other forms of communication?

In cosmology, death and its opposite, resurrection and life, signal the process of transitioning from old to new, from the death of the old body to the rebirth of a new body. The power of such transformation requires a belief in the possibility that the threshold between the otherworldly and everyday existence is real and accessible. This thesis, furthermore, will seek to elucidate the artistic expression of animal power figurines that the Olmec used to aid humans in their quest for religious experience and transformation. In the mythology of many indigenous people, animals can transition between the realms of cosmic divisions, such as upper and lower worlds, dry land and the wet underworld, life and death. The Toad, Rhinella marina, was a sacred animal to 4

the Olmec people. Its capacity to symbolically traverse the different levels of the cosmos, between the underworld and the upper world, gave the animal its supernatural powers. Numerous artwork depicting this sacred, very dangerous, and poisonous animal have been found in the remains of Olmec societies at Izapa, Kaminaljuyu, Takalik Abaj, and Paso de Amada.

Mythological themes relating to amphibians in Mesoamerica passed from ancient

Olmec origins through the highly evolved stratified societies of the Classic Period, which included the Maya and the Aztec people. Each society from 1500 B.C. to 100 B.C. interpreted and used the toad image and symbolic power as it suited. With time the image changed, evolved, and merged with characteristics of other animals to such a degree that it may be difficult to distinguish purely amphibian features. Symbols and rituals usually contain a range, or “fan”, of meaning; thus, the Rhinella image may symbolize rain/water, fertility, and hallucinogenic powers among other attributes

(Dobkin de Rios, 1974:153). The biological characteristics of toads, a dual existence in water and on land, become, in mythology, the ability to navigate between the realms of life/death and upper/lower worlds. This theme closely links the importance and sacredness of water, land, and the toad to these Mesoamerican cultures. To the best of my knowledge, no other scholar to date has offered a thorough understanding of the role of the toad as a transitional symbol in Olmec and Mesoamerican iconography, as expressed in Olmec art. Before beginning this discussion, I must first provide an important overview of Olmec history. 5

Chapter 1: History of Mexico and Olmec Territories

Any attempt to delve into the history of Mexico and of the Olmec is no easy task. It is not possible for me in this chapter to do justice to their multifaceted and magnificent history. I will, however, attempt to describe concisely the region and its major developmental periods. The nation-state, known as Mexico today, has seen the presence of human beings for at least 12,000 years. Through time the population grew steadily and developed from mobile hunter/gatherer groups to empire builders. Such occurred for the Olmec, Maya, and Aztec. My focus is on the Olmec, one of the earliest civilizations to rise in the lowland rainforests of Mesoamerica. The term Mesoamerica is used herein to describe ancient Mexico and its peoples before the arrival of Europeans. The origin of the Olmec is shrouded in mystery, and much of their history remains unwritten. The rise of their power and influence began about 1,500 B.C. At this time, they created magnificent cities and expressive and rich material culture. The Olmec may have influenced other rising civilizations, such as the Maya, although this idea is not universally accepted among scholars. The Olmec have never received due credit for the development of civilizations in Mesoamerica. They have lingered in the shadow of the

Maya. A description and presentation of three major Olmec sites, San Lorenzo, La

Venta, and Tres Zapotes, is crucial in our conversation of Olmec history.

Small, mobile, and widely dispersed bands of hunter-gather people entered Mexico and regions of Central America during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene period (see

Table 1). The late Pleistocene (11,500-9,000 B.C.) landscape in Mexico was 6

considerably different from that today. Rain fell on locations that currently are dry. Other regions were a sea of grass. Fossil remains of mammoths and other large game animals point to the possibility of vast areas of grazing land. The great lake in the valley of

Mexico, associated with early human hunters, was broader and deeper than at present.

Freshwater sediment, 75 meters deep, lies under Mexico City. Stratigraphy of the upper part of this ancient lake date back to the later part of the Pleistocene (Coe, 1984: 24). The upper layers of these deposits consist of fine green mud with pockets of volcanic ash. On top of this green mud are layers of brown sandy sediments deposited when the lake was shrinking. The deposits are known as the Beccera Formation. In 1949 geologist Helmut de Terra was searching for mammoth skeletons in Tepexpan on the edges of Lake

Texcoco. This area was rich in Pleistocene fossils. In a trench, de Terra discovered a

Table 1. Summary of Mesoamerican Chronology.

PERIOD TIMESPAN CITIES, PEOPLES, SITES

Paleo-Indian 11,500-9,000 B.C. Mobile hunter-gather groups (Pleistocene)

Archaic (Holocene) 9,000-1,600 B.C. Semi-permanent settlements

Pre-Formative 1,600-1,500 B.C. Semi-permanent settlements

Early-Formative 1,500- 900 B.C. Olmec: San Lorenzo Central Mexio: Chalcatzingo Valley of Oaxaca: San Jose Magote Maya: Nakbe 7

PERIOD TIMESPAN CITIES, PEOPLES, SITES

Paleo-Indian 11,500-9,000 B.C. Mobile hunter-gather groups (Pleistocene)

Archaic (Holocene) 9,000-1,600 B.C. Semi-permanent settlements

Pre-Formative 1,600-1,500 B.C. Semi-permanent settlements

Early-Formative 1,500- 900 B.C. Olmec: San Lorenzo Central Mexio: Chalcatzingo Valley of Oaxaca: San Jose Magote Maya: Nakbe skeleton lying face down with legs drawn under the body. The remains lay within the

Beccera Formation, according to de Terra (Coe, 1984: 25). Marie Wormington, an

American archaeologist, known for her work in the Southwestern United States, disputed the date of the skeleton. She attributed the burial position of the skeleton to be typical of the later Archaic period. Subsequent dating (Fluorine test) of mammalian fossils associated with the de Terra skeletal remains has confirmed the date to be of late

Pleistocene (Coe, 1984:25). Therefore, this establishes a human presence in this region back to 11,500- 9,000 B.C. Paralleling these events is the presence in this region of the toad, Rhinella marina, whose unchanged occurrence dates back well beyond the

Pleistocene.

Archaeological context is important when assigning a date to remains. The association of the human skeleton with animal fossils of firm dates lend credibility to the 8

assertion that the female skeleton belonged to the Beccera Formation. The burial position, facedown with flexed legs, could have been a practice begun in the Pleistocene and continuing to the Archaic. Similarities in settlement distribution and lithic (stone tool) technologies between Paleo-Indian groups and later period populations suggest continuity rather than a replacement. Paleo-Indians entered Mexico nearly twelve thousand years ago, hunting big game animals and supplementing their diet with food gathering practices. The remains of stone tools, ancient fire pits, charred animal bones, and edible plants attest to the presence of ancient people in Mexico.

During Mesoamerica’s Archaic period, the inhabitants transitioned from dispersed hunter-gather groups into sedentary village dwellers. The environment was wet and warm after a long period of cold temperatures (Rosenswig, 2015: 115). Food production progressively increased from 8000-1000 B.C. Villages developed along the estuaries of the Gulf Coast, an area with plenty of aquatic resources. The transformation to sedentary village life laid the foundation for later Mesoamerican civilizations. One of the earliest examples of a settlement on the Gulf Coast comes from the site of Santa Luisa, located along the Tecolutla river in north-central Veracruz. J.K Wilkerson excavated the site in the1970s and the 1980s. Wilkerson proposed that the village was a permanent site, not just a seasonal hunting camp (Diehl, 2000).

Santa Luisa has a long occupational history from the Archaic to Post Classic (1500

A.D.). During the Archaic phase of occupation, the inhabitants collected clams, mussels, and fish from the river and hunted local mammal species such as deer and howler 9

monkeys (Rosenswig, 2015:117). End scrapers, flake gravers, drills, and choppers unearthed attest to the importance of hunting. The absence of grinding tools used in the processing of crops suggests the pre-Olmec inhabitants of Santa Luisa were not engaged in agriculture (Rosenzweig, 2015:117). The social structure of permanent settlements of the late Archaic period was equalitarian, a society based on the equal distribution of political and social rights, wealth and goods. The people lacked well defined social hierarchies, economic differences between families of the village, and political power concentrated among a particular class or group (Rosenswig, 2015: 136). A social structure based on wealth and status made its appearance in Gulf Coast lowland cultures after 1500 B.C. with the emergence of the Olmec civilization. Olmec society was not equalitarian.

Chronology of the Olmec Civilization

Olmec chronology consists of Early Formative (1500-900 B.C.), Middle Formative

(900-400 B.C.), Late Formative (400-100 B.C.) and Terminal Formative (100-300 A.D.).

Olmec culture reached its height during the Early and Middle Formative Period.

Archaeologists have established chronological phases for the three most significant and most thoroughly excavated Olmec sites, San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes (see

Table 2). Researchers must contend with the loss of contextual data at many Olmec sites.

The activities of later inhabitants, agricultural practices, erosion, and urban sprawl have moved stone monuments and artifacts from their original location. The arrangement of chronology and the location of Olmec society in Mesoamerica have provoked a debate over “Cultura Madre” (“Mother Culture”) and “Cultura Hermana” (“Sister Culture”) 10

(Flannery, et. al., 2005). On the one hand, some scholars argue for the Olmec as the ancestral culture in Mesoamerica, from which all other societies evolved. According to this theory, Olmec society played a crucial role in the spread of vital cultural elements throughout Mesoamerican civilization. Jeffrey Blomster, Hector Neff, and Michael

Glascock analyzed the chemistry of 725 pieces of Olmec pottery throughout

Mesoamerica (Blomster, et. al., 2005). They compared the composition of the ceramic with local clay. In a large number of specimens, the clay matched that found around the large Olmec urban center of San Lorenzo in Vera Cruz. San Lorenzo did not appear to import pottery and artifacts from other regions (Wilford, 2019: 1). Richard Diehl, a supporter of the “Mother Culture” Theory, states “San Lorenzo dominated in the commercial relationship and attendant spread of Olmec iconography and belief systems”

(Wilford, 2019: 2).

