Pallan and Melendez Foreign Influences EMC Leiden[1]

Foreign Influences on the Maya Script

Carlos Pallán Gayol

Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, INAH Lucero Meléndez Guadarrama

Posgrado en Estudios Mesoamericanos, UNAM

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the nature

and extent of the linguistic influence that other

Mesoamerican languages exerted on the Maya,

exclusively as it was reflected on the

hieroglyphic script. In doing so, we don´t want

to merely summarize, but to critically re‐

examine previous proposals, and hopefully add

further evidence of linguistic contact between

the Maya and other Mesoamerican cultures, in

light of the enhanced understanding of the

hieroglyphic script that we have today. Recent

advances in decipherment make it more viable

nowadays to perform a number of comparative

studies between linguistic interactions amongst

related cultural areas of Mesoamerica. Just as a

way of example, the amount of syllabic signs

whose phonetic values we know today more

than doubles what was known in 1984

(Mathews 1984: 311‐314; cf. Stuart, 2005:

syllabary). There has also been considerable

advancement towards defining the main

prestige language that comprises the vast

majority of known glyphic texts (Houston,

Robertson and Stuart, 2000) and also about

which local vernaculars were represented

(Lacadena and Wichmann 2000).

1. Methodology

A loanword constitutes an addition to a

receiving linguistic system and is therefore the

result of a process called linguistic interference

(Weinrich, 1982 apud Lastra 1992:172), which

implies a reorganization of tendencies resulting

from the introduction of foreign elements

within the structured domains of the language,

such as phonology, morphology, syntax and

lexicon. When future generations of speakers

continue to use these innovations, awareness

about their foreign origin might be lost and

they can become permanent linguistic changes.

Specifically on the Maya script, lexical diffusion

from one language to another usually leaves

some form of evidence at the phonological and

semantic levels (i.e. as the syllabic pattern or

re‐semantization). Apparently, the most

common form of lexical interference that is

noticeable on the glyphic corpus occurs when a

sequence of phonemes is transferred from the

donor language to the host system without

being analyzed, so what originally was a

linguistic compound in the former language (i.e.

as a nominal or adverbial phrase), becomes a

single word in the other. When dealing with

loanwords, solid linguistic arguments are

required to determine such crucial aspects as

the direction of the loan (Justeson et al. 1984:

3). As for chronology, datable internal

epigraphic evidence is also useful in helping to

establish the moment of the earliest attestation

of the loan within the host linguistic system.

We will not adhere to previous dating methods

based on glottochronology, since they are no

longer widely accepted, having raised concerns

about their problematic correlation with other

datable archaeological evidence (Houston

2000: 158; Nurse 1997: 366; Macri & Looper

2003: 286).

The fact that diverse sociocultural inferences

can be derived from such linguistic evidence

still remains largely overlooked by

archaeologists and historians in general (Ehret

1976; Houston 2000), and even more so within

the field of Maya studies, where there exists a

large epigraphic corpus that records many sorts

of linguistic data. Just as linguistic interference

could be considered as an aspect of cultural

diffusion and acculturation (Lastra 1992: 174),

we believe that evidence of loanwords attested

within the Mayan writing system should reflect

–if only partially‐ the relative political

importance and cultural dominion of diverse

Mesoamerican groups for a given moment in

history.

Within Mesoamerica, we believe there were at

least four major cultures that at least

potentially could have left testimony of their

influence and interaction with the Maya

civilization through specific foreign terms

phonetically recorded on the hieroglyphic

writing system. Based on the number of such

terms and the extent of their cultural

significance, we could propose a hierarchical

ordering of these four languages according to

their relative importance and degree of cultural

impact as reflected on the Maya script, an

exercise that we will reserve for the last part of

this paper. The degree to which this hierarchy

could be supported by the available epigraphic

and historical‐linguistic evidence will be the

subject of the following sections.

It is through ‘core’ linguistic forms that we are

able to detect diffused lexical items that might

appear anomalous with respect to those of the

host language. For instance, Maya languages

tend to have a CVC structure with very few

exceptions, which then can be combined or

affixed to form syllabic compounds of the type

CVC‐CVC or CVC‐VC. As a result, stems that

don’t readily conform to the above patterns

could potentially represent candidates for

being loanwords, assimilated from a foreign

language.

An additional aspect to consider if we are to

formulate cultural inferences from this data is

to semantically categorize the diffused terms.

In doing so, we found it useful to employ the six

basic semantic fields developed by Kaufman

(2003: 12) although with slight modifications.

These would be 1) Animals, Animal Parts,

Bodyparts 2) Plants and Plant Parts 3)

Technology, Tools and Techniques, Agriculture

4) Kinship, Social Organization, Commerce and

other cultural contacts, Toponyms 5) Calendar,

Ideology and Belief and 6) Basic Vocabulary and

Grammar.

2. Mixe‐zoquean influence

According to Kaufman and Justeson (2001; see

also Justeson & Kaufman 1997) Mixe‐Zoquean

culture also developed a highly sophisticated

hieroglyphic script of logosyllabic nature that

predated and influenced that of the Maya, a

writing system which has been alternatively

called ‘Epi‐Olmec’ by these authors or

‘Isthmian’ by Houston (2000: 130‐31) and other

scholars. Regarding its precise linguistic

affiliation, Wichmann (1998: 35) has suggested

that the language represented should

correspond to the proto‐Zoquean stage. As for

the question of whether or not it predated the

Maya script, fairly recent discoveries of Mayan

hieroglyphs at San Bartolo (Saturno et al. 2005)

suggest that a revision of our current

chronologies might be in order, one that might

put Ishtmian an Maya writing systems as

contemporaneous to each other.

The syllabic structure of proto Mixe‐Zoquean is

CVCV, and according to Dakin and Wichmann

(2000: 57) it has a stress pattern that usually

affects the penultimate syllable. Kaufman and

Justeson (2004; 2001) have extensively

discussed the relationship between Mixe‐

Zoquean and the hieroglyphic script carved on

such monuments as La Mojarra Stela 1 and the

Tuxtlas statuette. As the stage of decipherment

of this script is being currently debated and

consensus has yet to be reached about its

plausibility, we will now turn our attention to

the possible Mixe‐Zoquean loanwords detected

thus far by previous authors that could have

found their way into the Maya script, coupled

with a few additions derived from our own

research.

2.1 Animals, Animal Parts and Bodyparts

domain

To begin with, the word for ‘coati’ is spelled as

chi‐ku on the script, rendering the Classic

Ch’olan form chi’[i]k. Justeson et al. (1985: 23‐

24) have observed that it could have originated

from proto Mixe‐Zoquean *¢i7k. As Simon

Martin has noted (Martin 2005: 10), there is an

Early Classic example for this term at Calakmul

Stela 114, where a ‘Lord of Chi’ik Naahb’ is

mentioned around A.D. 431 (Fig. 1a). Less

transparent is the case of the proto Mixe

Zoquean form*¢u:k for ‘mouse’ (Justeson et al.

1984: 24), manifested in the Maya region as the

term chuk that still exists in Ch’ol and Chontal,

cognates that appear very unlikely –on a

phonological level‐ to bear any relationship

with proto‐Mayan *ch’o7h for ‘ratón, rata’

(Kaufman 2003: 587) , attested on the script by

the sign T758 ch’o/CH’OH.

Also the so‐called ‘deer hoof’ sign (T795), which

seems to carry the logographic value MAY, has

been attributed multiple connotations, starting

with a direct semantic association with the

sign’s graphic representation, supported by

entries such as YUK maay, ‘pezuña’ and

‘pezuña de venado’ (Bastarrachea et al. 1992:

85; Aulex 2005: 53) and ITZ may (Vocabulario

Itza 2001: 51), but also hinting at other more or

less subtle variations of semantic range, such as

YUK ah may, ‘venadillo pequeño criado en casa’

or feminine ix may, ‘venadilla assi’ (Bolles 2001:

132 apud. Motul Mayan‐Spanish Dictionary),

attestations that might confirm or not a distant

origin and assimilation from proto‐Zoquean

*mΔ7a1, but other interesting possibilities arise

from Classic Maya MAY signs and these shall be

explored later. For now, we would also like to

discuss a term that has raised some controversy

lately, spelled glyphically as u‐si on the

Bonampak murals (Fig. 1c). While Houston,

Robertson and Stuart (2004:88) have argued in

favour of a Common Mayan *us form that

might have derived from Mixe‐Zoquean *7uusu,

‘mosquito’ (Houston et al. 2004: 88), they have

warned about the lexical context being highly

uncertain. On the other hand, Lacadena and

Wichmann (2004:158) regard this form as an

underspelling for usii[j], with the meaning of

‘vulture’, a term of certain Mayan etymology.

On our part, we have identified an additional u‐

si sequence, but again, lacking good semantic

controls, which appears as part of the name of

one of the rulers from Edzna, Campeche at

Hieroglyphic Stairway 1, pos. 31 (Pallan in press:

4‐6; Mayer 2004: 21). From this evidence alone,

it would perhaps be adventurous trying to

sustain that the Mixe‐Zoquean term was

diffused into Lowland Maya languages, but an

additional context first identified by Dmitri

Beliaev and Albert Davletshin (2003) at the K’an

Tok tablet from Palenque clearly reads ‘uht‐i‐

(i)iy‐Ø ta‐‘us, ‘it happened (at the) Mosquitoes’

(place) (Fig. 1d), given that the particle ta

appears to operate within this collocation as a

locative prefix, rather than the usual

preposition ‘in, at, to’, which is otherwise

absent from expressions such as ‘uht‐i‐(i)iy‐Ø

Pi[h]pa’, “it occurred (at) Pihpa’” (Pomoná,

Hieroglyphic Panel 5). It is worth commenting

that the form detected by these authors is

synharmonic, and therefore resembles more

closely the short‐voweled entries found at pM

and pCh *us (Kaufman & Norman 1984: 135);

pCH *7us; CHR, ITZ, MOP us; CHT and YUK #uz

among others (Kaufman 2003: 680).

An additional animal term that might have

diffused into Mayan languages is the Mixe day‐

sign for iguana ‹juun› (Justeson et al. 1985: 73;

Wichmann 1998: 20) which was apparently

assimilated into Lowland Maya as *hu:h, also

meaning ‘iguana’ but having lost its function as

a ritual day name (Wichmann, ibid.). In the

Maya script, there is ample evidence that the

sign T740 ‐deciphered by Grube as the syllabic

value hu‐ should have derived acrophonically

from Ch’olan *huj ‘iguana’ (Grube 1990a: 60).

Yet another sign, T1068, could be functioning in

certain contexts as logographic HUJ or HUH

with identical meaning (Figs. 1e,f)

To finish this section, there are three additional

cases of loanwords semantically related to

animals, represented on the script by the day

signs OK, HIX and CHWEN, which are likely to

have had their origins in proto Mixe‐Zoquean

forms, but we prefer to discuss them later on

the section of ‘Calendar, Ideology and Belief’.

