1. Introduction
In this introductory chapter I introduce basic facts and background information on CoatlánLoxicha Zapotec (CLZ) and its speakers. Here the reader will find historical and ethnographic
information on the Southern Zapotec peoples, the linguistic classification of their languages, and
a geographic description of their location. Besides providing background information on the
language of this grammar, this chapter brings together the scant and often unpublished
information on the Southern Zapotecs that is so difficult to find in the linguistic, anthropological,
historical, and other literature. This chapter also contains information about the language contact
situation and features of the local Spanish.
1.1 What makes CLZ special
What makes any language special or “interesting” (such a loaded term in academic circles) is a
subjective question. What makes CLZ special to a linguist may vary wildly depending on whether
that linguist is a phonetician or syntactician, and what makes this or any language interesting to
any linguist may be completely different than what makes the language interesting to its speakers
or those for whom it is a heritage language. Since the vastness of language cannot be captured
and analyzed in its full entirety by any one person, even the most descriptive of linguistic
literature inevitably focuses on certain aspects of a language while neglecting to describe others.
Our interests as linguists of course determine which aspects of a language will be best
documented. This grammar is no different from any other in documenting some details but not
others. Before proceeding to discuss these “highlights” I would like to issue a challenge to all
linguists, myself included, to take more interest in the “lowlights.” The most mundane, seemingly
insignificant or boring details of a language are in fact interesting. Pick at random any one
insignificant, simple, common, grammatically unmarked word. Here is a fact: in CLZ to say ‘tree’
you say yà. What is interesting about this? There are no affixes, no allomorphy, no clitics
attached to this word. There are no consonant clusters. It is not a compound word, a loanword, a
fancy word of any kind. It is just a short ordinary word that people say all the time. But even this
word is fascinating if one chooses to see it that way. This word has low tone and ends in a
sonorant and therefore its vowel is lengthened and glottalization is added if the word is prepausal. That is interesting. Yà is used as a classifier in CLZ, occurring before hundreds of
morphemes for specific types of trees, trees whose parts are used as remedies, as tools, as sources
of entheogenic compounds. That is interesting. This word used to be yaga hundreds of years ago
and then it became yàg and now yà. That is interesting. The people who built Monte Albán knew
the earlier version of this word and who would disagree with the notion that they were very
interesting people? Perhaps some of those people were the ones who moved South and stayed in
the Coatlanes for all these centuries. Mixtecs came, Aztecs came, Spaniards came, and still today
people know the word yà. History is interesting and any insignificant word in any language is
significantly tied to its people’s history. In this section and in the remainder of this grammar I’ll
disclose a few of the things I find interesting about CLZ or that I think others will find interest in,
but on some level everything about this language is interesting and deserves to be recognized as
such.
Part of CLZ’s appeal has to do with extralinguistic factors. It is the language of a people who
in the past have been of political importance in Mexico and in Southern Oaxaca especially. It has
slowly been losing ground to Spanish, as decribed in 1.6. Today it is a dying, understudied, exotic
language. The intrigue and mystique of underdocumented dying languages is one thing that
makes this language captivating to linguist and non-linguist alike. For those who live in the CLZ
region, this is the language that their ancestors spoke for centuries. This language survived
conquest and invasion by speakers not just of Spanish but also of other Mesoamerican languages
for hundreds of years, only to finally yield to Spanish during the twentieth and twentifirst
centuries. The history and culture of this people is wrapped up in this language which so many
have preserved for so long. That makes this language of extreme value.
From a phonetic and phonological point of view this language has much to offer towards
bettering our knowledge of tone languages and their typology. So often linguists who undertake
work on tone languages decide to ignore tone in their work, even producing dictionaries without
tone marking, because it can be so hard to work with. In this grammar I describe interaction
between tone and segments, different registers that tones can be realized in, different kinds of
glottalization that are used in tone marking, and ways that tone and register are exploited for
morphological purposes. CLZ is one of several modern Zapotec languages which have undergone
deletion of all previously unstressed vowels. The way in which the language has scrunched from
a previously polysyllabic language into an overwhelmingly monosyllabic one, has no doubt
added to the complexity and functional load of the system of suprasegmental contrasts, especially
tone but also features such as nasalization and palatalization.
The phonology of this language is so interesting that it has taken years of my attention. The
syntax of this language is equally interesting although not as well described in this dissertation.
Morphosyntactic topics such as the derivational relationship between transitive and intransitive
verbs are better covered here than purely syntactic topics which are covered more briefly until a
future time. This is a head-marking language. Verbs are marked for TAM categories and may
take bound pronominal clitics for the subject and/or the direct object. Nouns are marked for
animacy and possession. Purely morphological topics covered in this grammar include verb
classification and stem-formation. Verbs with vowel-initial roots and stems undergo surface
vowel alternations in the inflectional (and to some extent derivational) paradigm. Verbs of a
particular class show consonant alternations with two or more distinct stems. Other verb classes
involve palatalization in certain forms.
One of the most interesting syntactic topics is the existence of an exotic inclusory construction
found only in Southern Zapotec languages and resembling constructions found in languages of
the Pacific such as Australian languages (see, for example, Blake, 1987). The syntax of this and
other Otomanguean languages in general is of interest since these languages are predominantly
VSO languages. This is a left-headed language. Verbs precede their arguments. Nouns precede
their modifiers. Most phrases that translate as prepositional phrases in Spanish and English are in
fact possessed noun phrases in CLZ but a few historical nouns have lost their original meanings
and might be considered emergent prepositions in modern CLZ. Quantifiers are verbs and can be
marked for some but not all inflectional categories that are marked on verbs in general. Noun
incorporation and the formation of different types of compound verbs are topics of interest.
Nouns representing humans, plants, animals, and other entities in the natural world are often
accompanied by classifiers.
While there have been some dramatic changes between Proto-Zapotec and CLZ, CLZ also has
some conservative phonological features within Southern Zapotec. For one, the earlier palatalized
voiceless stops (as in Benton, 1998 and Kaufman, 2003) are maintained in some instances and in
others are at least conserved as /t5/ whereas these have become /R/ and /c&/ in most other Zapotec
languages. Many other Southern Zapotec languages have changed these sounds further when
preceding front vowels, changes CLZ has not participated in. CLZ is also interesting for some of
its less conservative features. While most Zapotec languages have a contrast between two, three,
or more phonation types, separate from the tonal contrast, glottalization in CLZ has become a
tonal contrast itself. This language has much to offer our understanding of how tone languages
may change over time, especially in languages with extensive vowel deletion.
1.2 Language names
The names given to Zapotec languages by linguists are often cumbersome and I am compelled
to here justify my choice of the mouthful I have chosen to denote this language: Coatlán-Loxicha
Zapotec (CLZ). Let me start by reviewing the names which have been used by others to refer to
this language.
In CLZ the name of the language is di7zh ke7 [Di/s[ke/]. Di7zh means ‘palabra, idioma; word,
language’. Ke7 is not a morpheme that has been recorded in isolation in CLZ but it is found in the
town name of San Pablo Coatlán, Yêzh Yè Ke7 or sometimes just Yíke7. In the fuller version of the
toponym both of the other morphemes are analyzable. Yêzh means ‘pueblo; town’ and yè means
‘cerro; hill’. In the shorter name Yi may be a reduced form of the word yî ‘piedra; rock.’ So ke7
would seem to be a morpheme that refers specifically to San Pablo Coatlán.
San Pablo Coatlán is the cabecera or county seat of the Coatlanes and was also the ancient
capital of the principality of Quiegoqui (Espíndola, 1580), which is misidentified as Huihuogui in
several sources (Gutierrez, 1609; Gay, 1950; Rojas, 1958; and Brandomin, 1992) and referred to
as Guiotequi by Alcázar L. (2004). The Quiegoqui spelling makes more sense than the oft-cited
Huihuogui. Quie is cited by Córdova (1578) as meaning ‘piedra generalmente’ (‘rock in general’)
and is found in several place names of Zapotec origin: Quiegolani, Quiechapa, Quieguitani,
Quielovego and Quieri (Brandomin, 1992). In fact, although the form quie cited by Córdova is in
a Valley Zapotec language, all of the Quie-initial place names cited by Brandomin for the state of
Oaxaca are in the Southern Zapotec area, though he gives similarly glossed place names
beginning in a voiced consonant in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: Guevea, Guiedo, Guienagati, and
Guiengola.
The form Huihuogui is strange for several reasons. First of all the orthographic sequence
<huo> is unusual. It is possible that the tendency for g to surface as /ƒw/ or even just /w/ before
back rounded vowels in some SZ languages, e.g. SAL, is responsible for the <huo> syllable but it
is more likely that this is a copying error. Secondly, of all the Oaxacan place names given by
Brandomin, the only <hui>-initial ones are Aztec in origin, not Zapotec. The translation given for
Huihuogui is ‘río de los señores; river of the lords’ (Gutiérrez, 1609; and cited by Gay, 1950;
Rojas, 1958; Alcázar López, 2004). ‘Señor; lord’ is given as coqui by Córdova (1578). The
voicing difference between coqui and goqui is not unexpected since we know that lenis
consonants underwent voicing during this period in most Zapotec languages.1
Strangely, both the sixteenth and seventeenth century relación writers are clearly deficient in
their understanding of Zapotec, yet they each give us valuable pieces of the etymological puzzle
which can then be put together. Espíndola (1580) gives us the correct Zapotec name but not the
correct translation. While sometimes Nahua place names were translations of Zapotec ones,
Espíndola assumes too often that this is the case. In (1580) he says that Coatlán in Zapotec “is
called Quiegoqui, which in the Mexican language (Nahuatl) means Coatlan and in ours ‘Sierra de
Culebras (hill or mountain range of snakes---this and the rest of the sentence are my
translation).’” While his Spanish term correctly translates the better-known Nahuatl, it has
nothing to do with the meaning of the Zapotec name. On the other hand, Gutiérrez (1609) gives
an altered Zapotec term which can’t be quite right, but the correct translation.
/ko/, or in modern times go, is one of two animacy prefixes which are added to many words
referring to humans, animals and supernaturals (see Marcus & Flannery, 1978). Prefixes are pretonic in Zapotec and their vowels are lost in SZ languages. The co of Córdova’s coqui was
unstressed and therefore a prefix we would expect to reduce or delete in SZ languages. In SZ
languages animacy prefixes have undergone prenasalization, with *ko- often reflecting as ngw-.
However, animacy prefixes are often further reduced or deleted in toponyms (e.g. compare
mbéwnè ‘scorpion’ to Béwnè ‘Santa María Colotepec.’). If the co of coqui did not survive into
modern CLZ, or if it suffered vowel deletion rendering an initial cluster that would reflect as a
fortis consonant, the form we would expect would be ki, a syllable which is awfully similar to the
ke7 morpheme in the CLZ name of San Pablo Coatlán and of CLZ itself. There are plentiful
1
Evidence that Zapotec lenis obstruents changed from voiceless to voiced in the post-contact period comes
in the form of Spanish loanwords. Spanish voiceless consonants were borrowed as lenis consonants and
subsequently underwent voicing the same as lenis consonants in native words. For example, Operstein
examples of an i~e alternation in the same words between different dialects of CLZ and
glottalization may not have been written in these colonial sources anyway. Thus, di7zh ke7 could
be translated as ‘palabra o lengua de los señores; word or language of the lords.’
Other Zapotec languages also use their cognates of the di7zh morpheme in the names for their
languages, but rather than each language having some toponymic morpheme to refer to the
geographic location of the speech community many languages instead have a different morpheme
which is cognate among them and could be translated as ‘Zapotec.’ This morpheme has been
reconstructed as *sä by Kaufman (2003) for Proto-Zapotec (PZ) and has reflexes such as those
seen in the following words different Zapotec languages have to name themselves: Isthmus
Zapotec didxazá (Picket et al., 1959), San Agustín Mixtepec Zapotec dí7is tQ`, Cuixtla (aka
Miahuatlán) Zapotec dí7stè7, Santo Domingo de Morelos (same language as San Agustín
Loxicha) Zapotec [Di/is tey], Mitla Zapotec didxsaj (Stubblefield & Stubblefield, 1991), San
Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec (SLQZ) Dìi’zh Sah (Munro and López et al., 1999).
Another Zapotec language without the ‘Zapotec’ morpheme in its name is Zoogocho Zapotec
or diz&a’xon. The xon morpheme is glossed by Long C. and Cruz M. (1999) as ‘casera’
(homestyle) and is also recorded alone and in the word rmed xon ‘medicina casera; home
remedy.’ However, the dictionary made by Zanhe Xbab Sa (1995) defines xhon as referring to the
Zapotec people that inhabit the Cajonos region (presumably cognate with the Spanish stressed
syllable in Cajonos. Both meanings are probably related.
Some Zapotec dictionaries (e.g. Nellis & Nellis, 1983) only list the word for ‘word, language’
without any further morpheme and in fact Nellis & Nellis give an example sentence which would
translate into English as ‘our language is the language that Benito Juárez spoke’, which is
possibly the closest thing to naming Sierra Juárez Zapotec (SJZ) as opposed to other varieties of
Zapotec.
(2004) cites the Spanish loan in ZZ vaca Æ bag. CLZ and ZZ (Operstein, 2004) both have bay for Spanish
In some Zapotec languages the morpheme for ‘language’ is part of the ethnonym as well so
that one doesn’t just refer to ‘Zapotec people’ but rather must refer to them as ‘people of the
Zapotec word/language.’ For example, in SLQZ a Zapotec person is bùunny Dìi’zh Sah (Munro
and López et al., 1999) and in Santo Domingo de Morelos ‘gente zapoteco; Zapotec people’ are
[s[a/ Di/iz te&y].
The first name used to refer specifically to this language in a European tongue was coateco
which is mentioned in the Relaciones Geográficas (Feria y Carmona, 1777) and has also been
used more recently by Smith Stark (2003). Other names used in English and Spanish to refer to
this language are those used by the SIL and listed in the Ethnologue. The main publication on this
language before my association with it was Dow Robinson’s Field Notes on Coatlan Zapotec.
The name used in Robinson’s title is how this language was often referred to in the literature (e.g.
Fernández de Miranda, 1965; Benton, 1988; Rendón, 1995), mostly historical work in which
Robinson’s data was used along with other languages to reconstruct Proto-Zapotec. The
Ethnologue lists the following alternate names: Western Miahuatlán Zapoteco, Santa María
Coatlán Zapoteco, Coatlán Zapotec(o), and San Miguel Zapoteco.
The Nahuatl name Coatlán means ‘sierra de culebra, lugar de culebra; snake hill, place of
snake(s)’ because of the steepness of the surrounding mountain range (Espíndola, 1580) or
because of the great quantity of snakes that existed in San Pablo Coatlán (Gutiérrez, 1609).
The name Zapotec comes from Nahuatl tzapotécatl ‘Zapote people’ (Paddock, 1970). The
zapote is a class of fruit that comes in many colors, including black, and which is common in
Oaxaca.
The name I use for this language in English and Spanish ‘Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec’ or
‘zapoteco de Coatlán y Loxicha’ has an additional word compared to the earlier name in the
linguistic literature, which I will now justify.
‘pañuelo.’
The Ethnologue actually counts this language as two languages. The language of the Coatlanes
(except San Vicente Coatlán) is there given the official code of [ZPS] and the names already
given above. The Loxicha dialect(s) of CLZ are in the Ethnologue given the language code of
[ZPX] and the official name of Northwestern Pochutla Zapoteco or the alternate names of San
Baltázar (sic) Loxicha Zapoteco and Loxicha Zapotec. Despite the Ethnologue’s categorization of
CLZ as two distinct languages with intelligibility test scores of only 71% (Loxicha’s
“intelligibility with Santa María Coatlán”) and 54% (Coatlán’s “intelligibility of Loxicha”), these
are in fact dialects of the same language with the highest degree of mutual intelligibility. I have
participated in and witnessed conversations between people from the various towns and they had
no more or perhaps even less difficulty communicating with each other than I would with
someone who speaks a different dialect of English than my own.
Since the towns which speak CLZ today have the apellido2 of either Loxicha or Coatlán, the
name Coatlán Zapotec, or likewise the name Loxicha Zapotec, would only give fair
representation to part of the speech community. Either of these names would also cause confusion
because there are two or three other languages3 in this region which are spoken in towns with the
apellidos Coatlán and Loxicha. CLZ is the only language which is spoken in some towns with
each apellido so the use of both Coatlán and Loxicha in the compound name should indicate the
appropriate language and exclude the other nearby languages with similar names.
2
In many parts of Mexico and especially in Oaxaca, towns have compound names. A typical formula is the
name of the patron saint of the town followed by an indigenous toponym. The indigenous toponym
sometimes comes from the local indigenous language and other times comes from some other indigenous
language of Mexico which was used administratively in colonial times, usually Nahuatl. The indigenous
name, because it occurs last and because it follows a saint’s name which is also a Spanish given name for
people, is referred to as the apellido which is the Spanish term for a surname.
3
The language spoken in San Vicente Coatlán was probably once part of a dialect continuum with CLZ but
Zapotec is no longer spoken in the intermediate towns so the continuum has severed these into two separate
languages. A Miahuatec language is spoken in San Agustín Loxicha and several other towns near and on
the Pacific coast, including some with the Loxicha apellido, e.g. Candelaria Loxicha, Quelové Loxicha.
The variety of Zapotec spoken in the town of San Bartolomé Loxicha may be a third language or it may be
a dialect of the language spoken in San Agustín Loxicha. Speakers from various towns which speak the
latter language claim to not be able to understand speakers from San Bartolomé Loxicha, but speakers from
San Bartolomé Loxicha say that in fact they can understand speakers from those same other towns just fine.
Loxicha is a bimorphemic word of entirely Zapotec origin. Lo- is found on place names in the
SZ and NZ areas. According to Brandomin (1992) it comes from the Zapotec loho ‘lugar’
(‘place’). This is probably the word for ‘face’ which is ndô in CLZ but lo in related languages
such as SAMZ. This word is also used like a preposition meaning ‘to, towards, facing, at’ and is
commonly used to express location. Brandomin gives the xicha morpheme the meaning of ‘piña’
(‘pineapple’). However, in CLZ the tone does not quite match. In CLZ the name of San Baltazar
Loxicha is Yêzh Xi&zh and its people are me& Lxi&zh. The word for pineapple is bxi7zh. An equally
good candidate as ‘pineapple’ is ‘tejón; coatimundi’ mxi7zh. Both of these last two words have
glottal tone in CLZ while the toponym has low tone. This does not rule them out though because
there are some related words which differ by these two tones. Another possibility is that the town
is named after a flower. Ortega (1777) in his relación of Santiago Lapaguía, mentions a flowering
tree with fragrant white flowers which he calls plurifundio in Spanish. He writes, “in the Zapotec
language they name them luxicha” (my translation). This tree is also found in SBL where in
Spanish it is called florifunda or the more standard florifundio and in Zapotec me& yi7 which
translates as ‘señor flor; Mr. flower.’ This flower is very fragrant and is also an entheogen (Ott,
2004). Thus, if this is the correct etymology, the town’s name could either refer to the existence
of this plant in SBL (which would hardly be a feature unique to this town, though perhaps there
was a tree on a particularly important spot there) or, hypothetically, the name could refer to the
use of this plant by shamans in SBL. I have not heard reports of me& yi7 being used in this way in
SBL but the use of a higher animate classifier me& in the name suggests knowledge of its
entheogenic properties.
In Spanish when one simply says Loxicha without a saint’s name, one means ‘San Agustín
Loxicha.’ Today that town is the Loxicha, though SBL’s Zapotec name would seem to indicate
that it could be the real Loxicha. Not all towns named Loxicha have a similar word in their
In fact there are linguistic differences which make the variety spoken in San Bartolomé more distinct but it
Zapotec name. For example, Santa Catarina Loxicha is simply Sántlín, and San Bartolomé
Loxicha is Yíxìl. However the name of San Agustín Loxicha is somewhat similar, Xi&tz. The zh
phoneme of CLZ corresponds to the Valley Zapotec phoneme ch that is represented in the
spelling of most official Zapotec place names in Spanish. The CLZ phoneme tz instead
corresponds to /s(s)/ as in ‘agua; water’ CLZ nîtz ~ CVZ nìça, the latter of which is sometimes
written as nisa or niza, as in an early name for Miahuatlán, Pelopeniza (see the etymology given
by Brandomin, 1992). If the xi&tz morpheme isn’t actually some other morpheme, it is a variant
pronunciation of the morpheme in Loxicha. Notably, while zh is the CLZ sound which
corresponds to the Valley Zapotec ch which is fossilized in the official spelling and thus the
spoken Spanish, the tz sound in the Xi&tz morpheme is phonetically more similar to the ch of the
Spanish pronunciation (though CLZ ch would be even more similar). It is as if both towns have
the same name but in CLZ one is said in a more CLZ way and the other is said in a way as to
mimick non-CLZ speakers, outsiders to the region, which the residents of SAL historically were.
Since Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec is too long to say repeatedly in English, and using the initials
CLZ often feels awkward, I have sometimes considered simply using the Zapotec name di7zh ke7.
In a funny conversation with Enrique Palancar Vizcaya at WAIL in 2003 we discussed how this
name could be adapted to English orthography as Theesh Kay. With that spelling the name didn’t
seem so authentic and to authentically use Di7zh Ke7 in English or Spanish would really be
codeswitching. In addition, if I only used the Zapotec name it would not be apparent to many
scholars that this grammar or other published work on this language was actually on a language
related to all the other languages called Zapotec. Thus, for better or worse Coatlán-Loxicha
Zapotec (CLZ) or in Spanish el zapoteco de Coatlán y Loxicha (ZCL) is the name I have chosen
to use in my work on this language.
is still very similar to what is spoken in San Agustín Loxicha and elsewhere.
1.3 Linguistic affiliation
Zapotec languages are Otomanguean languages. The Otomanguean stock is thought to be
roughly 6000 years old (Kaufman, 2004). It stretches from San Luis Potosí in the North to Costa
Rica in the South. Otomanguean languages are overwhelmingly tonal and are known for their
VSO syntax. Zapotecan languages are Eastern Otomanguean languages most closely related to
Mazatecan. The Chatino languages are the closest relatives of the Zapotec languages proper and
together these two language groups comprise the Zapotecan family.
Figure 1: Otomanguean language groups (based on Kaufman, 2004)
Chatino
Zapotec
Popolocan-Chocho
Ixcatec
Mazatec
Mixtec
Cuicatec
Trique
Amuzgo
Chorotega
Chiapanec
Subtiaba-Tlapanec
Chinantec
Otomí
Mazahua
Matlatzinca-Tlahuica
Pame
Chichimec
Otomanguean
Western Otomanguean
Eastern Otomanguean
Oto-PameanTlapanecanAmuzgoMazatecan-Zapotecan
Chinantecan
Chorotegan
Mixtecan
Oto-Pamean
Chorotegan
Mixtecan
Mazatecan
Zapotecan
North Southern
M-C
Chochoan
O-M
The most recent division of Zapotec is Smith Stark’s (2003) epic work and humbly titled
“algunas isoglosas zapotecas” (some Zapotec isoglosses). Besides giving his own classification of
all varieties of Zapotec for which there are data, Smith Stark gives an exhaustive review of all
previously existing classifications. Earlier classifications include those of Radin (1925), Angulo
& Freeland (1934), Swadesh (1947), Fernández de Miranda (1965), Rendón (1967, 1975), and
Suárez (1977). The reader is encouraged to consult this fine work for information on other
classifications.
Estimates of how many distinct languages Zapotec comprises are difficult to make due to lack
of data, dialect continua, multilingualism, and the inherent difficulty of quantifying how much
two people understand each other and deciding just how much they have to understand each other
in order to say that they speak the same language. Lay people occaisionally refer to Zapotec as
one language (or worse, dialecto) but in truth it is no more a single language than is Chinese or
Romance. Estimates go from 5-10 languages (Kaufman, 2004) all the way up to 58 (Ethnologue).
Judging from the information given by Smith Stark (2003) and my own personal field experience
with many Zapotec languages, SZ languages alone must number between ten and the mid-upper
teens.
