Jaguar Symbolism and Me So American Elites

8/4/2019 Jaguar Symbolism and Me So American Elites

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jaguar-symbolism-and-me-so-american-elites 1/15

Predators of Culture: Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican ElitesAuthor(s): Nicholas J. SaundersSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 1, Archaeology of Pilgrimage (Jun., 1994), pp. 104-117Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124867

Accessed: 11/10/2010 17:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124867?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124867?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Predators o f c u l t u r e : j a g u a rsymbolism a n d Mesoamerican

e l i t e s

Nicholas J. Saunders

Situating symbols

One of the most frequently encountered images in Mesoamerican art and iconography is

that which appears to show America's largest feline - the jaguar (Pantheraonca) - in either

naturalistic, stylized or anthropomorphic form. Yet, despite the frequency of represen-

tation, in civilizations spanning three thousand years, discussions of such imagery have

often been lacking in analytical precision. Most accounts have tended arbitrarily to

identify the animal, or its constituent parts, as jaguar, and then to assert its symbolic

significance. Arguably the most serious consequence of this is that, hitherto, both

formalist and analogical interpretations of such imagery have regarded the jaguar's

importance as a self-evident 'fact' (e.g. Bernal 1976:66; Furst 1968: 148; Krickeberg et al.

1968: 11) rather than a graphic but speculative assumption.Since art is one of the ways in which people represent how they conceive of themselves,

and their place in the world (Roosevelt 1991:89), the appearance and frequency of jaguar

motifs, as with any animal motifs, is not arbitrary,but is centred on the symbolic systemswhich use the motifs metaphorically to express qualities regarded as significant for a given

society, and within particular contexts. There is nothing obvious in the way in which a

culture will regard a particular animal, or in the way in which it may utilize the animal's

empirical behaviour or appearance in its symbolic reasoning (e.g. Douglas 1957; 1990;

Lewis1991),

orimage-making (e.g. Morphy

1989:5).

In thissense,

thejaguar symbol

did

not come ready-made, with a cluster of inherently important attributes somehow ascribed

to it by 'Nature'. Rather, the jaguar, along with the natural world's diversity of culturally

defined animate beings and 'inanimate objects' (Levi-Strauss 1976:184-5), should be

regarded as a cultural appraisal. It is argued here that it is not from what we regard as

empirical nature, but rather from an indigenously 'constructed nature' that animal

symbols are taken, and from which they derive their efficacy as signifiersof human activity.

Species are not natural kinds, but rather a product of classification, as an ordering

process which creates and sustains the potential for metaphor use (Douglas 1990). As a

society's ideas about, and attitudes towards an animal are, at least in part, a product of

classification, then the constraints of emic logic will, presumably, also circumscribe the use

WorldArchaeology Volume 26 No. 1 Archaeology of Pilgrimage( Routledge 1994 0043-8243



Jaguar symbolism and Mesoamerican elites 105

to which the image, symbol, or metaphor of that animal can be put. What is needed in

order to consider meaningfully the jaguarsymbol, like any symbol, is the identification of a

local emic theory which entrenched its use in patterns of social behaviour and belief

(ibid.: 27).

Image and imagination in Mesoamerican art

The physical and symbolic associations between large predatory cats, warfare, and

pre-eminent social status are particularly evident in Mesoamerica, where images of

felines, feline-like creatures, and humans with feline attributes, apparel, or accoutre-

ments, are found in a number of chronologically and spatially separated cultures (e.g.Benson 1985; Coe 1972; Kubler 1972; Peterson 1990:90-103; Saunders 1989). Whilst

'jaguar' imagery has been a recurring theme in Mesoamerican iconography from thePreclassic Olmec (c. 1250-400 BC) to the Postclassic Aztec (c. AD 1350-1521), assessingits significance has been problematical.

