Words for dog as a diagnostic of language contact in the

Americas

Matthias Pachea, Sren Wichmanna,b, and Mikhail Zhivlovc,d

a
Leiden University, bKazan Federal University, cRussian State University

for the Humanities, dSchool for Advanced Studies in the Humanities,

RANEPA (Moscow)

1. Introduction and background1

As pointed out by Mithun (2010), words meaning dog have diffused

extensively in Native California. Something similar is seen in other areas

as well. A recent compilation of basic vocabulary items from close to two

thirds of the worlds languages (Wichmann et al. 2013) shows that forms

meaning dog are often similar across families, especially in areas such as

New Guinea (as already mentioned in Wichmann 2013: 342) and the

Americas as a whole (cf. Swadesh 1958: 130). Probing deeper into the

various cases where a word for dog has apparently been borrowed, we

have come to realize that the sharing of a word for dog is a useful

1
We are grateful to Bernard Comrie and Willem Adelaar for comments on an earlier
version of this paper. The research of Pache and Wichmann was funded by an ERC
Advanced Grant (MesAndLin(g)k, Proj. No. 295918).

1
diagnostic capable of revealing early contact situations involving trade and

possibly other forms of interaction.

Dogs are among the few elements in the human environment which

are present independent of specific climatic zones or forms of adaption to

the environment. They are found in cultures all over the world (Allen

1920), and specific canine breeds are easily exchanged between human

groups (e.g., Koch-Grnberg 1923: 341-342). These particularities set the

word for dog apart from other frequently borrowed words, which mostly

include terms for cultivated crops, wild plants and animals, and terms

relating to specific technologies and their products (Haynie et al. 2014).

During the long time of cohabitation of humans and dogs, the latter

have come to play an important role in cultures of the Old and the New

World. The dog was first domesticated in the Old World (Leonard et al.

2002). There is no indication that dogs were domesticated independently

in the New World (Vil et al. 1999). Rather, the evidence indicates that

several different dog lineages were brought into the Americas around the

time of the crossing of the Bering Land Bridge by hunter-gatherers

(Brothwell et al. 1979, Leonard et al. 2002, cf. also Allen 1920, Colton

1970).

Dogs seem to have played an important role as pack or harness

animals and as protectors of humans in North America from early on

(Turner 2002). In addition, they have also served as an item of

2
consumption, most conspicuously in Mesoamerican cultures, as attested

by archeological findings (Clutton-Brock 1994) and observations made by

the first Europeans to arrive in Mesoamerica (Wyatt n.d.).2 As Tito et al.

(2011) point out, the role of the dog as a food source in the Americas

seems to be very old, with evidence going back to c. 9260 170 B.C.

Dogs also play or have played a role in sacrificial contexts in some

New World cultures (Blau 1964, Brizinski and Savage 1983). When

sacrificed in burial rituals, dogs with black fur have sometimes been (or

are still) given a preference over dogs of other colors, for instance in

indigenous communities of Northwestern Argentina (Cipolletti 1982: 227)

and in Ancient Peru (Latocha 1983: 222). In addition to their use in burial

rituals in Andean cultures, dogs have also been encountered as funerary

objects among people who live in the lowlands: the Kayapo, the

Kaingang, and the Zparo (Cipolletti 1982: 221).

The importance of dogs varies between cultures. For instance, in

Native California, many tribes, including Mattole, Kato, Lassik, Hill

Wintun, and several Yuki, Pomo, Maidu, Nisenan, and Miwok groups

either did not keep dogs, or got them in trade from other tribes (Kroeber

1941: 6-7). In Amazonia prior to the arrival of Europeans, dogs similarly

seem to have been kept by some groups only, particularly groups on the

margins of the Amazon Basin (Aikhenvald 2012: 15).

2
Among the Inca, in Western South America, the consumption of dogs does not seem to
have been a common practice (cf. Latocha 1983: 221, Rosat Pontacti 2004: 22).

3
 In Mesoamerican and in Andean cultures, dogs (often black ones)

are believed to guide a deceased persons soul into the afterworld, as

described in myths and oral traditions (Cipolletti 1982: 221, 225; Torres

Cisneros 2004: 12). In some parts of the Americas, the howling of dogs

seems to have been interpreted as a bad omen (cf. e.g. Lugo 1978 [1619]:

127v). In parts of Mexico, some healers are believed to transform into

dogs (Burchell 2007). In this context we may mention Mesoamerican

myths explaining the origin of humankind through the intercourse of a dog

and a woman (Latocha 1982; Read and Gonzalez 2000: 171; Willey 1974:

201). They seem to find parallels in Mochica ceramics, where a dog is

sometimes depicted as having sexual intercourse with a human woman

(Latocha 1983: 231).3

There is some evidence for Pre-Columbian culture contact between

what today is Western Mexico and Ecuador/Peru (Anawalt 1992;

Callaghan 2003; Hosler 1988; Hosler et al. 1990; Lathrap et al. 1976: 53-

63). It has been proposed that hairless dogs were among the objects

exchanged between these regions in pre-colonial times (Cordy-Collins

1994).

Notwithstanding the cultural importance of the dog in many Native

American cultures, several groups, especially in the South American

lowlands, borrowed the Spanish or Portuguese word for dog. For

3
Cf. Pache (2012) for similar activities of the fox in Andean folktales, and for the special
relation between the fox and death/the underworld in the southern central Andes which is
somewhat reminiscent of the dogs role in some Andean and Mesoamerican cultures.

4
instance, forms similar to perro or cachorro are found in various Arawak,

Cariban, Macro-Ge, and Tupian languages (cf. Wichmann et al. 2013). It

is not clear to us whether this is because the European terms were seen as

designations for particular European breeds as opposed to native ones or

whether the borrowings occured because of a lack of dogs in the area prior

to the arrival of Europeans.

In the following sections three case studies are presented which

demonstrate the use of the word for dog as a diagnostic of language

contact in several areas of the Americas: California, the U.S. Southeast

and Mesoamerica, and the central Andean and eastern lowland regions of

South America. Whenever it is possible to deduce something about the

contexts in which these words diffused, the evidence seems to speak for

trade relations. The productivity of our approach for the Americas

suggests that the study of words for dog may also serve as a clue to

language contact involving commerce in other parts of the world.

A couple of caveats need to be introduced and kept in mind when

reading the following sections. First, there is always a possibility that

words can be similar by pure chance, leading to unfounded hypotheses

concerning borrowing. In the next section we discuss such an example

(that of Russian suka bitch which is superficially similar to Wintu suku

dog) showing that in this case, at least, the similarity is, indeed,

accidental and can be identified as such. Nevertheless it is clear that one

5
cannot always exclude such confounds. A second general problem is that

loanwords often pass through intermediaries (C, D, E,) rather than

directly from one (A) to another language (B). This is a source of error for

statements to the effect that language A borrowed a certain word from

language B. We do explicitly bring up this possibility in some of the cases

discussed below, but not in each and every one of them.

2. Indigenous languages of California4

Mithun (2010: 674) observes that the word hyu dog is attested in

several genealogically unrelated languages of California. In this

subsection we discuss this and other words for dog in many languages of

California. The borrowing of words for dog among languages of

California is not a new finding in fact, most of the loanwords discussed

in this section were already noted by previous researchers (see Golla 2011:

227-228). Thus, we start out applying the idea that the borrowing of words

for dog can be a useful diagnostic of language contact in general to a

case where such borrowings are frequent and where interaction is known

to have been intense (Kroeber 1925, Davis 1961). In subsequent sections

we move on to other case studies where less is known about the cultural

contexts of borrowings of words for dog. What is less known in the case
4
Throughout this paper Americanist orthography is used.

6
of California are the pathways of borrowings. Through careful

examination of phonetic correspondences and the morphological makeup

of the words in question we will attempt to determine specific directions

of borrowing. We thereby hope to show that even the narrow focus on

words with one specific referent can provide useful initial steps towards

exposing and unravelling a complex network of interaction between

speakers of different languages.

2.1. Yurok Karuk Takelma Yokuts

The Yurok word for dog, ciah (short form ci) (Garrett et al. 2005: 16),

finds a close parallel in the neighboring Karuk language: iih dog;

horse (Bright and Gehr 2005: 42). Although the Yuroks and the Karuks

share an almost identical culture (Kroeber 1925: 98), they speak unrelated

languages (Yurok belongs to Algic; Karuk is an isolate). Since Karuk does

not have glottalized consonants, the direction of borrowing is most likely

from Yurok to Karuk. However, the Yurok word itself can hardly be

inherited from Proto-Algic since it has no Wiyot or Algonquian cognates.

Moreover, according to Blevins (2002: 12), most if not all cases of word-

initial /c/ and /t/ in Yurok are the result of borrowing.

The closest parallels to Yurok and Karuk words are found in

Takelma (western Oregon) and in the geographically distant Yokuts

7
languages (San Joaquin Valley in central California). The Takelma word

for dog is cxi (Sapir 1909: 258). Sapir suggested that Takelma /x/ and

/s/ go back to pre-Takelma /s/ and /c/, respectively (Sapir and Swadesh

1953: 133). This hypothesis accounts well for certain facts of Takelma

morphophonology. First, the alternation of /s/ and /c/ occurs under the

same conditions as that of /p/ and /p/, /t/ and /t/, and /k/ and /k/ (Sapir

1922: 34). Secondly, a /t/ + /x/ sequence straddling a morphemic boundary

always yields /s/ (Sapir 1922: 45). The latter rule looks typologically

strange, but becomes quite simple in pre-Takelma garb: pre-Takelma /t/ +

/s/ > /c/. Thus, we can be reasonably certain that the Takelma word for

dog goes back to pre-Takelma *csi.

Yokuts languages have two roots for dog: Proto-Yokuts *csas

(e.g., Gashowu ea, Wikchamni csas [Newman 1944: 20]) and

Proto-Valley Yokuts *puu (e.g., Yawelmani puus, Chawchilla puu

[Kroeber 1963: 199]). 5 The distribution of these roots shows that the latter

root is a replacement of the former: it is attested only in Valley Yokuts, a

fourth-level subgroup of Yokuts languages (see the Yokuts genealogical

tree in Whistler and Golla 1986: 320), whereas all other Yokuts varieties,

as well as one Valley Yokuts variety (Choynok), have reflexes of Proto-

Yokuts *csas (Kroeber 1963: 199).

5
Yokuts protoforms are reconstructed according to the rules set up in Whistler and Golla
(1986).

8
 Yokuts and Takelma are tentatively classified as belonging to the

hypothetical Penutian phylum, so similar words for dog can theoretically

go back to Proto-Penutian. However, the general instability of roots for

dog in California, as well as the absence of potential cognates from other

putative Penutian branches, leads us to believe that the root in question

was diffused rather than inherited. If this is correct, the presence of a

Northern California-Oregon Wanderwort in Yokuts lends credence to

Whistlers hypothesis that the Pre-Proto-Yokuts migrated to San Joaquin

Valley from a northern homeland somewhere on the Plateau or in the

Basin (Whistler 1977: 170; see also his map on p. 167). As for the source

of this word, it is neither from Karuk nor from Yurok (see above). The

remaining possibilities are Takelma, Proto-Yokuts, or some as yet

unidentified language.

2.2. Chimariko Wintu

The Chimariko word for dog, iela (recorded by J. P. Harrington, cf.

Jany 2009: 58) or siela (recorded by E. Sapir, cf. Berman 2001: 1058), is

evidently connected with Wintu secila dog (Pitkin 1985: 532). 6 The

Chimariko word contains the diminutive suffix -la (Jany 2009: 81) and

shares its root with Chimariko siiwi wolf (recorded by E. Sapir, cf.

6
The Chimariko word is compared to the Wintu one in Berman (2001: 1058).

9
Berman 2001: 1072). Pitkin (1985: 532) compares the Wintu word with

the Wintu verb se-cila to tear apart. Perhaps contamination with this

verb explains why we have Wintu secila instead of expected *sicela. The

direction of borrowing must have been from Chimariko to Wintu. If the

borrowing had been from Wintu to Chimariko, secila would have to have

been reinterpreted as containing the diminutive suffix and in addition, the

remaining part of the word would have to have become a root in its own

right, to which another suffix was added to make a word for wolf.

Neither of these is a natural process.

2.3. Wintun Maiduan Washo Miwok Costanoan

The main term for dog in Wintu is suku dog, horse (Pitkin 1985: 557-

558). According to Shepherd (2005: 171), this form, together with

Nomlaki suhkut dog, Hill Patwin suhkut dog, and South Patwin uku

dog, goes back to Proto-Wintun *suku. However, there are reasons to

doubt this scenario. Given what we know about recurrent sound changes

(Shepherd 2005: 6, 12), Wintu and Nomlaki /k/ should correspond to

Patwin and South Patwin //. Exceptions listed by Shepherd (2005: 15) are

not phonologically conditioned (at least, no such conditioning is

mentioned by Shepherd) and therefore most likely represent borrowings.

The correspondence of South Patwin // to /s/ in the other Wintun

10
languages is also irregular. Thus, we would expect Proto-Wintun *suku to

yield suu in Hill Patwin and South Patwin. Only the Nomlaki form can be

related to Wintu suku through regular correspondences. Outside Wintun,

the most similar forms are found in Washo and in Maiduan languages.

Several Miwok and Costanoan languages have somewhat less similar

words (with initial - instead of s-, as in the aforementioned South Patwin

form uku).

Before we turn to these forms, we must mention the view of Pitkin,

who derives Wintu suku from Russian suka bitch via Pomo (Pitkin

1985: 557-558). We regard this scenario as impossible for the following

reasons. First, to the best of our knowledge, no such word is attested in

Kashaya the language whose speakers had the most intense contact with

Russians nor in any other Pomoan language. Secondly, and more

importantly, Russian nouns ending in -a invariably preserve this -a when

borrowed into Kashaya. Consider the following examples: Russian koka

> Kashaya kuka cat; Russian loka > Kashaya loka spoon; Russian

penitsa > Kashaya inita wheat; Russian goritsa mustard > Kashaya

kuluita wild mustard; Russian aka cup > Kashaya aka dishes

(Oswalt 1958: 245-246). Thus, we would expect Russian suka to yield

suka, not suku in Kashaya and other Pomoan languages.

In Maiduan languages the root in question is represented by

Nisenan sukku dog (Uldall and Shipley 1966: 228) and Konkow skku

11
pet, master (Ultan 1967: 161). The root replaces or coexists with reflexes

of Proto-Maidun *s dog, which yielded Maidu s? dog; pet, domestic

animal; horse (Shipley 1963: 172), Konkow s dog (Ultan 1967: 133),

and Central Hill Nisenan s dog (Eatough 1999: 42). The Washo word

for dog, sku (Jacobsen 1964: 336), also belongs here.

A similar root for dog is found in Sierra Miwok languages:

Northern Sierra Miwok uku- dog, Central Sierra Miwok uku- dog,

pet, and Southern Sierra Miwok uku- dog, pet, guardian spirit of

shaman (Callaghan 2014: 217-218). The Proto-Miwok word for dog,

however, was *hayu; see Section 2.4. If the uku- forms are borrowings

from the same source as the forms listed above, why do they have -

instead of s-? According to Broadbent (1964: 20-21), Southern Sierra

Miwok has an alternation of /s/ and // with diminutive-augmentative

significance: // in the diminutive form corresponds to /s/ found in the

normal-size or augmentative form. One of the examples of this

alternation is a loanword from English: pusi- cat and pui- kitty <

English pussy. We may suppose that a form like *suku was borrowed into

Eastern Miwok languages and there underwent a sound-symbolic

replacement /s/ > // in originally diminutive form. South Patwin uku

dog, then, must be a Miwok loanword, as was suggested by Whistler

(1977:162).

12
 Two Costanoan languages, Awaswas and Chocheo, also have this

root. The Chocheo word for dog, ukuti (Levy 1976:28), is borrowed

from the Miwok form with the diminutive suffix -ti, cf. Northern Sierra

Miwok uku-ti puppy, Central Sierra Miwok uku-ti-ko puppies

(Callaghan 2014: 218). The diminutive suffix -ti is not attested in

Costanoan, so the direction of borrowing is from Miwok to Chocheo

(Callaghan 2014: 217). Moreover, since the Proto-Miwok diminutive

suffix *-ti yields Proto-Western Miwok *-i (Callaghan 2014: 412-413),

the Chocheo word must have been borrowed from Eastern Miwok

(apparently from extinct Bay Miwok). In view of the borrowed nature of

the Chocheo word, we also consider it probable that Awaswas uku dog

(Levy 1976: 28) is an Eastern Miwok loan.

The ultimate origin of the root in question cannot be determined

with absolute certainty. Nevertheless, some possibilities can be excluded.

As we have shown, the Costanoan and South Patwin forms are best

viewed as loanwords from Eastern Miwok languages. The Miwok word is

a replacement of Proto-Miwok *hayu dog (see Section 2.4), thus it is

probably also a borrowing (internal replacement is unlikely since there is

no evidence that the word in question is derived from some other Miwok

root or that it originally had another meaning). A Maiduan origin of the

root can be excluded on similar grounds: the Proto-Maiduan word for

dog is *s. The remaining possibilities are (1) Wintu and/or Nomlaki,

13
(2) Patwin, and (3) Washo. The wide geographical distribution of the root

speaks against a Washo origin. The original Washo word for dog may be

preserved in the modern Washo as gu pet (Jacobsen 1964: 336).

According to Kroeber (1907: 275), the Washo word for dog is suku in

the absolute and guu in possessed forms (cf. the situation in Salinan,

described below).

We can conclude that the ultimate source of the root *suku is most

probably one of the languages of the Wintun family.

2.4. Miwok Pomoan Wappo Hill Patwin

The next widespread root for dog in California is *hayu. It is attested in

Miwok, Pomoan, Wappo, and Hill Patwin. Miwok languages have the

following forms: Lake Miwok hayu dog, Bodega Miwok hayu-a dog,

Marin Miwok H-o [hayu], H--sah [hayusa] dog (recorded by C. H.

Merriam), and Southern Sierra Miwok (Yosemite dialect) hayu- dog

(Callaghan 2014: 222). The distribution of the word strongly suggests a

Proto-Miwok origin: it is attested in all Western Miwok languages as well

as in a geographically remote Eastern Miwok dialect. The word moreover

exhibits regular sound correspondences between Miwok languages.

The same root is also attested in almost all Pomoan languages:

Kashaya hayu, Southern Pomo hyu, Central Pomo hyu, Northern Pomo

14
hay, Eastern Pomo hyu, and Southeastern Pomo hyu, all forms

meaning dog (Oswalt 1964b: 424-425). Only the geographically isolated

Northeastern Pomo has an unrelated word: bolu-ka dog (ibid.). But

unlike in the Miwok case discussed in the previous paragraph, the word

cannot be reconstructed even for the common proto-language of Kashaya

and Central Pomo: *hayu would become Pc [Central Pomo] y; a form

like *ahayu, which would give Pc hyu, would remain in Pk [Kashaya] as

ahayu (Oswalt 1964a: 153).

Wappo hyu dog (Sawyer 1965: 31) and Hill Patwin7 hayu dog

(Broadbent and Pitkin 1964: 38) are also borrowed from Western Miwok.

2.5. Ramaytush Uto-Aztecan

One more borrowed term is found in the Costanoan language Ramaytush,

where the word for dog has the form puku (Levy 1976: 28; Callaghan

2014: 217). 8 This word is evidently an Uto-Aztecan loan, although we

cannot exactly pinpoint the Uto-Aztecan donor language. The Proto-Uto-

Aztecan word for dog is reconstructed as *punku (Miller and Hill 2003:

231). The pre-consonantal nasal is lost in all of Uto-Aztecan, except some

Numic languages and Tbatulabal, but even in Tbatulabal alongside

7
The lack of a published Patwin dictionary makes it impossible to decide whether Hill
Patwin hayu dog word and Hill Patwin suhkut dog (see above) pertain to different
varieties of Hill Patwin.
8
See Sections 2.3 and 2.6 on words for dog in other Costanoan languages.

15
pugu-l pet we have puku-bit dog (ibid.). Ramaytush is not known to

have been in direct contact with Uto-Aztecan languages, so one possible

inference is that the word for dog was transmitted through some

intermediary language. On the other hand, the loanword in question can be

seen as a piece of evidence in favor of D.L. Shauls hypothesis of an Old

California Uto-Aztecan (Shaul 2014: 184-217) as a source of borrowings

in Esselen, Mutsun, Salinan, and Chumash (Shaul does not use Ramaytush

evidence in his study).

2.6. Costanoan Esselen Salinan Chumash

The next term under discussion has a more southerly distribution. It is

attested in Costanoan, Esselen, Salinan, and Chumash. The following

Costanoan words belong here: Mutsun xuekni dog, Chalon xuekni

dog (Levy 1976: 28), and Rumsen xuiys dog (Callaghan 2014: 50).

Esselen huumas dog (Shaul n.d.:16) is apparently a borrowing

from Costanoan (Callaghan 2014: 49), since Esselen has other terms for

dog: oo (Shaul n.d.: 32) and anao (ibid.). While oo can possibly be

interpreted as borrowed from Spanish chucho dog (this Spanish word

was also borrowed into Patwin, Plains Miwok, Tamyen, and Wappo),

anao does not have resemblances in other Californian languages and

looks like a native Esselen word.

16
 The root in question is attested in both Salinan dialects: Antoniao

Salinan xu (pl. xostn) dog, Migueleo Salinan xuai dog (Mason

1918: 126). However, there is reason to doubt that this word is native in

Salinan. Turner (1987: 22) gives the following paradigm of the Antoniao

Salinan word for dog (taken from J.P. Harringtons fieldnotes): Non-

possessed forms: xo (singular), xo-tn (plural); possessed forms: 1st

person sg. -, 2nd person sg. m-, 3rd person sg. --o, 1st person pl.

a-, 2nd person pl. k-, 3rd person pl. i--t-o.9 The root of the non-

possessed forms is xo ~ xo-, while the root of the possessed forms is -.

Turner (1987: 85-86)) treats this situation as a case of irregular syllable

deletion in possessed forms, but this does not explain why possessed

forms always have a glottalized affricate, while in non-possessed forms no

glottalization is attested. As far as we know, there is no productive or even

relic alternation of glottalized consonants and plain consonants in Salinan.

The relationship between possessed and non-possessed forms of dog is

better defined as one of suppletion. The most simple explanation as to how

this unusual suppletion came into being is that the root of non-possessed

forms was borrowed from one of the neighboring languages, while the

original Salinan root for dog was preserved only in possessed forms.

Ineseo Chumash also has a similar word, huu dog (Applegate

2007: 128), while other Chumash languages have a different root:

9
The form i--t-o contains a plural suffix -t- and is properly translated as their
dogs (Mason 1918: 32).

17
Ventureo ctn dog (Applegate 1973: 4-14), Barbareo tin dog,

Alliklik ste-un dog (Beeler and Klar 1977: 298). Given the wide

distribution in Chumash of this latter root, it seems probable that Ineseo

formerly had a cognate form and that huu is a loanword. The source of

this may have been Salinan.

Among the four distinct families and isolates discussed in this

section (Esselen, Costanoan, Salinan, and Chumash) it is only Costanoan

that lacks evidence for the borrowed nature of the root in question. Thus,

the source of borrowing in this case could be Costanoan, if not some other

unidentified language.

2.7. Conclusion on the California case study

The historical context for the set of loanwords discussed in this section is

the complex system of trade relations among the native peoples of

California (Davis 1961). Although the historical evidence for dog trade is

rather scarce (there are only four documented cases according to Davis

1961: 14), trade relationships between speakers of languages discussed in

this section can be confirmed by historical data. Thus, there is evidence of

trade between, for instance, Yurok and Karuk (Davis 1961: 45-46),

Chimariko and Wintu (Davis 1961: 18), Wintu and Konkow (Davis 1961:

33), Konkow and Nisenan (Davis 1961: 34), Costanoan and Sierra Miwok

18
(Davis 1961: 19), Lake Miwok and Pomo (Davis 1961: 27), Wappo and

Coast Miwok (Davis 1961: 41), and Salinan and Chumash (Davis 1961:

36). More complex cases, where distant trade and/or migrations may be

involved, are represented by loans between Yokuts and Northern

California-Oregon languages, and between Ramaytush and Uto-Aztecan.

A more detailed study of these cases of interaction would be desirable.

On the whole, our results are in agreement with the conclusions of

a recent broad-scale survey of Wanderwrter in California (Haynie et al.

2014), which demonstrated that loan networks in this area resemble

known trade networks (Haynie et al. 2014: 8).

3. The U.S. Southeast and Mesoamerica

This case study is directed towards lexical exchanges between Atakapa

and Mayan that we became aware of because one of these exchanges

relates to a word for dog. The finding was surprising since Atakapa was

spoken along the coast around the border of present-day Louisiana and

Texas, whereas the Mayan languages in question were (and still are)

spoken on the other side of the Gulf of Mexico. Both within the U.S.

Southeast and within Mesoamerica there are borrowings of dog words,

and we devote the first two subsections to mentioning some of these cases.

19
We then narrow in on the case demonstrating interaction between these

two culture areas.

