Advertisement

Development of Agriculture in Prehistoric Mesoamerica: The Linguistic Evidence

  • Cecil H. Brown

Abstract

This study uses linguistic data to reconstruct the prehistory of agriculture in Mesoamerica, a cultural and linguistic area of Mexico and northern Central America. Evidence is assembled indicating when, where, and for whom 41 cultivated and protected plants native to the New World became significant to peoples of the region in prehistoric times. The study of prehistoric agriculture has traditionally been the purview of archeologists interested in paleoethnobotany. Nevertheless, this investigation intentionally avoids reference to archeological findings and other nonlinguistic results that may or may not complement those presented here. All conclusions presented in this study are solely on the basis of linguistic data.

Specific goals of this study are (1) determination of the earliest date by which each of the 41 plants developed significance for people in Mesoamerica, (2) location of the general areas in the region where each plant initially became important to human groups, (3) determination of which of the 41 plants became important to what groups of prehistoric people, and (4) determination of when these plants became important. The comparative approach of historical linguistics is employed, with use of lexical reconstruction and glottochronology. The comparative method facilitates determination of which of the 41 plants were named by speakers of specific ancestral languages. Glottochronology determines approximately when ancestral languages were last spoken. This study employs a new glottochronological approach that yields dates for proto-languages that are entirely objectively derived.

Keywords

Average Elevation Chili Pepper Average Altitude Before Present General Elevation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the ASJP Consortium for granting permission to use ASJP-produced LD dates for Mesoamerican ancestral languages. In addition, Karen Adams, Eugene Anderson, Daniel F. Austin, Brent Berlin, Pamela Brown, Lyle Campbell, Charles R. Clement, Geo Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge, Albert Davletshin, Pattie Epps, Gary Feinman, Charles Heiser, Jane Hill, Eric Holman, Eugene Hunn, Susan Kung, Andrew Leitch, Richard Manshardt, Joyce Marcus, Deborah M. Pearsall, Renata Rivera, Bruce Smith, Brian Stross, and Søren Wichmann all aided this study in important ways for which I am very grateful. This acknowledgement should not be taken as indicating agreement with conclusions drawn here of any of those thanked.

References

  1. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., Laughlin, R, M., and Raven, P. H. (1973). Cultural Significance and Lexical Retention in Tzeltal-Tzotzil Ethnobotany. In Meaning in Mayan Languages, edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 143–164. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, C. H. (2006a). Glottochronology and the Chronology of Maize in the Americas. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 647–663. Elsevier, San Diego.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C. H. (2006b). Prehistoric Chronology of the Common Bean in the New World: The Linguistic Evidence. American Anthropologist 108:507–516. [Reprinted as Chap. 10 in this volume]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, C. H. (n.d.). Prehistoric Chronology of Squash (Cucurbita spp.) in the Americas: The Linguistic Evidence. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C. H., Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S., and Vilupillai, V. (2008). Automated Classification of the World’s Languages: A Description of the Method and Preliminary Results. Language Typology and Universals (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung) 61(4):285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, C. H., and Wichmann, S. (2004). Proto-Mayan Syllable Nuclei. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:128–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, L., Kaufman, T., and Smith-Stark, T. C. (1986). Meso-America as a Linguistic Area. Language 62.3: 530–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gudschinsky, S. C. (1959). Proto-Popotecan: A Comparative Study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, J. H. (2001). Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A Community of Cultivators in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist 103:913–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill, J. H. (2008). Northern Uto-Aztecan and Kiowa-Tanoan: Evidence of Contact between the Proto-languages? International Journal of American Linguistics 74:155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Vilupillai, V., Müller, A., and Bakker, D. (2008). Explorations in Automated Lexicostatistics. Folia Linguistica 42(2):331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaufman, T. S. (1972). El Proto-Tzeltal-Tzotzil. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
  13. Kaufman, T. S. (1976). Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology 8:101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaufman, T. S. (1990). Early Otomanguean Homelands and Cultures: Some Premature Hypotheses. University of Pittsburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 1:91–136Google Scholar
  15. Kaufman, T. S. (2003). A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary. http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf.
  16. Kaufman, T. S., and Norman, W. N. (1984). An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology, Morphology and Vocabulary. In Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, edited by John S. Justeson and Lyle Campbell, pp. 77–166. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kirchhoff, P. (1943). Mesoamérica. Sus Límites Geográficos, Composición Étnica y Caracteres Culturales. Acta Americana 1(1): 92–107.Google Scholar
  18. Longacre, R. E. (1957). Proto-Mixtecan. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, W. R. (1967). Uto-Aztecan Cognate Sets. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Rensch, C. R. (1976). Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  21. Rensch, C. R. (1989). An Etymological Dictionary of the Chinantec Languages. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington, Texas.Google Scholar
  22. Serva, M., and Petroni, F. (2008). Indo-European Language Trees by Levenshtein Distances. Europhysics Letters 81:68005–68009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swadesh, M. (1951). Diffusional Cumulation and Archaic Residue as Historical Explanations. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:1–21.Google Scholar
  24. Swadesh, M. (1960). Estudios sobre Lengua y Cultura. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, D.FGoogle Scholar
  25. Swadesh, M. (1955). Towards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic Dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21: 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swadesh, M. (1971). The Origin and Diversification of Language. Aldine Atherton, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Wichmann, S. (1995). The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  28. Wichmann, S., Velupillai, V., Müller, A., Bakker, D., and Grant, A. (2008). A Universal Law of Language Taxonomics. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecil H. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations