4
Itzaj and Mopan Identities in Petén, Guatemala
CHARLES ANDREW HOFLING
Introduction
Itzaj and Mopan are members of the Yukatekan branch of the Mayan language family. Itzaj is spoken around Lake Petén–Itzá in Petén, Guatemala.1 Mopan is spoken in southern Petén and the neighboring Maya Mountains region of Belize. The Yukatekan branch of the Mayan language family is diagramed in figure 4.1. Language differences index differences in group identity. People who communicate more with one another tend to speak more like one another; over time, these differences in communicative interaction and identity lead to dialect and language differences. References to the Itza as an ethnic group, with a distinct culture history and identity, begin in the Classic period (ad 250–900) in the Lake Petén Itzá region of Petén and in northern Yucatán and continue in ethnohistorical and historical documents to the present. Boot has extensively documented hieroglyphic references to the Itza and their ruler Kan Ek’ at Petén sites and at Chichén Itzá in Yucatán (Boot 2005:36–193). The Yukatekan Books of Chilam Balam also refer to the Itza as foreigners who came to Yucatán from the south. A group of Itzas later migrated back south to Petén from the northern Yucatán during an 8 Ajaw k’atun period, perhaps ad 1185–1204 (ibid.:145–64).2 The Kowojs were another Yukatekan group that migrated south from Mayapan during an 8 Ajaw k’atun in the fifteenth century or earlier (Pugh 2001) and settled in the region to the north and east of Lake Petén–Itzá (Jones 1998; Rice and Rice 2009). The linguistic differences between the Kowojs and Itzas were minor, but they clearly had separate identities and were hostile toward one another (Jones 1998, 2009; Rice and Rice 2009; Hofling 2009).
Figure 4.1. Yukatekan branch of the Mayan language family
The approximate distribution of lowland Mayan languages at the time of contact is shown on map 4.1. According to Spanish accounts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Itzajs dominated the Petén lakes region southward, including the Mopan area. Mopan is mentioned hieroglyphically as a toponym at Naj Tunich, a cave in the southern Petén region that Mopans currently occupy. The Petén has been an ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous region since the Classic period (see Macri, this volume). A group named the Kejaches occupied the area north of the lake (Jones 1998 ), and the Ikaiches were north of them. The Ikaiches were a powerful rebel group during the Caste War of the mid-nineteenth century (Reed 1964), and Tozzer (1907:2) reports that the Ikaiches formed a “practically independent Indian state” at the turn of the twentieth century. During the seventeenth century, the Spanish removed Ch’olan populations from the lowland Lacandon forest region of Chiapas and resettled them in the highlands.
Map 4.1. Lowland Mayan languages, ad 1500
Following the Itza conquest in 1697, the indigenous groups of the region were gathered into congregaciones, where previously distinct groups were forced to live together in mission towns. Many of them resisted and fled into the forest, including the Lacandon forest. The demography of the region altered dramatically (map 4.2), with a major decrease in indigenous populations. In looking at the use of terms such as Maya, Yukatan, Itzaj, Mopan, and Lakantun, it becomes clear that their meanings change over time, involving shifts from toponymic emphasis to language name and social or ethnic group name. It is also clear that there are differences between terms used as self-references by these groups and labels outsiders use to refer to them.
Map 4.2. Mayan languages after 1700
Maya
Recently, there has been considerable discussion of the meaning and use of the term Maya in Colonial Yukateko and elsewhere. In Colonial Yukateko, Maya appears to have been used primarily as the name of the language spoken in the region of Mayapan (Voss N. 2002; Restall 2004; Restall and Gabbert, this volume), but it was adopted by the Spanish as both a language name and an ethnic label applied widely to Yukatekan peoples.
Edmonson (1986:100) observes that in the Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, written from the perspective of people in the western half of the Yucatán Peninsula, Maya is used to name the language and ethnic groups of western Yucatán and the capital of Mayapan, while Itza refers to eastern groups and their center at Chichén Itzá. In the Chilam Balam of Tizimin, the Itzas use the term Xiu to refer to the western groups (Hofling 2009). Restall (2004) and Restall and Gabbert (this volume) similarly argue that the term Maya had different meanings to different groups, including both language and social groups. It is clear that there were differences in language and identity among groups in Yucatán, with differences between eastern and western groups, as well as between northern and southern groups. Social identity was largely focused on the community (kaj) and exogamous patronymic groups or lineages (ch’ib’al) for Colonial Yukatekos (Restall 2004 :73). Considering that Yukatekos had arrived in the region by 1000 bc (Kaufman 1976), it is hardly surprising that dialectal differences arose, and they exist to this day. The Academia de la Lengua Maya de Yucatán (2002) identifies five dialects of modern Yukateko. Similar findings on dialect variation are reported by Blaha Pfeiler and Hofling (2006).