3.1. The U.S. Southeast

In Karankawa the word for dog, in the phonemic form reconstituted by

Grant (1994: 17), is ke ~ kes. Grant (1994: 17) states that [p]erhaps the

word is an early loan from Chitimacha /ki/ dog; note also Cotoname

<kissa> fox. If the Cotoname form is relevant here, we would be

confronted with a word found along the north coast of the Gulf of Mexico,

from the New Orleans region (Chitimacha) along the coast of Texas

(Karankawa) to the present-day border with Mexico (Cotoname). Grant

does not provide the reasoning behind his suggested direction of

borrowing, but there is a non-negligible possibility that Proto-Huavean

*kis dog (Noyer 2012: 184) should be factored into the equation. As

noted by Brown et al. (2014: 470), there is suggestive lexical evidence for

a genealogical link between Huavean and the Chitimacha-Totozoquean

family. If Proto-Huavean *kis and Chitimacha ki are cognate, the U.S.

Southeast Wanderwort must have its origin in Chitimacha or some extinct

related language. The possibility is very remote that the Huavean form

would be a borrowing since Huavean languages are spoken as far away as

the Pacific coast of Oaxaca, Mexico. Possibly there is no connection

20
whatsoever between Proto-Huavean *kis and the dog words of the U.S.

Southeast, in which case it would seem impossible to be precise about the

direction of diffusion of the latter.

3.2. Mesoamerica

As first noted by Kaufman (1964), Huastec piko and Yucatec p:k, both

dog (and to these, the other Yucatecan languages Lacandon, Itzaj, and

Mopan, which have pek, can be added) are likely borrowed from some

Zapotec language. The hypothesis regarding the direction of borrowing is

based on the fact that the Mayan forms do not reconstruct to Proto-Mayan,

whereas Zapotec languages have similar forms, which are inherited from

Proto-Zapotec. For instance, Beam de Azcona et al. (n.d.: 48) cite Ixtln

Zapotec beko. Interestingly, these authors suggest that the Proto-Zapotec

form is itself a Mixe-Zoquean borrowing. According to Wichmann (1995:

254), Proto-Mixe-Zoquean had a form *uku whose reflexes in the two

major branches of the family either mean agouti (Zoquean) or dog

(Mixean). Beam de Azcona et al. (n.d.: 48) explain that *uku could have

been borrowed into Proto-Zapotec as *kwe-oko, where *kwe- is a prefix

for animacy and *-oko is the shape of the borrowed root after expected

phonological modifications. The morphologically complex form

undergoes further minor changes, resulting in Proto-Zapotec *kwekko

21
(this form was formerly reconstructed as *'beku by Fernndez de

Miranda 1995: 179, cf. also an even earlier similar reconstruction by

Swadesh 1947: 221 cited by Kaufman 1964). If this scenario is correct, the

borrowings into Mayan languages must be from some non-initial stage of

the evolution of the Zapotec group after *kw became p. In any case, here

we have a possible example of a whole chain of borrowings.

Another Mayan word for dog that appears to be borrowed is

Chontal wiu (Keller and Luciano G. 1997: 281), which matches

Purhpecha wiu (Medina Prez and Alveano Hernndez 2011: 87 and

other dictionaries). Since Purhpecha is an isolate we cannot trace the

word further back into the history of this language, but for Chontal we can

rule out inheritance since the word is not attested in other Mayan

languages. Thus, the direction must have been from Purhpecha to

Chontal.

We also find a word for dog shared between Nahuatl and Totonac.

For the former we can cite Classical Nahuatl ii (Karttunen 1983: 47),

but most modern dialects also have either this form or ii (Lastra de

Surez 1986). In Totonac we find ii in Coatepec and Misantla, ie in

Olintla, and ii throughout the remaining languages and varieties

(Wichmann et al. 2013, which includes original word lists for several

varieties). Let us present the evidence showing the direction of the

borrowing to be from Totonac to Nahuatl. First, ii() is not

22
reconstructible to earlier stages of Uto-Aztecan apparently not even to

Proto-Aztecan, since the word is not attested in Pochutla Nahuatl and

Pipil. Second, the form is somewhat unusual since it does not take one of

the so-called absolute suffixes, which indicate the absence of a possessor

although there are other nouns in the language that also cannot indicate

non-possession (Launey 1992: 211). Third, Nahuatl has a second word for

dog, itskwi:n-i (Karttunen 1983: 108). As regards Totonac, the word is

restricted to that branch of the Totonacan (Tepehua-Totonac) family. This

makes it relatively shallow time-wise, but it would still have a deeper time

depth than the Nahuatl word. All in all, the evidence favors Totonac as the

origin of the diffusion, although it cannot be excluded that the word was

innovated in Nahuatl and diffused from there.

3.3. Huastec Atakapa

In the two previous subsections we have seen that languages on the north

coast of the Gulf of Mexico and also Mesoamerican languages on the

other side of the Gulf have experienced diffusion of words for dog. Now

we turn to a case cross-cutting these two areas. The language isolate

Atakapa has a word ul for dog (written <cul> in Gatschet and Swanton

1932: 116, who explain [p. 7] that <c> is about equivalent to English

sh). This is conspicuously similar to *sul dog, reconstructed for Proto-

23
Huastecan by Norcliffe (2003: 176) on the basis of Chicomuceltec <sul>

dog (Sapper 1912, Termer 1926) and Potos Huastec ul-ul tepechiche

(Larsen 1997: 62; the Spanish gloss is ultimately from Nahuatl and

literally means mountain dog). The different dialects of Huastec and

Chicomuceltec together make up the Huastecan subgroup of Mayan

languages. Since *sul is not otherwise attested in Mayan, the word is

likely borrowed from Atakapa. Given that they are very similar, Huastec

and Chicomuceltec cannot have a long history of separation (900 years in

the estimate of Kaufman 1976: 103, and 1257 years in the estimate of

Holman et al. 2011: 19), yet they are (or were) spoken in quite different

areas. Huastec is a northern outlier of Mayan languages, spoken in San

Luis Potos and northern Veracruz, while Chicomuceltec was spoken in

Chiapas in the general Mayan region. Thus, there are two possible

migration scenarios for the Huastecs and the Chicomuceltecs: either the

Chicomuceltecs stayed behind while the Huastecs continued their

migration towards the north or the two groups split in the present location

of the Huastecs, with the Chicomuceltecs returning to the Mayan area.

These two logical possibilities were already laid out by Kroeber (1944:

160) and, despite much discussion, it is still not clear whether the early

split or the late split is the better supported scenario. Kaufman (1980)

sees the sharing of various Mixe-Zoquean and Zapotecan loans between

Huastec and Chicomuceltec as evidence for a late split, while Campbell

24
(1988: 209-210) cogently points out that these borrowings (or some, at

least) are found in a wide area in southern Mesoamerica and do not require

a presence in the Huastec area for a language to have adopted them. The

possible borrowing of sul dog from Atakapa is interesting in light of this

discussion since, unlike the Mixe-Zoquean and Zapotecan loans, this word

must be quite specific to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and is unlikely to

have reached Chicomuceltec (and Chicomuceltec alone) if this language

was always confined to Chiapas. Thus, this word provides a strong piece

of support for the late split scenario advocated by Kaufman. Moreover, the

word opens entirely new perspectives for understanding interaction across

the Gulf of Mexico since, as it turns out, it is not an isolated instance, but

belongs to a small set of words having travelled in both directions,

providing evidence for contact of a commercial nature.

Another case of a word found in Atakapa and Huastecan but without a

known Mayan etymology is Atakapa uk shell (closed palourde), oyster

(Gatschet and Swanton 1932: 138) and the Huastec form variously

recorded as ukul almeja [clam] (Larsen 1997: 69), ukul almeja

(Ochoa Peralta 1984: 32), <ocul> concha [shell] (Tapia Zenteno 1767

[1975]: 59), and <ucul> cuchara [spoon] (Quirs 2013: 175). The

element ul is a productive Vl suffix which sometimes derives nouns

from adjectives or other nouns, but also often attaches to a root which does

not occur without the Vl suffix (Edmonson 1988: 273-275). Its presence

25
on the Huastec form can easily be interpreted as a Mayanization of a

foreign root. In contrast, it would be hard to explain its absence in Atakapa

if the direction of borrowing were from Huastec to Atakapa. This provides

one piece of support for the Atakapa > Huastec direction of borrowing.

Another piece of evidence is that the scant materials from Chicomucelteco

do not attest a root uk, so a Proto-Huastecan reconstruction is not

possible, and, more importantly, the root also does not reconstruct to any

other stage of Mayan (cf. its absence from Wichmann and Brown n.d.).

