!

!

!

CLIMATES!OF!CHANGE!

The!Shifting!Environment!of!Archaeology!

!

!

!

!

Proceedings!of!the!44th!Annual!Chacmool!Conference!

Chacmool!Archaeological!Association,!University!of!Calgary!

!

!

!

!

Edited!by:!

Sheila!Kulyk,!Cara!G.!Tremain!and!Madeleine!Sawyer!

!

!

!

!

!

The!University!of!Calgary!

Chacmool!Archaeological!Association!

ISBN!978O0O88953O373O8!(print,!softcover)!

ISBN!978O0O88953O374O5!(PDF!on!CD)!

!

!

The$Climates$of$Change!–!Proceedings!of!the!44th!Annual!Chacmool!Conference.!©!2014,!Chacmool!Archaeological!Association,!University!of!Calgary,!Calgary,!Alberta,!Canada.!S.!Kulyk,!C.!G.!Tremain!&!M.!Sawyer!(editors).!!

The Proto-Maya-Mijesokean Hypothesis: Change and Transformation in Approaches to an

Old Problem

David F. Mora-Marín University of North Carolina

This paper reviews the proposals for the relationship of common descent between the Mayan and the Mije-Sokean language families, focusing on the approaches utilized to date, and outlining the results of the recent attempt by this author, who argues for a the reconstruction of a proto-Maya-Mijesokean language family. Three major approaches and their results are evaluated: the study of similarities based on shared structural traits, primarily during the first half of the 20th century (Radin 1916, 1924; Sapir 1929; Freeland 1930; McQuown 1942, 1956); the application of lexicostatistics, and in particular, glottochronology, during the mid-20th century (Swadesh 1954, 1956; Arana 1964, 1968); and the application of the Comparative Method in the late 1970s (Brown and Witkowsky 1979). These attempts failed to demonstrate common descent between the Mayan languages and other language families, in some cases because of inadequate theoretical assumptions and in other cases because of insufficient methodological constraints. During the past six years the present author has carried out a thorough application of the Comparative Method to the Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages, taking into account the role of diffusion, and has reconstructed 103 lexical etyma, 11 grammatical etyma, and a basic sound system. This paper outlines some of the results, and estimates the time of divergence of proto-Maya-Mijesokean at roughly 5,300 years ago, making it roughly coeval with proto-Otomangean, and potentially implicating its speakers in the early spread of agriculture in Mesoamerica.

INTRODUCTION Change, transformation, and revolution in the study of Mesoamerican linguistic history are familiar themes.1 These are manifested in the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 This research began in the spring of 2005, first on an exploratory basis as part of broader program for the collection of data for carrying out studies in Mayan historical linguistics, supported in part by the University Research Council at UNC-Chapel Hill. Increasingly, I began to attempt a thorough application of the Comparative Method that would test the viability of a proto-Maya-Mijesokean hypothesis. The current

cyclic episodes of lumping and splitting, splitting and lumping that characterize research on remote linguistic relationships among language groups in Mesoamerica and beyond over the past century. Not surprisingly, such shifts are also manifested in significant differences in methodological approaches. Three major approaches have been used to test remote linguistic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!state of my research was largely defined by the spring of 2011, and has benefited enormously from feedback provided by email and in person by several linguists since then.

! ! !214!

relationships among the languages of Mesoamerica: comparison of structural and submerged traits, primarily during the first half of the 20th century, focusing on shared phonological and morphological traits; lexicostatistics and glottochronology, starting in the mid-20th century, focusing on the retention of core vocabulary; and regular sound correspondences isolated by the Comparative Method, with limited application during the 20th century. Some of these approaches led a few authors to propose relationships of common descent between several of the language families of Mesoamerica (e.g. Mayan-Tarascan, Macro-Mayan, Huavemayan, etc.), and in fact, between several of the language families of North America and a few of the language families of Mesoamerica (e.g. Mexican Penutian as a branch of Macro-Penutian). However, as detailed in two major critiques of such efforts (Campbell and Kaufman 1980, 1983), and summarized in recent syntheses (Campbell 1997; Campbell and Poser 2008), most such approaches have failed— including those that have suggested a common ancestor for the Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages. The first task of this paper is to review these approaches, in order to understand the reasons for their failure. In addition, the present author is convinced that a thorough application of the Comparative Method to test for a remote relationship between Mayan and Mije-Sokean has not been offered to date, at least not in print. The only published attempt is that by Brown and Witkowski (1979). Their attempt was limited, focusing on correspondences involving two series of consonants in Mayan and four in Mije-Sokean, and utilizing a small dataset. Given the methodological problems attributed by Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983) to Brown and Witkowski’s (1979) attempt, the present author decided that only a comprehensive application of the