A number of scholars, especially in Mexico and Guatemala (e.g., Litzinger and Bruce 1998:5–6; Schumann Gálvez 2000), stress that in modern times all Yukatekan groups speak the same language, which they call Maayaj; they claim that the linguistic labels Mopan and Itzá are very recent, largely the result of interactions with linguists, anthropologists, and cultural activists (Schumann Gálvez 1997, 2000). Since the 1980s, Maya has been used by Maya cultural activists and others interested in language revitalization to refer to all languages of the Mayan language family and the peoples who speak them (Fischer 2001). The Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG) has reinforced the labels Mopan and Itza’ and has offices in San José and San Luís that encourage pride in Mayan identity within the respective groups. Similarly, interactions with linguists, anthropologists, and non-government organizations (NGOs) involved with conservation have encouraged a sense of distinct ethnic identity of San Joseños as Itzajs and San Luiseños as Mopans (Hofling 1996).
Lakantun
Lakantun was originally a toponym that came to refer to Ch’olan-speaking groups who lived in the Chiapas lowlands (Palka 2005). The Ch’olan speakers had been largely removed by the Spanish by 1700 (Schwartz 1990:34). Previously, I have argued that the label Lakandon or Lakantun does not refer to a single ethnic or linguistic group but rather to a variety of groups descended primarily from various Yukatekan-speaking groups that took refuge in the Lacandon forest (Hofling 2004, 2006a). The Northern Lakantun seem to have especially strong ties to the Itzaj and Kowoj (Pugh 2001; Hofling 2004, 2006a), which is reflected in patronyms and language. The Southern Lakantun have closer ties to northern Yukatekans, also reflected in dialect differences (Hofling 2013, 2014). As Schwartz (1990), Borremanse (1998), and Palka (2005), among others, have shown, the Lakantuns were not and are not a culturally homogeneous group, and there has been a constant process of ethnogenesis (cf. Hill 1996) in this refuge area from about 1700 to the present. Northen Lakantuns call themselves jach winik, or “true people,” and their language jach t’an, “true language.” Southern Lakantuns similarly use the terms jach wíinik and jach t’aan, and both groups are aware of differences between them (Bruce 1968:36; Hofling 2014).
Itzajs and Mopans
Today, the Itzajs and Mopans are both ethnic and linguistic groups. However, they are very different groups than those described prior to the conquest of the Itzas in 1697, at which time the two groups were enemies but had been in contact with one another for a long time. The Itzas dominated the region in an ever-changing system of alliances among Itza groups and others (Jones 1998). After the conquest the Spanish forced diverse ethnic groups, often enemies, to be resettled in mission towns around Lake Petén–Itzá, including San Andrés and San José on the north shore, and in congregaciones to the south, including San Luís, the Mopan capital (Schwartz 1990). Many indigenous groups refused to settle in the congregaciones and fled into the forest (ibid.; Palka 2005). After 1700 the Mopans in southern Petén had limited contact with the Itzas around Lake Petén–Itzá. In modern times, Itzá and Maya have been Spanish ethnic labels for indigenous people living in the Central Lakes towns, especially San José and San Andrés, on the north shore of Lake Petén–Itzá. Schwartz (1990:60) notes the possibility that San Andrés was founded on the site of a Kowoj village and that a sense of Kowoj ancestry exists to this day. Similarly, in San José there is a sense of Itzaj ancestry, among both San Joseños and outsiders.
The ethnic identity differences so prominent before the conquest have largely faded, and Kejaches, Mopans, and Kowojs have been absorbed. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Yukatekos continued to migrate into Petén. The nineteenth-century Caste War in Yucatán had a major impact on Petén, as Yukatekan groups arrived from the north, with some raiding Petén communities. The Itzajs called the rebel Yukatekos Wit’oo’, synonymous with “bandits,” and oral tradition tells of Itzaj participation in Guatemalan army action against the invaders (Hofling 1992; cf. Restall and Gabbert, this volume). The Yukateko presence was especially notable in San Andrés, which lies at the end of the camino real from Campeche, resulting in some sub-dialectal differences between San José and San Andrés (Schumann Gálvez 1971 , 2000). The San Andrés dialect of Itzaj virtually disappeared in the 1960s. Perhaps several dozen older adults in San José and scattered about the region still speak Itzaj.