According to Smith Stark (2003), SZ languages are characterized by having an initial /m/ or
/mb/ where other Zapotec languages have /b/ in animal words and other words marked with an
animacy prefix. “Extended Coatec” languages (CLZ, SVC, Coatecas Altas and Amatec) share the
innovation of *ss > /ts/. Miahuatec languages differ from other SZ languages by the occlusion of
*ss > /t/ and *s > /d/ (though here /d/ probably means [D]). Cisyautepecan languages have an
animacy prefix m- where other SZ languages have mb-. Tlacolulita Zapotec is a very interesting,
nearly extinct and undocumented language which deserves immediate further study. It has
affinities both with Central Zapotec and with Southern Zapotec. Smith Stark cites the examples of
mba’ako’ ‘perro; dog’ and nis ‘agua; water’ to show that this language has nasal animacy
marking (making it an SZ language) with the prefix mb- (making it not Cisyautepecan), and a /s/
reflex of *ss (making it neither Coatec nor Miahuatec). This language is geographically not
distant from CZ and Cisyautepecan languages and is right on the border with Chontal
(Tequistlatec).
Another subgroup of one of the major branches of Zapotec is Transyautepecan. This group
includes four languages. Quiavicuzas or Northeastern Yautepec Zapotec is spoken in several
localities including one called Corral de Piedra (a place name that occurs frequently in the Sierra
Sur, both to the East and West of CLZ, as well as in SMigC, see 1.5). The other three languages
are Northwest Tehauantepec (aka Lachiguiri) Zapotec, Petapa Zapotec and Northeast
Tehuantepec Zapotec which is spoken in Guevea de Humboldt and other towns. Transyautepecan
languages were grouped with other Southern Zapotec languages in an earlier version of (Smith
Stark, 2003) but were put under Central Zapotec in the final version. These languages are
geographically found between the Southern Zapotec and Isthmus Zapotec areas and are in close
proximity to Mixe. In fact there is intermarriage and multilingualism in this area where people
may speak Zapotec, Spanish and Mixe. Transyautepecan languages have similarities with both SZ
and CZ languages. One affinity shared with SZ is nasal-initial animal words.
Smith Stark puts CLZ and its closest relative SVC together with the Zapotec languages spoken
in Coatecas Altas and Amatlán, with all these being separate from the neighboring Miahuatec
languages which include the language spoken in Cuixtla and Xitla near the Coatlanes, the
language spoken in the other Loxichas to the South of SBL and SCL, as well as other languages
to the East of CLZ such as SAMZ. Going by some historical sources, one might expect that
Miahuatec languages would be more closely related to CLZ than Amatlán Zapotec since
Miahuatlán was purportedly founded by emigrants from Coatlán while Amatlán was supposed to
be founded in the same year as Coatlán by a separate party also leaving from the Valley.
In my own study of coronal sounds in Zapotec (based on data from personal fieldwork and
from Angulo, 1935; Benton, 1988; Black, 1994; Hopkins, 1995; Marks, 1980; Olive, 1995; Piper,
1995; Rendón, 1967, 1971, and 1975; Ruegsegger, 1956; and Ward, 1987) I have found that in
some instances Miahuatec and Coatec do appear to be more closely related. Looking at reflexes
of PZ *tt Miahuatec languages pattern with CLZ and SVC in having fricative reflexes while
Coatecas Altas and Amatec pattern with Cisyautepecan in conserving /t/. The lenis counterpart of
*tt is *t and there are three types of reflexes for this phoneme. Cisyautepcan languages have a
stop reflex /d/, Miahuatec languages pattern with CLZ and SVC and also Coatecas Altas in
having fricative reflexes, while Amatec is somewhere in between, having a /d/ reflex in word-
initial position and an affricate [dD] reflex word-finally. The reflexes of *ty and *tty set SVC and
CLZ apart from all the other SZ languages. CLZ and SVC maintain stops while the other
languages have sibilants, affricates, and a flap. I view the Miahuatec-Coatec change from dental
stops *tt, *t to fricatives T, D as the shared beginning of a chain shift. This was a drag chain
which pulled different segments from each of the two branches into the dental stop gap created by
the original shared change. Once the PZ dental stops had changed to fricatives in both Miahuatec
and Coatec, in Coatec the palatalized stops *ty and *tty became plain dentals while in Miahuatec
languages the fricatives *ss and *s moved into this slot. Thus, between my study and Smith
Stark’s the indications are mixed as to the relationship between Coatecas Altas, Miahuatec,
Coatec, and Amatec but the indications are clear that all of these are distinct from Cisyautepecan
and Tlacolulita within SZ.
In Figure 2 I show CLZ within Smith’s classification. All English labels are my translation.
Figure 2: CLZ in Smith Stark (2003)’s classification
Zapotec
Soltec (extinct)
WZ
Core Zapotec
Papabuco
Extended Coatec
Coatecas Altas
Coatec
CLZ
Miahuatec
Amatec
SVC
SZ
CZ
Cisyautepecan
NZ
Tlacolulita
1.4 Geographic location
Once spoken in perhaps as many as 33 settlements, CLZ is today spoken in seven towns and
their subsidiary ranches. Since 1996 I have worked with speakers from four of these: San Miguel
and Santa María Coatlán and San Baltazar and Santa Catarina Loxicha. I have heard different
accounts from different people in different years but in 2004 I am told that there are still a few
speakers in San Sebastián, Santo Domingo and San Jerónimo Coatlán, according to monolingual
Spanish speakers (and one semi-speaker) from these towns whom I met in Miahuatlán. The
Coatlanes lie in the western part of the ex-district of Miahuatlán while the Loxichas are to the
south of these in the ex-district of Pochutla. CLZ’s closest relative is the Zapotec language
spoken in San Vicente Coatlán in the ex-district of Ejutla, to the north of Miahuatlán.
The town of Santa María Colotepec near the coast was probably originally a CLZ-speaking
town (based on toponymic evidence discussed below). According to the 2000 census there are
more than 1200 residents over the age of 5 who speak “Zapotec” or “Southern Zapotec” here.
However, according to LDP this is a town whose population includes a large number of Southern
Zapotec immigrants from other towns. The land is good for growing corn and since it is near the
tourist spot of Puerto Escondido there is money to be made. LDP has had many Zapotec
conversations with people in SMCo but he says that this town does not have its own language, be
it CLZ or another. Rather, he says that people come from other towns, bringing their languages
with them. They continue to use these languages at home, in the family, even teaching them to
their children, but using Spanish to communicate with the rest of the townspeople. LDP says that
there are people here who speak several different Miahuatec languages, who speak SVCZ, and
who speak each of the dialects of CLZ. Thus, it might be said that there is an immigrant speech
community here, but that CLZ is no longer the language of SMCo.
Figure 3: CLZ and its closest relative today
CLZ territory is in the westernmost part of the SZ area which dominates the Southern Sierra
Madre region of the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. To the Southwest of CLZ lies the Chatino region, to
the Northwest the Papabuco and Western Zapotec areas. Beyond these languages to the West are
Mixtec languages, which historically had contact with CLZ in the years leading up to the Spanish
conquest, when Mixtecs occupied Miahuatlán (Brockington, 1973). To the Southeast was the
unique Pochutec Nahua language which became extinct in the early twentieth century. Beyond
Pochutla along the coast and then upward lies the Chontal-speaking region. Due East from CLZspeaking towns are found the various Miahuatec languages. North from CLZ is CLZ’s closest
relative, SVC, beyond SVC is Coatecas Altas, the northernmost of the SZ languages, and then the
Valley Zapotec languages beginning in northern Ejutla and Ocotlán.
Figure 4: CLZ and its linguistic neighbors
The northern part of the CLZ area is a cold climate pine forest, while the southernmost CLZspeaking towns, though still in the mountains, are closer to the cost, where the cold pine forest
gives way to banana trees and palms.There are streams and, famously in Santa María Coatlán,
caves. In one relación (Espíndola, 1580) it was said that the cave in SMaC stretches on for 200
leagues into Chiapas!
SBL is five hours from Miahuatlán by bus on a mostly dirt road. It is closer to Puerto
Escondido but until 2004 travelers and vehicles had to cross a river without a bridge and during
the rainy season the town’s bus could not always pass. This is a beautiful and relatively isolated
part of the state of Oaxaca, which has the highest degree of biological endemism in Mexico (de
Ávila, 2004). The new bridge was built as part of the construction of a toll freeway which will
link Miahuatlán to Puerto Escondido. This road will bring change to the linguistic and biological
environment of the CLZ-speaking region. Historically people from SBL and SCL more often
made the long trip to Miahuatlán because that is where they went historically, had a passable road
to, and where they once had political ties, a long time ago. Even after becoming part of Pochutla
the ties to Miahuatlán, culturally and economically, were stronger than those to Pochutla. Now it
will be quicker and easier to go to Puerto Escondido. Tourism will have a greater affect on the
local economy. There will be more contact with the outside and with foreigners. CLZ will
probably be dead in the Coatlanes before significant cultural changes take place, but had it
survived, this road would likely mean further divergence of the Coatlán and Loxicha dialects of
CLZ. The weekly trip to market in Miahuatlán brought a high level of contact between speakers
of the various CLZ dialects, and with Miahuatec languages. Trips to Puerto Escondido bring more
contact with speakers of SALZ (& SBarL), with Chatino and Mixtec, but mostly with Spanish
speakers, and Italian speakers and English speakers...
Figure 5: CLZ in Oaxaca and Mexico
1.5 Historical background of the Southern Zapotec region
In this section I integrate information from colonial relaciones and the interpretations of
modern historians and archaeologists to paint a picture of how the Southern Zapotecs came to
inhabit the region they do today, what other groups significantly influenced them once there,
including through war and invasion, and what other significant political and economic activities
took place in the region in earlier times. Many if not all of the historical sources contain flaws.
They conflict with each other on some points, and often contain information that is obviously
inaccurate. Nevertheless, I aim to include all relevant information from the different accounts
available.
1.5.1
Settlement and expansion
Historical sources differ to some extent as to the date by which Zapotecs first settled in the
Sierra Madre del Sur, and all of the earlier sources put the dates later than the archaeology
suggests. There is also some difference of opinion as to which sites were settled first. In the most
recent publication Alcázar López (2004) favors his home town of Miahuatlán, even suggesting
that Coatlán was founded later by people originating in Miahuatlán. The earlier authority on
Miahuatlán was Basilio Rojas (1958), who suggested that this relationship was the other way
around.
Most of the Southern Zapotec region remains unexplored by archaeologists. Sites are known
to exist in the Coatlanes and near San Juan Mixtepec, which have not yet been excavated or
otherwise studied. However, sites in and around Miahuatlán de Porfirio Díaz have been studied
by Donald Brockington (1973). Archaeologists who work in Oaxaca usually refer to stages called
Monte Albán I-V (here abbreviated MA1-5). MA 1 and 2, 400-100BCE and 100BCE-200CE
respectively, fall into the more general Mesoamerican “Preclassic” era. MA3 200-900CE
corresponds to the general Classic era of Mesoamerica, while MA 4 and 5 are Postclassic. The
archaeological evidence suggests that Zapotecs moved into the Miahuatlán area during MA2.
Brockington (1973) found an abundance of MA2 and later Zapotec pottery but very little MA1
pottery. The older MA1 pottery that was found could have been brought from the Valley during
the MA2 period. The abundance of MA2 pottery though establishes that there were Zapotecs in
the vicinity of Miahuatlán by the MA2 period.
By Marcus (2003)’s interpretation there is also epigraphic evidence of a MA2 Zapotec
presence in what is now the Southern Zapotec area. The Aztec Codex Mendoza lists towns that
paid tribute to the Aztecs. This codex uses Aztec pictograms to indicate the place names of the
tribute payers and the items that were paid, and has captions in Spanish (to let the new empire
know what the old empire had coming in). There are eleven Aztec pictograms that refer to place
names in in the “tributary provice of Coyolapan (now Cuilapan)” which covered the Zapotec area
in Oaxaca. Of these, four resemble Zapotec glyphs found on an MA2 building known as building
J, at Monte Albán. While the Aztecs often had different names than the Zapotecs for the same
places, other times the Aztec names were Nahuatl translations of the Zapotec names. Of these
four glyphs Aztec glyphs, two refer to the SZ towns of Miahuatlán (or in the Codex Mendoza
“Miahuapan”) and Ozolotepec (or Ocelotepec). If these glyphs do refer to the same places as the
Zapotec glyphs found at building J, this is evidence of a Zapotec presence in the South during
period MA2. Marcus believes that the slabs at building J refer to frontier towns, much as similar
place glyphs were used in the Lienzo de Guevea to represent the frontiers of Guevea’s land.
Many of these slabs have upside down heads which Caso (1947) first suggested were the images
of slain rulers of the conquered towns refered to with the accompanying place glyphs. The
unusual shape of building J, the shape of an arrowhead, further suggests that the slabs may record
information about conquests. Not all of the place glyphs have upside down heads, though. In the
case of Miahuatlán, Alcázar López (2004) argues that this is evidence of a peaceful settlement
rather than a hostile invasion.
Historical sources give legendary accounts of the founding of the four major SZ lordships, and
later dates than the archaeology suggests. Coatlán, or Quiegoqui, was purportedly founded in the
year 801 CE (Rojas, 1958) by a party led by Meneyadela, as depicted on a painted manuscript
(Gutiérrez, 1609) sometimes referred to as the lienzo de Coatlán.The founding party came from
the North. One account puts their starting place at New Mexico (Guttiérrez, 1609) while others
put the original homeland a bit closer at the Zapotec city of Zaachila (Martínez Gracida, 1884;
Rojas, 1950; Alcázar L. & Carballido S., 1999). Zaachila was the major Zapotec city at the time
of the conquest and would be familiar to earlier historians. Alcázar López (2004) suggests that the
homeland could have been Monte Albán based on the MA2 style pottery found in Miahuatlán, but
this style of pottery was found at other Zapotec sites during this time as well. Having come from
the North, heading South ever closer to the Pacific, there is linguistic evidence of this Southfacing orientation. Ocotlán, which lies to the North, about two thirds of the way to Oaxaca from
Miahuatlán, is known in CLZ as Làt Tzo7 which is literally ‘the back’s plain,’ làt meaning ‘llano
o valle; plain or valley’ and tzo7 meaning ‘espalda o atrás; back or behind’.
According to (Martínez Gracida, 1884; Rojas, 1950; Alcázar L. & Carballido S., 1999) 801CE
was also the year that another party led by Cosichaguela (Gutiérrez, 1609), later miscopied as
Cochicahuala (Martínez Gracida, 1884; and from him copied by at least Rojas, 1958; Alcázar
López, 2004 and others), whose name is said to mean in Zapotec ‘he who fights at night’ (cf.
Córdova, 1578: ‘noche’ quèela, 1. guèela), settled in Amatlán, whose Zapotec name is recorded
as Quetila (Espíndola, 1580) and Quiatila ‘land of battles or dissention’ (Gutiérrez, 1609),
suggesting that previous inhabitants were violently disturbed there. However, the relación writers
for this region, Espíndola (1580), Gutiérrez (1609), frequently give evidence of their lack of
knowledge of Zapotec with mistranslations. Their translations of Nahuatl terms are more reliable.
The Zapotec name of Amatlán does seem close to a term for battle given by Córdova, but missing
a la syllable. Córdova (1578) gives the following similar terms of interest: Pelea. Vide guerra.
Quelatilla, quelayè; Battalla o guerra Quelayè, guelatìlla, quelatichèlatilla. Gay (1950) asserts
that the invaders came by water in canoes from a then-watery Valley of Oaxaca, near Teotitlán.
He speculates that the defeated people were either Chatinos or Chontales. The latter possibility
seems more likely than the former based on today’s cultural geography but the Chatinos may
have lived farther North and East than they do today. Again though, if Gutiérrez’s translation is
the only indication of a military takeover, the evidence is weak.
The Nahuatl name Amatlán refers to the white houses that the Zapotec people lived in here
(Brandomin, 1992). Espíndola (1580) equates the Zapotec and Nahua names saying that “in
Zapotec it is called Quetila which in Mexican (Nahua) means ‘white paper’ because it sits on
some limestone hills of white rocks and from far away the whiteness is apparent” (my
translation). By Espíndola’s account of the name the quet sequence could be cognate with the
CLZ word for paper yìt but the ‘white’ morpheme is not obvious.
Amatlán, perhaps due to its separate founding (or not), still seems to stand a part a bit in the
view of some historians. Gutiérrez (1609) writes that this town spoke “polished” Valley Zapotec
while the other SZ towns spoke “corrupt” Zapotec. On the other hand, Gay (1950) asserts that
Amatlán was the “least advanced” community in the region.
In Coatlán Meneyadela’s male descendants continued to rule for twenty generations, until
1536, when the Spanish took possession. There were thus twenty-one Zapotec rulers of Coatlán
until the arrival of Cortés. If we assume there are three generations every hundred years this
would put Meneyadela’s arrival at around 836, close to the date of 801 given elsewhere.
Nevertheless, each ruler may have ruled for shorter or longer than 33 years. As already
mentioned, the archaeology puts the Southern Zapotecs in the region, at least at Miahuatlán,
much earlier. Thus, either Coatlán was not the first SZ town to be founded or it was founded
earlier than 20 generations before Cortés. The twenty-first ruler, who ruled upon the arrival of the
Spaniards, was a man who was baptized by the Spaniards with the name Fernando Cortés. At
least two of his descendants continued to be named rulers, but according to Gutiérrez they no
longer had financial prestige and little if any real control in comparison to the Spaniards.
Likewise in Amatlán there were 24 rulers beginning with Captain Cochicahuala until his
twenty-third male descendant, Fernando de la Bueba, who was the named ruler or cacique at the
time of Gutiérrez’s 1609 relación. At some previous time still in the memory of people who lived
in 1580 they had had a ruler named Colaça which is supposed to mean ‘far thing’ (Espíndola,
1580). This and other Zapotec names given in the relaciones are discussed in 1.6.3.
Many other Southern Zapotec communities are said to have been originally settled by people
from these first two colonies. According to Alcázar Lopez (2004), the Amatecs subsequently
extended to Quierí, Quioquitani, Quiechapa (Cisyautepecan towns according to Smith Stark,
2003) and Yautepec (a Miahuatec town by Smith Stark’s classification) where they pushed out
the previous Chontal occupants and built a wall to mark their limits. San Bartolo Yautepec is
known as ‘walled hill’ according to Alcázar. The Amatecs also dominated Danicahue or
Mixtepec (Alcázar López, 2004). “Mixtepec” in this case presumably means San Juan Mixtepec
though there are other Mixtepecs in the vicinity. Today the language of San Juan Mixtepec is
classified as Cisyautepecan while the language of San Agustín Mixtpec is classified as Miahuatec
by Smith Stark.
Sometime after the 801CE founding, as legend would have it, or approximately 2000 years
ago if combining legend with archaeology, a leader named Pichina Vedella set out from Coatlán
with a group of followers and founded Miahuatlán (Rojas, 1958). While Pichina Vedella is
mentioned in the relación of 1609 (Gutiérrez) as having been a king of Miahuatlán, he is not
mentioned as its founder, nor is it mentioned that he came from Coatlán. Unless such details are
mentioned in another source I am not familiar with, these are probably nineteenth century
embellishments by Martínez Gracida which have been propagated like others of his creation.
Thus, it is possible that Miahuatlán was founded first and that the SZ towns of Coatlán and
Amatlán may just have likely been founded from there as from anywhere else. Really, until more
archaeology is done we won’t know the true chronology of the settlement of these three key SZ
towns.
The Zapotec name of Miahuatlán in SZ languages today means ‘big or holy town,’ the CLZ
form being Yêzhdo7. Forms of this name given in the relaciones are Quechetao (Espíndola, 1580)
and Guecheto (Gutiérrez, 1609). Gutiérrez writes that “Montezuma’s captains gave it the
Mexican name which means ‘among the maize flowers’ and in Zapotec Pelopenisa” (my
translation). This would seem to indicate that Pelopenisa, a term now given by other historians as
the original and authentic Zapotec name, is a translation of the Nahua term and also means ‘maize
flower.’ But is it? The closest corn morpheme I know to one of these is CLZ nîz ‘mazorca’ which
refers to dried corn-on-the-cob still wrapped in its leaves but already removed from the stalk. This
could correspond to the nisa morpheme of Pelopenisa. However, others have offered other
interpretations. For example, Rojas (1958) refers to a translation given in the late nineteenth
century as ‘where our water source starts’ or ‘waterside town.’ Nisa is a word for ‘water’ in many
Zapotec languages which have maintained post-tonic vowels and in Colonial Valley Zapotec, the
CLZ cognate being nîtz. Either of these interpretations are strikes against Marcus’s analysis
which is used to date the Zapotec conquest of the Southern Sierra. Her analysis rests on the
Miahuapan and Ocelotepec glyphs from the Aztec Codex Mendoza referring to the same towns as
the much earlier Zapotec glyphs at Building J of Monte Albán. If the name Pelopenisa is just a
translation of a later Nahua name, there is no reason to think that this term existed during MA2.
On the other hand, if it does not have the same meaning as the Nahua name and actually referrs
more to water than to corn, then we also would not expect an MA2 period glyph to represent the
place name with corn tassels. However, this does not completely undo her analysis because of the
Ocelotepec place glyph which does seem to have the same meaning in Zapotec and Nahua.
Later Pichina Vedella’s death was used as a pretext to push South towards the Pacific. When
he died he had two sons and it was decided that the younger would stay and reign in Miahuatlán
while the elder set out to conquer what is now Ozolotepec. (earlier spelling Oçelotepec), or in
Zapotec Quiebeche (Espíndola, 1580) both meaning ‘hill of a fierce feline (puma, jaguar,
ocelot).’ At the time this was a Chontal lordship with some 70,000 subjects according to
Gutiérrez. Many Chontales were killed and most of the rest fled. 1000 Chontales stayed behind,
becoming vassals of the Zapotecs and paying tribute to the elder son of Pichina Vedella.4 This
passage has been interpreted by Martínez Gracida (and hence widely re-reported) that ofthe tens
of thousands of original inhabitants only 1000 were left alive, but my reading of the relación is
that this was the number of people who didn’t flee or be killed. Once victorious, the elder son of
Pichina Vedella and his 20,000 followers settled in what would now be known as Quiebeche.
According to Gutiérrez the third descendent of Pichina Vedella’s son was ruling when Cortés
arrived, and by now the population had grown to 30,000. According to Rojas (1958), also
founded by Miahuatecs were the towns of Río Hondo (Tetiquipa), San Juan and San Agustín
Mixtepec, and Santa Cruz Xitla. From these facts one might conclude that at least the languages
spoken in these towns are closely related. All of the languages of these towns reportedly founded
by Miahuatecos, excepting of San Juan Mixtepec (a Cisyautepecan language---and possibly
formerly governed by Amatecs), are considered Miahuatec languages by Smith Stark (2003).
The Southern Zapotecs continued to push towards the South until finally reaching the coast.
The kings of Amatlán, Coatlán, and Miahuatlán all contributed warriors, totalling 3,000, who
were put at the disposition of Biciagache (the leader of Ozolotepec??), who himself had another
1500 warriors, for the conquest of Huatulco and the seizure of coastal territory to the West away
from the Chontales (Martínez Gracida, 1883). This suggests some political cohesiveness present
in the region at an early time and one might imagine linguistic cohesiveness as well.
4
The orginal here may be open to slightly different interpretations so I repeat the relevant excerpt here:
La noticia que se tiene de la fundacion de Ocelotepeque es, que en Miguatlan vuo
antiguamente vn Rey llamado Pichina Vedella, que tuvo dos hijos, el mayor de los
quales, despues de muerto su padre, diuidio la gente que tenia y dio la mitad a su
hermano menor, y untamente le adjudico el puesto que de su padre avia heredado: y el
con la otra mitad paso a este Pueblo, donde hallo setenta mil yndios y un Señor que los
rregioa. Llamauanse estos indios los Chontales, porque hablan la lengua Chontalpa:
hizoles guerra el de Miguatlan y venciolos matando gran numero de ellos, y los demas no
se atreuieron a esperarle, y se pusieron en huida. Quedaron de los setenta mill Chontales
solos mill que se les dieron por vasallos y te pagauan tributo. Asento el de Miguatlan en
aquel puesto su genle, que fueron veinte mil vecinos. De este vuo tres decendientes hasta
la venida del Marques del Valle: aviendo entonces crecido el numero de los indios a
treinta mill. (Gutiérrez, 1609)
The dates reported for the conquest of Huatulco do not correspond well with the date of
801CE as a founding date for the first two SZ towns of Coatlán and Amatlán, nor with the late
date suggested for the conquest of Ozolotepec by the fact that there were only three rulers (four
counting the original) until Cortés showed up (this would put the conquest of Ozolotepec at
somewhere around 1380 give or take fifty years, by my reckoning). According to Martínez
Gracida, in 731CE the Chontals were conquered. This is to early to have involved the Ozolotepec
Zapotecs (whose territory intervened and should have been conquered first), if they really had
only been there three generations before Cortés. It is also too early if the founding SZ population
hadn’t arrived until 801CE but archaeology has already refuted that date. Martínez Gracida
(1883) writes that 300 Chontales were left dead on the Cerro de Huatulco, with 3000 more
fleeing in the directions of Quiegolani and Ecatepec. Alcázar López (2004) states that the towns
of Pochutla, Loxicha (which one is not made clear though today people usually mean San Agustín
when they say this, and in earlier times this may have meant San Baltazar), Colotepec and
Cozoaltepec were founded as a result of this Zapotec victory, pushing the SZ border closer to that
of the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec, with whom the SZ’s would have much future conflict.
Then as now Oaxaca was home to a high degree of ethnic diversity, which adds to the interest
of this land’s history. Though the SZ’s had conquered and now possessed Huatulco, by the time
of the colonial relaciones Huatulco and Tonameca were reportedly Nahua-speaking (Vargas, no
date). The Pochutec Nahuas may have moved in at some subsequent time. The SZ’s would have
much future conflict with the Tututepec Mixtecs to the West. Going by today’s locations, the
Chatinos would lie between the Zapotec and Mixtec lands but they are not mentioned in the
relaciones as having had conflicts with the Southern Zapotecs. According to Espíndola (1580) to
the East the Ozolotepecans had wars not just with the Chontales but also with the Mixes.
Another southward movement of Southern Zapotecs that is not reported to have involved
invasion of non-Zapotec territory involves the founding of San Agustín Loxicha. By Alcázar
López’s account this town might have been one founded in the wake of the conquest of Huatulco,
but according to http://www.laneta.apc.org/rio/loxicha/historia.htm, the first settlers came from
San Agustín Mixtepec in 16655, leaving because of a disagreement with townsfolk who stayed
behind. There were two statues of the town’s patron saint and the emigrants took the larger one
with them. They traveled until they found a hilltop spot where their corn seed sprouted
successfully and settled there, naming the town Loo-Mxhiiss ‘Lugar de los Tejones; Place of the
Coatimundis’ because there were so many there, which used to eat the corn at night. According to
the website the Spaniards later changed the name because they didn’t like the reference to the
pests and since the residents were planting pineapples they changed the name officially to
Loxicha, or in Zapotec Loo-xhiss ‘Lugar de las Piñas; Place of the Pineapples.’ This reflects the
same doubt that exists among town residents and etymologists alike about the meaning of the
Zapotec name of San Baltazar Loxicha. Since both ‘tejón; coatimundi’ and ‘piña; pineapple’ have
the same tone either is a possible etymology and in CLZ at least, if not in SALZ, the difference
cited by this website, of the animal prefix m-, should not make a difference because towns which
are named after animals typically do not take the prefix that the animal word itself takes (e.g.
mbéwnè ‘alacrán; scorpion’ vs. Béwnè ‘Sta. Ma. Colotepec; St. Mary Scorpion Hill’).
According to this website, it is said that after a century the authorities from San Agustín
Mixtepec came to get back their patron saint, leaving in its stead the smaller image, which
remains there to this day. Interestingly, in SAM the story is told differently. An elder from that
town who said he didn’t know about the founding relationship between the two towns told me
that he had heard how, coincidentally, both towns sent their saints out for repairs at the same
time. Since each town has the same patron saint, Agustine, the two were mixed up and each town
got back the other’s saint, which remain misplaced to this day. Ever since then, he said, the
population of SAL keeps growing and that town (and its language) is thriving while the
5
According to http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/oaxaca/municipios/20117a.htm, papers
exist for San Bartolomé Loxicha, a town whose people can understand the language of SAL, dating from at
least 1700 and some elders say that papers used to exist from as early as 1600.
population of SAM keeps getting smaller and smaller and losing land to its rivals. As of 2004
there is only one fluent Zapotec speaker left in San Agustín Mixtepec.
The aforementioned place name of SMCo is confirmation that the people of SAL are
newcomers in this region. While the CLZ place name is virtually the same as the CLZ word for
‘scorpion’ (the colotl in the Nahua name Colotepec also means ‘scorpion’), SAL and other
Miahuatec languages have another word for ‘scorpion’ based on the root xûb but have borrowed
the CLZ name for SMCo. In SALZ the name of this town is Bónè. Interestingly, while the
phonological form of this word is slightly different from the form used in SBL (the nearest CLZspeaking town to SMCo and SAL), it is identical to the form used in SMigC, suggesting that
before founding SAL the people, who then spoke the same language as the people of SAM, had
already borrowed a name for SMCo from the nearest CLZ speakers to SAM.
From the linguistic evidence, the emigrants from SAM have been more than successful in the
south. The language of SAL is spoken in several towns including Santo Domingo de Morelos, the
towns with the apellido Cozoaltepec on the Pacific coast, and in other Loxichas like Candelaria,
and smaller towns. One special town is San Bartolomé Loxicha, which sits right on the border
between CLZ and SALZ. The language spoken here is very similar to that of SALZ and its
speakers say that they can understand SALZ speakers with no problem. However, various SALZ
speakers from SDM and Cozoaltepec have told me that they cannot understand the language of
San Bartolomé. Some of the differences between SBarLZ and SALZ are affinities that the former
shares with both CLZ and other Miahuatec languages like SAM, notably the change which has
taken place in SALZ T > h / __Ø, has not taken place in SBarL. Proximity to SBL and SCL may
have had some influence on SBarL and also its conservatism may be due to its isolation from the
other SALZ-speaking towns since it is farther up in the mountains and away from the highway.
Figure 6: Founding of key Southern Zapotec towns beginning ca. 2000 years ago
The Zapotec expansion into areas previously occupied principally by Chontales and perhaps
also by Chatinos, is evidenced by a brusque change in pottery styles in neighboring regions.
Though Monte Albán’s military might may have been the original force that placed the Zapotecs
in Southern Oaxaca and other frontier areas, hundreds of years later, during the period of 500700CE the frontiers themselves were becoming more independent from the Central Zapotec rulers
(Alcázar López, 2004). In its heyday the Zapotec empire had, through the efforts of the early
Southern Zapotecs, extended all the way to the Pacific coast. The rulers in Monte Albán thus had
access to salt, fish, coral, shells, and other resources found only on the coast. This access may
have been achieved fairly early since MA2 pottery was found on the coastal site of Zipolite (De
Cicco and Brockington, 1956). Later the different frontier towns of this great society broke up
into regional city-states, each ruled by its own lord. With less centralized government these
regional centers became more vulnerable to invasion.
While by some accounts the founders of the earliest Southern Zapotec settlements had ties to
Zaachila and/or Monte Albán, by the time the region came under Mexica protection, the Southern
Zapotec region was made up of independent lordships or kingdoms which were not subject to
Zaachila (or anywhere else in the Valley), as were other Zapotec towns, e.g. to the north in the
Valley of Oaxaca. While in earlier times the major SZ towns cooperated in joint military effort
against, later there were wars between Coatlán, Miahuatlán, Amatlán, and Ozolotepec against
each other (Whitecotton, 1977).
While today Miahuatec is the most geographically widespread of the various subgroups of SZ
(see Figure 4 above), in earlier times CLZ, or at least the principality of Quiegoqui, clearly
dominated the region. Espíndola (1580) writes that it had 21 subject towns: Santa Maria, San
Bartolomé, Santiago, San Miguel, San Juan, San Francisco, San Bernardo, San Baltasar, Santa
Catalina6, Santa Ursula, Santa Marta, Santa Cruz, San Sebastián, San Martín, San Mateo, San
Lucas, Santana, San Cristobal, San Pedro, Santa Catalina and Santa Isabel. According to another
account (Anonymous---[most likely Juan de Corral, mid sixteenth century], 1609), its control
once spread past Puerto Escondido to include Manialtepec and San Pedro Mixtepec. By Colonial
times, according to this account, Coatlán had thirty-three estancias. Nahua names, not all of
which are recognizeable today are given for thirteen: Çacaystlauaca, Malinaltepeque (this would
be the lagoons along the coast north of Puerto Escondido) and Eitepeque, Coatepeque,
Oçumatepeque, Culutepeque (SMCo), Tepachotepeque and Çacastepeque, Acatlixco, Tlaisco,
Çayultepeque, Tlamacastepeque Temoxcalti, and Mistepetonogo.
Figure 7: Area once goverened by Quiegoqui
While it is possible that Coatlán governed some towns that spoke other languages, it is likely
that CLZ was once the most widely spoken language in in the area ruled by Quiegoqui, and thus
the most widely spoken in this region. It was the language of the most important SZ rulers, the
Language of the Lords, di7zh ke7. Not threatened by Mixtec, Nahua, Chontal, Chatino, or other
Zapotec languages, the language of the lords of Quiegoqui would only begin its decline when the
language of the lords of Castilla came to the region, and then only slowly over hundreds of years.
1.5.2 Invaders, hired thugs, and occupiers
Once established in the Southern Zapotec region, having pushed out Chontales and perhaps
others all the w ay to the Pacific, the Southern Zapotecs now had to defend this territory from
6
Note that Santa Catarina Loxicha was originally Santa Catalina. Besides the mention here in 1609 of a
Santa Catalina, the CLZ name for the town today is Sántlín, though this could also be due to the lack of r
in earlier forms of the language.
other invaders. Quetila (Amatlán) kept a military garrison at Yautepec and the ruins of
Quiegoqui’s garrison are today found in SMigC on one of the highest local sites, called the corral
de piedra ‘corral of rocks.’ The Mixtec relación of Huitzo7 states that it had wars with both
Coatlán and Miahuatlán. While there were conflicts with this Mixtec community far to the North
of Coatlán, even north of the city of Oaxaca, there was a more enduring conflict with the Mixtec
lordship of Tututepec, which was closer by, on the Pacific coast to the Southwest (Whitecotton,
1977).
The Tututepec Mixtecs conquered several SZ towns from which they subsequently collected
tribute. These included the town of Huatulco, the port of Huatulco, Pochutla, Tonameca,
Amoltepec, Teticpac (or Tetequipa, aka Río Hondo), and Cozauhtepec (today’s Cozoaltepec)
according to Woensdregt (1996). The lord of Tututepec would designate the local ruler as
governor and he would designate other local people to help him govern and to collect tribute to
pay to Tututepec. While the lord of Tututepec himself kept a tight reign on his own local Mixtec
lands, his dominance over foreign Zapotec lands was more of an economic relationship than
anything else.
These same Tututepec Mixtecs established a military base at Miahuatlán from which they
lauched operations against Valley Zapotec towns including Mitla (Brockington, 1973). The
Mixtecs took over the MA2 Zapotec site on a hill over looking the modern city. This site, where
Brockington did his work, which has been looted and covered over with graffitti, sits on a hill
overlooking the modern city. Locals know it as el Gueche or simply as el cerrito.
Though the Mixtec occupation was temporary, the Mixtecs apparently had some cultural
influence on the Southern Zapotecs. Archaeological evidence of Mixtec invasion at Miahuatlán as
well as at Zapotec sites in the Valley of Oaxaca includes a change in pottery style, from earlier
7
Huitzo lies approximately 110 kilometers to the Northwest of the city of Oaxaca. Both Zapotecs and
Mixtecs ruled this town at different times and during certain archaeological periods there were separate
Mixtec and Zapotec neighborhoods. At the time of the interaction with Coatlán, Huitzo was controlled by
Mixtecs.
Zapotec grey ware (found only in the Zapotec linguistic area) to red-on-cream ware which is
mostly found in the Mixtec linguistic area. While Valley Zapotec sites like Mitla later show a
renaissance of Zapotec style pottery and a rejection of Mixtec style pottery, in Miahuatlán Mixtec
style pottery does not disappear after its introduction during the MA4 period. While both styles of
pottery are found at Miahuatlán in the stratum that is supposed to be MA4 (900-1350CE), by
MA5 (1350-1521) the Mixtec style pottery is more popular than the native Zapotec style.
Though post-Classic attacks on the Southern Zapotecs may have come about partly because of
a perceived power vacuum as the Valley Zapotec control on the frontier regions lessened, there
were apparently still alliances between the South and the Valley. According to Alcázar López
(2004), one of the worst wars was in the ‘Land of Battles,’ Amatlán. Here the SZ’s attempted to
stop the advance of Casanoo, Mixtec king of Tututepec. The Zapotecs held up in the cave of
Guinas between Cerro Gordo, Cerro de San Luis and Cerro de Santo Domingo Amatlan. The
siege lasted for months until help finally came from Zaachila.
The subjects of Coatlán became a treasure trove of tribute for the Aztecs and later the
Spaniards. From the 14 Nahua-named towns mentioned above (Anonymous, 1609) there were
“9205 households and in each one an Indian married with his family. Each 80 days they give 202
pesos of powdered gold and 25 chickens and some honey.” Other Zapotec towns (Miahuatlán,
Ozolotepec) are listed by glyph and in Roman characters in the Codex Mendoza, which records
information about tribute paid to the Aztecs. According to Espíndola (1580), the people of
Coatlán had been ruled by a Cacique named Coactzi ‘snake’ (note, a Nahua name is given for a
person who was probably Mixtec or Zapotec) until they rebelled against him and sought
protection from the Aztec emperor Moctezuma (Motecuzoma). To him they paid tribute in
powdered gold and blankets and in return a Mexican garrison stayed to help them in the frequent
battles that took place.
Alcázar López (2004) tells a different story, with the Aztecs conquering the SZ’s rather than
being invited protectors. According to Alcázar, Pochtecas (Aztec trader-spies) came to
Miahuatlán and other Zapotec towns and later informed the Aztec ruler Ahuizotl, who then made
a military conquest of the SZ’s in 1486-90. The Mexica army made their garrison at Corral de
Piedra (SMigC). Other historians (Alcázar says) put the Aztec conquest in earlier in the fifteenth
century under Moctezuma Ulhuicamina (1440) or Axayácatl (1467). As Alcázar describes it,
Miahuatlán was sacked and burned, as ruins under el Gueche show. Zapotec images were taken
down from the temple there and replaced with Aztec ones. Local lords and descendents of Petela
(the great Zapotec patriarch, whose remains were preserved in Ozolotepec) were taken to be
sacrificed in Tenochtitlan (Mexico City). It is possible that both things are true, that the Coatecs
invited the Aztecs and that while in the region the Aztecs imposed themselves on other SZ states
which had not invited them.
Human sacrifice and cannibalism are reported for this and many other parts of Mesoamerica.
The historical sources refer to victims acquired on both sides of the SZ and Chontal conflicts,
even referring to a special oven that the Chontals kept for this purpose in San Bartolo Yautepec,
before being driven out (Alcázar López, 2004). These reports suggest that such practices already
existed in the region before the arrival of the Mixtecs and Nahuas8. Nevertheless, Espíndola
(1580) writes that the Coatecs didn’t practice human sacrifice or idolatry until the chiefs Tlatoany
and Izquintli, which according to Espíndola means ‘our lord’ went to the Mixteca. By a
miscopying (Anonymous, 1609) of this already convoluded account Tlatoany and Izquintli are
the Mixtec lords who taught the Coatecs human sacrifice. Note that Tlatoani (or Tlahtoani) is the
8
The non-Mesoamericanist reader may be confused by the terms Mexica, Nahua and Aztec. I am using
these terms roughly to refer to the same people. Nahua is a term that refers to speakers of the linguistic
varieties variously called Nahuatl, Nahua or Nahoa. This includes both the classical Aztecs of the Valley of
Mexico as well as groups not closely connected to the Aztec empire, e.g. the Pochutec Nahuas who lived to
the Southeast of CLZ speakers until the beginning of the twentieth century. Aztec is not a name that these
people used to call themselves but a name that the Spaniards derived from a Nahua myth or legend about
their origins somewhere to the North in a place called Aztlan. Today this term is mostly used to refer to the
empire formed in the Valley of Mexico which extended far and wide, including to Oaxaca and beyond.
This empire was formed by a triple alliance of three Nahuatl-speaking city-states. Each of these groups had
their own ethnonyms, but the most powerful and militaristic group was called the Mexica [mEs[ika], from
whence the country’s modern name. This name supposedly comes from the man who led the Mexica during
the nomadic times before their arrival in the Valley of Mexico in 1325, his name was Mexitli
(http://www.freewebs.com/tecpaocelotl/MexicaTlahtoani.htm).
term which refers to Aztec rulers, not Mixtec ones. Likewise Izquintli (or Izcuintli) is a Nahuatl
word for ‘dog’. Elsewhere Espíndola (1580) translates the name of the great mummified patriarch
Petela of Ozolotepec (miscopied or misinterpreted by Herrera ---and many others who copied
him--- who said that Petela’s remains were preserved in Coatlán rather than Ozolotepec,
according to del Paso y Troncoso, 1905) as Dog. Whitecotton (1977) (and following him Alcázar
López, 2004) goes a step further and interprets Petela as the calendrical name 4 Dog.9 The
reference to “Mixtecs” with Nahuatl names in the relación could be a copying error, or it could be
that Mixtecs were being referred to with Nahuatl terms, or perhaps the terrms that made it to the
writer of the Spanish relación were Nahua ones but that this reference really refers to the Zapotec
ruler Petela with the Nahuatl Tlahtoani Izcuintli or roughly ‘King Dog’.
The Codex Mendoza records that at least the SZ towns of Coatlán, Miahuatlán, and
Ozolotepec paid tribute to the Aztecs. This Aztec codex is among the administrative paperwork
that helped the Spaniards to impose themselves at the top of the existing Aztec tribute system.
Figure 8: SZ place glyphs in the Codex Mendoza
Miahuapan
9
Ocelotepec
Tela is not the Zapotec word for ‘dog.’ The Zapotec word for dog, as reconstructed by Kaufman (2003) is
* kw+ e7kku7, with reflexes in Zapotec languages all over Oaxaca. This word was originally a borrowing
from a Mixe-Zoquean language, and was borrowed from Zapotec into Yucatec according to Kaufman.
While an earlier native word could have survived, Whitecotton’s statement that the pe element preceding
tela is ‘four’ cannot be true. It does not resemble any Zapotec number. check in Cordova arte for prefixes
which indicate birth order to be sure
The Coatecs were formally made subject to the Spanish Crown by Pedro de Alvarado, who
was known to the Southern Zapotecs as Tonatih (a Nahua word translated by Espíndola [1580] as
‘sun’), on January 25, 1522, though Alcázar López (2004) writes that in reality they, along with
the lords of Miahuatlán and Ozolotepec had preemptively offered their allegiance to Cortés a year
earlier, sending ambassadors to meet him with offerings. However, according to Gutiérrez (1609)
the takeover was not so peaceful. He writes that the Coatecs had many battles with Cortes, with
many Coatecs dying in the final battle, which brought about the peace treaty. Many more would
die of disease in the years to follow.
In 1522 Coatlán and Miahuatlán were a single encomienda10 assigned to Diego Becerra de
Mendoza. He was reportedly either a close friend or relative of Cortés. Under Mendoza’s watch
the first Catholic temple was built in 1523, and it was built on the site of el Gueche (Alcázar
López, 2004). This practice was common throughout Mexico. Still today in places like Teotitlán
del Valle visitors can see carved pre-Columbian stones displaced and lodged into the buildings of
the Roman Catholic church. The Southern Zapotecs, like other indigenous Mesoamericans
drafted into the encomienda system, were obliged to pay tribute to the encomenderos and to
supply labor, such as the labor needed to build Catholic churches out of the stones their ancestors
had used to build their own temples. One account of tributes paid to the Spaniards by the Coatecs
reports that 1700 people paid tribute to Pedro Mendoza in the amount of 4 reales and half a
fanega of corn for each married man (Espíndola, 1580).
In 1528 (or probably earlier considering the dates given for the Coatec war below) Mendoza’s
encomienda was reassigned to Andrés de Monjarraz11 because Mendoza was the grandson of a
man deemed to be a heretic in Spain. The relaciones mention several encomenderos with the last
name of Monjaraz who ruled in succession. Thus the Coatecs continued to pay tributes of gold,
10
Encomiendas were units assigned to encomenderos, who were Spaniards in charge of collecting tribute
and making sure things ran well in the encomiendas.
but now to the Spaniards. Once for not completing the tribute Pedro de Monjaraz tortured the
chief Coaltzi which caused the Coatecs to rebel. Pedro de Monjaraz was then stripped of his
encomienda and the land was given to Mateo de Monjaraz. (Espíndola, 1580).
A Coatlán rebellion is mentioned only in passing by Díaz del Castillo (1960) who
accompanied Cortés in the conquest of Mexico and who lived from 1495-1584. As described by
Alcázar López (2004), the rebellion quieted down when it was learned that Cortés was coming
back from his travels outside New Spain. Díaz del Castillo writes:
Aun los caciques del peñol de Coatlán, que se habían alzado, le vinieron a dar el
bienvenido y le trajaron presentes.
Even the chiefs of Coatlán, who had risen up in revolt, welcomed him and
brought him gifts. (my translation)
Espíndola thus tells of two Coatec rulers, one with the name Coactzi and the other Coaltzi,
both translated by him as ‘snake.’ The Coatecs themselves rebelled against the first by seeking
Mexica protection, and rebelled against the Spaniards for their harsh treatment of the second,
according to Espíndola’s relación. The similarity of the names, as if one were a type of the other,
the association of each name with a Coatec rebellion, all raises the possibility of some
inaccuraccy here. Were there two rebellions but one leader’s name has been replaced with the
other’s? Was there only one rebellion and the other account is a misinterpretation on Espíndola’s
part? Or were there really two rulers with these similar Nahuatl names with reportedly identical
meanings? We may never know the answers to these questions.
The imposition of Spanish religion and other abuses on the part of the newcomers were not
tolerated for long. One early SZ rebellion happened sometime between 1539 (Gutiérrez, 1609)
and 1547 (del Paso y Troncoso, 1905) a revolt was led by a man named Pitio. Alcázar López
11
When converting to Spanish naming practices many indigenous people ended up with the same surnames
as the encomenderos. To this day Mendoza and Monjarraz are common surnames in Southern Zapotec
however dates this war as lasting from 1524-26, and ending with the return of Cortés. Such later
sources (as, for example, Rojas, 1958 and Alcázar López, 2004) speak about the “Coatlán
Rebellion” and call Pitio a Coatec, but according to Gutiérrez this was a war between Miahuatlán
and San Mateo Río Hondo. Thus the dates and the very identity of Pitio have been obscured,
perhaps with the merger of two historical accounts, one of a rebellion provoked by Monjarraz in
Coatlán for unfair treatment of the Coatecs and their leader, and another which involved the
people of San Mateo Río Hondo. It is also possible that the two rebellions were related, that one
inspired the other, and that Pitio was an inspirational figure to both groups of rebels, whether in
person or in memory.
