THE CLASSIC MAYA DAY NAME OC AND ITS ORIGINS

Nicholas A. Hopkins

Jaguar Tours, Tallahassee, Florida

2

Abstract

The tenth day name in the sequence of days in the 260-day Mesoamerican divinatory

almanac (the Maya tzolkin), usually represented by the head of a mammal, is almost universally

taken to be "Dog," based on its Central Mexican manifestation as Nahuatl itzcuintli. However,

there is good reason to question this interpretation of the Classic Maya hieroglyph, the day name

Oc. In this paper the argument is made that the origin of the word Oc is found in the Mixe-

Zoquean family of languages, specifically the Zoquean branch of the family that included what

was probably the dominant language of the Olmec civilization. Rather than a canine, it is argued

that the referent of the day name was a tropical rodent, Dasyprocta punctata or D. mexicana, or

in some areas of the Maya world, Agouti paca, the animals known in regional Spanish as cereque

and tepezcuinte, respectively. Outside the calendar, there is some evidence the term may in fact

have had a canine referent.

3

There exists considerable confusion in Mesoamericanist literature regarding the

identification of and nomenclature for several small mammals. This confusion results in part

from variation over time in knowledge of tropical fauna, in popular names for animals in

English, Spanish and native languages, and in Latin scientific nomenclature. Overlapping terms

span a range that includes a half dozen species, members of two orders (Rodentia and Carnivora,

rodents and carnivores) and several families within each. I will argue here that a similar

confusion exists in Maya epigraphy and that a commonly accepted glyph reading needs to be

revisited – not abandoned, but better understood.

The two species of most interest here are (in popular Mexican Spanish) the tepezcuintle

(tepezcuinte, tepeizcuintli, etc.) and the cereque, both tropical rodents. Note that part of one of

these common names also makes apparent reference to canines – Nahuatl izcuintli – but all is not

as it appears.

The Spanish Sources

The Mexican scholar Francisco Santamaría, a native of Tabasco and a lexicographer of

note, expresses some of the confusion in a dictionary entry for tepezcuinte (1959:1034-5,

paragraph breaks added for clarity):

Tepezcuinte. (Del azt. tepetl, cerro e izcuintli, perro. / Coelogenys paca L.) m. Roedor de

la América ístmica e insular, desde el sur de Méjico, donde más se usa este nombre.

Pertenece al grupo de los cavídeos, y familia de los dasipróctidos; del tamaño de un

conejo; cuerpo grueso, caído hacia adelante, de color amarillo rojizo con pintas negras;

cola casi nula; camina a saltos y huye hundiéndose en el agua, por lo cual se le confunde

a veces con el perro de agua; tiene carne deliciosa; vive en cuevas con varias salidas o

huideros, que cierra cuidadosamente con basuras y hojas secas. En el interior se llama

cuantuza. La voz tiene multitud de variantes: tepeizcuinte, tepeizcuintle, y tepescuinte,

–tle, –tli, –cle; tepezcuintli, –tle, etc.

4

Con frecuencia se da también este nombre al tzoniztac, que llaman también

tepechichi, aunque no es el típico de este último nombre. Pequeño carnívoro parecido a

un perrillo; de color negro o en general, con el cuello y pecho blancos, o amarillos, de

piel gruesa, pelo corto y brillante y cola larga; sumamente ágil; ataca los gallineros y se

defiende valerosamente de los perros, cuyos dientes difícilmente traspasan su piel,

luchando con ellos. Habita en el interior y algunas partes de Centro América,

principalmente en Costa Rica. Zamhool, en Yucatán.

Lo verdaderamente colosal es que el diccionario desastroso de Rodríguez Navas,

dice: "Tepeizcuinte: m. Zool. Cuadrúpedo de Tabasco, PARECIDO AL GAMO", ¡Así

como suena! Pero la temeridad no es original. Viene desde la 4a ed., del Diccionario de la

Academia, en que fue introducida la palabra con esta definición ejemplar: "Animal

cuadrúpedo de la provincia de Tabasco, del tamaño de un lechón, y parecido al gamo, y

pintado como él".

Tuza real en el Estado de Hidalgo y otras partes. La castellanización más propia

del aztequismo debe ser tepescuinte, como decimos en Tabasco, sin afectaciones de equis

ni de zetas.

Santamaría thus identifies the animal, whose name derives from Nahuatl "mountain" and

"dog," as a rodent (roedor) of the suborder Cavídeos (now Caviomorpha), and identifies the

family as dasipróctidos (Dasyproctidae), a designation that has now been replaced (with

Agoutidae). He notes confusion of this species with perro de agua (otter, Lutra spp.), tepechichi

(cacomistle, Bassariscus spp.), and even with gamo, male fallow deer (Dama spp). The Yucatán

term cited, "Zamhool," may be sak ol, an unidentified cuadruped (Barrera et al. 1980:713)

corresponding to Chol sak jol, "grison" (Galictis spp.). In other regional vocabularies,

Santamaría also notes a reference to gophers (Geomys spp.): tuza real, "royal gopher."

Luis Cabrera, in his Diccionario de aztequismos (1974:132-3), further muddies the water:

5

TEPEZCUINTLE. Una especie de perro montés, ya desaparecida (Galictis barbara, L.).

Un roedor del tamaño de un conejo (Coelogenys paca, L.), llamado también cuautuza.

Se confunde este animal con el tepechichi. Etimología: perro del cerro; de tépetl, cerro, e

itzcuintli, perro. (Cabrera 1974:133)

TEPECHICHI. Una especie de basáride, semejante al cacomistle. Se daba este mismo

nombre, indiscriminadamente al techichi y al tepezcuintle. Etimología: de tepetl, cerro,

y chichi, perro. (Cabrera 1974:132)

Now we add to the repertory of descriptions that the tepezcuintle is a kind of perro

montés (woods dog) identified as Galictis barbara (grison); as a rodent (Coelogenys paca) the

size of a rabbit, and as an animal confused with the tepechichi (Bassaris sp., now Bassariscus

sumichrasti, a relative of ringtails, B. astuta). That is, the term is related to animals of the weasel

family (grison) and the raccoon family (cacomistle), the Mustelidae and Procyonidae, both

Carnivora, as well as a rodent (tepezcuintle, Agoutidae, Rodentia), and is said to be a kind of

perro montés, probably the same as perro de monte (Dasyprocta spp., Schoenhals 1988:592) and

canine in name only.

The primary identification of the tepezcuintle in both sources is as a rodent in what is

now called the suborder Caviomorpha, which includes two families, the Agoutidae and the

Dasyproctidae. The former includes the Agouti paca, called in earlier sources Coelogenys paca

and Cuniculus paca, i.e., the tepezcuintle. The latter family, the Dasyproctidae, consists of two

species, Dasyprocta mexicana and D. punctata. These are the animals known by the common

Mexican Spanish name cereque (or agutí, cente, cerete, cuautuza, guaqueque, guatusa, perro de

monte, tuza real, uco; Schoenhals 1988:608). Santamaría says of the cereque (1959:238):

Cereque. (Del maya cerek, Dasyprocta punctata, GRAY.; D. mexicana, DE SAUSS.) m.

Nombre vulgar que en el sureste, principalmente en Tabasco, se da a una variedad

indígena de agutí, llamado también guaqueque y uco. Agutí mexicano, en otras partes del

6

país; también tuza real. En otras partes de América, cotusa, cuantusa, cotuza, cuantuza,

guatuza, huantusa o juantuza, acure de monte, carmo, ñeque, picurí, chucurí, cutía,

guatín, etc. Es de color pardo oscuro, con pintas blancas muy menudas.