2.2 Plants and Plant Parts

As for the ‘Plants and Plant Parts’ domain, there

is a clear example of lexical diffusion in the

term pataŋ, ‘guava, guayaba’, attested on

Mixe‐Zoquean languages such as that of Sierra

Popoluca. According to Erik Boot (2002: 67), the

Maya hieroglyphic form in which this loanword

was represented could be either spelled pa‐ta‐

ha or underspelled as pa‐ta (Fig.2a). Moreover,

Stanley Guenter (cit. in Lacadena & Wichmann

n.d.: 24) has noticed it could also appear in a

derived form as pa‐ta‐ha‐la.Wichmann (1998:

10) has agreed upon this being a strong

candidate for having “[...] diffused from pre‐

proto‐Zoquean to Pan‐Mayan”.

However, not all items within this category are

as clear and some need further exploration.

This is the case of the proto‐Oaxacan‐Mixe

(pOM) term for *šukuhk ~ šukuk, which stands

for ‘echar tortillas / to make tortillas’ (Wichmann

1995: 435). Within the Maya script, we are aware

of at least one spelling of su‐ku‐ku that occurs at

Codex Dresden, p. 65b (Fig.2b), presumably

refering to some sort of food offering involving a

road‐travelling god Chaahk. From such context,

sukuk has been interpreted in different ways.

Schele and Grube (1997: 192) translate as ‘black

or poor tamale’, drawing from glosses at Motul

dictionary,2 whereas Erik Boot (2002:72) lists it

as ‘bread stuff with ground beans’. Entries at

Bolles (2001: 302) for YUK zucuc suggest it

might refer to a plant species, leguminosae

diphysa carthagenensis. A parallel line of

exploration led us to the proto‐Zoquean word

for ‘palm grass’ or ‘zacate’, reconstructed by

Kaufman as *so7k, which might have passed to

the Lowland Maya region under the form su7uk,

attested on Mopán or ITZ, YUK suuk, both with

identical meaning (Kaufman 2003: 1155; Bolles

2001:362). If momentarily we decided to regard

suukuk as a MZ loan derived from this root, an

alternate reading3 for the context at this

Dresden almanac could become:

‘aan? ta b’ih Chaahk y‐utz‐il su(u)k‐uk u‐pa’?

“(On this day) Chaahk is on the road, Goodness (augury),

herbs/grass are his food(?)”

For the time being, we are unable to explain in

a more satisfactory manner the numerous

semantic problems that su‐ku‐ku posits, but we

esteem worthwhile to further explore its

precise etymological origins.

A much stronger case for hypothesizing about

early and significant cultural ties between Mixe‐

Zoquean and Maya cultures is the pervasive

term for ‘atole’, found extensively within the

ceramic corpus of Classic Maya vessels.

According to Kaufman (2003:1186), the proto

Mayan root *7uul originated from an earlier

proto‐Zoquean *7unu. The glyphic collocation

u‐lu appears very frequently on the so‐called

Primary Standard Sequence or Dedicatory

Formula, within the section that specifies the

contents intended for the bowl or vessel (Fig.

2c).

Another important potential loanword from

this domain that seemed to have diffused from

Mixe‐Zoquean into Maya languages, and could

appear at least once on the hieroglyphic record

has been noted by Barbara MacLeod (Reents‐

Budet 1994: 127) and further elaborated by Erik

Boot (2006: 6). It is pMZ *tzima7 , ‘jícara,

calabash’ (Kaufman 2002: 993), a loan which

seemingly reflects with good semantic control

on a Dedicatory Formula (PSS) painted over a

gourd‐shaped vessel (Fig. 2d) under the

possessed form u‐tzi‐ma?‐li4 (‘u‐tzima’?‐il); ‘it is

the gourd? of’ (Reents‐Budet 1994: 127).

Wichmann (1998: 8) has concluded that this

lexical item could have been diffused as early as

during the pMZ stage.

An additional candidate that –however

problematic‐ merits further exploration (Fig.

2e) is a proposal for the reading of sign T533 as

MOK? (MacLeod and Lopes n/d). The common

ki phonetic complement that accompanies this

sign in non‐calendric contexts would render –

according to these authors‐ the term mook,

diffused into Mayan from Mixe Zoquean terms

for ‘mazorca’ or ‘navel’, such as pMZ *mo:k,

reconstructed by Campbell and Kaufman, albeit

observing that: "[...] terms for maize [...] are

borrowed throughout Meso‐America, through

probably not from MZ" (Campbell and Kaufman

1976: 85). Yet another factor that calls for

caution here is that there exist additional and

very different decipherment proposals for this

sign which might be as valid as MOK? or even

more so, although none of them have yet

reached enough consensus among

epigraphers.5 To close this section, we should

mention that Kaufman´s Mixe‐Zoquean

reconstruction for the controversial term

*kakawa calls for a more thorough discussion

on a later section we have called ‘problematic

loans’.

2.3 Technology: Tools and Techniques,

Agriculture.

Time ago, Justeson et al.(1985:23) believed

they had encountered a correlation between

the proto‐Mixe term *ma¢, ‘to grasp’, and a

glyphic expression on page 15c of the Dresden

Codex, which they conceived as ma‐cha.

However, later research has shown that the

phonetic value for the sign T669 is k’a instead.

There are nevertheless other attested cases of

ma‐cha semantically related to the verb ‘to

grab’ (Boot 2002:57) which can be associated to

lexical entries such as CHR <machi> ‘pull off,

pick off in strips’ (Wisdom 1950:525) and YUK

<mach> ‘asir o tomar con la mano, empuñar;

tener asido, agarrar’ (Barrera Vásquez

1995:473). For instance (Fig.2f), a spelling ma‐

cha‐ja appears on vessel K1398 (Beliaev &

Davletshin 2006: 39‐40), but recent scholarly

debate tends to analyze it as ma’ chaj (NEG‐

VERB?) as opposed to a passivized ma‐h‐ch‐aj‐Ø

form (GRAB‐PASS‐INTR‐3ABSs). An additional

context with good semantic control involving

the spelling ma‐chi‐li? has been identified on a

glyphic caption at vessel K1560 by Beliaev and

Davletshin (2006: note 38), making a strong

case that the verbal root mach was indeed

attested on the Maya script with an identical

meaning to its Mixe‐Zoquean counterpart.

2.4 Kinship, Social Organization, Toponyms,

Commerce

A very clear example of a proto‐Zoquean

loanword is the term *7une or *7unin for ‘child,

infant’ (Kaufman 2003: 117). It was assimilated

by the Ch’olan prestige language mostly under

the possessed form yu‐ne2, ‘his child’. It is

significant that such a widespread parentage

term was borrowed from another language,

which would indicate –according to Campbell

and Kaufman´s (1976) model‐ a strong

interaction between Maya and Mixe Zoquean

cultures during the Early Classic, judging from

the presence of this expression at examples as

the hieroglyphic text engraved on a conch‐shell

trumpet from the Pearlman collection (Fig. 3a).

Next, the deer‐hoof logogram MAY, which we

already discussed, has been related to further

lexical entries that yield the meaning of ‘gift,

offering, dádiva, don’ (Morán 1695: 23

transcribed by Boot 2004), aside from being

semi‐homophonous to a widespread term for

‘tobacco’. For the first possibility, we have

found a more or less plausible correspondence

with the proto Mixe‐Zoquean verbal form

*ma7ay, which Kaufman (2001: 16) translates

as ‘to sell, vender, comerciar’ (see also

Wichmann 1995: 360), a term which in specific

contexts appears as it could also take the

connotation of offering something (CHL ‹maii›

‘oferta’; ibid. p. 23), although it still appears

slightly distant for sustaining a clear semantic

relationship. Another similar term diffused

from Mixe‐Zoquean into Mayan languages is

pMZ *may, ‘to count’ (Wichmann 1998: 13).

Although it seems to have diffused into some of

the Highland Maya languages preserving its

original meaning, the hieroglyphic attestations

that we are aware of don´t seem to support any

direct semantic connection.

A clearer borrowing from this domain that

carries important social significance is spelled

yu‐mu on the famous Rio Azul chocholate

vessel (Fig. 3b), first detected by David Stuart

(1988; 1997: 5), which renders the Ch’olan root

yum for ‘boss, head of family, father, patron’.

Wichmann (1998: 21) has detected its plausible

connection with proto‐Zoquean *7omi ‘boss,

father’ (pZ *ko‐7omi). Next we find the case of

a toponym, the glyphically attested Classic

name for the ancient city of Tonina, sometimes

represented by means of a diacritical mark to

reduplicate the sign T622 po, and others simply

spelled as po‐o (Fig. 3c), resulting nevertheless

in the term popo´, arguably derived from pMZ

*‹po:p?o? › ‘blanco’ (Wichmann 1995: 545).

According to Lacadena and Wichmann

(2000:10), this could be a reduced maya form

of an even older original Mixe‐Zoquean name,

which they propose could have been popo’

tzatäk, ‘white cave’,6 thus implying that the

proto‐Zoque word for ‘white’, popo’ was

preserved within the Emblem Glyph of Toniná.

A closely related additional loan could be the

one recently detected by Ignacio Cases (2007:

4) while exploring a plausible archaic Mixe‐

Zoquean origin for the po‐ya collocations found

within glyphs X from the Lunar Series, on the

basis of entries such as pMZ *poy’a or pZ *poya

for ‘luna’ or ‘moon’ (Wichmann 1995; Kaufman

2003: 502).

Within this domain, a significant contribution

has been made recently by Erik Boot (2006: 13‐

15), when he proposed that the most

emblematic of all terms related with Classic

Maya political power, ajaw, could have in fact

derived from Mixe‐Zoquean. Although the

majority of spellings involved are logographic,

there are many examples with both initial a‐

and final –aw phonetic complementation, and

even full a‐ja‐wa collocations (Fig. 3d) that

unquestionably hint at a Classic form ajaw

derived from the Proto‐Mayan reconstruction

*7a:ja:w (Kaufman 2003: 716), and not ahpo or

ajpop as previously suggested (cf. Lounsbury

1973; Mathews 1980:60; Bricker 1986:210;

Justeson et al. 1984:328). A few contexts,

however, seem to indicate that the sign T168,

usually regarded as logographic AJAW, could

function as simply AJ.7At any rate, the

etymology of Ajaw has received scholarly

attention in the past. David Stuart (1995:190‐

91) first suggested the analysis aj‐aw as

‘shouter, proclaimer’, paralleling the Nahuatl

Tlahtoani conception. Building on this

suggestion, Boot (ibid.) has recently argued

that the origin of the many latter reflexes of

Western‐Maya *7aaw and proto‐Mayan *7aw,

meaning ‘to shout’ (Kaufman 2003:716) might

have derived from pMZ *7aw, ‘mouth’

(Wichmann 1995: 250). If confirmed, this

loanword could have paramount implications

for reconstructing the nature and extent of

historical interactions between the Maya and

their Mixe‐Zoquean neighbours from as early as

the Late‐Preclassic onwards, when the earliest

attestation of AJAW into the Maya hieroglyphic

system seemingly takes place at San Bartolo

(Saturno, Taube and Stuart 2005: 44‐46). To

conclude this segment, much has been said

about the affiliation of the term Ko’haw, which

stands for ‘helmet’, but we find it better to

discuss it under the ‘problematic loanwords’

section given the different languages that have

been proposed for having originated it.