Comparative Method, examining all sound correspondences, would offer the possibility of solution to the problem. The second task of this paper, consequently, is to report on the preliminary results of this line of research, which are elaborated upon, in full detail, in Mora-Marín (Forthcoming). The study reported on here suggests that regular sound correspondences between Mayan and Mije-Sokean do exist; such correspondences point to shared descent from a common ancestor, dubbed proto-Maya-Mijesokean.2 This conclusion is based on the meticulous application of the Comparative Method, and the consideration of different types of methodological constraints on the nature of the comparative data, including means for identifying loanwords and reducing the risk of chance similarities. Significantly, a study of the type summarized here could not have been carried out without the more complete documentation of the Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages of the past few decades, evidenced by syntheses such as Kaufman with Justeson (2003) and Wichmann (1995), respectively. In fact, no change, transformation, or revolution in the study of remote linguistic relationships among the language families of Mesoamerica will be possible without increased and improved documentation of the many languages of the region, a process that still requires much attention, in a few cases of an urgent nature. PREVIOUS APPROACHES Next I review the three approaches that have been utilized in several tests of remote linguistic relationships involving

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 The label proto-Maya-Mijesokean is derived as follows: first, Mije-Sokean is modified to Mijesokean to indicate degree of relatedness (Mijean is closer to Sokean than either one is to Mayan); second, the adjectivizing suffix -an is applied to Maya-Mijesoke, not just Mijesoke.

! ! !215!

Mesoamerican languages, including Mayan and Mije-Sokean. Proposals of Relevance For this paper, there are two proposals that need to be mentioned: Mexican Penutian and Macro-Mayan. Here I follow the review and summary by Campbell (1997). Mexican Penutian is part of the broader Macro-Penutian grouping elaborated by Sapir (1929), and consisting of a classification of six language groupings (Oregon Penutian, Chinook, Tsimshian, Plateau Penutian, Mexican Penutian). 3 Sapir’s Mexican Penutian subgroup contained “Mixe-Zoque and Huave,” a proposal elaborated in more detail on the basis of “Mixe” and “Huave” by Radin (1916, 1924), and later by Freeland (1930). Moreover, as recounted by Campbell (1997:310), Sapir also considered “Xinca” and “Lenca” as likely affiliated with “Mixe-Zoque” and “Huave.” Macro-Mayan was first suggested by Radin (1924), who suggested that “Maya,” for which he used Yucatec (Maaya’ T’aan) and Quiche (K’iche’) as representatives, was related to “Mixe” and “Huave.” Later, McQuown (1942, 1956) and Swadesh (1954) both addressed Mayan and its external affiliations; McQuown (1942, 1956) argued for a relationship between “Mayan,” “Totonacan,” and “Mixe-Zoquean.” Swadesh (1954:362) proposes a “Huavemaya phylum” including “Huave,” “Mayan,” and “Mixe-Zoque,” on the basis of lexicostatistics and glottochronology. Several authors have carried out tests of the Macro-Mayan hypothesis, but most of the examples, including the most widely cited one by Kaufman (1964), have not given additional

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 Originally, Dixon and Kroeber (1913a, 1913b, 1919) proposed a Penutian family on the basis of five language families from California (Wintuan, Maiduan, Yokutsan, Miwokan, Costanoan).

support to the hypothesis. For his part, Fox (1978) assumes the correctness of the Mexican Penutian hypothesis, and in fact utilizes Mije-Sokean data as sources of external comparison in his reconstruction of proto-Mayan. Later, Brown and Witkowski (1979) published a “Maya-Zoquean” proposal, involving the Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages; this proposal is discussed below.4 Finally, more recently, Brown et al. (2011) have proposed a “Totozoquean” proposal, arguing for a relationship between the Totonakan and Mije-Sokean languages. The most detailed and comprehensive assessment of the state of research on remote linguistic relationships in the New World is Campbell (1997). Regarding Macro-Mayan, Campbell (1997:323) concludes that “the hypothesis is too weak to be embraced without reservations,” and characterizes the evidence as “suggestive” but “not persuasive.” He adds that the most important challenge faced by those in favor of such hypothesis “is that of distinguishing borrowed material from potential cognates,” but offers, nonetheless, an optimistic outlook: “I believe that ultimately Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean, and perhaps also Totonacan, will be shown to be genetically related” (Campbell 1997:324). Structural Traits and Submerged Features Some scholars have proposed remote linguistic relationships— often tentatively, but sometimes more firmly— on the basis of shared structural traits: characteristics, often phonological (the presence of certain types of contrasts, e.g. a distinction between oral stops and glottalized stops, or between plain vowels and long vowels) or morphological (e.g. the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 Witkowski and Brown (1978) also propose a much more comprehensive Mesoamerican phylum. However, as Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983) show, this proposal obviates important methodological constraints.