In one sense, interpretational difficulties began with assessments of Olmec art which

identified what were assumed to be jaguar or were-jaguar images in a variety of media,from delicately carved jade items to monumental stonework and cave paintings (e.g. Coe

1968; 1972; Coe and Diehl 1980; Furst 1968; Grove 1984; Stirling 1943; 1955). Despiteoccasional more considered and sometimes contrary views (e.g. Coe 1990; Furst 1981;Luckert 1976; Stocker et al. 1980), the fascination of the Olmec 'feline complex', togetherwith the outmoded but enduring view of the Olmec as a 'mother culture' (Bernal 1976),

combined to produce a 'conceptual straitjacket' which constrained many subsequentdiscussions. Such views were often clearly influenced by a Eurocentric conception of the

symbolic and ideological role of large felines in Old World culture history (e.g. Coe

1972:1, 11; see also, Saunders 1992:3-4, 220), and current Amerindian beliefs and

practices concerning hallucinogenic rituals and shamanic vision quests (e.g. Furst 1968;Harner 1978). These accounts ignored the fact that Pre-Columbian 'jaguar' imagerycannot be considered a logical or all-inclusive antecedent to current Amerindian

symbolism, still less a parallel to the attitudes displayed by a diversity of European cultures

towards lions, tigers, or leopards.This problem was compounded by an equally serious issue - that which dealt with the

nature of representation. Many interpretations seemed to assume that Pre-Columbian

artists were concerned only or mainly to represent the animal naturalistically, either in partor whole. Such societies were evidently regarded as having been largely unaffected by

cultural, psychological or any other factors which may have intervened to channel or

influence their depictions (Ucko and Rosenfeld 1972; see also, Layton 1977:34). In other

words, ancient Mesoamericans appeared to subscribe to an eighteenth- and nineteenth-

century European artistic tradition of 'photographic reality' rather than to their own

indigenous stylistic canons.

Closely linked to this issue was the unfortunate fact that hitherto feline imagery had

often been labelledsimply

as'jaguar',

with littleconsistency

or method in the terminology

of such assumed species-identifications. For example, the Aztec term for the living jaguar,

ocelotl, has been given in English as ocelot (e.g. Burland 1967:90; Davies 1973: 143) or,



106 Nicholas J. Saunders

even worse, as tiger (Vaillant 1944:127). Further, Dibble and Anderson, in their

translation of the sixteenth-century Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-78), conflate two

Aztec terms, ocelotl (i.e. jaguar) and tlaco-ocelotl (i.e ocelot, Felis pardalis), thus using

one English term, ocelot, to refer to what, in the corresponding Nahuatl text, are twoclearly differentiated types of feline. The significance of such an indiscriminate and

confusing use of terms lies in the fact that it obscured the emically logical process of

classification by which Pre-Columbian societies recognized and named particular species,invested them with particularqualities, and used them to symbolize social values, attitudes

and behaviour.

A further complication was that these interpretational difficulties were often nested

within a wider debate on the appropriateness of using sixteenth-century Late Postclassic

ethnohistorical data to interpret the iconography of earlier Preclassic and Classic periodcultures. Where some authors clearly favoured the 'unitary' view of Mesoamerican

civilization (Nicholson 1976: 169) - where there is an assumed continuity of iconographicand ideological symbolism spanning three thousand years (e.g. Coe 1968:111-15;

Joralemon 1971; 1976) - others urged caution, warning of the dangers of 'disjunctive

situations', where form and meaning may have become realigned over time (Kubler1967: 11; 1970). By relying on superficialresemblances of form to indicate resemblance of

meaning, without any understanding as to how or why 'regularities'were generated, many

previous interpretations have failed to consider that, even where there is historical

continuity, this does not guarantee similarity of prehistoric, historical, or ethnographic'culturalexpressions' (Wylie 1985:74-5).

Previous interpretations of so-called jaguar symbolism have, by and large, been

evocative rather than compelling. Part of the underlying problem seems to have been thatone-off, all-embracing explanations have been uncritically applied to a diversity of

cultures, ignoring the fact that form, content and style of representation can differ within

and between societies, and for a variety of ecological, psychological, cultural and

utilitarian reasons (Ucko 1988:xi).And yet, there is evidence from many parts of Mesoamerica that the jaguar appears to

have been conceived in such a way that its meaning (i.e. the combination of qualities which

it signified) was embedded in language and belief, as well as art. Whatever it was that the

jaguar represented, it was apparently important enough to have been appropriated

symbolically by the elites of at least two major Pre-Columbian civilizations - the Aztec and

Maya. In addition, these two civilizations appear to have thought about, 'constructed' and

used jaguar imagery in broadly similar ways, and in certain analogous contexts, to recent

Amerindian societies in both Central and South America. It is possible, therefore, to

employ an analogical approach in assessing jaguar imagery, and perhaps to suggest a

limited degree of convergence between ethnographic, ethnohistoric and archaeologicaldata. By utilizing a deliberately restricted, as opposed to an all-inclusive, range of

ethnographic materials, this paper aims to show how jaguar symbolism was entrenched in

Aztec and Maya conceptual thought and anchored firmly in meaningful patterns of

symbolic activity.