2.5 Calendar, Ideology and Belief

However difficult to ascertain, since we lack

phonetic clues to determine the Classic

equivalents for the names of Tzolk’in day‐signs

given by Landa (Graña‐Behrens, pers. comm.

2007), it is still likely that at least three

important signs of the 260 day ritual calendar

had their origin en Mixe‐Zoquean terms

(Justeson et. al 1985:23‐24), given the attested

examples outside calendric context where very

likely these signs are indeed functioning with

the values mentioned below. The name for the

seventh day OK (Fig.3e), related to the

Mesoamerican day ‘dog’, might have been

diffused from a number of Mixe terms for ‘dog’

with 7ok or the variant 7uk, which continues to

be used at areas such as Tlahuitoltepec,

Oaxaca, as we ourselves have attested. These

forms very likely come from proto‐Mixe *7uka,

as Wichmann (1998: 13) has also observed.

Another calendric term would have been

represented by the sign T524, HIX, the name of

the fourteenth day ‘jaguar’ or ocelotl in

Nahuatl. Accordingly, the proto‐Mayan

*(h)i7(i)š has led Justeson et al. (1985:24) to

formulate an hypothesis for its origin in the

proto Mixe‐Zoquean 7i:š ‘cacomixtle’ (a wild

feline), whereas Wichmann (1998: 20) relates it

to proto Oaxacan‐Mixe *‹#i:SY› meaning

’weasel’. An attestation of this term outside

calendric contexts (Fig. 3f) appears on the

name of one of the Early Classic rulers of the

Kaan dynasty, whose name has recently been

reinterpreted as K’AL‐TUN‐HIX (Martin & Grube

2000: 72, 102‐105; Martin 2005: 6). A third

loan which apparently found its way to the

ritual calendar was proto Mixe Zoquean *¢awi

meaning ‘monkey’, which Justeson et al (1985:

24) have proposed as the etymological origin of

the Maya term for the eleventh day ‘monkey’,

attested on the Popol Vuh as čuwen. Further

semantic controls that relate CHWEN with the

meaning ‘monkey’ are the names of Juń Bátz y

Juń Chuwen, the supernatural half‐brothers of

the Hero Twins from the Popol Vuh, as well as

the glyphic term SAK CHWEN (Fig. 3g), that

refers to a ‘pure, resplendent artist’

(Montgomery, 2002a:214), used as a general

title for the Naranjo kings (Martin & Grube

2000: 72) and attested on Late Classic Stelae 8,

12 y 35 from this site (Lacadena and Wichmann,

2004:142) as well as being painted on a number

of vessels. The MZ form seems to have diffused

into K’iche’, Yucatec and Ch’ol under the forms

CYowen and Cyuwen (Wichmann 1988: 21),

where the addition of the final /n/ consonant

could be explained as a Mayan assimilation

strategy attested at other adopted MZ

loanwords (Justeson et al. 1985:24).

To end with the section on Calendar, Ideology

and Belief, a very clear and culturally significant

loanword is the term for ‘incense’,

reconstructed as *‹poom@› in proto Mixe‐

Zoque by Kaufman (2003: 1359). There are

cognates for this word in the vast majority of

Mayan languages. A hieroglyphic spelling of

po[mo], with the first signed infixed into the

second (Fig. 3h), appears on the postclassical‐

dated Dresden Codex with the same meaning

on a very clear ritual context, the New Year’s

ceremonies. Another possibly far‐earlier

context has been detected recently by

Wichmann (cit. Mesoweb paper) in a

presumably late Preclassic context at San

Bartolo, where the spelling seems to read po‐

ma‐ja8 ( Fig. 3i). If confirmed, this loan could be

even closer to the original Mixe‐Zoquean form,

given that according to Wichmann (2006: 2), it

is “[...] fully compatible with a reconstructed

proto‐Zoquean *pomoh (or a pre‐proto‐

Zoquean *po:moh).”

3. Nahua loans

Nahua9‐speaking culture also developed a

hieroglyphic writing system, the nature of

which is still the matter of controversy,

although Lacadena (UNAM workshop, Mexico

City 2006), building on Aubin’s contributions

(1849 [ed. 2002]), has suggested that it also

constituted a logosyllabic system in a manner

not disimmilar to Mayan and Isthmean scripts,

a feature specially noticeable when

representing anthroponyms, toponyms and

theonyms. Nahua syllables prototypically have

the form (C)V(C), which by means of

agglutination tend to group together in

polysyllabic complexes. Parenthesis indicate

that consonants are optative. The stress

pattern usually affects the penultimate

syllable. Nahua has a number of phonemes that

are alien to Mayan languages. For this reason,

when assimilating Nahua terms, Mayan

speakers slightly altered the phonology of the

original word to match that of their own.

Attested examples show how the Maya

speakers –and scribes‐ simplified intricate

Nahua syllabic patterns, as well as phonemes

which were alien to the prestige Ch’olan

language of the inscriptions. This led to

phenomena such as Nahua kw sound becoming

k in Mayan (k w > k ), and tl becoming t (tl > t),

appreciated on terms like kwa:wtli, that was

assimilated into Yucatecan as ko:t, or

tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, which appears as

tawiskal at the Dresden Codex, as explained

below.

3.1 Animals, Animal Parts and Body Parts

We shall start by examining Nahua linguistic

loans within the semantic realm of ‘Animals,

Animal parts and Body Parts’. The first item to

be discussed is y‐o7hl, usually spelled yo‐OL‐la

(Fig. 4a.), which is the possessed form for the

term that describes ‘the formal heart and not

the material one’, according to Yucatecan

lexical entries (Barrera Vásquez 1980:610).

There is a cognate in Chól for ojl‐il translated

as ‘la mitad’, which might be related

semantically, however, the relative difficulty in

finding clear Ch’olan forms has led scholars like

Macri and Looper (2003:289) to posit the idea

of a foreign origin related to Classic Nahuatl

‹yo:li›, Pipil ‹yo:llotl› and the proto Nahuatl

form *‹yo:li› reconstructed by Dakin

(1982:125). This argument, however, requires

to admit that the form passed in a reanalyzed

form to Mayan languages or, as Macri and

Looper have argued:

“in borrowing the term yo:l‐, Yukatecan speakers

interpreted the initial consonant y‐ as the third

person ergative prefix.” (Macri and Looper

2003:289).

In the script, aside from the usual form prefixed

with the third person ergative, there are glyphic

attestations of the term in the unpossessed

form o’hl‐is, postfixed by an absolutive suffix of

intimate possession that, according to Zender

(2004: 202), is attached to a distinct

subcategory of nouns (body parts). However,

we believe further research is needed before

establishing whether this apparent

correspondence is indeed a loanword or merely

a case of homophony.

3.2 Plants and Plant Parts

As for the category of ‘Plants and Plant Parts’ is

concerned, there is only a single candidate term

that we are aware of within the hieroglyphic

corpus, *kakawa, but since its linguistic origin

and cultural affiliation are still being strongly

debated, we feel it is best dealt with on the

section devoted to ‘problematic loans’. To our

knowledge, no examples of clear Nahua

loanwords within the category of ‘Technology:

Tools and Techniques’ have been registered

phonetically employing the Maya writing

system, although some ‘foreign signs’ might

represent Nahua logograms of this sort (Boot

2006: 17‐24).

3.3 Kinship, Social Organization, Toponyms,

Commerce

A loanword that might be significant because of

its socio‐cultural connotations is the one

attested as pa‐ta in the script (Fig. 4.b).

Appears in texts such as Yaxchilan’s

Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 and in possessed form

as u‐pa‐ta‐na at vessel K1398 (Boot 2006: 33,

Fig. 2). As David Stuart (1995:354‐357) has

suggested, this is an underspelling for pata[n],

‘tribute’. Although analyzable in Maya as the

root pat with the participial ending –an (Stuart

1995: 354), or even reconstructable back to

Proto Mayan as *pata:n ‘work, tribute’

(Kaufman 2003: 59; Kaufman & Norman

1984:128). Macri and Looper (2003: 289) have

challenged these interpretations, and posited

instead the idea of an origin related to proto‐

Nahuatl *patla (Dakin 1982: 161), a form

attested both in Classic Nahuatl and Pipil, with

the specific sense of ´to trade, to change´. This

conception requires to account the sound shift

tl > t as a plausible Mayan strategy of

assimilation.

Following next, we would like to add an item to

the list of possible Nahua loanwords that to our

knowledge was not previously discussed as

such. It is the proto Uto‐Aztecan verb *payV,

with the meaning of ‘to call, to summon’, which

according to Justeson et al. (1985: 28), gave

origin to the proto‐Mayan root *pay or *pey.

Glyphic attestations of such term (Fig. 4c) with

a possible semantic correlation appear in the

expression AJ pa‐ya‐la (Yaxchilán, Stela 18),

which we analyze as aj‐pay‐al, an agentive

followed by the root pay plus a adjectival –al

suffix. Given that this root has been

reconstructed in Proto‐Ch’olan as *pëy

(Kaufman & Norman 1984: 128), ‘llamar,

invitar’, but also ‘to muster (for lynching)’, a

paraphrase rendering ‘he the leader’

(Montgomery 2002a: 31) seems appropriate to

us. A single instance of pa‐ya appears in

nominalized form at Yaxchilan Lintel 16 (Pay

Lakam Chaahk), the name of a Lord from Santa

Elena. There are lexical entries for pay alone as

‘to guide’, deriving in pa‐ya‐li, pay‐aal,10 ‘guide’

(Boot 2002: 67).


In order to present as complete an inventory as

possible within this category, we need to

briefly touch upon the three very well known

examples first noticed by Whittaker (1986) of

late Mexican influence within the Maya region,

that although late in occurrence, were

important enough to prompt innovations and

modifications of the current cosmological

beliefs and religious pantheon. Thus, in page 48

of the Dresden Codex, we can find the

expression káhl‐aj‐Ø lakín Tawiskal Chak Ek’;

‘the eastern Tawiskal‐Venus was held’ (Fig. 4d).

This purely phonetic collocation ta‐wi‐si‐ka‐la

not only shows a characteristic non‐Mayan

syllabic structure, but also the difficulties of the

scribe to represent alien terms by means of his

familiar repertoire of signs. Consensus has been

reached that the term intended was the name

of the highland Mexican god

Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, lord of dawn and god of

the morning star between the Postclassic

Mexica (cf. Whittaker 1986; Taube 1992: 120‐

21); Macri & Looper 2003: 287‐88). In a similar

context, at Dresden page 49 we find the

sentence: kahl‐aj‐Ø lakín Chak Xiwitel Chak Ek´,

‘the eastern Chak Xiwitel‐Venus was held’.