The ALMG has made considerable efforts to revitalize the language since the early 1990s, with mixed results. The effort has heightened San Joseños’ self-awareness as descendents of the Itzajs (Hofling 1996). Itzajs recognize a connection to Yucatán and Campeche and trace their ancestry to the north. They call Yukatekos Yuukajs. They also recognize Mopans as Mayas (Schumann Gálvez 2000:16) but have little contact with them. Itzaj and Mopan are not fully mutually intelligible. The Itzajs also know of the Lakantuns, calling them Caribes, but they have not had significant contact with them in recent decades.
Mopan, which may have the etymology of mo’ (macaw) and pän (toucan), was originally a toponym and is the name of a river in southern Petén. Prior to the conquest and congregaciones, Mopans were the southernmost Yukatekans and came into contact with Ch’olan groups—especially the Eastern Ch’olan groups, Ch’olti’ and Ch’orti’—and with Q’eqchi’s (Hofling 2007). Cano (1984) reports on a late-seventeenth-century journey from the Q’eqchi’ Alta Verapaz through Cahabon across Manche Chol territory to Mopan territory and on to the Itzas. He notes that he encountered Mopans who were Chol-Mopan bilinguals (ibid.:9). After the conquest, the Spanish established a congregacion at San Luís, but apparently many Mopans fled into the forest. Peteneros in the Mopan region report periodic contact with Lakantuns up to modern times (Palka 2005:8).
According to the ALMG (2004), Mopan elders say their ancestors came from Tayasal, the Itza capital in Lake Petén–Itzá. A group emigrated south to the region of the Río Mopán because of disagreements among caciques and later migrated further south to San Luís. The people lived in a dispersed settlement pattern divided into the four quadrants of the cardinal directions. Gregorio Tzuncal, from the southern quadrant, encountered a group of animals scratching an incense tree on the top of a hill, which the elders considered a sign to found their town at that site, the modern San Luís (ibid.). Others say the founding lineages came from the Río Mopán region to the north and lived in four Naj Tuniches, “natural stone palaces,” large caves at each of the cardinal directions—including the famous Naj Tunich to the east, near the Belizean border (Juan Idelfonso Coj Ical, personal communication, July 2008). Q’eqchi’s came later from Cahabon, Alta Verapaz, the town Cano mentioned on his journey three centuries earlier.
The Q’eqchi’s are now far more numerous in the area than Mopans. There has been extensive intermarriage, and Q’eqchi’-Mopan bilingualism is common. In recent decades Ladinos have dominated the region politically and economically. There is some tension between Mopans and Q’eqchi’s, and they tend to live in separate districts. Mopans have also come into contact with K’ichee’s and Kaqchikels through commerce. I now turn more directly to linguistic evidence relevant to understand this complex history of cultural contact and ethnogenesis.
Lexicon and Borrowing
Mopans have been in intense contact with Q’eqchi’ speakers since Colonial times and probably much longer. Many Mopans are also Q’eqchi’ speakers. As a result of these contacts, Mopan has a number of Q’eqchi’ loans not found in other Yukatekan languages shown in table 4.1 (Hofling 2007). Currently, some Mopan speakers are attempting to eliminate Q’eqchi’ loan words from Mopan as part of the revitalization movement.3 With the exception of g in table 4.1, Mopan is the only Yukatekan language to have these Q’eqchi’ loan words, which include terms for social categories (table 4.1b, c, d).