Although Santamaría gives a Maya (Yucatec) origin for the term, the Maya origin is only

suggested by the Cordemex dictionary of that language (Barrera et al. 1980:725):

SEREK . 12: cotuza, agutí. 2. SEREKE 13: ídem 3. ah tsu' 12: ídem 4. tsub 1: unos

animalitos de color verdoso que parecen liebres 13: Dasyprocta punctata, Gray; nombre

vulgar que en el sureste, principalmente en el estado de Tabasco se da a una variedad

indígena de agutí... de color pardo oscuro con pintas blancas muy menudas.

Note that the two sources that refer to the term serek(e) are source 12, Otto Schumann's

dictionary of Itzá (Schumann 1971), and source 13, "yucateco moderno," said to be either

anonymous sources or the group of editors (Barrera et al. 1980:35a). Nonetheless the text of the

entry from source 13 (abbreviated here), beginning with "Dasyprocta punctata," is clearly from

Santamaría (1959, cited in the References) and is taken verbatim, except that the list of alternate

names from other parts of the Americas (not quoted here) is reduced to "cotusa, cuantusa, etc."

The only early Maya source cited is source 1, the Motul dictionary (Martínez Hernández

1929, from an anonymous manuscript of the sixteenth century). The form cited is not serek(e)

but tsub, clearly cognate with the Itzá term ah tsu' and unrelated to serek(e). Thus it is entirely

possible that the Maya term serek(e) is not native Yucatec Maya but has been borrowed from

regional Spanish. If so, its ultimate origin is unknown.

The English Sources

Terminological confusion is not totally allayed by English language sources, since

popular names do not necessarily follow scientific nomenclature. Thus, while the tepezcuintle is

called "paca" by Leopold (1959:388), its scientific designation has gone from Coelogenys paca

7

to Cuniculus paca to Agouti paca. But the similar rodent cereque, Dasyprocta mexicana and D.

punctata, is called "agouti" in English. Thus the agouti is not an Agouti, but the paca is.

Nevertheless Leopold's natural history reference book, Wildlife of Mexico, makes a clear

distinction between the two rodents (Figs. 1 and 2):

[Fig. 1 about here]

Paca. Cuniculus paca

Other names.–Tepescuintle; tuza real; spotted cavie; Agouti paca; Coelogenys paca.

D e s c r i p t i o n .–Size of a raccoon with typical rodent incisors, small ears, very short tail,

and short slender legs. Rich brown with whitish spots and stripes on back and sides much

like those of a spotted fawn. Underparts and legs dull white. Measurements: head and

body–650 to 750 mm.; tail–25 to 35 mm.

Range in Mexico.–Tropical forests from eastern San Luis Potosi southward and eastward

through Veracruz, Chiapas, and the Yucatán Peninsula. The pacas, like the agoutis, prefer

dense rain forest interspersed with clearings. (Leopold 1959:388)

Leopold remarks that the paca is "not common over most of southern Mexico" (e.g., in

Yucatan and Campeche) but is "more numerous in parts of its range farther west and north along

the Gulf coast" (Leopold 1959:388). Note that the reference to the similarity of the animals to "a

spotted fawn" recalls the reference to gamo, the fallow deer, in "the disastrous dictionary of

Rodríguez Navas" that so outraged Santamaría (1959:1034).

[Fig. 2 about here]

Agouti. Dasyprocta punctata and Related Species

Other names.–Agutí; cuautuza; guaqueque.

Species included here.–Dasyprocta punctata and D. mexicana.

Description.–Size of a jackrabbit, with small ears and virtually no tail. Legs relatively

more slender than a rabbit's. Two color phases–reddish brown (punctata) and blackish

8

brown (mexicana). Pelage more or less uniform in color on back and sides. (The larger

paca has white spots and stripes.) Measurements: head and body–450 to 525 mm; tail–20

to 35 mm.

Range in Mexico.–Tropical forests from southern Veracruz eastward through most of

Chiapas and the Yucatán Peninsula. Rain forest comprises most of the range, but

scattered individuals occur in the somewhat drier forests of northern Yucatán and

southern Veracruz. Like the pacas, agoutis seem to prefer dense moist forest, interspersed

with clearings in which to feed. (Leopold 1959:391)

Leopold (1959:391-3) remarks that black animals (D. mexicana) predominate in southern

Veracruz and northern Chiapas, while mostly reddish animals (D. punctata) are more common in

southern Chiapas and the entire Yucatán peninsula. They are diurnal when undisturbed, but feed

in the morning or evening otherwise.

Leopold's illustrations (Figs. 1 and 2) make the distinction between these two rodents

clear, but his maps of distribution (Figs. 3 and 4) show an almost perfect coincidence of ranges.

[Figs. 3 and 4 about here]

Dogs or Not Dogs?

As noted by Santamaría's entry for the paca, tepezcuinte, the Mexican Spanish common

name derives from a Nahuatl (Aztec) compound name that consists of tepe-, from tepetl (cerro,

mountain) and izcuintli (perro, dog), using "mountain" in its broad sense of "wilderness," i.e.,

"wild" in contrast to "domestic."

Santamaría's dictionary of Mexican Spanish (1959:1032-1035) lists more than thirty

Nahuatl-derived terms beginning with tepe-, most referring to wild plants, including a large

proportion of medicinals. In these terms tepe- seems to indicate wild versus domesticated, or

inferior versus improved, varieties, e.g., tepe-aguacate, tepe-amate, tepe-copal, tepe-

9

zempoalsúchil (wild avocado, fig, copal and marigold), or tepe-jilosúchil, a shrub (Calliandra

anomala), derived from xilo-xochitl, "silk-cotton tree," the huge Ceiba pentandra and related

species (Karttunen 1983:325, Santamaría 1988:505).

The tepechichi sometimes confused with the tepezcuinte has a parallel construction, using

a distinct root, chichi, for "dog" (Cabrera 1974:133). This "especie de basáride, semejante al

cacomistle" is apparently of the raccoon family (Procyonidae), since "cacomistle" is the English

common name for what is now Bassariscus sumichrasti, a close relative of the ringtails, B.

astutus (Macdonald 1984). Since "caco" has no clear etymology, Santamaría questions the

Nahuatl origin of cacomistle and repeats doubts that it is based on miztli, "gato o león" (cat or

lion). However, Cabrera derives the term from tlaco-miztli, "medio león" (half-lion).

Note than in these compound names, terms for "dog" and "cat" take on extended

meanings. If chichi equals izcuintli and both combine with tepe- to name animals of two distinct

families, even distinct orders (Rodentia and Carnivora), and if miztli combines to form the name

of a member of the raccoon family, then "dog" is not limited to the Canidae, nor is "cat" limited

to the Felidae. Such extension is of course common in vernacular animal names. It is the

extension of "dog" that is of interest here.

In contemporary native languages and regional Spanish dialects, there are several animals

dubbed kinds of "dogs." The general Mayan term for "dog" is tz'i', from proto-Mayan *tz'i'

(Kaufman 2003:573). But otters are ha'al tz'i' in Chuj (Hopkins 2012) and ja'al tz'i' in Chol

(Hopkins and Josserand 2011), both "water dogs," although they are of the weasel family

(subfamily Lutrinae, Lutra canadensis). The regional Spanish term is parallel, perro de agua, as

is the Nahuatl-derived Spanish term aizcuincle, from atl, "water," and izcuintli, "dog"

(Santamaría 1988:452).