This example is interesting in that we also see

two very well known gods from the Maya

pantheon, K’awiil and the Sun God K’inich Ajaw,

suffering the consequences of an overt

interaction with the Central Mexican deity

Xiuhtecuhtli (Taube & Bade 1991; Taube 1992:

125‐27) whose Nahuatl name was assimilated

into Maya as CHAK xi‐wi‐te‐‘i (Fig. 4e). Yet

another god of clearly Mexican origin appears

on Dresden page 47. Although the passage is

still difficult to interpret, the name of the

protagonist is spelled ka‐ka‐tu‐na‐la (Fig. 4f),

however his exact correlation with the known

Mexican deities are yet to be precised (Macri &

Looper 2003: 288). It appears to bear amongst

its components the Nahuatl root tonalli written

in a mayanized form. Moreover, the text also

refers to him by the epithet tzul ajaw, which

literally means ‘Dog Lord / Lord of the Dogs’. As

Schele and Grube (1997: 150) have pointed out,

it is possible that ‘dog’ should be understood in

this context like a ‘outsider’ much like the use

of chichimeca as a generalized term for

‘foreigners’, so that Tzul Ajaw would add

substance to the idea of Kaktunal being indeed

a ‘foreign lord’.

Next, we want to discuss the term itz, a sign

that has been previously regarded as a

component of the Classic name for God D,

Itzamnaaj11. It was once thought that the sign

T152 could represent the logographic value ITZ

(Fig. 4g), although more modern perspectives

view it as a component of a single logograph

ITZAM (S. Martin, 30th Maya Meetings

Presentation, Austin, Texas 2006). According to

Taube (1992: 34), itz could also be a loanword,

While Classic Nahua itztetl or itzli stand for

‘obsidian’, itzpopolhuia means ‘to predict, to

foretell’ and itztimotlalia translates as ‘to

watch, to observe, to consider’ (Simeón 1977:

210‐11), apparently related to Karttunen’s

analysis of itz as a variant stem form of itta, ‘to

look on oneself; to see something or someone’

(1992: 108), the first being in form a very

similar term to the widely‐distributed Mayan

lexical entries for itz or iitz, albeit the semantic

range varies from ‘sorcery/witchcraft/brujería’

to SAC aj iitz ‘sorcerer’ ‘hechicero’ to IXI itziulal

‘anuncio, profecía, aviso, pronóstico, presagio’

(Wichmann, pers. comm. May 2007). In Central

Mexico, mirrors were devices used to ‘see’ in a

divinatory or augural sense, usually made from

obsidian, which is why the ‘smoking mirror’ was

an important feature of Tezcatlipoca. During

Classic times, the Otumba region controlled by

Teotihuacan was one of the major sources of

obsidian, and is tempting to entertain the idea

of this same origin for the term itz, but it seems

difficult to reconcile this earlier interpretation

with the newer research carried out by authors

such as Martin and Zender.

3.5 Basic Vocabulary and Grammar

According to Macri and Looper (2003: 291‐92)

and Justeson et al. (1985: 9, 28), Nahua seems

to have diffused at least two different adverbial

markers into Mayan languages, which

eventually found their way into the script. The

first being the conjunction spelled i‐yu‐wa‐la,

i(yu)wal, ‘and then’ attested no less than

thirteen times on Copan Stela J from A.D. 702

(Fig. 5a). Justeson and Norman (in Justeson

1984: 350) have reconstructed the proto‐

Chólan form *iwa:l, which has been regarded

as a progressive aspect marker shared by

Ch’olan and Yucatecan, such as CHR war

(Wichmann, pers. comm. 2007) but without

clear counterparts at other Maya subgroups

(Justeson et al. 1985: 9). One explanation, as

Macri and Looper have pointed out, would

involve a Nahuatl form spelled i:hua:n or i:wa:n

which also has the meaning of ‘and, and also;

and moreover’ (Sullivan 1988: 270), derived

from the relational noun –wan prefixed with

the third person ergative i‐, which would imply

that the form can be analyzed in Nahuatl, but

not in Maya, thus suggesting that the

borrowing occurred from the first to the latter.

However, caution should be exercised here, as

we lack further examples to support that

borrowing at this level took place, as Wichmann

has recently pointed out to us (pers. comm

2007).

Another possible adverbial loan would be the

glyphic expression sa‐mi‐ya, usually translated

as ‘earlier today’ (Boot 2002: 69). In the

attested spellings, it has been suffixed with the

deictic –iiy, alternatively considered as either

an aspectual or tense marker that nevertheless

places the event on a distant narrative past

(Fig. 5b). The implied root sami has cognates

with related meanings in proto‐Yucatecan

*sami ‘just now’, however slightly different in

meaning with the attested Chól form sami,

which Justeson et al (1985:23) relate to proto

Uto‐Aztecan *si:mi , meaning also ‘to go'. In

our view, the connections appear to be clear

enough to at least consider this term as an

additional candidate for a Nahua loanword

diffused into Mayan.

Although not originally contained in our

previous 2005 manuscript, which this paper is

based upon, recent research by various authors

has yielded additional evidence of possible

Nahua loanwords. The most important by far

for its historical implications appears on a

collocation at Tikal St. 31 that renders the

syllabic sequence ko‐sa‐ka (Fig. 5c), presumably

transliterating as koska, and old Nahua term for

‘jewel’ that lacks the characteristic –tl ending of

later Nahuatl forms (Launey 1992: 93). To our

knowledge, it was independently noticed years

ago by David Stuart (cit. in Houston & Nelson

2006) and Alfonso Lacadena (pers. comm to

Wichmann, 2002), aside from being further

commented recently by Boot (2006: 16). The

context in which it occurs further reinforces the

idea of a central Mexican connection due to its

positioning right before a ‘foreign sign’

representing a canonical ‹ikpali› throne that

greatly differs from their Maya jaguar‐pelted

counterparts. This example –although isolated‐

seems to challenge long held views (cf.

Kaufman in Justeson et al. 1985: 68) that

denied any possibility of Nahua‐speaking

settlements in Central Mexico by Early Classic

times,12 when this monument was carved (445

A.D.). Another significant example that merits

further exploration has been first noticed by

Stephen Houston and elaborated upon by Erik

Boot. It consists of a spelling K’AN(?)‐ko or

T281‐ko found at the left side of Uaxactun Stela

14, position C2 (Fig. 5d), where a Nahua

locative suffix –co might be involved. Moreover,

Houston (pers. comm. 2007) has observed that

within Teotihuacan‐related iconography, the

sign T281 does not appear to relate to any

colour attributives, while in this particular

context, given that it lacks the usual na suffix, it

could function more towards indicating the

notion of “center” instead of merely

representing the K’AN value (for a more

detailed discussion of this collocation, see

Houston & Nelson 2006; Boot 2006: 16).

Another candidate whose linguistic affiliation

has yet to be clarified was first pointed out to

us by Nikolai Grube (pers. comm. Mexico 2005)

and is the slightly foreign‐looking name carried

by the k’anwitznal (Ucanal) ruler Papamalil,

spelled as pa‐pa‐ma‐li‐li (Martin & Grube 2000:

98), an individual who has been associated at

times, just like other kings from Seibal, with

external influences that spread into the

Lowland Maya region by the Terminal Classic.

Judging from the morphology involved in the

spelling (Fig. 5e), one line of thought could

argue that it doesn´t readily conform to the

usual Maya nominal patterns, added to the fact

that is written in a purely syllabic way, perhaps

in a manner that resembles more closely the

Nahuatl deity names from the Dresden Codex

than the orthodox way of representing Mayan

anthroponyms. Another approach would simply

analyze it through the usual Maya grammar,

perhaps also finding plausible arguments in

such a way. If the first option is preferred, one

is led to realize that there exist a number of

Nahuatl lexical entries for stems such as papal,

‘hablador, platicador’ (Launey 1992: 211) and ‐

mal or malli ‘prisionero’ (Simeón 1977: 252),

among other more or less productive

possibilities, that could eventually turn out

relevant for intending more in‐depth future

analysis, hopefully accompanied by

archaeological correlations to sustain them. If

on the other hand one wishes to explain the

Papamalil collocation without stepping out of a

strict Maya point of view, one out of many

possibilities would conceive it as pap‐‘amal‐il,13

that is, an adjectival and a nominal root

complemented by a relational –il suffix. At any

rate, the ambiguity raised by these two lines of

analysis, performed in different language

groups, compels us to exclude Papamalil from

the final list of possible loanwords that are to

be considered for the final comparative

analysis.

4. Zapotec loans

The Oto‐Manguean culture that developed

settlements in the Valley of Oaxaca since

Preclassic times developed a very early

hieroglyphic writing system, which according to

Urcid (1992: 16) was also logosyllabic in nature

and represented a form of proto‐Zapotec that

was spoken between 1500‐500 B.C. From the

reconstructed form for the names of the

calendric signs it is possible to infer the syllabic

structure of proto‐Zapotec as CV, which leads

to a predominant CVCV root structure.

According to our research, the Oto‐manguean

family represents the third most representative

source of loans as reflected on the Maya script.

It is culturally significant that the Zapotec

loanwords detected thus far within the Maya

script are semantically restricted to three

calendric day names, all of them previously

discussed in Justeson et al. (1985: 21).


The first loan we would like to comment is that

of the 13th day, represented by the sign T584

(Fig. 6a), identified very early as the day‐name

B’EN by Bollaert (1865: 52) and Brasseur de

Bourbourg (1869‐70, vol 1:207). There is an

occurrence at Chichén Itzá spelled as B’EN‐ni

which suggest that the word must have had a

long vowel, b’een. It corresponds with the

otherwise widespread Mesoamerican day‐

name ‘reed’. the difficulty in finding a clear

etymology for this term within Lowland Maya

languages may be readily explained if we

consider that the word could have been

borrowed from the Zapotec term ben, which

means ‘bundle’, as Justeson et al. noted time

ago (ibid.). Another day‐name that long has

puzzled scholars when trying to explain it from

an internalistic Mayan perspective is lamat or

lam(b’)at, represented by the sign T510a (Fig.

6b). Justeson et al. believe this word originated

in the pre‐Zapotec form they reconstruct as

*lampa (1985: pp. 21‐22,57,61). However, it is

difficult to determine a precise moment for the

diffusion of this term into Mayan, since it´s very

likely that the value for this logogram was EK´

during most of the Classic period. Moreover,

Albert Davletshin has pointed out a relationship

within Mesoamerican thought between

celestial bodies and the notion of coldness,

which leads him to argue for an etymology

based on CHR lambat, ‘frío’ to account for this

day sign (Davletshin; pers. comm. Mexico

2007).

The last candidate for a term diffused from

Zapotec that we are able to discuss is the name

for the seventh day manik’ (Fig. 6c). It is

represented by the sign T671, which in non‐

calendric contexts behaves as the syllable chi,

clearly suggesting that the Classic term was

chij, the chorti word for ‘deer’, precisely the

animal associated with this day‐sign

throughout Mesoamerica, but it could also

mean ‘horse’ after the Conquest. As Justeson

et al. (1985) have argued:

“[...] all modern Zapotec dialects have a

form meaning ánimal´ or ´horse derivable

from proto‐Zapotec *mani7. The meaning

‘horse’ suggests that its former meaning

was ‘deer’ [...]”.

However, another possible origin for the Late

Postclassic‐Early Colonial name of this day‐

sign could have been pMZ *manik

(Wichmann 1995: 360), although it posits

certain phonological and semantic problems,

such as the lack of glottalization in the last

consonant and the seemingly unrelated

meaning of ‘hijo/son/florecita’, which would

appear more closely related with the last

day‐sign ajaw/xochitl as opposed to an

otherwise consistent general sense of ‘deer’

for the seventh one throughout

Mesoamerica.