Table 4.1. Contact with Q’eqchi’
Mopan | Q’eqchi’ | Itzaj | Northern Lakantun | Southern Lakantun | Yukateko | Gloss | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a. | chiw-chiw | ch’iwch’otk | ‘cheep cheep’ | ||||
b. | ch’i’ip | ch’i’ip | ‘youngest child’ | ||||
c. | ch’ajom | ch/ajom | ‘young man’ | ||||
d. | tz’ub’ | tz’ub’ | ‘(grand)child’ | ||||
e. | ch’ikwaan | ch’ikwan | ‘small bird’ | ||||
f. | ixkuluk | kuluk | ‘caterpillar’ | ||||
g. | poy-te’ | poy-te’ | poy’te’ | poy-te’ | poy-te (cy) | ‘raft’ | |
h. | samaat | samat | ‘parsley’ | ||||
i. | ajjonoon | jolo’on | ‘wasp’ |
In addition, Mopan has come into contact with Eastern Ch’olan (Ch’olti’ and Ch’orti’) more intensively than have other Yukatekan languages.4 As a result, it has more lexical borrowings from Eastern Ch’olan (see table 4.2). It is also notable in table 4.2d that Mopan and Chorti’ initial k corresponds to Itzaj and Yukateko ch, while in table 4.2e Mopan and Ch’orti’ t corresponds to Itzaj and Yukateko ch. Similarly, in table 4.2g Mopan and Ch’orti’ r corresponds to Itzaj and Yukateko l and in table 4.2h Mopan sibilants (s and x) correspond to Yukatekan nasals (n and m). Thus, phonological form also indicates Mopan contact with Eastern Ch’olan.
Table 4.2. Contact with Eastern Ch’olan
Mopan | Ch’orti’ | Itzaj | Yukateko | Gloss | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a. | näk’-chan | näk’-chan | näk’-chan | ‘roof beam’ | |
b. | ajb’ub’ | b’ub’ | b’ub’ (cy) | ‘tadpole’ | |
c. | aj’usij | usij | aj’usil | ‘buzzard’ | |
d. | ixkames | kamis | ixchemes | chemes | ‘centipede’ |
e. | pätaj | *pätah (pch’) | pichi’ | pichi’ | ‘guava’ |
f. | t’ot’ | *t’ot’ (pch’) | t’ot’ | ‘snail’ | |
g. | ajt’urich ~ajt’u’ul | t’ur | ajt’u’ul | t’u’ul | ‘rabbit’ |
h. | meles | merex | melen | meelem | ‘useless’ |
Mopan Lexicon in Relation to Other Yukatekan Languages
New evidence from Mopan (Hofling 2007, 2011a) shows that many terms for flora and fauna are reconstructable for Proto-Yukatekan (table 4.3). To reconstruct Proto-Yukatekan forms, they should be present in both Mopan and Yukateko, the most divergent varieties of Yukatekan. These data also indicate that the masculine noun classifier aj- and the feminine classifier ix- are more robust in Mopan and Itzaj than in other Yukatekan varieties. Some of the gaps in Lakantun may be the result of incomplete documentation. The large amount of vocabulary that can be reconstructed for Proto-Yukatekan confirms the general point that all Yukatekan languages are closely related. As table 4.3c and table 4.3j indicate, Southern Lakantun has a tonal system on long vowels (with high tone in these examples), which is like Yukateko but contrasts with other Yukatekan languages, suggesting that their ancestors came from northern Yucatán.
Table 4.3. Reconstructable for Proto-Yukatekan
Mopan | Itzaj | Northern Lakantun | Southern Lakantun | Yukateko | Gloss | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a. | ajch’umak | ajch’umak | äjch’ämäk | ch’omak | ‘gray fox’ | |
b. | ajchupaat | ixchupaat | äjchup | chapáat | ‘milliped’ | |
c. | chuluul | chuluul | chulul | churúur | chulúul | ‘heart of tree’ |
d. | ajch’anaan | ixchänay | äjch’anex | ixch’anan (cy) | ‘small cricket’ | |
e. | ixch’ayuk | ixch’a’yuk | ch’a’uuk | ‘nightshade’ | ||
f. | ch’o’oj | ajch’o’ | ch’o’ | ch’o’ | ch’o’ | ‘rat’ |
g. | ajk’ok’o’-ta’ | ixk’ok’ | k’ok’-ta’ | xk’ook’ | ‘robin’ | |
h. | ixpu’u’uk | ixpu’ | xpu’ | ‘chicken type’ | ||
i. | ixta’-maay | ta’-ma’ay | ta’a-maay | ‘tree species’ | ||
j. | ajtolok | ajtolok | äjtolok | tóorok | tóolok | ‘lizard type’ |
k. | pän | pän | pän | pan | ‘toucan’ |
There is also a substantial set of terms for flora and fauna that indicates areal contact (table 4.4), with a close relationship between Mopan and Itzaj and significant ties with Northern and Southern Lakantun, suggesting that some of the ancestors of modern Lakantuns included Mopans and Itzajs. Thus, there are areal features that distinguish southern Yukatekan varieties from northern Yukateko. In this list, items are shared among the southern varieties, in contrast to northern Yukateko. Northern and Southern Lakantun also appear in closer contact to one another than to Itzaj and Mopan, as indicated by items table 4.4c “wild fig,” which contrasts Itzaj and Mopan chimun with Northern and Southern Lakantun chimo(o)n; table 4.4h “jute snail,” which contrasts Mopan and Itzaj tutu’ with Northern and Southern Lakantun t’ut’u’; and table 4.4k “wild tamarind,” which contrasts Mopan wät’äj with Northern and Southern Lakantun wäch’.