! ! !216!

presence of certain morphological categories or processes, e.g. a preference for prefixing instead of suffixing, a preference for aspect-marking on verbs, instead of tense-marking), once assumed as unlikely candidates for diffusion. Norman McQuown (1942:37-38), for example, proposed a phylolinguistic relationship between Mayan and Totonacan on the basis of the presence, in both groups, of glottalized consonants. Yet, as Campbell (1997:233) notes, “glottalization can diffuse,” or “can develop independently in a language,” and thus a structural trait of this nature is not sufficient to propose a relationship of contact diffusion, much less one of shared descent from a common ancestor. Some scholars have also made reference to so-called submerged features, pioneered by Sapir (1929, typically vaguely defined. At times these appear to be synonymous with the structural traits already mentioned, but often they are more akin to Antoine Meillet’s “shared aberrancies” (Campbell 1997:215-217; Campbell and Poser 2008:177-181). Swadesh (1951:8) referred to them as traits reflecting a “deep-seated coincidence in formation” that is “strongly suggestive of common origin rather than borrowing.” Using the criteria of structural traits and submerged features, Radin (1916, 1919, 1924) argued for a relationship between “Huave and Mixe” based on one variety of Wavi (Huave) and one variety of Mijean (Mixe), and later for a relationship between “Maya and Zoque-Huave” where he utilized “Maya” (Maaya’ T’aan or Yucatec) and “Quiche” (K’ichee’) as representatives of Mayan languages. Later, Freeland (1930) argued for a relationship of “Mixe to the Penutian Family” based on both grammatical and lexical data, including “morphological traits that have a strong Penutian flavour” (1930:28), which Campbell (1997:311-312) has reviewed and determined to be undiagnostic.

Lexical Retention of Core Vocabulary Swadesh (1954, 1956) and Arana (1964, 1968), for their part, attempted to classify the languages on the basis of lexicostatistics and glottochronology, by comparing the core vocabulary of different languages, or language groups, and arguing for different levels of relatedness based on the amount of shared core vocabulary, not to mention the determination of possible time depths for such groups. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the languages under comparison are in fact related prior to marshalling evidence for such relationship through the Comparative Method. Lexicostatistics and glottochronology may offer useful information only after the Comparative Method has been applied and shown to validate a proposal for common ancestry.5 For his part, Swadesh (1954) proposed the aforementioned “Huavemayan phylum,” for which he calculated a maximum time depth of 65 centuries, but did not present the “cognate” sets on which his calculations were based. Although he lists a cognate ration for each of his comparisons (e.g. 12/186 for Totonac-Yucatec, 15/187 for Huave-Totonac, 17/193 for Huave-Zoque, etc.), his dataset cannot be evaluated. Furthermore, his use of the term “cognate” to refer to the lexical comparanda implies, in the context of the application of the Comparative Method, a demonstrated relationship among the languages in question, but Swadesh did not attempt such an application. For her part, Arana (1964, 1968) does present all the data and analysis employed in her calculations, but since her dataset is not the product of the application of the Comparative Method, the only reliable

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 Lexicostatistics can certainly be utilized in order to formulate hypotheses for linguistic classifications that can be tested more thoroughly and reliably through the Comparative Method.

! ! !217!

method for demonstrating a relationship of cognacy, as well as for isolating loanwords, such results cannot be assumed to prove anything other than lexical similarities. Uncontrolled “Inspectional” Comparisons Several scholars have carried out what can only be described as uncontrolled comparisons of lexical and grammatical materials, and what has been termed as the “inspectional approach” by Campbell (1997:93). These comparisons are not mediated by the identification and analysis of systematic sound correspondences, but are simply carried out through the presentation of lexical and grammatical forms that exhibit resemblances, often only partial, in form and meaning, and no formal account of the nature of such similarities is typically offered.6 As explained by Campbell (1997:312), many of Freeland’s (1930) 108 lexical comparisons, which she used to propose a Penutian affiliation of “Mixe,” can be characterized in this way. Some authors do not even provide a dataset, restricting themselves to identifying sound correspondences without demonstration, as with Swadesh’s (1956:36) Table 2 illustrating “Penutoid Correspondences,” characterized as “provisional” within parentheses. Comparative Method The Comparative Method has been applied to study long-range relationships among the language families of Mesoamerica, but typically in a very undisciplined fashion. To my knowledge, the only published attempt to apply this method to the Mayan and Mije-

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 The inspectional approach corresponds to what Greenberg (1987) calls “multilateral (or mass) comparison,” but in essence it does not require the comparison of multiple languages at once, only two, to be characterized as “inspectional,” i.e. a shallow comparison without proof.

Sokean language families is that by Cecil Brown and Stephen Witkowski (1979), who compiled a dataset of 62 items and focused only on the correspondences involving velar and uvular stops, plain and ejective, in Mayan on the one hand, and velar stops and alveolar affricates in Mije-Sokean on the other. However, these authors failed to observe important methodological procedures that, as critiqued by Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983), led to the disqualification of two-thirds of their dataset.7 More recently, Brown et al. (2011) have put forth a “Totozoquean” model, based on the application of the Comparative Method, relating the Totonakan and Mije-Sokean language families. Common Pitfalls There are three common pitfalls in many previous studies: the lack of consideration of diffusion as a possible source of similarities, the uncontrolled application of the Comparative Method, and the application of a method involving comparison of morphemes (both lexical and grammatical) for the presence of similarities only (the inspectional approach). Regarding the first, specific remarks are offered below; regarding the third, some remarks have already been given. The second pitfall entails a significant number of methodological desiderata discussed in full detail by Campbell (1997:Chapter 7) and Campbell and Poser (2008:Chapter 7), as well as Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983), more specifically in relation to their critique of Brown and Witkowski (1979). These involve the problems that arise from ignoring sound-meaning isomorphism when selecting comparanda, utilizing short forms (e.g. forms in which only one of two or more consonants

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 Witkowski and Brown (1981) respond to Campbell and Kaufman’s (1980) critique, and offer important counter argments and additional data that have been considered in the study I report on here.

! ! !218!

exhibit a plausible correspondence) that increase the risk of chance similarities, as well as the possibility of similarities due to the onomatopoeic and sound symbolic nature of certain forms. Several studies have compared individual languages belonging to different language families, instead of comparing the respective proto-languages. This short-cut has the potential to introduce significant errors in the process. In addition, several studies compare superficially similar morphemes (whether lexical or grammatical), often also from individual languages belonging to separate language families instead of the respective reconstructed proto-languages, without attempting to filter out those that exhibit regular sound correspondences and those that do not. PRESENT APPROACH After studying these previous attempts, the author decided to carry out a comprehensive and systematic application of the Comparative Method. This is not a new method, of course, nor a new approach to the study of remote linguistic relationships in Mesoamerica. However, it can be a drawn-out and arduous process. This is most likely the primary factor that has led many authors to utilize methodological short-cuts (structural traits, submerged features; inspection; uncontrolled applications of the Comparative Method). The second factor is the lack of documentation of the required languages and the third factor is the rudimentary stage of the reconstruction of the relevant ancestral languages (e.g. proto-Mayan, proto-Mije-Sokean) during the first half of the 20th century. These secondary factors are no longer an issue: no valid excuses remain for avoiding the Comparative Method. The Dataset: Sources

The first step in this line of research was a thorough examination of Brown and Witkowski (1979), as well as its critique by Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983). Less than a third of Brown and Witkowski’s original dataset (16/62) survived the constraints necessary for the successful application of the Comparative Method. In addition, I also considered the more restricted dataset of 42 comparanda by Fox (1978), of which 36 survived evaluation against the criteria by Campbell and Kaufman (1980, 1983), and five of these overlapped with the 16 viable sets by Brown and Witkowski.8 Thus, the dataset for the present study began with 47 comparanda. The next step was the review of more than 50 loanwords involving Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages proposed by Campbell and Kaufman (1976) and Justeson et al. (1985), and more recently by Kaufman with Justeson (2003) and Kaufman (2007), in order to establish common patterns of phonological adaptation, semantic shift, and morphological reanalysis resulting from diffusion. Typically, loanwords can be identified on the basis of distribution within the language families: quite often, a form that is widely distributed within the Mije-Sokean language family is represented only narrowly, sometimes within a single subgroup or even a single language, in the Mayan language family. However, some loanwords that are more widely distributed can nonetheless be identified as such on the basis of phonological constraints, such as the canonical length and structure of lexical roots, which are often of CVC, CVCV, and even CVCVCV shapes in Mije-Sokean, but most commonly of CVC shape in Mayan. The author has relegated a few of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8 One of Fox’s (1978) sets was subsequently culled because of its narrow distribution within the Mije-Sokean languages, where it is only reconstructible to proto-Oaxaca-Mijean (Wichmann 1995), leaving only 35 of the 42 sets.