A small yet significant sample of three

possible Zapotec loans –important because

of the semantic category they pertain to‐

appeared to have found their way into the

Maya script, at least into that recorded in

Early Colonial Yucatan, if not before into the

Postclassic, judging from the example at

Chichen Itza discussed above.

5. Totonac loans

The last source of foreign loanwords we will

bring into discussion here is the Totonac

culture. The lack of linguistic data hitherto

found strongly suggests that this was the least

represented foreign language on the Maya

script and therefore the culture that less

impacted the Maya script from the ones

discussed here. Altough Justeson et al. (1985:

26) mention eight totonac terms that were

diffused into Mayan languages, we have been

able to match only three of them with Maya

glyphic spellings. Interestingly, two of them

belong to the ‘Plants and plant parts’ domain.

5.1 Plant and Plant Parts

The first example within this domain involves

the glyphic spelling ki‐WI’ (Fig. 7a), which has

been transliterated by Boot (2002:45) as an

underspelling of kiwi[l], ‘proper name of a tree’,

although we think it is simpler to analyze it as

derived from Eastern Ch’olan and Yucatecan

kiwi’, ‘Annatto, Achiote’ (Justeson et al. 1985:

26, Table 14). At any rate, there is a striking

formal similarity between this spelling and the

Common Totonacan word *ki7wi7, which means

also ‘tree’, albeit in a much more general sense.

Since the native Maya form for this particular

botanical species appears to be the totally

unrelated *ho7oš (ibid.), there are still semantic

problems to consider before this item could be

fully confirmed as a loanword (cf. Wichmann

1999: 6).

To continue with, there is the case of the

Papantla Totonac verb ‘to clear weeds’,

registered by Justeson et al. (1985:26) as

pa:ka7. According to these authors, this root

was diffused into Lowland Maya under the

form *pak’, ‘to plant’. Although they provide no

examples of glyphic attestations whatsoever. A

number of cognates are present among

languages closely‐related to that of the Classic

inscriptions, such as CHR u‐pak’‐i‐Ø, ‘lo sembró’

(Kaufman 2003: 1039), traceable back to Proto‐

Ch’olan *päk’, ‘sembrar’ (Kaufman & Norman

1984: 128). There is indeed a related

hieroglyphic form which appears as pa‐k’a (Fig.

7b). At Erik Boot’s dictionary (2002: 66) it

appears as ‘to plant, to hoist, to form’. On our

part, we would like to point out another

possible context which might involve the same

root in a derived nominalised form: IX‐b’a[pa]‐

k’a‐u?‐li, Ix‐b’a’‐pahk’‐uul? ‘Lady First

Sow(ing)?’ (ETZ, St. 20; Fig. 7c). Although the

semantic correlation between the Totonac and

Mayan terms seems to differ somehow, as

Wichmann (1999: 6) has observed, it might

become clearer on examples where the same

root is used in the former with a meaning

seemingly closer to ‘sembrar’, such as TOT

‹paklha› ‘florea’. ‹napaklha› ‹huan rosa›: ‘La

rosa va a florear’. ‹makapaklha› ‘lo cría’

(Vocabularios Indígenas No. 17: 102).

The last of the possible attested Totonac loans

has been also noticed previously by Justeson et

al. (1985: Table 14) and constitutes the

Common Totonacan word for ‘dumb’, spelled

*qo: 7qo7, which according to Kaufman (2003:

157) passed on to a number of Mayan

languages, including Ch’ol, Yucatec and Mopan

under the form kohk or its cognates, albeit the

meaning seems to differ importantly, turning

into ‘deaf, sordo’. Somewhat reluctantly, it

might be related to the hieroglyphic spelling ko‐

ko‐ma, which includes the agentive suffix –o´m,

rendering the meaning of ‘he who hears’, or

‘auditor’, as Boot (2002:45) has proposed.

However, the semantic distance between the

Totonacan and Mayan terms seems to us

considerable, as Wichmann has observed

(1999: 6‐7), and even more so if the root

involved is related to CHT kohk “to save,

protect” or “guardar” (Wichmann, pers. comm.

2007).

A total of three possible Totonac loanwords

were considered here, all of them previously

mentioned at Justeson et al. (1985: 26), albeit

Wichmann (1999: 6) has questioned their

plausibility, arguing that: “[...] these items have

a low semantic compatibility and they are not

domain‐centered [...]”. Nevertheless, it

appears to us that there is ground for at least

considering pa‐k’a as a plausible candidate,

given the semantic controls involved at the

glyphic attestations, combined with the

Totonac lexical entries quoted above.

6. Problematic loanwords

When reviewing the available literature on

linguistic interaction between the ancient

cultures of Mesoamerica, it becomes evident

that no other word has raised a greater deal of

controversy about its origins than the term for

‘cacao’. This has been so because of the cultural

and economic significance of cacao throughout

Mesoamerica. Since David Stuart (1988)

recognized a glyphic attestation for the term

kakaw dating back to the fourth century A.D in

the now famous Rio Azul pot (Fig. 8a), it has

been argued that the culture that originally

coined this term would represent a major

political, economic, and perhaps military

influence during the Early Classic period, which

to many scholars amounts to Teotihuacan itself.

Although Nahua is usually linked to the

geography of highland Mexico, Macri and

Looper (2003: 285) have suggested that at least

part of the purported influence of this language

might have arrived to the Maya through Nahua‐

speakers settled in the Gulf‐region instead.

Based on their proposal about the Nahua origin

ot the term ‘cacao’, Karen Dakin and Søren

Wichmann (2000: 55; see also Wichmann 1999:

6‐8) have claimed that the early appearance of

this word in Mayan languages, along with its

later diffusion throughout Mesoamerica,

correlate well with additional data to allow

hypothesis about some form of Nahua being

spoken at Teotihuacan. Contrary to Kaufman

and other authors (see below), Dakin and

Wichmann (2000) preclude the possibility of a

Mixe‐Zoquean origin for kakaw, based on

arguments such as its open tri‐syllabic CV.CV.CV

structure, regarded as exceedingly rare within

attested Zoquean languages. At any rate,

known Mixe‐zoquean trisyllables consistently

reduplicate to the right, so kawawa would be a

viable word, but not kakawa (Wichmann, pers.

comm 2007). On the other hand, Campbell and

Kaufman (1983) have assigned kakaw a Mixe

Zoquean origin dating back to Olmec Preclassic

times. In their view, Nahua could not have been

spoken in Mesoamerica before the fall of

Teotihuacan, given the numerous linguistic

arguments against such possibility (see also

Kaufman 1976; Justeson et al. 1985: 4, 26‐27).

Furthermore, these same authors adduce that

Nahua could not have been the source which

originated the term kakawa, because “it lacks

cognates in other Uto‐Aztecan languages and is

not found in the Uto‐Aztecan homeland”

(Campbell and Kaufman 1976, ibid.). However,

in light of recent hypothesis concerning the

possible Nahua origin of two additional

hieroglyphic spellings from the Early Classic, ko‐

sa‐ka (Stuart, cit. In Houston & Nelson 2006)

and ka‐ya‐wa‐ka (see below), we believe

former claims about the absence of Nahua

influence at such an early stage need to be

thoroughly revised, whether or not the source

can be placed in Central Mexico. For the time

being, however, we believe that this crucial

question about the origin for the term kakaw

should remain open, until further data could

help to elucidate the issue, given the strong

arguments involved in favour and against each

of the contending theories.

Another controversial and very important word

because of its historical implications is

represented by the sign T678, with the

logographic value KOHAW. This term describes

the mosaic war helmet as it appears on sites

such as Piedras Negras (PNG). As Macri and

Looper have noted (2003: 290), a full phonetic

spelling ko‐o‐ha‐wa at PNG Lintel 2 (ca. 667

A.D.) suggests that the Classic maya form must

have been ko´haw (Fig. 8b). These authors

(ibid.) have advanced the idea that given the

limited distribution of this word and its

association with a ceremonially important

object of known foreign origin strongly suggest

that we are dealing with a loanword. They

propose the Pipil‐Nahua term kwa:w, the

possessed form of the word for ‘vertex, crown

of the head’ as the likely source (ibid.). When

taking the iconology involved in the logograph

into account, present at least since Early Classic

Tikal, we consider that Von Winning (1981) has

sufficiently shown that it indeed represents a

mosaic helmet with obvious military

connotations which origin can be traced down

to artistic manifestations produced by

Teotihuacan. This is why it is so important to

find a clear etymon for the term. However,

there are alternatives to the Nahua origin

proposed by Macri and Looper. On this respect,

Kaufman (personal comm. Austin 2005) has

recently shared with us his ideas concerning a

proto Mixe‐Zoquean origin for the term

ko’haw, also implying that a language from this

group was spoken by Teotihuacan elites,14 and

therefore represented the widespread prestige

of this multiethnic city throughout

Mesoamerica. For our part, we believe that a

number of Mixe‐Zoquean roots are worth

further exploring, with the hope of finding a

clear relationship with the attested Tzotzil

kovov form, meaning ‘helmet’ (Laughlin 1988:

224). Among these would be the pMZ noun

prefix *ko‐ for ‘head, reach’ (Wichmann 1995:

536) related to Kaufman’s (1963)

reconstruction *ko?‐ ‘pertaining to the head’

(cit. in WIchmann, ibid.), deriving terms such as

pOM *ku‐hu:?š, ‘cubrir la cabeza’ and pMZ

*ko?‐po?‐ka:haw, ‘cabeza de viejo’ (a white‐

headed feline) (ibid. p. 545). Another line of

inquiry would be based on pMZ *koh ‘tejer, to

weave’ (ibid.: 326). However, given the lack of

internal Mayan cognates attested and other

factors, it seems to us premature to favor either

a Nahuatl or a Mixe Zoquean hypothesis for

explaining the origin of this term.

A last problematic term we would like to

discuss appears in the spelling ‘u‐ka‐ya‐wa‐ka

(Fig. 8c), a term whose origins Nikolai Grube

also encouraged us to explore (pers. comm

México 2006), found on the dedicatory formula

of an inscribed jade plaque from the Early

Classic (Polyuhkhovich, pers. comm. Mexico

2007; Boot 2002: 44), as well as in Tikal Altar 5

(Fig. 8d), where the name of a Lady from

Topoxte was written as 'IX‐TUN‐ni‐ka‐ya‐wa‐ka

(Boot 2002: 41). Since the early nineties,

Houston noted that the first orthography

should represent the term kaywak in possessed

form, as a ‘name tag’ alluding to the celt itself

(Houston, pers. comm. 2007). The second one,

although it has been nominalised, demonstrate

an important semantic relationship between

kaywak and tuun which will be addressed

shortly. We have experimented so far with

three different possibilities to adduce an origin

for this etymon: 1) an internal origin traceable

back to proto‐Mayan; 2) a Mixe‐Zoquean origin;

3) a Nahua‐derived origin. We will discuss them

accordingly.