A similar range of usage has been attested in Mixe-Zoquean languages, e.g., Oaxaca

Mixean nä'-'uk '"otter," literally "water-dog" (Wichmann 1995:254). Derivatives of proto-Mixe-

10

Zoque *'uku compounded with "wild" turn up as "coyote" (Canis latrans) in some Oaxacan

languages (pa'uk, etc.); combined with 'i:xin "weasel" ('i:xin-ú'k) as "weasel" (comadreja),

literally, "weasel-dog," and with *yoyah (?) as 'ukuhyoyah "peccary" in Chiapas Zoquean.

Again, we see the range of a term span two mammalian orders (Rodentia and Carnivora) and two

subfamilies of the latter.

From the variety of meanings attested in Mixe-Zoquean that are associated with this root,

Wichmann reconstructs proto-Mixe-Zoque *'uku, originally meaning "agouti" (Wichmann

1995:254, 223). In one branch of the family, proto-Mixean, *'uku took on the meaning "perro /

dog" (Canis sp.). In the other branch, proto-Zoquean, the meaning remained "cerete / agouti"

(Dasyprocta spp.). I will argue here that the proto-(Mixe-)Zoquean term was borrowed into

Mayan as *'ok "(cereque, agouti)." The term survives in regional Spanish in Tabasco and

Chiapas as uco, the common name for Dasyprocta spp., as seen in Aulie and Aulie's Chol

dictionary, Spanish to Chol section (1998:224), or Schoenhals (1988:598). Note that the Chol

term for Dasyprocta is 'ujchib, a possible development from *'uk.

Kaufman (2001:36-7, 59) notes that the proto-Mixe-Zoquean term *'uku was loaned into

proto-Zapotec as *pe7kku (*pe'kku), from **pe+u7kku, in the Late Preclassic. This compound

appears to have some relation to the Oaxaca Mixean terms of the form pV-'uk meaning "wild

dog," i.e, "coyote" (Wichmann 1995:254). Proto-Zapotec *pe7kku is manifested in modern

Zapotec, e.g., Yatzachi Zapotec beco' "dog" and becoyo'o "coyote" (Butler 2000:23).

(Incidentally, this source notes that the terms for tepezcuinte are archaic words: betjag, bechjag,

and bgüejag.)

This set of vocabulary items suggests a chain of borrowings and reinterpretations: The

homeland of Mixe-Zoquean, the Soconusco area of the Pacific coastal plain (Clark and Pye

2011) is outside the range of coyotes (Canis latrans), which Leopold (1959:396, fig. 147)

describes as "throughout the country [Mexico] as far south as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and

11

the Chiapas highlands." As proto-Mixeans, whose term *'uku meant "dog," moved into highland

Oaxaca, they coined the terms *pV-'uk "wild dog" to designate "coyote." This term was then

borrowed into proto-Zapotec and devolved to "dog" again, e.g., Colonial Valley Zapotec

(Córdova 1942:311v) <pèco> "dog"," Yatzachi Zapotec beco'. To describe the coyote, some

varieties added modifiers: Yatzachi Zapotec becoyo'o "coyote" (Butler 2000:23).

The Question of Day Names

One of the twenty day names in the Mesoamerican 260-day "calendar" (or divinatory

almanac), the tenth in the series, is consistently taken to mean "dog," since its name in Nahuatl is

itzcuintli "dog," and the glyphs which represent the day name resemble canines, especially in the

Central Mexican sources. The names in Oaxaca are not so clear.

Evidence for day names in Otomanguean languages in general is sparse, even where we

have writing, since with the exception of Mayan, Mesoamerican writing systems were notably

more logographic than phonetic. We do have evidence from the Colonial records of two of the

Otomanguean languages of Oaxaca. In the Zapotec calendar, Marcus (1983, citing Córdova

1578) lists the tenth day name as "Tela, Tella (Face Down? Dog?)," the latter gloss probably a

guess based on the Nahuatl day name. Urcid (2000) lists the term as tella (unknown meaning)

and the sign for the day does not reference an animal. The Colonial Mixtec day name is reported

as <hua> (Terraciano 2001:152), a term with no relationship to the Mixtec word for "dog," ina.

However, Jiménez Moreno, in his Estudios mixtecos (1962), clarifies the meaning of the

day name. He notes first that Mixtec ñaña is the equivalent of Nahuatl coyotl "coyote" in place

names, e.g., Coyotepec = Yucuñaña. But ñaña is given as "raposo, animal" in Alvarado

(1593:178). Raposa is a Mexican generic term for didelphian animals (like fox, skunk, weasel,

opossum, etc. [Santamaría 1959:916]); ñaña is also used as the equivalent of Nahuatl tecuani

"wild beast" (usually feline; Karttunen 1983:218, "onza, tigre, león, etc."), as in Tecuantepec

[Tehuantepec] = Yutañaña (Jiménez Moreno 1962:94; ñaña also occurs in ñaña-íñú "porcupine,"

12

where íñú means "spiny"). Alvarado also lists ehuahu ñaña as the equivalent of Spanish adivet,

which Jiménez Moreno notes is a term (from standard Spanish "jackal") used in early Mexican

documents for "coyote" (for example, see <Adiue> in Córdova 1942 [1578]:10v). The first part

of this compound, <ehuahu> ('ewa'u) surely includes the form <va'u> "coyote" attested in San

Miguel el Grande Mixtec (Jiménez Moreno 1962:94-5; note also Isthmus Zapotec gueu'

"coyote," Britton 2003:180).

The Colonial Mixtec day name <hua> is thus most likely cognate with San Miguel el

Grande va'u "coyote"; Marcus (1983:93) writes it Ua and so glosses it. Thus we have in the

Oaxacan calendars a term of unknown meaning (Zapotec tella) and a term meaning "coyote"

(Mixtec <hua>). Neither means "dog," although the day names correspond to Nahuatl "dog,"

itzcuintli, as the tenth day name.

Kaufman (2001:60) notes that the proto-Zapotec noun *pe7kku, derived from proto-

Mixe-Zoquean *'uku (see above), passes into Maya of Yucatán (ca. 300 BC, and presumably

from Mixean) as pe:k', a term for "dog" but not a day name. The term *'uku, I argue, was

borrowed directly from (proto-)Zoquean into Maya and Cholan as the day name Oc ('ok), with its

original meaning "agouti / cereque" (Wichmann (1995:223).

The Meaning of Oc

The Mayan day name Oc, attested in sixteenth century Yucatecan sources (Pio Pérez

1843, published in Stephens 1963 [1843], vol. 1:278-292), is otherwise known only from Chol

(Campbell 1984:179). Because its place in the sequence of days corresponds to Central Mexican

itzcuintli "dog," and because several Mayan languages do in fact have tz'i' "dog" as the day name

(Thompson 1960:78-80), it has been assumed that somehow the Mayan word 'ok meant "dog":

While tz'i' is the more widespread word for 'dog' in Mayan languages, there is some

evidence that the Classic Maya had recourse to the synonymous term ook. In fact, the

latter was the word of choice for the tenth day of the Maya calendar, a day named 'dog'

13

throughout Mesoamerica. Even more importantly, phonetic complements and

substitutions show that both readings of the dog sign were viable in Classic times.