According to Alcázar López Pitio was a messianic prophet who appealed to the legacy of
Petela, and whose struggle was shrouded in traditional Zapotec religion. Alcázar, following
colorful historians like Martínez Gracida describes how the Coatecs had the advantage since they
knew the land and could change position at night, and once after a 40-day siege at Corral de
Piedra (SMigC), they slipped out under the Spaniards’ noses in the night. Miahuatlán, though still
populated mostly or entirely by Zapotecs (Gutiérrez, 1609, says that it is an Indian town without
any Spanish neighborhoods), was possibly seen as a seat of Spanish power. Later historians like
to paint this early war as a rebellion against Spanish oppression. On the other hand, Gutiérrez
paints a different picture, one of Zapotec on Zapotec violence with economic motives, a land
grab. He describes the rebels as thieves who stole the rulers’ jewelry, who jumped in the river,
letting out screams and proclaiming that their father was the devil with five horns. Gutiérrez
would have as much motive to paint the picture of a war unrelated to Spanish politics as modern
Mexicans would have to paint a picture of valiant resistance. The accounts differ as to motive and
principal players, but all agree that there was much bloodshed in Miahuatlan in the first half of
the sixteenth century. According to Gutiérrez 10,000 Miahuatecs were killed. Gutiérrez doesn’t
mention Spaniards being killed though later accounts mention as many as 50 being killed and
towns.
some tortured, still a fraction of the thousands of Miahuatecs who reportedly perished. In the
aftermath Pitio and the rebels were arrested. He was taken to be executed in Mexico City while
they were sentenced to work in the mines of Chichicapan, where many died of disease. Also
taken away and/or killed in Mexico were many Ozolotepecans, who had joined in the battle.
Although uprisings took place in the early colonial years there were also periods of
cooperation between some Zapotecs and Spaniards. In the beginning SZ armies were put at
Alvarado’s disposition to battle Mixtecs in Tututepec. In 1530 Nuño de Guzmán occupied
Tamazulapam, a subsidiary of Miahuatlán, and left behind Spaniards who married indigenous
women, creating the first mestizos of Miahuatlán (Alcázar López, 2004).
Petela is an important and misunderstood figure in SZ history and his legacy plays an
important role in the history of SZ-Spanish conflict. He is often said to be a Coatec, but according
to del Paso y Troncoso (1905) this is all thanks to some plagiarism and miscopying by Herrera,
who copied a significant portion of Espíndola’s (1580) relación of Ozolotepec and put it in his
own description of Coatlán. Petela is said to be the patriarch of the Southern Zapotecs, and
Alcázar López (2004) believes that he was among the founders of the first SZ settlements around
the second century BCE. However, he was more likely the patriarch of Ozolotepec, where his
mummy was preserved. I note, as does del Paso y Troncoso (1905) the similarity between this
name and that of (Pichina) Vedella who was mentioned above as the founder of Miahuatlán and
the father of the founder of Ozolotepec. Indeed the voicing of lenis consonants does give us
/bedela/ from /petela/, though it is curious that in a compound name the /p/ of pichina would
remain voiceless while the /p/ of petela, which is probably even in the same morpheme, would
voice. It is as if the two terms in the compound name are from different eras. Considering the
differences of the stories of Petela and Pichina Vedella, del Paso y Troncoso concludes that they
are probably not the same individual but could be related individuals, one the descendant of the
other. I also think this is a reasonable explanation, but considering how long mummies can last it
is also possible that Petela is the same person as Pichina Vedella. Perhaps his elder son brought
his mummy with him to the new town, much as the San Agustín Mixtepec emigrants took their
patron saint to San Agustín Loxicha when they founded it. Nevertheless, one detail below
suggests that del Paso y Troncoso’s interpretation may be the better one.
The SZ’s practiced ancestor worship and Petela was worshipped and sacrificed to. Even
during the virreynato Zapotecs went to him, pleading to him as intercessor when there were wars,
natural disasters and diseases. His legacy was already encased in Mesoamerican mythology by
the sixteenth century, with Espíndola (1580) reporting that Petela had been one of a few men who
sprang from a mountain and escaped in a boat after the great flood (cf. Bierhorst’s 1990
description of the tale types “the hidden corn” and “the flood myth”). Yet Espíndola suggested
that at the time he had only been dead 10-12 years. By Espíndola’s time (1580) the priest
assigned to Ozolotepec was Esteban Ramos. 2000 Ozolotepecans paid tribute to him, but we read
“since it is difficult to get to he doesn’t visit but he has other clergy helping him convert and
endoctrinate the people there” (my translation and italics). Earlier there had been a vicar named
Bartolome de Piza. After Petela was dead (Espíndola writes, as if Petela’s death really was that
recent) Piza got the idea that the people were treating Petela like a god and sacrificing to him.
Piza investigated and found that Petela was “buried dry and embalmed and specially positioned.”
Piza made a public display, burning Petela’s remains. According to Ramos, the 1580 priest, three
years prior there had been an outbreak of disease that killed 1200 people and after that the leaders
began again to sacrifice to the ashes of Petela and it was said that Petela was their intercessor to
the god Besalao, who could cure their illness. After learning of this 6 months prior to the relación
Ramos asked for the Crown’s help and Espíndola himself went and arrested them, first jailing
them in Miahuatlán before sending them to Oaxaca where they were sentenced and punished.
Espíndola regards the Ozolotepecans thus: “Since they are people of the hills where few
Spaniards live, there are always miseries and ironies in them, and thus they are always punished
and one does not have a good concept of them” (my translation).
A slightly different version of Petela’s burning is recounted by Alcázar López (2004). In 1540
the encomendero of Ozolotepec, Alonso Martín de Riberos, burned the mummy of Petela, trying
to stamp out SZ religious practices. This enraged the Southern Zapotecs and planted the seeds for
the next rebellion, during which the Ozolotepecans killed Riberos. The Zapotecs of Ozolotepec
took Petela’s ashes to the forest and continued to worship them there (Alcázar López, 2004).
Elsewhere in the region and all over New Spain the new political and religious rulers of the
land were punishing indigenous people for practicing certain elements of traditional religion, and
trying to gain more firm control over regions with political unrest. In 1544 and 1547 two Coatec
nobles, don Alonso and don Andrés, were tried for idolatry and convicted. By 1550 Coatlán, Río
Hondo, Miahuatlán, Ozolotepec and Amatlán were put under the direct control of the Spanish
crown and many of the men were removed and sent to the Corregimiento de Chichicapa(n)
(Alcázar López, 2004), where they worked in the mines of that Valley Zapotec town, as
mentioned previously. This was a strategy employed by the Spanish to gain control of the region.
The Catholic church was the right arm of the Spanish occupation. It rounded up SZ people into
parrishes where they were obliged to live. In these smaller areas they could be controlled (and
prostletyzed to) more easily. Before there had been centers where nobles lived and where
ceremonies and trade took place but most people lived off on their own in the mountains. The
Dominican friars changed this. The parrish of San Pablo Coatlán was founded in 1546, and the
the parrish of Miahuatlán in 1551. San Pablo Coatlán had 33 estancias or small settlements in
1548 and 26 around 1600 when they were rounded up into 2 places. 16 were concentrated in San
Pablo and people from 10 others were forcibly moved to SBL. By 1609 the congregation of
SPabC had started to break up and there were houses extending out for 2 leagues along the river.
The church provided an opportunity to learn alphabetic writing. Those Southern Zapotecs who
learned to read and write the alphabet were precisely the same ones who served in the churches,
singing in the choir and/or reading the gospel. In Coatlán there were twenty-five men who knew
how to read and write using the alphabet, including those who served in the church and the
cacique and his son. Likewise in Miahuatlán there were some Zapotecs who learned to write in a
school that they had set up for this purpose. A town scribe was elected along with the town
council. According to Gutiérrez (1609) they wrote in Zapotec and Nahuatl. He does not mention
Spanish, suggesting that at this time they did not write in Spanish. Interestingly, del Paso y
Troncoso notes in a footnote, and citing the work of Balsalobre, that later in the seventeenth
century it was found out that indigenous people in Oaxaca were actually taking this knowledge of
alphabetic writing and using it to help document their own religious practices. They made their
own notebooks which described what to do and say in performing their own ancient rites. Thus, it
turned out that the very people who were most involved in serving the Catholic church were often
also the most involved in practicing and preserving the traditional religion.
The ecomienda system gradually declined. Since 1573 Spanish law dictated that the
encomenderos could no longer oblige people to work, but only to pay them tribute.
1.6 CLZ from 1580 to 2004
In this section I describe what little we know about CLZ from colonial times. I discuss
information gleaned from the relaciones, both about linguistic features seen in Zapotec words
cited and also about language vitality. I then compare this information with modern statistics
about the decline of CLZ, mostly taken from the Mexican censi. One particular facet of language
and culture for which we have some (but not copious) early evidence is naming practices. I
discuss earlier and modern naming practices in a separate subsection below, 1.6.3.
1.6.1 Language in colonial Southern Zapotec sources
From relaciones and from documents found in the archives of SZ towns, a confusing picture
emerges, where the lines between CZ and SZ are blurred. Yet, some tantalizing details follow.
Espíndola (1580) only establishes that the SZ towns speak çapoteca, and suggests that this is
the same as the language of Antequera (the city of Oaxaca). Gutiérrez’s 1609 relación is more
uniform because it is following a format set out in a questionaire which was issued under Felipe
III and distributed by the Count de Lemus y de Andrade. Gutiérrez notes that in, for example,
Miahuatlán, the Indians write in Zapotec and Nahuatl (but presumably not Spanish). Gutiérrez
differentiates the Zapotec spoken in the South from that of the Valley (though he does not make it
clear which one the SZ’s write in), and also mentions that some Southern Zapotecs speak
Nahuatl, as in this excerpt from his relación of Miahuatlán:
Su lengua es la çapoteca corrupta, a diferncia de la que se habla en los Valles de
Guaxaca, que es muy pulida: algunos hablan la mejicana, avnque mal, y otros la
castellana.
Their language is corrupt Zapotec, as differentiated from that spoken in the
Valleys of Oaxaca, which is very polished. Some speak Nahuatl, although
poorly, and others speak Spanish. (my translation)
Curiously, Gutiérrez suggests that in Amatlán they speak Valley Zapotec, rather than Southern
Zapotec: “Hablan la lengua çapoteca pulida, que es la del Valle de Guaxaca.” What could this
mean? It could be an assumption, based on Amatlán’s northern location within the SZ region, or
perhaps the result of a miscommunication with someone who was deemed an authority. It could
be that this statement is made based on the administrative use of Valley Zapotec, or perhpas it
was known that these northern Southern Zapotecs traded with groups in the Valley and one or the
other side once told Gutiérrez that they could communicate with each other in Zapotec. An
intriguing possibility is the idea that such a statement could have been made on linguistic
grounds. Perhaps early seventeenth century Amatec had some phonological similarity to a Valley
Zapotec variety known to Gutiérrez. There has been significant loss and reduction of non-tonic
vowels in both Valley Zapotec and Southern Zapotec languages today, but as evidenced by
Córdova’s (1578) dictionary and grammar, Valley Zapotec was still polysyllabic in the sixteenth
century. Perhaps the loss of non-tonic vowels began in the South and by 1609 had affected many
Southern Zapotec languages (the “corrupt” ones) but not yet Amatec or Valley Zapotec.
Espíndola (1580) refers to Coatlán, Ozolotepec and Miahuatlán as speaking the same language
and having the same customs. However, it is not necessarily the case that he is exluding Amatlán
on linguistic grounds. Rather, he makes this statement in referring to the war that took place
during which Miahuatecs fled North to the Valley until hostilities subsided. There is no mention
of Amatlán being involved in this war and so it may only be for that reason that it is not included.
There are a number of Zapotec terms that appear in the late sixteenth century (Espíndola,
1580) and early seventeenth century (Gutiérrez, 1609) relaciones. None of these look much like
they come from any of the SZ languages spoken today. There is not one monosyllable among ca.
thirty terms that appear. It is hard to tell whether this is evidence of the non-tonic vowel loss not
having happened yet or whether the forms cited are not in fact in the local Zapotec languages but
rather in Valley Zapotec. If the latter, this could either be evidence of the use of a Valley Zapotec
language in the SZ region for certain purposes, including communicating with outsiders like the
relación writers or their associates, or it could be that Espíndola and Gutiérrez actually collected
some of the information presented from Valley Zapotec speakers rather than SZ speakers. For
example, a Spaniard residing in Oaxaca might have asked a local Zapotec about the name for a
SZ town, prior to or after making a trip there himself. This is pure speculation however and it is
just as likely that such changes had not yet taken place.
The voicing of lenis obstruents was already starting during Córdova’s time but was not yet
complete. For example, Córdova (1578) often cites voiced and voiceless variants of the same
word, e.g. ‘maíz’ xòoba, xòopa and ‘noche’ quèela, guèela. In the SZ relaciones there are some
words with only voiceless consonants. These may be words with lenis consonants which have not
yet voiced or they may be words which simply have only fortis consonants. These are given in
Figure 9, with toponyms first followed by personal names followed by other terms.
Figure 9: Words with only voiceless obstruents in Espíndola (1580) and Gutiérrez (1609)
Zapotec
Quetila
Quechetao
Lachixi
Quiatila
Colaça
Cosiosolachi
Cozichacozee
Petela
Pitio
cuyapi
coci
Relación
Amatlán,
1580
Miahuatlán,
1580
Ozolotepec,
1609
Amatlán,
1609
Amatlán,
1580
Gloss given
‘papel blanco’
(white paper)
‘flor de mayz’
(maize flower)
‘Valle de Otatis’
(Valley of Otatis,
the site of
Ozolotepec)
‘Tierra de peleas
o disension’
‘cosa lexos’ (far
thing), a cacique
of Amatlan
Miahuatlán,
1580
Ozolotepec, ‘Dios de las
1580
guerras’ (God of
War), described
as a lesser god
who was a gobetween
(abogado) for
Bezelao
Ozolotepec, ‘perro’
1580
Miahuatlán, Rebel leader.
1609
“their father
(leader?) was the
devil with five
horns” (my
translation)
Coatlán,
In Nahuatl
1580
‘amacamotli’, in
Spanish ‘rayz
blanca’ (white
root)
Amatlán,
1609
‘sobra’ (leftovers) or
‘añidura’
(additional, extra)
Comments
The gloss given describes the Nahuatl
toponym, not the Zapotec one
The gloss given describes the Nahuatl
toponym, not the Zapotec one
Lachi does mean ‘valley’ in CVZ. This is
similar to a place name in Sola de Vega,
Lachixío.
Quelatìlla means ‘battle’ in CVZ
Reminds me of modern SZ morpheme go&l
‘elder’ and CVZ morpheme çaa ‘Zapotec’
or 1e pronoun as in CLZ sâ, for a possible
‘our elder’ or ‘Zapotec elder’
The morpheme cosio surely means
‘Lightning.’
pe- is the animacy prefix which occurs on
animals, but tela is not the morpheme for
‘dog,’ unless it is a more archaic one
pi- is probably this same animacy prefix
Of the Nahuatl gloss given del Paso y
Troncoso (1905) notes that it means ‘raiz
de papel’ (paper root) but says that in
Aztec glyphs paper, salt, and heron have a
representational relationship with the color
white. The yapi morpheme resembles the
CLZ yâp ‘chayote’ but that is not a root.
Calendrical period of three extra days after
a period of 100 days during which they
fasted and believed to be given three more
days of life, according to Gutiérrez.
Cognate with the CVZ form spelled cocii
by Córdova.
There are also several Zapotec terms which surface in the relaciones with voiced consonants.
These are shown in Figure 10, with the same organization and order as in Figure 9.
Figure 10: Words with voiced lenis obstruents in Espíndola (1580) and Gutiérrez (1609)
Zapotec
Quiegoqui
Quiebeche
Relación
Coatlán,
1580
Gloss given
‘sierra de culebras’
(mountain range of
snakes)
Ozolotepec, ‘tierra espantoza’
1580
(frightening land)
Quiauechi
Ozolotepec, ‘monte de tigres’
1609
Guecheto
Miahuatlán, ‘cordel de mahueí’
1609
(rope made of
maguey fiber)
Huihuogui
Coatlán,
1609
‘rio de los Señores’
(river of the lords)
Gueguegogi
Amatlán,
1609
‘rio de cañas’ (cane
river), known as
Coquitlan
Comments
More likely ‘rock of the lords’ (see 1.2).
The gloss given correctly refers to the
Nahuatl name, though.
Not quite. The first morepheme is like
that in quiegoqui above and probably
means rock, or possibly ‘hill’. The second
morpheme, beche, is cognate with CLZ
mbi-7zh ‘puma’ and could possibly also
refer to other large cats.
29 years later and a different writer there
are some minor phonetic or spelling
changes and a more specific gloss.
The gloss given is an interesting mistake
based on syntactic (and possibly tonal)
confusion, and homophony. In CLZ
‘Miahuatlán’ is Yêzhdo7, which means
‘big or holy town.’ (Maguey) fiber or
‘ixtle’ yèzh has a different tone than
‘town’ yêzh. However in SAMZ, a
Miahuatec language, the two words are
homophonous. The CLZ bound
morpheme -do7 meaning ‘big or holy’ is
homophonous with the free morpheme
do7 ‘rope.’ However, in SAMZ these two
morphemes are tonally different (dó7o
‘rope’ vs. Yìsdò7o ‘Miahuatlán’). If this
toponym had the meaning reported by
Gutiérrez the order would also be
reversed, as in CLZ do7 yèzh ‘maguey
fiber rope.’
See 1.2. Zapotec name probably
mistranscribed, but gloss is more
accurate. However, the toponym probably
refers to a rock rather than a river. There
is a prominent river in SPabC which have
been more salient to Gutiérrez than the
actual meaning of the toponym.
Note the similarity between the coqui of
the Nahuatl name and the goqui of the
name of San Pablo Coatlán, and the gogi
of this Zapotec word. The Spanish gloss
‘Dios del agua’ (god
of water)
‘siete consejos’
Benelaba
(seven pieces of
advice, but consejos
is only 1 letter off
from conejos
‘rabbits’)
Coatlán,
‘tres benados’ (three
Jonaji
1580
deer)
Belachina
Bezelao or
Ozolotepec, ‘el demonio’ (the
1580
devil), Petela was
Besalao
one of many
intercessors with
Bezelao, who could
ease illnesses. A
universal god who
protected them in
war and helped in
planting.
Pichina
Ozolotepec, Founder of
Vedella
1609
Miahuatlán, father
of founder of
Ozolotepec
Cosichaguela Amatlán,
‘el que pelea de
1609
noche’ (he who
fights at night)
Amatlán,
In Nahuatl ‘elgua’.
yagualachi
1609
“El hombre que se
pone devajo del, se
incha todo, y la
leche del causa el
mesmo efecto” (it
causes swelling)
Gozio
bigaña
pietl
Miahuatlán,
1580
Coatlán,
1580
Miahuatlán,
Ozolotepec,
1580
Miahuatlán,
1580
priest in charge of
performing
sacrifices
‘beleño’
does not look accurate for the Zapotec
form given.
In CVS Cocijo [kosiyo], in CLZ ngwzi7.
Lightning personified. See Appendix B2.
bene probably means ‘human,’ not ‘7’
(see discussion of meneyadela below).
Whitecotton (1977) suggests that the
name could be Pilalapa Caache ‘7
Rabbit.’
Whitecotton (1977) equates with Xonaxi
Peochina Coyo.
Whitecotton (1977) writes that the
Ozolotepec patron god Cozichacozee was
associated with the sun god Copichja who
was “a refraction of Pitao Cozanna ‘the
better’” who was associated with Pezalao.
Note second part of name’s similarity to
Petela. First name is similar to ‘deer’.
Córdova gives guèela and guèela as
variants of ‘noche’ (night).
The Zapotec should probably be
yagalachi without the u. del Paso y
Troncoso suggest the Nahuatl gloss is
actually guao from the language of the
Antilles. The description given sounds to
LDP like the tree known in CLZ as yà
lâch ‘palo de tatil’ (though another, ‘palo
de sandijuela’ is homophonous in
Zapotec). Today cholos (juvenile
delinquents) in SBL use this tree’s sap to
perform temporary scarification, drawing
initials, stars, a scorpion, or
representations of Cuitlahuac on their
skin, which last about six months.
The bi resembles the Zapotec animacy
prefix.
Here the “Spanish” gloss given resembles
a Zapotec word phonologically (though
perhaps it isn’t) and the “Zapotec” word
appears to be Nahuatl
golave,
golaue
govates
agi
beneguia
yagagacho
Miahuatlán, ‘mandones’ (Those
Ozolotepec, designated to collect
1609
the tribute in each
neighborhood, and
then hand it over to
the cacique who
pays the Spaniards
directly)
Miahuatlán, In Nahuatl
1609
tlapisques,
described as mine
workers (or perhaps
this detail is
incidental).
Amatlán,
“Para el fluxo de
1609
sangre tienen vn
gusano que
exprimido hacen del
vna vncion” (this is
a worm who is
squeezed to make
an ointment to treat
heavy bleeding)
Amatlán,
“para las calenturas
1609
vsan de vna rraiz
pequeña” (to treat
fevers they use this
small root)
Amatlán,
1609
‘arbol de siete ojas’
(tree of seven
leaves), “para las
hinchaçones vsan de
leche de vn arbol...
la qual ponen en la
inflamacion, y
aprouecha mucho”
(to treat
inflammation they
use the sap from this
tree, which is put on
the inflammation
and helps greatly)
There is a similarly named cargo (civic
duty) in SBL today. In Spanish it is called
ulabo and in CLZ ngwlàb. However, this
person does not collect money but rather
has to provide the pig to be eaten at the
feast the day before Easter, during which
the cargos for the following year are
named.
The go resembles a Zapotec animacy
prefix.
The V-initial shape of this word is not at
all typical of Zapotec
It may be that be- is the prefix here but it
is also possible that bene ‘person’ is a
classifier used here with the name of the
plant. In CLZ a few plants which have
special properties (hallucinogenic,
curative, or venomous) are referred to
with the human or higher animacy
classifier which is related to the word that
in other varieties of Zapotec is bene and
in CLZ me&n.
yaga is ‘tree’ in other and older Zapotec
languages, cf. CLZ yà and SAMZ yàg.
Gacho though does not look like it means
‘(7) leaves’. ‘leaf’ is là in CLZ, làg in
SAMZ, and ‘7’ is gâd in CLZ, ga&s in
SAMZ.
There is one lone word, which only appears in Gutiérrez’s 1609 relación, which has a
phonological feature that suggests a specifically Southern Zapotec origin. This is the name
Meneyadela, the name of the purported founder of Coatlán. Outside of the SZ branch of Zapotec
the ‘person’ noun is b-initial as in Cajonos Zapotec bene (Castellanos, 2003). One of the
distinctive features that separates SZ from the rest of Zapotec (according to Smith Stark, 2003) is
the existence of prenasalized animacy marker prefixes. In CLZ these are found on most animal
words and also on some words which refer to people. In CLZ there also exist animacy classifiers
that are separate words. In the case of the ‘person’ and ‘animal’ classifiers these are the short
words me& and má respectively which in turn are based on the longer full nouns with the same
meanings me&n and ma&n. My theory of the development of the prenasalized animacy prefixes is
that these nasal-initial classifiers preceded such words and eventually lost their vowels, melding
with the pre-existing prefixes. This process is important since it defines SZ as a group. The minitial ‘person’ noun is part of this equation. Though other branches of Zapotec have a (rare) minitial ‘animal’ word they have a b-initial person word. The form in the name Meneyadela
(whether this was his contemporary name or just how he was remembered in 1609), looks to be
the full noun mene, possibly used as a preposed classifier, and demonstrates that the nasalization
of bene Æ mene (perhaps based on an analogy to mani ‘animal’) existed at least as early as the
early seventeenth century and seems to have preceded post-tonic vowel deletion. The majority of
Zapotec terms reported in the early relaciones resemble Colonial Valley Zapotec more than any
modern SZ language, but the m in this word is solitary evidence that an SZ term is being reported.
There is one possible example of a calque that appears in relaciones for Coatlán. To express a
large, uncountable number the expression quantos pelos podia tener un venado ‘as many hairs as
a deer could have’ is used more than once in the relaciones of Coatlán (del Paso y Troncoso,
1905, Anonymous, 1609?). One time this expression is exaggerated even more by saying
mentioning three deers. Del Paso y Troncoso considers this an expression peculiar to the
Zapotecs of Coatlán and thus it may be a calque. I have not encountered this expression in
modern CLZ.