Proponents of the “Mother Culture” Theory view the Olmec as more socio- politically advanced than their contemporary neighbors. The rulership of San Lorenzo lived in what Ann Cyphers has called the “Red Palace” (Cyphers, 1996: 65). The palace had basalt columns, drainage channels, and step coverings, while the general population lived in simple huts. In contrast to San Lorenzo, the emerging chiefdom of San Jose

Mogote, in the valley of Oaxaca, located in western Mexico, lived in wattle-and-daub huts, similar to other citizens (Blomster, et. al., 2005: 1068). The scholars supporting the

“Sister” Theory, such as Kent Flanneiy and Joyce Marcus, proclaim that Blomster’s pottery analysis shows only that the Olmec traded pottery, not that the trade transmitted

Olmec political and religious concepts around the region. Thus, they theorize that all 11

other Mesoamerican cultures developed as paralleling “Sister” cultures.

Kent Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and others vehemently dispute the theory of the

Olmec as the progenitor culture in Mesoamerica. There is no evidence, according to these scholars, that Olmec civilization formed the basis for the later Maya. Other cultures in the area were taking steps toward the development of a Mesoamerican civilization

(Demarest, 1989, Flannery, 1968, Marcus and Flannery, 1996). The “Sister Culture”

Theory postulates that there was an active exchange of idea and belief systems among many neighboring societies. This theoiy further states that the concept of the Olmec, as a progenitor culture, is a result of 19th Century ethnocentrism. Accordingly, the construction of stone sculptures is a sign of civilization because it was the hallmark of early Western civilizations (Wilford, 2019: 2).

Table 2. Time Periods with Major Olmec Sites and Local Time Phases (Pool, 2007).

Time Periods San Lorenzo La Venta Tres Zapotes

Late Formative 400 B.C-100 A.D

Hueyapan Remplas (300-50 B.C) (400B.C-100A.D.) 12

Middle Palangana (800-400 B.C.) IV Formative 900-400 B.C m Tres Zapotes (900- 400 B.C.)

Nacaste (1000-800 B.C.) II

I

Early Formative

900-1500 B.C. San Lorenzo (1400-1000 B.C.)

Chicharras (1450-1400 B.C.)

Bajio (1550-1450 B.C.)

Ojochi (1750-1550 B.C.)

The dissemination of religious and political ideas is more nuanced than what the

“Mother/Sister” Culture Theories proclaim. The pattern of interaction and exchange of ideas between various groups are rarely unidirectional. The influence of one group on another rises and declines over time. Iconographic studies indicate the Formative Olmec influenced the Pre-Classic Maya in their art (Boundaryend, 2019). A mural at the site of

San Bartolo in Guatemala depicts the Maize God with what is purely an Olmec head (see

Figures 1 and 2). The San Bartolo murals date to 300 B.C. Although considerable time separate San Bartolo and La Venta, the influence of the Olmec can be seen in this mural. 13

The characteristics are the almond-shaped eyes with incised iris, a pug nose, and toothless gums with a gum ridge. The La Venta God has a seed-corn element with feathery bands in line with the forehead (Joralemon, 1971: 61). I believe the same element exists on the San Bartolo mural approximately in line with the forehead to the right of the God.

Figure 1. Maize God, San Bartolo, Guatemala (www. Boundaryend.com, 2019). 14

Figure 2. Olmec Maize God from La Venta (Joralemon, 1971).

In the Southeastern part of the state of Chiapas on a tributary stream of the Suchiate river lies the site of Izapa. The settlement continued from the late Formative up to the

Classic (200 B.C-900 A.D.) and Post-Classic (900 A.D-1500 AJD.). Michael Coe described this site as being a link between the Olmec and early Maya. In describing the highly distinct bas-reliefs on Izapa stele, he states that style is “obviously” derived from the Olmec (Coe, 2002: 98). Several stele and altar stones at Izapa feature the toad image.

The debate over the “Mother/Sister” cultural developments in Mesoamerica will continue long into the future. As anthropologists, archaeologists, and art historians refine their theories concerning cultural interactions and influence among the societies of

Mesoamerica, the history will, hopefully, become clearer, more nuanced, and inclusive. 15

The Rise of Olmec Civilization During the Early Formative Period

Civilizations are more complex than the societies preceding them. Social

hierarchies, such as kingship and a ruling class and economic structures of dominance in

trade and trade routes, develop to a high degree. Clearly defined borders and areas of

influence surround major cities or urban centers. Outlying communities are subordinate to the city. In these urban places, architecture, religion, rituals, and art are the purviews of

an upper class or elite. The hallmark of a city or urban center is also the presence of a

large number of people not dedicated to the growing and processing of food but artisans, political and military groups, and a religious/ceremonial class. The characteristics of

stratified societies were present in the major cities of the Olmec, at San Lorenzo, La

Venta, and Tres Zapotes.

Matthew Stirling initiated the first expedition to San Lorenzo in 1939. He was an

American ethnologist, archaeologist, and Chief of the Smithsonian Bureau of American

Ethnology. Since 1939 exploration of San Lorenzo has seen periods of intensive interest

followed by inactivity. The site was excavated by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl during

1967 and 1968 field seasons. Arm Cypers of the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan

Archaeological Project (SLTAP) began an investigation of San Lorenzo in the 1990s.

The city is a unique example of a lowland urban center due to its longevity, size, and

construction. SLTAP carried out a regional survey covering an area o f400 sq. km.

including the San Lorenzo plateau. The survey revealed a total of 271 sites from the Early

Formative through the Post Classic Period (Cypers, 1997: 99). 16

San Lorenzo lies close to the Chiquito River, a branch of the Coatzacoalcos in

Veracruz. The site is comprised of three related locations: San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan,

Potrero Nuevo, and Loma Del Zapote. San Lorenzo proper is located on a vast plateau rising above the floodplain. The plateau contains major ceremonial buildings such as pyramids, royal palaces, and the earliest known Mesoamerican ball court. Organization of the site follows a north-south axis lined with rulership monuments, such as colossal head statues. Large flat platforms characterize ceremonial architecture at San Lorenzo rather than the later Mesoamerican arrangement of mounds and courtyards forming plaza groups (Diehl, 2004). The San Lorenzo plateau is a remarkable feat of engineering. It is the largest known example of monumental architecture in Early Formative Mesoamerica.

The Middle Formative Period and the Olmec

During the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, explorers from North America began to realize the depth and richness of art in Mesoamerica. From artifacts in private collections to chance encounters with, heretofore, unknown monuments in the field came an awareness of a distinct style of art. The form was expressed in votive axes and jade artifacts, which emphasized creatures with slanting oval eyes, thick lips, and snarling mouths.

Danish archaeologist Franz Blom and American anthropologist Oliver La Farge of

Tulane University in New Orleans were the first explorers to reach the Olmec site of La

Venta in the present Mexican state of Tabasco. The New York Times reported on the expedition in colorful terms .. the explorers slowly made their tortuous way through wild jungles.. .and escaped death by the narrowest of margins a dozen times.. (New 17

York Times, 1925:1). At La Venta, the intrepid explorers recorded eight monuments, including two stele, four alters, a large sandstone block, small basalt columns, and colossal head statues. Both Blom and La Farge were Maya scholars and attributed these new findings to the Maya civilization. Marshall Saville, Director of the Museum of the

American Indian in New York City, realized after reviewing the Blom and La Farge expedition that the discoveries on the Gulf Coast belonged to a new and distinct culture, affixing to it the term “Olmeca” (Saville, 1925: 285). Saville based his hypothesis on a comparison of the La Venta artifacts with similar jade objects in the museum’s collection. He borrowed the term “Olmeca” from Father Sahagun, a 16th Century priest traveling with the Spanish explorers. After encountering people on the Gulf Coast,

Father Sahagun named the people Olmeca, which means “rubber people” or “people from the land of rubber” (Coe, 1968:42).

La Venta was a significant and impressive Olmec urban center in southern Mexico

(see Figure 3). The Olmec inhabited La Venta, located in the present-day Mexican state of Tabasco, between 1000 and 600 B.C. It lies on a ridge east of the Tonala River. In

1943, Matthew W. Stirling and Phillip Drucker systematically carried out excavations at

La Venta. This undertaking was made possible with funding from the National

Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Institution. Drucker, along with Robert Heizer and Robert Squire, returned to the site in 1955 to continue the excavations. Heizer was alarmed at what he saw as the threat to the site by looters and urban sprawl (Heizer,

1968). Rebecca Gonzales Lauck lead the Instituto National de Antropologia e Historia

(INAH) on several field seasons at La Venta in the 1980s. In part, thanks to her effort, 18

the authorities in Tabasco joined forces with the INAH to protect and restore the cultural heritage of La Venta.

Among the monuments at La Venta, Tomb A (see Figure 3) stirred great interest among the scholars. Tomb A lies beneath a low-lying stepped pyramid, Complex

A, located at the northern end of the site. In Mesoamerica, a complex is an association of buildings composed of temple mounds and plazas. The mounds often contain burials, and the plaza is a large public gathering place with monuments and ceremonial art. Complex A consists of two contiguous courts. Basalt columns embedded in red-clay soil, surrounded the courts, creating a sunken interior. Matthew Stirling excavated a funerary chamber within this structure. A series of bright red sand layers and floors of cut and polished serpentine block culminated in the placement of a sandstone sarcophagus. The sarcophagus measured 2.8m long, 0.96m wide and 0.86m high

(Reilley, 1994:4). Red clay filled the casket. Jade objects and ear spools looked as if they had adorned the body of an individual, but no bones remained. The carved objects consisted of a jade frog, an amphibian related to the toad, a jade leaf, and a jade flower

(Stirling and Stirling, 1942:639).