Table 4.4. Southern versus Northern Yuketaken (areal)
Mopan | Itzaj | Northern Lakantun | Southern Lakantun | Yukateko | Gloss | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a. | ajtoy | ajtoy | äjtoy | tooy | am | ‘spider’ |
b. | ajxut’ | ajxut’ | xut’ | xuut’ | ‘frog species’ | |
c. | chimun | chimun | äjchimon | chimoon | ‘wild fig’ | |
d. | ixchuj-kib’ | ajchukub’ | chuukib’ir | ‘dove species’ | ||
e. | ixkookom | koomkom | ‘vine species’ | |||
f. | jach | jachil näl | jáach | ‘ear of corn’ | ||
g. | luwin | luwin | äjluwin | ‘tree species’ | ||
h. | tutu’ | ajtutu’ | t’unu’ | t’unu’ | ‘jute snail’ | |
i. | tz’iy-a’ | tzula-il ja | suura’ | ‘otter’ | ||
j. | way | waay | ‘sopote seed’ | |||
k. | wät’äj | wäch’ | wäch’ | ‘wild tamarind’ |
A considerable number of terms for flora and fauna is unique to Mopan and Itzaj, indicating a long period of close contact (table 4.5). They retain the system of noun classification with the feminine prefix ix- and the masculine prefix aj-, and they are largely in agreement regarding noun class.
Table 4.5. Lexicon Only in Mopan and Itzaj
Mopan | Itzaj | Gloss | |
---|---|---|---|
a. | ajkuri’ | ajkuri’ | ‘mole’ |
b. | ixteren-saak’ | ixten-saak’ | ‘itchy vine’ |
c. | ajtuwis | ajtuwi’is | ‘jumping bird’ |
d. | chikilab’ | chikila’ | ‘plantanillo palm’ |
e. | ixch’uw-ek’ | ixch’uj | ‘bromeliad’ |
f. | ixkolool | ixmän-kolool | ‘tinamou’ |
g. | ajkele’-tux | ajk’ele’-tux | ‘tapir rib tree’ |
h. | ajnab’a’-ku’uk | ajnab’a’-ku’uk | ‘allspice seed’ |
i. | ixpuruwook | ixpuruwok | ‘ruddy ground dove’ |
j. | ixtukib’ | tuki’ | ‘sincuya tree’ |
A considerable number of terms for flora and fauna are unique to Mopan (table 4.6) (of Yukatekan varieties). These, along with Mopan’s shared vocabulary with Q’eqchi’ and Ch’olan groups, are an indication both of Mopan’s genetic linguistic distance from other Yukatekan varieties and its unique historical interactions with non-Yukatekan groups. A variety of other Mopan linguistic innovations point to the same conclusion (Hofling 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2011b).