The 18th century sources for Huastec, providing the meanings

shell and spoon, indicate that uk-ul was a generic word for large

shells, much like the Atakapa uk seems to have been. A word for shell

shared between Huastec and a language of the U.S. Southeast is a stunning

discovery because archaeologists have long been aware of similarities

between Huastecan shell discs and Mississippian shell disc gorgets, cf.

White and Weinstein (2008: 233), who also provide an excellent, general

survey of what is known about prehistoric interactions between the areas

separated by the Gulf of Mexico.

Finally, we will briefly discuss a third possible loanword, this time one

seemingly having passed from Mayan to Atakapa. In the index to their

Atakapa dictionary, Gatschet and Swanton (1932: 166) list a root wal both

with the meaning fan and to fan. This is similar to a set of cognates

from the Lowland Mayan languages: Cholti <uaalh> abanico [fan]

26
(Morn 1695), Chorti wahr- abanicar, soplar, ventilar (frijol, maz) [to

fan, blow, ventilate (beans, corn)] (Prez Martnez et al. 1996: 247),

Mopan waal fan (Hofling 2011: 454), Itzaj waal palm frond, fan of

feathers for fire (Hofling with Tesucn 1997: 661), and Yucatec wal

page [folio]; leaf (Bricker et al. 1998: 299). In addition, there is Qeqchi

waal fan, cited by Wichmann and Brown and taken by these authors

(2003: 84) to be one of many other loanwords into this Eastern Mayan

language from one of the lowland groups, Yucatecan or Cholan. Notably,

Huastec has a different form for fan, waub (Larsen 1997: 23), so this

language cannot be the direct source of the Atakapa loan. Depictions of

Classic Maya fans on painted pottery show much variation in shapes and

materials, attesting to rich traditions for producing such objects in the

Maya lowlands. 10 Thus, it is entirely plausible that fans were exported

from there to the other side of the Gulf of Mexico.

In conclusion, both Huastecs and Lowland Mayas seem to have

been engaged in trade with Atakapas, exchanging their products for items

such as dogs and shells.

4. The southern central Andes and adjacent lowlands

10
For such depictions see http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html, e.g., K413,
K594, K767, K3924, K5388.

27
In the southern central Andes, a small linguistic family is attested, Uru-

Chipayan. Uru-Chipayan languages share a number of features with many

surrounding languages (e.g., Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 375, 420-1;

Fabre 1995; Pache 2013), and reflexes of their term for dog are found in

some languages spoken in the eastern lowlands. It turns out that these

languages also tend to share the word for maize with Uru-Chipayan.

Thus, it seems that speakers of Uru-Chipayan languages have been

directly or indirectly involved in the trade of both dogs and maize with

speakers of Movima (isolate), Itonama (isolate), Trinitario (Arawak), and

Toba and Pilag (both Guaicuruan).

4.1. The Uru and the Chipaya

The Uru-Chipayan languages are currently associated with indigenous

populations of Bolivia and Peru living along the aquatic axis of the

Andes Lake Titicaca, Lake Poop, and Lake Coipasa who often

maintain a hunter-gatherer economy and an aquatic lifestyle (Vellard

1954: 135-153). Groups speaking Uru-Chipayan languages at present or in

the recent past often lack farmland and have a marginal status and a low

prestige compared with their non-Uru Quechua or Aymara speaking

neighbors (e.g., Wachtel 1990: 335-45). With the exception of the Chipaya

language still spoken by some 1000 individuals of the villages Santa Ana

28
de Chipaya and Ayparavi in the Bolivian highlands (department of Oruro,

province of Atahuallpa), Uru-Chipayan languages as an instrument for

everyday communication all disappeared during the course of the 20th

century (see Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 362-3, 622).

Despite their present-day marginalized status it seems that people

speaking Uru-Chipayan languages have been influential in larger areas in

the past. Some Uru from Irohito (department of La Paz, province of

Ingavi, Bolivia) emphasize a historical link of their group with populations

and communities of the Pacific slopes (Ciriaco Inda, Lorenzo Inda, p.c.,

August 2010, July 2011, cf. also Estatutos orgnicos 2001; but cf.

Wachtel 1990: 595-603). Moreover, Uhle (1919: 8) identifies Uru

toponyms and hydronyms (proper names of bodies of water) on the

western slopes of the Andes. As a matter of fact, there are some parallels

of Uru-Chipayan languages with Atacameo in the southwest and Yahgan

in the south.11 To the east there are ethnohistorical sources indicating an

extension of some Uru populations into the eastern valleys of

Cochabamba, as well as maize growing activities by Uru populations in

those regions (Wachtel 1990: 362-4, 433).

11
Compare, for instance, Yahgan itax south, ita east, Chipaya /ta(a)/ west, back,
Yahgan ua north, Chipaya /ua/ north, Yahgan xay I, Chipaya /-/ imperative, 1st
person object, Atacameo <c> ~ <q> 1st person singular subject or possessor, and
Yahgan sa you, Chipaya /-/ imperative, non-1st-person object, Atacameo, <s-> 2nd
person singular subject or possessor (San Romn 1890; Cerrn-Palomino 2006; Guerra
Eissmann 2007; Cerrn-Palomino and Balln Aguirre 2011). Parallels of Yahgan and
Atacameo include some recurrent sound correspondences which require further
investigation.

29
4.2. Root for dog shared by Uru-Chipayan and languages of lowland

Bolivia

The root for dog is paku (Cerrn-Palomino and Balln Aguirre 2011:

267, Vellard 1967: 21) or paqu in Uru-Chipayan (Olson and Olson 2007).

It resembles the root for dog in some languages of the Bolivian

lowlands: Movima (isolate) pako (Judy 2007), Itonama (isolate) u-pau

(Camp and Liccardi 2007), and Trinitario (Arawak) paku (Gill and Gill

2007).12

At the same time, the root for maize (Chipaya tara [Cerrn-

Palomino and Balln Aguirre 2011: 252]) is also very similar in the same

languages: Movima kah-taa maize, Itonama u-taru grain (barley,

oats, etc.), and Trinitario taira seed.13 The evidence presented here

points to Uru-Chipayan as the donor. Trinitario is not a plausible candidate

12
In the central Andes, note the similarity of Uru-Chipayan paku or paqu dog with the
Quechua term for a kind of healer, the paqu (Rosat Pontacti 2004: 717). To posit
borrowing from Uru-Chipayan into Quechuan to account for the lexical similarity
between the term for dog in one language family and the term for a healer in the other
may seem like a stretch. However, in Culli, which is an extinct language of the Andean
hinterland of the coastal town of Trujillo (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 401), the term
referring to a sacerdote, a kind of healer, is alko (Torero 2002: 247), which is highly
reminiscent of the Quechuan term for dog, alqu. Note that shamans were characterized
as psychopomps by Eliade (1951). For the dog as a psychopomp in indigenous cultures of
the Americas, see Section 1.
13
The parallel of the Uru-Chipayan form with Mosetn tara maize has already been
noticed by Adelaar (1987) and Torero (1992: 183-184). Both authors also mention
similar roots in Leko (isolate) and Apolista (Arawak). Crqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913:
530), give ta y, t, ti, for maize in Apolista. According to Willem Adelaar (p.c.) there
could even be a link of Uru-Chipayan tara maize with Quechua sara maize.
Furthermore, the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) word for maize is tarake, a word that does
not seem to be attested in other Polynesian languages (Willem Adelaar, p.c.).

30
for a donor since this Arawak language does not share its roots for dog

and seed with other Arawak languages, and they do not reconstruct to

Proto-Arawak (cf. Payne 1991: 399, 409). Movima and Itonama are also

improbable donor language candidates since these have compound forms

(Itonama u-pau dog, Movima kah-taa maize, and Itonama u-taru

grain). These compound forms should have retained their morphological

elements if they were borrowed into Uru-Chipayan languages from

Itonama or Movima. Thus, the only possible explanation is an origin in

Uru-Chipayan languages.

4.4. Root for dog shared by Uru-Chipayan and Guaicuruan languages

As the distance from the Andes region increases, the echoes of Uru-

Chipayan become fainter. The Guaicuruan languages Mocov, Toba, and

Pilag, spoken in the Paraguayan Chaco, have the word pioq for dog

(Buckwalter and Ruiz 2007, Buckwalter and Snchez 2007, Buckwalter

and Surez 2007). This is reminiscent of Uru-Chipayan paku or paqu, but

the form is not as similar as the ones discussed in the preceding section.