Whether read tz'i' or ook, however, the sign clearly depicts a dog, and its conical teeth,

dark eye patch, and mammalian cheek spot are reflected in numerous depictions of the

dog in art. (Stone and Zender 2011:187)

The phonetic complements and substitutions supporting a reading of (o)ok for the day

name were discussed by Stuart (1998:394), arguing against a proposal by Linda Schele (1984)

that the animal head might be read och "enter" instead:

However, there is reason to believe that the animal sign is OK, "leg, foot," and not

OCH. In these passages from the tablets in the Cross Group, the animal sign is combined

with TE, probably for OK-TE, as in the deity name Bolon (Y)okte'. The same animal is

sometimes suffixed by ko or can be replaced by the syllabic combination yo-ko (Grube

and Stuart 1987). In the recently discovered stucco frieze from Tonina, the same animal

sign appears in the name caption of a death god: a-ka-OK KIMI-ya, or Ak Ok Kimi,

"Turtle-Foot Death." This unusual name is explained by the turtle shells on the feet of his

portrait. The rattles OCH  and the animal OK seem to have been kept separate in texts of

the Classic period, suggesting that Schele's "enter" reading in the Palenque texts is

incorrect.

I readily accept the evidence that the day sign Oc is to be read as 'ok, but differ in the

meanings ascribed to this term, as either "dog" or "foot," although the sign might be used as a

rebus for the latter in the death god name discussed by Stuart. I propose another explanation for

the day name Oc and its correspondence to "dog" in non-Mayan calendars. I assume the term is

of Mixe-Zoquean origin, and that it had narrowed to "dog" in proto-Mixean, but remained

"agouti (cereque)" in proto-Zoquean, as proposed by Wichmann (1995:254).

Linguistic Background

14

The division between proto-Mixean and proto-Zoquean took place around 1600-1000

BC, and was likely due to the expansion of proto-Mixe-Zoquean (their common ancestor) from

the Pacific coastal plain to the Gulf coastal lowlands (Clark and Pye 2011, Josserand 2011:163-

165). The increase in the area of Mixe-Zoquean culture, language and population led to

consequent loss of density of communication and increasingly independent development

(Bloomfield 1933:46-47) and, over the centuries, the existence of two distinct branches of the

language family. (On the basis of Mixe-Zoquean loanwords to neighboring languages, Kaufman

2001 proposes the existence of a third branch, Northern Mixe-Zoquean, the language of the elite

at Teotihuacán.)

The early distribution of Mixe-Zoquean was a consequence of regional diversification,

with proto-Mixe-Zoquean developing into proto-Mixean on the Pacific coast and into proto-

Zoquean on the Gulf side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The former was associated with Izapan

culture, the latter with Olmec culture. As Olmec culture became dominant, Olmec outposts were

established along the Pacific coastal plain all the way to Chalchuapa, El Salvador. The presence

of Mixean languages on the Gulf side and in the adjacent highlands of Oaxaca suggests this was

not a unidirectional mixing of cultures. Mixe-Zoquean also occupied the upper Grijalva valley,

in central Chiapas, with a center in Chiapa de Corzo. This population was apparently Zoquean in

speech, as nearby areas are today.

By 2000 BC, Mayan diversification had also begun (Josserand 2011:153-4, 159-161).

Following closely on the separation from the proto-Mayan community of the ancestors of the

Huastecans, which must have involved a northward move of the latter, there was a three-way

division of the remaining proto-Mayans. This diversification split the remaining proto-Mayan

language into the Yucatecan, Western, and Eastern branches of the family.

There is a strong ecological-geographical component to this diversification. The early

diversification of Mayan was in part the result of migrations to new territories and in part the

15

result of ecological adaptation to distinct environments, resulting in distinct networks of social

interaction and consequent development of the regional varieties that were ancestral to each

branch. Mayans who occupied the peninsula of Yucatán and adjacent lowlands became the

Yucatecans. Mayans who occupied the riverine lowlands to the south of Yucatán and some

adjacent highlands became the Western Mayans. Mayans who populated the highlands of

Guatemala to the south became the Eastern Mayans.

The area from which this phase of diversification began appears to be the interface

between the riverine and montane regions of northern Guatemala. A map of the distribution of

southern Mayan languages (Fig. 5) reveals a relatively small area within which members of

every branch of Eastern Mayan are found, and Western Mayan languages were adjacent in

historical times. This area includes the piedmont and upper branches of the Ixcán and Chixoy

river systems (in the modern Departments of Quiché and Alta Verapaz).

[Fig. 5 about here]

From this area, the branches of Eastern Mayan fan out to the south. For the two major

branches, Mamean and Quichean, small divergent groups are located near the epicenter and

larger, more homogeneous groups spread out further south. A chain of Mamean languages skirts

the western highlands: from northeast to southwest, Ixil, Aguacatec, varieties of Mam, and

Tektitec. A chain of Quichean languages occupies lands east of Mamean in central Guatemala:

from north to south, Uspantec, Sakapultec, and varieties of Quiché and Cakchiquel. Further east,

the Poqom branch of Quichean features a language in the epicenter (Pocomchí) and a second

language that occupied territory as far south as Guatemala City and beyond (Pocomam). At the

eastern extreme, Kekchí occupied a small part of the epicenter. (Campbell's 1988 map, drafted

for a monograph on Chiapas languages, is misleading. The expansion of Kekchí into the Petén is

a late development, for the most part taking place in the twentieth century [Adams 1965].)

This fan-like pattern, with more diversity towards the apex of the fan and broader areas of

16

homogeneity spreading out from this epicenter, is well known in historical linguistics and

dialectology (e.g., Hopkins 1965). Unless other factors contradict, the fan-like distribution can be

taken as evidence of out-migration from the epicenter, and I take that to be the case here.

Glottochronological calculations suggest that this diversification began around 1400 BC

(Josserand 2011:fig.6.3).

We can go further and suggest the motivation behind this out-migration to the south.

Lines traced through the center of distribution of each Eastern Mayan branch (and subbranch)

approximate trade routes leading from the riverine lowlands to the mountain passes north of the

emerging centers of Preclassic civilization along the Pacific coast. Mamean heads toward Izapa

(with an outpost in Tektitec, just to the north of the Tacaná volcano). Quichean proper heads

towards Takalik Abaj and Cotzumalguapa (splitting Quiché from Cakchiquel). Poqom expansion

leads to Kaminaljuyú. I suggest that trade routes were established by exploration from both ends

of these routes – the hinterlands and the urban centers – and that once established, these trade

routes attracted Mayan population expansions along them. An ethnographic parallel can be found

in the modern expansion of Chols from their homeland near Tila and Tumbalá, following the

developing road system into the rain forest to the east and southeast (de la Torre 1994). The

separation of Mayan populations from each other as they spread along distinct routes resulted in

the diversification of Eastern Mayan. As a point I will return to later, these population

expansions also put the Eastern Mayans into contact with the Mixean peoples of the Pacific

coastal plain.

Western Mayan has a distinct pattern of distribution, but its spread also appears to

originate in the same epicenter. The first wave of diversification, around 1000 BC (Josserand

2011:fig.6.3), resulted from the movement of a Western population into the Cuchumatán

Mountains, to the west of the epicenter. This move ultimately put these Mayans, the ancestors of

Chujean and Kanjobalan, into contact with the (Mixe-)Zoqueans who then occupied the Grijalva

valley – the Cuchumatanes are drained by tributaries of the Grijalva on their western slopes. This

17

contact will be a factor in the argument below. As is known from later developments (Hopkins

2012) powerful groups in the Grijalva valley have exercised considerable influence on the

languages and cultures of the Cuchumatán Maya.

The next wave of diversification in Western Mayan involved the move of some of the

remaining population, the ancestors of the Tzeltal and Tzotzil, into the Chiapas Highlands. This

put another Mayan population into contact with the Grijalva valley Mixe-Zoqueans. The Western

Mayans who remained in the lowlands (proto-Cholans) spread out across the riverine lowlands,

ultimately to form a chain of related languages from the Tabasco coast to Honduras.