Table 4.6 Lexicon Unique to Mopan
Mopan | Gloss | |
---|---|---|
a. | ajk’ijom | ‘small bird’ |
b. | ajk’iyon | ‘sentzontle’ |
c. | ajsul | ‘moth’ |
d. | ajt’el-us | ‘tortugilla bug’ |
e. | ajwen | ‘frog’ |
f. | ajxip’i’ | ‘pig flea’ |
g. | ajxiyoj | ‘tree of San Juan’ |
h. | ixmorot’ | ‘dwarf banana’ |
i. | ixkalalu’ | ‘amaranth’ |
j. | t’ulij | ‘small bird’ |
k. | pumpu’ | ‘bot fly’ |
Patronyms
Grant Jones (1998:24–27) presents extensive evidence on Itza and Mopan patronyms recorded shortly after the conquest in 1697. Most patronyms are different in Mopan and Itza communities. Of the more than ninety patronyms listed, only nine, or about 10 percent (Chan, K’in, Muwan, Ob’on, Pana, Tesukun, Tzak, Tzuntekun, and Tz’ib’), were found in both Itza and Mopan communities. Most Kowoj patronyms were different from Itzaj patronyms. Of the five Kowoj patronyms, only one (Kowoj) was also found in Itza communities, and none were found in Mopan. Kejach patronyms were shared with Itza but not Mopan. I recently checked this list with modern Itzaj and Mopan speakers and discovered some interesting changes. Of the twenty-two Mopan patrynyms listed, by Jones, twelve are no longer known in San Luís. However, eleven Itzaj patronyms not listed as Mopan patronyms are now known in San Luís, including Kante, Kowoj, May, Mo’, Tun, and Tzin. San José Itzaj has shown similar changes. Itzaj has lost about twenty-five patronyms listed by Jones but gained thirteen, including Tipuj patronyms (Chi, Mas, K’u, Muk’ul, Pix), Kowoj patronyms (Kamal, Kawich, Ketzal), and Mopan patronyms (Ch’em, Jola, Kixchan, K’unil, Tzawi). Certain patronyms are strongly associated with San José but not San Andrés (B’atab’, Chan, Kante, Kawich), while others are associated with San Andrés but not San José (Chab’in, Chata, Chi, Kinyokte, Kixchan, Po’ot, Tzin). In addition, I discovered about twenty additional patronyms shared by modern Mopan and Itzajs, as well as fifteen new Mopan patronyms and a half dozen new Itzaj patronyms. These changes suggest a radical disjunction after the conquest, with congregaciones, flight and population loss, and movements back and forth among Yukatekan groups. Mopan oral histories confirm that many of the families in San Luís came from elsewhere and that the Kowojs in particular came from the north.
Conclusion
The linguistic data of Yukatekan languages are messy and reflect a complex history. An early split is indicated between Mopan and the rest of the Yukatekan varieties. I believe that Mopans are largely descendents of ancient Yukatekan populations living in the Petén in the Postclassic and possibly earlier. The toponym Mopan occurs in the area in the Classic period but is not necessarily a Yukatekan term. It could be that like Lakantun, it first referred to a Ch’olan group and was later transferred to Yukatekan populations. It is clear that in the early Colonial period, Mopans were distinguished from, and enemies of, Itzas and Ch’ols. They have had unique contacts with Ch’olans and Q’eqchi’s, which is reflected in their language. Their language was known as Maayaj and is now also known as Mopan or Maayaj.
The Itzajs are an ancient ethnic group and were dominant in the Petén until the conquest in 1697. Following congregaciones and the forced settlement of diverse ethnic groups, often enemies, Itzá became the name of surviving indigenous groups living around Lake Peten–Itzá, which appears to have included Kowojs, Kejaches, and Mopans. They also spoke Maayaj. It is not certain if they also called their language Itzaj, but modern Itzaj do recognize it as a language name as well. The presence of the term Maayaj in Mopan and Itzaj, while not definitive, suggests that its use as a language name can be reconstructed for Proto-Yukatekan.
While linguistic distances among Yukatekan groups in Petén were small, it is clear that differences in identity were significant. Just as the Books of Chilam Balam chronicle opposing Itza and Xiu factions with different histories, territories, and identities in northern Yucatán, named groups in Petén also had different histories, territories, and identities. Just as archaeological markers of identity can be subtle, linguistic differences need not be great for differences in identity to be substantial.
NOTEs
1. Research on Itzaj and Mopan from 2005–7 has been supported by the National Science Foundation, grant number NSF-BCS-0445231. I am grateful to Norman Schwartz and the editors of this book for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. I use the term Itzaj to refer to the modern language and culture and Itzajs to refer to the Itzaj people. The ALMG adopted the term Itza’, but Itzaj is more accurate linguistically. Itza and Itzas refer to Colonial and precontact culture and people, respectively.
2. A k’atun is a period of twenty tuns (360 days), roughly twenty years. Thirteen k’atuns formed a 260-tun cycle called the may, roughly 256 years, and k’atun ending dates such as 8 Ajaw recurred ever 260 tuns (Rice 2004 ).