Of the many extraordinary discoveries in Complex A, one, in particular, has puzzled archaeologist. The arrangement of 16 figures creates a startling and mysterious scene

(see Figure 4). Of the figures, two are worked in jade, thirteen in serpentine, and one in sandstone. One sandstone figure faces the rest of the group, four of the figures stand in front, and the remaining eleven stand in a semicircle around the others. 19

Colossa.1 La Venta HeAds archaeological site <© T o m b M onum ent* Complex Complex A I 51 Altars G Complex C P U tfo n tis ireat Pyramii Stirling N Complex B HK Acropolis t ■ ' 200 y»ri ■ Complex H A Complex D I

Figure 3. Map of La Venta (Pool, 2007).

Behind the sandstone figures are six fragmented celts, possibly representing stele

(Gonzales Lauck, 1996:78). Clay floors cover the entire scene. Centuries later, a small pit was dug through the floors to the head level of the figurines. The hole was then filled in and covered (Drucker, et. al., 1959:154). The interpretation of the tableau, an arranged setting, varies from the commemoration of an event, an initiation ceremony, to some mythological event. Whatever the original purpose of the scene, history is witnessing a vital event rendered by the Olmec. Figure 4. Figures in La Venta Complex A (Smarthistory.org, 2019).

Tres Zapotes and the Olmec During the Late Formative Period

The third leading site in the Olmec heartland is Tres Zapotes, notable for its long and continued occupation for over two millennia. Tres Zapotes lies at the western edge of the Tuxtla mountains, on the Papaloapan river plain. The city, located on the river delta, allowed the inhabitants to explore the forested upland, as well as streams and swamps down land. Excavations have confirmed settlements at Tres Zapotes during the

Early Formative. However, it was not until the Middle Formative that it supported a large number of inhabitants. During the late Huevapan phase, the site reached its height.

During this time, the site grew from 80 to 500 hectares. One hundred and sixty mounds, platforms, habitation, and formal pyramid mounds (Groups 1,2,3, and Nestepe Group) lie within this area (Pool, 2007:247). Low residential mounds consisted of earth, clay, 21

and irregular blocks of sandstone. The arrangement of architecture in the four plaza groups indicate universal directional symbolism. The east-west axis was associated with religious ceremony and the north-south axis with the ruling authority (Pool, 2007:

250). This arrangement enhanced the placement of colossal head statues in Group 1 and the Nestepe Group, directly opposite and facing the elite residential/administrative structures to the north (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Map of Tres Zapotes (Pool, 2007).

During the late Formative (Nestepe phase), a volcanic eruption from the nearby Tuxtla mountains deposited a layer of ash over Tres Zapotes, hastening its decline. By the 22

beginning of the Classic Period (300-600A.D.) the site was in decline and by the close of the Classic (900 A.D.) Tres Zapotes was abandoned.

From these three sites, the Olmec art style spread to neighboring groups. It is within this historical and cultural context that I will discuss the significance of the Toad,

Rhinella marina, within Olmec art and civilization in the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Olmec Art and the Art of the Toad

During Spring, 2011 a large international exhibit of Olmec art arrived at the

DeYoung museum in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park in California called “Olmec

Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico”. The exhibition featured Olmec colossal

“heads”, monumental carved pieces, vessels, and figurines. The National Museum of

Mexico and 25 museums around the United States contributed Olmec artwork to the exhibit. Many of the pieces, never previously exhibited outside Mexico, were now on display in San Francisco. The awe-inspiring and mysterious Olmec creation was evident immediately, as the audience entered the exhibit. Upfront, at the entrance, was a giant two-ton carved stone head. It drew immediate attention, and there was an undeniably commanding presence surrounding this object. An Olmec important person, as the heads are believed to be actual portraits, stared back at the audience through 3000 years of history. The carved stone heads, weighing up to two tons, are uniquely Olmec, as no other civilization in Mesoamerica has attempted to create such immense sized artwork. 23

As I wandered through the exhibit, from room to room filled with the beautifully carved stone objects and smaller stunning art, I began to realize the need to more fully understand this extraordinary society. The breadth and width of the art spoke of a highly developed culture, expressing a people’s religious and mythological beliefs in stone and ceramics. The Olmec had no written language, but their art speaks volumes and is indicative of a highly structured language and communication system. As I neared the inner rooms and the end of the exhibit, a small collection of animal figurines captured my attention. The Olmec created art of animal life that was present in their real-world, but, also, that was represented in a mythological realm. The DeYoung exhibit displayed a rare wooden object, a cayman carved with the crest of a harpy eagle, and a butterfly necklace with a man’s face on its surface. Among these objects was the stone carving of a toad holding up a vessel in its outstretched forearms. In 2011,1 had only just begun to realize the importance of the toad in Olmec culture. This figure solidified my interest in the Toad, Rhinella marina, as a sacred animal to the Olmec. With a sense of excitement,

I realized that the scroll and dot-bar emblems on the rim of the vessel symbolize water. I began to think of a connection between water, land, and the toad in Olmec mythology.

The exhibit at the DeYoung was successful in conveying the exceptional art and culture of the Olmec people. In this chapter, I will examine the art of the toad from the Early,

Middle, and Late Formative periods. Many of the pieces I will discuss lack provenance due to being looted; nonetheless, Olmec traits are apparent.

A conversation of the imaginative and complex Olmec art necessitates a description of what constitutes the art. The definition of the art style of a society is “a distinct 24

maimer which allows the grouping of works into related categories” (Femie, 1995: 361)

The term Olmec is both a culture and a specific art style. This distinct style is expressed in natural forms and in ways that exist only on a conceptual level. In conceptual art, ideas or concepts are more important than aesthetics or traditional values. Olmec art is described as sculptural, meaning it is made both in the round and in relief (Blomster,

2010). The monumental art, large sculptures, stele, and altar pieces are a perfect harmony of volume, heaviness, and internal rhythm (de la Fuente, 2000). A stele, written in both singular and plural form, is a large, upright stone slab depicting elaborate engravings, commemorating an event or mythical theme. Olmec art features animals and humans, composite figures, and monumental architecture incorporating all three. The materials used for small objects are clay and stone. Less frequently, figures are in rare stone, such as jadeite. For the massive “head” statues and other monumental sculptures, the material of choice is basalt, andesite, and sandstone (Baundez, 2012). The source of this material lies in the Tuxtla mountains, close to Tres Zapotes, but at a considerable distance from

San Lorenzo and La Venta. The transportation of such raw material through rainforests and on river waterways requires manpower, coordination, and effort.

The art expresses fundamental religious, political, and social ideas. The Olmec mythical themes of creation and the emergence of humans from a primordial beginning dominates the art. Monumental art often depicts humans emerging from caves or openings in the earth. In terms of small portable objects, such as figurines, the human is a favored subject. Additionally, a blending of baby-faced figurines with small stiff bodies is another ubiquitous theme. The features of this type of figurine are slanted eyes, 25

a large toothless downtumed mouth, and a V-shaped cleft on top of the head. Such facial traits appear as part of monumental sculptures and architectural pieces. Due to the blending of animal and human features, this type of figurine is called the “anthromorph”

(Pohorilenko, 1997:122). I will demonstrate that the characteristics of the anthromorph are, indeed, the stylized features of the Toad, Rhinella marina. The remainder of this chapter will feature an analysis of the art of the toad.

Published data regarding toad iconography in Olmec art is sparse and consists of a few key publications (Shook and Marguis, 1997; Furst, 1981; Kennedy, 1982; Parsons,

1986; Guernsey, 2000). The scarcity of published material on this subject leave excellent opportunities for new research endeavors. It is for this reason I have undertaken the current study. It utilizes fourteen pieces of artwork featuring the toad image chosen from a search of the literature (see Table 3). Any other sourcing of material, such as fieldwork or museum studies, was cost-prohibitive and not feasible. The provenance of the selection is uncertain as many of the objects represent looted material. Except for the toad boulders, altar stones, and other objects that are still in-situ, it is nearly impossible to place the origin of the objects. I arranged the pieces according to the probable historical period, and in doing so, it became clear that the development of toad art is similar to the development of other Olmec art. Art in the Early Formative period consists of smaller, portable objects, such as bowls and figurines. In the Middle and Late

Formative the art becomes larger, while displaying predominantly mythological and religious themes. The farther back, I can trace the toad image, the more likely it becomes that the toad, both in its natural and mythological state, was an ancient and vital image to 26

the Olmec. A listing of the pieces of art analyzed in this thesis is featured in Table 3.

In the early 1960s Carlo Gay proposed Xochipala, Guerrero, Mexico as the birthplace of the Olmec, rather than the Gulf Coast of Mexico (Gay, 1972). His assertions have been largely refuted due to later research on the Gulf Coast Olmec

(Grove, 1973; Coe, 1989). The Xochipala art style included some of the earliest and most realistic Mesoamerican figurines. The provenance of many of the pieces is uncertain due to extensive looting. A significant number of objects uncovered at

Xochipala were stone bowls. On a stone bowl from Xochipala, the composite design on the outer surface of the bowl consists of four half-toad motifs and four geometric shapes

(see Figure 6). The arrangement divides the entire area into four equal shapes. The theme is painted such that one-half toad faces another. When placed side by side, the two halves become one whole toad. Furthermore, when sketched out in its entirety, the composite design becomes a diagram of the four cardinal directions (Gay 1972). The scroll design on the toad’s back is symbolic of clouds and water. Gay placed the date of the bowl to Early Formative. Such an early age, if accurate, is significant. It would confirm the use of the toad motif to illustrate water, clouds, and fertility as an ancient and important iconographic element. This occurrence affirms my theory that the toad is fundamental to ritual and religious practices dating back to the Early Formative. 27

Table 3. Catalog of Material.

