ForeignInfluencesontheMayaScript

CarlosPallnGayol CoordinacinNacionaldeArqueologa,INAH LuceroMelndezGuadarrama PosgradoenEstudiosMesoamericanos,UNAM

Introduction Theaimofthispaperistoevaluatethenature andextentofthelinguisticinfluencethatother MesoamericanlanguagesexertedontheMaya, exclusivelyasitwasreflectedonthe hieroglyphicscript.Indoingso,wedontwant tomerelysummarize,buttocriticallyre examinepreviousproposals,andhopefullyadd furtherevidenceoflinguisticcontactbetween theMayaandotherMesoamericancultures,in lightoftheenhancedunderstandingofthe hieroglyphicscriptthatwehavetoday.Recent advancesindeciphermentmakeitmoreviable nowadaystoperformanumberofcomparative studiesbetweenlinguisticinteractionsamongst relatedculturalareasofMesoamerica.Justasa wayofexample,theamountofsyllabicsigns whosephoneticvaluesweknowtodaymore thandoubleswhatwasknownin1984 (Mathews1984:311314;cf.Stuart,2005: syllabary).Therehasalsobeenconsiderable advancementtowardsdefiningthemain prestigelanguagethatcomprisesthevast majorityofknownglyphictexts(Houston, RobertsonandStuart,2000)andalsoabout whichlocalvernacularswererepresented (LacadenaandWichmann2000). 1.Methodology Aloanwordconstitutesanadditiontoa receivinglinguisticsystemandisthereforethe resultofaprocesscalledlinguisticinterference (Weinrich,1982apudLastra1992:172),which impliesareorganizationoftendenciesresulting fromtheintroductionofforeignelements withinthestructureddomainsofthelanguage, suchasphonology,morphology,syntaxand lexicon.Whenfuturegenerationsofspeakers continuetousetheseinnovations,awareness abouttheirforeignoriginmightbelostand theycanbecomepermanentlinguisticchanges. SpecificallyontheMayascript,lexicaldiffusion fromonelanguagetoanotherusuallyleaves someformofevidenceatthephonologicaland semanticlevels(i.e.asthesyllabicpatternor resemantization).Apparently,themost commonformoflexicalinterferencethatis noticeableontheglyphiccorpusoccurswhena sequenceofphonemesistransferredfromthe donorlanguagetothehostsystemwithout beinganalyzed,sowhatoriginallywasa linguisticcompoundintheformerlanguage(i.e. asanominaloradverbialphrase),becomesa singlewordintheother.Whendealingwith loanwords,solidlinguisticargumentsare

requiredtodeterminesuchcrucialaspectsas thedirectionoftheloan(Justesonetal.1984: 3).Asforchronology,datableinternal epigraphicevidenceisalsousefulinhelpingto establishthemomentoftheearliestattestation oftheloanwithinthehostlinguisticsystem. Wewillnotadheretopreviousdatingmethods basedonglottochronology,sincetheyareno longerwidelyaccepted,havingraisedconcerns abouttheirproblematiccorrelationwithother datablearchaeologicalevidence(Houston 2000:158;Nurse1997:366;Macri&Looper 2003:286). Thefactthatdiversesocioculturalinferences canbederivedfromsuchlinguisticevidence stillremainslargelyoverlookedby archaeologistsandhistoriansingeneral(Ehret 1976;Houston2000),andevenmoresowithin thefieldofMayastudies,wherethereexistsa largeepigraphiccorpusthatrecordsmanysorts oflinguisticdata.Justaslinguisticinterference couldbeconsideredasanaspectofcultural diffusionandacculturation(Lastra1992:174), webelievethatevidenceofloanwordsattested withintheMayanwritingsystemshouldreflect ifonlypartiallytherelativepolitical importanceandculturaldominionofdiverse Mesoamericangroupsforagivenmomentin history. WithinMesoamerica,webelievetherewereat leastfourmajorculturesthatatleast potentiallycouldhavelefttestimonyoftheir

influenceandinteractionwiththeMaya civilizationthroughspecificforeignterms phoneticallyrecordedonthehieroglyphic writingsystem.Basedonthenumberofsuch termsandtheextentoftheircultural significance,wecouldproposeahierarchical orderingofthesefourlanguagesaccordingto theirrelativeimportanceanddegreeofcultural impactasreflectedontheMayascript,an exercisethatwewillreserveforthelastpartof thispaper.Thedegreetowhichthishierarchy couldbesupportedbytheavailableepigraphic andhistoricallinguisticevidencewillbethe subjectofthefollowingsections. Itisthroughcorelinguisticformsthatweare abletodetectdiffusedlexicalitemsthatmight appearanomalouswithrespecttothoseofthe hostlanguage.Forinstance,Mayalanguages tendtohaveaCVCstructurewithveryfew exceptions,whichthencanbecombinedor affixedtoformsyllabiccompoundsofthetype CVCCVCorCVCVC.Asaresult,stemsthat dontreadilyconformtotheabovepatterns couldpotentiallyrepresentcandidatesfor beingloanwords,assimilatedfromaforeign language. Anadditionalaspecttoconsiderifweareto formulateculturalinferencesfromthisdatais tosemanticallycategorizethediffusedterms. Indoingso,wefounditusefultoemploythesix basicsemanticfieldsdevelopedbyKaufman (2003:12)althoughwithslightmodifications.

Thesewouldbe1)Animals,AnimalParts, Bodyparts2)PlantsandPlantParts3) Technology,ToolsandTechniques,Agriculture 4)Kinship,SocialOrganization,Commerceand otherculturalcontacts,Toponyms5)Calendar, IdeologyandBeliefand6)BasicVocabularyand Grammar. 2.Mixezoqueaninfluence AccordingtoKaufmanandJusteson(2001;see alsoJusteson&Kaufman1997)MixeZoquean culturealsodevelopedahighlysophisticated hieroglyphicscriptoflogosyllabicnaturethat predatedandinfluencedthatoftheMaya,a writingsystemwhichhasbeenalternatively calledEpiOlmecbytheseauthorsor IsthmianbyHouston(2000:13031)andother scholars.Regardingitspreciselinguistic affiliation,Wichmann(1998:35)hassuggested thatthelanguagerepresentedshould correspondtotheprotoZoqueanstage.Asfor thequestionofwhetherornotitpredatedthe Mayascript,fairlyrecentdiscoveriesofMayan hieroglyphsatSanBartolo(Saturnoetal.2005) suggestthatarevisionofourcurrent chronologiesmightbeinorder,onethatmight putIshtmiananMayawritingsystemsas contemporaneoustoeachother. ThesyllabicstructureofprotoMixeZoqueanis CVCV,andaccordingtoDakinandWichmann (2000:57)ithasastresspatternthatusually affectsthepenultimatesyllable.Kaufmanand

Justeson(2004;2001)haveextensively discussedtherelationshipbetweenMixe Zoqueanandthehieroglyphicscriptcarvedon suchmonumentsasLaMojarraStela1andthe Tuxtlasstatuette.Asthestageofdecipherment ofthisscriptisbeingcurrentlydebatedand consensushasyettobereachedaboutits plausibility,wewillnowturnourattentionto thepossibleMixeZoqueanloanwordsdetected thusfarbypreviousauthorsthatcouldhave foundtheirwayintotheMayascript,coupled withafewadditionsderivedfromourown research. 2.1Animals,AnimalPartsandBodyparts domain Tobeginwith,thewordforcoatiisspelledas chikuonthescript,renderingtheClassic Cholanformchi[i]k.Justesonetal.(1985:23 24)haveobservedthatitcouldhaveoriginated fromprotoMixeZoquean*i7k.AsSimon Martinhasnoted(Martin2005:10),thereisan EarlyClassicexampleforthistermatCalakmul Stela114,whereaLordofChiikNaahbis mentionedaroundA.D.431(Fig.1a).Less transparentisthecaseoftheprotoMixe Zoqueanform*u:kformouse(Justesonetal. 1984:24),manifestedintheMayaregionasthe termchukthatstillexistsinCholandChontal, cognatesthatappearveryunlikelyona phonologicalleveltobearanyrelationship withprotoMayan*cho7hforratn,rata

(Kaufman2003:587),attestedonthescriptby thesignT758cho/CHOH. Alsothesocalleddeerhoofsign(T795),which seemstocarrythelogographicvalueMAY,has beenattributedmultipleconnotations,starting withadirectsemanticassociationwiththe signsgraphicrepresentation,supportedby entriessuchasYUKmaay,pezuaand pezuadevenado(Bastarracheaetal.1992: 85;Aulex2005:53)andITZmay(Vocabulario Itza2001:51),butalsohintingatothermoreor lesssubtlevariationsofsemanticrange,suchas YUKahmay,venadillopequeocriadoencasa orfeminineixmay,venadillaassi(Bolles2001: 132apud.MotulMayanSpanishDictionary), attestationsthatmightconfirmornotadistant originandassimilationfromprotoZoquean *m a ,butotherinterestingpossibilitiesarise fromClassicMayaMAYsignsandtheseshallbe exploredlater.Fornow,wewouldalsoliketo discussatermthathasraisedsomecontroversy lately,spelledglyphicallyasusionthe Bonampakmurals(Fig.1c).WhileHouston, RobertsonandStuart(2004:88)havearguedin favourofaCommonMayan*usformthat mighthavederivedfromMixeZoquean*7uusu, mosquito(Houstonetal.2004:88),theyhave warnedaboutthelexicalcontextbeinghighly uncertain.Ontheotherhand,Lacadenaand Wichmann(2004:158)regardthisformasan underspellingforusii[j],withthemeaningof vulture,atermofcertainMayanetymology. Onourpart,wehaveidentifiedanadditionalu
7 1

sisequence,butagain,lackinggoodsemantic controls,whichappearsaspartofthenameof oneoftherulersfromEdzna,Campecheat HieroglyphicStairway1,pos.31(Pallaninpress: 46;Mayer2004:21).Fromthisevidencealone, itwouldperhapsbeadventuroustryingto sustainthattheMixeZoqueantermwas diffusedintoLowlandMayalanguages,butan additionalcontextfirstidentifiedbyDmitri BeliaevandAlbertDavletshin(2003)attheKan ToktabletfromPalenqueclearlyreadsuhti (i)iytaus,ithappened(atthe)Mosquitoes (place)(Fig.1d),giventhattheparticleta appearstooperatewithinthiscollocationasa locativeprefix,ratherthantheusual prepositionin,at,to,whichisotherwise absentfromexpressionssuchasuhti(i)iy Pi[h]pa,itoccurred(at)Pihpa(Pomon, HieroglyphicPanel5).Itisworthcommenting thattheformdetectedbytheseauthorsis synharmonic,andthereforeresemblesmore closelytheshortvoweledentriesfoundatpM andpCh*us(Kaufman&Norman1984:135); pCH*7us;CHR,ITZ,MOPus;CHTandYUK#uz amongothers(Kaufman2003:680). Anadditionalanimaltermthatmighthave diffusedintoMayanlanguagesistheMixeday signforiguanajuun(Justesonetal.1985:73; Wichmann1998:20)whichwasapparently assimilatedintoLowlandMayaas*hu:h,also meaningiguanabuthavinglostitsfunctionas aritualdayname(Wichmann,ibid.).Inthe Mayascript,thereisampleevidencethatthe

signT740decipheredbyGrubeasthesyllabic valuehushouldhavederivedacrophonically fromCholan*hujiguana(Grube1990a:60). Yetanothersign,T1068,couldbefunctioningin certaincontextsaslogographicHUJorHUH withidenticalmeaning(Figs.1e,f) Tofinishthissection,therearethreeadditional casesofloanwordssemanticallyrelatedto animals,representedonthescriptbytheday signsOK,HIXandCHWEN,whicharelikelyto havehadtheiroriginsinprotoMixeZoquean forms,butweprefertodiscussthemlateron thesectionofCalendar,IdeologyandBelief. 2.2PlantsandPlantParts AsforthePlantsandPlantPartsdomain,there isaclearexampleoflexicaldiffusioninthe termpata,guava,guayaba,attestedon MixeZoqueanlanguagessuchasthatofSierra Popoluca.AccordingtoErikBoot(2002:67),the Mayahieroglyphicforminwhichthisloanword wasrepresentedcouldbeeitherspelledpata haorunderspelledaspata(Fig.2a).Moreover, StanleyGuenter(cit.inLacadena&Wichmann n.d.:24)hasnoticeditcouldalsoappearina derivedformaspatahala.Wichmann(1998: 10)hasagreeduponthisbeingastrong candidateforhaving[...]diffusedfrompre protoZoqueantoPanMayan. However,notallitemswithinthiscategoryare asclearandsomeneedfurtherexploration.