When trying to determine possible foreign

sources for this word, it should be noted that

different reconstructions have been proposed

for pMZ *ka7wak (i.e. Wichmann 1995: 326;

Wichmann 1998: 10), albeit the semantics

involved completely exclude the objects being

referred by the glyphic spelling. Also unlikely

would be to relate pM *kahoq (Kaufman 2002:

489) with the proto‐Zoquean term for

‘lightning’ or ‘relámpago’ *keyo‐pa (Kaufman

2003: 473), which appears to have diffused

instead into Highland Mayan languages as

EM+GQ #kaayu(m)pa7 (Kaufman 2003: 473).

A stronger case would be to argue for an

internal origin. It is widely known that pM

*kahoq (Kaufman 2002: 489) or possibly pM

*kahwoq (Lacadena & Wichmann 2004: 124)

derived into pCh *chahuk, CHL chajk ; CHN

chawäk and TZE *chahuk (Kaufman and

Norman 1984: 117), while the Yucatec cognate

Kawak was preserved for the 19th day sign,

represented calendrically by sign T528, which

functions as polyvalent TUN and ku, and even

indicates hi and SIHOM values when combined

with T60 as a diagraph. On the iconography, the

so‐called ‘kawak‐markings’ are applied to stony

objects, even though the origin of YUK kawak

seems to relate semantically to

‘thunder/lightning’ (see also Lacadena &

Wichmann 2004: 124). The possible relevance

of this is that some Mayan languages still

preserve terms for ‘piedra de rayo’ that are

related to this stem (Kaufman 2003: 489).

Moreover, as Justeson et al. (1985: 43) have

observed:

“[…] Worked flint and obsidian are commonly

referred to as piedra de rayo 'stone of

thunder/lightning’ in villages in which we

have done field work throughout the Maya

area”

Furthermore, these authors (ibid.) describe a

phenomenon which could turn out very

relevant to explain the nominal sequence from

Tikal:

“[…] The early Mayan signs for the day Etz'nab

consist of a Cauac sign on the left and a ragged‐

edged sign resembling T215 on the right

(possibly reflecting the word e¢ [ETZ’?]; the

meaning of the Cauac day name is 'lightning,

thunder, storm' in Mayan languages. If the

metaphor is pre‐Columbian […] the order of

elements in the glyph block accords with the

expected structure for 'stone of lightning' in

both Mayan and Mixe‐Zoquean languages: in

both, the expected form of such a compound

would be 'lightning' + ‘stone' […]”

Despite the seemingly reversed syntax,15 it

could be argued that the spelling IX‐TUN‐ni‐ka‐

ya‐wa‐ka (Boot 2002: 41) relates to ‘piedra de

rayo/trueno’ or ‘stone of lightning/thunder’.

However, it is still difficult to go beyond an

etymological origin of kaywak outside of the

proto‐Mayan term for ‘thunder’ that eventually

evolved into YUK kawak. According to

Wichmann (2002: 21‐22), this latter form “must

have been borrowed into Yucatecan before the

Ch’olan *k > ch change”. The problem remains

as to why the form of this Early Colonial

Yucatec attestation appears closer to the Early

Classic ka‐ya‐wa‐ka spellings than the archaic

pM *kahoq reconstruction cited above, as if the

pM reflexes that eventually led to the name for

the nineteenth day sign would have followed a

different path than the one described by

Lacadena (2004: 125) for ‘thunder/lightning’,

where a ‘normal’ form became attested in the

script as cha‐ki, Chaahk, the name of the Rain

God, or even the more archaic intermediate

form, spelled cha‐hu‐ku NAH, ‘lightning house’

(Lacadena 2004: 125; Wichmann 2002: 22‐23),

leaving open the possibility that kaywak could

be either a fossilization or a loan, despite the

wide distribution of the pM *kahoq reflexes.

Furthermore, yet another difficulty needs to be

addressed and it is the formal and functional

relationship with the Nahuatl word for the

equivalent nineteenth day‐sign of the

tonalpohualli, kiyawi‐tl or kiyawa‐tl , which is

also the Mexica word for ‘rain’ (Launey 1992:

225). Simeón (1977: 428) provides even closer

forms ‹quiauac/quiauacpa› cognate to

‹quiauatl/quiauitl›. That the name for the 19th

day sign could be related semantically to the

proper name of a jade plaque or the TUN‐ka‐

ya‐wa‐ka spelling finds additional support in

Nahuatl sources:

quiauhteocuitlatl s. Piedra a la que los indígenas

atribuian ciertas propiedades medicinales y que

ellos decian que habia caído del cielo (Sah.). R.

quiauitl, teocuitlatl. (Simeón 1977: 428)

These stones where then regarded literally as

‘droppings’ of the rain‐god that fell from the

sky (Wichmann, pers. comm. 2007). As three

different avenues of research were explored for

explaining the possible origins of this term

(proto‐Mayan, proto‐Mixe‐Zoquean and

Nahua), taking the above arguments altogether

into consideration and given the data available

to us, we feel more inclined at present towards

the Nahua hypothesis –specially because of

attested forms like ‹quiauac› which can be

linked semantically given their similar calendric

usage‐ than over an internal proto‐Mayan

origin or even a less likely Mixe Zoquean

source. As problematic as it could be to explain

how this lexical diffusion could have occurred

at such an early stage, we ought to relate this

suggestion with the recently found evidence of

possible Nahua loanwords at Tikal St. 31

mentioned above (Stuart, cit. in Houston &

Nelson; Boot 2006: 16), with the hope that

future research could determine whether

Nahua‐speaking groups were already settled in

Highland Mexico at the Early Classic, before the

fall of Teotihuacan (cf. Dakin & Wichmann

2000; Macri & Looper 2003; Taube 2000) or if

this remains very unlikely to have occurred (cf.

Justeson et al. 1985: 68; Kaufman 2001: 1).

Final remarks

One way to evaluate the results of this research

is by performing a graphic quantitative analysis

based on the detected loanwords organized by

the semantic categories they pertain to (Table

1). As it can be noticed, the best represented

foreign language within the Maya script would

be Mixe‐Zoquean, showing a high rate of

potential loanwords attested hieroglyphically,

including three examples from the Animals,

Animal Parts and Bodyparts (chi‐ku, u‐su and

acrophonyc hu). As we have mentioned, the

Kinship, Social Organization and Commerce

category is perhaps the most significant in

regard to cultural impact from a source that

sometimes is politically dominant. Four

occurrences on this field (yu‐ne, u‐yu‐mu, po‐

po‐o and a‐ja‐wa) suggests a strong cultural

presence of Mixe‐Zoquean groups since as far

as the Late Preclassic period. To reinforce this

interpretation, four additional MZ potential

items that belong to the Calendar, Ideology and

Belief Category (OK, HIX, CHWEN and po‐mo)

could imply strong religious influence or even

imposition of certain beliefs. To consider that

Mixe Zoquean language and culture was the

dominant influence from the Preclassic to the

Early Classic times is in keeping with a recent

hypothesis suggested by Alfonso Lacadena,

identifying Mixe‐zoquean as the best match to

account for the source of specific evidence

found within the early Maya script concerning

at least six different foreign phonological

features (Lacadena 2005, EMC Leiden) as well

as the consistent patterns for explaining the

formal and phonetic origin of certain Maya

signs as having derived from the Isthmian

writing tradition (Lacadena, pers. comm. Austin

2007, Mexico 2007).

While on the other hand Nahua produced

slightly less glyphic attestations than Mixe‐

Zoquean, the highest rates of the occurrences

happen precisely within perhaps the most

significant domains to measure the amount of

possible cultural influence exerted over the

Maya civilization. It is necessary to keep in

mind, however, that among the four possible

attested Nahua terms from the Calendar,

Ideology and Belief category, three of them

constitute the names of central Mexican gods,

as registered at the Postclassically‐dated

Dresden Codex, but including also a possible

referent for the 19th day‐sign datable since the

Early Classic (ka‐ya‐wa‐ka). Nevertheless, three

terms under the Basic Vocabulary and

Grammar column (i‐yu‐wa‐la; sa‐mi‐ya; ko‐sa‐

ka) suggest that the linguistic contact between

Nahua and Maya speakers was an intense and

long‐termed one, to get ingrained at such deep

structural levels of language. Moreover, the

new interpretations of epigraphic evidence by

Stuart (op. cit), Houston and Nelson (2006);

Boot (2006) and our own could indicate that

linguistic interaction between Nahua and Maya

cultures could indeed have begun earlier than

formerly admitted, even during the times of the

Teotihuacan apogee.

The Zapotec culture shows the clearest

tendency of all the ones analyzed. The

presence of three terms for ritual day names

does indeed support Justeson et al. claim with

respect to this loans being diffused since early

times. Perhaps by the time this happened,

Zapotec writing system and religious

institutions were at a more developed stage

than those of the Mayan, which would explain

why this influence was exerted on such a core

and specific ideological domain.

The data that we currently have on Totonacan

linguistic influence is barely enough to derive

any conclusions from, other than it was

perhaps the less represented source of external

influence within the Maya script, despite

Totonacan speakers being relatively close

neighbors with the Maya along the Gulf coastal

regions. For our part, we consider that there

was surely a certain degree of cultural

interaction among both cultures–whether or

not represented by the three particular terms

examined‐ but it appears to have occurred at a

far lesser extent than it would be required for

supporting previous hypothesis about

Totonacan having a prominent role within Early

Classic Mesoamerica (i.e. being the language

spoken at Teotihuacan see cf. Kaufman 1976;

Campbell and Kaufman 1983; Justeson et al.

1985: 4, 26‐27, 64, 72; Wichmann 1999: 6‐7).

However risky to assert for certain, the

available data indicates that during the time of

Teotihuacan supremacy throughout

Mesoamerica, Mixe‐Zoquean culture seemed to

have unmatched influence on the Maya script.

By the times when the material remains of Epi‐

classic Toltec and Post‐classic Mexica cultures

began to appear prominently within the

archaeological record, and especially within

Mayan territory, Nahua seems to have

surpassed, or at least equalled the Mixe‐

Zoquean influence within semantic domains

that are crucial to evaluate the extent of

cultural influence, such as the Calendar,

Ideology and Belief and the Basic Vocabulary

and grammar categories. This is in keeping with

arguments adduced by Wichmann (1999: 6),

Taube (2000) and others concerning the Nahua

linguistic affiliation of cultures such as Epi‐

classic Cacaxtla and Xochicalco.

Although the linguistic patterns we have

encountered tend to show a Mixe Zoquean

dominance on the Maya script during the time

of Teotihuacan supremacy, this is only one line

among many avenues of research that need to

be explored to ultimately answer the question.

We are aware that authors such as Taube

(2000), Dakin and Wichmann (2000) and Macri

and Looper (2003) and Wichmann (1999: 6‐8)

have discussed ‐in a much more detailed way

than it was possible here‐ many sorts of very

relevant archaeological, epigraphic, linguistic

and iconographic evidence that favours a

completely different scenario, that of a Nahua‐

speaking culture settled in Teotihuacan since

Early Classic times. In this regard, we have no

option but to admit that at least some of the

most recent data hitherto found might be in

tune with such views, although it seemed to us

premature to move beyond this point in trying

to elucidate the issue.