Figure Ma Type Period Location Description ten al 6 S Bowl EF Xochipala Bowl with stylized toad motif. D: 10 cm Guerrero, high, 25 cm wide. (Gay, 1972). Mexico

7 c Bowl EF Paso de la Unbumished serving bowl with toad Amada motif. D: 8 cm high, 22 cm wide (Lesure, 2006). Chiapas, Mexico

8 s Bolder MF Takalik, Bolder shaped into the form of a toad with large bulging eyes and a wide mouth. Abaj, Paratoid glands visible on the shoulders. D: Guatemala not available (The Mossy Skull, 2013).

9 s Figur­ MF Unknown, Red painted figurine without modeled genitals. Probably male due to shaped ine looted pectoral muscles. Toad image is incised on shaved scalp. D: 17.5 cm high, 15.5 cm wide. (Reilly, 1989).

11 S Alter 1 LF Izapa, Flat round stone alter shaped as a toad. Chiapas, Clawed feet visible. D: 130 cm long, 113 cm wide, 40 cm high (Guernsey, 2000). Mexico 12 S Alter 2 LF Izapa, Flat, round stone shaped as a toad. Parotid glands modeled. Similar to alter 1. 145cm Chiapas, long, 125cm wide, 45 cm high. (Guernsey, Mexico 2000). 13 s Alter 3 LF Izapa, Flat round stone alter shaped as a toad. Parotid glands modeled. Similar to figure 14 and 15. Chiapas, D: 145 cm long, 125 cm wide, 45 cm high Mexico (Parsons, 1986). 14 s Alter 5 LF Kaminaljuy Alter shaped as a recumbent toad. Forelimbs have emphasized bulging shoulders. The back u, forms a large basin. Mouth is large and the Guatemala eyes are closed. Parotid glands modeled. D: 50 cm high, 105 cm long (Parsons, 1986). 28

15 S Stele LF Izapa, Composite design of large fat upright toad with arms and legs. Amphibian tongue 6 Chiapas, extends upward from a large open mouth. U- Mexico shaped cartouche held up by the tongue. Parotid gland modeled. Scroll swirl behind the toad. D: 146cm high, 95 cm wide, 50 cm deep (Guernsey, 2000). 16 S Stele LF Izapa, Ruler ascending or descending from the mouth of a toad. Toad is similar to figure 9. 11 Chiapas, Parotid glands are modeled. Crossed band Mexico symbol visible above flexed amphibian legs. Loose ligaments hanging from ruler’s mouth. D: Unavailable. (Guernsey, 2000). 17 S Yolk LF VeraCruz, Green stone ball game yolk with carved toad image. Arched eyebrows, large eyes. Open Mexico mouth with extended tongue. Parotid glands modeled. D: unavailable (Shook and Marquis, 1997). 18 S Hacha LF Unknown, Toad is holding severed head. D: unavailable looted (Shook and Marquis, 1997). 19 S Palette LF Unknown, Square jade palette modeled as a toad looted with legs and rounded hindquarters. Carved brow ridges frame the eyes. Carved into the back o f the toad is a shallow trough. D: 5cm long, 2cm high (Furst, 1981). 20 c Bowl LF Looted Toad holding bowl in upright arms. Parotid glands modeled. D: unknown (Reilly, 1984).

C=Ceramic, S=Stone, EF=Early Fonnative, MF=Middle Formative, LF=Late Formative 29

Figure 6. Xochipala Toad Bowl (Gay, 1972).

Excavation at Paso de Amada in Chiapas, Mexico in the early 1990s and 2000s uncovered a large number of ceramic vessels, both plain bowls and effigy vessels with an animal applique. Effigy appliques were attached to the vessels straight out from the side of the pot, so that an observer looking down on the vessel could look down, as well, on the animal (see Figure 7) (Lesure, 2000). Animal effigies include mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. Reptiles and amphibians were by far the most favored motifs. Toad motifs comprise 27% of all identified head fragments and 69% of applique on serving bowls (Lesure, 2006). The toad would have been a very important animal to the people of Paso de Amada because of its symbolic meaning. (Lesure, personal communication, 2012). 30

Figure 7. Toad Bowl, Paso de Amada (Lesure, 2000). 31

As the peoples of Mesoamerica moved into the Middle Formative, their art becomes more complex. La Venta rises in power and influence with all its adherent complex social structure. The reach and impact of the Olmec of the Gulf Coast extended to sites on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala, near the border with Chiapas (see Figure 10). Here,

Takalik Abaj was an important commercial, ceremonial, and political center. It was at the center of trade routes in the area, and it prospered in the production of cacao beans

(Sharer, 2006). The site has more than 70 buildings arranged in architectural groups and terraces, as well as monuments and sculptures (Sharer, 2006). The art shows a great diversity representing a continuation from Olmec to Maya. Figure 8 (see Table 3) presents a large boulder shaped into the unmistakable form of a toad. Parotid glands, as well as the bulging eyes and the large full mouth, are carved. Monument numbers 48,68, and 70 at Takalik Abaj also depict toads. There is more of this type of sculpture, but erosion has taken its toll on the art at this site. I can only speculate on the purpose of the large flat stones placed right in front of the sculptures, as being altars. It was, in all likelihood, used to enact rituals. The enactment of rituals before the toad signals the importance of the amphibian in mythology and religion in early Mesoamerican cultures.

I will address this issue in the chapter on toad symbolism

Figure 9 is an excellent representation of a human figure and its connection to the sacred toad. The figurine lacks genitals, but the presence of pectoral muscles indicates that it is a male, possibly a shaman (Reilly, 1989). The place of origin and age of this figurine is uncertain due to looting, but scholars estimate a possible heartland location and age of 800 B.C. (Reilly,1984). Red cinnabar once covered the body of the 32

individual, except where a possible skirt may have encircled the waist. He is leaning forward with his hand on his knees. The almond-shaped eyes had inlays of pyrite, magnetite, or obsidian. The facial features are finely sculpted, giving the figurine personality a sense of power. On the shaman’s shaved head is incised a toad in the process of shedding its skin.

Figure 9. Olmec Shaman (Latin American Studies, 2019).

Around 1500 B.C. Izapa, a large site in Chiapas, grew in importance. The city is contemporaneous with San Lorenzo. Izapan style art shares similarities with the art at

Takalik Abaj and Kaminaljuyu (see Figure 10). A swirling sky and clouds and giant

“mouths”, used as a frame for the art and representation of animals, is Olmec in origin

(Pool, 2007). Garth Norman, an archaeologist, counted 89 stele, 61 altars, and 3 thrones at Izapa (Norman, 1973). The stele contains no writing or glyphs, but the participants in 33

the sacred rituals involving the art understood its narrative, quality, and mythologically charged themes, representing transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration.

Gulf of Mexico Tr*so Z ap o tcs La San Venta a Lortnao mijM I Olmec Htjrtljnd Southern Chiapi dt Cor20 % Hf4

Plltopjn P4l*n I zap a QHlrllUJ P K-nin.N^u O, Copan ' r t _ J a fa lik Abaj El Biul Chifchmp*

Figure 10. Takalik A.baj, Izapa and Kaminaljuyu (Sharer and Traxter, 2006).

Scholars have focused on the highly imaginative narrative of the stele, but less attention has been given to the altars at the base of the stele. Altar 1 depicts a toad with a broad flat face in a crouching position (see Figure 11). The toad has an upper jaw with pointed incisors and heavy lids over large bulging eyes. Bent legs and clawed feet are visible on the side of the creature. Real-life toads do not have incisors or clawed feet.

The image on Altar 1 is that of a mythological creature whose composite features represent other animals as well, such as the jaguar. Altar 1 sits at the base of stele 68, which depicts the rain God Chak. Altar 2 shows the parotid gland of the toad located 34

behind the eyes

(see Figure 12). The hallucinogenic

properties of parotid gland substances

played an essential role in the

iconography of transformation and

metamorphosis in shamanic rituals. Altar

2 stood before stele 3 depicting Chak

and God K, a deity associated with fire

Figure 11. Toad Altar 1 (Guernsey, 2006). and lightning (Miller and Taube, 1977).

Several other altars at Izapa (Altars 53 and 54) feature the toad image. They share characteristics, such as heavy eyelids, large broad mouths and parotid glands, similar to those on Altars 1 and 2. Figure 13 is another toad alter, not depicted (see Table 3).

Figure 12. Toad Altar 2 (Guernsey, 2000). 35

Kaminaljuyu was another large and important city during the Middle Formative.

Located in the Guatemalan highland, the city’s wealth flowed from trade in materials such as obsidian and salt, fish and shells, from the Pacific. Alfred Kidder and Edwin

Shook, both archaeologists, directed excavations at Kaminaljuyu during the early 1930s.

Unfortunately, due to the encroachment of modern-day Guatemala City, little remains of the site. Only a small part of the once magnificent mounds andtemples remain today, but the few that do remain point to a place of significant social and cultural development.

During the 1960s, Lee Allen Parson examined the corpus of stone monuments at

Kaminaljuyu and reported on a series of toad altars (Parsons, 1986). His interest was in typologies, but he didacknowledge that works of art may offer an insight into the religious and intellectual life of ancient civilizations. This perspective, according to

Parsons, gives scholars an idea of “the interrelation of cultures not readily offered by settlement, demographic or socio-political studies” (Parsons, 1986:6). Parsons was advocating a historic art perspective to the study of the iconography of Mesoamerica societies. Figure 14 is similar to altars found at Izapa and Takalik Abaj in the modeling of toad features. The creature has large bulging eyes, parotid gland, and folded limbs typical of the toad. What makes this altar different is the large basin on its back. Both Parsons and Guernsey call the piece an altar stone, but but there is no mention of associated stele as with the altars at Izapa and Takalik Abaj. I contend that this particular piece in Figure

14 was a place for a ritual bath where sacred water could be collected or a place 36

of offerings. The association between toads and water is apparent in this piece.