There are two other documents which I have been able to examine, both coming from the
archives of the Coatlanes. The first is the lienzo de San Jerónimo Coatlán, a colonial era painted
cloth which pictographic or iconographic material accompanied by Zapotec captions written
alphabetically. Another lienzo, the lienzo de Coatlán, is mentioned in the relaciones as a preColumbian document which documented the arrival of Meneyadela’s party in the Coatlanes. Its
whereabouts are unknown. The SJC lienzo was photographed by Cecil Welte in a fieldtrip to SJC
in 1966. The photographs and notes taken by Welte are housed and the Institute he founded, the
Instituto Welte de Estudios Oaxaqueños in the city of Oaxaca. Copies of the three photos are
included, by permission of the Institute, in Appendix C as well as in digital form on the CD
provided. Welte did not make a paleographic transcription of the words found on the lienzo but
several are visible in the fotos. One word that appears is latigohui or latigobii. This could
possibly contain the morpheme for ‘llano, valle; plain, valley’ which appears as lachi in place
names in the relaciones and is reconstructed as *la7ttyi7 by Kaufman (2003). In CLZ *tty did not
become an affricate as it did in most other Zapotec languages. Instead this word is làt in modern
CLZ. Although I have little context to go on to make the argument that lati is ‘valley,’ this is a
morpheme which is common in place names and likely to occur in a document where physical
boundaries are shown, like this one in which bodies of water, mountains, and the valleys between
them are shown. If my guess is right it is interesting to see possible evidence of the chronology of
sound changes we know have taken place in CLZ, for example, the change *tty>t would predate
post-tonic vowel loss. Another morpheme which can be read clearly is tapa, which may
correspond to the number ‘four.’ Welte (1966) notes that the lienzo was folded and creased into
four quadrants with each quadrant then divided into four smaller quadrants. Visible but not
legible in one of the fotos are words that appear to be names of mountains above which the names
are written along one of the borders of the lienzo. A comparison of these terms with modern CLZ
toponyms would be very interesting and hopefully can be carried out at some future time.
The other colonial document (López, 1618) is one which purportedly comes from the archives
of San Miguel Coatlán, although I have not verified this. I can parse a few words in this
document,12 which basically seems to be written in CVZ. Recognizeable words, include
chebichina ‘deer(?),’ coquii ‘lord,’ cocio ‘lightning’ (a local SMigC placename known today is
Yè te& Ngwzi7 ‘Cerro Rayo; Lightning Hill’), cetobi ‘other,’ tobi ‘one,’ tapa ‘four,’ and laa ‘name.’
A ruler is named Cocio (Laaguelani), who had four sons: pi lanaa calanaa, hubi izii, huini yagui
loo, and tisi ya dela. This last one’s name is reminiscent of the name of the founder of Coatlán,
Meneyadela. There are four named barrios or neighborhoods: guenido, te la hueguia, beladoo,
and guelooticha. The form bene, which I assume to be the ‘person’ morpheme, occurs six times,
both by itself and as a preposed morpheme with no space following it, perhaps when it is used as
a classifier. The form mene, which I have already argued as an especially Southern Zapotec form
of the same morpheme occurs one time. I hypothesize that the author or scribe, Bartolomé López,
was himself a speaker of a Southern Zapotec language in which the form is men(e) and that he
wrote this document in CVZ but this one time made a slip and accidentally wrote the SZ form
mene, or perhaps even code-mixed giving a combined form mene based on men (if post-tonic
vowel deletion had occured, for which there is no evidence) and bene.
Thus we get a linguistic snapshot of this part of the SZ region from the relaciones. Nahuatl
was known and used to some extent in the region but was not the native language of the people of
these four kingdoms, Miahuatlán, Ozolotepec, Amatlán, and Coatlán, which to some extent
functioned like independent city-states but also had such connections as to constitute a Southern
Zapotec republic or confederation. The distinctive features of modern Southern Zapotec were
emerging but not yet complete. There may have already been nasalization of some words which
are not nasal in non-SZ languages, but vowel deletion was not yet complete (or perhaps not even
under way). Amatec may have had some differences from the other three main languages
mentioned here, which made its language more similar to Valley Zapotec. Another variety or
more, most similar to the CVZ documented by Córdova (1578), was also used for some purposes
and it may be from such a variety that many of the terms in the relaciones come from, including
some Zapotec toponyms which have become standard and are found today still on maps of the
region. Nevertheless, the colonial information about SZ languages is scarce, not completely clear,
and raises more questions about the history of these languages and this region.
1.6.2 Modern sociolinguistic information on CLZ
Today CLZ is a moribund language. Its decline was already underway in the nineteenth
century according to census data cited by Rojas (1950). This process was greatly hastened during
the last half of the twentieth century. I expect that this language will be dead in another 100 years
or less. Today there are a handful of children who speak the language, so CLZ will survive at
least for their lifetimes. Programs run by the government which offer scholarships to students
who speak Zapotec are actually creating more demand for the language and so it is yet possible
that this situation may turn around and that CLZ may outlast my prediction.
In 1.2 I uncovered the true identity of CLZ as the ‘language of the lords.’ Because of its
political importance, the Spanish presence was heavier in San Pablo Coatlán, the ‘hilltop town of
the lords,’ than in other CLZ-speaking towns. One of the eventual repercussions was that Yêzh Yè
Ke7 ceased to speak its namesake language much earlier than other di7zh ke7-speaking towns.
Ironically San Pablo Coatlán is today known to Zapotec speakers as a town of Spanish speakers.
Indeed, for some the idea of people from this town speaking Zapotec sounds bizarre. However,
12
What little understanding I do have of this document is thanks to Thom Smith Stark, an expert on CVZ
who looked at it in 1997. However, the interpretations given above, which no doubt include numerous
mistakes and misparsings, are all my own and should not reflect on him.
people I have met from this town, though they know nothing of the CLZ language, do share some
of the body of folklore known to CLZ speakers.
I consider it the great irony of language endangerment in Oaxaca that today we find dying
languages in places off the beaten path and thriving languages in places with a long history of
intense contact with Spanish. For example, compare San Baltazar Loxicha and Teotitlán del Valle
(TV). San Baltazar Loxicha is today approximately 5 hours by bus or car to Miahuatlán, the
traditional market town, which itself was described as “an Indian town with no Spanish
neighborhood” in the 1609 relación (Gutiérrez). When there’s no traffic TV is 15 minutes by car
to the city of Oaxaca, where there has been a heavy Spanish presence for nearly 500 years. SBL is
the CLZ-speaking town with the highest number of speakers. Many other CLZ-speaking towns
have less than fifty speakers, and in others it is already dead. Although it is the #1 CLZ-speaking
town, SBL has by far more monolingual Spanish speakers than bilingual Zapotec-Spanish
speakers (LDP estimates the ratio at 3:1). TVZ might be considered an endangered language by
some today because many children are not learning the language, but it hardly seems endangered
at all when compared to CLZ. The overwhelming majority of people in TV speak Zapotec,
including most people in their twenties.
Language life and death is heavily influenced by geopolitical forces. Ultimately though, it
comes down to a choice made consciously or unconsciously by a community, by the parents and
grandparents of that community, and by each generation of speakers and learners, to either use a
language with each other and with children, or to not use it, or not pass it on. When a language
exists geographically close to the source of pressure towards language shift, the communities that
speak that language will make their choice early on, though certainly they may make a different
choice later on, even centuries later. On the other hand, more isolated communities may not be
confronted with the same pressures as early. From this point of view, both San Pablo Coatlán and
Teotitlán del Valle were confronted with the same decision during colonial times, and chose
differently. Thus, in a Zapotec community with centuries of heavy contact with Spanish speakers,
if the language has lasted this long it is because the community has a developed a strong tradition
of maintaining its linguistic culture and identity. Such a community will continue to be
confronted with the same pressures towards change and eventually there may be language shift,
but the strong role of language in the TV identity has helped it survive until now. In contrast,
more isolated communities like SBL may be only now facing the same kind of pressures that
communities like TV have faced for centuries.
Through prolonged contact communities like TV have to some extent built up an immunity
towards such the pressure towards language shift, which more isolated communities may be less
immune to. Part of this immunity is knowledge of Spanish. A community so near to Spanish
speakers has a longer history of bilingualism (if there has not beencompletely bilingual
population, at least there have always been some who could speak Spanish). Members of such a
community have already developed ways to meet their needs for communication with Hispanics.
In SBL there has been some stigma assigned to Zapotec during the last half century. LDP tells
stories of teachers who hit children for speaking Zapotec in the 1960’s when he was in first grade.
Even today there are some in SBL that look down on Zapotec as old-fashioned, and don’t want to
promote it. However, these seem to be in the minority. Some people don’t care one way or
another. Others want to preserve the language, even if they don’t speak it themselves. I had
assumed that CLZ was dying under the stigma of discrimination. I thought that more citified
towns like TV have higher prestige and have an already defined sense of identity that includes
Zapotec, whereas rural communities like SBL suffered more stigma and had more of a need to
prove themselves to be equally deserving members of the larger Mexican society, the Spanishspeaking society. There may be an element of truth in this assumption, but after talking in more
detail with LDP about this I think that my assumption was more of a projection of American
ideas of racial relations. Instead, what seems to have happened in SBL, is not so much that people
have consciously chosen to abandon Zapotec, but rather that they made a positive decision to
promote Spanish learning among children and the way this decision was implemented had the
unintentional effect of discouraging Zapotec use. It is only today with Zapotec endangerment that
there is now a need to promote CLZ in the schools the way Spanish was once promoted (but
without the beatings).
LDP’s story is illustrative at some of the sociolinguistic factors that have been at play in SBL
for the last 50 years. LDP was born in the summer of 1955. His parents and extended family were
bilingual but very much Zapotec dominant. His parents and grandparents’ generations had seen
that Spanish was very useful when state government authorities would show up in town. The few
men in town who knew how to speak enough Spanish to speak up for SBL’s interests were
admired. Seeing what a good thing it was to be able to speak Spanish, there was a desire to learn
this language and to pass it on to the children coming up. In LDP’s family his parents spoke
Zapotec to each other and the other adults in the household and to neighbors and relatives, but
spoke to LDP in Spanish, though they code-switched into Zapotec frequently when they didn’t
know how to say something in Spanish. LDP heard Zapotec all around him growing up. Most
adults in SBL at that time still spoke Zapotec. LDP’s parents didn’t scold or punish him if he tried
to speak Zapotec, but Spanish was the language they spoke to him in since he was little.
The schoolteachers were of a different mindset. They frequently beat children with their belts
for speaking Zapotec and constantly chastized the class, telling them to give up Zapotec: “no
precise, no sirve el dialecto” (“it’s not precise, the dialect is worthless”). In those days LDP
wasn’t much of a Zapotec speaker but he did hang out with children who spoke Zapotec and
would listen to their conversations and got beaten along with them when the teacher came along.
Finally one day in second grade LDP and some other students ditched class and went to play in
the river and eat stolen bananas. The PTA went to get the truants and brought them back to school
but when LDP saw the teacher taking off his belt he jumped through the big window and ran all
the way home, never to return again.
Up until the time he was fifteen LDP knew some Zapotec but didn’t speak it that well. He
started speaking it more when he served as topil for the first time. During this time he learned a
little more Zapotec from the older man he served under, and from another boy who was also
serving. Just after this, at the age of sixteen LDP went to Mexico City where there were about 10
other boys from the town. Ironically, it was in Mexico City that LDP became fluent in Zapotec. In
Mexico City CLZ was cool. It was a secret code that bonded these young men together as a
group, separate from the millions of other people in this biggest city on Earth. There, the
chareños (people from SBL) would get together on the weekends when they would hang out in
the pulquería for hours drinking and talking, telling stories and jokes and gossip in CLZ. Here
with his cohort is when LDP’s fluency in CLZ became fully developed. When he came home he
arrived speaking Zapotec to his parents and grandparents, whom he had spoken to in Spanish
before, and from then on they continued to speak to him in Zapotec for the rest of their lives.
LDP is a very educated person, he can read and write and he knows an incredible amount
about tradition, folklore, and how things are done in the many places he has lived and the many
jobs he has done, but very little of his education has been formal education. The agenda of the
local schoolteachers may have had an effect on his growing up with Spanish as his first language,
but only indirectly, as part of their effect on the entire community, not so much through any direct
contact he had with them. In fact, in a non-boarding school environment, the approach of beating
the language out of children may encourage children to drop out of school and parents to remove
them from school. It also may subtly encourage some students to rebel and think more highly of
Zapotec.
Thus during LDP’s linguistic development there were several factors that had an influence on
his acquisition of Spanish and Zapotec. His parents’ desire to promote Spanish made him a native
Spanish speaker. The Zapotec-dominance of his parents’ generation also had a shaping influence
on the variety of Spanish learned by LDP’s generation, as described in 1.7. The schoolteacher’s
anti-Zapotec attitude may have had an influence on the community that trickled down to the
decision made by LDP’s parents to raise him as a Spanish speaker, but it also may have given
CLZ covert prestige among the children themselves. This covert prestige was a key factor in
LDP’s eventual fluent acquisition of the language in Mexico City.
The linguistic behavior of LDP’s parents reveals much about twentieth century sociolinguistic
attitudes towards CLZ in SBL. They chose to speak to their sons in Spanish, even though they
themselves were Zapotec dominant and so doing so required extra effort. Yet, they did not
actively discourage the use of Zapotec by LDP. The conscious decision they made was not a
negative one to stamp out Zapotec but rather a positive one, to ensure that their son would be able
to speak Spanish. Nevertheless, the way they encouraged LDP’s Spanish development was by
using it almost exclusively with him, which almost ended up producing a monolingual Spanish
speaker, as in fact did happen in the case of LDP’s brother, who never left to go to Mexico City.
It was only the covert prestige among his age set and in an environment where they were the
outsiders in a non-CLZ-speaking land that saved LDP from a life of monolingualism.
Returning to the comparison of SBL and TV, it seems that the latter community has developed
strategies over five centuries to communicate with Spanish speakers. In the former community
such strategies were not as necessary until the twentieth century and then the move towards the
acquisition of Spanish happened so quickly and with such effort that Zapotec got left behind. It
may have been assumed that the children would pick up the language in the town anyway, or it
may not have mattered to people at the time one way or the other, but the effect has been that now
one fourth or less of the town can speak CLZ. Echoing the Spanish acquisition efforts of a halfcentury ago, teachers and parents and grandparents are now having to make the equally hard
effort to teach their children Zapotec, but there is a big difference because while Spanish has the
infrustructure of a whole nation and its education system behind it, CLZ doesn’t. Most of the
teachers and young parents themselves speak less Zapotec than LDP’s parents spoke Spanish. For
some CLZ may be stigmatized, but not for most. Recently there was one member of the
equivalent of the PTA (the Comité de Padres de Familia) who spoke up against using Zapotec in
the schools or supporting its use in any way, but the other parents, including the monolingual
Spanish speakers, disagreed with him.
LDP speaks phonologically accentless CLZ because despite the fact that he was discouraged
from using Zapotec growing up, it was a language that he heard used every day of his young life.
This is more than can be said for most children in SBL today. 15-year-old LDP knew how to
make the most of the sounds and could understand CLZ speakers to some extent. He had
passively acquired the language growing up, at least partially, and this surely helped him to
finally fluently acquire the language as an adolescent. LDP has continued to use both Zapotec and
Spanish with his family and neighbors during his adulthood. He raised an adoptive son who is a
Spanish monolingual and is currently helping to raise his three grandchildren. While LDP and his
wife speak to each other in Zapotec, they speak a mixture of Spanish and Zapotec to their
grandchildren, as they did earlier with their son. LDP did not seem to have any value judgements
about either language that were apparent to me when I began working with him. He still seems to
have a fairly balanced attitude but over the many years we have worked together he has become
more and more of an advocate for the language. He speaks more Zapotec to his grandchildren
than he did to his son growing up. He says that his grade-schoold-aged grandchildren can today
understand Zapotec and say some things but mostly they speak in Spanish. He thinks that if they
continue to live with him they will probably eventually be fluent Zapotec speakers but if they
move out they probably won’t.
The decline of CLZ in SBL over the last fifty years is even more dramatic in other CLZspeaking towns. In Santa María Coatlán between 1960 and 1980 the percentage of townspeople
who spoke Zapotec dropped from 92% to 27% (Nahmad et al, 1994, cited by Barabas, 1999), in
twenty short years! Much of the trend began in the 1930’s with the Cárdenas administration
(Barabas, 1999 and Kaufman, 2004) during which time well-meaning, progressive programs were
started to teach Spanish to the nation’s Indigenous population to better enable them to participate
in national affairs. Even kind teachers, not just the ones with the belts, were discouraging parents
from teaching their children Indigenous languages. This was the beginning of a modern decline
for many indigenous languages of Mexico.
Information on the health of Indigenous languages can be found in the Mexican census, the
2000 results of which have just recently become available (INEGI, 2002). Unlike the US Census,
there are not long and short versions of the Mexican census. All households are asked about
language use. In rural areas locals are hired to do a house by house survey. While in the US
Census results of Indigenous languages are often skewed because only 10% of households are
asked about language use, in Mexico most inaccuracies come from misreporting by respondents.
People may over- or under-estimate their ability to speak a language like Zapotec, or may
jokingly respond that they speak some other language that they in fact do not. Reviewing the
2000 census results for SBL, LDP thinks that there is some over-reporting, with semi-speakers
and non-speakers being counted. More shocking to him though are reports of small numbers of
people speaking foreign languages like Chinantec and Mazatec in his town. He affirms that there
are none and that these data may be the result of pranks played on or by the census takers. Other
than a practical joke, it is possible that there are a few CLZ speakers who don’t know that the
language they speak is called zapoteco by the outside world. LDP himself says that he only knew
the language in Spanish as idioma ‘language’ until he began working with me and I told him that
it was Zapotec. Indeed, I remember one time him asking me if it was Mixtec or Zapotec that they
spoke in his town. Today though, almost a decade later, he says most people in the town do know
that it is Zapotec because teachers who have been educated outside the town have made this clear,
as have programs designed to promote Zapotec use.
The census results that are readily available list numbers of speakers by municipio but not by
smaller settlement. No one in the town of San Pablo Coatlán speaks Zapotec but since SMaC lies
in the municipio of SPabC there are speakers listed for this municipality. Figure 11 shows the
number of speakers in each of the municipios with CLZ speakers. The numbers I show here are
the sum of the total number of respondents who claimed to speak “Zapotec” or “Southern
Zapotec” but not those who answered “Valley Zapotec” since they may be outsiders such as
schoolteachers. As I have arranged the table from lowest to highest speaker count, it becomes
clear that the farther South one goes away from Miahuatlán the more speakers there are. All CLZ
dialects are declining because of the Hispanification efforts of the twentieth century. Above I
stated my view that communities like TV which have a long history of contact with Spanish are
less of a target for efforts (community-driven or externally-driven) aimed at the acquisition of
Spanish and the side effect of language shift. CLZ communities were more vulnerable to such
efforts because they were the target population for programs such as those mentioned from the
Cárdenas administration. Within the CLZ region however, the farther removed a town was
geographically from the political centers of the outside world, the less effected it was in terms of
Zapotec extinction. One other factor is population size. Smaller agencias like SMaC have fewer
speakers than bigger towns like SBL and thus there are fewer people to talk to even when the
overal percentage of Zapotec-speakers within the population may be the same at some point. This
contributes to a more rapid decline.
Figure 11: CLZ speaker counts from the 2000 census by municipio
San Sebastián Coatlán
San Pablo Coatlán (includes SMaC)
San Jerónimo Coatlán
San Miguel Coatlán
Santa Catarina Loxicha
San Baltazar Loxicha
32
44
56
330
456
670
Of the speakers counted above, there were very few monolingual Zapotec speakers: two in
SBL (with one person in his/her twenties!), three in SCL. This is not the case with all SZ
languages. In the district of Miahuatlán there were a total of 3932 people who reportedly are
monolingual speakers of zapoteco or zapoteco sureño. The speaker counts given in Figure 11 can
be further broken down by age, as I show in Figure 12. Here I also include the total population for
each age group: total speakers/total population. The first line gives the total for all people 5 years
of age and older. The numbers given in Figure 12 are slightly inflated though, since the speaker
counts are for all people who speak an indigenous language, even if not CLZ, however there are
very few people in these towns who speak other indigenous languages so the difference is small.
Figure 12: 2000 Indigenous language speaker counts in CLZ towns according to age
Total
5-9 years
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
SSC
36/2047
2/308
1/342
1/283
0/213
3/125
0/98
0/136
1/119
2/85
26/338
SPabC
52/3451
2/628
2/551
1/420
0/298
1/242
4/223
3/193
1/165
0/160
38/571
SJC
72/4355
1/853
3/769
2/552
0/437
1/350
4/279
1/246
5/197
4/152
51/520
SMigC
395/2593
9/525
13/463
16/347
11/228
22/181
17/128
20/134
40/124
57/125
190/338
SCL
487/3740
5/786
13/707
6/392
14/285
10/217
23/263
29/214
46/210
53/192
288/474
SBL
670/2474
11/423
19/420
26/334
36/237
33/159
61/164
68/151
70/120
101/137
245/329
Decline is evident as one compares the different age groups. For example, looking at the
numbers for SCL we see that roughly 3/5 of the people 50 and over, 1/3 of the people in their late
forties, 25% of those in their early forties, 1/6 of the people in their late thirties, less than 10% of
those in their early thirties, 5% of those in their twenties, and only 2% of teenagers speak CLZ.
The social programs issued in the 1930’s have reduced the amount of indigenous language
monolingualism in Oaxaca. Unfortunately they have also reduced the percentage of people in the
state that speak indigenous languages at all. However, statewide the total number of people who
speak indigenous languages is climbing due to population growth. There is population growth
also in the CLZ area, partly due to lower infant mortality and increased access to health care, but
the number of speakers in the CLZ area is falling, as indicated above. Compare the moribundity
of CLZ with the statewide statistics in Figure 13. Here I give the percentage of monolinguals out
of the total population of indigenous language speakers, the percentage of the state population
who speak and indigenous language, and the total number of speakers.
Figure 13: Speakers of Indigenous languages in Oaxaca 1930-2000 (INEGI, 2004)
Year
1895
1900
1910
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Monolingualism
60.8%
57.9%
36.4%
43.5%
30.5%
25.3%
18.9%
19.6%
Percentage speakers
53%
52.3%
48.8%
56.3%
54.8%
48.3%
46.8%
40.1%
44%
39.1%
37.1%
Number of speakers
500,000
600,000
600,000
700,000
700,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
Despite the dismal numbers reported for CLZ among school age children, there is a small
glimmer of hope which shows that a turnaround is possible (if not necessarily likely) and within
the power of the community of CLZ-speaking parents. This potential is even stronger if we would
consider as well all the CLZ-speaking paternal grandparents who reside with these children and
help to raise them. Figure 14 shows the number of children less than five years old whose parents
speak CLZ (“Zapotec” or “Southern Zapotec”). No children in this age group had monolingual
CLZ-speaking parents.
Figure 14: Children 5 and under with CLZ-speaking parents in 2000
San Sebastián Coatlán
San Pablo Coatlán (includes SMaC)
San Jerónimo Coatlán
San Miguel Coatlán
Santa Catarina Loxicha
San Baltazar Loxicha
8
8
30
145
170
172
1.6.3 Naming practices
It is well known that the ancient Zapotecs had calendrical (and other) names. These calendrical
names consisted of a number between 1 and 13 combined with one of twenty named days. In SBL
there are interesting beliefs about tonos or totems, animal spirits, which are related to the
Mesoamerican 260-day calendar on from which the pre-Columbian Zapotecs took their names.
These beliefs about tonos are described in 1.8.2. Today in CLZ-speaking towns people officially
have only Spanish names. However, there are CLZ equivalents for these names, and even more
interestingly, the Spanish names have also been used calendrically, until recently.
National legislation during the 1990’s ensured indigenous people the right to chose their
children’s names themselves, including giving their children names in indigenous languages. In
the CLZ area, to my knowledge, no one officially has a CLZ name, or any other Zapotec name.