Jaguarsymbolism and Mesoamerican elites 107

Locating meaning in the ethnographic dimension

Given theinadequacy

ofprevious approaches,

andarchaeology's inability

toprovideconclusive answers unaided, the wealth of ethnohistoric and ethnographic data on jaguar

imagery clearly comes into its own. This view is strengthened by an apparent unity of

feline, and particularly large spotted-cat symbolism, in the ethnographic and archaeologi-cal records of Central and South America over a period of some three thousand years

(Benson 1972; Saunders 1989; 1992:224). However, in order to avoid previous pitfalls,

analogical reasoning as employed here is not based on the assumption that human

behaviour is generically uniform, or that any contemporary society will replicate the exact

association of attributes distinctive of a prehistoric culture. It is acknowledged that

analogy is an inductive, probabilistic argument which suggests but a partial similarity,

never a complete identity (Wylie 1982:392-3). It is further recognized that 'similarity'itself is a culturallyrelative notion. Nevertheless, it is apparent that a careful consideration

of ethnographic contexts widens our interpretive horizons by suggesting generative

principles and generalizations that can be tested against archaeological data (Stark1993:95). This process, I will argue, offers potentially useful insights into the architecture

of ancient Mesoamerican conceptual thought.In Central and South America, ethnographic data reveal a close symbolic relationship

between the jaguar, social status, warfare, and the wielding of spiritualand political power

by shamans and chiefs (e.g. Furst 1968; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1975; Roe, forthcoming;Saunders 1992:50-81). This contextual specificity indicates that jaguar imagery in dress

and accoutrements was associated with aggression (e.g. Furst 1968: 152-3; Levi-Strauss1948:365), the qualities of strength and fierceness (e.g. Goldman 1979:225; Karsten

1968: 124), supernatural protection (Karsten 1968: 123), and pre-eminent social status

(e.g. Goldman 1979:57). Jaguar killing, in particular, was a route to gaining and

maintaining social prestige (e.g. Metraux 1946:417; 1948:412), and local terms for the

jaguar were incorporated into the names and titles of priests, chiefs, deities and ancestors

(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1975:45).The greatest density of jaguar symbolism however, appears in association with the

shaman (e.g. Furst 1968; Goldman 1979:262; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1975) - a fact which has

led to some of the interpretational problems mentioned above. The varied aspects of this

relationship are well illustrated by the imagery invoked by Guahibo shamans

[who] still wear headresses of jaguar claws turned upwards, necklaces of jaguar teeth,

and carry bags of jaguar fur that contain herbs, stones, and their snuffing equipment.The narcotic powder is kept in a tubular jaguar bone. .. . An officiating Guahibo

shamanpaints his face with black spots in imitation of jaguar pelt marks, a form of facial

paint that is only used by shamans.

(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1975:46)

For Amerindian societies, a fundamental equivalence between the jaguar, shamans,

warriors and hunters is reflected in etymology, inasmuch as local terms for the jaguar not

only acknowledge its status as the pre-eminent predator (e.g. Arhem 1981:203), but canalso denote predator status in extenso. This conceptual extension of the jaguar/predator

category is based, for example in north-west Amazonia, on the belief that any animal or




human which hunts any other can be referred to as yai (Hugh-Jones 1979: 124; Elizabeth

Reichel, pers. comm.), though typically it refers to the jaguar and powerful shamans

(1979: 124). Embedded in classification, the designation 'jaguar'signifies human attributes

ascribed to the culturallyconstructed animal in distinctive configurations.In the ethnographic context, jaguarimagery represents less a depiction or description of

the living animal per se, than of a 'bundle' of negotiated meanings appropriate to the

representation of certain culturally important qualities (Morphy 1989:5). From the

evidence presented above, these meanings appear to have been acknowledged in local

theories of the world within which the use of jaguar symbolism was apparently associated

with notions of strength, aggression and pre-eminent status. The conceptual correlation

between these notions and the relevant contexts of hunting, warfare, shamanistic ritual

(i.e. spirit-attack and defence), and general status display, illustrates the degree to which

jaguar symbols and metaphors were embedded in indigenous thought and action. In the

light of this ethnographic evidence it is possible to consider the meaning and significance ofsuch imagery in Aztec and Maya symbolic thought. By assessing how these two

civilizations conceived of the jaguar, and in what contexts its symbolism was concentrated,it may be possible to throw some light on the indigenous logic which made the animal such

an apparently suitable vehicle for the metaphorical expression of elite display.