A final word would be that, as we have seen,

historical‐linguistic and epigraphic data can go a

long way in explaining broader social

phenomena that go beyond their respective

specialized domains, but no field of study is

sufficiently strong to find by itself the answers

that current Maya research needs. As such, we

need to correlate this data with archaeological

and historical evidence, even of indirect nature,

if we want to advance more securely towards a

better understanding of the successive roles

that the Maya assumed at different times

within a broader conception of Mesoamerica,

understood as a diachronic network configured

by the interaction of multiple cultures.

NOTES: 1 It is worth nothing that Justeson et al. (1985: 24) believed that the Mixe Zoquean term became assimilated into Lowland Mayan languages as *me7 , attested in Ch’ol, related to CHR/CHL me (Davletshin, pers. comm. Mexico 2007). 2 “Pan baço, basto, o negro p comida simple y pobre.” Zucuc bacal as “mazorca de maíz sin grano, que no granó”. 3 This reading relies on a proposal by Davletshin (pers. comm..Mexico 2007) to read the last sign as a full form of logograph PA’, as opposed to the more traditional SIH value often attributed to it (i.e. Grube and Schele 1997:192). Schumann (n/d: 33) has entries for pa’ as “tortilla de maíz, alimento” 4 As Daniel Graña-Behrens has observed (pers. comm.. 2007), it is possible that instead of T142, a sign T136 ji could be involved, rendering u-tzi-ji-li, in which case, this loan would obviously turn out to be invalid. 5 Among them is the NIK (“flower”) value suggested time ago by Grube (quoted in Schele 1992b: 217‐20) and BOK, “aroma, odor” (Prager 2006, manuscript distributed to epigraphers). 66 Wichmann, e-mail communication, May 2007. 7 These appear as the initial sign of the PSS or dedicatory formula as a‐T168‐ja, arguably aja[y]?, related to spellings a‐ja‐ya found at well‐known Chamá‐Nebaj vessels. 8 David Stuart (in Saturno et al. 2005: 41‐42. Fig. 31) first commented on this sequence and warned that although the signs appeared familiar, the combination was unusual and some other lexeme –different than pom‐ could be actually involved. 9 We herein follow previous distinctions established between the inclusive Nahua group of languages and Nahuatl, the particular branch spoken by the Postclassic mexica culture (Macri and Looper 2003: 285). 10 The transliteration payaal with a long vowel is ours. 11 New proposals by Simon Martin (Austin 2006) and Marc Zender (EMC, Malmö 2007) have shown that the Classic name for both GOD D and his avian form (the Principal Bird Deity) could have been in fact more complex than Itzamnaaj. 12 Also see Kaufman (2001:1) “[.] Linguistic facts preclude the presence of Nawa in the Valley of Mexico before 500 CE […]”. 13 A number of entries for pap within different Mayan languages exist, CHN has “padre” (Knowles 1984: 30) and ITZ, MOP, LAK “picante, picoso” (Kaufman 2003:1340; Bruce 1968:21). As for 7am there is “araña” (Kaufman 2003:698)an 7am al renders “toad” (Boot 2002: 17). 14 While the commoners would have been presumably of a Totonacan ethnicity. 15 Although the phonetic reading seems to invert the ‘lighting’ + ‘stone’ syntactic pattern mentioned, the fact is that when looking closely to the way this spelling was written, it still has the same sign of the ‹kawak› day name on the ‘left’ and the ‘stone’ or the jade plaque’s name –albeit phonetically rendered‐ on the ‘right’. This could be due to the close associations between the signs and the terms involved.

Bibliography

Aubin, Joseph Marius Alexis 1849 (2002 ed.) Memorias sobre la pintura didáctica y la escritura figurativa de los antiguos mexicanos. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 121 pp.

Aulex. Diccionario Español‐Maya : 2005 Compiled by Bastarrachea, Juan Ramón. Electronic edition available at: ‹http://aulex.ohui.net/› in collaboration with Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Barrera Vásquez, A. et al. 1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex: maya‐español, español‐maya. Mérida: Ediciones Cordemex. Bastarrachea, Juan Ramón (compiler) 2005 (see above “Aulex 2005. Diccionario Español‐Maya) Beliaev, Dmitri and Albert Davletshin 2003 E‐mail communication distributed amongst scholars, Moscow, Russia. Beliaev, Dmitri and Albert Davletshin, 2006 “Los sujetos novelísticos y las palabras obscenas: los mitos, los cuentos y las anécdotas en los textos mayas sobre cerámica del periodo Clásico”, 8th European Maya Conference, Madrid 2003 in Valencia Rogelio y Genevieve LeFort (eds.), Acta Mesoamericana Vol. 18.Graz: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Blench, Roger and Matthew Spriggs. 1997 Archeaeology and Language II. Correlating archaeological hypotheses. London and New York: Routledge. Bollaert, William 1865‐66 A Maya Hieroglyphic Alphabet of Yucatan. In Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London. No. 2, pp. 45‐54. London. Boot, Erik 2002 A Preliminary Classic maya‐English, English‐Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. Published electronically at:

<http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocabulary/index.html>. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Etienne 1869‐1970 Manuscrit troano: études sur le système graphique et la langue des Mayas. Imprimerie impériale, Paris. 2006 Loanwords, “Foreign Words,” and Foreign Signs in Maya Writing. Paper presented at the symposium “The Idea of Writing III: Loanwords in Writing Systems”. Research School CNWS, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands), June 7‐9 2006. Campbell, L. and T. S. Kaufman. 1976 A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs. American Antiquity, 41:80‐89. 1983 Linguistic diffusion and Mesoamerican prehistory. Unpublished manuscript (referenced in Justeson at al. 2005, see below) Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas C. Smith‐Stark 1986 Meso‐America as a Linguistic Area. Language 62(3):530–70. Cases Marín, Juan Ignacio 2007 “On Jewels and Stars: An Epigraphic Approach to Elements of Maya Cosmography”. Paper presented at the SAA Austin, Symposium “New Perspectives on Ancient Maya Astronomy”, April 27. Dakin, Karen 1982 La evolución fonológica del protonáhuatl. Instituto de Investigaciones Fonológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico. Dakin, Karen and Søren Wichmann 2000 “Cacao and chocolate. An Uto‐Aztecan perspective”. Ancient Mesoamerica, 11 (1): 55‐75. Cambridge University Press. Ehret, Christopher

1976 Linguistic evidence and its correlation with archaeology. World Archeaology, Volume 8, no. I. The University of Chicago Press. Grube, Nikolai 1990a Die Entwicklung der Mayaschrift. Acta Mesoamericana no. 3. Berlin: Verlag Von Flemming. 2004 The ortographic distinction between velar and glottal spirants in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. In: Wichmann, Søren (ed.) 2004: The Linguistics of Maya Writing. USA: Utah University Press. pp. 61‐82. Hofling, Andrew 1994 Transitivity and Voice in Itzaj Maya: Minor Voices., Función 15‐16: 261‐286. Hofling, Andrew 1998 Documentación Maya Itzá. Traducido del Inglés por Alex Lomónaco. USA: Reports Submitted to FAMSI, available electronically at <http://www.famsi.org/reports/97026es/index.html> Hofling, Andrew, with Félix Fernando Tesucún 1997 Itzaj Maya‐Spanish‐English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Houston, Stephen D. 2000 “Into the Minds of Ancients: Advances in Maya Glyph Studies” Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 14, No. 2, Houston, Stephen D. and Zachary Nelson 2006 In the Shadow of Giants: The Classic Maya City of El Zotz’, Guatemala. Paper presented at the 2006 Texas Maya Meetings, March 17, 2006, University of Texas, Austin. Houston, Stephen, John Robertson y David Stuart 2000 “The Language of the Classic Maya Inscriptions”. Current Anthropology vol. 41,núm. 3: 321‐356 Houston, Stephen, John Robertson y David Stuart 2004 Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Linguistic Change and Continuity in Classic Society; in Wichmann, Søren (ed.) 2004: The Linguistics of Maya Writing. Utah University Press. pp. 83‐99

Hurst, Heather and Leonard Ashby 2001 (1999) Bonampak Murals: Copied by Heather Hurst & Leonard Ashby Digital Photographs by M. D. Coe © 2001. Published electronically in Adobe PDF Format by the Bonampak Documentation Project (BDP). Yale University. Justeson, John S. 1984 Appendix B: Interpretations of Mayan Hieroglyphs. In Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, edited by John S. Justeson and Lyle Campbell, pp. 315–362. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Publication No. 9. State University of New York, Albany. Justeson, John and Lyle Campbell (editors) 1984 Phoneticism in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Publication No. 9. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies. State University of New York at Albany Justeson, John S. and Terrence Kaufman 1997 A Newly Discovered Column in the Hieroglyphic Text on La Mojarra Stela 1: A Test of the Epi‐Olmec Decipherment. Science Magazine. Published in electronic format at URL <www.sciencemag.org> Justeson, J. S., W. M. Norman, L. Campbell, and T. Kaufman 1985 The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan Language and Script. Middle American Research Institute Publication No. 53. New Orleans: Tulane University. Karttunen, F. 1992 An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman. Original edition: 1983 (University of Texas Press: Austin). Kaufman, Terrence. S. 1963 1976 “Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associated areas of Meso‐America”. World Archaeology, 8 (1): 101‐118. The University of Chicago Press.

2001 "The History of the Nawa Language Group From the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century: Some Initial Results." Unpublished paper available at http://www.albany.edu/ anthro/maldp/Nawa.pdf. 2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary (with the assistance of John Justeson). FAMSI Grantee Report. URL: <http://www.famsi.org/reports/ 01051/pmed.pdf>. Kaufman, T. S. and John Justeson 2001 Epi‐olmec hieroglyphic writing and texts. Workbook for the Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas. University of Texas at Austin 2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary (with the assistance of John Justeson).FAMSI Grantee Report. URL: <http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf>. 2004 “Epi‐olmec”. In Woodard, Roger. The Cambridge Encyclopedia f the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1071‐1108. Kaufman, T. S., and W. M. Norman 1984 “An outline of proto‐Cholan phonology, morphology, and vocabulary”. In J. S. Justeson and L. Campbell, Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, edited by pp. 77‐166. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Publication No. 9. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University of New York: Albany. Knowles, Susan 1984 A Descriptive Grammar of Chontal Maya (San Carlos dialect). Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University. Lacadena Garcia‐Gallo, Alfonso 2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stopin Maya Writing. In Wichmann, Søren (ed.) 2004: The Linguistics of Maya Writing. Utah University Press, pp. 100‐164 Lacadena, Alfonso y Søren Wichmann 2000 “The Dynamics of Language in Western Lowland Maya Region”. Paper presented at the Chacmool Conference, Calgary.

