Christopher S. Beekman Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217
christopher.beekman@ucdenver.edu
Asthe authors point out (Kaufman and Justeson 2007:232) in reference to the work of Dakin and Wichmann (2000), one word cannot beusedto establishthe speech of Teotihuacan. The linguisticanalysis by Kaufman and Justeson is comprehensive and, as far as I am able to evaluate its technical aspects, convincing that the term kakaw has its origins in the Mije-Zokean family. They conclude this based on empirical critiques, as well as distinct approaches to analysis. Just as processual or symbolic archaeologists will Approach the same data differently stemming from their commitment to one set of theoretical assumptions or another, something similar seems to be Happening here.If or one would like to see a better explanation of the differing principles that lead Dakin and Wichmann to focus on phonemic bases for comparison while Kaufman and Justeson focus on phonetic rules (pointed out in Kaufman and Justeson 2007:196). Surely these are problem-driven choices, and this is arguably the level at which archaeologists require tutelage rather than the nitty-gritty of a phonetic analysis itself.
...
Although the models seem distinct enough, there is a tangle of underlying assumptions that perpetuate miscommunications between scholars. Many publications continue to associate Nawatl with “Chichimecs”, which is then assumed to indicate that Nawas were nomadic, and further assumed that they were therefore outside of the orbit of Mesoamerican practices. The sixteenthcentury sources make it clear that the term Chichimec included a range of adaptations from nomadic hunter and gatherer to agriculturalist, and encompassed speakers of Otomi, Nawatl, Pame and other languages (Viramontes 2000:33–48), many of whom shared in Mesoamerican practices to varying degrees. On the other hand, Hill’s (2001) argument that Southern Yuta-Nawan speakers were agriculturalists from northwestern Mesoamerica does not automaticallydefaulttocentralMexico,muchlessTeotihuacan.Mexicowest of the valley of Toluca continues to be excised from discussions of Mesoamerican dynamics despite years of productive research (Beekman 2010).
...
Our more detailed recent research in the Mezquital region of southwestern Hidalgo (Beekman and Christensen 2011) found a spatial disjunction between the use of Nawatl and Otomi in Early Colonial period parish Registers (Christensen2002) that corresponds closely to an archaeological distinction in the Epiclassic separating those sites sharing in the Prado-Corral-Terminal Corral phase materials found around Tula from sites participating in the Xajay Regional Developments lightly further west. We proposet hataleapfrog migration probably following the Lerma River brought Nawatl speakers into the eastern Mezquital and the nature of the ensuing interethnic interaction led tovarying expressions in material culture.
If this is all true, how does it relate to the role ascribed by Kaufman and Justeson to Nawatl prior to the Epiclassic period?
...
For purposes of illustration, I will briefly consider the opposing position in relation to this reconstruction of Nawatl’s role in northern Mesoamerica. Dakin and Wichmann’s (2000) alternative interpretation argues for the occurrence of kakawa as a Nawa loan in dated Maya hieroglyphic texts by a.d. 400. As already pointed out, it is difficult to interpret the significance of such an isolated loan without a more comprehensive consideration of other potential loans in the same direction. Was the interaction represented by the one word actually that important? Or was it a fluke, as Dakin and Wichmann would apparently have to argue for sacatl “grass” or solotl “cork tree” (Dakin and Wichmann 2000:68)? Did Nawatl speakers in the Bajío already have some experience with cacao to the west, along the western Mexican coast? Did they carry out long distance trade in the service of central Mexican powers? Or, are all of us partly right and was Nawatl spoken in the Basin of Mexico at Cuicuilco? This center has long been cited as sharing links to Guanajua to during the Late Formative, and is often described in Opposition to the emergent Teotihuacan on the oppositeside of the Basin of Mexico. Was there a linguistic frontier running through the Basin, one that broke down with Cuicuilco’s volcanic destruction and the absorption of part of its population at Teotihuacan? Once again, the exceedingly narrow range of culture-historical interpretations considered by Dakin and Wichmann is evident.
...
The twin issuesof Teotihuacan’s languages and of Nawatl’s presence in Mesoamerica are far from resolved. I am puzzled over the seeming irrelevance of Otomi to the debate. I also wish the authors had addressed the claims of Macri (2005) and Looper (Macri and Looper 2003) for the presence of Nawatlwords in Maya inscriptions. All of the dated examples are from the seventh and eighth centuries, but Macri (2005) makes reference to two Maya vessels with three potentially Nawatl words modifying the term kakaw. This should pique our interest and demand close examination. Kaufman and Justeson (2007:Table 7, Section A.1.e) list the same phrases in their discussion of cacao vessels but consider the terms untranslated. Perhaps they could turn their critical eye to these cases.