ThisisthecaseoftheprotoOaxacanMixe (pOM)termfor*ukuhk~ukuk,whichstands forechartortillas/tomaketortillas(Wichmann 1995:435).WithintheMayascript,weareaware ofatleastonespellingofsukukuthatoccursat CodexDresden,p.65b(Fig.2b),presumably referingtosomesortoffoodofferinginvolvinga roadtravellinggodChaahk.Fromsuchcontext, sukukhasbeeninterpretedindifferentways. ScheleandGrube(1997:192)translateasblack orpoortamale,drawingfromglossesatMotul dictionary,2whereasErikBoot(2002:72)listsit asbreadstuffwithgroundbeans.Entriesat Bolles(2001:302)forYUKzucucsuggestit mightrefertoaplantspecies,leguminosae diphysacarthagenensis.Aparallellineof explorationledustotheprotoZoqueanword forpalmgrassorzacate,reconstructedby Kaufmanas*so7k,whichmighthavepassedto theLowlandMayaregionundertheformsu7uk, attestedonMopnorITZ,YUKsuuk,bothwith identicalmeaning(Kaufman2003:1155;Bolles 2001:362).Ifmomentarilywedecidedtoregard suukukasaMZloanderivedfromthisroot,an alternatereading3forthecontextatthis Dresdenalmanaccouldbecome:
aan?tabihChaahkyutzilsu(u)kukupa? (Onthisday)Chaahkisontheroad,Goodness(augury), herbs/grassarehisfood(?)

Forthetimebeing,weareunabletoexplainin amoresatisfactorymannerthenumerous semanticproblemsthatsukukuposits,butwe

esteemworthwhiletofurtherexploreits preciseetymologicalorigins. Amuchstrongercaseforhypothesizingabout earlyandsignificantculturaltiesbetweenMixe ZoqueanandMayaculturesisthepervasive termforatole,foundextensivelywithinthe ceramiccorpusofClassicMayavessels. AccordingtoKaufman(2003:1186),theproto Mayanroot*7uuloriginatedfromanearlier protoZoquean*7unu.Theglyphiccollocation uluappearsveryfrequentlyonthesocalled PrimaryStandardSequenceorDedicatory Formula,withinthesectionthatspecifiesthe contentsintendedforthebowlorvessel(Fig. 2c). Anotherimportantpotentialloanwordfrom thisdomainthatseemedtohavediffusedfrom MixeZoqueanintoMayalanguages,andcould appearatleastonceonthehieroglyphicrecord hasbeennotedbyBarbaraMacLeod(Reents Budet1994:127)andfurtherelaboratedbyErik Boot(2006:6).ItispMZ*tzima7,jcara, calabash(Kaufman2002:993),aloanwhich seeminglyreflectswithgoodsemanticcontrol onaDedicatoryFormula(PSS)paintedovera gourdshapedvessel(Fig.2d)underthe possessedformutzima?li4(utzima?il);itis thegourd?of(ReentsBudet1994:127). Wichmann(1998:8)hasconcludedthatthis lexicalitemcouldhavebeendiffusedasearlyas duringthepMZstage.

Anadditionalcandidatethathowever problematicmeritsfurtherexploration(Fig. 2e)isaproposalforthereadingofsignT533as MOK?(MacLeodandLopesn/d).Thecommon kiphoneticcomplementthataccompaniesthis signinnoncalendriccontextswouldrender accordingtotheseauthorsthetermmook, diffusedintoMayanfromMixeZoqueanterms formazorcaornavel,suchaspMZ*mo:k, reconstructedbyCampbellandKaufman,albeit observingthat:"[...]termsformaize[...]are borrowedthroughoutMesoAmerica,through probablynotfromMZ"(CampbellandKaufman 1976:85).Yetanotherfactorthatcallsfor cautionhereisthatthereexistadditionaland verydifferentdeciphermentproposalsforthis signwhichmightbeasvalidasMOK?oreven moreso,althoughnoneofthemhaveyet reachedenoughconsensusamong epigraphers.5Toclosethissection,weshould mentionthatKaufmansMixeZoquean reconstructionforthecontroversialterm *kakawacallsforamorethoroughdiscussion onalatersectionwehavecalledproblematic loans. 2.3Technology:ToolsandTechniques, Agriculture. Timeago,Justesonetal.(1985:23)believed theyhadencounteredacorrelationbetween theprotoMixeterm*ma,tograsp,anda glyphicexpressiononpage15coftheDresden Codex,whichtheyconceivedasmacha.

However,laterresearchhasshownthatthe phoneticvalueforthesignT669iskainstead. Thereareneverthelessotherattestedcasesof machasemanticallyrelatedtotheverbto grab(Boot2002:57)whichcanbeassociatedto lexicalentriessuchasCHR<machi>pulloff, pickoffinstrips(Wisdom1950:525)andYUK <mach>asirotomarconlamano,empuar; tenerasido,agarrar(BarreraVsquez 1995:473).Forinstance(Fig.2f),aspellingma chajaappearsonvesselK1398(Beliaev& Davletshin2006:3940),butrecentscholarly debatetendstoanalyzeitasmachaj(NEG VERB?)asopposedtoapassivizedmahchaj form(GRABPASSINTR3ABSs).Anadditional contextwithgoodsemanticcontrolinvolving thespellingmachili?hasbeenidentifiedona glyphiccaptionatvesselK1560byBeliaevand Davletshin(2006:note38),makingastrong casethattheverbalrootmachwasindeed attestedontheMayascriptwithanidentical meaningtoitsMixeZoqueancounterpart. 2.4Kinship,SocialOrganization,Toponyms, Commerce AveryclearexampleofaprotoZoquean loanwordistheterm*7uneor*7uninforchild, infant(Kaufman2003:117).Itwasassimilated bytheCholanprestigelanguagemostlyunder thepossessedformyune ,hischild.Itis significantthatsuchawidespreadparentage termwasborrowedfromanotherlanguage, whichwouldindicateaccordingtoCampbell
2

andKaufmans(1976)modelastrong interactionbetweenMayaandMixeZoquean culturesduringtheEarlyClassic,judgingfrom thepresenceofthisexpressionatexamplesas thehieroglyphictextengravedonaconchshell trumpetfromthePearlmancollection(Fig.3a). Next,thedeerhooflogogramMAY,whichwe alreadydiscussed,hasbeenrelatedtofurther lexicalentriesthatyieldthemeaningofgift, offering,ddiva,don(Morn1695:23 transcribedbyBoot2004),asidefrombeing semihomophonoustoawidespreadtermfor tobacco.Forthefirstpossibility,wehave foundamoreorlessplausiblecorrespondence withtheprotoMixeZoqueanverbalform *ma7ay,whichKaufman(2001:16)translates astosell,vender,comerciar(seealso Wichmann1995:360),atermwhichinspecific contextsappearsasitcouldalsotakethe connotationofofferingsomething(CHLmaii oferta;ibid.p.23),althoughitstillappears slightlydistantforsustainingaclearsemantic relationship.Anothersimilartermdiffused fromMixeZoqueanintoMayanlanguagesis pMZ*may,tocount(Wichmann1998:13). Althoughitseemstohavediffusedintosomeof theHighlandMayalanguagespreservingits originalmeaning,thehieroglyphicattestations thatweareawareofdontseemtosupportany directsemanticconnection. Aclearerborrowingfromthisdomainthat carriesimportantsocialsignificanceisspelled

yumuonthefamousRioAzulchocholate vessel(Fig.3b),firstdetectedbyDavidStuart (1988;1997:5),whichrenderstheCholanroot yumforboss,headoffamily,father,patron. Wichmann(1998:21)hasdetecteditsplausible connectionwithprotoZoquean*7omiboss, father(pZ*ko omi).Nextwefindthecaseof atoponym,theglyphicallyattestedClassic namefortheancientcityofTonina,sometimes representedbymeansofadiacriticalmarkto reduplicatethesignT622po,andotherssimply spelledaspoo(Fig.3c),resultingnevertheless inthetermpopo,arguablyderivedfrompMZ *po:p?o?blanco(Wichmann1995:545). AccordingtoLacadenaandWichmann (2000:10),thiscouldbeareducedmayaform ofanevenolderoriginalMixeZoqueanname, whichtheyproposecouldhavebeenpopo tzatk,whitecave, thusimplyingthatthe protoZoquewordforwhite,popowas preservedwithintheEmblemGlyphofTonin. Acloselyrelatedadditionalloancouldbethe onerecentlydetectedbyIgnacioCases(2007: 4)whileexploringaplausiblearchaicMixe Zoqueanoriginforthepoyacollocationsfound withinglyphsXfromtheLunarSeries,onthe basisofentriessuchaspMZ*poyaorpZ*poya forlunaormoon(Wichmann1995;Kaufman 2003:502). Withinthisdomain,asignificantcontribution hasbeenmaderecentlybyErikBoot(2006:13 15),whenheproposedthatthemost emblematicofalltermsrelatedwithClassic
6 7

Mayapoliticalpower,ajaw,couldhaveinfact derivedfromMixeZoquean.Althoughthe majorityofspellingsinvolvedarelogographic, therearemanyexampleswithbothinitiala andfinalawphoneticcomplementation,and evenfullajawacollocations(Fig.3d)that unquestionablyhintataClassicformajaw derivedfromtheProtoMayanreconstruction *7a:ja:w(Kaufman2003:716),andnotahpoor ajpopaspreviouslysuggested(cf.Lounsbury 1973;Mathews1980:60;Bricker1986:210; Justesonetal.1984:328).Afewcontexts, however,seemtoindicatethatthesignT168, usuallyregardedaslogographicAJAW,could functionassimplyAJ.7Atanyrate,the etymologyofAjawhasreceivedscholarly attentioninthepast.DavidStuart(1995:190 91)firstsuggestedtheanalysisajawas shouter,proclaimer,parallelingtheNahuatl Tlahtoaniconception.Buildingonthis suggestion,Boot(ibid.)hasrecentlyargued thattheoriginofthemanylatterreflexesof WesternMaya*7aawandprotoMayan*7aw, meaningtoshout(Kaufman2003:716)might havederivedfrompMZ*7aw,mouth (Wichmann1995:250).Ifconfirmed,this loanwordcouldhaveparamountimplications forreconstructingthenatureandextentof historicalinteractionsbetweentheMayaand theirMixeZoqueanneighboursfromasearlyas theLatePreclassiconwards,whentheearliest attestationofAJAWintotheMayahieroglyphic systemseeminglytakesplaceatSanBartolo (Saturno,TaubeandStuart2005:4446).To