The Aztec

In the Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-82), we find the jaguar referred to as ocelotl and

regarded as the 'bravest' and 'fiercest' of animals, whose 'cautious', 'wise' and 'proud'disposition made it the 'ruler of the animal world' (ibid., Book 11: 1). This view suggests

that the Aztecs conceived of the ocelotl as the embodiment of a distinctive configuration of

human qualities, and that its imagery was appropriate to signify this 'bundle' of ascribed

attributes in certain contexts. We subsequently find ocelotl symbolism associated with

warriors, dignitaries and rulers - the Aztec elite - for whom the classificatory attributes

ascribed to the ocelotl were recognized as definitive qualities.

Especially brave warriors, for example, could become members of one of two elite

militaryorders, the ocelotl warriorsociety and the cuauhtli (i.e. eagle) warriorsociety, and

were then privileged to wear the appropriate costumes. Anawalt (1992) refers to the

design of the ocelotl warrior's costume as connecting the wearer to the power and

protection of the jaguar. Even the coincidences of birth-dates were significant, as those

individuals born under the sign of the month called ocelotl were regarded as possessing the

attributes signified by the jaguar (Duran 1971:402), and thus were particularlysuitable to

lead a warrior's life. The degree to which this aggressive aspect of jaguar symbolism was

embedded in Aztec thought is shown by terms with ocelotl as their root, which were

applied adjectivally to individuals who displayed the appropriatequalities. Thus the terms

ocelopetlatl and oceloyotl were considered particularly appropriate to describe valiant

warriors, and the qualities of valour and braveryin general (Simeon 1988:352).A similar concentration of ocelotl symbolism is found in association with Aztec royalty,

particularlyin clothing and paraphernalia. According to Sahagun (1950-82, Book 8: 23-5,

8), Aztec emperors adorned themselves with ocelotl capes, breech clouts, and sandals



Jaguar symbolism and Mesoamerican elites

Figure1 Thejaguar-skinhroneof theAztecemperorAcamapichtli fromCodexTovar).

made of the animal's pelt. Emperors also wore an insignia of ocelotl skin into battle

(Simeon 1988:352). This symbolic association is also evident in royalty's privileged access

to the use of a variety of ocelotl-skin thrones, mats and cushions (Sahagun 1950-82, Book

8: 31) (Fig. 1), as an expression of authority and rulership (Dibble 1971:324).There was also a religious and ideological manifestation of ocelotl symbolism in the

omniscient and omnipotent supreme Aztec deity Tezcatlipoca (Nicholson 1971:412;

Saunders 1990; 1992: 127-44). This god was the patron of royalty and played a central role

in rituals of royal accession (Townsend 1987). The most convincing of Tezcatlipoca'smanyocelotl associations was his transformational manifestation as the jaguar Tepeyollotli

(Jimenez Moreno 1979:28; Saunders, in press), who, in a number of codices, is showneither as a jaguar (e.g. Codex Borbonicus, Seler 1904: fig. 28a) (Fig. 2), or in association

with jaguar imagery (e.g. Codex Borgia, Morante 1991:32). This symbolism was

reinforced in Aztec cosmology and mythology, where Caso (1958:14-15) relates how

Tezcatlipocawas a nocturnal deity whose alterego was the jaguarand, as such, was also the

patron of Aztec sorcerers, who used the animal's claws, pelt, and heart in their magicalactivities (Sahagun 1950-82, Book 11:3).

The Maya

In the various Maya languages the jaguar is called balam or bolom (Alvarez 1984:328;

Laughlin 1975:84-5; Hunn 1977:233). In the Colonial Period Yucatec Maya language, the

109




"4pt? ^Figure 2 Tepeyollotli,the jaguar manifes-

5 - f tation of Tezcatlipoca the omniscientsup-premeAztec deity (from CodexBorbonicus;afterSeler1904).

balam was regarded as 'brave' and the etymologically-related term, boolay, signified

'savage', 'fierce' - and thus, presumably, jaguar-like behaviour, in all animals that killed

others (Alvarez 1984:328). The Yucatec Maya phrase, balam-tah, translates, sug-

gestively, as either 'to be like a jaguar'or 'to hunt like a jaguar' (ibid.: 329), andThompson