As in Movima, Itonama, and Trinitario, the root for maize is, once again,

reminiscent: the Pilag and Toba words for maize are tawaa and

awaa, respectively. However, it is difficult to sustain a hypothesis of

direct language contact, considering the distance between the areas where

31
Uru-Chipayan languages were spoken in colonial times or in the recent

past and the areas where Toba, Pilag, and Mocov are spoken. Similarly,

there is a closer resemblance between the word for maize in Guaicuruan

languages and the Trinitario word for seed, taira, than with Uru-

Chipayan tara maize, which suggests the possibility of a borrowing

chain. There are hardly any other lexical parallels between Uru-Chipayan

and Guaicuruan languages.

4.5. Conclusion on the Uru-Chipayan case study

A borrowing of the word for dog has uncovered a contact scenario that

we might not have suspected from the present-day distribution of the

languages alone, and it seems that the present-day marginalized position

of Uru-Chipayan speakers is not representative of their status at some

point in the past (cf. Muysken 2008: 9; Torero 1992: 173; Wachtel 1990:

609).14 It has also been suggested before that Uru-Chipayan speaking

populations have had long and intense contact with peoples of the eastern

slopes speaking Arawak languages (Torero 1992: 182). Indeed, the

linguistic data discussed here suggest that speakers of Uru-Chipayan

languages seem to have been engaged in trade of food and dogs with

people of the eastern lowlands. They also seem to have extended their

14
As a matter of fact, Torero (1992: 184) proposes that the population associated with the
Chiripa culture in the southern central Andes spoke an Uru-Chipayan language.

32
influence, possibly via intermediate groups, well into the Paraguayan

Chaco.

5. Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that dog terms are a valid and reliable first

heuristic to uncover contact situations between different language groups,

specifically of a commercial nature. Tracing the directions of borrowings

of dog words in California has led us to uncover a very complex network

of interaction. Furthermore, in the Circum-Gulf region the apparent

Huastec borrowing of the Atakapa word for dog led to further

identifications of borrowings among these groups, amounting to the first

linguistic support for the idea that peoples of Mesoamerica and the U.S.

Southwest were engaged in material and intellectual exchanges an idea

that has been around for two centuries but has fallen into some disrepute,

apparently mainly due to the speculative nature of some early proposals

(White and Weinstein 2008) but also, we suspect, because of a tendency

for archaeologists to situate their findings somewhat narrowly within the

framework of a single, particular culture area. Finally, in the Uru-

Chipayan case we found that the diffusion of dog words goes hand in

hand with the diffusion of the term for maize. This case study suggests

33
that Uru-Chipayan speaking groups were involved in trade of both dogs

and food with populations from the eastern lowlands and that they played

a more influential role in commerce than their present-day marginalized

statuses would have led us to suspect.

Because of space restrictions we have limited detailed discussion

of borrowings of dog words to three regions. One region of the Americas

where such borrowings are particularly rampant but which we

nevertheless had to exclude is lowland South America, with a dozen or

more words for dog apparently having undergone diffusion. Beyond the

Americas there is also much additional canine-related philology to be

undertaken, but this must likewise be left for the future.

References

Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1987. Comentario a Alfredo Torero, Lenguas y

pueblos altiplnicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina 5(2):

373-375.

Adelaar, Willem, with the collaboration of Pieter Muysken. 2004. The

Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. The Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

34
Allen, Glover M. 1920. Dogs of the American aborigines. Bulletin of the

Museum of Comparative Zoology 63: 431-517.

Anawalt, Patricia Rieff. 1992. Ancient cultural contacts between Ecuador,

West Mexico, and the American Southwest: Clothing similarities.

Latin American Antiquity 3(2): 114-129.

Applegate, Richard. 1973. A sketch of Ventureo Chumash. Ms.

<http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~survey/documents/publications

/Applegate.001.pdf>

Applegate, Richard. 2007. Samala-English Dictionary. A Guide to the

Samala Language of the Ineseo Chumash People. The Santa

Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in collaboration with Dr. Richard

B. Applegate, Ph.D. and the Santa Ynez Chumash Education

Committee.

Beam de Azcona, Rosemary G., Arellanes Arellanes, Francisco,

Hernndez Luna, Mario Ulises, Manzano Corona, Miriam Itzel,

Morales Camacho, Sofa Gabriela, & Wagner Oviedo, Carlos de

Jess. In press. Umlaut (armona voclica) en el desarrollo

histrico de las lenguas zapotecas. In Debates en torno a la

lingstica histrica indomexicana, Lucero Melndez & Marcela

San Giacomo (eds). Mxico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional

Autnoma de Mxico, Instituto de Investigaciones

Anthropolgicas.

35
Beeler, Madison S. & Klar, Kathryn A. 1977. Interior Chumash. The

Journal of California Anthropology 4: 287-305.

Berman, Howard. 2001. Chimariko linguistic material. In The Collected

Works of Edward Sapir, Vol. 14: Northwest California Linguistics,

Victor Golla & S. ONeill (eds), 1039-1076. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Blau, Harold. 1964. The Iroquois white dog sacrifice: Its evolution and

symbolism. Ethnohistory 11(2): 97-119.

Blevins, Juliette. 2002. Notes on sources of Yurok glottalized consonants.

In Proceedings of the Meeting of the Hokan-Penutian Workshop,

June 17-18, 2000, University of California at Berkeley [Survey of

California and Other Indian Languages, Report 11], Laura

Buszard-Welcher (ed), 1-18. Berkeley: The Survey of California

and Other Indian Languages.

Bricker, Victoria R., Poot Yah, Eleuterio & Dzul de Poot, Ofelia. 1998. A

Dictionary of the Maya Language As Spoken in Hocab, Yucatn.

Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Bright, William & Gehr, Susan. 2005. Karuk Dictionary. Happy Camp,

CA: Karuk Tribe of California.

Brizinski, Morris & Savage, Howard. 1983. Dog sacrifices among the

Algonkian Indians: An example from the Frank Bay site. Ontario

Archaeology 39: 33-40.

36
Broadbent, Sylvia M. 1964. The Southern Sierra Miwok Language

[University of California Publications in Linguistics, 38]. Berkeley

and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Broadbent, Sylvia M. & Pitkin, Harvey. 1964. A comparison of Miwok

and Wintun. In Studies in Californian Linguistics [University of

California Publications in Linguistics, 34], William Bright (ed),

19-45. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Brothwell, Don, Malaga, A., & Burleigh, Richard. 1979. Studies on

Amerindian dogs, 2: Variation in early Peruvian dogs. Journal of

Archaeological Science 6: 139-161.

Brown, Cecil H., Wichmann, Sren, & Beck, David. 2014. Chitimacha: A

Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley.

International Journal of American Linguistics 80(4): 425-474.

Buckwalter, Albert S. & Ruiz, Roberto. 2007. Mocov [Intercontinental

Dictionary Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Buckwalter, Albert S. & Snchez, Orlando. 2007. Toba [Intercontinental

Dictionary Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Buckwalter, Albert S. & Surez, Julio. 2007. Pilag [Intercontinental

Dictionary Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

37
Burchell, Simon. 2007. Phantom Black Dogs in Latin America.

Loughborough: Heart of Albion Press.

Callaghan, Catherine. 2014. Proto Utian Grammar and Dictionary

[Trends in Linguistics: Documentation, 31]. Berlin: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Callaghan, Richard T. 2003. Prehistoric trade between Ecuador and West

Mexico: A computer simulation of coastal voyages. Antiquity 77:

796804.

Camp, Elizabeth & Liccardi, Millicent. 2007. Itonama [Intercontinental

Dictionary Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Campbell, Lyle. 1988. The Linguistics of Southeast Chiapas, Mexico

[Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 50]. Provo,

Utah: Brigham Young University.

Cerrn-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres

del agua. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad

Catlica del Per.

Cerrn-Palomino, Rodolfo & Balln Aguirre, Enrique. 2011. Chipaya.

Lxico-etnotaxonoma. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia

Universidad Catlica del Per.

Cipolletti, Maria Susana. 1982. Jenseitsvorstellungen bei Indianern

Sdamerikas. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des

38
 Doktorgrades der Philosophie an der Luwig-Maximilians

Universitt zu Mnchen.

Clutton-Brock, Juliet & Hammond, Norman. 1994. Hot dogs: Comestible

canids in Preclassic Maya culture at Cuello, Belize. Journal of

Archeological Science 21: 819-826.

Colton, Harold S. 1970. The Aboriginal Southwestern Indian dog.

American Antiquity 35(2): 153-159.

Cordy-Collins, Alana. 1994. An unshaggy dog story. Natural History

103(2): 34.

Crqui-Montfort, Georges de & Rivet, Paul. 1913. Linguistique

bolivienne. La langue lapau ou apolista. Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie

45: 512-31.