By the time these migrations were over and Western Mayan groups were settled into their

new territories, the Classic period had begun, Mayans had long since adopted the Mesoamerican

calendar, and to the north of the Guatemalan highlands, Mayans were writing their language.

The Consequences of Contact

Whatever the ultimate origin of the Mesoamerican calendar, I argue that the names

attested in Classic area Mayan languages for the tenth day of the 260-day divinatory almanac

(the so-called tzolk'in) were influenced by Mixe-Zoquean antecedents.

Mayan groups of Highland Guatemala, in closer contact with Pacific coastal Mixeans,

who took the word *'uku to refer to canines, adopted the day name as "dog," expressing the

meaning in native Mayan vocabulary as tz'i' (e.g., Ixil, Quiché, and Pocomchí, Thompson

1960:68). Some Mayans in closer contact with Zoqueans borrowed the term from Mixe-Zoque

*'uku as 'ok, with the meaning "agouti, cereque." This set of languages includes those in the area

where Classic Maya culture would develop, Maya (of Yucatán; see Thompson 1960:68) and

Chol (Campbell 1984:179).

Some support for this hypothesis may be found in the hitherto unexplained day names of

Mayan languages in the Chiapas Highlands and the Cuchumatán Mountains of Guatemala,

18

although the evidence is by no means direct and serious consideration of this issue requires more

than ordinary delving into the linguistics of relevant languages. Thompson (1960:68) reports the

attested day names that correspond to Oc as follows, from the sources cited (and correcting the

names of the languages cited, e.g., Thompson calls the language of Santa Eulalia "Chuh" and that

of Soloma "Jacalteca"):

Elab Tzeltal or Tzotzil Nuñez de la Vega 1702:10

Elab San Mateo Ixtatán Chuj Termer 1930:385-6

Elap San Mateo Ixtatán Chuj Termer 1930:385-386, from Gustav Kanter

Elap Santa Eulalia Kanjobal LaFarge and Byers 1931:224, from Kanter

Elac Soloma Kanjobal Burkitt 1930-31

Some modern sources report day names, and their transcriptions are probably more reliable:

'elab' San Mateo Ixtatán Chuj Hopkins 2012:15 (b' = p' in the original);

Deuss 2007:291

'elab' Kanjobal in general Diego Antonio et al. 1996:74; Deuss

2007: 287, 289-290

'elab' Acatec (Kanjobalan) Andrés et al. 1996:41; Deuss 2007:288

We can probably take the form reported in modern sources as the correct form. However, the

origin of this term has remained obscure. None of the languages cited reports an identical term

with a meaning other than the day name itself. With notable exceptions, this is true of the day

names in general in this region.

In Chuj, for instance (Hopkins 2012; that source's /p'/ is replaced here by the equivalent

and more conventional /b'/), the only day names with common meanings are (with their Yucatec

19

equivalents in parentheses): 'ik', (Ik) 'wind', chab'in (Cib) 'spider monkey', and kixkab' (Caban)

'earthquake'. The day name kej (Manik) is cognate with but not the same as native chej 'deer',

b'a'atz' (Chuen) is not 'howler monkey' as its cognates are, but an ethnic name (yax b'a'atz',

people of San Sebastián Coatán); 'ajaw (Ahau) is not 'lord' but occurs in compound nouns ('main

roof beam', 'rattlesnake'). The same is true of Kanjobal (Diego Antonio et al. 1996), where 'ajaw

(Ahau) does mean 'leader, chief', kixkab' (Caban) is 'earthquake' and tz'ikin (Men) is 'bird', but

chej (Manik) means 'horse/mule [bestia]' and not 'deer'. The meanings normally associated with

the day names are not always present: 'iq' (Ik) is not recognized as 'wind', the day name 'ix (Ix) is

'woman', not some variety of jaguar, and kaq 'flower' has replaced Cauac (from Proto-Mayan

*kahoq 'thunder', associated with the Earth Lord; cf. the Chuj day name chawok). Of the seven

day names reported for Acatec (Andrés et al. 1996), only kixkab' (Caban) 'earthquake' is given a

gloss. The day names 'iq' (Ik), wotan (Akbal), tox (Cimi), 'elab' (Oc), tz'ikin (Men), and tx'ab'in

(Cib) are simply day names. It would appear that in the Cuchumatanes, in large part, the day

names have been adopted from some foreign source, are divorced from common vocabulary, and

exist only as the names of days, some of them reinterpreted and given new meanings. This

greatly complicates the identification of their origins.

A further complication is the variation in the forms of transcribed terms. While all

modern sources agree that 'elab' is the name of the tenth day name (see above), earlier reporters

transcribed the final consonant as <b> (Nuñez, Termer), <p,> (Termer, Kanter) or <c> (i.e., <k>)

(Burkitt). This would indicate a phoneme with final allophones that verge on the voiceless. The

Mayan /b'/ is notoriously varied in its final allophones, as was discussed for Tzotzil in one of the

earliest modern linguistic papers on Mayan languages (Weathers 1947). In Chiapas Mayan

languages the final allophones of /b'/ include ['m], glottal stop+voiced bilabial nasal (prompting

German ethnographer Ulrich Köhler [1995:25] to write a spirited defense of his preference to

write Chalchihuitán Tzotzil final /b/ as <m'> "m glotalizada"). In other variants of Tzotzil and

Tzeltal, the final nasal is devoiced. In Chol (Koob 1979:41-43) final allophones of /b'/ are

20

unreleased voiceless [p], which can be fricativized after /h/ (which manifests as a voiceless

vocoid in this position).

More relevant to the present discussion, in Chuj (Hopkins 1967:18-19), the final

allophones of /b'/ (written /p'/ in that source) are voiceless: "a lenis, voiceless, bilabial closure,

with simultaneous glottal closure or slight implosion." Variations in the early transcriptions of

the tenth day name (<b, p, k>) may represent this variation between voiced and voiceless final

allophones. Note also that for Nuñez's transcription <Elab>, it is relevant that final allophones of

Spanish <b> are also devoiced and fricative. Also relevant to the discussion below, these

voiceless final allophones are not greatly distinct from allophones of some other consonants, in

particular, /w/: (in Chuj) "a voiced labiodental fricative...[which] may devoice" (Hopkins

1967:31).

A Proposed Solution to the Mystery of Oc in the Highlands

As noted, none of the languages of Highland Chiapas and the Cuchumatanes has a term

like Oc for the tenth day name. But now that a tropical rodent has been implicated in the range of

meanings of this day name, we can consider the terms in these languages (and most Mayan) for

the tepezcuintle, all from proto-Mayan *ha[h]laaw. Kaufman's (2003:587) compilation of Maya

etyma lists the following variants of the term 'agouti / tepescuintle':

Yucatec Maya jaaleb'

Lacandón jarew

Itzá jale

Mopán jalej, jaale

Chol jalaw

Tzotzil holow

21

Tzeltal halaw

Tojolabal jalaw

Chuj halaw

Kanjobal halaw

Jacaltec halaw

Tuzantec hala:w

Ixil alav

Quiché (j)alaw

Poqomam hahlaaw, hahlaw

Kekchí hahlaw, halaw

Proto-Mayan had a contrast between *h ("glottal fricative" or voiceless vocoid) and *j

(voiceless velar fricative). This distinction has recently been recognized in Classic Maya

hieroglyphic writing (Grube 2004). Initial *h has a number of developments; in most languages

it merges with *j, the velar fricative, but in Chuj (Hopkins 2012) and some other languages

(notably Tzeltal of Bachajón; Slocum and Gerdel 1980) it remains distinct, and manifests as a

voiceless vocoid: "a non-syllabic, voiced or voiceless, onset to the following vowel, with local or

pharyngeal friction on the non-syllabic segment" (Hopkins 1967:29).