! ! !219!

proposed loanwords to a different status: as ambiguous cases, which, upon further analysis, could turn out to be cognates. To the loanwords proposed by previous scholars I have added several more; there are currently 90 loanwords, by this author’s count. The dataset for this project has been compiled from two sources: Wichmann’s (1995) etymological dictionary of the Mije-Sokean languages, and Kaufman and Justeson’s (2003) etymological dictionary of the Mayan languages. These sources have significantly facilitated and expedited the task of comparing the two proto-languages, proto-Mayan and proto-Mije-Sokean, directly and from the outset, instead of first compiling data for the individual Mayan and Mije-Sokean languages. This is an advantage that all previous scholars who have attempted the comparison simply lacked. The Dataset: Criteria for Inclusion Because of the problems that can arise from uncontrolled applications of the Comparative Method, and because such problems become compounded when investigating remote linguistic relationships, the following criteria have been observed:

1) Given the phylolinguistic classification of the Mayan languages by Kaufman (1976, 1989), which stipulates a series of successive binary splits, only terms reconstructible to the three highest levels (Figure 1), proto-Mayan, Late proto-Mayan, and proto-Central Mayan, were compiled;

2) Given the phylolinguistic classification of the Mije-Sokean languages by Wichmann (1995) and Kaufman and Justeson (2004), which agree in positing a binary split of proto-Mije-Sokean into proto-Mijean and proto-Sokean, as well as

Kaufman’s (2007) proposal of a third branch of Mije-Sokean, Northern Mije-Sokean, only terms reconstructible to proto-Mije-Sokean, proto-Mijean, proto-Sokean, or one of these two and Northern Mije-Sokean (Figure 2), were compiled;

3) Only forms with plausible biconsonantal correspondences in both Mayan and Mije-Sokean, that is, those forms where both consonants in a C1VC2 or C1VC2V form are potentially comparable, were considered initially (to avoid the risk of chance resemblances that arises from using too many short forms);

4) Semantic isomorphism between the Mayan and Mije-Sokean forms was the ideal, but some semantic latitude, controlled by actually attested variation within each of the language families, and accountable in terms of straightforward processes of semantic shift (e.g. metaphor, metonymy, grammaticalization, etc.), was permitted;

5) Onomatopoeic and sound symbolic forms were not used for the initial stages of comparison, but instead, were only considered once regular sound correspondences were determined on the basis of the comparison of other (non-sound symbolic) terms;

6) No forms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’ were included initially, given their potential origin as “nursery forms,” not to mention their propensity to spread through diffusion;

7) Forms from a wide range of semantic domains were included (to avoid chance of accidentally sampling from a semantic domain that has undergone more diffusion than others); and

8) Lexical and grammatical roots were included in the dataset, and an effort

! ! !220!

was made, regarding the grammatical roots, to search for possible paradigmatic correspondences (i.e. correspondences in a set of semantically- and functionally-related grammatical morphemes, not just randomly selected morphemes from different grammatical categories).

Application of the Comparative Method Following the compilation of the dataset, several steps were taken: isolating all the consonantal and vocalic correspondences in order to check for regular recurrences; accounting for regularly recurring sound correspondences in terms of plausible sound changes; reconstructing the basic sounds of the proto-language (proto-Maya-Mijesokean) and determining the changes undergone by each of the descendant languages (proto-Mayan, proto-Mije-Sokean).

Results Next I summarize the primary results of the application of the Comparative Method, including the reconstructed phonological system, the classes of reconstructed etyma, and a few illustrations of the types of correspondences of interest. The Sound System The basic sound system for proto-Maya-Mijesokean can be tentatively defined as follows: *p, *p’, *t, *t’, *ty, *ty’, *k, *k’, *ky, *ky’, *q, *q’, *ʔ, *ts, *ts’, *ʧ, *ʧ’, *m, *n, *ŋ, *s, *ʃ, *h, *l, *r, *j, *w, *y; *i, *e, *ɨ, *a, *o, *u; *V, *VV, *Vh, *Vʔ, *VVʔ. Other sounds exhibit regular recurrence but their reconstruction remains problematic. So far 71 consonantal correspondences have

Figure 1. Mayan language family tree illustrating the major branching events.