(1970: 291) notes also that the term balam was used as a symbol of strength, fierceness and

valour. Thus, for the Maya, as for the Aztec, the jaguar appears to have signified predator

status, and to have represented a cluster of highly specific human qualities. In the light of

this, we might expect to find a conceptual extension of balam symbolism from the realm of

animals to that of humans - in other words to be associated with warriors and the elite of

Maya society.Consonant with this view, Laughlin (1975: 84), Pitt-Rivers (1970: 189), and Gossen

(1975: 452) note that, amongst the more recent Maya, individuals with a strong and

aggressive nature were considered as possessing a balam as an animal soul-companion, or

nagual. Recent advances in Maya hieroglyphic decipherment appear to extend this

association back into the Classic Maya period (Houston and Stuart 1989:6). In Postclassic

Maya society, not only were there balam warrior societies who wore balam insignia,

apparel and accoutrements into battle (Landa 1982:52; Orellana 1984:60), but the whole

concept of warfare is referred to in a Yucatec Maya phrase which translates as 'spreading

the jaguar skin' (Roys 1967: 154). Similarly, in Classic Maya iconography, there is a closephysical and symbolic association between jaguar imagery, warriors, and warfare.

Specifically, Freidel (1986: 99-101) notes that the scroll-topped jaguar motif is a primary




Figure 3 A Classic Maya ruler from Temple III, Tikal, Guatemala. The figure is wearing a huge

jaguar-head helmet and an elaborate jaguar-skin costume, complete even to the tail (after W. R.Coe, Tikal Project).

I




image of war, as it appears in the battle scenes of the Bonampak murals (see also, Miller

1986:98, 107-8), is a prominent feature of warregalia in narrative scenes at Yaxchilan, and

is physically associated with glyphic references to war, captives and sacrifice on many

lowland Maya monuments.Ethnohistoric evidence indicates that jaguar imagery was also associated with pre-

eminent social status - specifically with strong, powerful and leading members of society.

The term balam, as well as certain of the living animal's physical attributes, appears to

have signified lordship (e.g. Edmonson 1971:148, 218). In the Popol Vuh of the Quiche

Maya, the term balam referred to magical power and was used as an epithet, almost a title,

signifying the qualities of strength and might (ibid.: 148). According to Thompson (1970),balam not only means jaguar, but also designated rulers and priests (see also, Edmonson

1984:93). These associations are apparent also in Classic Maya iconography, where elite

individuals wear what appears to be jaguar clothing, accoutrements and paraphernalia

(e.g. Benson 1985;Robicsek 1975: 108-11) (Fig. 3), the remains of which have been foundin elite mortuary contexts (e.g. Kidder, Jennings and Shook 1946:155; Pendergast1969:21; Smith 1950:90; Welsh, pers. comm.). A further association between rulers and

balam imagery in the Classic period is found in the many depictions of jaguar-shapedthrones or cushions of jaguar-skin (Robicsek 1975:108-18) - an association paralleled

during early Colonial times, when the phrase ix-pop-balam meant the 'jaguar mat', the

seat of authority in a Maya council (Roys 1967:66).

Conclusions

For both the Aztec and Maya, it appears that whilst Panthera onca was the empirical

prototype, the culturally 'constructed' jaguarwas the conceptual paragon. The latter, with

its freight of cultural meanings, served as a source of appropriate metaphor to express a

relational analogy consistent with the ascribed attributes of the animal in classification. To

'be jaguar', therefore, was to act in accordance with the distinctive, culture-specific

configuration of human qualities which the jaguar signified. Consequently, represen-tations of jaguars, either naturalistic or stylized, cannot be taken simply as denoting the

animal but also as connoting a variety of other meanings (Tilley 1991:44).Whereas

previous attemptsto

analyse jaguar symbolismin Mesoamerica have often

assumed that it was self-evident that Pre-Columbian peoples would worship 'jaguar gods'

(Krickeberg et al. 1968: 11), and that the jaguar was an obvious emblem for hierarchical,

sophisticated civilizations because it was such an 'essential animal' (Bernal 1976:66), I

have argued that such views represent an unwarranted assimilation of the past to the

present. I have also argued that it is possible to locate the meaning of such imagery more

securely in contexts of indigenous thought and action. Whilst I do not suggest that this

provides a definitive resolution to the problems raised by the analysisof such symbolism, it

may have gone some way to establishing what Douglas (1990: 28) has called a 'theory of

behaviour' rather than a correlation of superficial resemblances.