3. Mopan data for all tables were taken from Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín (1971), Ulrich and de Ulrich (1976), Schumann Gálvez (1997), Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (2003), xlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’ (2003 ), and were elicited in the field (Hofling 2011a). Q’eqchi’ data are from Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín (2003). Data sources for Itzaj are Hofling and Tesucún (2000) and fieldwork since 2000. Northern Lakantun data come from a database I created based on Bruce (1968, 1974, 1975, 1976), Davis (1978), Borremanse (1998), and Cook and Carlson (2004). Southern Lakantun data are from Çanger (1995) and Hofling (2014). Information on modern Yukateko comes from Durbin (1999), Bricker, Po’ot Yah, and Dzul de Po’ot (1998), and Academia de la Lengua Maya de Yucatán (2002). Barrera Vasquez and colleagues (1980) is the source of information on Colonial Yukateko.
4. Data for Eastern Ch’olan and Proto-Ch’olan are from Kaufman and Norman, (1984), Kaufman 2003 , and PLFM (1996).
References Cited
Academia de la Lengua Maya de Yucatán (ALMY), AC. 2002. Diccionario Maya Popular. Merida, Yucatán: ALMY.
Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG), Comunidad Lingüística Mopan. 2003. Much’t’an Mopan: Vocabulario Mopan. Guatemala: ALMG.
Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG), Comunidad Lingüística Mopan. 2004. Historia. http://www.almg.org.gt/Comunidades/mopan/mopan%202.htm.
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, Juan Ramon Bastarrachea Manzano, William Brito Sansores, Refugio Vermont Salas, David Dzul Gongora, and Dominzo Dzul Poot. 1980. Diccionario Cordemex: Maya-Español, Español-Maya. Merida, Yucatán: Ediciones Cordemex.
Blaha Pfeiler, Barbara, and Charles Andrew Hofling. 2006. “Apuntes Sobre la Variación Dialectal en el Maya Yucateco.” Peninsula 1 (1): 27–43.
Boot, Erik. 2005. Continuity and Change in Text and Image at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico. Leiden: CNWS Publications.
Borremanse, Didier. 1998. Hach Winik: The Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Southern Mexico. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Monograph 11. Albany: State University of New York.
Bricker, Victoria R., Eleuterio Po’ot Yah, and Ofelia Dzul de Po’ot. 1998. Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken in Hocabá, Yucatán. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Bruce, Roberto D. 1968. Gramática del Lakantun. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Bruce, Roberto D. 1974. El Libro de Chan K’in. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia Colección Científica Lingüística.
Bruce, Roberto D. 1975. Lacandon Dream Symbolism. Mexico City: Ediciones Euroamericanas Klaus Thiele.
Bruce, Roberto D. 1976. Textos y dibujos Lacandones de Najá (trilingual edition: Lacandón-Spanish-English). Departamento de Lingüística 45. Mexico City: Colección Científica Lingüística.
Çanger, Una. 1995. “Vocabulary of San Quintín.” Unpublished manuscript, originally collected in 1969–70.
Cano, Agustín. 1984. Manche and Peten: The Hazards of Itza Deceit and Barbarity. Trans. Frank E. Comparato, Charles P. Bowditch, and Guillermo Rivera. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.
Cook, Suzanne, and Barry Carlson. 2004. “Ethnobiological Inventories: Birds, Fish, Mammals, Reptiles, Insects, Plants.” http://web.uvic.ca/lacandon/language.htm. Accessed June 5, 2008.
Davis, Virginia Dale. 1978. “Ritual of the Northern Lacandon Maya.” PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.
Durbin, Marshall E. 1999. “Yucatec Maya Dictionary.” Unpublished manuscript, copy in author’s possession.