Figure 14. Toad Basin, Kaminaljuyu (Parsons, 1986).

The toad altars atTakalik Abaj and Kaminaljuyu functioned as a place of performance, and the toad was a vital participant.

The power of the toad is apparent in Figure 15, stele 6, from Izapa. A sizeable fat toad with an open jaw is balancing a canoe-like cartouch on an amphibian tongue.

The parotid glands are shown, although some scholars have erroneously described this as a cape of jaguar skin (Thompson 1970). Behind the toad are swirling cloudlike markings that represent clouds and water, but it is also possible they represent the hallucinogenic poison from the parotid glands. In my opinion, the swirling bands represent water, as this type of symbol appears on other pieces of art associated with water. The toad has 37

features of other animals. Arms and legs have claws on their digits, possibly indicating jaguar features and brows above the eyes, reminiscent of the harpy eagle.

Figure 16 (stele 11) from Izapa depicts a ruler emerging from the open jaws of a giant toad. It is difficult to ascertain whether the ruler is descending into the jaws of the toad or if he is ascending, emerging, or being reborn from the toad. There is an argument to be made for the process of metamorphosis by examining the ligaments hanging from the mouth of the ruler. Toads shed their skin and ingest the loose skin. Pieces of molted skin hang momentarily from the toad's mouth, looking like the image on stele 11. This stele is a narrative of the power of a ruler and his journey into (or, emergence from) the 38

underworld. The ruler is embarking on a trans journey with the aid of the sacred toad.

The double-headed serpents framing the lower half of the toad’s body provide a ground line for the scene, aswell as giving us additional clues as to the meaning of the stele.

Double-headed serpents at the top of a scene are sky serpents, and those on the bottom symbolize earth serpents (Smith, 1987). Serpents were closely linked with God I in the

Olmec pantheon. God I was linked to earth, agricultural fertility, maize, rain, water, and kingship. The Kan-cross on top of the toad’s legs is a symbol of rulership in

Mesoamerican art.

Figure 16. Izapa Ruler Transformation (Guernsey, 2000). 39

This stele portrays the ruler in one of his most notable roles. His task is to interact with the Gods to ensure the fall of rain and a bountiful harvest for his community. Smith calls the ruler a winged creature emerging from a huge “serpentine head”. Furthermore, she states, “water-associated serpents give forth a deity or priest” (Smith, 1987: 27). In other words, the entire lower half of this stele illustrates one creature, a reptile-like animal. I find it impossible to ignore the obvious toad features of this creature. The bent legs, the gigantic open jaw, and the parotid glands belong only to the toad. I propose that the figure on the lower half of the stele is a mixing of both serpent and amphibian traits.To ignore the importance of the toad on stele 11 does a disservice to the interpretation ofthis piece of art.

Edwin Shook and Elaine Marquis began recording the presence of stone yolks, hachas, and palmas from central Mexico and the Gulf Coast in 1971. Due to extensive looting and subsequent loss of provenance, their study included specimens from museums, private collections, art galleries, and dealers. Most of the images in their publication were of poor quality and could not be reproduced for this study, except for a few pictures. Yolks are stone objects, so named for their resemblance to wooden yolks placed over the necks of draft animals. Players of the Mesoamerican ball game wore around their waist items shaped like yolks. Hachas are flat stone objects resembling stone axes. Of particular interest to this study are the stone yolks with toad motifs and their association with the Mesoamerican ceremonial ball game. Yolks from Vera Cruz typically display the toad motif (see Figure 17). The stone yolks are extremelyheavy, and 40

their purpose was, most likely, to function as commemorative pieces. Wood, rubber, or otherlight material made the yolks wearable in the actual ball game. The toad in Figure

17 has large bulgingneyes and parotid glands. The tongue is sticking out, and the front legs are tucked in. At the back end are the toad’s crouching hind legs. The association of the toad and the Mesoamerican ball game is, in my opinion, linked to the toad’s mythological power to transcend the realms of the cosmos. The ball game was a spectacle of death with its subsequent journey to Xibalba, the fearsome underworld. The toad, in its role as the mediator between life and death, denizen of upper and lower worlds, is part of the ball game iconography in decorations and incisions on ball game yolks.

Figure 17. Toad Yolk (ncartmuseiun.org. 2018).

Equally fascinating is the hacha in Figure 18. Very little information exists regarding this piece. The provenance is unknown and Shook and Marquis did not leave any recorded data on dimensions. It is one of the more sinister pieces of toad art since the 41

toad is holding a severed human head. It is a hacha, a flat piece of stone resembling an ax. There is no doubt the animal is a toad with parotid glands and large bulging eyes. The severed head has a serene look with closed eyes and ear flaps, a typical

Olmec ornament (Joralemon, 1971).

Figure 18. Toad Hacha (Shook and Maquis, 1974). Figure 18a. Toad Hacha (shook and Marquis, 1974).

The ball game symbolized the battle between day/night, life/death, and I argue upper/lower worlds. The ball court was the portal to the underworld (Shele and Miller,

1986). Players were ritually sacrificed after the game. I propose that Figure 18a is a portrayal of such a sacrifice. The toad, as a lord of the underworld, has claimed his sacrifice. 42

Figures 20 and 20a are associated with the hallucinogenic properties of toad poisons.

A brown ware effigy vessel shows a seated fat toad holding a vessel in his upraised front legs. The origin of the item isunknown. A shallow container sits on the upright legs.

Under the rim of the upraised bowl are carved Olmec style cleft headed figures, character eight elements, and one interlace, symbolizing water or liquid substances. The toad has parotid glands, as well as bulging eyes and a full mouth. When drinking from the vessel, it would seem as if the liquid was coming from the body of the toad itself. I propose that the bowl contained an intoxicating or hallucinogenic substance, probably used in rituals involving a trans journey. Another toad image is portrayed in the square jade pallet with a trough on its back. This trough may have been used to grind hallucinogens, not depicted

(see Figure 19, Table 3).

Figure 20. Toad With Bowl (Reilly, 1984). 43

Figure 20a. Detail of Band on Rim of Bowl (Reilly, 1984).

The art of the toad in Olmec iconography is impressive in its variety of materials and forms. I have shown in this chapter that the image of the toad exists on the large stele, small portable objects, such as ceramic and stone bowls, and in association with figurines. The image covers a vast expanse in time in Mesoamerica, from the Early

Formative to Pre-Classic periods. This ancient image, I believe, is a testament to the importance of the toad in religious and ritual life among the early inhabitants of Mesoamerica. In the next chapter, I will discuss the symbolic meaning of the toad image among the Olmec. I will isolate elements of the art that represent toad physiology, which, in turn, becomes a symbolic statement of Olmec religious ideas and principles.

Chapter 3: Toad, Rhinella marina, Symbolism

The toad, Rhinella marina, art I have presented is only a small collection of the many pieces available for discussion in this thesis. There are still today some exciting opportunities for the discovery of additional artwork, which will open up further research into this subject. After studying Olmec art, I can say without hesitation that this toad, as a symbolic animal, was central to the religious and cultural life of the Olmec. 44

Additionally, I contend that this toad, both in its natural and symbolic state, mediates the stage between water and land, life and death, and rebirth. The Olmec could observe the toad in its natural state, as the wet, tropical rainforest and riverine environment of their homeland produced many different species of amphibians. They appear everywhere from the riverbank to the tree canopy. Olmec neighbors and contemporaries to the north and the east, living in an environment with less precipitation, encountered as well, the toad.

The central tenant of my thesis is the duality of the toad. Its ability to live in two worlds, the wet and the dry, in water and on land, becomes symbolically the ability to traverse the upper and lower realms of a mythical cosmos. All toads live part of their lives on land, but they always return to a water source. Amphibians have mastered greatly this incompatible wet/dry situation to a high degree of adaptation to different environmental conditions.

Additionally, I propose that certain features of the toad, a large gaping mouth, the powerful hallucinogenic secretions of the parotid glands, the rapid and frequent shedding of the skin, and prolific fertility, garnered the animal a special place in the Olmec universe. These characteristics represent transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration, all-important religious concepts to the Olmec. Furthermore, I believe that the downtumed mouth and toothless gums, the cleft brow or intra orbital depression, present on all toads, have been copied and fashioned into the ubiquitous “baby” figurines in Olmec art (see Figures 21 and 21a). 45

Religious Concepts Relating to the Toad in Olmec Art

Scholars have argued that the jaguar was the most important and revered animal in

Mesoamerica. (Miller and Taube, 1993). From this perspective, the jaguar has been

considered a totem animal. These archaeologists have, however, acknowledged that

pieces of Olmec art identified as images of jaguars, in fact, could be toads (Miller and

Taube, 1993: 168). I contend that the toad is as equally important to the Olmec as the jaguar.

Figure 21. Olmec Baby Figurine (Pool, 2007).

Figure 21a. Toad With Intra orbital Depression (Kennedy, 1982)

I will take Miller and Taube’s assertion one step further and postulate that toad 46

features are present on the depiction of Olmec Gods. Deities associated with agricultural

fertility and water harbor characteristics of the toad. I will, in this chapter, engage with

scholars that have touched upon the subject of toad art, as well as those academics that,

carefully, and somewhat reluctantly, have discussed the importance of toad art in

Mesoamerica. The toad is not as physically attractive and as sleek as the jaguar; instead,

it is warty, slimy, and some would say, “ugly”. I propose that the hesitation in giving the toad its proper recognition as a powerful creature in the Olmec pantheon is due, in part, to the impression that it is a “lowly” and somewhat “repugnant” animal. Nothing could

be farther from the truth. In reality, perhaps the toad had a more significant impact on

Olmec culture than did the jaguar.