! ! !221!

been examined, most of them (77.5%) exhibiting recurrence. The validity of my claim rests on two patterns present in the data. First, for the vast majority of lexical terms compared, both the initial and final consonant were required to exhibit regular recurrences. Thus, for almost every comparison of a C1VC2 form, both C1 and C2 must show recurrence. And second, sound correspondences will either be self-contained, with one sound correspondence representing evidence for one ancestral sound, or in complementary distribution, with two or more sound correspondences representing evidence for one ancestral sound in different phonetic contexts. In the former case, there exist several correspondences that appear self-contained, e.g. proto-Mayan *k : proto-Mije-Sokean *k. In the latter case, there exist several correspondences that constitute allosets: two or more sound correspondence sets in complementary distribution. This is the case of proto-Mayan *b’ : proto-Mije-Sokean *p (root-initial, root-final), *m (between vowels), and *ʔ (root-final after high, non-front vowels). Approximately 43 consonantal changes can be defined, only one of them based on a unique consonantal correspondence. As far as the vowels are concerned, 24 vocalic correspondences involving only articulatory position have been identified. When length, glottalization, and aspiration of the syllable nucleus are considered, a total of 68 vocalic correspondences can be defined. Given the

featural variables present in the vowel systems of proto-Mayan and proto-Mije-Sokean, this is not surprising: V (plain), VV (long), Vh (aspirated), Vʔ (glottalized), and in the case of Mije-Sokean, also VVʔ (long glottalized), not to mention five basic vowel qualities in proto-Mayan (*i, *e, *a, *o, *u) and six in proto-Mije-Sokean (*i, *e, *ɨ, *a, *o, *u). So far, a small number of identity correspondences are evident. And it seems apparent that several (13) instances of proto-Mayan *a (or *aa) correspond to proto-Mije-Sokean *ɨ (or *ɨɨ), suggesting a merger in proto-Mayan (proto-Maya-Mijesokean *a, aa, *ɨ, *ɨɨ > proto-Mayan *a, *aa). But several other correspondences remain unaccounted for. The answer to many of them probably lies in vowel harmony between vowels of different syllables, and possibly in vowel alternations that could have been productive in the ancestral language (regular ablaut), but which could have become irregular in the descendant languages.9 For !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 In at least a few cases of disyllabic or trisyllabic roots or stems this appears to account for the vowel changes in proto-Mayan or proto-Mije-Sokean. However, for a majority of unaccounted for vocalic correspondences

Figure 2. Mije-Sokean language family tree illustrating the major branching events.

$

! ! !222!

now, four major vocalic changes can be defined between proto-Maya-Mijesokean and either proto-Mayan or proto-Mijesokean. It has also been possible, through the comparison of disyllabic roots and stems, to assess the possible reconstruction of the stress system, which can be argued to be of penultimate position. Vocabulary The vocabulary of proto-Maya-Mijesokean, consisting (at this time) of 102 lexical etyma and 11 grammatical etyma, can be divided into the following domains, with a minimum of likely cases: physical world (4 cases), animals (10 cases), plants (5 cases), people (1 case), body and bodily functions (8 cases), technology (7 cases), ritual and calendrical (4 cases), feelings (2 cases), colors (4 cases), other qualities (7 cases), actions (32 cases), grammatical (3 cases), and food production (7 cases). As far as cultigens are concerned, only the terms for avocado and coyol (type of palm) can be unambiguously reconstructed, while several terms regarding food preparation pertaining to maize can be reconstructed, but it is possible that some of these could have referred to grinding plants, more generally, and only later became associated with maize, more specifically. IMPLICATIONS Time Depth The proposed proto-Maya-Mijesokean language would have been spoken prior to the onset of the Formative or Preclassic period. Applying glottochronology, and taking into !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!we are dealing with monosyllabic roots; it is possible that vowel harmony between vowels of different syllables was at work here too, but we are simply missing at the present time evidence for a common inflectional or derivational suffix that could have exhibited a vowel responsible for changes in the root vowel. More research will clarify at least some such cases.