Morespecifically, amongst

theAztec, Maya

and more recent Amerindiansocieties,

conceptions of the jaguar, linguistic terms referring to human qualities which the animal

signified, and the context-specific uses of its imagery, have been shown to exhibit a degree




of similar patterning, in terms of warfare and status display. As the use of jaguar imagery

appears to have been internally consistent for each society, and as warfare and

status-related situations displayed the greatest density of such imagery, it can be suggested

for these designated contexts that the enduring form of symbolism possessed, at least in

part, an enduring similarity of culturally ascribed meaning and associated cultural

behaviour. In the light of this, the analogy between the ethnographic source and the

archaeological subjects can be regarded as having thrown further light on the meaningfuluses of jaguar imagery by the elites of two of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica's major

civilizations, and may serve as a starting point for more thoughtful considerations of

similar imagery in other Mesoamerican cultures.

8.x.93 Departmentof History

Universityof the WestIndies

Jamaica

References

Alvarez, C. 1984. Diccionarioetnolinguistico el idiomaMayaYucatecoColonial.MexicoCity:UniversidadNacionalAutonomade Mexico.

Anawalt, P. R. 1992.A comparativeanalysisof the costumes and accoutrements f the CodexMendoza. In The Codex Mendoza(eds F. Berdan and P. R. Anawalt),Vol. I. Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress,pp.103-50.

Arhem,K. 1981.MakunaSocial

Organization.Uppsala:UppsalaStudies n

CulturalAnthropology4;Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis.

Benson,E. P. (ed.) 1972. TheCultof theFeline.Washington:DumbartonOaks.

Benson,E. P. 1974.A Mananda Feline n MochicaArt.Washington: tudies nPre-Columbian rtandArchaeology14,DumbartonOaks.

Benson,E. P. 1985.The ClassicMayauseofjaguaraccessories. nFourthPalenqueRoundTableVI(ed. E. P. Benson).San Francisco:Pre-Columbian rtInstitute,pp. 155-8.

Bernal,I. 1976.TheOlmecWorld.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Burland,C. 1967. TheGodsof Mexico.London:Eyre&Spottiswoode.

Caso,A. 1958. TheAztecs:Peopleof theSun.Norman:Universityof OklahomaPress.

Coe, M. D. 1968. America's First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. New York: Van Nostrand.

Coe, M. D. 1972. OlmecjaguarsandOlmeckings.In The Cultof theFeline(ed. E. P. Benson).Washington:DumbartonOaks,pp. 1-18.

Coe, M. D. 1990. The Olmec heartland: volution of ideology. In RegionalPerspectives n theOlmec edsR. J. SharerandD. C. Grove).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.68-84.

Coe, M. D. andDiehl, R. 1980.IntheLandof the Olmec.Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

Davies,N. 1973. TheAztecs. London:Macmillan.

Dibble,C. E. 1971.Writingn CentralMexico.InHandbookof MiddleAmerican ndiansVol. 10,part1 (ed. R. Wauchope).Austin:Universityof TexasPress,pp.322-32.

Douglas,M. 1957. Animals n Lelereligious ymbolism.Africa,27:46-58.

Douglas, M. 1990. The pangolinrevisited:a new approach o animalsymbolism.In SignifyingAnimals: Human Meaning in the Natural World (ed. R. G. Willis). London: Unwin Hyman,

pp.25-36.




Duran, F. D. de. 1971. Book of the Gods and Rites andtheAncient Calendar(trans. D. Heyden and

F. Horcasitas). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Edmonson, M. S. 1971. The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh of the Quiche Maya of Guatemala.

New Orleans: Publication35,

Middle American ResearchInstitute,

TulaneUniversity.

Edmonson, M. S. 1984. Human sacrifice in the Books of Chilam Balam of Tizimin and Chumayel. In

Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica (eds E. P. Benson and E. H. Boone). Washington:Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 91-100.

Freidel, D. A. 1986. Maya warfare: an example of peer polity interaction. In Peer Polity Interaction

and Socio-Political Change (eds C. Renfrew and J. Cherry). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 93-116.

Furst, P. T. 1968. The Olmec were-jaguarmotif in the light of ethnographic reality. In Conferenceon

the Olmec (ed. E. P. Benson). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 143-75.