concludethissegment,muchhasbeensaid abouttheaffiliationofthetermKohaw,which standsforhelmet,butwefinditbetterto discussitundertheproblematicloanwords sectiongiventhedifferentlanguagesthathave beenproposedforhavingoriginatedit. 2.5Calendar,IdeologyandBelief Howeverdifficulttoascertain,sincewelack phoneticcluestodeterminetheClassic equivalentsforthenamesofTzolkindaysigns givenbyLanda(GraaBehrens,pers.comm. 2007),itisstilllikelythatatleastthree importantsignsofthe260dayritualcalendar hadtheiroriginenMixeZoqueanterms (Justesonet.al1985:2324),giventheattested examplesoutsidecalendriccontextwherevery likelythesesignsareindeedfunctioningwith thevaluesmentionedbelow.Thenameforthe seventhdayOK(Fig.3e),relatedtothe Mesoamericandaydog,mighthavebeen diffusedfromanumberofMixetermsfordog with7okorthevariant7uk,whichcontinuesto beusedatareassuchasTlahuitoltepec, Oaxaca,asweourselveshaveattested.These formsverylikelycomefromprotoMixe*7uka, asWichmann(1998:13)hasalsoobserved. Anothercalendrictermwouldhavebeen representedbythesignT524,HIX,thenameof thefourteenthdayjaguarorocelotlin Nahuatl.Accordingly,theprotoMayan *(h)i7(i)hasledJustesonetal.(1985:24)to

formulateanhypothesisforitsorigininthe protoMixeZoquean7i:cacomixtle(awild feline),whereasWichmann(1998:20)relatesit toprotoOaxacanMixe*#i:SYmeaning weasel.Anattestationofthistermoutside calendriccontexts(Fig.3f)appearsonthe nameofoneoftheEarlyClassicrulersofthe Kaandynasty,whosenamehasrecentlybeen reinterpretedasKALTUNHIX(Martin&Grube 2000:72,102105;Martin2005:6).Athird loanwhichapparentlyfounditswaytothe ritualcalendarwasprotoMixeZoquean*awi meaningmonkey,whichJustesonetal(1985: 24)haveproposedastheetymologicaloriginof theMayatermfortheeleventhdaymonkey, attestedonthePopolVuhasuwen.Further semanticcontrolsthatrelateCHWENwiththe meaningmonkeyarethenamesofJunBatzy JunChuwen,thesupernaturalhalfbrothersof theHeroTwinsfromthePopolVuh,aswellas theglyphictermSAKCHWEN(Fig.3g),that referstoapure,resplendentartist (Montgomery,2002a:214),usedasageneral titlefortheNaranjokings(Martin&Grube 2000:72)andattestedonLateClassicStelae8, 12y35fromthissite(LacadenaandWichmann, 2004:142)aswellasbeingpaintedonanumber ofvessels.TheMZformseemstohavediffused intoKiche,YucatecandCholundertheforms CYowenandCyuwen(Wichmann1988:21), wheretheadditionofthefinal/n/consonant couldbeexplainedasaMayanassimilation strategyattestedatotheradoptedMZ loanwords(Justesonetal.1985:24).

 ToendwiththesectiononCalendar,Ideology andBelief,averyclearandculturallysignificant loanwordisthetermforincense, reconstructedas*poom@inprotoMixe ZoquebyKaufman(2003:1359).Thereare cognatesforthiswordinthevastmajorityof Mayanlanguages.Ahieroglyphicspellingof po[mo],withthefirstsignedinfixedintothe second(Fig.3h),appearsonthepostclassical datedDresdenCodexwiththesamemeaning onaveryclearritualcontext,theNewYears ceremonies.Anotherpossiblyfarearlier contexthasbeendetectedrecentlyby Wichmann(cit.Mesowebpaper)ina presumablylatePreclassiccontextatSan Bartolo,wherethespellingseemstoreadpo maja8(Fig.3i).Ifconfirmed,thisloancouldbe evenclosertotheoriginalMixeZoqueanform, giventhataccordingtoWichmann(2006:2),it is[...]fullycompatiblewithareconstructed protoZoquean*pomoh(orapreproto Zoquean*po:moh). 3.Nahualoans Nahua9speakingculturealsodevelopeda hieroglyphicwritingsystem,thenatureof whichisstillthematterofcontroversy, althoughLacadena(UNAMworkshop,Mexico City2006),buildingonAubinscontributions (1849[ed.2002]),hassuggestedthatitalso constitutedalogosyllabicsysteminamanner notdisimmilartoMayanandIsthmeanscripts,

afeaturespeciallynoticeablewhen representinganthroponyms,toponymsand theonyms.Nahuasyllablesprototypicallyhave theform(C)V(C),whichbymeansof agglutinationtendtogrouptogetherin polysyllabiccomplexes.Parenthesisindicate thatconsonantsareoptative.Thestress patternusuallyaffectsthepenultimate syllable.Nahuahasanumberofphonemesthat arealientoMayanlanguages.Forthisreason, whenassimilatingNahuaterms,Mayan speakersslightlyalteredthephonologyofthe originalwordtomatchthatoftheirown. AttestedexamplesshowhowtheMaya speakersandscribessimplifiedintricate Nahuasyllabicpatterns,aswellasphonemes whichwerealientotheprestigeCholan languageoftheinscriptions.Thisledto phenomenasuchasNahuakwsoundbecoming kinMayan(kw>k),andtlbecomingt(tl>t), appreciatedontermslikekwa:wtli,thatwas assimilatedintoYucatecanasko:t,or tlahuizcalpantecuhtli,whichappearsas tawiskalattheDresdenCodex,asexplained below. 3.1Animals,AnimalPartsandBodyParts WeshallstartbyexaminingNahualinguistic loanswithinthesemanticrealmofAnimals, AnimalpartsandBodyParts.Thefirstitemto bediscussedisyo7hl,usuallyspelledyoOLla (Fig.4a.),whichisthepossessedformforthe termthatdescribestheformalheartandnot

thematerialone,accordingtoYucatecan lexicalentries(BarreraVsquez1980:610). ThereisacognateinCholforojliltranslated aslamitad,whichmightberelated semantically,however,therelativedifficultyin findingclearCholanformshasledscholarslike MacriandLooper(2003:289)toposittheidea ofaforeignoriginrelatedtoClassicNahuatl yo:li,Pipilyo:llotlandtheprotoNahuatl form*yo:lireconstructedbyDakin (1982:125).Thisargument,however,requires toadmitthattheformpassedinareanalyzed formtoMayanlanguagesor,asMacriand Looperhaveargued:
inborrowing the term yo:l,Yukatecan speakers interpreted the initial consonant y as the third person ergative prefix. (Macri and Looper 2003:289).

thatweareawareofwithinthehieroglyphic corpus,*kakawa,butsinceitslinguisticorigin andculturalaffiliationarestillbeingstrongly debated,wefeelitisbestdealtwithonthe sectiondevotedtoproblematicloans.Toour knowledge,noexamplesofclearNahua loanwordswithinthecategoryofTechnology: ToolsandTechniqueshavebeenregistered phoneticallyemployingtheMayawriting system,althoughsomeforeignsignsmight representNahualogogramsofthissort(Boot 2006:1724). 3.3Kinship,SocialOrganization,Toponyms, Commerce Aloanwordthatmightbesignificantbecauseof itssocioculturalconnotationsistheone attestedaspatainthescript(Fig.4.b). AppearsintextssuchasYaxchilans HieroglyphicStairway3andinpossessedform asupatanaatvesselK1398(Boot2006:33, Fig.2).AsDavidStuart(1995:354357)has suggested,thisisanunderspellingforpata[n], tribute.AlthoughanalyzableinMayaasthe rootpatwiththeparticipialendingan(Stuart 1995:354),orevenreconstructablebackto ProtoMayanas*pata:nwork,tribute (Kaufman2003:59;Kaufman&Norman 1984:128).MacriandLooper(2003:289)have challengedtheseinterpretations,andposited insteadtheideaofanoriginrelatedtoproto Nahuatl*patla(Dakin1982:161),aform attestedbothinClassicNahuatlandPipil,with

Inthescript,asidefromtheusualformprefixed withthethirdpersonergative,thereareglyphic attestationsofthetermintheunpossessed formohlis,postfixedbyanabsolutivesuffixof intimatepossessionthat,accordingtoZender (2004:202),isattachedtoadistinct subcategoryofnouns(bodyparts).However, webelievefurtherresearchisneededbefore establishingwhetherthisapparent correspondenceisindeedaloanwordormerely acaseofhomophony. 3.2PlantsandPlantParts AsforthecategoryofPlantsandPlantPartsis concerned,thereisonlyasinglecandidateterm

thespecificsenseoftotrade,tochange.This conceptionrequirestoaccountthesoundshift tl>tasaplausibleMayanstrategyof assimilation. Followingnext,wewouldliketoaddanitemto thelistofpossibleNahualoanwordsthattoour knowledgewasnotpreviouslydiscussedas such.ItistheprotoUtoAztecanverb*payV, withthemeaningoftocall,tosummon,which accordingtoJustesonetal.(1985:28),gave origintotheprotoMayanroot*payor*pey. Glyphicattestationsofsuchterm(Fig.4c)with apossiblesemanticcorrelationappearinthe expressionAJpayala(Yaxchiln,Stela18), whichweanalyzeasajpayal,anagentive followedbytherootpayplusaadjectivalal suffix.Giventhatthisroothasbeen reconstructedinProtoCholanas*py (Kaufman&Norman1984:128),llamar, invitar,butalsotomuster(forlynching),a paraphraserenderinghetheleader (Montgomery2002a:31)seemsappropriateto us.Asingleinstanceofpayaappearsin nominalizedformatYaxchilanLintel16(Pay LakamChaahk),thenameofaLordfromSanta Elena.Therearelexicalentriesforpayaloneas toguide,derivinginpayali,payaal,10guide (Boot2002:67). 3.4Calendar,IdeologyandBelief Inordertopresentascompleteaninventoryas possiblewithinthiscategory,weneedto

brieflytouchuponthethreeverywellknown examplesfirstnoticedbyWhittaker(1986)of lateMexicaninfluencewithintheMayaregion, thatalthoughlateinoccurrence,were importantenoughtopromptinnovationsand modificationsofthecurrentcosmological beliefsandreligiouspantheon.Thus,inpage48 oftheDresdenCodex,wecanfindthe expressionkahlajlakinTawiskalChakEk; theeasternTawiskalVenuswasheld(Fig.4d). Thispurelyphoneticcollocationtawisikala notonlyshowsacharacteristicnonMayan syllabicstructure,butalsothedifficultiesofthe scribetorepresentalientermsbymeansofhis familiarrepertoireofsigns.Consensushasbeen reachedthatthetermintendedwasthename ofthehighlandMexicangod Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli,lordofdawnandgodof themorningstarbetweenthePostclassic Mexica(cf.Whittaker1986;Taube1992:120 21);Macri&Looper2003:28788).Inasimilar context,atDresdenpage49wefindthe sentence:kahlajlakinChakXiwitelChakEk, theeasternChakXiwitelVenuswasheld. Thisexampleisinterestinginthatwealsosee twoverywellknowngodsfromtheMaya pantheon,KawiilandtheSunGodKinichAjaw, sufferingtheconsequencesofanovert interactionwiththeCentralMexicandeity Xiuhtecuhtli(Taube&Bade1991;Taube1992: 12527)whoseNahuatlnamewasassimilated intoMayaasCHAKxiwitei(Fig.4e).Yet anothergodofclearlyMexicanoriginappears onDresdenpage47.Althoughthepassageis

stilldifficulttointerpret,thenameofthe protagonistisspelledkakatunala(Fig.4f), howeverhisexactcorrelationwiththeknown Mexicandeitiesareyettobeprecised(Macri& Looper2003:288).Itappearstobearamongst itscomponentstheNahuatlroottonalliwritten inamayanizedform.Moreover,thetextalso referstohimbytheepithettzulajaw,which literallymeansDogLord/LordoftheDogs.As ScheleandGrube(1997:150)havepointedout, itispossiblethatdogshouldbeunderstoodin thiscontextlikeaoutsidermuchliketheuse ofchichimecaasageneralizedtermfor foreigners,sothatTzulAjawwouldadd substancetotheideaofKaktunalbeingindeed aforeignlord. Next,wewanttodiscussthetermitz,asign thathasbeenpreviouslyregardedasa componentoftheClassicnameforGodD, Itzamnaaj11.Itwasoncethoughtthatthesign T152couldrepresentthelogographicvalueITZ (Fig.4g),althoughmoremodernperspectives viewitasacomponentofasinglelogograph ITZAM(S.Martin,30 MayaMeetings Presentation,Austin,Texas2006).Accordingto Taube(1992:34),itzcouldalsobealoanword, WhileClassicNahuaitztetloritzlistandfor obsidian,itzpopolhuiameanstopredict,to foretellanditztimotlaliatranslatesasto watch,toobserve,toconsider(Simen1977: 21011),apparentlyrelatedtoKarttunens analysisofitzasavariantstemformofitta,to lookononeself;toseesomethingorsomeone
th