However a change is taking place in which families are exercising more of their right to name
their own baby. Until recently, and still to some extent, the names were not chosen completely at
will but were more fixed. The ancient Zapotecs were named after they day they were born on. If
born on the day 13 Owl he was named 13 Owl. The modern Zapotecs, at least in this area, were
also named for the day they were born on. As with other religious practices, the Hispanic has
simply been overlaid on the Zapotec structure. The names change but not the practices. The
Roman Catholic church has a Saint’s day calendar, and in Oaxaca there is a special form of this,
an almanac, called the Calendario de Galván13. Every day has its patron saints, which are named
in Spanish. Until recently, when a baby was born a relative would go to the town clerk to register
the baby and get a birth certificate. They would go to him and say they wanted to sacar un
nombre ‘take out a name.’ The clerk would ask “what day was she born?” The family would say
13
I first became aware of this when a Northern Zapotec woman from Zoogocho told me that I could find
out my animal spirit by looking in the Calendario de Galván. I did and was disappointed when there was
nothing in there at all about tonos. Now knowing that this is the source from which the SZ’s pick babies’
names, it makes a little more sense. As described in 1.8, there is a connection between tonales and the
calendar from which people were named. Today the calendar from which people are named is this one. I
still can’t glean any tonantes from this book, but at least now I see a possible connection.
“Thursday” and the clerk would look it up on the calendar. Since there are multiple saints for
each day there was some choice involved, perhaps with 4-6 options, and a male saints name can
be easily adapted to a female baby’s name, e.g Juan Æ Juana. Until recently this was the only
given name a person would receive. Today, this practice is still active but parents may add a
name of their choice to form a compound name, e.g. a boy assigned the calendrical name of Luis
was named Luis Miguel, and his brother has the “legitimate name” of Adolfo to which was added
Ángel for Adolfo Ángel. It is not clear to me whether today in SBL a family can completely reject
the calendrical name or not, but they can add a name of their own choice. This traditional naming
practice is one reason why people from indigenous communities often have names which are
obscure in non-indigenous Mexican communities, names like Tiburcio, Atanacio, Ermelinda,
Hipólito. Interestingly, as this process was described to me in Spanish, the very phrase used and
cited above, sacar nombre, is the same as the Zapotec compound verb ‘to baptize’ –to7lëˆ.
Baptism was how the SZ’s originally acquired Spanish names. We don’t know what don
Fernando Cortés’s name was before contact but we know he was baptized with this name. Today
Spanish names are acquired within hours or days of birth and before baptism.
There is one example of a Spanish name having a calque equivalent. Men named León or
Leoncio are often called Mbi7zh in Zapotec, the term for a puma (in Spanish called león) or
jaguar. Most Spanish names though have their Zapotec equivalents through borrowing and
phonologization. Most given names have monosyllabic equivalents because the names were
borrowed long enough ago to go through the complete unstressed vowel deltion, though some
names have the rare disyllable like Mári& ‘María.’ Some of these names also show evidence of
their sixteenth century pedigree. For example, the names Juan and Juana had an initial sound like
[s&] in sixteenth century Spanish but [x] in modern Spanish. Sometimes such loanwords are
updated to make the Zapotec sound more like the familiar modern Spanish. In the Coatlanes such
an update has taken place with the effect of distinguishing the male and female versions of the
name, which would otherwise be very similar, although in this case not identical. Xwán is ‘Juana’
which Jwánh is ‘Juan.’ In the Spanish of this region final /n/ in a stressed syllable is [N] and so
this is also used in the loan names to distinguish the name that has a final nasal in Spanish from
the name that has a medial nasal in Spanish. Presumably both names used to have initial /s[/ in
CLZ but the male name was updated. Perhaps this has something to do with males having more
contact with Spanish speakers historically, and being more likely to speak Spanish themselves.
Phonological patterns found on names and other loanwords are discussed in 3.3. More examples
of loan names can be found in Appendix A by skimming the list for capitalized words. A
disclaimer though, in the version of the lexicon presented here, the dialect from which the word
comes is not always marked, and there can be dialectical differences in these loan names.
While official names are Spanish and loan names are simply translations of those Spanish
names, nicknames are more creative and authentically Zapotec. When a person is of a certain age
and has earned the respect of the younger adult CLZ speakers they are not referred to by
nicknames so much as by respectful terms like Mbgo&l _______, using their name. This is possibly
cognate with the name given by Espíndola (1580) for the 1528 ruler of Amatlán, Colaça. The ça
morpheme seems like the ‘Zapotec’ morpheme, and so my guess is that this term could have
come from someone referring to the ‘old/reverred Zapotec (lord).’ People of the same age set
though often refer to each other with nicknames, which are sometimes affectionate and usually
(or always?) teasing. I cannot reveal the actual nicknames that I have collected but I can describe
their properties and translate a few into English (here I’ll generically use the names Paul and
Mary to further protect the identity of people with these nicknames). Nicknames are compound
names beginning with the Zapotec version of the person’s name, followed by one or more other
words which are descriptive of the person some how. Many include the names of animals which
are perceived to share some quality or characteristic with the person in question. Other times
another descriptive term is used. The quality described is sometimes physical, like having a nose
like a certain bird (Paul Parrot) or walking like a certain animal (Paul Duck), animals which are
named in the nickname. A person with a large belly might be called Paul Pig or Paul Jug Belly or
Mary Belly Skin of Air. Nicknames are not particularly complimentary and it is usually one’s
worst feature which makes it into a nickname, like Paul the Stutterer or Paul Face-Skin of a Fish.
Other times what is described is a habit that the person has, like biting their pencil, which reminds
people of an animal that bites wood (Paul Iguana). Sahorines (diviners) may be called certain
names that have to do with the items they use to tell fortunes with, Paul Cottonseed, although
they are often simply called Liars, at least by the unsatisfied clients. Some people have names
that were given so long ago that nobody remembers what the joke was or why they were called
that in the first place, like Paul Avocado.
The frequent use of animal terns in CLZ nicknames is a bit reminiscent of the ancient
calendrical names, which often had animal names in them since so many of the twenty named
days were named after animals. Before Cortés the animal name you had, and presumably the
tonal (totem) properties you had, were set and determined by your birth day. Today your animal
spirit as well as your animal nickname, are not set by your birth nor are they recorded or made
official, rather, they are deduced and assigned by the people who know you. In SBL people don’t
know their own animal spirit, but others can figure it out, as described in 1.8.2. Since they are so
teasing, some people may not know their nicknames either, but their friends and acquaintances
often do call them by an animal name. However, this probably has more to do with the person,
the “friends” and the nature of the nickname in question than to a connection with earlier naming
practices. Those names were public, and to some extent these ones are to, but it is interesting that
both with the tonales and with nicknames a person may be connected to one or more animals in
others’ eyes without necessarily knowing it himself.
The Zapotec names given in the colonial relaciones are given above in 1.6.1. Some possible
calendrical names occur there, like Xonaxi Belachina which is translated as ‘3 Deer.’ The name
Meneyadela appears to have a classifier preceding it. In modern CLZ nicknames the Spanish loan
names are used like classifiers, especially where common names like Béd ‘Pedro; Peter’ are used,
and the following terms denote the individual more specifically.
The 1609 relacion by Gutiérrez gives the Spanish names of the caciques of SZ towns. Don
Fernando Cortés was the descendant of Meneyadela and was the leader of Coatlán when he met a
person with a very similar name, Hernán Cortés. In early colonial days many people were
baptized with names similar to those of the conquistadors and the encomenderos, and some of the
encomenderos’ surnames are common in the SZ region to this day. Fernando Cortés had a son
named don Juan de Ayala, and a grandson named don Angel de Billafañe who was the named
ruler at the time of the 1609 relación. Angel de Billafañe had a son named don Buenaventura de
Ayala y Luna. These are all borrowed Spanish names. The only one which could conceivably be a
calque is the surname Luna (which is also a surname in Spanish) which means ‘moon’ and
presumably would have been the surname of one of the rulers’ wives, either the mother or
grandmother of Buenaventura. From this short list it appears that initially the surnames were not
assigned or chosen so as to match across generations but by the fourth generation it was decided
to follow the Spanish pattern more and the parents of that generation, instead of assigning their
own surnames to their child(ren) assigned the names of one or more of the grandparents.
1.7 Coatlán-Loxicha Spanish
The variety of Spanish used in the CLZ speech community has been influenced by CLZ,
similarly to the way that the Irish language has influenced Hiberno English. The degree of
influence of CLZ on Spanish exists on a continuum. Spanish speakers who are more upwardly
mobile or who have been educated outside of CLZ-speaking towns speak closer to standard
varieties of Spanish. At the opposite end of the spectrum are CLZ speakers who learned Spanish
when teenagers or adults. In between these two extremes there is also much variation. It would be
interesting to study the Spanish of monolingual Spanish speakers in this region to see to what
extent they have inherited the variety of Spanish that is influenced by CLZ vs. to what extent they
have acquired the variety of schoolteachers who may come from outside, or who they may
encounter when they themselves leave their home towns to study. However, I have not had very
much contact with non-CLZ speakers from this region. When I have I have only had brief
conversations with them and did not consider their speech to be very marked compared to
standard varieties. I have met such people in Miahuatlán and in SBL and impressionalistically it
seemed that people, especially women, who stay in SBL most or all of the time speak a more
CLZ-influenced Spanish than those who go to live in Miahuatlán or elsewhere, or who have
frequent contact with outsiders (including protestant missionaries).
The specific examples cited in this section were given by CLZ-Spanish bilinguals. Some
examples were given as translations for Zapotec sentences from texts. There is always a tendency
to stay closer to the translated language in these cases. However, I have noticed and recorded
many of the same types of features when having a monolingual Spanish conversation with the
same consultants. For example, VSO word order is the type of thing that one might expect to be
an artifact of translation. Indeed speakers’ Spanish translations of sentences from texts usually do
mirror the Zapotec word order, VSO for most sentences but SVO for focused subjects. However,
I have also noticed in conversations I’ve had with CLZ-speaking consultants, entirely in Spanish,
that there are plenty of VSO sentences there as well, when nothing is being translated.
Considering the variation that exists among speakers of Coatlán-Loxicha Spanish, and the fact
that my data come from bilingual CLZ-Spanish speakers, a word about the consultants I have
worked with is in order. I have personally worked with five speakers of the SMigC and SMC
varieties of CLZ. These speakers spoke what I regarded as a more heavily accented Spanish.
Most were older than some of the SBL speakers I’ve worked with. Both of the SMaC consultants
I worked with had been born in the 1930’s. These people grew up during times of tremendous
linguistic change. In some Southern Zapotec towns, places like Santa María Coatlán and San
Agustín Mixtepec, the shift to Spanish happened very abruptly by all accounts. Speakers of a
certain age were caught in the middle. They were born into Zapotec-speaking households, many
of them monolingual, and acquired CLZ as their first language. Then a wave of pressure to shift
to Spanish came over the community and crashed on the youth. It seems that some CLZ-speaking
children had the acquisition of their native language interrupted when parents suddenly
discouraged their children from using Zapotec, yet it is unclear how much access these children
had to native Spanish speakers. Arguably, this produced semilinguals in some cases, people who
would not strike a native speaker of either language as someone who has a full command of the
grammar of either Spanish or Zapotec. I knew one such speaker. He could communicate fine with
anybody in either language, but prescriptivists would point out that, for example, he often didn’t
use proper gender marking in Spanish and in Zapotec he just put in too much Spanish. His
Zapotec grammar was better than his Spanish grammar but he had a better command of the
Spanish lexicon than the CLZ lexicon. The SMaC and SMigC speakers I’ve worked with mostly
learned Spanish as older children or young adults. Yet, these are people who have used Spanish
increasingly in their daily life for decades and in most cases are probably Spanish dominant.
The primary consultant for this grammar is Lázaro Díaz Pacheco of San Baltazar Loxicha. I
have also worked briefly with, or through him obtained recordings of, several other speakers from
his town and one from Santa Catarina Loxicha. From these two towns, which speak virtually the
same dialect of CLZ, I have worked briefly with two older speakers, but mostly with younger
speakers (in their forties). From a phonological standpoint, Spanish speakers (both bilingual and
monolingual) from these two towns speak closer to the standard than their counterparts in the
Coatlanes. However, this perceived difference may have more to do with the age of the people
I’ve worrked with than anything else.
Virtually all of the examples cited in this grammar come from LDP unless marked as
belonging to another town’s variety and not SBL’s. Thus, examples of SBL Spanish below come
from a person who learned Spanish as a first language from people for whom it was a second
language. This is a classic case of how language shift creates new varieties of the target language.
The extinction of CLZ is perhaps not yet a certainty but it is close to that. The CoatlánLoxicha variety of Spanish, if it is not replaced by a standard variety, will someday be the only
living connection to this people’s linguistic history.
1.7.1 Phonetics & Phonology
The most blatant sign of what might be termed a CLZ or even an SZ accent is found more
often in the Coatlanes and other places close to Miahuatlán than in the CLZ-speaking Loxichas,
in my experience, though again this may be partly due to age. This is the loss or lack of
distinction of post-tonic vowels. While both pre-tonic and post-tonic vowel deletion took place in
SZ languages historically, only post-tonic vowel deletion is still productive when new loanwords
are borrowed into CLZ from Spanish. Polysyllabic native words in CLZ only exist through
compounding. When compounding takes place there is often reduction of all but the last syllable.
Thus, the only kinds of polysyllabic words which occur in CLZ are compounds and loanwords,
all of which have final stress, either through the reduction of earlier syllables in native
compounds or through the deletion of post-tonic syllables in loanwords. However, in the Coatlán
dialects of CLZ post-tonic schwa is often epenthesized. CLZ is a monosyllabic language
phonologically but in the Coatlanes most words are phonetically more like a syllable and a half14,
if pre-pausal. Epenthetic schwas are not contrastive or phonemic. In the Spanish heard in the
Northern part of the CLZ area the lack of importance placed on post-tonic vowels in CLZ is
apparent. In standard Spanish, final vowels often mark grammatical differences like verb class
(e.g. creí ‘I believed’ vs. creé ‘I created’), or gender on nouns and adjectives (e.g. médico ‘male
doctor’ vs. médica ‘female doctor’), and can also make lexical contrasts (e.g. hombre ‘man’ vs.
14
What I mean by “a syllable and a half” is that there is one prominent syllable with a voiced vowel that
has tone and the appropriate length, and then there may be an epenthetic vowel at the end of the word,
which would make it a disyllable word phonetically but this second syllable may disappear in certain
phonological environments and when it is present it is not as salient as the first syllable: it has no coda, it is
sometimes voiceless, it is always short, its quality is not distinctive (it is typically a schwa). By definition
we have to consider each vowel that is separated from another vowel by obstruents, a separate syllable, but
hombro ‘shoulder’). In heavily accented CLZ Spanish post-tonic vowels may alternately be
deleted, reduced, or may occur in free variation with other vowels, all in the speech of the same
speaker. Such a speaker may pronounce the Spanish word hombre ‘man’ in any one of the
following ways, freely varying between them: [»ombre, »ombra, »ombro, »ombr´, »ombr].
In the local variety of Spanish used in SBL and other towns around the CLZ area, many words
have fixed vowel differences from standard Spanish. (1.1) gives a number of examples that differ
from more standard Mexican pronunciations. Here as elsewhere in this section, not all of the
differences between CLS and standard Spanish come from CLZ influence. Some features are
archaic Spanish also found elsewhere in Mexico though not in the standard.
(1.1)
Coatlán-Loxicha Spanish
dearrea
antonces
chichalaca
“Standard” Spanish
diarrea
entonces
chachalaca
English gloss
‘diarrhea’
‘then’15
(type of bird)16
chiflido
carcajeada
chiflado
carcajada
‘whistle’17
cackle, shout, hurrah
Though CLZ today has an /ñ/ phoneme, it clearly did not in the early days of contact. Certain
lexical items, but not all eligible ones, lack this sound in CL Spanish. A good example is the
Spanish word pañuelo which in CLZ was borrowed as báy. In SZ Spanish (I have also heard this
word, for example, in San Agustín Mixtepec) this word is paynuelo. English speakers often
perceive the Spanish /ñ/ as a sequence of nasal-palatal /ny/ as in the English loanword canyon
whereas SZ speakers apparently perceived the same sequence in the opposite order, /yn/.
Other segmental differences include cases of metatheses, clippings, and forms that have come
about through analogy which are described in 1.7.2 and 1.7.6. Clippings are shortenings of words.
the vowel I’m talking about here should not count as for as much as the first syllable, and that is why I say
these words are like “a syllable and a half” even though this term is problematic.
15
This may be a conservative form.
16
This is a reduplicated Nahuatl form of ‘talk.’ Perhaps the difference seen here in Spanish is due to
influence from a different type of Nahuatl than provided the standard form.
For example a special kind of needle for sewing sacks of grain is called aguja diaria and in CL
Spanish this form alternates with aguja aria. The Spanish word for ‘pillow’ is almohada but
locally the vowel cluster (Spanish orthographic <h> is silent) reduces to a single vowel in
almada. Vowel clusters historically were not allowed on the surface in Zapotec according to
Kaufman (1989). Vowel-initial words are extremely rare in CLZ and other Zapotec languages. In
CLZ almost all such words are Spanish loans or special sound symbolic words. Many clippings of
Spanish words involve the deletion of word-initial vowels, as in the words shown in (1.2).
(1.2)
1.7.2
Coatlán-Loxicha Spanish
“Standard” Spanish”
English gloss
grilla
ñidirse/lo18
maca chiquita
cedía
higuerilla
añadirse
hamaca chiquita
acedía, acidez
a nut or legume used for oil
‘to add in a row’
‘small hammock’
‘heartburn’
Morphology
Morphological differences between Coatlán-Loxicha Spanish and more standard varieties of
Spanish include morpho-phonological differences as well as morpho-syntactic differences. On the
phonological side differences in paradigms come about through analogy. An example of
paradigm leveling has to do with the many stem-changing verbs in Spanish. Due to historical
sound changes Spanish has certain verbs which have syllables which alternate between one or
two vowels and a diphthong depending on where the stress in a word lies, which itself is
dependent on how many syllables are suffixed onto a stem. When standard Spanish has an
alternation between two vowels in part of a paradigm, there is a preference for the vowel that
occurs in the infinitive, as in (1.3). On the other hand, some paradigms which involve alternations
between diphthongs and plain vowels will have diphthongs in unexpected forms, including
derived words, e.g. viejez rather than vejez ‘old age,’ based on viejo ‘old’ (both occur).
17
In the standard chiflido means ‘crazy.’
(1.3)
Él está herviendo el agua.
(Std. Sp. hervir: hirviendo ‘boil: boiling’)
Subjunctive forms of certain common verbs have similarly irregular forms in other nonstandard varieties and thus here may have to do more with the type of Spanish which arrived in
different parts of the Americas rather than a so-called “substrate” influence from Zapotec. For
example, the second person subjunctive is used to form negative commands in Spanish. Rather
than saying ¡No te vayas! for ‘don’t go’ a speaker of CL Spanish might use the form vaigas
instead of vayas. Vaigas occurs in other non-standard dialects, but here a twist is that there are
two irregular forms which are used, one being vaigas and the other vayes, the standard ¡no te
vayas! was rejected by a consultant when I asked if that could be said. Indeed, I have noticed that
the endings for the indicative and subjunctive are switched, though note that vay- is the “correct”
stem to use for the subjunctive. A similar example is él es él que nos devise todo día y noche
‘he’s the one who sees everything we do all the time’ (God).
1.7.3 Syntax
There are two big picture syntactic features of CL Spanish that I’ll illustrate here. One
involves basic word order, the other has to do with question formation.
The most famous syntactic feature of Otomanguean languages is their VSO word order. In
Spanish word order is fairly free although there is a preference for SVO, depending on context.
There are copious examples of VSO syntax in CL Spanish. Not having done a statistical study it
is hard to say whether VSO sentences are really more common in CL Spanish than in other
varieties of Spanish, particularly varieties spoken outside of the Otomanguean area, although my
general impression is that they are. Such order is understandably common in translations given of
Zapotec sentences, which are found throughout this dissertation. However, no claim, especially a
syntactic one, should be made based solely on translation data since in translating one may
18
Based on an older form añidirse. For example, Gutiérrez (1609) glosses the Zapotec word coci as
conserve word order or choose similar words that do not flow as well in the second language.
(1.4) and (1.5) are not translations but are excerpts from comments made by LDP during a
Spanish-only conversation we had. We were discussing a folktale he had recorded years earlier,
the one in Appendiz B2. I was asking about certain details in the text for the purpose of doing a
folkloristic analysis. I had just shared with LDP a cognate tale recorded by Speck (1998) and was
asking LDP for his take on certain elements that did not come out in his version of the tale. In the
CLZ but not the Texmelucán tale, Lightning and other supernaturals are represented as snakes.
(1.4)
RGBA:
Eso será porque, ¿porque el rayo come gente? o--That would be because, because Lightning eats people or---?
LDP:
Mmm, creo porque… sea la culebra ¿verdad?
Mmm, I think because...that would be the snake, right?
(1.5)
RGBA:
mm-hmm
LDP:
Porque la culebra pues, huele la culebra la persona que está---
RGBA:
Because the snake, well, smells the snake the person that is--Pero eso de la luz, que vió una luz, lejos, donde está la viejita y tiene que
caminar, eso no salió en el cuento que grabó Ud. pero ahora que estamos
platicando Ud. lo ha mencionado
But that about the light, that he saw a light, far away, where the old lady
is and he has to walk, that didn’t come out in the story that you recorded
but now that we are talking you have mentioned it.
LDP:
Si, si, sucedió, sucedió. Sucedió en el cuento porque ve que,
porque la hora que llevó la culebra al cazador adentro, pues, allí,
este, ya se volvió otro lugar y ya era noche pues, y allí es donde
vió el cazador la luz adonde llegó donde está la abuelita.
Yes, yes, it happened, it happened. It happened in the story (I’ve heard
before) because notice that, because when took the snake the hunter
inside, well, there, well, it had already become another place and it was
already night, and there is where saw the hunter the light where he
arrived where the old lady is.
añididura, not añadidura.
Example (1.4) is especially interesting because the subject actually was mentioned first and
this could easily have been an SVO statement by just continuing with the V and the O. Instead,
the subject is repeated after the verb, so the first mention of the subject is extra, it is topicalized.
An SVO statement also could have followed the topic, but did not. Example (1.5) is perhaps a
weaker one since VSO order may lend itself more naturally in this context where such order puts
the verb adjacent to an adverbial phrase. These are two of numerous examples in this
conversation which I recorded and have partially transcribed, but still my claim of increased VSO
word order in this dialect of Spanish is impressionistic. I have not quantified the number of times
this order occurs in this region vs. elsewhere.
More exotic is what I regard as calquing of a Zapotec question particle. To form a yes-no
question in CLZ one must place an interrogative word xâl in front of the statement that is to be
affirmed or denied. Intonation cannot be used to form this type of a question as it can in English
and Spanish. Another way to form such a question in standard Spanish would be to add the
copula followed by a complementizer in front of a statement, optionally with a modifier
following the copula: ¿Es (verdad) que...? ‘Is it (true) that...?’ In CL Spanish yes-no questions are
often formed by adding the complementizer que all by itself, the same as adding xâl in Zapotec.
The complementizer can also be omitted in CL Spanish, to form a yes-no question through
intonation only, as in other dialects of Spanish, however, the complementizer is frequently used
in the Spanish speech of CLZ and other SZ speakers I have known. Examples (1.6-10) are from
LDP while (1.11) is taken from line 23 of the SMaC text in Appendix B1.
(1.6)
¿Que lo hueles (tú)?
COMP it smell-PRESENT.2s (2s)
‘Do you smell it?’
(1.7)
¿Que guajolote eres? Estás parado durmiendo.
COMP turkey copula-PRESENT.2s copula-PRESENT.2s standing sleeping
What are you, a turkey? You're sleeping standing up.
(1.8)
¿Que alcanzaste a él?19
INTE catch.up-PRETERITE.2s to him
Did you catch up to him?
(1.9)
¿Que va Ud. a bautizar mi nene?20
INTE go-PRESENT.2r to baptize my baby
Will you baptize my baby? (i.e. ‘Will you be my compadre (my baby’s godparent)?’)
(1.10) ¿Que tiene Ud. hambre?
INTE have-PRESENT.2r hunger
Are you hungry?
(1.11) ¿Que ésa es la carne?
INTE DET copula-PRESENT.3s DET meat
Is that the meat?’