2002 “The Distribution of Lowland Maya Languages in the Classic Period”. In La organización social entre los mayas prehispánicos, coloniales y modernos. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, vol. II. V. Tiesler, R. Cobos y M.G. Robertson coords. México: CONACULTA, INAH, UADY. pp. 277‐319. N.D. Harmony Rules and the Suffix Domain: A Study of Maya Scribal Conventions. URL: <http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/harm‐rul‐suf‐dom7.pdf> Lastra, Yolanda 1992 Sociolingüística para hispanoamericanos. Una introducción. Published by El Colegio de México, Mexico City. Laughlin, Robert M. 1988 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zinacantán with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary. Vol. I; Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, no. 31. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press Launey, Michel 1992 [1979] Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura náhuatl. México: UNAM. MacLeod, Barbara and Luis Lopes n/d) “The decipherment of T533”. Unpublished manuscript presented at the Advanced Glyphs & Grammar Workshop, XXXth Maya Meetings, Austin, Texas 2006 Macri, Martha and Mathew Looper 2003. “Nahua in ancient Mesoamerica”. Ancient Mesoamerica, 14 (2): 285‐297. Cambridge University Press

Martin, Simon 2006 "Of Snakes and Bats: Shifting Identities at Calakmul," The PARI Journal 6(2):5‐15.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson. Mathews Peter L. 1980 “Notes on the Dynastic Sequence of Bonampak, Part I”, Third Palenque Round Table Part 2: pp. 60‐73, Austin.

1984 “Appendix A. A Maya Hieroglyphic Syllabary”. In Phoneticism in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Edited by Justeson, John and L. Campbell. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies. State University of New York. 311‐314. Mayer, Karl Herbert 2004 The Hieroglyphic Stairway 1 at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico. 82 b/w photographs, 77 line drawings by Sven Gronemeyer. Graz: Saurwein editors Moran, Francisco de 1695 Arte y vocabulario de la lengua cholti que quiere decir la lengua de milperos. Manuscript Collection 497.4/M79, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Electronic version compiled and transcribed by Erik Boot, available online from FAMSI at URL: http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/dictionary.htm Nurse, D. (1997). The contributions of linguistics to the study of history in Africa. Journal of African History 38: 359–391. Referente in Houston, Stephen D. 2000: 195. Pallán Gayol, Carlos in press “Los textos jeroglificos de Edzná: historia y geopolítica del Clásico en la región central de Campeche”. Memorias del Encuentro Internacional de Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 2006, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (to be released in 2007). Saturno, William; Karl Taube and D. Stuart 2005 “The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala. Part 1: The North Wall”. In Ancient America, No. 7. Center for Ancient American Studies: Barnardsville.

Schele, Linda, and Nikolai Grube 1997 The Dresden Codex. In Notebook for the XXIst Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop, pp. 79‐247. Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin.

Schumann Gálvez, Otto n.d. (1978) Vocabulario Ch’ortí‐Español (Chorti Phonology and Vocabulary). Unpublished manuscript on file at the Dumbarton Oaks Pre‐Columbian Library, Washington, D.C

Siméon, Remi 1977 Diccionario de la lengua náhuatl. México: Editorial Siglo XXI Stuart, David S. 1988 “The Río Azul Cacao Pot: Epigraphic Observations on the Function of a Maya Ceramic Vessel”. American Antiquity, 62: 153‐157. 1995 A Study of Maya Inscriptions. Ph.D. dissertation. Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tennessee. 1997 Kinship Terms in Maya Inscriptions. In: Macri, M. J., and A. Ford (eds.), The Language of Maya Hieroglyphs, pp. 1‐11. Pre‐Columbian Art Research Institute: San Francisco 2005 Sourcebook for the 29th Maya Hieroglyph Forum. The Maya Meetings at Austin: University of Texas. Taube, Karl A. 2000 The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacan. Ancient American Art and Writing No. 1. Center for Maya Research, Washington, DC. Taube, Karl A., and Bonnie Bade 1991 An Appearance of Xiuhtecuhtli in the Dresden Venus Pages. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 35. Center for Maya Research, Washington, DC. Urcid, Javier 1992 Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Valiñas, Leopoldo. 1981. “Los préstamos lingüísticos como diagnósticos regionales. Los corporales en Nayarit y Durango como ejemplo”. Anales de Antropología. Vol. 18. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas‐Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 227‐237. Vocabularios Indígenas 1974 Diccionario Totonaco de Xicotepec de Juárez (No. 17: 102) 1974 Summer Institute of Linguistics (Instituto Lingüístico de Verano) Von Winning, Hasso

1981 An Iconographic Link between Teotihuacan and Palenque. Mexicon 3:30–32. Weinrich, Harald. 1981. Lenguaje en textos, Madrid: Gredos. Wichmann, Søren 1995 The Relationships Among the Mixe Zoquean Languages of Mexico. University of Utah Press 1997. Diffusion involving Mixe‐zoquean languages. In Blench, Roger and Matthew Spriggs. Archeaeology and Language II. Correlating archaeological hypotheses. London and New York: Routledge. Pág. 297‐323. 1998. A conservative look at diffusion involving Mixe‐Zoquean languages. En: Blench, Roger y Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language II. Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypotheses, pp. 297‐323. New York & London: Routledge. 2002 “Hieroglyphic evidence for the historical configuration of Eastern Ch’olan”. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, 51. Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research. 2006 “A Mixe‐Zoquean Loanword in the Late Preclassic Murals of San Bartolo?”. Published electronically at Mesoweb, available at URL: www.mesoweb.com/articles/wichmann/Loanword.pdf Whittaker, Gordon 1986 “The Mexican Names of Three Venus Gods in the Dresden Codex”. Mexicon, 8 (3): 56‐60. Zender, Marc Uwe 2004 “On the Morphology of Intimate Posession in Maya Languages”. In: Wichmann, Søren (ed.) 2004: The Linguistics of Maya Writing. Utah University Press. pp. 195‐210

Figure 1. Mixe‐Zoquean. Animals, Animal Parts, Bodyparts; a) chi‐ku‐NAHB AJAW at CLK St. 114 (after Martin 2006); b) MAY (after Montgomery

2002); c) u‐si‐? BPK Room 1, caption 3 20‐22 (after preliminary drawing by Stephen Houston based on infrared photography by the BPK

documentation project, Yale University: Hurst & Ashby 2001). d) u‐ti‐ya‐ta‐u‐su. (PAL K’antok Tablet). e) T740 polyvalent hu sign (PNG St.1 p.F3); f) logographic HUJ? (After Montgomery 2002); All drawings by Carlos Pallán

a. b. c.

d. e. f.

Figure 2. Mixe‐Zoquean. Plant and Plant Parts. a) pa‐ta‐ha BPK St. 1 (after Mathews 1980: 4); b) su‐ku‐ku u‐SIH?/PA’? (Codex Dresden p. 65b); c) u‐lu (vessel Kerr No. 4387); d) u‐tzi‐ma‐li (After Reents‐Budet et al. 1996: 127); e) MOK?/NIK?/B’OK? In sequence AJ‐T533hv (YAX. Lintel 19 pos.M4; after photograph by the author, courtesy of AGIMAYA‐INAH/Harvard/UNAM/ Project Yaxchilan 2007); f) ma‐cha‐ja (vessel Kerr No. 1398). All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

a. b. c.

d. f.e.

Figure 3. Mixe Zoquean. Kinship, Social Organization, Toponyms, Commerce; Calendar, Ideology and Belief. a) yu‐ne (Pearlman Conch‐Shell, Early Classic); b) u‐yu‐mu (Rio Azul Vessel; After Stuart 1997); c) K’UH‐po‐o‐AJAW‐wa (Tonina, Mon. 104, after field drawing by David Stuart); d) a‐ja‐wa (after John Montgomery 2002). First proposed as a loanword by Erik Boot (2006); e) OK day‐sign (after John Montgomery 2002); f) u‐KAB’‐ji K’AL‐TUN‐HIX (Naranjo, St. 25, right side); g) SAK‐CHWEN (Naranjo, H.S. 1 pos. M2); h) 9‐[po]mo‐li (Dresden, p. 25a); i) po‐mo‐ja (San Bartolo, Late Preclassic. After drawing by Stuart in Saturno et al. 2005: Fig. 31). All drawings by Carlos Pallán

a. b. c.

d. e. f.

g. h. i.

Figure 4. Nahua. Animals, Animal Parts and Body Parts; Kinship, Social Organization, Toponyms, Commerce. a) yo‐OL‐la (after Montgomery 2002: 30); b) 12‐ pa‐ta (YAX. H.S. 3, Step 4, after drawing by Ian Graham, CMHI, Harvard); c) AJ‐pa‐ya (YAX. H.S.3. Step I, pos. C7, after Drawing by Ian Graham, CMHI, Harvard); d) K’AL‐ja la‐K’IN‐ni ta‐wi‐si‐ka‐la CHAK‐EK’ (Dresden p. 48b); e) CHAK‐xi‐wi‐te‐‘i CHAK‐EK’ (Dresden, p. 49b); f) ka‐ka‐tu‐na‐la CHAK‐EK’ (Dresden, p. 47c); g) The Classic name of God D: ITZ?/ITZAM?‐#‐ji. All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

a. b. c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Figure 5. Nahua. Basic Vocabulary and Grammar. Nahua Additional Loanwords?. a) i‐yu‐wa‐la (CPN. St. J); b) sa‐mi‐ya (after Montgomery 2002); c) ko‐sa‐ka‐‹IKPALI›. (Tikal, St. 31, pos. L2, first noted by David Stuart); d) K’AN‐ko (Uaxactun, Stela 14 left after Boot 2006: Fig. 6b); e) pa‐pa‐ma‐2li (Caracol stucco fragment, after drawing by Nikolai Grube). All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

a. b. c.

d. e.

Figure 6. Zapotec. Possible Loanwords? a) T584 ‹B’EN› (13th day‐sign); b) T510a ‹LAMAT› (8th day‐sign); c) T671 ‹MANIK’› (7th day‐sign) All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

Figure 7. Totonacan. Basic Vocabulary and Grammar. a) [ki]WI’. Codex Madrid, p. 36a. b) pa‐k’a (revised after Montgomery 2002); c) IX‐b’a‐[pa]k’a‐u?‐li. (ETZ, Alt. 1, courtesy of INAH Proyecto Arqueológico Edzná 2006); All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

a. b. c.

a. b. c.

Figure 8. Problematic Loanwords. a) 2ka‐wa. Rio Azul Early Classic Vessel (after drawing by David Stuart 1988, Fig. 1b); b) ko‐o‐ha‐wa (PNG. Lintel 2, pos. X4‐W5); c) u‐ka‐ya‐wa‐ka. Unprovenanced Jade Celt (after preliminary drawing by Yuriy Polyukhovich 2006); d) IX‐TUN‐ni‐ka‐ya‐wa‐ka (Tikal, Altar 5, pos. 13‐14). All drawings by Carlos Pallán.

a. b.

c. d.

Plants and Plant Parts

Animals and Animal Parts

Technology, Tools and Techniques, Agriculture

Kinship, Social Org. Commerce, Toponyms

Calendar, Ideology and Belief

Basic Vocabulary and Grammar

0

1

2

3

4

Mixe- ZoqueNahuaZapotecoTotonaco

Num

ber of attested loanwords

Table 1. Relative importance of detected foreign sources of lexical diffusion attested on the Maya hieroglyphic script. Quantitative analysis organized by semantic categories involved (modified from Pallán and Melendez 2005 EMC presentation).

Documents

Pallan and Melendez Foreign Influences EMC Leiden[1]