(1992:108),thefirstbeinginformavery similartermtothewidelydistributedMayan lexicalentriesforitzoriitz,albeitthesemantic rangevariesfromsorcery/witchcraft/brujera toSACajiitzsorcererhechicerotoIXIitziulal anuncio,profeca,aviso,pronstico,presagio (Wichmann,pers.comm.May2007).InCentral Mexico,mirrorsweredevicesusedtoseeina divinatoryorauguralsense,usuallymadefrom obsidian,whichiswhythesmokingmirrorwas animportantfeatureofTezcatlipoca.During Classictimes,theOtumbaregioncontrolledby Teotihuacanwasoneofthemajorsourcesof obsidian,andistemptingtoentertaintheidea ofthissameoriginforthetermitz,butitseems difficulttoreconcilethisearlierinterpretation withthenewerresearchcarriedoutbyauthors suchasMartinandZender. 3.5BasicVocabularyandGrammar AccordingtoMacriandLooper(2003:29192) andJustesonetal.(1985:9,28),Nahuaseems tohavediffusedatleasttwodifferentadverbial markersintoMayanlanguages,which eventuallyfoundtheirwayintothescript.The firstbeingtheconjunctionspellediyuwala, i(yu)wal,andthenattestednolessthan thirteentimesonCopanStelaJfromA.D.702 (Fig.5a).JustesonandNorman(inJusteson 1984:350)havereconstructedtheproto Cholanform*iwa:l,whichhasbeenregarded asaprogressiveaspectmarkersharedby CholanandYucatecan,suchasCHRwar

(Wichmann,pers.comm.2007)butwithout clearcounterpartsatotherMayasubgroups (Justesonetal.1985:9).Oneexplanation,as MacriandLooperhavepointedout,would involveaNahuatlformspelledi:hua:nori:wa:n whichalsohasthemeaningofand,andalso; andmoreover(Sullivan1988:270),derived fromtherelationalnounwanprefixedwith thethirdpersonergativei,whichwouldimply thattheformcanbeanalyzedinNahuatl,but notinMaya,thussuggestingthatthe borrowingoccurredfromthefirsttothelatter. However,cautionshouldbeexercisedhere,as welackfurtherexamplestosupportthat borrowingatthisleveltookplace,asWichmann hasrecentlypointedouttous(pers.comm 2007). Anotherpossibleadverbialloanwouldbethe glyphicexpressionsamiya,usuallytranslated asearliertoday(Boot2002:69).Inthe attestedspellings,ithasbeensuffixedwiththe deicticiiy,alternativelyconsideredaseither anaspectualortensemarkerthatnevertheless placestheeventonadistantnarrativepast (Fig.5b).Theimpliedrootsamihascognates withrelatedmeaningsinprotoYucatecan *samijustnow,howeverslightlydifferentin meaningwiththeattestedCholformsami, whichJustesonetal(1985:23)relatetoproto UtoAztecan*si:mi,meaningalsotogo'.In ourview,theconnectionsappeartobeclear enoughtoatleastconsiderthistermasan

additionalcandidateforaNahualoanword diffusedintoMayan. Althoughnotoriginallycontainedinour previous2005manuscript,whichthispaperis basedupon,recentresearchbyvariousauthors hasyieldedadditionalevidenceofpossible Nahualoanwords.Themostimportantbyfar foritshistoricalimplicationsappearsona collocationatTikalSt.31thatrendersthe syllabicsequencekosaka(Fig.5c),presumably transliteratingaskoska,andoldNahuatermfor jewelthatlacksthecharacteristictlendingof laterNahuatlforms(Launey1992:93).Toour knowledge,itwasindependentlynoticedyears agobyDavidStuart(cit.inHouston&Nelson 2006)andAlfonsoLacadena(pers.commto Wichmann,2002),asidefrombeingfurther commentedrecentlybyBoot(2006:16).The contextinwhichitoccursfurtherreinforcesthe ideaofacentralMexicanconnectionduetoits positioningrightbeforeaforeignsign representingacanonicalikpalithronethat greatlydiffersfromtheirMayajaguarpelted counterparts.Thisexamplealthoughisolated seemstochallengelongheldviews(cf. KaufmaninJustesonetal.1985:68)that deniedanypossibilityofNahuaspeaking settlementsinCentralMexicobyEarlyClassic times,12whenthismonumentwascarved(445 A.D.).Anothersignificantexamplethatmerits furtherexplorationhasbeenfirstnoticedby StephenHoustonandelaborateduponbyErik Boot.ItconsistsofaspellingKAN(?)koor

T281kofoundattheleftsideofUaxactunStela 14,positionC2(Fig.5d),whereaNahua locativesuffixcomightbeinvolved.Moreover, Houston(pers.comm.2007)hasobservedthat withinTeotihuacanrelatediconography,the signT281doesnotappeartorelatetoany colourattributives,whileinthisparticular context,giventhatitlackstheusualnasuffix,it couldfunctionmoretowardsindicatingthe notionofcenterinsteadofmerely representingtheKANvalue(foramore detaileddiscussionofthiscollocation,see Houston&Nelson2006;Boot2006:16). Anothercandidatewhoselinguisticaffiliation hasyettobeclarifiedwasfirstpointedoutto usbyNikolaiGrube(pers.comm.Mexico2005) andistheslightlyforeignlookingnamecarried bythekanwitznal(Ucanal)rulerPapamalil, spelledaspapamalili(Martin&Grube2000: 98),anindividualwhohasbeenassociatedat times,justlikeotherkingsfromSeibal,with externalinfluencesthatspreadintothe LowlandMayaregionbytheTerminalClassic. Judgingfromthemorphologyinvolvedinthe spelling(Fig.5e),onelineofthoughtcould arguethatitdoesntreadilyconformtothe usualMayanominalpatterns,addedtothefact thatiswritteninapurelysyllabicway,perhaps inamannerthatresemblesmorecloselythe NahuatldeitynamesfromtheDresdenCodex thantheorthodoxwayofrepresentingMayan anthroponyms.Anotherapproachwouldsimply analyzeitthroughtheusualMayagrammar,

perhapsalsofindingplausibleargumentsin suchaway.Ifthefirstoptionispreferred,one isledtorealizethatthereexistanumberof Nahuatllexicalentriesforstemssuchaspapal, hablador,platicador(Launey1992:211)and malormalliprisionero(Simen1977:252), amongothermoreorlessproductive possibilities,thatcouldeventuallyturnout relevantforintendingmoreindepthfuture analysis,hopefullyaccompaniedby archaeologicalcorrelationstosustainthem.If ontheotherhandonewishestoexplainthe Papamalilcollocationwithoutsteppingoutofa strictMayapointofview,oneoutofmany possibilitieswouldconceiveitaspapamalil,13 thatis,anadjectivalandanominalroot complementedbyarelationalilsuffix.Atany rate,theambiguityraisedbythesetwolinesof analysis,performedindifferentlanguage groups,compelsustoexcludePapamalilfrom thefinallistofpossibleloanwordsthatareto beconsideredforthefinalcomparative analysis. 4.Zapotecloans TheOtoMangueanculturethatdeveloped settlementsintheValleyofOaxacasince Preclassictimesdevelopedaveryearly hieroglyphicwritingsystem,whichaccordingto Urcid(1992:16)wasalsologosyllabicinnature andrepresentedaformofprotoZapotecthat wasspokenbetween1500500B.C.Fromthe reconstructedformforthenamesofthe

calendricsignsitispossibletoinferthesyllabic structureofprotoZapotecasCV,whichleads toapredominantCVCVrootstructure. Accordingtoourresearch,theOtomanguean familyrepresentsthethirdmostrepresentative sourceofloansasreflectedontheMayascript. ItisculturallysignificantthattheZapotec loanwordsdetectedthusfarwithintheMaya scriptaresemanticallyrestrictedtothree calendricdaynames,allofthempreviously discussedinJustesonetal.(1985:21). 4.1Calendar,IdeologyandBelief Thefirstloanwewouldliketocommentisthat ofthe13thday,representedbythesignT584 (Fig.6a),identifiedveryearlyasthedayname BENbyBollaert(1865:52)andBrasseurde Bourbourg(186970,vol1:207).Thereisan occurrenceatChichnItzspelledasBENni whichsuggestthatthewordmusthavehada longvowel,been.Itcorrespondswiththe otherwisewidespreadMesoamericanday namereed.thedifficultyinfindingaclear etymologyforthistermwithinLowlandMaya languagesmaybereadilyexplainedifwe considerthatthewordcouldhavebeen borrowedfromtheZapotectermben,which meansbundle,asJustesonetal.notedtime ago(ibid.).Anotherdaynamethatlonghas puzzledscholarswhentryingtoexplainitfrom aninternalisticMayanperspectiveislamator lam(b)at,representedbythesignT510a(Fig. 6b).Justesonetal.believethiswordoriginated

inthepreZapotecformtheyreconstructas *lampa(1985:pp.2122,57,61).However,itis difficulttodetermineaprecisemomentforthe diffusionofthistermintoMayan,sinceitsvery likelythatthevalueforthislogogramwasEK duringmostoftheClassicperiod.Moreover, AlbertDavletshinhaspointedoutarelationship withinMesoamericanthoughtbetween celestialbodiesandthenotionofcoldness, whichleadshimtoargueforanetymology basedonCHRlambat,frotoaccountforthis daysign(Davletshin;pers.comm.Mexico 2007). Thelastcandidateforatermdiffusedfrom Zapotecthatweareabletodiscussisthename fortheseventhdaymanik(Fig.6c).Itis representedbythesignT671,whichinnon calendriccontextsbehavesasthesyllablechi, clearlysuggestingthattheClassictermwas chij,thechortiwordfordeer,preciselythe animalassociatedwiththisdaysign throughoutMesoamerica,butitcouldalso meanhorseaftertheConquest.AsJusteson etal.(1985)haveargued: [...]allmodernZapotecdialectshavea formmeaninganimalorhorsederivable fromprotoZapotec*mani7.Themeaning horsesuggeststhatitsformermeaning wasdeer[...]. However,anotherpossibleoriginfortheLate PostclassicEarlyColonialnameofthisday signcouldhavebeenpMZ*manik