Furst, P. T. 1981. Jaguar baby or toad mother: a new look at an old problem in Olmec iconography.In The Olmec and theirNeighbours (ed. E. P. Benson). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 149-62.

Goldman, I. 1979. The Cubeo. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Gossen, G. H. 1975. Animals souls and human destiny in Chamula. MAN, 10(3): 448-61.

Grove, D. 1984. Chalcatzingo. London: Thames & Hudson.

Guggisberg, C. A. W. 1975. Wild Catsof the World. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Harner, M. J. 1978. Hallucinogens and Shamanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Houston, S. and Stuart, D. 1989. The Way Glyph: Evidence for 'Co-essences' among the Classic

Maya. Washington: Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 30, Center for Maya Research.

Hugh-Jones, S. 1979. ThePalm and the Pleiades: Initiationand Cosmology in Northwest Amazonia.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunn, E. S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. London:

Academic Press.

Jiminez Moreno, W. 1979. De Tezcatlipoca a Huitzilopochtli. Actes du XLIIe CongresInternational

des Americanistes, 6: 27-34.

Joralemon, P. D. 1971. A Study of Olmec Iconography. Washington: Studies in Pre-Columbian Art

and Archaeology no. 7, Dumbarton Oaks.

Joralemon, P. D. 1976. The Olmec dragon: a study in Pre-Columbian iconography. In Origins ofReligious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica (ed. H. B. Nicholson). Los Angeles:UCLA Latin American Center Publications, pp. 27-72.

Karsten, R. 1968. The Civilization of the South American Indians. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall.

Kidder, A. V., Jennings, J. D. and Shook, E. M. 1946. Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala.

Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Krickeberg, W. et al. 1968. Pre-Columbian American Religions. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Kubler, G. 1967. TheIconography ofthe Artof Teotihuacan.Washington: Studies in Pre-Columbian

Art & Archaeology 4, Dumbarton Oaks.

Kubler, G. 1970. Period, style, and meaning in ancient American art. New Literary History: A

Journal of Theoryand Interpretation rom the Universityof Virginia, 1-2: 127-44.

Kubler, G. 1972. Jaguars in the Valley of Mexico. In The Cult of the Feline (ed. E. P. Benson).

Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 19-49.

Landa, D. de. 1982. Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan. Mexico City: Editorial Porrua.Laughlin, R. M. 1975. The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Washington:Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 9, Smithsonian Institution Press.




Layton, R. 1977. Naturalism and cultural relativity in art. In Form in Indigenous Art (ed. P. J.

Ucko). London: Duckworth, pp. 33-43.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1948. The Nambicuara. In Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 3 (ed. J. H.

Steward). Washington:Smithsonian

Institution, pp.361-70.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1976. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Lewis, I. M. 1991. The spider and the pangolin. MAN, 26: 513-25.

Luckert, K. V. 1976. Olmec Religion: A Key to Middle America and Beyond. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.

Metraux, A. 1946. Ethnography of the Chaco. In Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 1 (ed.J. H. Steward). Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 197-370.

Metraux, A. 1948. Tribes of Eastern Bolivia and Madeira Headwaters. In Handbook of South

American Indians, Vol. 3 (ed. J. H. Steward). Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 381-454.

Miller, M. E. 1986. The Bonampak Murals. New York: Princeton University Press.

Morante, R. 1991. Tezcatlipoca: El Dios de todo lugar. Mexico desconocido, XIV(171): 30-2.

Morphy, H. 1989. Introduction. In Animals into Art (ed. H. Morphy). London: Unwin Hyman,

pp. 1-17.

Nicholson, H. B. 1971. Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American

Indians, Vol. 10. Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Vol. 1 (eds G. Eckholm and I. Bernal).Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 395-445.

Nicholson, H. B. 1976. Preclassic Mesoamerican iconography from the perspective of the

Postclassic: problems in interpretational analysis. In Origins of Religious Art & Iconography in

Preclassic Mesoamerica (ed. H. B. Nicholson). Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center

Publications, pp. 157-76.

Orellana, S. 1984. The Tzutujil Mayas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Pendergast, D. M. 1969. Altun Ha, British Honduras (Belize): The Sun God's Tomb. Toronto:

Royal Ontario Museum, Art & Archaeology Occasional Paper 19.

Peterson, J. F. 1990. Precolumbian Flora and Fauna. San Diego: Mingei International Museum

Exhibition Documentary Publication.

Pitt-Rivers, J. 1970. Spiritual power in Central America: the Naguals of Chiapas. In Witchcraft

Confessions and Accusations (ed. M. Douglas). London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 183-206.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1975. The Shaman and the Jaguar: A Study of Narcotic Drugs among the

Indians of Colombia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Robicsek, F. 1975. A Study in Maya Art and History: The Mat Symbol. New York: Museum of the

American Indian, Heye Foundation.Roe, P. G. Forthcoming. More than human: the jaguar as paragon and peril in lowland Amerindian

symbolism. In Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas (ed. N. J. Saunders). In

preparation.

Roosevelt, A. C. 1991. Moundbuilders of the Amazon. London: Academic Press.

Roys, R. L. 1967. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sahagun, B. de. 1950-82. Florentine Codex: General History of the Thingsof New Spain (trans. and

eds by A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble). Santa Fe: The School of American Research and the

University of Utah. 13 vols.

Saunders, N. J. 1989. People of theJaguar. London: Souvenir Press.

Saunders, N. J. 1990. Tezcatlipoca: jaguar metaphors and the Aztec Mirrorof Nature. In SignifyingAnimals: Human Meaning in the Natural World (ed. R. G. Willis). London: Unwin Hyman,

pp. 159-77.




Saunders, N. J. 1992. The jaguars of culture: symbolizing humanity in Pre-Columbian and

Amerindian societies. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Archaeology, University of South-

ampton.

Saunders, N. J. In Press. At the mouth of the Obsidian Cave: deity and place in Aztec religion. InSacredSites, Sacred Places (eds D. L. Carmichael, J. Hubert, B. Reeves and 0. Schanche). London:

Routledge.

Seler, E. 1904. Ueber Steinkisten, Tepetlacalli, mit Opferdarstellungen und andere ahnliche

Monumente. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Altertumskunde,2:717-66.

Simeon, R. 1988. Diccionario de la lengua Nahuatl o Mexicano. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.

Smith, A. L. 1950. Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-1937. Washington: CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publication 588.

Stark, M. T. 1993. Re-fitting the 'cracked and broken facade': the case for empiricism in

post-processual ethnoarchaeology.In

Archaeological Theory:Who sets the

Agenda? (edsN. Yoffee

and A. Sherratt). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93-104.

Stirling, M. 1943. La Venta's green stone tigers. National Geographic, 84: 321-32.

Stirling, M. 1955. Stone Monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. Washington:Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157, pp. 1-24.

Stocker, T. etal. 1980. Crocodilians and Olmecs: further interpretations in Formative period

iconography. American Antiquity, 45: 740-58.

Thompson, J. E. S. 1970. Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Tilley, C. 1991. Material Cultureand Text: TheArt of Ambiguity. London: Routledge.

Townsend, R. F. 1987. Coronation at Tenochtitlan. In TheAztec Templo Mayor (ed. E. H. Boone).

Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 371-410.

Ucko, P. J. 1988. Foreword. In What is an Animal? (ed. T. Ingold). London: Unwin Hyman,

pp. ix-xii.

Ucko, P. J. and Rosenfeld, A. 1972. Anthropomorphic Representations in Palaeolithic Art.

Santander: Separata de Actas del Simposio Internacional de Arte Rupestre.

Vaillant, G. 1944. The Aztecs of Mexico. New York: Doubleday.

Wylie, A. 1982. An analogy by any other name is just as analogical. In Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1(4): 382-401.

Wylie, A. 1985. The reaction against analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,Vol. 8 (ed. M. B.

Schiffer).London: Academic Press,

pp.63-111.

Wylie, A. 1989. Matters of fact and matters of interest. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural

Identity (ed. S. Shennan). London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 94-109.

Abstract

Saunders, N. J.

Predators of culture: jaguar symbolism and Mesoamerican elites

Jaguar imagery is one of the most frequently encountered features of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican

symbolism. However, despite its appearance in art and iconography over a period of some three

thousand years, most previous interpretations have tended to assert rather than prove its




significance. In this paper an attempt is made to locate such imagery meaningfully in several

categories of indigenous thought. Thus, this approach seeks to show how such symbolism is

entrenched in Amerindian, Aztec and Maya conceptual systems, and how 'constructions' of the

jaguar in classification led to the emically logical use of its verbal and artistic imagery in symbolicrepresentations associated with warfare, and the display of elite status.

Documents

Jaguar Symbolism and Me So American Elites