account that only 14 items from the 100-word Swadesh list (bone, hand, neck, drink, eat, bite, stand, give, sun, green, white, black, round, dry) can be secured on semantic grounds. Any glottochronologically derived time-depth based on such agreement would be significant, and comparable to that of proto-Otomangean, and furthermore, to the timing of the origin and spread of agriculture in Mesoamerica (Kaufman and Justeson 2009). Further External Relationships Recently, Brown et al. (2011) have put forth a proposal for the reconstruction of “proto-Totozoquean,” a common ancestor of the Totonakan and Mije-Sokean languages. Therefore, it is possible that further comparison could yield a proto-Maya-Totosokean language, quite likely one in which Totonakan and Mije-Sokean would be much more closely related to each other than either is to Mayan. Farther down the road, it will be important to revisit the earlier proposals that pointed to Wavi (Huave) as possibly related to Mayan and Mije-Sokean as well (Radin 1916, 1924). It would seem, then, that we are currently in a lumping cycle in Mesoamerican historical linguistic studies. But the important point is that the comprehensive bodies of data needed for the careful application of the Comparative Method are finally becoming available, and that it is unnecessary and undesirable to utilize the shortcuts (e.g. superficial and lexicostatistical comparisons) that were so often applied in the past. Loans I have also evaluated all the proposed loanwords between Mayan and Mije-Sokean (Campbell and Kaufman 1976; Justeson et al. 1985; Kaufman 2007), and the majority remain probable; I have added 20 new cases to the loanword dataset, which now totals 90,

! ! !223!

and rejected one case. The rejected case is that of proto-Mayan *ʔuul ‘atole’ and pSo *ʔunu ‘atole’, which Campbell and Kaufman (1976) have argued to be a loan (from Mije-Sokean into Mayan); however, given the correspondence of proto-Mayan *-l to pMiSo *-n- attested in two other cognate sets (#17, #71), and the correspondence of proto-Mayan *CVVC roots to pMiSo *CVCV roots or stems, attested in several other instances, it is proposed here that these are in fact cognates. Another data support both possibilities: cognates and loans. This is not a contradiction. Two languages can exhibit a cognate form, descending from the parent language, and at the same time, it is possible for one of the two languages to have borrowed a later version of the other language’s descendant with a different meaning. For example, proto-Mayan *ʔaal ‘child.of.mother’ and pMiSo *ʔun(a/e)(k) ‘child’ (pMi *ʔunak, pSo *ʔune) are proposed in this paper to be cognates (cognate #17), while the pan-Mayan term #ʔune(n) ‘boy, baby’ is considered to be a loanword (loan #53) from pMiSo *ʔun(a/e)(k) ‘child’ (probably pSo *ʔune), as argued by Campbell and Kaufman (1976:86). Another similar instance consists of proto-Mayan *q’iiŋ ‘sun, day’ and proto-Mije-Sokean *sɨw ‘sun, name, party’, which are argued here to be cognates. However, proto-Mije-Sokean *kih ‘to give light’ may very well be a loanword from either Huastecan *k’ij ‘time, weather, season’ or Eastern Mayan *q’iij ‘sun, day’, both reflexes of pMa *q’iiŋ ‘sun, day’. Most of these loanwords can be attributed to the Middle Formative and later time periods of Mesoamerican history. A few, however, appear to be very early loans, possibly between proto-Mayan and proto-Mije-Sokean, following their separation, but prior to significant diversification of either family. Two examples of such archaic loans could be

the etymon for ‘copal (incense)’, reconstructible to proto-Mayan as *poom and to proto-Mije-Sokean as *poomɨ, and for ‘cocoa’, among others already proposed by Campbell and Kaufman (1976), as well as proto-Mayan *ʔiš.i ‘to shell corn’ (Kaufman with Justeson 2003:1034) and proto-Mije-Sokean *ʔɨks ‘to shell corn’ (Wichmann 1995:241-242), suggested here. Overall, the present results do not require a revision to the proposal of Mije-Sokean as one of the languages, probably the most important one, centrally involved in the phenomenon known as Olmec civilization (Campbell and Kaufman 1976). The culture-historical implications of the results from this study will probably figure more prominently in the question of the origin and spread of agriculture, but the author has yet to investigate this in detail. CONCLUSIONS My research demonstrates the viability of a proto-Maya-Mijesokean language, spoken no later than around 2,300 bce, prior to the diversification of proto-Mayan, starting around 2,200 bce, and of proto-Mije-Sokean, around 1,000 bce, and possibly in existence during much of the original spread of agriculture in Mesoamerica. Certainly, the vowel correspondences remain problematic, but the consonantal correspondences for the most part show regular recurrence, and a basic sound system, including the basic vowels distinctions, is reconstructible. Interestingly, my research does not require the revision of earlier work by other scholars on the influence of Mije-Sokean languages on other Mesoamerican languages. For one, most of the loanwords proposed by Campbell and Kaufman (1976) and Justeson et al. (1985) remain valid; this author has added 20 more to the set. And second, proto-Maya-Mijesokean would significantly predate the emergence of

! ! !224!