In 1975, Jonathan Culler, a professor of comparative literature at Cornell

University, published the Structuralist Poetics. His book was one of the first complete introductions in English to the French Structuralist Movement in literary criticism. In the book, he proposed an analogy between the structuralist description of how language operates and the rules and practices that make up “human culture”. He states that in the process of studying signs or symbols it is imperative to investigate the system of relations that produce meaning (Culler,1975). Furthermore, if human actions or productions have meaning, there must be an underlying system of practices that make this meaning possible (Culler, 1975). In the next section, I argue that the character of the toad, as expressed in art, represents fundamental religious concepts in Olmec culture.

The system of relations that produce meaning in the toad art are concepts of transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration. 47

Symbolic, Mythological, and Religious Theories

There are as many theories on the subject of symbolism, mythology, and religion as there are scholars studying the subject. In the 1950s, modem scholars such as Claude

Levi-Strauss and his theory of French Structuralism, Mircea Eliade and his ideas of the

Religious Man, along with a multitude of other theorists of Structuralism, then and since, have written extensively on the subject of symbolism. Starting in the 1950s, French cultural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss advanced his cognitive theory of

Structuralism. His basic proposition is that the human spirit (translated into English as

“human mind”) works in a binary fashion, which opposes nature versus culture in the making of the universe (Levi-Strauss, 1963). Eliade’s concept of Hierophany, the act of manifestation of sacred reality, requires an analysis of objects made holy. “By manifesting the sacred, any object can become something else, yet it continues to remain itself.” (Eliade, 1957:12). A sacred Toad remains a toad, but for those to whom a toad reveals itself as sacred; the immediate reality transmutes into a supernatural reality.

Eliade further stated that “by retelling myths, people could forget their ordinary existence and return to a mythical age where humans came in close contact with extraordinary creatures” (Eliade, 1963:8). Throughout history, societies the world over have used stories to define the character of animals that share their world, as creatures possessed of

“unusual powers”. Animals are usually depicted as inhabitants of a sacred world, infused with great powers. The toad is one such powerful being. The Olmec had no written language; therefore, our interpretation of their religion, symbols, and mythologies has to rely on the art they left behind. It is not possible to cover the multitudes of theories on the subject of mythology in this thesis. I will, however, analyze particular elements of 48

myths, namely the symbols that make up the myth cycle, which usually begins with a creation or origin myth, that suffers transformations.

Mesoamerican studies have theorists of symbolism, such as Peter Furst, David

Joralemon, Marlene Dobkin de Rios, and Allison Kennedy. In the 1970s, Peter Furst dared to propose that Mesoamerican cultures used hallucinogens in their religious rituals to produce temporary altered states of consciousness (Furst, 1972:10). He suggested that careful studies of societies with long histories of controlled use of hallucinogens to achieve “cultural objectives can harbor valuable information regarding the culture itself’

(Furst, 1972: 52). David Joralemon wrote the definitive dictionary of Olmec Motifs and

Symbols. The “flame brows” is one example of a symbol that is repeated over and over in Olmec art, on bowls, stele, figurines, and other portable objects. “Flame brows” are branched or scroll-like elements representing eyebrows (Joralemon, 1971: 7). The quantity of symbols is staggering and serves to illustrate the complexity of Olmec symbolic art. The “flame brows” alone have six variations in shape and form (see Figure

22). To my knowledge, Joralemon’s work has never been updated. The symbols

Joralemon cataloged have stayed the same, naturally, but their interpretation should be brought up to date, as research in iconography has changed since the 1970s. There is enough material on the subject of variation in Olmec symbols to cover several volumes.

A current computer graphics program could be developed to illustrate Olmec symbols and possibly detect nuances, which Joralemon’s manual transcription did not identify. 49

Figure 22. Flame Brows. A= Three or four repetitions of the squared-off element, B= Curvilinear shorthand version of Type A brow, C= Brow with only one rise, D= Brow with two rises, E= Brow with three rises, F= Brow with two hoop elements (Joralemon 971).

Dobkin de Rios’s research in the early 1970s centered on the psychotropic flora and fauna among the Maya, but I believe her ideas can be applied, as well, to the Olmec. In

1974, she discussed the meaning of mushrooms, toads, and water lily symbols in Maya art (Dobkin de Rios, 1974). She is the only person, besides me, that has considered the concept of dualism, structured binaries (water/land), and the toad. Whereas, Dobkin de

Rios relates the strong dualistic tendencies in the Maya religion to the use of hallucinogens, I contend that the Olmec revered the toad because of its natural and mythological ability to live a dual existence. She states that “extremes of euphoria and anguish” released in man with the use of drugs can be a predisposing factor in this 50

dualism (Dobkin de Rios, 1974:152). In the 1980s, Allison Kennedy was one of the first

anthropologists to recognize the importance of the toad in Olmec iconography. In her

article “Ecce Bufo: The Toad in Nature and in Olmec Iconography”, she examines the

physiological traits of the toad and compares them to characteristics inherent in toad

symbolism. She postulates that the cranial crest on the toad is the same element that

Joralemon labeled as “flame brows” (Kennedy, 1982: 274). Kennedy describes a feature

of toad poison, which I had not encountered before reading her article. She says toad

venom acts pharmacologically to increase contractions of the uterus in childbirth

(Kennedy, 1982: 276). This observation opens up another potential area of

research, where the toad is associated with women, childbirth, and fertility. These

scholars have inspired my interest in toad art. I will use their theories to create an

interpretation of the importance of the toad as a sacred symbol in Olmec art and

iconography.

It is imperative to understand the significance of the forces of water in the Olmec

world in order to comprehend the importance of toad iconography. Water is crucial to the welfare of human beings, whether it is plentiful, as in the Olmec heartland, or less so,

as in neighboring areas. In its natural state, water is not sacred, but its presence or

absence shapes human societies and their ability to prosper or perish. Therefore, water is

a benevolent blessing or an evil curse, or punishment To ensure the flow of water or to

prevent it from flooding and destroying low lying villages or sites, elaborate rituals were

enacted to appeal to the Olmec God Chac’s favor. I have discussed the altars and stele at

Izapa, where ceremonies honored the Gods. One of the oldest worshipped Gods in 51

Mesoamerica is Chac, the God of rain and lightning (Miller and Taube, 1993: 59). This

deity had its origins in the Formative Olmec transitional sites of Izapa and Takalik Abaj.

At another Olmec outpost, Chalcatzingo, in Morelos, Mexico, a rock carving shows a

seated figure in a cave from which wind scrolls emerge (see Figure 23). The seated

figure is believed to be a ruler impersonating the rain God Chac (Coe and Koontz, 2002).

Chac is the “rain God, God of water, owner of thunderbolts, lord and owner of the mountains.. .giver of maize. He is lightning, and he lives in the interior of a mountain, the doorway to his home guarded by a toad” (Thompson, 1970: 268). Here, there is a direct relationship between the ruler and giver of rain, maize, and the toad. Another peculiar trait in the depiction of rain Gods is the bifurcated tongue (see Figure 24). This type of tongue is consistently, and I propose erroneously, labeled as saurian, feline or reptilian

(Parsons, 1986; Quirarte, 1976). The bifurcated tongue described as reptilian is an amphibian feature. Reptiles have short, more pointed bifurcated tongues, whereas amphibians are long and bulbous at the end, lacking true bifurcation. This type of tongue is a feature of the toad on Izapa stele 6 (see Figure 15). Figure 23. Chalcatzingo Relief (Coe and Koontz, 2002).

Figure 24. Chac With Amphibian Tongue (Kennedy, 1982). 53

The Olmec were agriculturalists and depended on a continued supply of rain for their crops. The prolific fertility of amphibians, as well as their association with water, is

linked to the richness of the earth and agriculture. The fact that the toad is incredibly

fertile and also cannibalistic, feeding on other small amphibians, symbolically links it to the earth as the Great Mother, who is at once the giver and taker of life. The myth of the

Hero Twins and their toad grandmother illustrates how the toad was instrumental in giving crops to humans. This is an ancient myth passed from the Maya and Aztec to post­ colonial peoples. I cannot prove that the Olmec had a similar myth, but I would like to think that the concept of the powerful toad in this symbolic representation resonated with the Olmec, as well as those of later cultures. The Hero Twins and their exploits are central in Mesoamerican mythologies. Popol Vuh is the foundation narrative of the

Maya, before the arrival of the Spanish conquest. In it, the book chronicles the exploits of the Hero Twins and their interactions with the Gods in the fearsome underworld, the

Xibalba. The following myth is fascinating in that it makes a connection between the jaguar and the toad (Furst, 2011).

The Twins are the offspring of a natural mother who is killed and eaten by the jaguar people. Toad Woman, or Toad Grandmother, who is also the supernatural Mother of the

Jaguars, intervenes and rescues the pregnant uterus. She keeps it near her life-giving

Maternal hearth until the Twins are ready to be bom. With supernatural speed, they reach adulthood and are taught the skills of hunters and the arts of shamanism by Toad

Grandmother. The Twins are suspicious of her, however, and after spying on her discover that she is also the mother of the jaguars that killed the Twin’s birth mother. 54

Here the tale becomes very interesting. Toad Grandmother can transform herself into a jaguar, and while in the form of a jaguar, she squeezes cassava flour from the poison

glands. The Twins kill, dismember, and bum Toad Grandmother. They spread her ashes

over a field they have prepared for planting. From her ashes grow the first food plants

(Furst, 2011). This creation myth gives the jaguar toad characteristics, as I mentioned before, such as parotid glands. Real-life jaguars do not have parotid glands.

