Historical Linguistics and Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica

Abstract

This article presents some of the authors' perspectives on the past 20 years of work that applies the results of research in historical linguistics to the understanding of the histories and cultural practices of pre-Columbian Mesoamericans. It focuses on major cultural transformations to which both historical linguistic and archaeological data can contribute, such as the spread of agriculture, and migrations in Mesoamerican prehistory. It also addresses major culture-historical studies on narrower topics: on Nawa and its place in the prehistory of Mexico, in particular confirming standard views that Nawas were immigrants into Mesoamerica; on Archaic and Formative period interactions involving Oto-Mangeans, which is work that is largely still to be done; on the prospects for work on long-distance contacts between Mesoamerica and North America; on the contributions of historical linguistics in Mesoamerican epigraphy; and on the value and prospects of updating the methodology of glottochronology.

Otomanguean historical linguistics: Past, present, and prospects for the future

“…Language contact offers a window onto prehistory, but relatively little such work exists for Otomanguean languages. Kaufman and Justeson (: 222) note that in “Mesoamerica, lexical borrowing among languages occurs at fairly low levels, so its occurrence reflects a serious amount of interaction,” which is what they claim for cases of borrowing from Mixe‐Zoquean into Zapotecan and other Mesoamerican languages under Olmec influence (Kaufman & Justeson, : 200). A couple of other reported cases involves proto‐Oto‐Pamean‐Chinantec words borrowed into proto‐Uto‐Aztecan (Hill, ) and Mixtec borrowings in Chatino (Campbell, : 414).…”

“…Although ethnonyms and toponyms may hold such clues for identifying the language of earlier inhabitants of an area (Vennemann, ), toponymical evidence for Mesoamerican prehistory is complicated by a widespread and enduring practice of calquing, or loan translation. For example, the Spanish name of the town Tututepec, near the coast of Oaxaca, is from Nahua to:to:tl tepe:‐k “bird hill‐on.” In colonial Mixtec, it was yucu‐dzaa “mountain‐(of)bird” (Jiménez Moreno, : 98) and in Zenzontepec Chatino, it is kē kinī “mountain (of)bird.” Because the Nahuas were likely a late arrival to Mesoamerica (Fowler, : 245; Kaufman & Justeson, )—though that is still disputed (Hill, , )—we might tentatively rule out Nahua as the original source of the name. Linguistic evidence suggests that Mixtecs expanded towards the coast from near San Juan Mixtepec (Bradley & Josserand, : 293, 297; Josserand et al, : 156), and the Mixtec Lord 8 Deer “Jaguar Claw” ruled the Coastal kingdom of Tututepec around 1,000–1,100 C.E.…”

“…In colonial Mixtec, it was yucu-dzaa "mountain-(of)bird" (Jiménez Moreno, 1962: 98) and in Zenzontepec Chatino, it is kē kinī "mountain (of)bird." Because the Nahuas were likely a late arrival to Mesoamerica (Fowler, 1983: 245;Kaufman & Justeson, 2010)-though that is still disputed (Hill, 2001(Hill, , 2012)-we might tentatively rule out Nahua as the original source of the name. Linguistic evidence suggests that Mixtecs expanded towards the coast from near San Juan Mixtepec (Bradley & Josserand, 1982: 293, 297;Josserand et al, 1984: 156), and the Mixtec Lord 8 Deer "Jaguar Claw" ruled the Coastal kingdom of Tututepec around 1,000-1,100 C.E.…”

“…No other accepted Mesoamerican language family is as diverse as Otomanguean, and it remains the Mesoamerican family about which we know the least (Kaufman & Justeson, : 226–227), at least relative to its diversity. Although this diversity itself may be one reason for this, another reason is that Otomanguean languages present remarkable complexity in their sound systems and word structure, which has made them challenging to analyze, describe, and compare, but which also makes them of general synchronic, diachronic, and aesthetic interest.…”

Otomanguean historical linguistics: Exploring the subgroups

“…O f these eight major subgroups, several display considerable diversity of their own (Zapotecan, Mixtecan, Popolocan, and Oto‐Pamean), whereas others consist of a handful of languages and varieties (Chinantec), a few closely related languages (Mè'phàà‐Subtiaba, Chorotegan), or perhaps one language with a few varieties (Amuzgo). While Otomanguean is distributed over a much smaller area than the Indo‐European language family, its overall diversity and the number and variable depth of its major subgroups are roughly comparable (Kaufman & Justeson, ).…”