1.7.4 Nahuatlisms
All dialects of Spanish have loanwords from Nahuatl. In fact, a great many languages of the
world have loanwords from Nahuatl, words like chocolate, tomato, avocado. Mexican Spanish is
characterized by its especially large number of Nahuatl borrowings. What is a cuerda ‘rope’ in
Spain is a mecate in Mexico. Where words have been borrowed from other indigenous American
languages elsewhere, like maní for ‘peanut’ and chompique for ‘turkey,’ Mexican Spanish often
has Nahuatlisms like cacahuate and guajolote. One feature of CL Spanish is the even larger
number of Nahuatlisms compared to standard varieties.
Some Nahuatlisms that do exist in other varieties of Spanish, here are pronounced differently,
perhaps giving a clue to the type of Nahuatl borrowed from. CLZ and CL Spanish must have had
interesting and diverse contact with different types of Nahuatl. To the South and East of the CLZ
area were the Pochutecs, whose language became extinct in the early twentieth century. The
representatives of the Aztec empire contacted the Southern Zapotecs coming from Mexico City,
far to the North, bringing a different Nahua language than Pochutec. While the Mexica or
“Aztecs” were invaders in Oaxaca and many Southern Zapotec towns like Ozolotepec and
19
This example also differs from the standard by the lack of an indirect object pronoun le.
Miahuatlán are listed as tribute payers in the Codex Mendoza, Coatlán was one town which
actually sought Aztec protection (Espíndola, 1580). (1.12) shows a few Nahuatlisms from CL
Spanish where standard Spanish uses different words or pronunciations.
(1.12) CL Spanish
costoche
chacal
chicalmata
miselote, (also marto, leoncito)22
Cemposúchitl ~ Samposúchitl
tlacomixtle
chehuizle
huanacazle
Standard Spanish
zorra
xxx
ocelote
Cempasúchil
cacomixtle
guanacaste (Santa
María)
English
fox
crawdad
shrimp trap21
marigold, plumeria23
cacomixtle, ringtail
runt plant
(Enterolobium
cyclocarpum)
1.7.5 Zapotequisms
As might be expected, CL Spanish also has loanwords from Zapotec. It is not always clear
which Zapotec language these loanwords come from. For example, today SZ languages are
largely monosyllabic languages. When Zapotequisms in Spanish are polysyllabic, sometimes the
non-tonic vowels appear to be added to conform to Spanish phonological and morphological
patterns, e.g. adding a final o for a masculine noun, while other times an extra vowel corresponds
nicely to a historical non-tonic vowel that is still present in other kinds of Zapotec.
Viruxe is a stunted marigold which doesn’t grow very big. In CLZ it is yi7 ndu&x, the second
root being cognate with the Spanish form. This word is borrowed from another type of Zapotec
20
The Spanish speaking reader may also notice that this sentence lacks the personal a before mi nene. The
personal a is perhaps used less consistently in CL Spanish but it is in fact used, even with babies. This
sentence could be said either with it or without it.
21
Refers to two things: yë7z go7z ñâ bë & ‘chilcalmata para pescar de día’ (daytime shrimp trap) and yë7z
go7z të7l ‘chilcamata para pescar de noche’ (night time crawdad trap). The shrimp trap is thicker than the
crawdad trap.
22
In Zapotec kwí, or miselo&t or mbi7zh bi&x.
23
Two flowers: yi7ko7b ‘flor de muerto’ (flower of the dead, marigold), and yi7 ze7ch ‘flor de semana
santa’ (Holy week flower, plumeria).
because the r in the Spanish word and in many Zapotec languages corresponds to nd in the CLZ
word, the nasalized reflex of *ty (Kaufman, 2003).
The text in appendix B1 will introduce the reader to the CL Spanish concept of huixe, also
called huixo or huixera/o. This is a craving for meat. This word is clearly related to the Zapotec
word seen in line 4 of the text, where it appears as nwi&x.
One Zapotequism in CL Spanish is also present in other varieties of Oaxacan Spanish where it
sometimes occurrs as bilole/o ‘tadpole (from toad or frog).’ The phonological feature of CLZ
discussed above, for there to be inconsistency with regard to the pronunciation of post-tonic
vowels, is apparent in the forms of this word I have recorded with three different consultants. One
SMigC consultant says bilola, one SBL consultant says bilole/o, while a SMaC consultant says
bilolo. The CLZ word for ‘tadpole’ is lo7l. Animal words in most Zapotec languages have a prefix
which comes from earlier pe- or ko- depending on the word (see, e.g. Marcus & Flannery, 1978).
In Southern Zapotec languages these prefixes have become prenasalized. The CLZ word lo7l is
curiously lacking this prefix but it is present in the SAMZ cognate mbló7l. The lack of
nasalization and the presence of a historically accurate (in this case “front”) pre-tonic vowel,
suggest that this word was not borrowed into Spanish from a Southern Zapotec language, or if it
were then it would say something about when prenasalization and pre-tonic vowel deletion took
place in SZ languages. However, the fact that this word is present in Spanish in other parts of
Oaxaca suggests that indeed this word is borrowed into Spanish from some other kind of Zapotec,
likely Colonial Valley Zapotec. Non-Oaxacan varieties of Spanish use the term renacuajo for
‘tadpole.’ This word exists in the Spanish of the Southern Zapotec region but it refers to a
salamander.
The name of one of the cargos that men have to serve at intervals throughout life in SBL and
elsewhere is called ngwlàb in CLZ. In Spanish this is translated as [wlaBo] ~ [olaBo], including in
the place name Piedra Wlavo or Yî Ngwlàb in CLZ, a large rock along the Paso Macahuite which
lies between SBL and San Bartolomé Loxicha. The relaciones mention a similarly named
position, but with different responsibilities back then, golave.
CLZ bíx ‘baby’s urine’ is bixe in Spanish.
The ranch called Làbcho7n in CLZ is known in Spanish as Bix Wane. The Spanish name looks
to be a borrowing from a different Zapotec term than the one used in CLZ today. Another ranch,
Làt Chu7t is known in Spanish as Latixute.
A type of grasshopper, mbíchi7x, is known as chapulín bixiento.
1.8 Southern Zapotec culture
In this section I begin by recounting some details mentioned in colonial documents that shed
light on part of the culture that existed among the SZ’s at that time. Next I transition into a
description of the modern culture, especially as found in SBL. This is not intended to be an
exhaustive ethnographic description, since an entire dissertation could easily be written on that
subject alone, and still not be exhaustive. However, since so little is known about the Southern
Zapotecs, and about CLZ speakers in particular, and since I have learned quite a bit of cultural
information during my eight years of linguistic work on this language, I think the description I
can provide here will be of interest to scholars for whom cultural anthropology is a primary
pursuit, as well as to other interested parties.
1.8.1 Life in earlier times in the Southern Zapotec region
It has already been mentioned that the SZ’s practiced ancestor worship, had painted lienzos
detailing the founding of their lands, and used a version of the Mesoamerican 260 day calendar
from which they took a name at birth. According the the colonial relaciones the SZ also practiced
human and blood sacrifice, had a sharp distinction between nobles and peasants, and had religious
beliefs and practices closely tied to nature. Here I will relay the information we have from these
early sources specifically on the SZ. More general descriptions and descriptions of early Zapotec
culture elsewhere, such as in the Valley, Sola, and Villa Alta can be found in several sources
including Córdova’s (1578) Arte, del Paso y Troncoso (1905), Whitecotton (1977), and Alcina
Franch (1993).
About the Zapotec calendar, Gutiérrez (1609) describes its use in Amatlán:
Los meses contavan por sus planetas llamando al primero conejo y al segundo liebre, al
tercero venado, y desta manera discvrrian por todo el año, acomodando la naturaleça de
los animales al tiempo que corria. Tenian bisiesto que llaman Coci, que quiere decir
‘sobra’ o ‘añididura’ el cual era de 10 a 10 años que hallauan de sobra 3 dias, los cuales
ayunauan diciendo que los dioses le davan aquellos 3 dias mas de vida. Pero agora
cuentan como los españoles.
They counted the months by their planets, calling the first ‘rabbit’ and the second
‘jackrabbit, the third ‘deer’, and they continued this way throughout the year, fitting the
nature of the animals to the passage of time. They had a leapyear they call Coci, which
means ‘leftover’ or ‘additional’ which was an extra three days for every ten years, during
which they would fast, saying that the gods gave them those three days more of life. But
now they count like the Spaniards. (my translation)
As elsewhere in Mesoamerica there was a sharp cultural contrast between nobles and
commoners. Pre-Cortesian nobles lived in centers while the peasants lived a more rural existence.
When going into battle, nobles had superior cotton armor and weaponry, and military dress
including feather headdresses in Ozolotepec (Espíndola, 1580).
Miahuatlán, arguably the most important SZ town for the last several centuries, was home to a
slave market prior to Spanish contact but lasting after the Spanish takeover. Captives from
Mexico, Tlaxcala, Tepeaca and the Mixteca Alta were sold here. They were used as domestic
servants and were sacrificed and sometimes cannibalized in ceremonies. During colonial times
each slave was valued at between one and one and a half pesos of powdered gold (Whitecotton,
1977).
The SZ’s practiced ancestor worship and also made offerings, as many still do today, to
Zapotec deities. Espíndola (1580) says that in Miahuatlán they treated the ancestors of the
cacique Cosiosolachi like God. In Miahuatlán and Ozolotepec Espíndola (1580) mentions public
houses of worship. In Miahuatlán they reverred Tlacatecolotl (a Nahuatl name translated by
Espíndola as ‘the name of the devil’) and Gozio ‘the god of water.’ They went to Gozio at
planting time and to Tlacatecolotl for other jobs and their general needs. On certain days they
offered these gods dogs, birds including quails, red and green parrot feathers, and sometimes
people, who were sacrificed by special priests called bigañas (Espíndola, 1580). In Ozolotepec
they worshipped Bezelao who Espíndola calls ‘the devil’ but acknowledges was a universal god
to the Ozolotepecans whom he helped in planting and in war. There they also had lesser gods who
served as intercessors to Bezelao, including one named Cozichacozee who was the god of war
(Espíndola, 1580). According to Whitecotton (1977), Cozichacozee was associated with the sun
god Copichja, who was a reflection of Pitao Cozanna “the begetter” who was associated with the
aforementioned Bezelao. As mentioned in 1.5.2 the Ozolotepecans also worshipped the remains
of Petela. In Coatlán there was a male idol named Benelaba and a female idol named Jonaji
Belachina. These were kept in different parts of the SMaC cave and men and women went
separately to make sacrifices to the idol of the appropriate sex. Later a Spanish bishop had these
destroyed (Espíndola, 1580). In Santiago Lapaguía there was a cave called Yego Chibilaa where
the people prayed to a waterfall and where they had some round stones arranged (Ortega, 1777).
In many of the SZ relaciones a sharp reduction in population is described as following the
arrival of the Spaniards. Of Amatlán Espíndola (1580) writes that they used to have a population
of 20,000, extending into the mountains to the East, but after the Spaniards forced them to all stay
in the center their population decreased drastically due to war and disease. Before the people were
said to live 80-100 years but now they lived to be 60-80, which Espíndola for one attributed to the
work of the Christian god, saying that they died from “many diseases which Our Lord has
permitted on account of them not being as good Christians as they ought to” (my translation).
Likewise in Miahuatlán there had been more than 20,000 before the conquest. According to
Espíndola few were lost in the Spanish conquest itself because they yielded to Cortés quickly on
account of having their own war with Coatlán, but not that long after people started to die of
leprosy and a disease referred to as camaras de sangre which means ‘bloody diarrhea’ and these
diseases were said to consume some three fourths of the people (Espíndola, 1580). Gutiérrez
(1609) also writes that there was a small pox epidemic 6-8 years after the conquest.In Coatlán
many also died from camaras de sangre, and a disease that sounds like pox24. The people
attributed their illnesses to fright caused by the coming of the Spaniards. In Ozolotepec there was
an epidemic during the late 1570’s in which more than 1200 died (Espíndola, 1580), including
100 in one day (Gutiérrez, 1609) which had to be buried in 10 group graves of 10 each. Between
these plagues and the war with Río Hondo the population diminished to 10,000 people and then
cocolistes (a Nahuatl term for ‘disease’ or ‘plague’) reduced it more to only 2,000 tribute payers
and by the time of the 1609 relación there were only 800 tribute payers. Gutiérrez (1609)
attributed other diseases there like hydropsy, camaras, and tabardetes to the cold weather. There
the people also complained that they worked harder but lived longer in the pre-Spanish days.
According to Espíndola, they used to work from the age of 6, not have much to eat, and have to
sleep outside during wars, but lived to be 100. Then they used to marry at 40 but now they
married at 12 or 15.25 One thing that seemed to make the effects of the plagues more concentrated
was the Spanish efforts at rounding people up and forcing them to live in centers. In Ozolotepec a
judge ordered everyone out of their hillside homes and into 500 houses in the center but slowly
some went back to their previous homes with special permission from the viceroy and others died
and by Gutiérrez’s (1609) relación there were only 50 occupied houses left in the town center. In
Coatlán more than other SZ towns many died in the initial Spanish conquest in battles with Cortés
and following that the already much reduced population was hit with small pox and plagues
(Gutiérrez, 1609). In Amatlán there were 5000 houses before the arrival of Cortés and through
war and disease these were reduced to 100 by 1609 (Gutiérrez). Many SZ’s also died in the mines
of Chichicapan during colonial days. The Spaniards sent many there as punishment for rebellions.
24
“...Muchos granos que por el cuerpo les salian, de que murio en jeneral mucha suma de gente”
(Espíndola, 1580).
25
One has to wonder whether some of the difference in ages cited also has to do with the difference in
calendar. Perhaps the older ages are refering to 260-day years.
Santiago Lapaguía also saw its population sharply reduced from 500 to 100 households (Ortega,
1777).
The relaciones mention a few of the herbal remedies that were used by the SZ’s. In
Miahuatlán Espíndola cites these with Nahuatl names, including one called pietl or in Spanish
“beleño.” For wood in Coatlán they used a tree by the Nahuatl name of tlaquilolquahuitl
(Espíndola, 1580). The most complete information on traditional medicine of this region comes
from Gutiérrez’s relación of Amatlán. He names four remedies in Zapotec and/or Nahuatl and
describes how they are used, information which is mostly reproduced above in Figure 10. He also
describes the use of the temascal there.
In the CLZ-speaking region the houses were built out of stone in the colder areas (probably the
Coatlanes) and out of cane in the hotter areas (probably the Loxichas; Espíndola, 1580).
The caciques of the SZ polities are described as retaining their titles but without enjoying any
special economic status. In Amatlán (Espíndola, 1580) the cacique Colaça didn’t receive tribute
from his people, nor did he request it, though the people did plant crops and build buildings for
him. In Coatlán the cacique didn’t benefit economically during colonial days and lived as poorly
as the rest of the population, unlike caciques from other towns in Oaxaca like Etla, where local
lords were allowed to keep land and grew rich and often started dressing like Spaniards and
residing in Oaxaca (Whitecotton, 1977).
Then as now there was a large market in Miahuatlán. In 1580 it was on Thursdays whereas
today it is on Mondays. There they sold salt from Tehuantepec, and cotton from the hot coastal
lowlands which was brought from their by CLZ speakers. The latter they spun and weaved into
cotton sheathes from which they made their clothes, including shirts and çaragüelles. The
Coatecs were also beekeepers and brought honey to market. Pineapples and bananas came from
Huatulco. In the Miahuatlán market they also sold soaproot to wash clothes with. They also grew
some European vegetables which they didn’t eat themselves but grew to sell to the Spaniards
(Espíndola, 1580). The Amatecs by 1609 were living off the money they made by making and
selling straw mats for sleeping on (petates). The sale of cochineal dye, produced from a bug that
feeds on corn, was the driving force behind the Miahuatlán economy until the late nineteenth
century when other dyes became more common and then the region transitioned to coffee
growing, which is still a major force of the SZ economy today in the lands suitable for growing it.
1.8.2 Modern cultural information
In this final section of this introduction to CLZ and the people who speak it, I share some of
the things I have learned about the lives and culture of the people of San Baltazar Loxicha. Many
of the details found here apply to other CLZ-speaking towns as well but the information
presented comes to me from SBL unless otherwise noted. The description I give here mostly
pertains to conservative families. Not everyone in SBL shares the beliefs or lifestyle that I
describe here and many of these patterns are currently changing, however, many young people do
belong to families for whom this description is relevant and it is thus not the case that the
difference between conservatism and innovation comes down to an age gap. Education, especially
higher education which takes students out of SBL, has an impact and may change a person’s life
from the more traditional patterns described here but even people who have gone to school in
Miahuatlán may return to SBL and do not necessarily change their lifestyle so drastically as to not
find any of the details below familiar. A bigger cultural difference exists between the Protestants
and Catholics. The largest protestant group is Pentacostals but there are also some Baptists and
Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Catholics lead a more traditional lifestyle and this section is basically
about them. Protestants reject traditional beliefs which have connections to ancient Zapotec
religion. However, in SBL relations between the two groups are fairly good and much better than
elsewhere in Mexico. These two groups of Chareños (people from SBL) tease each other and
clearly disagree with each other’s beliefs and to some extent with each other’s lifestyles, but they
are friends and compatriots. They have open discussions about their differences and agree to
disagree.
The people of SBL grow corn, beans, squash, bananas and other fruit for their own
consumption and grow coffee as a cash crop. Some also grow sugar cane from which they make
panela (blocks of cane sugar used in making other sweets and to sweeten beverages, also used as
a remedy for scorpion bites). Men travel and sometimes stay for up to a week at remote locations
where they tend their crops and other times hunt. Women stay home to cook, care for the children
and otherwise maintain the household. Tortillas and other food are sometimes brought to the men
remotely where they are working the field. Besides farming the people of SBL make a living at
different professions including carpentry, home construction, transporting people and cargo,
lumber processing, or by working in the town government.
Marriage is arranged between the two families. The parents or grandparents may select a bride
for the son but this is usually discussed in the family with the young man before approaching the
young woman’s family. The parents first discuss the proposition with the girl’s parents and then
only if they agree do they call the girl in to ask her own opinion. Sometimes the young man (and
the young woman, for that matter) may not openly reject his parents’ preference out of respect
and shyness, but the young people, who may have secret loves already, may conspire with each
other to make sure that the correct match is made. This is illustrated by the following case, in
which a boy had a secret love, and both the boy and the girl knew that his parents had plans to ask
for another particular young woman, not even knowing that their son liked the first one.
When the father asked the son if he had any girlfriends he was not forthcoming and allowed
his parents to go through the ritual of seeking a bride without suggesting the one he wanted, being
shy and not wanting to openly suggest his own choice over his parents’. His parents went to
several houses of people they knew with marriageable girls. Sometimes the people would right
away say that they couldn’t, that the girl already had another engagement, or was involved with
someone and the parents wouldn’t want trouble with the boy’s parents for this reason. Sometimes
the parents would say yes and then when they called in the girl to ask her opinion she would
relent and say that she was interested in someone else. Finally the boy’s parents arrived to talk
with some other friends who had a daughter and the four parents agreed to proceed, but they
made the mistake of not talking to the girl. On the appointed day the boy’s parents returned, all by
themselves carrying a crate of beer, soft drinks, bread, chocolate, and cigarrettes. They came at
night, around 10pm so that other people wouldn’t see what they were up to. Otherwise not only
would there be gossip but maybe some other family would get in a competition with them over
the girl. As they approached the house they could see the light shining through the crack in the
door. Up close they could even peek inside and see that the girl was there with her parents and
grandmother, but they would not open the door. The boy’s father shouted for them to open up, or
at least for the girl’s father to come out and tell him one way or another that the deal was off.
Finally the boy’s parents gave up and carried all their goods back home. On the way they almost
stopped at other girls’ houses, but didn’t. It just so happens that the girl whose family did not
open the door was very good friends with the son’s secret love. That girl ended up marrying
someone else herself that same year so for one reason or another she had made it clear to her
parents that she didn’t want to marry the boy. The boy’s parents, and his father especially, were
very worried over not finding a daughter-in-law. Finally the man decided to go to a fortune teller
he heard about on the radio in Tlacolula. One morning he got up in the wee hours, made the long
trip to Miahuatlán and was there by 6am. From there he travelled to Oaxaca and then to Tlacolula
where there was a long line of people buying tickets to ask the fortune teller about their own
problems. Finally the boy’s father entered to see the man who told him that he knew why he had
come, that they had rejected him in the other house, that that girl was already being promised to
another. But, he told him to not worry. He said that within the next two days his daughter-in-law
would be in his house. The man couldn’t understand how he could possibly have a daughter-inlaw in his house so soon when he didn’t even have a prospective daughter-in-law. Nevertheless,
he took comfort in the man’s words and began the long journey home. Unbeknownst to him, that
same day the son’s secret girlfriend showed up at the house to visit his mother. The mother was
busy doing chores but the girl offered to help. She spent the whole day there with her making
tortillas and washing clothes and they even ate supper together, the girl, the boy, and his mother.
Later that evening when the father arrived home and told his wife and son that the fortune teller
said that within two days their daughter-in-law would be there in their house, the mother and son
started to laugh. The mother said that she had already been there that very day. The parents went
to ask the girl’s parents and in contrast to their previous experience, now they encountered no
resistence or problems. They agreed on a date to formally seal the agreement and on that day they
returned, along with their son, bringing cigarrettes and food and drink for all the girl’s family who
had come for the occasion. There the boy’s father was finally relaxing and telling his new in-laws
how hard it had been to find a daughter-in-law and how relieved they were when they had agreed.
Only then did the girl’s father tell him “of course we’d let your son marry our daughter, he’s here
visiting her all the time.” Only now did the father find out that his son, who now held his face
down out of embarrassment, had anything more than a passing acquaintance with the girl.
Everyone laughed about it and they all lived happily ever after.
In this example, it is clear that the older generation has the status and the formal decisionmaking power, but they do not abuse it and they overtly ask their children’s opinion about
marriage options. The children, in some cases like the girls’ houses that were visited, openly give
negative answers. In other cases the same message is achieved through more indirect means, by
the boy’s not giving a straight answer to his father’s question, by the first girl’s family not
opening the door, perhaps because of that girl’s communication with the ultimate bride, and by
the girlfriend’s visit to the mother-in-law. Here the older generation acts more assertively, openly
asking the questions of the younger generation and of the prospective in-laws, except in the case
where at the girl’s behest her parents do not answer the door. There is an age-based hierarchy but
the younger people find ways within the system to achieve the outcome they desire.
This story comes to me from the younger generation of people now in their twenties. I don’t
know if this generation is really more resourceful than the older generation, or if the current older
generation (or just certain families) are more understanding than others, but I have heard several
stories of unhappy arranged marriages. If an unhappy match is made it is typically the woman
who is made most miserable because families are usually patrilocal. Occaisionally if a family has
no sons they may only agree to their daughter’s marriage if the son-in-law agrees that they will
permanently reside in the girl’s family. This may also work out well for the boy’s family if there
are several sons and not enough room for all the married families, in fact in such cases the boy’s
family may even suggest this option. Such a matrilocal son-in-law is called gùzh zo&b ‘yerno de
planta; seated son-in-law’ though in Spanish his friends may taunt him by calling him yerno
esclavo ‘slave son-in-law.’ Occasionally the girl’s family will request, as a condition of their
permitting the marriage, that the couple reside in the woman’s house for the first year of the
marriage, during which time the young man will help his father-in-law. Such a young man is
called gùzh dûb li7n ‘yerno de un año; one-year son-in-law.’ Normally though, the woman will go
to live with the boy’s family permanently. Her happiness depends just as much on good relations
with her in-laws as with her husband. The process of arranging marriages is as much or possibly
more about the boy’s parents seeking a daughter-in-law than it is about the boy finding a wife.
Some of the focus is on the needs of the parents, the heads of household, to find a young woman
to continue with the family and household. In the true story told above, the marriage ends up
coming about because the young woman goes to court her mother-in-law, showing her that she
could be a helpful household companion.