The symbolic connection between the toad and the jaguar has not been fully

explored by scholars. The two animals occupy different planes of existence, but

somehow in symbolism, merge and share physical features. While the jaguar is an apex predator in its environment, the toad is the mediator between life/death/rebirth and water/land. Jaguars spend time in the water, hunting, but a watery world is not necessary

for their existence. Without a doubt, the beauty, stealth, and power of the jaguar made it

one of the most feared and revered animals in the tropical rain forest of Mesoamerica.

Because deities live both in the upper and lower realms of the cosmos, water

sources, such as wells, caves, and other deep bodies of water, are the entrances to the

underworld. Wells and caves are profoundly mysterious and dangerous openings in the

earth. This opening, or “maw”, is ubiquitous in Mesoamerican art and portrayed as a

quatrefoil, or four-lobed flower symbol (see Figure 25) (Guernsey, 2010). In the complex

and varied expression of religious symbols in Mesoamerica, the emblem of the quatrefoil

takes many shapes. It can be curvilinear or rectangular, complete or partial, horizontal or

vertical, of clay or stone, as a freestanding monument, or with architectural features, and 55

as a portable vessel (Guernsey, 2010: 75).

Figure 25 depicts the earth monster monument from Chalcatzing, Mexico. The large

open mouth symbolizes a cave opening into the underworld with maize plants sprouting

on the four sides of the maw. The open mouth is carved directly into the stone, and the

entry way shows signs of wear, as if a large number of people may have stepped through

the huge opening, perhaps in a ritual (Benson and de la Fuente, 1996).

Figure 25. Earth Monster Face with An Open Mouth (Benson and de la Fuente, 1996).

The cave motif from Chalcatzingo shows an individual (royal) sitting inside a quatrefoil with symbols of clouds and falling rain (see Figure 23). Placing the ruler within the cave-like formation, or quatrefoil symbol, gives him a supernatural ability to enter the underworld and communicate with the Gods that dwell there. The power 56

of transformation necessary to enter the underworld requires a belief in the possibility that the threshold between the otherworldly and everyday existence is real and accessible.

Participants in this transformation process, both viewers and practitioners, must be

willing to imagine a world beyond that which comprises daily existence. For those ready to dispense with the confinement of the mind, transformation holds the promise of entry into another world. The quatrefoil symbol is so varied and encompasses so many interpretations, it is difficult to ascertain its precise meaning. However, I propose that the

face of the supernatural being in Figure 25 is that of the toad. The large open mouth, the

slanted eyes, and the signs of agricultural abundance are superimposed upon a symbol of

caves, water, and the underworld. On monument four at La Venta, a similar supernatural face is carved on the lintel on top of the monument. Here, again, a ruler is emerging from a cave-like opening (see Figure 26). Julia Guernsey, in her treatment of the quatrefoil

symbol, is careful not to make any radical interpretations as to the meaning of the

symbol. She relates the symbol to caves, water, and zoomorphic animals, but her presentations do not go far enough. I connect these symbols to animals in the Olmec world, specifically the toad. Guernsey has written previously on toad alters at Izapa, and

I am disappointed that her discussion of the quatrefoil symbol is too carefully crafted.

One implication of Guernsey’s treatment of the quatrefoil symbol is that she has not

made a substantial interpretation of the motif. My goal for this thesis is to identify those traits of the toad, both natural and symbolic, in Olmec iconography, which would bring the animal out from obscurity and on to its rightful place in the Olmec pantheon. 57

Figure 26. La Venta Monument 4 (Pool, 2007).

I believe that the symbolic representation of the toad had a strong association with the underworld. When toad symbols appear in association with rulership, the meaning was well understood, similar to language syntax (a tenet of Structural Symbolism). Rulers embarked on the journey to the underworld with the help of the magical toad. The ruler/shaman in Figure 9 is most likely in the process of transformation. The toad incised on his scalp is the symbolic verb which legitimizes his power and right to undertake such a journey. The incision shows a toad in the process of shedding its skin. An elongated diamond, bracketed by crosshatch patterns, represents the molting process (Reilley,

1989:11). When the toad sheds its skin (known as molting), it is an elaborate process that happens frequently and rapidly. During molting, the skin is split down the back and is released in one piece. To begin the molting, the toad “yawns extravagantly for half an hour...then it repeatedly hunches up its back to loosen the outer, homy keratinized layer from the fresh young livery underneath. The skin splits up the back and under the ventral 58

surface, and on the underside of the four limbs.. .The toad then gradually sucks this loosened integument into its mouth” (see Figure 27) (Kennedy, 1982:282).

Figure 27. Toad Ingesting Molted Skin (Furst, 1981).

This metamorphosis must have been an extraordinary display of magic as viewed by the Olmec. The symbolic death of the old body and the birth of the new is a powerful process of renewal and regeneration. I contend that the life cycle of the toad, from a tadpole to a fully formed adult, and its incredible fertility rate and numbers, combined with regenerative powers, made the toad an animal of extraordinary abilities. The ruler/shaman in Figure 16, for example, is undergoing the transformation process. He was ascending from the jaw of the toad with what appears to be skin hanging from his mouth. This “birth” would renew the ruler with a new vision and legitimacy of his kingship. The toad hallucinogen is the key that opens the door to knowledge of other planes of existence. 59

The substance from the parotid glands, bufotenine, is extremely dangerous, depending on which species of amphibian from which the substance is extracted. In a discussion of the possible use of this poison among the peoples of Mesoamerica, a controversial issue arose as to whether the Olmec knew about this hallucinogen (Furst,

1971). On the one hand, some argue that bufotenin is too dangerous and difficult to extract from Rhinella marina (Weil andDavis, 1993: 3). The substance in the poison, bufotenine, can cause heart attacks and respiratoryfailure if ingested directly into the body. From this perspective, the Olmec probably did not attempt to use this poison. On the other hand, however, others argue that Bufo alvarius, a less dangerous toad to handle, may have been the source of the necessary substance (Weil and Davis,1993:4). In the word of Andrew Weil, a renowned physician with knowledge of bufotenin and its effects on the human nervous system, it is highly unlikely that the ancient people of

Mesoamerica used substances from the poisonous toad, Rhinella marina (Weil and

Davis, 1993: 4).

In this discussion, the issue is which toad species supplied the Olmec with hallucinogens. My view is that the Olmec did, indeed, use the poison from Rhinella marina. Although I concede that the venom from this toad would have been very

difficult to use, I still maintain that it was possible. Bufo alvarius is a Sonoran desert toad, living at a considerable distance from the Olmec heartland. The Olmec may have invented methods for using the toad poison, without directly ingesting and touching the

substance. Hallucinogenic substances could have been applied to nose guards and

inhaled directly into the brain. Upon close inspection of the ruler in Figure 16, he may 60

have been wearing an alveolar mask suspended from the nasal septum (Kennedy, 1982:

281). Kennedy asserts that the perforated nasal septum is present on many Olmec jade figurines. Ethnographic records describe a process of steeping toad bodies in liquid,

consumed at ritual events. Thomas Gage, a 17th Century Dominican friar, proselytizing

in the Pokomam area of Guatemala, observed the making of a drink called Chica, where water, honey, tobacco leaves, various roots, and a live toad was sealed in a jar for several days, up to a month (Kennedy, 1982:284). Reports from Cozumel, Mexico recount the process of steeping toads in balche, a liquor made from the crushed bark of the balche tree, fermented with honey. Such a liquid is rich in alkaloids and glucosides, which may have reacted or intensified the bufotenine (Hamblin, 1979: 23). Indeed, this would have made a potent drink. Toad skin could have been dried and smoked. Andrew Weil reported using this method himself and experiencing hallucinations (Weil and Davis,

1993). I firmly believe that the Olmec were experts in extracting the toad hallucinogen without submitting themselves to heart attacks and respiratory failure. Otherwise, the

Olmec people would not have survived the ancient hallucinogenic deriving practice from the use of the parotid glands to reach an altered state of consciousness.

Conclusion

The theory behind this study has been that the Toad, Rhinella marina, was a sacred being to the Olmec and that it represented the concept of duality in its ability to live in two worlds, the wet and the dry, in water and on land. That ability, in turn, becomes symbolically the ability to transverse the upper and lower realms of a mythical cosmos. 61

One important issue I have explored in this study is, in what manner does a society without a written language express its religious beliefs, mythologies, and cosmologies? I demonstrated that it is possible to examine the artwork of a society and distill its concepts

concerning the dual nature of life and death, transformation and renewal using non­ written forms of communication.

Some scholars argued that the jaguar was the most important and revered animal in

Mesoamerica. On the other hand, some have argued for the role of the toad as being equally important to that of the jaguar. The biological characteristics of toads, a dual existence in water and on land, become, in mythology, the ability to navigate between the realms of life/death and upper/lower worlds. The toad was used in ritual practices by the Olmec. Enactment of rituals before the toad signals the importance of the amphibian in mythology and religion in early Mesoamerican cultures.

Certain features of the toad, a large gaping mouth, the powerful hallucinogenic

secretions of the parotid glands, the rapid and frequent shedding of the skin, and prolific

fertility, garnered the animal a special place in the Olmec universe. These characteristics represent transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration, all-important religious

concepts to the Olmec and present in Olmec art. The downtumed mouth and toothless

gums, the cleft brow or intra orbital depression existent on all toads are, also observable

in the ubiquitous Olmec art.

The breadth and width of the art speaks of a highly developed culture, expressing a 62

people’s religious and mythological beliefs in stone and ceramics. Olmec art is indicative of a highly structured language and communication system. The Olmec created art of animal life that was present in their real-world, but, also, that was present in a mythological realm. The Olmec mythical themes of creation and the emergence of humans from a primordial beginning dominates the art. Biological characteristics and the ability to live on land and in water become, in mythology, the ability to symbolically traverse the different levels of a mythical cosmos, between the underworld and the upperworld. In cosmology, death and its opposite, resurrection and life, signal the process of transitioning from old to new, from the death of the old body to the rebirth of a new body. The power of such transition requires a belief in the possibility that the threshold between the otherworldly and everyday existence is real and accessible.