Edmonson, Munro. 1986. Heaven Born Merida and Its Destiny: The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fischer, Edward F. 2001. Cultural Logics and Global Economies. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hill, Jonathan D. 1996. “Ethnogenesis in the Northwestern Amazon: An Emerging Regional Picture.” In History, Power, and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492–1992, ed. Jonathan D. Hill, 142–60. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 1992. “Ukweentojil ajWit’oo’: The Story of the Bandits.” Told by Félix Fernando Tesucún. Unpublished manuscript, copy in author’s possession.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 1996. “Indigenous Linguistic Revitalization and Outsider Interaction: The Itzaj Maya Case.” Human Organization 55 (1): 108–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.55.1.613j5q6p01836225.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2004. “Language and Cultural Contacts among Yukatekan Mayans.” Collegium Antropologicum 28 (suppl. 1): 241–48.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2006a. “La historia lingüística y cultural del maya yucateco durante el último milenio.” In Los Mayas de Ayer y Hoy: Memorias del Primer Congreso Internacional de la Cultura Maya, vol. 2, ed. Alfredo Barrera Rubio and Ruth Gubler, 1196–1216. Mexico City: Solar, Servicios Editoriales, S.A. de C.V.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2006b. “A Sketch of the History of the Verbal Complex in Yukatekan Mayan Languages.” International Journal of American Linguistics 72 (3): 367–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/509490.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2007. “Notes on Mopan Lexicon and Lexical Morphology.” In Proceedings of the Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica III, ed. Nora C. England, Austin, TX. http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/cilla3_toc.html. Accessed June 7, 2014.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2009. “The Linguistic Context of the Kowoj.” In The Kowoj of Central Peten, ed. Prudence M. Rice and Don Rice, 70–79. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2011a. Mopan Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2011b. “Voice and Auxiliaries in Mopan Maya.” In New Perspectives in Mayan Linguistics, ed. Heriberto Avelino, 144–59. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2013. El Maya Lacandón en el Siglo XXI. Paper presented at the 9th Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, Campeche, Mexico, June 23–29.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 2014. Lacandon Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Hofling, Charles Andrew, and Félix Fernando Tesucún. 2000. Tojt’an Maya’ Itzaj: Diccionario Maya Itza’—Castellano. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.
Jones, Grant D. 1998. The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jones, Grant D. 2009. “The Kowoj in Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In The Kowoj of Central Peten, ed. Prudence M. Rice and Don Rice, 55–69. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1976. “Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Meso-America.” World Archaeology 8 (1): 101–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1976.9979655.
Kaufman, Terrence. 2003. “A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary.” http://www .famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2014.
Kaufman, Terrence, and William M. Norman. 1984. “An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary.” In Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, ed. John S. Justeson and Lyle Campbell, 77–166. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies 9. Albany: State University of New York.
Litzinger, William J., and Robert D. Bruce. 1998. Maya t’an, Spoken Maya. Mexico City: Ediciones Euro-Americanos.
Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’. 2003. Vocabulario Comparativo. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.
Palka, Joel. 2005. Unconquered Lacandon Maya. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín (PLFM). 1971. Cuestionario lingüístico para la investigación de las variacoines de las lenguage de Guatemala (de Mopán). Antigua, Guatemala: PLFM.
Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín (PLFM). 1996. Diccionario Ch’orti’, Jocotan, Chiquimula: Ch’orti’-Español. Antigua, Guatemala: PLFM.
Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín (PLFM). 2003. Diccionario Q’eqchi. Iximilew, Guatemala: PLFM.
Pugh, Timothy. 2001. “Architecture, Ritual, and Social Identity at Late Postclassic Zacpetén, Petén, Guatemala: Identification of the Kowoj.” PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Reed, Nelson. 1964. The Caste War of Yucatan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Restall, Matthew. 2004. “Maya Ethnogenesis.” Journal of Latin American Anthropology 9 (1): 64–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/jlca.2004.9.1.64.
Rice, Prudence M. 2004. Maya Political Science: Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rice, Prudence M., and Don Rice. 2009. “Introduction to the Kowoj and Their Petén Neighbors.” In The Kowoj, ed. Prudence M. Rice and Don Rice, 3–15. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Schumann Gálvez, Otto. 1971. Descripción estructural del maya itzá del Petén, Guatemala C.A. Cuaderno 6, Centro de Estudios Mayas. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.
Schumann Gálvez, Otto. 1997. Introducción al Maya Mopan. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.
Schumann Gálvez, Otto. 2000. Introducción al Maya Itzá. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónonma de Mexico.
Schwartz, Norman. 1990. Forest Society: A Social History of Petén, Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tozzer, Alfred M. 1907. A Comparative Study of the Mayas and Lacandones: Report of the Fellow in American Archaeology 1902–1905. New York: Archaeological Institute of America.
Ulrich, Mateo, and Rosemary de Ulrich. 1976. Diccionario Bilingüe Maya Mopán y Español, Español y Maya Mopan. Guatemala: Impreso de los talleres del Instituto Lingüístico de Verano en Guatemala.
Voss N., Alexander W. 2002. “¿Qué significa maya?—Analysis etimológico de una palabra.” Investigaciones de la Cultura Maya 10 (2): 380–98.