If the man’s family are the one’s to choose the bride and to bring the bride into their home, the
woman’s parents also have some influence of their own by being the ones to pick the godparents
of the wedding. The godparents of the wedding become the compadres of both sets of parents as
well as any other living ancestors of the bride and groom. Today the girl’s parents often pick
padrinos from their own family and things are more free form. Sometimes there are no padrinos
(godparents) because there is no formal wedding, and when there are baptisms people just pick
who they want, but up until a few decades ago (and to a lesser extent continuing today in some
families) the system of compadrazgo in SBL was a multigenerational committment and
relationship between families and was a matrilineal relationship. In this system the padrinos of
the wedding would become the de facto padrinos de bautizo (the baptismal godparents who are
the most important peronal godparents that a person has in life, and consequently also the
compadres or ‘co-parents’ of the parents and grandparents of the child) of all the children born of
that marriage. Furthermore, the baptismal godparents of a girl are expected to be the godparents
of that girl’s wedding when she grows up, and thus the cycle continues. Since the same person
cannot live long enough to be a girl’s baptismal godparents and then the godparents of her
wedding and then of her children and then of her daughters’ weddings and so on forever, when a
person dies or is too old to take on the responsibility, it passes to that person’s children. On each
occasion, marriage or baptism, the family in which the marriage or baptism takes place would
formally go to ask the prospective compadres/padrinos, though by custom they would go to the
same person or couple (the woman’s baptismal godparents/godparents of her wedding). If the
godparents were getting to old they would be the ones to determine, when asked, that it was time
to step down and they would suggest which one of their children would pick up the torch,
together with that child’s spouse. The retiring godparents could select a child of either sex, their
son or daughter, and one of their own choosing, to fulfill the responsibility. Thus compadrazgo
was a relationship between families which on the side of the godparents could be passed down
generationally without regard to sex while on the side of the ahijados (godchildren) the
relationship was also multigenerational but strictly matrilineal.
Once they reach adolescence (15 or 16) men start to serve their civic and religious
responsibilities in what is known in Mexico as the system of cargos or ‘responsibilities.’ This
system of required public service in SBL mixes political and religious jobs. These positions are
decided at the same time by the same people. Protestants are excused from the religious positions
but may serve in the civic positions. Women usually do not serve unless they are widowed heads
of household or if their husbands cannot serve because they are out of town working, as
increasing numbers are going to North Carolina and Atlanta for work. Single mothers don’t serve,
except by helping with the schools, because they continue to be part of their parents’ household.
With their service boys become men and are considered comuneros auténticos, ‘true citizens.’ If
they are still residing in the same home as their father both men continue to serve but as a favor to
the household they will not be obliged to serve at the same time, until the time when the young
man builds his own dwelling. Service is for the term of one year.
Xa7 làw means ‘comunero,’ a town citizen with all the corresponding rights and
responsibilities. Native town residents become xa7 làw around age sixteen or by eighteen at the
latest. People who come from outside, such as teachers, will also eventually have to serve in the
cargo system and after 5 or 6 years, or earlier if they request they are made comuneros and can
buy a house.
Typically the first cargo that one serves is that of xyà, the topil de vara, who serves the
municipality by running errands for the president (mayor) or filling potholes or doing whatever
the local authorities want. This is usually the first position a man serves in. Several decades ago
they would serve two weeks a month from 5am until midnight but today the workload is lighter at
one week a month, from 9am to 6pm. Part of the decrease in workload is supposedly due to the
fact that the president is out of town on business more often then used to the the case.
After each year of service a man will not have to serve again for at least a year. These
positions are not paid, unless they are positions that require the man and/or his family to be away
from home, such as if they are to serve at one on SBL’s ranches. From first serving as topil a man
rises up the latter of service doing different jobs and serving on different committees until he
reaches retirement age. The other cargos are numerous and are not described here in the interest
of space but the Zapotec term for each is given in the wordlist.
SBL is located in a beautiful, natural setting. It is, and will continue to be for a few years at
least, far away from paved roads, traffic, smog, and the things one finds in cities that keep nature
at bay. There are plants and animals and air and streams and stars everywhere you look. At night
you see the stars more clearly than anyplace I’ve ever been. In the day the sun shines, the air is
still, and the birds of different colors sing and visit to drink nectar from the flowers. Other flowers
you smell at night as you walk by. On your way to town you cross one stream with dragonflies
and water plants and creatures of different kinds. Going outside the town center you see other
bodies of water and tree ferns and foggy pine forests, but also banana trees and sun-loving plants
elsewhere. At night the winds blow so loud on the lamina roof that it’s as if some animate being
were communicating with you. You are surrounded by plants and animals and streams and the
forces of nature. The people who have lived in this environment for so long have determined the
use of many of these plants, and the meaning behind the behavior of the animals and forces of
nature that they encounter in their daily lives.
Traditional Zapotecs believe that each person is born with an animal. An animal is actually
being born at the same time as the person, somewhere in this world or on some plane of
existence. This animal is called variously a tono, tonante, or tonal, all based on the Nahuatl word
tonalli ‘sun’ or ‘day’ (Kartunnen, 1983) suggesting a connection between the belief in this animal
companion and the calendar. Some people, including in the Coatlanes, have told me that a
midwife can find out what a baby’s animal spirit is when they are being born by having the
mother squat over some ashes covered with a petate (woven mat). Afterwards when the petate is
lifted the footprints of the animal in question will be revealed. Sometimes the marks are more
obvious than others and must always be interpreted by the midwife. In SBL adult evidence of a
person’s tono comes when an animal or natural force bothers or acts adversely against a person
who perceives that the damage comes from a particular individual who therefore must have sent
(knowngly or unintentionally) this animal. If a human cries into her pillow, or complains aloud to
the air when alone, the tono will hear this cry and take action, fulfilling ther person’s own desire.
A tono is someone’s spirit but rather than the European idea of the spirit residing inside the
body, the tono is external and can be making mischief far away from where the person is. A tono
is aire ‘air’ that takes the corporeal form of an animal in order to bother people. When a person
has negative feelings, these leave ones body in the form of air and that air meets up with the tono
which is also air and upon this impulse the tono will take the form of an animal in order to
express the negative feelings of the person. A person’s tono will usually take the form of the
particular animal that the person was born with, i.e. the animal identity of the tono, but there is
the vague idea that perhaps under certain circumstances the person’s spirit might be able to take
the form of another animal, to best suit its purposes.
In Mexico and in Oaxaca especially there is the general philosophy that jealousy and
unfulfilled desires can cause harm. Antojo is a disease that people get when they get a craving for
some food that they smell and they don’t eat any of it. This disease manifests with physical
symptoms and is only cured by consuming some of the food in question. As anyone who has had
a baby in Mexico knows, strangers who see a baby and admire it must come to touch it in order to
avoid giving the child ojo (the eye) which will make it sick and colicky at night. Most of the
examples of tonal behavior I have heard of have to do with a person admiring and coveting
someone else’s property. A woman admired her neighbor’s roses and asked her to give her some
for her house. The neighbor did not like to cut her flowers and only gave the woman a few roses,
not all the big beautiful blossoms the woman had wanted. That very night leaf-cutter ants came
and destroyed all the neighbor’s flowers. A man is jealous of how well the corn is growing on the
plot adjacent to his. The wind comes and blows many cornstalks down, but just in the plot that
was doing so well. If the jealous famer has a different tono a parakeet (perico) might come to
each the corn instead. A visitor refuses food offered by the hosts, even though s/he is hungry.
That night mice come to eat corn stored in the house. Little red ants are noticed under the metate
(grinding stone) because someone is hungry and wants to eat. A person wants to buy some of his
neighbor’s chickens but the owner is not ready or willing to sell them. Depending on the slighted
buyer’s tono, that night the tlacomixtle or a hawk comes and eats them. A person gives someone
else a dirty look during the day and that night a bat comes flying around the other person’s house
making noise. If someone sees some yuca growing and wants to eat or buy the root but the owner
says it isn’t mature yet or otherwise won’t sell it, the gopher will come and eat it. Just as many
Americans take comfort in the idea that God will hold accountable those who wronged them in
life, so perhaps Zapotec people take comfort or find release in the idea that their tono is already
avenging them or otherwise acting out surpressed desires, even without them knowing it.
Not just any animal known to aggravate humans can be a tono. There is a fairly fixed set,
although responses I’ve received have varied as to whether or not certain animals can be incuded
in this list. Not all tonos are animals, or at least would not be thought of as animals by most nonZapotecs. Certain forces of nature can also be tonos. What all tonos have in common is their
negative impact on humans. Some are only a minor nuisance while others can cause serious
damage to life or livelihood.
While most examples of tonantes behaving badly are expressions of jealousy, there are at least
two tonos which act out of pure malice. If people get into a fight and especially if one hits the
other, if the offended party has the snake tono a snake will go to give the other person a good
scare. Since the tono is air, it is normally a gas, a substance which is fluid and not corporeal, it
may materialize into more than one animal. On one occasion after a fight in which one man drew
a machete on the other one in a drunken rage, the following day the man encountered seven
snakes, some in his house and some on the way to his cornfield. He killed each one with a
machete. The last one was rather large and was enough to send the man home for the day.
Normally when a tono acts against someone, that person will deduce for themselves that such a
thing is transpiring because such and such a person must have that tono, but the person whose
tono is acting out will not even know that anything has happened. They may not know what tono
they have and it would be an insult for the newly injured party to accuse them. In a rare case, the
man who saw seven snakes was so angry that he did go to confront the man he suspected. Equally
rare was that man’s response that indeed he had knowingly sent those snakes to teach the man a
lesson to not pull his machete on him again. In this case one interpretation offered by someone
familiar with the facts is that the man sent or asked for the snake to scare the man with the
machete. Sometimes people do say things like ‘I wish the wind would knock down a few of his
cornstalks’ or ‘if only a snake would come and teach him a lesson’ and while many people may
say things like this, the words will only come true if by coincidence the person saying them
actually does have the tono mentioned. In this case the man may not have known that he had a
snake tonal but since he had wished for such a thing to happen he was not surprised when the
man showed up complaining about snakes and if he didn’t already know what tono he had, now
his victim only confirmed for him what powers were available to him.
In other places in Mesoamerica it is known that some people have the power to turn into their
tono or nagual, usually at night. In some Zapotec communities it is said that if a baby is not
baptized s/he retains the power to do this (Nader, 1969; Parsons, 1932). In SBL no one is known
to have such powers but people in SBL have heard of a very few people in nearby towns who do,
though in at least one case the man can turn into any animal, not just the one of his animal spirit.
Elsewhere there is the belief that if such a person is killed while in the form of an animal, the
person him- or herself dies. In SBL killing someone’s tono won’t kill the person because the tono
is a person’s external spirit and since it is air it is not completely confined to the animal body it
sometimes takes the form of. In the case above of the man with the machete who killed seven
snakes, the other man did get sick that same day, but did not die from this.
The most powerful of all tonantes and the only one that actually kills humans, is Lightning.
One day in SBL two women were having a loud argument that many people heard. That same
afternoon Lightning struck the house of one woman, killing her in an instant.
The different times I have discussed tonos with LDP we have come up with a list of either 14
or 17. These numbers are not far off from the number of named days in the 260-day calendar,
which was still in use in SAL during the twentieth century (Weitlaner et al., 1994). Further
evidence of a relationship between the belief in tonos and the calendar are sayings like “he who is
born on the day the first snake was born on has the tono of snake” and “he who is born on the day
of Lightning has the tono of Lightning.”
Many animals, including a few which seem like borderline tonantes, are anuncios. These are
animals whose presence signifies something. When the pajaro chismoso ‘gossipy bird,’ whose
call sounds like chatter, comes around someone’s house, it means that somewhere they are
gossiping about a person in that house. The lightning bug is called mkóz (homophonous with
‘earring’) but is also called má ga&n ‘animal of the dead’ because it announces that there will be a
death. If a fox comes near the house making noise it means that someone in the house will die
within the year. The nocturnal bird called mbyu7z also anounces that a person will die. When an
owl comes near a person’s house and makes noise it is said that dead relatives are trying to
communicate. A sahorín can interpret the message which may be that the deceased wants his
grave kept up better and stocked with flowers, or there may be various other messages. The owl is
a special messenger though because it actually may be the dead person in the form of the own. In
another scenario reminiscent of the descriptions of tonos above, if a person leaves property to
more than one relative in a will, such as to two children, but one takes all the property for himself,
if the disenfranchised inheritor goes to the gravesite to complain, the dead person will turn into an
owl and go to complain to the person who is exploiting the situation. The owl is also called mbèk
te& ga&n ‘dog of the dead.’ The fox is also called by this same term which people also sometimes
translate as ‘tonal de los muertos.’
Not all anuncios are bad. If a person is thinking about some idea they have like making a
certain purchase and they see an eagle, if they see the chest of the eagle it means that the idea will
work out but if they only see it from behind things will not work out and it’s better to forget the
idea. A bird called the cherihuizo announces that a visitor is coming. It is also called má me&n or
‘human’s animal’ because it announces humans’ arrival. Though the cherihuizo announces the
arrival of living people it is also sometimes called má ga&n ‘dead person’s animal’ or mbèk te& ga&n
‘dead person’s dog.’ It seems that many anuncios are called by these terms, perhaps indicating
that animals with such powers of foretelling have knowledge of the same magical or supernatural
knowledge the dead have access too, and these animals are like the dead people’s helpers or even
pets.
No all anuncios are animals. Certain occurrences have similar meanings. When someone gets
a ba7, a swelling under a molar, it means that someone will die.
Some animals have other special, magical traits referred to as ‘secrets’ or mañas. The jaguar
cannot be killed, even if you shoot right at it. The ocelot is simply beautiful to look at when on
the ground but if it is unseen and located above you in the trees it can fool you. The ocelot goes
along following you above in the canopy and all the while you are hallucinating that someone you
know has just appeared and is walking along with you. You follow them along, getting farther
and farther into the forest until you finally see the ocelot jump out of the tree and the person
vanishes and you realize the animal fooled you.
Not quite an anuncio, there is one interesting personal trait which in real life stories
consistently acts as foreshadowing to the suspicious nature of a person. People who don’t eat salt,
or who don’t eat at all, strangers who arrive in town and are offered tortillas but who will only eat
them without salt or anything on them, are not normal people. One such woman appeared,
disheveled, seemingly out of nowhere only to disappear again shortly thereafter. Another time a
man who was not a Zapotec speaker himself and who had come from the Coatlanes had an
interesting encounter with a very old man. The Coatec man was working for a particular man
from SBL who is about 60. The Coatec man’s boss is known to have before been a staunch
traditionalist, someone who frequently made offerings to supernatural beings, but is now a
Protestant. The old man was passing by and saw the Coatec man working and sat down for a
while to shoot the breeze with him while the man who was working had lunch. He offered him
food but all the old man would accept was tortillas without salt or anything and he didn’t even eat
them. The old man was dressed all in white with calzón de manta, the typical clothing of a
Zapotec man up until sometime in the twentieth century, but now out of use in SBL. The worker
asked where the man had come from. He said “I’ve always been here. All of this is my land.” The
old man asked the worker how long he had been working for the Protestant man. It hadn’t been
very long and he hadn’t even gotten his first paycheck yet. The old man warned him to be careful.
He said he had worked for the man’s boss before and had not been paid as promised. Curious
about the old man’s appearance, the young man asked him how old he was. His reply was 400
years. Later the Protestand man denied that anyone matching the man’s description had worked
for him. The interpretation of some was that the 400-year-old man was xa7 Yîzh Lû ‘gente del
mundo; person of the World.’ Xa7 Yîzh Lû are regarded as aires malos, bad airy spirits like devils,
but the negativity of their description in Spanish, the language that came with Catholicism, is not
apparent in the Zapotec name nor in the innocent vibe of this plainly dressed old man. These
beings would be related to “the Devil” that one asks for help in the hunt, as described below.
Rarely I have heard that some animals may have tonos like people do. In one case there is
something referred to sometimes as the tono of deer but which actually is very different than what
is described above as the concept of tono. Rarely, perhaps one out of one hundred times, a hunter
will find inside the body of a deer he kills a stone which is formed inside the body of the animal
which in English is called a besuara. In SBL the besuara is called piedra de fortuna in Spanish
and yî be7y in CLZ.The hunter who is lucky enough to find this stone must keep it and never
show it to anyone, lest it lose its power, which is helpful to him. The stone looks like a mirror, the
size of a small eraser. Whenever the hunter wants to hunt deer in the future he has only to look
into the reflection to see whether such an effort is advised. If he sees something that looks like an
ant (really it’s a deer but due to the small size of the stone the deer looks like an ant) they he
knows the hunt will be successful. If he sees something that looks like a thread then that is a
snake and it is better not to go hunting so as not to be frightened by an encounter with a snake. If
he sees nothing at all the trip is just not worth his time because he won’t find anything. It is said
that this besuara is like the tono of the deer, and not just the deer from whose body it came but
probably one hundred others, who may now appear, as if attracted to the stone that the hunter
bears.
A hunter who finds a besuara is a lucky hunter, who will no longer have to make as much
effort or waste as much time trying to find deer26. Most hunters are not so lucky and if they want
increased success in the hunt they have to ask the deer’s owner. There are three types of deer
depending on who the owner is. Some are God’s deer. Some are the Devil’s deer. Others are
Water’s deer. By making an offering to the Devil a person can get a lot of deer. Likewise by
making an offering to water, such as the River, one can get a lot of deer. In the case of Water,
Water has alter egos because Water is also the Snake and also Lightning. These are three
incarnations of the same being. When dealing with Lightning/Snake/Water or the Devil, the
process has to be taken seriously because there will be consequences if one does not behave
appropriately with respect to the animals (see the text in Appendix B2). If instead one goes to the
church and asks a Saint for God’s deer the process is less risky but the rewards won’t be as much.
Only one or a few deer will be gotten this way.
Lightning, Ngwzi7 in CLZ, is the most important supernatural force in Zapotec religion going
back to ancient times. It is often associated with a reptile or amphibian, such as the snake just
mentioned or the iguana. Lightning frequently hits churches in the SZ area, damaging or
destroying them. Once right after Lightning hit the church in SBL the following day an iguana
misteriously appeared right on the spot where Lightning had struck. The gave this iguana a
special name Wàch te& Ngwzi7 ‘Lightning’s iguana.’ According to Ortega (1777), the community
of Santiago Lapaguía was originally located elsewhere and called Lachebetto27 ‘tecolutillos; little
owls’ until Lightning burned the church and so they moved the whole town to another place. One
wonders what the Zapotec interpretation of such an event is, especially in the eighteenth century
and especially if it prompts the whole town to move.
26
These days deer hunting is forbidden in SBL so much of this material applies to earlier times, though
some do still hunt deer secretly.
27
Cf CLZ mbe&d ‘owl.’
Lightning is not necessarily just one being. There may be different lightnings, like in the text
in B2. This was so not just in earlier Zapotec traditions but among the Aztec and Maya as well
(Bierhorst, 1990). A more contemporary example happened to one resident of SBL. Lightning
struck his house and damaged it. After that happened the electrical box (where the circuit
breakers are) was humming for a week until Lightning struck again in the very same place and
the noise ceased. It was said that the first Lightning got trapped in the electrical box and that the
second Lightning came to free his friend and take him back home.
Bierhorst (1990) identifies a motif of Mesoamerican mythology which has to do with the Earth
eating the dead. She eats us when we die as payment for the food we consume or the wounds we
make in the earth with agriculture or horticulture. According the Bierhorst, this motif of the
hungry earth-mother was also used to motivate human and blood sacrifice among the ancient
Mesoamericans. I have not heard of or recorded such a myth among CLZ speakers but there is a
story of a modern day occurrence which is reminiscent of this. One of if not the worst cargo
someone can have in SBL is one in which one of the job duties is grave-digging. The reason this
is so horrible is because they use the same plots over and over again. As older bodies decompose
they take up less space, can be moved down lower with other bones, and room is made for the
newer bodies on top. However, sometimes the bodies are not fully decomposed and the workers
have to dig them up and pull them out and make room for the new body and then put the leftovers
back on top. All they have for comfort is a pair of gloves and a bottle of mezcal. Not
understanding why this horrible experience is perpetuated I finally asked LDP why the town
didn’t just make the graveyard bigger or alot some new land for burials to give the older bodies
more time to decompose. He said that around 1960 the town had thought the same thing and in
the assembly they voted to expand the limits of the graveyard. Well, unfortunately that year more
people than ever died in SBL and so the following year they voted to move the boundaries of the
graveyard back to where they had been before and to continue using the same space. Since then
the death rate has returned to normal.
The Southern Zapotecs have long suffered horrible illnesses and high mortality rates. One man
from SAM had seven children, the first four of which died between the ages of 4 and 17. The
surviving three children never even knew the first set. I have heard countless stories about the
families of people I’ve worked with. I’ve heard of and known women who had numerous
miscarriages and stillbirths before ever having a child live. It’s hard for someone coming from a
society with relatively low infant mortality rates to comprehend how a parent could mentally and
emotionally keep it together and continue to be a fairly happy person for decades after such things
happen. A big part of the problem that existed across this region was the lack of access to health
care. Being isolated in the mountains, far away from medical care, and especially before cars
came to these towns, a sick person simply could not walk to Miahuatlán and instead they stayed
home and died. Fortunately today there are local clinics and the statistics are much improved over
how things used to be, even if still not perfect. Being on their own, unable to rely on any other
medical establishment for healthcare, SZ people have long known about remedies for certain
illnesses, using plants found locally. For those interested in learning a few details of SBL
ethnomedicine, the supplemental CD included with this dissertation includes video excerpts from
the 2004 visit LDP and I made along with another SZ speaker to the Jardín Etnobotánico de
Oaxaca. In the video clips LDP shows plants in the garden which are also found in SBL and
describes their use first in Zapotec and then in Spanish.
While some illnesses have herbal cures others have magical cures. One illness well known to
Oaxacans is susto or ‘fright.’ The way that fright gets in a person’s body to make them sick is that
if a person is surprised they involuntarily ingressively gasp, thus pulling in a bad air or spirit
which can harm them. There are different kinds of susto. Susto de agua is when someone is
frightened around water. For example, once my two-year-old daughter almost fell into a swiming
pool as a Valley Zapotec friend of mine was watching. She gave the frightened gasp as she
lunged forward to grab my daughter. A moment later while she wasn’t looking her husband
sucked some of the swimming pool water and blew it out onto the back of her neck. The same
water had to be used to frighten her again, and from behind, to get the susto to leave her body and
not make her sick. This same process has been described to me for people in SBL where again the
water must be blown from the mouth and preferably the water should be from the same water that
caused the fright. In SBL they blow the water 3 or 7 times.
Susto can cause symptoms such as abdominal inflamation and pain. Susto caused by
hallucinating seeing an animal in the forest can actually kill a person on the spot if the fright is
severe. Severe fright can also be caused by witnessing another person’s death. In severe cases like
these someone must go to a sacaespanto ‘fright-remover.’
Children can be frightened if they are sleeping and chickens or other animals make loud
noises. If they gasp ingressively that will make them sick. They may get a fever and a stomach
ache and may cry a lot. The susto may remain in the child for weeks or a year or until whenever it
is noticed and treated by removal. One woman who knows how to remove fright from children
does so using candles. She melts the candle and puts it in a bowl of water which she covers with a
plate and on top of the plate she puts a palm cross saved from Palm Sunday. She speaks from
behind the plate and her words are not fixed but they are something like this:
Wzë`, nzô-l^ pa& yè bâ, nzô-l^ pa& tô na7t bâ, nzô-l^ pa& gòx bâ nzô xbì-l^, nké zë`
yo7n xbì-l^ pa& gòx bâ, nzô-l^ ndô xîl, bzë`, wxên látyo7-lˆ, blá nzhá nì, bzë`.
Come! You are standing over on that hill, by the edge of the stream. You are
standing on that slope. Your spirit (air) is standing over there. Your spirit is
crying on that slope. You are standing in the frost. Receive your spirit! Arrive
home! Walk (come)!
She repeats this process seven times putting the candle in the bowl and talking. She is
one the opposite side of the bowl from the child and while she is talking she is sprinkling
water on the child. Only a few elders know how to do this. In the case of the woman
whose practice is described here, she does not ask for any payment, although the people
usually give her something. She often says that it would be better to only do this for
family members since she doesn’t want to be known in the gossip mill as someone who
charges for such services. The spiritual practitioners who do charge money are viewed
with suspicion by many in the community.
CLZ is a language with a rich history and whose people preserve a rich culture, of
which this language is part. With this introductory chapter I hope to have provided a
historical, geographical and cultural context within which this beautiful language can be
further appreciated.