(Wichmann1995:360),althoughitposits certainphonologicalandsemanticproblems, suchasthelackofglottalizationinthelast consonantandtheseeminglyunrelated meaningofhijo/son/florecita,whichwould appearmorecloselyrelatedwiththelast daysignajaw/xochitlasopposedtoan otherwiseconsistentgeneralsenseofdeer fortheseventhonethroughout Mesoamerica. Asmallyetsignificantsampleofthree possibleZapotecloansimportantbecause ofthesemanticcategorytheypertainto appearedtohavefoundtheirwayintothe Mayascript,atleastintothatrecordedin EarlyColonialYucatan,ifnotbeforeintothe Postclassic,judgingfromtheexampleat ChichenItzadiscussedabove. 5.Totonacloans Thelastsourceofforeignloanwordswewill bringintodiscussionhereistheTotonac culture.Thelackoflinguisticdatahitherto foundstronglysuggeststhatthiswastheleast representedforeignlanguageontheMaya scriptandthereforetheculturethatless impactedtheMayascriptfromtheones discussedhere.AltoughJustesonetal.(1985: 26)mentioneighttotonactermsthatwere diffusedintoMayanlanguages,wehavebeen abletomatchonlythreeofthemwithMaya

glyphicspellings.Interestingly,twoofthem belongtothePlantsandplantpartsdomain. 5.1PlantandPlantParts Thefirstexamplewithinthisdomaininvolves theglyphicspellingkiWI(Fig.7a),whichhas beentransliteratedbyBoot(2002:45)asan underspellingofkiwi[l],propernameofatree, althoughwethinkitissimplertoanalyzeitas derivedfromEasternCholanandYucatecan kiwi,Annatto,Achiote(Justesonetal.1985: 26,Table14).Atanyrate,thereisastriking formalsimilaritybetweenthisspellingandthe CommonTotonacanword*ki7wi7,whichmeans alsotree,albeitinamuchmoregeneralsense. SincethenativeMayaformforthisparticular botanicalspeciesappearstobethetotally unrelated*ho7o(ibid.),therearestillsemantic problemstoconsiderbeforethisitemcouldbe fullyconfirmedasaloanword(cf.Wichmann 1999:6). Tocontinuewith,thereisthecaseofthe PapantlaTotonacverbtoclearweeds, registeredbyJustesonetal.(1985:26)as pa:ka7.Accordingtotheseauthors,thisroot wasdiffusedintoLowlandMayaunderthe form*pak,toplant.Althoughtheyprovideno examplesofglyphicattestationswhatsoever.A numberofcognatesarepresentamong languagescloselyrelatedtothatoftheClassic inscriptions,suchasCHRupaki,losembr (Kaufman2003:1039),traceablebacktoProto

Cholan*pk,sembrar(Kaufman&Norman 1984:128).Thereisindeedarelated hieroglyphicformwhichappearsaspaka(Fig. 7b).AtErikBootsdictionary(2002:66)it appearsastoplant,tohoist,toform.Onour part,wewouldliketopointoutanother possiblecontextwhichmightinvolvethesame rootinaderivednominalisedform:IXba[pa] kau?li,Ixbapahkuul?LadyFirst Sow(ing)?(ETZ,St.20;Fig.7c).Althoughthe semanticcorrelationbetweentheTotonacand Mayantermsseemstodiffersomehow,as Wichmann(1999:6)hasobserved,itmight becomecleareronexampleswherethesame rootisusedintheformerwithameaning seeminglyclosertosembrar,suchasTOT paklhaflorea.napaklhahuanrosa:La rosavaaflorear.makapaklhalocra (VocabulariosIndgenasNo.17:102). ThelastofthepossibleattestedTotonacloans hasbeenalsonoticedpreviouslybyJustesonet al.(1985:Table14)andconstitutesthe CommonTotonacanwordfordumb,spelled *qo: qo ,whichaccordingtoKaufman(2003: 157)passedontoanumberofMayan languages,includingChol,YucatecandMopan undertheformkohkoritscognates,albeitthe meaningseemstodifferimportantly,turning intodeaf,sordo.Somewhatreluctantly,it mightberelatedtothehieroglyphicspellingko koma,whichincludestheagentivesuffixom, renderingthemeaningofhewhohears,or auditor,asBoot(2002:45)hasproposed.
7 7

However,thesemanticdistancebetweenthe TotonacanandMayantermsseemstous considerable,asWichmannhasobserved (1999:67),andevenmoresoiftheroot involvedisrelatedtoCHTkohktosave, protectorguardar(Wichmann,pers.comm. 2007). AtotalofthreepossibleTotonacloanwords wereconsideredhere,allofthempreviously mentionedatJustesonetal.(1985:26),albeit Wichmann(1999:6)hasquestionedtheir plausibility,arguingthat:[...]theseitemshave alowsemanticcompatibilityandtheyarenot domaincentered[...].Nevertheless,it appearstousthatthereisgroundforatleast consideringpakaasaplausiblecandidate, giventhesemanticcontrolsinvolvedatthe glyphicattestations,combinedwiththe Totonaclexicalentriesquotedabove. 6.Problematicloanwords Whenreviewingtheavailableliteratureon linguisticinteractionbetweentheancient culturesofMesoamerica,itbecomesevident thatnootherwordhasraisedagreaterdealof controversyaboutitsoriginsthanthetermfor cacao.Thishasbeensobecauseofthecultural andeconomicsignificanceofcacaothroughout Mesoamerica.SinceDavidStuart(1988) recognizedaglyphicattestationfortheterm kakawdatingbacktothefourthcenturyA.Din thenowfamousRioAzulpot(Fig.8a),ithas

beenarguedthattheculturethatoriginally coinedthistermwouldrepresentamajor political,economic,andperhapsmilitary influenceduringtheEarlyClassicperiod,which tomanyscholarsamountstoTeotihuacanitself. AlthoughNahuaisusuallylinkedtothe geographyofhighlandMexico,Macriand Looper(2003:285)havesuggestedthatatleast partofthepurportedinfluenceofthislanguage mighthavearrivedtotheMayathroughNahua speakerssettledintheGulfregioninstead. BasedontheirproposalabouttheNahuaorigin otthetermcacao,KarenDakinandSren Wichmann(2000:55;seealsoWichmann1999: 68)haveclaimedthattheearlyappearanceof thiswordinMayanlanguages,alongwithits laterdiffusionthroughoutMesoamerica, correlatewellwithadditionaldatatoallow hypothesisaboutsomeformofNahuabeing spokenatTeotihuacan.ContrarytoKaufman andotherauthors(seebelow),Dakinand Wichmann(2000)precludethepossibilityofa MixeZoqueanoriginforkakaw,basedon argumentssuchasitsopentrisyllabicCV.CV.CV structure,regardedasexceedinglyrarewithin attestedZoqueanlanguages.Atanyrate, knownMixezoqueantrisyllablesconsistently reduplicatetotheright,sokawawawouldbea viableword,butnotkakawa(Wichmann,pers. comm2007).Ontheotherhand,Campbelland Kaufman(1983)haveassignedkakawaMixe ZoqueanorigindatingbacktoOlmecPreclassic times.Intheirview,Nahuacouldnothavebeen spokeninMesoamericabeforethefallof

Teotihuacan,giventhenumerouslinguistic argumentsagainstsuchpossibility(seealso Kaufman1976;Justesonetal.1985:4,2627). Furthermore,thesesameauthorsadducethat Nahuacouldnothavebeenthesourcewhich originatedthetermkakawa,becauseitlacks cognatesinotherUtoAztecanlanguagesandis notfoundintheUtoAztecanhomeland (CampbellandKaufman1976,ibid.).However, inlightofrecenthypothesisconcerningthe possibleNahuaoriginoftwoadditional hieroglyphicspellingsfromtheEarlyClassic,ko saka(Stuart,cit.InHouston&Nelson2006) andkayawaka(seebelow),webelieve formerclaimsabouttheabsenceofNahua influenceatsuchanearlystageneedtobe thoroughlyrevised,whetherornotthesource canbeplacedinCentralMexico.Forthetime being,however,webelievethatthiscrucial questionabouttheoriginforthetermkakaw shouldremainopen,untilfurtherdatacould helptoelucidatetheissue,giventhestrong argumentsinvolvedinfavourandagainsteach ofthecontendingtheories.

Anothercontroversialandveryimportantword becauseofitshistoricalimplicationsis representedbythesignT678,withthe logographicvalueKOHAW.Thistermdescribes themosaicwarhelmetasitappearsonsites suchasPiedrasNegras(PNG).AsMacriand Looperhavenoted(2003:290),afullphonetic spellingkoohawaatPNGLintel2(ca.667 A.D.)suggeststhattheClassicmayaformmust

havebeenkohaw(Fig.8b).Theseauthors (ibid.)haveadvancedtheideathatgiventhe limiteddistributionofthiswordandits associationwithaceremoniallyimportant objectofknownforeignoriginstronglysuggest thatwearedealingwithaloanword.They proposethePipilNahuatermkwa:w,the possessedformofthewordforvertex,crown oftheheadasthelikelysource(ibid.).When takingtheiconologyinvolvedinthelogograph intoaccount,presentatleastsinceEarlyClassic Tikal,weconsiderthatVonWinning(1981)has sufficientlyshownthatitindeedrepresentsa mosaichelmetwithobviousmilitary connotationswhichorigincanbetraceddown toartisticmanifestationsproducedby Teotihuacan.Thisiswhyitissoimportantto findaclearetymonfortheterm.However, therearealternativestotheNahuaorigin proposedbyMacriandLooper.Onthisrespect, Kaufman(personalcomm.Austin2005)has recentlysharedwithushisideasconcerninga protoMixeZoqueanoriginfortheterm kohaw,alsoimplyingthatalanguagefromthis groupwasspokenbyTeotihuacanelites, and thereforerepresentedthewidespreadprestige ofthismultiethniccitythroughout Mesoamerica.Forourpart,webelievethata numberofMixeZoqueanrootsareworth furtherexploring,withthehopeoffindinga clearrelationshipwiththeattestedTzotzil kovovform,meaninghelmet(Laughlin1988: 224).AmongthesewouldbethepMZnoun prefix*koforhead,reach(Wichmann1995:
14

536)relatedtoKaufmans(1963) reconstruction*ko?pertainingtothehead (cit.inWIchmann,ibid.),derivingtermssuchas pOM*kuhu:?,cubrirlacabezaandpMZ *ko?po?ka:haw,cabezadeviejo(awhite headedfeline)(ibid.p.545).Anotherlineof inquirywouldbebasedonpMZ*kohtejer,to weave(ibid.:326).However,giventhelackof internalMayancognatesattestedandother factors,itseemstousprematuretofavoreither aNahuatloraMixeZoqueanhypothesisfor explainingtheoriginofthisterm. Alastproblematictermwewouldliketo discussappearsinthespellingukayawaka (Fig.8c),atermwhoseoriginsNikolaiGrube alsoencouragedustoexplore(pers.comm Mxico2006),foundonthededicatoryformula ofaninscribedjadeplaquefromtheEarly Classic(Polyuhkhovich,pers.comm.Mexico 2007;Boot2002:44),aswellasinTikalAltar5 (Fig.8d),wherethenameofaLadyfrom Topoxtewaswrittenas'IXTUNnikayawaka (Boot2002:41).Sincetheearlynineties, Houstonnotedthatthefirstorthography shouldrepresentthetermkaywakinpossessed form,asanametagalludingtotheceltitself (Houston,pers.comm.2007).Thesecondone, althoughithasbeennominalised,demonstrate animportantsemanticrelationshipbetween kaywakandtuunwhichwillbeaddressed shortly.Wehaveexperimentedsofarwith threedifferentpossibilitiestoadduceanorigin forthisetymon:1)aninternalorigintraceable

backtoprotoMayan;2)aMixeZoqueanorigin; 3)aNahuaderivedorigin.Wewilldiscussthem accordingly. Whentryingtodeterminepossibleforeign sourcesforthisword,itshouldbenotedthat differentreconstructionshavebeenproposed forpMZ*ka7wak(i.e.Wichmann1995:326; Wichmann1998:10),albeitthesemantics involvedcompletelyexcludetheobjectsbeing referredbytheglyphicspelling.Alsounlikely wouldbetorelatepM*kahoq(Kaufman2002: 489)withtheprotoZoqueantermfor lightningorrelmpago*keyopa(Kaufman 2003:473),whichappearstohavediffused insteadintoHighlandMayanlanguagesas EM+GQ#kaayu(m)pa7(Kaufman2003:473). Astrongercasewouldbetoargueforan internalorigin.ItiswidelyknownthatpM *kahoq(Kaufman2002:489)orpossiblypM *kahwoq(Lacadena&Wichmann2004:124) derivedintopCh*chahuk,CHLchajk;CHN chawkandTZE*chahuk(Kaufmanand Norman1984:117),whiletheYucateccognate Kawakwaspreservedforthe19 daysign, representedcalendricallybysignT528,which functionsaspolyvalentTUNandku,andeven indicateshiandSIHOMvalueswhencombined withT60asadiagraph.Ontheiconography,the socalledkawakmarkingsareappliedtostony objects,eventhoughtheoriginofYUKkawak seemstorelatesemanticallyto thunder/lightning(seealsoLacadena& Wichmann2004:124).Thepossiblerelevance
th

ofthisisthatsomeMayanlanguagesstill preservetermsforpiedraderayothatare relatedtothisstem(Kaufman2003:489). Moreover,asJustesonetal.(1985:43)have observed:

[]Workedflintandobsidianarecommonly referred to as piedra de rayo 'stone of thunder/lightning in villages in which we have done field work throughout the Maya area

Furthermore,theseauthors(ibid.)describea phenomenonwhichcouldturnoutvery relevanttoexplainthenominalsequencefrom Tikal:

[]TheearlyMayansignsforthedayEtz'nab consistofaCauacsignontheleftandaragged 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 preColumbian [] the order of elements in the glyph block accords with the expected structure for 'stone of lightning' in both Mayan and MixeZoquean languages: in both, the expected form of such a compound wouldbe'lightning'+stone'[] Despite the seemingly reversed syntax, it
15

couldbearguedthatthespellingIXTUNnika yawaka (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 protoMayantermforthunderthateventually evolved into YUK kawak. According to Wichmann(2002:2122),thislatterformmust havebeenborrowedintoYucatecanbeforethe

Cholan*k>chchange.Theproblemremains as to why the form of this Early Colonial Yucatec attestation appears closer to the Early Classic kayawaka spellings than the archaic pM*kahoqreconstructioncitedabove,asifthe pMreflexesthateventuallyledtothenamefor thenineteenthdaysignwouldhavefolloweda different path than the one described by Lacadena (2004: 125) for thunder/lightning, where a normal form became attested in the script as chaki, Chaahk, the name of the Rain God, or even the more archaic intermediate form,spelledchahukuNAH,lightninghouse (Lacadena 2004: 125; Wichmann 2002: 2223), leaving open the possibility that kaywak could be either a fossilization or a loan, despite the widedistributionofthepM*kahoqreflexes. Furthermore,yetanotherdifficultyneedstobe addressedanditistheformalandfunctional relationshipwiththeNahuatlwordforthe equivalentnineteenthdaysignofthe tonalpohualli,kiyawitlorkiyawatl,whichis alsotheMexicawordforrain(Launey1992: 225).Simen(1977:428)providesevencloser formsquiauac/quiauacpacognateto quiauatl/quiauitl.Thatthenameforthe19th daysigncouldberelatedsemanticallytothe propernameofajadeplaqueortheTUNka yawakaspellingfindsadditionalsupportin Nahuatlsources:
quiauhteocuitlatl s. Piedra a la que los indgenas atribuian ciertas propiedades medicinales y que ellos decian que habia cado del cielo (Sah.). R. quiauitl,teocuitlatl.(Simen1977:428)

Thesestoneswherethenregardedliterallyas droppingsoftheraingodthatfellfromthe sky(Wichmann,pers.comm.2007).Asthree differentavenuesofresearchwereexploredfor explainingthepossibleoriginsofthisterm (protoMayan,protoMixeZoqueanand Nahua),takingtheaboveargumentsaltogether intoconsiderationandgiventhedataavailable tous,wefeelmoreinclinedatpresenttowards theNahuahypothesisspeciallybecauseof attestedformslikequiauacwhichcanbe linkedsemanticallygiventheirsimilarcalendric usagethanoveraninternalprotoMayan originorevenalesslikelyMixeZoquean source.Asproblematicasitcouldbetoexplain howthislexicaldiffusioncouldhaveoccurred atsuchanearlystage,weoughttorelatethis suggestionwiththerecentlyfoundevidenceof possibleNahualoanwordsatTikalSt.31 mentionedabove(Stuart,cit.inHouston& Nelson;Boot2006:16),withthehopethat futureresearchcoulddeterminewhether Nahuaspeakinggroupswerealreadysettledin HighlandMexicoattheEarlyClassic,beforethe fallofTeotihuacan(cf.Dakin&Wichmann 2000;Macri&Looper2003;Taube2000)orif thisremainsveryunlikelytohaveoccurred(cf. Justesonetal.1985:68;Kaufman2001:1). Finalremarks Onewaytoevaluatetheresultsofthisresearch isbyperformingagraphicquantitativeanalysis

basedonthedetectedloanwordsorganizedby thesemanticcategoriestheypertainto(Table 1).Asitcanbenoticed,thebestrepresented foreignlanguagewithintheMayascriptwould beMixeZoquean,showingahighrateof potentialloanwordsattestedhieroglyphically, includingthreeexamplesfromtheAnimals, AnimalPartsandBodyparts(chiku,usuand acrophonychu).Aswehavementioned,the Kinship,SocialOrganizationandCommerce categoryisperhapsthemostsignificantin regardtoculturalimpactfromasourcethat sometimesispoliticallydominant.Four occurrencesonthisfield(yune,uyumu,po pooandajawa)suggestsastrongcultural presenceofMixeZoqueangroupssinceasfar astheLatePreclassicperiod.Toreinforcethis interpretation,fouradditionalMZpotential itemsthatbelongtotheCalendar,Ideologyand BeliefCategory(OK,HIX,CHWENandpomo) couldimplystrongreligiousinfluenceoreven impositionofcertainbeliefs.Toconsiderthat MixeZoqueanlanguageandculturewasthe dominantinfluencefromthePreclassictothe EarlyClassictimesisinkeepingwitharecent hypothesissuggestedbyAlfonsoLacadena, identifyingMixezoqueanasthebestmatchto accountforthesourceofspecificevidence foundwithintheearlyMayascriptconcerning atleastsixdifferentforeignphonological features(Lacadena2005,EMCLeiden)aswell astheconsistentpatternsforexplainingthe formalandphoneticoriginofcertainMaya signsashavingderivedfromtheIsthmian

writingtradition(Lacadena,pers.comm.Austin 2007,Mexico2007).

WhileontheotherhandNahuaproduced slightlylessglyphicattestationsthanMixe Zoquean,thehighestratesoftheoccurrences happenpreciselywithinperhapsthemost significantdomainstomeasuretheamountof possibleculturalinfluenceexertedoverthe Mayacivilization.Itisnecessarytokeepin mind,however,thatamongthefourpossible attestedNahuatermsfromtheCalendar, IdeologyandBeliefcategory,threeofthem constitutethenamesofcentralMexicangods, asregisteredatthePostclassicallydated DresdenCodex,butincludingalsoapossible referentforthe19thdaysigndatablesincethe EarlyClassic(kayawaka).Nevertheless,three termsundertheBasicVocabularyand Grammarcolumn(iyuwala;samiya;kosa ka)suggestthatthelinguisticcontactbetween NahuaandMayaspeakerswasanintenseand longtermedone,togetingrainedatsuchdeep structurallevelsoflanguage.Moreover,the newinterpretationsofepigraphicevidenceby Stuart(op.cit),HoustonandNelson(2006); Boot(2006)andourowncouldindicatethat linguisticinteractionbetweenNahuaandMaya culturescouldindeedhavebegunearlierthan formerlyadmitted,evenduringthetimesofthe Teotihuacanapogee. TheZapoteccultureshowstheclearest tendencyofalltheonesanalyzed.The

presenceofthreetermsforritualdaynames doesindeedsupportJustesonetal.claimwith respecttothisloansbeingdiffusedsinceearly times.Perhapsbythetimethishappened, Zapotecwritingsystemandreligious institutionswereatamoredevelopedstage thanthoseoftheMayan,whichwouldexplain whythisinfluencewasexertedonsuchacore andspecificideologicaldomain. ThedatathatwecurrentlyhaveonTotonacan linguisticinfluenceisbarelyenoughtoderive anyconclusionsfrom,otherthanitwas perhapsthelessrepresentedsourceofexternal influencewithintheMayascript,despite Totonacanspeakersbeingrelativelyclose neighborswiththeMayaalongtheGulfcoastal regions.Forourpart,weconsiderthatthere wassurelyacertaindegreeofcultural interactionamongbothcultureswhetheror notrepresentedbythethreeparticularterms examinedbutitappearstohaveoccurredata farlesserextentthanitwouldberequiredfor supportingprevioushypothesisabout TotonacanhavingaprominentrolewithinEarly ClassicMesoamerica(i.e.beingthelanguage spokenatTeotihuacanseecf.Kaufman1976; CampbellandKaufman1983;Justesonetal. 1985:4,2627,64,72;Wichmann1999:67). Howeverriskytoassertforcertain,the availabledataindicatesthatduringthetimeof Teotihuacansupremacythroughout Mesoamerica,MixeZoqueancultureseemedto

haveunmatchedinfluenceontheMayascript. BythetimeswhenthematerialremainsofEpi classicToltecandPostclassicMexicacultures begantoappearprominentlywithinthe archaeologicalrecord,andespeciallywithin Mayanterritory,Nahuaseemstohave surpassed,oratleastequalledtheMixe Zoqueaninfluencewithinsemanticdomains thatarecrucialtoevaluatetheextentof culturalinfluence,suchastheCalendar, IdeologyandBeliefandtheBasicVocabulary andgrammarcategories.Thisisinkeepingwith argumentsadducedbyWichmann(1999:6), Taube(2000)andothersconcerningtheNahua linguisticaffiliationofculturessuchasEpi classicCacaxtlaandXochicalco. Althoughthelinguisticpatternswehave encounteredtendtoshowaMixeZoquean dominanceontheMayascriptduringthetime ofTeotihuacansupremacy,thisisonlyoneline amongmanyavenuesofresearchthatneedto beexploredtoultimatelyanswerthequestion. WeareawarethatauthorssuchasTaube (2000),DakinandWichmann(2000)andMacri andLooper(2003)andWichmann(1999:68) havediscussedinamuchmoredetailedway thanitwaspossibleheremanysortsofvery relevantarchaeological,epigraphic,linguistic andiconographicevidencethatfavoursa completelydifferentscenario,thatofaNahua speakingculturesettledinTeotihuacansince EarlyClassictimes.Inthisregard,wehaveno optionbuttoadmitthatatleastsomeofthe

mostrecentdatahithertofoundmightbein tunewithsuchviews,althoughitseemedtous prematuretomovebeyondthispointintrying toelucidatetheissue. Afinalwordwouldbethat,aswehaveseen, historicallinguisticandepigraphicdatacangoa longwayinexplainingbroadersocial phenomenathatgobeyondtheirrespective specializeddomains,butnofieldofstudyis NOTES:

sufficientlystrongtofindbyitselftheanswers thatcurrentMayaresearchneeds.Assuch,we needtocorrelatethisdatawitharchaeological andhistoricalevidence,evenofindirectnature, ifwewanttoadvancemoresecurelytowardsa betterunderstandingofthesuccessiveroles thattheMayaassumedatdifferenttimes withinabroaderconceptionofMesoamerica, understoodasadiachronicnetworkconfigured bytheinteractionofmultiplecultures.