Davis, James T. 1961. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the

Indians of California [Reports of the University of California

Archaeological Survey, 54]. Berkeley: University of California

Berkeley Anthropology Department.

Eatough, Andrew. 1999. Central Hill Nisenan Texts with Grammatical

Sketch [University of California Publications in Linguistics, 132].

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Edmonson, Barbara Wedemeyer. 1988. A Descriptive Grammar of

Huastec (Potosino Dialect). PhD dissertation, Tulane University.

39
Eliade, Mircea. 1951. Le chamanisme et les techniques archaques de

lextase. Paris: Payot.

Estatutos orgnicos y reglamentos de la nacin originaria uru Ao 0 -

2000 Chipaya Muratu Iruhito Coro Isluga Uru. 2001. Kiriwill

qamanakztan nijz cheqanchistanpacha tiy wajtha qalltiniki uruz

Wata Roy Pisl Chipaya Muratu Iruhitu Koro Isluka Uroz.

[Serie Marka, 19]. Centro Diocesano de Pastoral Social

(CEDIPAS) and Nacin Originaria Uru (N.O.U.), Oruro.

Fabre, Alain. 1995. Lexical similarities between Uru-Chipaya and Pano-

Takanan languages: Genetic relationship or areal diffusion?

Opcin 18: 45-73.

Fernndez de Miranda, Mara Teresa. 1995. El protozapoteco [Serie

Estudios de lingstica y literature, 28], Michael J. Piper & Doris

A. Bartholomew (eds). Mxico, D. F: El Colegio de Mxico,

Centro de Estudios Lingsticos y Literarios and Instituto Nacional

de Antropologa e Historia.

Garrett, Andrew, Blevins, Juliette, & Conathan, Lisa. 2005. Preliminary

Yurok Dictionary. Berkeley: Yurok Language Project, Department

of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.

Gatschet, Albert S. & Swanton, John R. 1932. A Dictionary of the Atakapa

Language Accompanied by Text Material [Smithsonian Institution,

40
 Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 108]. Washington: United

States Printing Office.

Gill, Ruth & Gill, Wayne. 2007. Trinitario [Intercontinental Dictionary

Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology.

Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley, Los Angeles,

and London: University of California Press.

Grant, Anthony P. 1994. Karankawa linguistic materials. Kansas Working

Papers in Linguistics 19(2): 1-56.

Guerra Eissmann, Ana Mara. 2007. Yagn [Intercontinental Dictionary

Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology.

Haynie, Hannah, Bowern, Claire, Epps, Patience, Hill, Jane, &

McConvell, Patrick. 2014. Wanderwrter in languages of the

Americas and Australia. Ampersand 1: 118.

Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2011. Mopan Maya Spanish English

Dictionary. Diccionario Maya Mopan Espaol Ingls. Salt

Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Hofling, Charles Andrew with Flix Fernando Tesucn. 1997. Itzah Maya

Spanish English Dictionary. Diccionario Maya Itzaj Espaol

Ingls. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

41
Holman, Eric W., Brown, Cecil H., Wichmann, Sren, Mller, Andr,

Velupillai, Viveka, Hammarstrm, Harald, Sauppe, Sebastian,

Jung, Hagen, Bakker, Dik, Brown, Pamela, Belyaev, Oleg, Urban,

Matthias, Mailhammer, Robert, List, Johann-Mattis, & Egorov,

Dmitry. 2011. Automated dating of the worlds language families

based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology 52: 841-875.

Hosler, Dorothy H. 1988. Ancient West Mexican metallurgy: South and

Central American origins and West Mexican transformations.

American Anthropologist 90: 832-855.

Hosler, Dorothy, Lechtman, Heather, & Holm, Olaf. 1990. Axe-Monies

and Their Relatives [Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and

Archaeology, 30]. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research

Library and Collection.

Jacobsen, Jr., William Horton. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language.

PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Jany, Carmen. 2009. Chimariko Grammar: Areal and Typological

Perspective [University of California Publications in Linguistics,

142]. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Judy, Robert A. 2007. Movima [Intercontinental Dictionary Series],

Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology.

42
Karttunen, Frances. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1964. Materiales lingsticos para el estudio de las

relaciones internas y externas de la familia de idiomas mayanos. In

Desarrollo cultural de los mayas, Evon Z. Vogt & Alberto Ruz

(eds), 81-136. Mxico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de

Mxico, Coordinacin de Humanidades, Centro de Estudios

Mayas.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1976. Archaeological and linguistic correlations in

Mayaland and associated areas of Meso-America. World

Archaeology 8(1): 101-118.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1980. Pre-Columbian borrowings involving Huastec.

In American and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Madison S.

Beeler, Kathryn Klar, Margaret Langdon, & Shirley Silver (eds),

101-112. The Hague: Mouton.

Keller, Kathryn C. & Luciano G., Plcido. 1997. Diccionario chontal de

Tabasco. Tucson, AZ: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Koch-Grnberg, Theodor. 1923. Vom Roroima zum Orinoco. Band III.

Stuttgart: Strecker und Schrder.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1907. The Washo language of East Central California

and Nevada. University of California Publications in American

Archaeology and Ethnology 4(5): 251-317.

43
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California

[Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin

78]. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1941. Culture Element Distributions: XV. Salt, Dogs,

Tobacco [Anthropological Records Vol. 6, No. 1]. Berkeley and

Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1944. The historical position of Chicomuceltec in

Mayan. International Journal of American Linguistics 10: 159-

160.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1963. Yokuts Dialect Survey [Anthropological Records

Vol. 11, No. 3]. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

Larsen, Ramn. 1997. Vocabulario huasteco del Estado de San Luis

Potos. Mxico, D. F.: Instituto Lingstico de Verano and

Direccin General de Asuntos Indgenas de la Secretara de

Educacin Pblica.

Lastra de Surez, Yolanda. 1986. Las reas dialectales del nhuatl

moderno. Mxico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de

Mxico.

Lathrap, Donald W., Collier, Donald, & Chandra, Helen. 1976. Ancient

Ecuador: Culture, Clay and Creativity, 3000-300 B.C. Chicago:

Field Museum of Natural History.

44
Latocha, Hartwig. 1982. Die Rolle des Hundes bei sdamerikanischen

Indianern [Mnchner Beitrge zur Amerikanistik 8].

Hohenschftlarn: Renner.

Latocha, Hartwig. 1983. Der Hund in den alten Kulturen Mittel- und

Sdamerikas. In Zur frhen Mensch-Tier-Symbiose [Kolloquien

zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archologie, Band 4],

Hermann Mller-Karpe (ed), 219-241. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Launey, Michel. 1992. Introduccin a la lengua y a la literatura nhuatl.

Mxico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.

Leonard, Jennifer A., Wayne, Robert K., Wheeler, Jane, Valadez, Ral,

Guilln, Sonia, & Vil, Carles. 2002. Ancient DNA evidence for

Old World origin of New World dogs. Science 298: 1613-1616.

Levy, Richard L. 1976. Costanoan Internal Relationships. Berkeley:

Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology,

University of California.

Lugo, Bernardo. 1978 [1619]. Gramatica en la lengva general del nvevo

reyno, llamada mosca. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispnica del

Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperacin.

Mason, J. Alden. 1918. The Language of the Salinan Indians [University

of California Publications in American Archaeology and

Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1-154]. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

45
Medina Prez, Alberto & Alveano Hernndez, Jess. 2011. Vocabulario

espaol-purhpecha; purhpecha-espaol. Segunda edicin.

Mxico, D. F.: Plaza y Valds, S. A. de C. V.

Miller, Wick R. & Hill, Kenneth C. 2003. Millers Uto-Aztecan Cognate

Sets, revised and expanded by Kenneth C. Hill. Manuscript in

possession of the authors.

Mithun, Marianne. 2010. Contact in North America. In Handbook of

Language Contact, Raymond Hickey (ed), 673-694. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Morn, Fray 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.

Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Introduction. In From Linguistic Areas to Areal

Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 90], Pieter

Muysken (ed), 1-23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Newman, Stanley. 1944. Yokuts Language of California [Viking Fund

Publications in Anthropology, 2]. New York.

Norcliffe, Elizabeth. 2003. The reconstruction of Proto-Huastecan. MA

thesis, University of Canterbury.

Noyer, Rolf. 2012. Diccionario etimolgico y comparativo de las lenguas

huaves. Manuscript in possession of the authors.

46
Ochoa Peralta, Mara ngela. 1984. El idioma huasteco de Xiloxuchil,

Veracruz. Mxico, D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e

Historia.