Kaufman's (2003) data transcribe the reflexes of Proto-Mayan *h in various ways. Where

it has merged with *j, he writes the now-conventional <j> (written <h> in some older sources).

Where *h has remained distinct from *j, he writes it <h>. Of all the languages for which he lists

data, only in Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chuj, and Tuzantec (as well as Poqomam and Kekchí) is the term

for tepezcuintle recorded with <h> (Kaufman 2003:587). In Central Tzotzil (Chenalhó, Chamula,

22

Zinacantán and their colonies; Hopkins 1980:210) *h before the vowel /o/ (sometimes a

development of earlier *a) has merged with /w/ (written <v>, a [bi]labial fricative, in some

sources). For tepezcuintle, Hurley and Ruiz (1978:371) list [general Tzotzil] "jolov, Cham[ula],

Zin[acantán] volov, Ch'en[alhó] volo, volov, Ixt[atán] jolom," where the Central dialects have

<v> and the others have merged *h with *j. In Tzeltal, the only variety to preserve *h is that of

Bachajón: Slocum and Gerdel 1980:139, "halaw (el) tepescuintle." A third development is that

of Ixil (Kaufman 2003:587), which has merged the initial *h with glottal stop: <alav>. Kaufman

also records a term from Quiché as <alav>, implying the same changes. (Conventionally,

Mayanists do not write the initial glottal stop.) Independently, Diego et al. (1996:8), in their

dictionary of Kanjobal, likewise record record tepezcuintle as <Alaw>. To summarize the data,

the terms for 'agouti, tepescuintle' vary in their initial consonant between /j, h, '/, and in their

final consonant between /b', w, j/ and zero (probably best taken as /h)/.

With these facts in mind, it is possible to construct a scenario that could account for the

hitherto mysterious Chiapas Highland and Cuchumatán Mayan names for the tenth day: A day

name from a foreign source was introduced into Mayan languages in the coastal lowlands of

Chiapas and Yucatán; derived from the (Mixe-)Zoquean *uku, the term meant 'agouti', and took

the form of 'ok (Oc). This term spread to the Chiapas Highlands and the Cuchumatanes, and was

adopted there as 'paca' or tepezcuintle, Agouti spp., halaw or jalaw. This term begins with a weak

consonant that sometimes manifests as glottal stop /'/, and ends with a consonant that sometimes

manifests as /b'/. Since the day names are divorced from ordinary vocabulary, the day name was

not controlled by the animal name, and ultimately came to have the form 'elab', a meaningless

term (outside the calendar). This scenario may seem bizzare, but consider the remaining day

names, none of which have clear meaning in all languages outside their calendric use. A similar

situation pertains to the modern day names taken from Spanish: Chuj lünis, Monday, etc. This

evolution is no more bizzare than that of the English day names: days named after the Norse

gods Tiw, Woden, and Thor have become our Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, words with

23

no meanings outside calendrics.

Note that the Mixe-Zoqueans of the Grijalva valley were Zoqueans, and took the day

name to refer to a rodent, not a canine. The pattern is consistent: The Mayan languages whose

contact was mainly with Zoquean, where 'uku referred to Dasyprocta spp. and perhaps similar

species (Agouti spp.), have the day name Oc (agouti) or, outside the rain forest area, Halaw

(paca) or its putative cognate Elab'. Those in closer contact with Mixean languages, where the

meaning of 'uku was 'dog', have the corresponding day name Tz'i', the native term for canines.

The hypothesis that the day name Oc referred to a tropical rodent rather than a canine is

supported by the parallel term Elab', found in Mayan languages of Chiapas and Huehuetenango.

A case can be made that the referrent of this term was the paca, and no competing argument for a

canine referrent can be made.

Geography and Cuisine

There is a geographical dimension to the distribution of "dog" versus "agouti" day names.

Leopold's maps of distribution of the two species (Figs. 3 and 4) show that neither pacas nor

agoutis are found in Oaxaca and Central Mexico; they occur on both coasts and across the

Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is therefore reasonable that proto-Mixeans, moving into the Oaxaca

highlands, would favor "dog" (or "coyote") over "agouti" as the reflex of proto-Mixe-Zoque

*'uku (and it is from these varieties of Mixean that proto-Mixean is reconstructed). As for

Mixeans on the Pacific coast, the coastal plain is characterised by savannas, not the rain forests

favored by the tropical rodents, and while they are reported from this area (Coe and Flannery

1967), they are not as common as they are on the Gulf side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. In

any case, we have little data from Tapachultec, the only Pacific coastal Mixean survivor into

historical times. The areas occupied by Zoqueans, on the other hand, lie entirely within the

ranges of both pacas and agoutis (Leopold 1959:figs. 145, 146).

There may be a culinary dimension as well, although the evidence is indirect. Maize-fed

24

dogs were a major component of Olmec diet on the Gulf coast in Late Preclassic times (Coe and

Diehl 1980:389, VanDerwarker 2006:130-140, 190, Wing 1981). The evidence from refuse

middens suggests that dogs were raised as a food source in rural settlements and the meat

exported to the elite; the remains of feet and skulls predominate in rural communities, the

remains of meatier parts of dogs are more common in the refuse of elite communities

(VanDerwarker, quoted in Lobell and Powell 2010). This pattern appears earlier on the Gulf

coast and then spreads to the Soconusco with San Lorenzo Olmec influence. In earlier periods

along the Soconusco, as evidenced by burial practices, at least some dogs were treated as pets:

"In fact, one of the Locona-phase dog burials from Cuauhtémoc was interred with a complete

ceramic dish... covering its skull. Certain dogs were thus receiving burial accoutrements similar

to those of humans during the Initial Ceramic Period [1600-1250 BC]" (Rosenswig 2012:145).

While the remains of dogs are common in both the Gulf coast region and the Soconusco,

the same is not the case with the rodents. While Dasyprocta and Agouti are reported to be

modern-era game animals in the Soconusco (Coe and Flannery 1967:113-117, reporting

collections made in 1962), in a number of detailed archaeological reports on the local fauna their

remains are scant. There is no mention of these small tropical rodents in the Preclassic fauna lists

of VanDerwarker (2006) for the Gulf coast and Rosenswig (2007, 2010) for the Soconusco.

Wake and Harrington (2002:240, table 35), reporting on three domestic mounds at La Blanca (in

the Soconusco), note a slightly higher incidence of Dasyprocta in the earliest deposit but only

2.47% of the recovered material overall (3.8% of mammal bones) and this amounts to as few as

3 individuals. Agouti is represented by a single bone fragment. A fourth mound excavation at La

Blanca yielded a single proximal femur of Dasyprocta (Barge 2012:51). Similar results are

reported from other excavations at La Blanca (Wake 2004) and elsewhere in the Maya area,

including northern Belize (Masson 2004), central Belize (Teeter 2004), and western Honduras

(Henderson and Joyce 2004).

It is possible that the remains of these rodents have simply gone unrecognized in the mass

25

of small mammal bones that are unidentified, or that their bones may have been consumed by

domestic carnivores (VanDerwarker 2006:117). In either case it can be argued that based on the

evidence, they did not form a significant part of the Preclassic diet in these regions, while

evidence for the consumption of dogs is ubiquitous. It should be noted that even today there are

taboos against eating agoutis (Dasyprocta). While they consume pacas (Agouti), the Maya of

northern Belize "refuse to eat agoutis" (Schlesinger 2001:149-150), reportedly because they are

believed to menstruate (Mary Pohl, personal communication, October 2012).