In the mythology of many indigenous people, animals can transition between the realms of cosmic divisions. The toad’s capacity to symbolically traverse the different levels of the cosmos gives the animal its supernatural powers. Symbols and rituals usually contain a range of meaning. The toad image may symbolize rain/water, fertility, and hallucinogenic powers among other attributes. The hallucinogenic properties of parotid gland secretions played an essential role in the iconography of transformation, metamorphosis, and regeneration in shamanic rituals. The hallucinogen is the key that opens the door to the knowledge of other planes of existence.

Since Deities live both in the upper and lower realms of the cosmos, water sources,

such as wells, caves, and other deep bodies of water, are the entrance to the underworld. 63

Placing the ruler/shaman within the cave-like formation, or quatrefoil symbol, gives him

a supernatural ability to enter the underworld and communicate with the Gods that dwell there. I conclude that the face of the supernatural being is that of the toad.

When toad symbols appear in association with rulership, the meaning was understood by the entire community. The depiction of a ruler/shaman emerging from the open jaws of a great toad illustrate the process of metamorphosis by the presence of

skin ligaments hanging from the ruler’s mouth. Toads shed their skin and ingest the loose

skin. The symbolic death of the old body and the birth of the new is a powerful process

of regeneration and renewal. This process is a narrative of the power of a ruler and his journey into (or, emergence from) the underworld. The ruler is embarking on a transformation journey with the aid of the magical toad. The toad is the symbol which

legitimizes his power and right to undertake such a journey. The ruler is participating in

one of his most notable roles. His task is to interact with the Gods to ensure the fall of

rain, a bountiful harvest, and the safety and well-being of his people. For users of the toad

in the ritual process, the immediate reality transmutes into a supernatural reality. The rebirth has renewed the ruler with a new vision and legitimacy of his kingship and

rulership. In closing, this study has identified those traits of the toad, both natural and

symbolic, that would bring the animal out from obscurity and on to its rightful place in

the Olmec pantheon. 64

References Cited

Baudez, C.F. 1971. ‘Commentary on “Inventory of Some Pre-Classic Traits in the Highland and Pacific Guatemala and Adjacent Areas’ Contributions o f the University o f California Archeological Research Facility 11 78-87.

Blomster, J.P. 2002. What and Where is Olmec Style? Regional Perspective on Hollow Figurines in Early Formative Mesoamerica, Ancient Mesoamerica, 13: 171-190.

Blomster, J.P., Neff, H., and Glasscock, M.D. 2005. Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through Elemental Analysis. Science 307 1068-1072.

Coe, M.D. 1968. America’s First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co.

Coe, M.D. 1984. Mexico. London: Thames & Hudson.

Coe, M.D. 1989. The Olmec Heartland: Evolution of Ideology, in RJ. Sharer and D.C. Grove (eds.) Regional Perspectives on the Olmec pp. 68-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

and Koontz, R. 2002. Mexico: From the Olmec to the Aztec. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Covarrubias, M. 1957. Indian Art o f Mexico and Central America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Culler, J. 1975. The Linguistic Foundation For Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press. 65

Cyphers, A. 1996. Reconstructing Olmec Life at San Lorenzo. In E.P. Benson and De la Fuente (eds.), Olmec Art o f Ancient Mexico pp. 61-71. National Gallery of Art: Washington D.C.

Cypers, A. 1997. Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo. In B.L. Stark and P.J. Arnold (eds.), Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gvlf Lowlands, pp. 96-14. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

De la Fuente, B. 2000. Olmec Sculpture: The First Mesoamerican Art Studies in the History o f Art, Vol. 58, pp. 252-263.

Demarest, A. 1989. The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica. In R.J. Sharer and D. Grove (eds.), Regional Perspective on the Olmec, pp. 323-344. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diehl, R.A. 2000. Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Gulf Coast In F.W. Adams and Murdo J. MacLeod (eds.), History o f the Native Peoples o f the Americas, Vol. 2. Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Rios, M. 1974. The Influence of Psychotropic Flora and Fauna on Maya Religion. Current Anthropology, 15 (2): 147-160.

Drucker, P., Heizer, R.E., Squier, R.H., 1959. Excavations at La Venta Tabasco. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 170. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Eliade, M. 1957. The Sacred and the Profane. New York: Harcourt, Inc.

Eliade, M. 1963. Myths and Reality. New York: Harper and Row 66

Femie, E. 1995. Art History and its Methods: A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon

Flannery, K. 1968. The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction in Formative Times, In E.P. Benson (ed.), Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec pp. 79-100. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks

Flannery, K. et. at. 2005. Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for Olmec “Mother Culture” Model. Proceedings o f the National Academy o f Sciences 102 (11219-11213).

Furst, P.T. 1972. Symbolism and Psychopharmacology: The Toad as Earth Mother in Indian America, XII Mesa Redonda, Religion en Mesoamerica, pp. 61-68. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologica.

______. 1981. Jaguar Baby or Toad Mother: A New Look at an Old Problem in Olmec Iconography. In E.P.Benson (ed.), The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essay in Memory o f Matthew W. Stirling, pp. 149-162. Washington D. C: Dumbarton Oaks.

Gay, C.T. 1972. Xochipala: The Beginnings o f Olmec Art. Princeton, N.J.: The Art Museum, Princeton University.

Gonzales Lauck, P. 1996. La Venta: An Olmec Capital. In E.P. Benson and B. de la Fuente (eds.), Olmec Art o f Ancient Mexico pp. 73-81. Washington D.C: National Gallery of Art.

Grove, D.C. 1973. Olmec Alters and Myths. Archaeology 26:128-135.

Guernsey J. 2000. Late Formative Toad Alters as Ritual Stages, Mexicon XXII: 80-83. 67

Gumesy, J. 2010. A Consideration of the Quatrefoil Motif in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Anthropology and Aesthetics 57/58: pp. 75-96.

Guernsey, J. 2016. Water, Maize, Salt and Canoes. Latin American Antiquity 27: pp. 340-356.

Indianapolis Museum of Art. 2013. Ballgame Waist Yolk. http://www.imamuseum.org/collections/browse-collection/ancient-art-americas. Accessed 2018.

Joralemon, P.D. 1971. A study o f Olmec Iconography, Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no.7 Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks.

Kennedy, B.A. 1982. Ecce Bufo: The Toad in Nature and in Olmec Iconography. Current Anthropology, 23(2): 273-290.

Killion, T.D. 2001. The Olmec legacy: Cultural Continuity and Change in Mexico’s Southern Gulf Coast lowland. Journal o f Field Archaeology, 28 pp 3-25

Latin American Studies. 2011 Olmec Shaman. http://wwwhttp://www.latin-american- studies.org/Qlmec shaman.html. Accessed 2019.

Lesure, R. 2000. Animal Imagery, Cultural Unities and Ideologies of Inequality in Early Formative Mesoamerica. In John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye (eds.), Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, pp. 193-215. Washington: Yale University Press.

Lesure, R. 2012. Personal communication. In a conversation at UCLA in December 2012 Dr. Lesure stated: “The toad was incredibly important to the people of Mesoamerica”.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology. Schopf. 68

Marcus, J. and Flannery K. 1989. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Miller, M.E. and Taube, K. A. 1993. An Illustrated Dictionary o fthe Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd.

Norman, G. 1973. Izapa Sculptures. New World Archaeological Foundation. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Parsons, L.A. 1986. The Origins of Maya art: Monumental Stone Sculptures of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala and the Southern Pacific coast. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 28 Washington D.C: Dumbarton Oaks.

Pohorilenko, A. The Olmec Style and Costa Rican Archaeology. In E. Benson (ed.), The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory o f Matthew W. Stirling. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Pool, C. 2007. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reilley, K.F. 1989. The Shaman in Transformation Pose: a Study of the Theme of Ruler Ship in Olmec art. Record of the Art museum, pp. 5-21. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rosenwig, R. 2015. A Mosaic of Adaptation: The Archaeological Record for Mesoamerica’s Archaic Period. Journal o fArchaeological Research, 23: 115-162.

Saville, M.H. 1925. Votive axes from ancient Mexico. Indian Notes, 6: 266-299. 69

Sharer, R.J. 200. The Maya Highland and the Adjacent Pacific Coast. In E.W. Adams and MJ Murdo (eds.), The Cambridge History o fthe Native Peoples o fthe Americas, Vol 11 : Mesoamerica, Part 1. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press: pp. 449-499.

. and Traxler, L.P. 2006. The Ancient Maya. Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press.

Shele, L. and Miller, M.E. 1986. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Fort Worth, Texas: Kimball Art Museum.

Shook, E. and Marquis, E. 1997. Secrets in Stone: Yokes, Hachas and Palmas from Southern Mesoamerica. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Smith, V. 1984. Izapa relief carving: form, content, rules for design, and role in Mesoamerican art history and archaeology. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology no. 27. Washington D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Stirling, M.W. 1965. Monumental sculptures of southern Vera Cruz and Tabasco. In G.R. Willey (ed.), Archaeology o f Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, Handbook of Middle American Indians Vol. 3, pp 716-738. Austin 1965.

Stirling, M.W and Stirling M. 1942. Finding jewels of jade in a Mexican swamp. National Geographic Magazine 82: 635-661.

Thompson, E. J. 1970. Maya History and Religion. Norman Oklahoma

University of Florida. Dept of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. 2013. http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/frogs/florida.shtml. Accessed 2019. 70

Weil, A., Davis, T. 1993. Bufo Alvarius: A Potent Hallucinogen of Animal Origin. Journal o f Ethnopharmacology 41:1-8