ItisworthnothingthatJustesonetal.(1985:24)believedthattheMixeZoqueantermbecameassimilatedintoLowland 7 Mayanlanguagesas*me ,attestedinChol,relatedtoCHR/CHLme(Davletshin,pers.comm.Mexico2007). 2 Panbao,basto,onegropcomidasimpleypobre.Zucucbacalasmazorcademazsingrano,quenogran. 3 ThisreadingreliesonaproposalbyDavletshin(pers.comm..Mexico2007)toreadthelastsignasafullformoflogograph PA,asopposedtothemoretraditionalSIHvalueoftenattributedtoit(i.e.GrubeandSchele1997:192).Schumann(n/d: 33)hasentriesforpaastortillademaz,alimento

As Daniel Graa-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.
4

AmongthemistheNIK(flower)valuesuggestedtimeagobyGrube(quotedinSchele1992b:21720)andBOK,aroma, odor(Prager2006,manuscriptdistributedtoepigraphers).
66

TheseappearastheinitialsignofthePSSordedicatoryformulaasaT168ja,arguablyaja[y]?,relatedtospellingsajaya foundatwellknownChamNebajvessels. 8 DavidStuart(inSaturnoetal.2005:4142.Fig.31)firstcommentedonthissequenceandwarnedthatalthoughthesigns appearedfamiliar,thecombinationwasunusualandsomeotherlexemedifferentthanpomcouldbeactuallyinvolved. 9 WehereinfollowpreviousdistinctionsestablishedbetweentheinclusiveNahuagroupoflanguagesandNahuatl,the particularbranchspokenbythePostclassicmexicaculture(MacriandLooper2003:285). 10 Thetransliterationpayaalwithalongvowelisours. 11 NewproposalsbySimonMartin(Austin2006)andMarcZender(EMC,Malm2007)haveshownthattheClassicname forbothGODDandhisavianform(thePrincipalBirdDeity)couldhavebeeninfactmorecomplexthanItzamnaaj. 12 AlsoseeKaufman(2001:1)[.]LinguisticfactsprecludethepresenceofNawaintheValleyofMexicobefore500CE[]. 13 AnumberofentriesforpapwithindifferentMayanlanguagesexist,CHNhaspadre(Knowles1984:30)andITZ,MOP, LAKpicante,picoso(Kaufman2003:1340;Bruce1968:21).Asfor7amthereisaraa(Kaufman2003:698)an7amal renderstoad(Boot2002:17). 14 WhilethecommonerswouldhavebeenpresumablyofaTotonacanethnicity. 15 Althoughthephoneticreadingseemstoinvertthelighting+stonesyntacticpatternmentioned,thefactisthatwhen lookingcloselytothewaythisspellingwaswritten,itstillhasthesamesignofthekawakdaynameontheleftandthe stoneorthejadeplaquesnamealbeitphoneticallyrenderedontheright.Thiscouldbeduetothecloseassociations betweenthesignsandthetermsinvolved.

Wichmann, e-mail communication, May 2007.

Bibliography
<http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocabula ry/index.html>. BrasseurdeBourbourg,CharlesEtienne 18691970 Manuscrittroano:tudessurle systmegraphiqueetlalanguedesMayas. Imprimerieimpriale,Paris. 2006 Loanwords,ForeignWords,and ForeignSignsinMayaWriting.Paperpresented atthesymposiumTheIdeaofWritingIII: LoanwordsinWritingSystems.ResearchSchool CNWS,LeidenUniversity,Leiden,the Netherlands),June792006. Campbell,L.andT.S.Kaufman. 1976 ALinguisticLookattheOlmecs. AmericanAntiquity,41:8089. 1983 LinguisticdiffusionandMesoamerican prehistory.Unpublishedmanuscript(referenced inJustesonatal.2005,seebelow) Campbell,Lyle,TerrenceKaufman,andThomasC. SmithStark 1986 MesoAmericaasaLinguisticArea. Language62(3):53070. CasesMarn,JuanIgnacio 2007 OnJewelsandStars:AnEpigraphic ApproachtoElementsofMayaCosmography. PaperpresentedattheSAAAustin,Symposium NewPerspectivesonAncientMayaAstronomy, April27. Dakin,Karen 1982 Laevolucinfonolgicadel protonhuatl.InstitutodeInvestigaciones Fonolgicas,UniversidadNacionalAutnomade Mxico, Mexico. Dakin,KarenandSrenWichmann 2000 Cacaoandchocolate.AnUtoAztecan perspective.AncientMesoamerica,11(1):55 75.CambridgeUniversityPress. Ehret,Christopher

Aubin,JosephMariusAlexis 1849(2002ed.) Memoriassobrelapintura didcticaylaescriturafigurativadelosantiguos mexicanos.Mxico:UniversidadNacional AutnomadeMxico,121pp. Aulex.DiccionarioEspaolMaya: 2005 CompiledbyBastarrachea,JuanRamn. Electroniceditionavailableat: http://aulex.ohui.net/incollaborationwith UniversidadAutnomadeYucatn. BarreraVsquez,A.etal. 1980 DiccionarioMayaCordemex:maya espaol,espaolmaya.Mrida:Ediciones Cordemex. Bastarrachea,JuanRamn(compiler) 2005 (seeaboveAulex2005.Diccionario EspaolMaya) Beliaev,DmitriandAlbertDavletshin 2003 Emailcommunicationdistributed amongstscholars,Moscow,Russia. Beliaev,DmitriandAlbertDavletshin, 2006 Lossujetosnovelsticosylaspalabras obscenas:losmitos,loscuentosylasancdotas enlostextosmayassobrecermicadelperiodo Clsico,8thEuropeanMayaConference,Madrid 2003inValenciaRogelioyGenevieveLeFort (eds.),ActaMesoamericanaVol.18.Graz:Verlag AntonSaurwein. Blench,RogerandMatthewSpriggs. 1997 ArcheaeologyandLanguageII. Correlatingarchaeologicalhypotheses.London andNewYork:Routledge. Bollaert,William 186566AMayaHieroglyphicAlphabetof Yucatan.InMemoirsoftheAnthropological SocietyofLondon.No.2,pp.4554.London. Boot,Erik 2002 APreliminaryClassicmayaEnglish, EnglishMayaVocabularyofHieroglyphic Readings.Publishedelectronicallyat:

1976 Linguisticevidenceanditscorrelation witharchaeology.WorldArcheaology,Volume8, no.I.TheUniversityofChicagoPress. Grube,Nikolai 1990a DieEntwicklungderMayaschrift.Acta Mesoamericanano.3.Berlin:VerlagVon Flemming. 2004 Theortographicdistinctionbetween velarandglottalspirantsinMayaHieroglyphic Writing.In:Wichmann,Sren(ed.)2004:The LinguisticsofMayaWriting.USA:UtahUniversity Press.pp.6182. Hofling,Andrew 1994 TransitivityandVoiceinItzajMaya: MinorVoices.,Funcin1516:261286. Hofling,Andrew 1998DocumentacinMayaItz.Traducidodel InglsporAlexLomnaco.USA:Reports SubmittedtoFAMSI,availableelectronicallyat <http://www.famsi.org/reports/97026es/index.h tml> Hofling,Andrew,withFlixFernandoTesucn 1997ItzajMayaSpanishEnglishDictionary.Salt LakeCity:TheUniversityofUtahPress. Houston,StephenD. 2000 IntotheMindsofAncients:Advancesin MayaGlyphStudiesJournalofWorldPrehistory, Vol.14,No.2, Houston,StephenD.andZacharyNelson 2006 IntheShadowofGiants:TheClassic MayaCityofElZotz,Guatemala.Paper presentedatthe2006TexasMayaMeetings, March17,2006,UniversityofTexas,Austin. Houston,Stephen,JohnRobertsonyDavidStuart 2000 TheLanguageoftheClassicMaya Inscriptions.CurrentAnthropologyvol.41,nm. 3:321356 Houston,Stephen,JohnRobertsonyDavidStuart 2004DisharmonyinMayaHieroglyphicWriting: LinguisticChangeandContinuityinClassic Society;inWichmann,Sren(ed.)2004:The LinguisticsofMayaWriting.UtahUniversity Press.pp.8399

Hurst,HeatherandLeonardAshby BonampakMurals:Copiedby 2001(1999) HeatherHurst&LeonardAshby DigitalPhotographsbyM.D.Coe2001. PublishedelectronicallyinAdobePDFFormatby theBonampakDocumentationProject(BDP).Yale University. Justeson,JohnS. 1984AppendixB:InterpretationsofMayan Hieroglyphs.InPhoneticism inMayanHieroglyphicWriting,editedbyJohnS. JustesonandLyleCampbell,pp.315362. InstituteforMesoamericanStudies, PublicationNo.9.StateUniversityofNewYork, Albany. Justeson,JohnandLyleCampbell(editors) 1984 PhoneticisminMayaHieroglyphic Writing.PublicationNo.9.Institutefor MesoamericanStudies.StateUniversityofNew YorkatAlbany Justeson,JohnS.andTerrenceKaufman 1997 ANewlyDiscoveredColumninthe HieroglyphicTextonLaMojarraStela1:ATestof theEpiOlmecDecipherment.ScienceMagazine. PublishedinelectronicformatatURL <www.sciencemag.org> Justeson,J.S.,W.M.Norman,L.Campbell,andT. Kaufman 1985 TheForeignImpactonLowlandMayan LanguageandScript.MiddleAmericanResearch InstitutePublicationNo.53.NewOrleans:Tulane University. Karttunen,F. 1992 AnAnalyticalDictionaryofNahuatl. UniversityofOklahomaPress: Norman.Originaledition:1983(Universityof TexasPress:Austin). Kaufman,Terrence.S. 1963 1976 Archaeologicalandlinguistic correlationsinMayalandandassociatedareasof MesoAmerica.WorldArchaeology,8(1):101 118.TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

2001 "TheHistoryoftheNawaLanguage GroupFromtheEarliestTimestothe SixteenthCentury:SomeInitialResults." Unpublishedpaperavailableat http://www.albany.edu/ anthro/maldp/Nawa.pdf. 2003APreliminaryMayanEtymological Dictionary(withtheassistanceof JohnJusteson).FAMSIGranteeReport.URL: <http://www.famsi.org/reports/ 01051/pmed.pdf>. Kaufman,T.S.andJohnJusteson 2001Epiolmechieroglyphicwritingandtexts. WorkbookfortheMayaHieroglyphicWorkshop atTexas.UniversityofTexasatAustin 2003 APreliminaryMayanEtymological Dictionary(withtheassistanceofJohn Justeson).FAMSIGranteeReport.URL:
<http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf>.

2004 Epiolmec.InWoodard,Roger.The CambridgeEncyclopediaftheWorldsAncient Languages.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.10711108. Kaufman,T.S.,andW.M.Norman 1984 AnoutlineofprotoCholanphonology, morphology,andvocabulary.InJ.S.Justeson andL.Campbell,PhoneticisminMayan HieroglyphicWriting,editedbypp.77166. InstituteofMesoamericanStudiesPublication No.9.InstituteforMesoamericanStudies, UniversityofNewYork:Albany. Knowles,Susan 1984 ADescriptiveGrammarofChontalMaya (SanCarlosdialect).Ph.D.dissertation,Tulane University. LacadenaGarciaGallo,Alfonso 2004 OntheRepresentationoftheGlottal StopinMayaWriting.InWichmann,Sren(ed.) 2004:TheLinguisticsofMayaWriting.Utah UniversityPress,pp.100164 Lacadena,AlfonsoySrenWichmann 2000 TheDynamicsofLanguageinWestern LowlandMayaRegion.Paperpresentedatthe ChacmoolConference,Calgary.