Olson, Frances & Olson, Ronald D. 2007. Chipaya [Intercontinental

Dictionary Series], Bernard Comrie (ed). Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Oswalt, Robert L. 1958. Russian loanwords in Southwestern Pomo.

International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3): 245-247.

Oswalt, Robert L. 1964a. A comparative study of two Pomo languages.

Studies in Californian Linguistics [University of California

Publications in Linguistics, 34], William Bright (ed), 149-162.

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Oswalt, Robert L. 1964b. The internal relationships of the Pomo family of

languages. XXXV Congreso International de Americanistas, 413-

427. Mexico.

Pache, Matthias. 2012. The fox in the Andes: An alternative interpretation

of the trickster. Anthropos 107: 81-496.

Pache, Matthias. 2013. Surprise! ... and its encoding in Kams and other

languages of western South America. In Wege im Garten der

Ethnologie. Zwischen dort und hier. Festschrift fr Mara Susana

Cipolletti [Collectanea Instituti Anthropos, 46], Heinrich H. &

Grauer H. (eds), 203-221. Sankt Augustin: Academia.

47
Payne, David L. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages

based on shared lexical retentions. In Handbook of Amazonian

Languages, Vol. 3, Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum

(eds), 355-499. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Prez Martnez, Vitalino, Garca, Federico, Martnez, Felipe, & Lpez,

Jeremias. 1996. Diccionario del idioma chorti. La Antigua

Guatemala: Proyecto Lingstico Francisco Marroqun.

Pitkin, Harvey. 1985. Wintu Dictionary [University of California

Publications in Linguistics, 95]. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Quirs, Seberino Bernardo de. 2013. Arte y vocabulario del idioma

huasteco (1711). Edicin crtica con anotaciones filolgicas de

Bernhard Hurch. Madrid: Iberoamericana.

Read, Kay Almere & Gonzlez, Jason. 2000. Handbook of Mesoamerican

Mythology. Oxford: ABC-CLIO.

Rosat Pontacti, Adalberto. 2004. Diccionario enciclopdico quechua-

castellano del mundo andino. Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo

Divino.

San Romn, Francisco J. 1890. La lengua cunza de los naturales de

Atacama. Revista de la direccin de obras pblicas: seccin de

geografia 5: 77-94. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Gutenberg.

48
Sapir, Edward. 1909. Takelma Texts [University of Pennsylvania.

Anthropological Publications of the University Museum. Vol. II,

No. 1]. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Sapir, Edward. 1922. The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon.

Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 2 [Smithsonian

Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40], Franz

Boas (ed). Washington: Government Printing Office.

Sapir, Edward & Swadesh, Morris. 1953. Coos-Takelma-Penutian

comparisons. International Journal of American Linguistics 19(2):

132-137.

Sapper, Karl Theodor. 1912. ber einige Sprachen von Sdchiapas. Actas

del 17o Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Part 1, 295-320.

Sawyer, Jesse O. 1965. English-Wappo Vocabulary [University of

California Publications in Linguistics, 43]. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Shaul, David Leedom. n.d. Esselen Texts and Glossary. (Available at

Santa Brbara Mission Archive-Library website:

<http://www.sbmal.org /docs/EsselenTextsGlossary.pdf>)

Accessed 02.08.2013.

Shaul, David Leedom. 2014. A Prehistory of Western North America: The

Impact of Uto-Aztecan Languages. Albuquerque: University of

New Mexico Press.

49
Shepherd, Alice. 2005. Proto-Wintun [University of California

Publications in Linguistics, 137]. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Shipley, William F. 1963. Maidu Texts and Dictionary [University of

California Publications in Linguistics, 33]. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Swadesh, Morris. 1947. The phonemic structure of Proto-Zapotec.

International Journal of American Linguistics 13(4): 220-230.

Swadesh, Morris. 1958. La lingstica de las regiones entre las

civilizaciones meso-americanas y andinas. Actas del XXIII

Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, San Jos de Costa Rica,

20-27 julio 1958, vol. I: 123-136.

Tapia Zenteno, Carlos de. 1767 [1975]. Noticia de la lengua huasteca que

en beneficio de sus nacionales, de orden del ilm. Sr. Arzobispo de

esta Santa Iglesia Metropolitana, y a sus expensas, da Carlos de

Tapia Zenteno. Mxico: Imprenta de la Biblioteca Mexicana.

[Reprint: Vaduz Georgetown: Cabildo].

Termer, Franz. 1926. ber die Mayasprache von Chicomucelo.

Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of Americanists,

926-936.

Tito, Raul Y., Belknap III, Samuel L., Sobolik, Kristin D., Ingraham,

Robert C., Cleeland, Lauren M., & Lewis, Cecil M., Jr. 2011. Brief

50
 communication: DNA from Early Holocene American dog.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145: 653-657.

Torero, Alfredo. 1992. Acerca de la familia lingstica uruquilla (uru-

chipaya). Revista Andina 19(1): 171-91.

Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes: Lingstica e historia. Lima:

Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte.

Torres Cisneros, Gustavo. 2004. Mixes [Pueblos indgenas del Mxico

contemporneo]. Mxico, D. F.: CDI, PNUD.

Turner, Christy G. 2002. Teeth, needles, dogs, and Siberia:

Bioarchaeological evidence for the colonization of the New World.

In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New

World, Nina G. Jablonski (ed), 123-158. San Francisco: Memoirs

of the California Academy of Sciences.

Turner, Katherine. 1987. Aspects of Salinan Grammar. PhD dissertation,

University of California, Berkeley.

Uhle, Max. 1919. Fundamentos tnicos de la regin de Arica y Tacna.

Boletn de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Histricos

Americanos 4(2): 1-37.

Uldall, Hans Jrgen & Shipley, William. 1966. Nisenan Texts and

Dictionary [University of California Publications in Linguistics,

46]. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

51
Ultan, Russell. 1967. Konkow Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of

California, Berkeley.

Vellard, Jehan. 1954. Dieux et parias des Andes. Les Ourous, ceux qui ne

veulent pas tre des hommes. Paris: Emile-Paul.

Vellard, Jehan. 1967. Contribucin al estudio de la lengua Uru

[Cuadernos de lingstica indgena, 4]. Universidad de Buenos

Aires, Facultad de Filosofa y Letras, Centro de Estudios

Lingsticos.

Vil, C., Maldonado, J.E., & Wayne, R.K. 1999. Phylogenetic

relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog.

The Journal of Heredity 90(1): 71-77.

Wachtel, Nathan. 1990. Le retour des anctres. Les indiens urus d Bolivie

XXe-XVIe sicle. Essai dhistoire rgressive. Paris: Gallimard.

Whistler, Kenneth. 1977. Wintun prehistory: An interpretation based on

linguistic reconstruction of plant and animal nomenclature.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic

Society 3: 157-74.

Whistler, Kenneth W. & Golla, Victor. 1986. Proto-Yokuts Reconsidered.

International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 317-358.

White, Nancy Marie & Weinstein, Richard A. 2008. The Mexican

connection and the Far West of the U.S. Southeast. American

Antiquity 73(2): 227-277.

52
Wichmann, Sren. 1995. The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean

Languages of Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Wichmann, Sren. 2013. A classification of Papuan languages. In History,

Contact and Classification of Papuan Languages [Language and

Linguistics in Melanesia, Special Issue 2012], Harald

Hammarstrm & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds), 313-386. Port

Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea.

Wichmann, Sren & Brown, Cecil H. 2003. Contact among some Mayan

languages: Inferences from loanwords. Anthropological Linguistics

45(1): 57-93.

Wichmann, Sren & Brown, Cecil H. n.d. Panchronic Mayan Dictionary.

[Database with 6,800+ reconstructions and corresponding cognate

sets].

Wichmann, Sren, Mller, Andr, Wett, Annkathrin, Velupillai, Viveka,

Bischoffberger, Julia, Brown, Cecil H., Holman, Eric W., Sauppe,

Sebastian, Molochieva, Zarina, Brown, Pamela, Hammarstrm,

Harald, Belyaev, Oleg, List, Johann-Mattis, Bakker, Dik, Egorov,

Dmitry, Urban, Matthias, Mailhammer, Robert, Carrizo, Agustina,

Dryer, Matthew S., Korovina, Evgenia, Beck, David, Geyer,

Helen, Epps, Patience, Grant, Anthony, & Valenzuela, Pilar. 2013.

The ASJP Database (version 16). <http://asjp.clld.org/>.

53
Willey, Gordon R. 1974. Das alte Amerika [Propylen Kunstgeschichte

18]. Berlin: Propylen.

Wyatt, Andrew R. n.d. The food and cuisine of Precolumbian

Mesoamerica. Manuscript in possession of the authors.

54