The relevance of this culinary preference to day names lies in the nature of the latter.

Several animals appear in the representations of the natural forces celebrated in the

Mesoamerican divinatory almanac (crocodile, snake, monkey, etc.) but none are domesticated

animals and the only one regularly hunted as a meat source is deer, and deer hunting is fraught

with spiritual significance (see the Itzá deer-hunting tales reported by Hofling 1991:55-63, 136-

166). In this context it would seem odd for the dog, a commercially exploited meat source, to

appear in the set of day names. The intensive consumption of domestically raised dogs occurs in

the area of Olmec culture (ergo Zoquean speech) and this is precisely where I argue the day

name (Maya Oc) referred to the tropical rodents rather than to canines.

[Figure 6 about here]

The Hieroglyphic Evidence

There are relatively few examples in the hieroglyphic corpus of the day sign Oc.

Thompson (1960:fig. 8) illustrates eighteen occurrences dating from Early Classic murals at

Uaxactún to the Postclassic codices and a Colonial manuscript (Fig. 6). In his extensive

commentary on the day name (1960:78-80) he notes first that:

The tenth day name has the meaning of dog (tzi) in several highland lists, and the glyph

itself is the head of an animal which may well be that of a dog; the equivalent day on the

Mexican plateau is Itzcuintli, "dog." Strangely, the words for dog in Yucatec (pek, ah bil,

26

tzuul, bincol) are quite different from the usual word tz'i or chi which is found in all other

Maya languages and dialects except Huastec, Chontal, and Chicomucelteca.

Having accepted "dog" as the probable meaning of the day sign based on its Mexican

equivalent, Thompson devotes the following pages to an attempt to rationalize the interpretation

(e.g., 1960:79):

In the Kaua list and the auguries for the Quiche reported by Schultze Jena adultery is

among the aspects of the day. The nature of the dog presumably gave rise to this

association... The first augural list of the Kaua manuscript associates Oc with 'the

adorned one,' Ah zuli, which Barrera Vasquez translates as he who lives a life of

entertainment, a parrot, adulterer, one without judgement or discretion, without

understanding. Can it be a corruption of tzuul, given in the San Francisco dictionary for

domestic dog?

[Figure 7 about here]

In his later Catalog, under the glyph number 765 (T765), Thompson (1962:366) groups

Oc signs (T765a,b) with similar signs as "Black-spotted Dog" (Fig. 7). Of this set of hieroglyphs,

he remarks:

This member of the "jog" [his coinage from 'jaguar' and 'dog'] family is distinguishable

on the monuments from Glyph 764 [the day sign Chicchan, a snake] by the absence of

teeth, the upward sloping mouth, and the pointed nose. The characteristic feature, shared

with Glyph 764, is the black (cross-hatched on the monuments) supraorbital area, or,

rarely, large spots on forehead and cheek. In some cases the hatched area is not now

recognizable, and in a few cases probably never was present.

Despite Thompson's description, the examples of Oc he reported earlier (1960:fig.8, see

Fig. 6 here) do display teeth, albeit single teeth, not the multiple teeth of Chicchan. Most do not

27

display the "characteristic" spot above the eye. Where representations are relatively realistic,

however, most examples do show the sloping mouth and pointed nose. The influence of

Thompson is undeniable. When illustrating the Oc glyph, modern authors invariably choose

examples that fit Thompson's characterization of the glyph as showing a supraorbital black area

(Figs. 8 and 9).

[Figs. 8 and 9 about here]

As Stone and Zender (2011:187) note: "the sign clearly depicts a dog, and its conical

teeth, dark eye patch, and mammalian cheek spot are reflected in numerous examples of the dog

in art." It is perhaps appropriate to note that, of the three examples of dogs they illustrate, the one

labelled as "dog" in the accompanying hieroglyphic text does not display the dark eye patch.

The graphic evidence for the day name Oc as "dog" thus seems debatable, more a product

of self-fulfilling prophecy (the choice of dog-like examples as illustrations) than an empirically-

derived conclusion from the assembled evidence. The upward sloping mouth and the pointed

nose noted by Thompson could just as well – perhaps better – represent the agouti (see Fig. 1).

The particulary well preserved day name on Palenque's Olvidado (Fig. 6, number 23) has

prominent incisors, teeth similar to those of rodents (Fig. 10).

[Fig. 10 about here]

In an unpublished paper, Erik Boot recognized the Mixe-Zoquean origin of the word 'ok,

but took it to be from Mixe, with the meaning "dog," as the hieroglyph labels a dog-like

anthropomorphic figure on an unprovenienced vessel (Boot 2008:26, note 10). This suggests

some variation in the meaning of the loanword in Mayan languages, and its distribution through

time, space, and context (calendrical and non-calendrical) deserves more attention. In the

auguries for day names in Chuj, a Mayan language community of the Cuchumatán Mountains

(Deuss 2007:291), the day name Elab' is "Protector of dogs. If born on this ora, we are lucky

with dogs" (from a priest in San Mateo Ixtatán, Father Mullan, in 1978) and "Good for

28

household dogs" (from a Protestant town mayor of San Mateo, in 1995). Thus there is some

evidence while the referent of the day name in the Classic calendar was a rodent, an association

of the day name with canines (dating back to its Mixe-Zoquean origins) persisted outside the

calendrical context and the Classic region.

29

Spanish Summary

El décimo día de la secuencia de días en el calendario mesoamericano de 260 días

(llamado tzolkin en la literatura mayista) es normalmente representado en la jeroglífica por la

cabeza de un mamífero, la cual se interpreta casi universalmente como la cabeza de un perro.

Dicha interpretación encuentra apoyo en el nombre del día en el nahuatl de México central,

itzcuintli, "perro". Sin embargo, hay razones por que se cuestione esta interpretación en el caso

del jeroglífico maya, el día Oc en el calendario de Yucatán documentado en el siglo XVI. En las

lenguas mayas, no hay una palabra semejante con el sentido de "perro." En el presente trabajo, se

propone que el origen de la palabra Oc se encuentra en la familia lingüística mixe-zoqueana, y

específicamente en la rama zoqueana de la familia. Es probable que una lengua de este grupo

fuera la lengua dominante de la civilización olmeca. Con base en estudios de zoología,

lingüística, e iconografía, se propone que el animal representado en la jeroglífica maya no fue un

perro, sino un roedor tropical, el cereque (Dasyprocta punctata o mexicana) o, en algunos

lugares, el tepezcuinte (Agouti paca).

Existe en la literatura mesoamericanista mucha confusión con respecto a los roedores

tropicales, producto de variación temporal en el conocimiento de la fauna, el vocabulario popular

de español, inglés y las lenguas indígenas, y hasta la terminología científica zoológica. Dicha

confusión abarca media docena de especies, miembros de distintas familias de dos órdenes,

Rodentia y Carnívora. Resulta, por ejemplo, que un agutí no es un Agouti, aunque otros roedores

sí lo son. Semejante confusión se deriva de la nomenclatura indígena, en que un "perro" no es

necesariamente un canino, pero puede ser de las familias de los mapaches, comadrejas, o perros

de agua. Hasta el término mixe-zoqueano que dió origen al nombre de día comentado abarcaba

perros y roedores según la época o la rama de la familia. En este estudio se traza el desarrollo y

difusión de la terminología a través de varias familias de idiomas.