Olmec civilization. This research also shows that it is necessary to get one’s hands dirty: the Comparative Method is extremely time-consuming, requiring that one sort through a great amount of data, particularly when applied to proto-languages of a significant time depth. But the reward is a substantial body of correspondences that overshadows the often tantalizing but inconclusive results of lexicostatistic comparisons from roughly half a century ago, and the structural comparisons from roughly a century ago. Such a transformation must become more common practice in the field. Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Nicholas Hopkins, Lyle Campbell, Søren Wichmann, and Brian Stross for their feedback, and especially Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson, with whom I spent a few days in Washington, D.C., in June of 2011, discussing many of the issues treated in this paper. The responsibility for the arguments presented here lie entirely with this author. This research has been supported, in large part, by three small grants from the University Research Council at the University of North Carolina aimed at collecting and analyzing data for the reconstruction of proto-Ch’olan-Tzeltalan and earlier historical stages of the Mayan language family. Finally, I would like to thank Sheila Lacey and Cara Tremain for the final editing of this paper. REFERENCES CITED Arana, Evangelina. 1964. La posición lingüística del huave.

International Congress of Americanists 35(2):471-475.

1968. Posibles relaciones externas del grupo lingüístico maya. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 6th series, 19(48):111-134.

Brown, Cecil H., David Beck, Grzegorz Kondrak, James K. Watters, and Søren Wichmann.

2011. The Totozoquean hypothesis. International Journal of American Linguistics 77:323-372.

Brown, Cecil H., and Stanley R. Witkowski. 1979. Aspects of the Phonological History of

Mayan-Zoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 45:34-47.

Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: the historical

linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, Lyle, and Terrence Kaufman. 1976. A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs. American

Antiquity 41:80-89. 1980. On Mesoamerican Linguistics. American

Anthropologist 82:850-857. 1983. Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics and

Distant Genetic Relationship: Getting It Straight. American Anthropologist 85:362-372.

Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method.

Cambridge University Press. Dixon, Roland, and Alfred L. Kroeber. 1913a. New linguistic families in California.

American Anthropologist 15:647-655. 1913b. Relationship of the Indian languages of

California. Science 37:225. 1919. Linguistic Families of California, 47-118.

University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Berkeley: University of California.

Freeland, L. S. 1930. The Relationship of Mixe to the Penutian

Family. International Journal of American Linguistics, 6(1):28-33.

Fox, James. 1978. Proto-Mayan Accent, Morpheme Structure

Conditions, and Velar Innovations. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago.

Justeson, John S., William M. Norman, Lyle Campbell,

and Terrence Kaufman. 1985. The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan

Language and Script. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University.

! ! !225!

Kaufman, Terrence. 1964. Evidence for the Macro-Mayan hypothesis.

Unpublished paper.

1976. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology 8:101-118.

1989. Mayan Comparative Studies, Parts A-D. Unpublished manuscript used with permission of author.

2007. Northern Mije-Sokean: the Elite Language of the Basin of Mexico from 1000 BCE to 600 CE. Conference paper, October 2007.

Kaufman, Terrence, and John Justeson. 2004. Epi-Olmec. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia

of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Robert D. Woodard, pp. 1071-1108. Cambridge University Press.

2009. Historical Linguistics and Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:221-231.

Kaufman, Terrence, with John Justeson. 2003. Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary.

Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/index.html, accessed January 1, 2004.

McQuown, Norman A. 1942. Una posible síntesis lingüística macro-

mayance. Mayas y Olmecas, pp. 37-38. 1956. Evidence for a synthetic trend in Totonacan.

Language 32:78-80. Mora-Marín, David F. Forthcoming. Testing the Proto-Mayan-Mijesokean

Hypothesis. Accepted for publication in the International Journal of American Linguistics.

Radin, Paul. 1916. On the relationship of Huave and Mixe.

American Anthropologist 18:411-421. 1919. The genetic relationship of the North

American Indian languages, 489-502. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Berkeley: University of California.

1924. The relationship of Maya to Zoque-Huave. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 16:317-324.

Sapir, Edward. 1949[1929]. Central and North American

languages. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality, edited by David G. Mandelbaum, pp. 169-178. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Swadesh, Morris. 1951. Diffusional Cumulation and Archaic Residue

as Historical Explanations. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:1-21.

1954. Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics. Word 10:306-332.

1956. Problems of Long-Range Comparison in Penutian. Language 32:17-41.

Witkowski, Stanley R., and Cecil H. Brown. 1978. Mesoamerican: A Proposed Language

Phylum. American Anthropologist 80:942-944.

1981. Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics and Distant Genetic Relationship. American Anthropologist 83:905-911.

Wichmann, Søren. 1995. The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean

Languages of Mexico. Provo: University of Utah Press.