2002 TheDistributionofLowlandMaya LanguagesintheClassicPeriod.InLa organizacinsocialentrelosmayas prehispnicos,colonialesymodernos.Memoria delaTerceraMesaRedondadePalenque,vol.II. V.Tiesler,R.CobosyM.G.Robertsoncoords. Mxico:CONACULTA,INAH,UADY.pp.277319. N.D. HarmonyRulesandtheSuffixDomain:A StudyofMayaScribalConventions.URL: <http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/harmrul sufdom7.pdf> Lastra,Yolanda 1992 Sociolingsticapara hispanoamericanos.Unaintroduccin.Published byElColegiodeMxico,MexicoCity. Laughlin,RobertM. 1988TheGreatTzotzilDictionaryofSanto DomingoZinacantnwithGrammaticalAnalysis andHistoricalCommentary.Vol.I;Smithsonian ContributionstoAnthropology,no.31. WashingtonD.C.:SmithsonianInstitutionPress Launey,Michel 1992[1979] Introduccinalalenguayala literaturanhuatl.Mxico:UNAM. MacLeod,BarbaraandLuisLopes n/d) ThedeciphermentofT533. Unpublishedmanuscriptpresentedatthe AdvancedGlyphs&GrammarWorkshop,XXXth MayaMeetings,Austin,Texas2006 Macri,MarthaandMathewLooper 2003.NahuainancientMesoamerica.Ancient Mesoamerica,14(2):285297.Cambridge UniversityPress Martin,Simon 2006"OfSnakesandBats:ShiftingIdentitiesat Calakmul,"ThePARIJournal6(2):515. Martin,Simon,andNikolaiGrube 2000ChronicleoftheMayaKingsandQueens. London:ThamesandHudson. MathewsPeterL. 1980 NotesontheDynasticSequenceof Bonampak,PartI,ThirdPalenqueRoundTable Part2:pp.6073,Austin.

1984 AppendixA.AMayaHieroglyphic Syllabary.InPhoneticisminMayaHieroglyphic Writing.EditedbyJusteson,JohnandL. Campbell.Albany:InstituteforMesoamerican Studies.StateUniversityofNewYork.311314. Mayer,KarlHerbert 2004 TheHieroglyphicStairway1atEdzna, Campeche,Mexico.82b/wphotographs,77line drawingsbySvenGronemeyer.Graz:Saurwein editors Moran,Franciscode 1695 Arteyvocabulariodelalenguacholtique quieredecirlalenguademilperos.Manuscript Collection497.4/M79,AmericanPhilosophical Society,Philadelphia.Electronicversioncompiled andtranscribedbyErikBoot,availableonline fromFAMSIatURL: http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/dictionary.ht m Nurse,D.(1997).Thecontributionsoflinguistics tothestudyofhistoryinAfrica.Journal ofAfricanHistory38:359391.Referentein Houston,StephenD.2000:195. PallnGayol,Carlos inpress LostextosjeroglificosdeEdzn: historiaygeopolticadelClsicoenlaregin centraldeCampeche.MemoriasdelEncuentro InternacionaldeInvestigadoresdelaCultura Maya2006,Mexico:UniversidadAutnomade Campeche(tobereleasedin2007). Saturno,William;KarlTaubeandD.Stuart 2005 TheMuralsofSanBartolo,ElPetn, Guatemala.Part1:TheNorthWall.InAncient America,No.7.CenterforAncientAmerican Studies:Barnardsville. Schele,Linda,andNikolaiGrube 1997TheDresdenCodex.InNotebookfor theXXIstMayaHieroglyphicWorkshop,pp.79 247.DepartmentofArtandArtHistory,the CollegeofFineArts,andtheInstituteofLatin AmericanStudies,UniversityofTexasatAustin. SchumannGlvez,Otto n.d.(1978)VocabularioChortEspaol(Chorti PhonologyandVocabulary).Unpublished manuscriptonfileattheDumbartonOaksPre ColumbianLibrary,Washington,D.C

Simon,Remi 1977 Diccionariodelalenguanhuatl. Mxico:EditorialSigloXXI Stuart,DavidS. 1988 TheRoAzulCacaoPot:Epigraphic ObservationsontheFunctionofaMayaCeramic Vessel.AmericanAntiquity,62:153157. 1995 AStudyofMayaInscriptions.Ph.D. dissertation.VanderbiltUniversity.Nashville, Tennessee. 1997 KinshipTermsinMayaInscriptions.In: Macri,M.J.,andA.Ford(eds.),TheLanguageof MayaHieroglyphs,pp.111.PreColumbianArt ResearchInstitute:SanFrancisco 2005 Sourcebookforthe29thMaya HieroglyphForum.TheMayaMeetingsatAustin: UniversityofTexas. Taube,KarlA. 2000TheWritingSystemofAncientTeotihuacan. AncientAmerican ArtandWritingNo.1.CenterforMayaResearch, Washington,DC. Taube,KarlA.,andBonnieBade 1991AnAppearanceofXiuhtecuhtliinthe DresdenVenusPages.Research ReportsonAncientMayaWriting35.Centerfor MayaResearch, Washington,DC. Urcid,Javier 1992 ZapotecHieroglyphicWriting,Ph.D. dissertation,YaleUniversity. Valias,Leopoldo.1981.Losprstamos lingsticoscomodiagnsticosregionales.Los corporalesenNayarityDurangocomoejemplo. AnalesdeAntropologa.Vol.18.Mxico:Instituto deInvestigacionesAntropolgicasUniversidad NacionalAutnomadeMxico.227237. VocabulariosIndgenas 1974DiccionarioTotonacodeXicotepecde Jurez(No.17:102)1974SummerInstituteof Linguistics(InstitutoLingsticodeVerano) VonWinning,Hasso

1981AnIconographicLinkbetweenTeotihuacan andPalenque.Mexicon 3:3032. Weinrich,Harald.1981.Lenguajeentextos, Madrid:Gredos. Wichmann,Sren 1995 TheRelationshipsAmongtheMixe ZoqueanLanguagesofMexico.UniversityofUtah Press 1997.DiffusioninvolvingMixezoquean languages.InBlench,RogerandMatthewSpriggs. ArcheaeologyandLanguageII.Correlating archaeologicalhypotheses.LondonandNew York:Routledge.Pg.297323. 1998.Aconservativelookatdiffusioninvolving MixeZoqueanlanguages.En:Blench,Rogery MatthewSpriggs(eds.),Archaeologyand LanguageII.CorrelatingArchaeologicaland LinguisticHypotheses,pp.297323.NewYork& London:Routledge. 2002Hieroglyphicevidenceforthehistorical configurationofEasternCholan.Research ReportsonAncientMayaWriting,51. Washington,D.C.:CenterforMayaResearch. 2006 AMixeZoqueanLoanwordintheLate PreclassicMuralsofSanBartolo?.Published electronicallyatMesoweb,availableatURL: www.mesoweb.com/articles/wichmann/Loanwor d.pdf Whittaker,Gordon 1986TheMexicanNamesofThreeVenusGods intheDresdenCodex.Mexicon,8(3):5660. Zender,MarcUwe 2004 OntheMorphologyofIntimate PosessioninMayaLanguages.In:Wichmann, Sren(ed.)2004:TheLinguisticsofMayaWriting. UtahUniversityPress.pp.195210

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Figure1.MixeZoquean.Animals,AnimalParts,Bodyparts;a)chikuNAHBAJAWatCLKSt.114(afterMartin2006);b)MAY(afterMontgomery 2002);c)usi?BPKRoom1,caption32022(afterpreliminarydrawingbyStephenHoustonbasedoninfraredphotographybytheBPK documentationproject,YaleUniversity:Hurst&Ashby2001).d)utiyatausu.(PALKantokTablet).e)T740polyvalenthusign(PNGSt.1p.F3);f) logographicHUJ?(AfterMontgomery2002);AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Figure2.MixeZoquean.PlantandPlantParts.a)patahaBPKSt.1(afterMathews1980:4);b)sukukuuSIH?/PA?(CodexDresdenp.65b);c)ulu (vesselKerrNo.4387);d)utzimali(AfterReentsBudetetal.1996:127);e)MOK?/NIK?/BOK?InsequenceAJT533hv(YAX.Lintel19pos.M4;after photographbytheauthor,courtesyofAGIMAYAINAH/Harvard/UNAM/ProjectYaxchilan2007);f)machaja(vesselKerrNo.1398).AlldrawingsbyCarlos Palln.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

Figure3.MixeZoquean.Kinship,SocialOrganization,Toponyms,Commerce;Calendar,IdeologyandBelief.a)yune(PearlmanConchShell,EarlyClassic); b)uyumu(RioAzulVessel;AfterStuart1997);c)KUHpooAJAWwa(Tonina,Mon.104,afterfielddrawingbyDavidStuart);d)ajawa(afterJohn Montgomery2002).FirstproposedasaloanwordbyErikBoot(2006);e)OKdaysign(afterJohnMontgomery2002);f)uKABjiKALTUNHIX(Naranjo,St. 25,rightside);g)SAKCHWEN(Naranjo,H.S.1pos.M2);h)9[po]moli(Dresden,p.25a);i)pomoja(SanBartolo,LatePreclassic.AfterdrawingbyStuartin Saturnoetal.2005:Fig.31).AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln

a.

b.

c.

e.

g.

d. f.

Figure4.Nahua.Animals,AnimalPartsandBodyParts;Kinship,SocialOrganization,Toponyms,Commerce.a)yoOLla(afterMontgomery2002:30);b)12 pata(YAX.H.S.3,Step4,afterdrawingbyIanGraham,CMHI,Harvard);c)AJpaya(YAX.H.S.3.StepI,pos.C7,afterDrawingbyIanGraham,CMHI,Harvard); d)KALjalaKINnitawisikalaCHAKEK(Dresdenp.48b);e)CHAKxiwiteiCHAKEK(Dresden,p.49b);f)kakatunalaCHAKEK(Dresden,p.47c); g)TheClassicnameofGodD:ITZ?/ITZAM?#ji.AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Figure5.Nahua.BasicVocabularyandGrammar.NahuaAdditionalLoanwords?.a)iyuwala(CPN.St.J);b)samiya(afterMontgomery2002);c)kosa kaIKPALI.(Tikal,St.31,pos.L2,firstnotedbyDavidStuart);d)KANko(Uaxactun,Stela14leftafterBoot2006:Fig.6b);e)papama2li(Caracolstucco fragment,afterdrawingbyNikolaiGrube).AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln.

a.

b.

c.

Figure6.Zapotec.PossibleLoanwords?a)T584BEN(13thdaysign);b)T510aLAMAT(8thdaysign);c)T671MANIK(7thdaysign) AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln.

a.

b.

c.

Figure7.Totonacan.BasicVocabularyandGrammar.a)[ki]WI.CodexMadrid,p.36a.b)paka(revisedafterMontgomery2002); c)IXba[pa]kau?li.(ETZ,Alt.1,courtesyofINAHProyectoArqueolgicoEdzn2006);AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln.

a.

b.

d. c.
Figure8.ProblematicLoanwords.a)2kawa.RioAzulEarlyClassicVessel(afterdrawingbyDavidStuart1988,Fig.1b);b)koohawa(PNG.Lintel2,pos.X4 W5);c)ukayawaka.UnprovenancedJadeCelt(afterpreliminarydrawingbyYuriyPolyukhovich2006);d)IXTUNnikayawaka(Tikal,Altar5,pos.13 14).AlldrawingsbyCarlosPalln.

Numberofattestedloanwords

3
Mixe- Zoque Nahua Zapoteco Totonaco

0
Animalsand AnimalParts Plantsand PlantParts Technology, Toolsand Techniques, Agriculture Kinship, SocialOrg. Commerce, Toponyms Calendar, Ideologyand Belief Basic Vocabulary and Grammar

Table1.RelativeimportanceofdetectedforeignsourcesoflexicaldiffusionattestedontheMayahieroglyphicscript.Quantitativeanalysis organizedbysemanticcategoriesinvolved(modifiedfromPallnandMelendez2005EMCpresentation).