30

El proto-mixe-zoqueano empezó su diversificación alrededor de 1600-1000 a.C. con la

expansión de la población establecida en el Soconusco (costa del Pacífico de Chiapas y

Guatemala) hacia el Golfo de México. Este movimiento de población resultó en el desarrollo de

dos ramas de la familia, mixeano en el lado sur, zoqueano en el norte. Según las reconstrucciones

lingüísticas, la palabra *'uku "agutí" en proto-mixe-zoqueano cambió a "perro" en mixeano.

Lenguas de la familia maya en contacto con los mixeanos nombran el décimo día con la palabra

tz'i', término nativo que quiere decir "perro". Lenguas mayas en contacto con zoqueano tomaron

el término zoqueano como nombre del día, en la forma de 'ok, un préstamo léxico con el sentido

de "agutí".

En el campo de epigrafía maya, hay relativamente pocos ejemplos de la jeroglífica Oc en

el corpus. Una identificación tentativa del referente del nombre de día, influenciada por el

nombre de día en México central, se ha tomado sin cuestión desde mediados del siglo pasado.

Persiste esta interpretación, que el glifo representa "perro", porque los autores suelan seleccionar

como ejemplos del glifo los que más se asemejan a un perro. Sin embargo, confrontado con la

evidencia lingüística de nombres de días en las lenguas indígenas, sobre todo términos hasta

ahora no entendidos en las lenguas de los altos de Chiapas y los Cuchumatanes de Guatemala,

puede proponerse con confianza que el nombre del día Oc no es "Perro" sino "Agutí" o, en los

Altos de Chiapas y los Cuchumatanes, "Tepezcuinte".

Acknowledgements

The inspiration for this paper came from several days of discussion with David Mora-

Marín while he was drafting an inscription for the gravestone of my late wife, J. Kathryn

Josserand (Ware Church, Gloucester, Virginia). There was a date 6 Oc in the inscription, and we

spent some time studying graphic variants of the day name; in the process we began to question

the "dog" identification. Searching for other possible meanings of Oc, the Chiapas term for the

agouti (uco) occurred to me, and Wichmann's (2004) Mixe-Zoquean volume provided an origin

31

that seemed relevant. I gratefully acknowledge David's contributions to this paper, but I take full

responsibility for any errors committed in the elaboration of this concept. After this paper was

drafted, Karen Bassie called my attention to the unpublished paper by Erik Boot (2008),

mentioned at the end of the text, that suggests some variation in the meaning of the loanword in

Mayan languages.

In 1987, the Guatemalan government, in consultation with the Academia de las Lenguas

Mayas de Guatemala and other indigenous organizations, issued a decree (Acuerdo Gubernativo

Número 1046-87) that established new orthographic standards for the indigenous languages,

including the spelling of their names, some of which are distinct from traditional usage.

Mesoamerican scholars in general have extended these norms to other languages and language

names. In this paper, in order to avoid the confusion created by different language names in cited

material and in the main text, I have chosen to retain the traditional names of languages and

language groups. Names and spellings in cited material are retained as in the original. Language

names used in the main text are as follows (innovations in parentheses): Aguacatec (Awakateko),

Cakchiquel (Kaqchikel), Chol (Ch'ol), Chuj (Chuj), Huastec (Wasteko), Itzá (Itzaj), Ixil (Ixil),

Jacaltec (Jakalteko, Popti'), Kanjobal (Q'anjob'al), Kekchí ( Q'eqchi'), Mam (Mam), Maya

(Yukateko), Mixe (Mije), Mixtec (Mixteko), Nahuatl (Nawatl), Pocomam (Poqomam),

Pocomchí (Poqomchi'), Quiché (K'iche'), Sacapultec (Sakapulteko), Tapachultec (Tapachulteko),

Teco and Tectitec (Tektiteko), Tzeltal (Tzeltal), Tzotzil (Tzotzil), Uspantec (Uspanteko),

Zapotec (Sapoteko), Zoque (Soke). Proto-language and language group names retain the

traditional spellings: Mixean, Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, etc. Contrary to normal linguistic usage, I

have surrounded glosses with double quote marks (") rather than single quotes ('); note that the

latter represents glottalization and the glottal stop in native words (and that Kaufman uses 7 for

the glottal stop in some of the data cited above).

32

REFERENCES

Adams, Richard N.

1965 Migraciones internas en Guatemala; expansión agraria de los indígenas kekchíes hacia

El Petén. Estudios Centroamericanos, No. 1. Guatemala, C. A: Seminario de Integración

Social Guatemalteca and Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Universidad de Texas.

Alvarado, Fray Francisco de

1962 [1593] Vocabulario en lengua mixteca por Fray Francisco de Alvarado. Reproducción

facsimilar con un estudio de Wigberto Jiménez Moreno y un apéndice con un

Vocabulario sacado del Arte en Lengua Mixteca de Fray Antonio de Reyes. México. D.

F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Andrés, Domingo, Karen Dakin, José Juan, Leandro López, and Fernando Peñalosa

1996 Diccionario Akateko-Español. Rancho Palos Verdes, California: Ediciones Yax Te'.

Aulie, H. Wilbur, and Evelyn W. de Aulie

1998 Diccionario ch'ol de Tumbalá, Chiapas, con variaciones dialectales de Tila y Sabanilla.

Compiled by H. Wilbur Aulie and Evelyn W. de Aulie, 1978. Reedited by Emily F.

Scharfe de Stairs, 1996. Coyoacán, D. F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Barge, Meghan Sarah

2012 Vertebrate Consumption and Feasting at La Blanca, Guatemala. M. A. thesis, California

State University, Northridge.

Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, director

33

1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex; Maya-Español, Español-Maya. Mérida: Ediciones

Cordemex.

Boot, Erik

2008 At the Court of Itzam Nah Yax Kokaj Mut; preliminary iconographic and epigraphic

analysis of a Late Classic vessel. Version of October 30, 2008. Online publication:

http://www/mayavase.com/articleopen.html.

Britton, A. Scott

2003 Zapotec-English, English-Zapotec (Isthmus) Concise Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene

Books.

Burkitt, R.

1930-31 The calendar of Soloma and other Indian towns. Man 30(80), 31(160).

Butler H., Inez M.

2000 Diccionario zapoteco de Yatzachi. 2nd edition (electronic). Coyoacán, D. F.: Instituto

Lingüístico de Verano.

Cabrera, Luis

1974 Diccionario de aztequismos. México, D. F.: Ediciones Oasis.

Campbell, Lyle R.

1984 El pasado lingüístico del Sureste de Chiapas. Investigaciones recientes en el área maya,

XVI Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, San Cristóbal de Las Casas,

34

Chiapas, 21-27 Junio 1981, pp. 165-180.

1988 The Linguistics of Southeastern Chiapas, Mexico. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye

2011 Revisiting the Mixe-Zoque; A Brief History of the Preclassic Peoples of Chiapas. In The

Southern Maya in the Late Preclassic; The Rise and Fall of an Early Mesoamerican

Civilization, Jonathan Kaplan and Michael Love, eds., pp. 25-45. Boulder: University of

Colorado Press.

Coe, Michael D., and Kent V. Flannery

1967 Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal Guatemala. Smithsonian

Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 3. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Córdova, Fray Juan de

1942 [1578] Fray Juan de Córdova, Vocabulario Castellano-Zapoteco. Edición facsimilar.

Biblioteca Lingüística Mexicana, I. México, D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e

Historia. [Original, 1578: Fray Juan de Córdoua, Vocabvlario en lengva çapoteca.

México: Pedro Charte y Antonio Ricardo]

de Gámez, Tana, ed. in chief

1973 Simon and Schuster's International Dictionary; English/Spanish; Spanish/English. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

de la Torre Yarza, Rodrigo

1994 Chiapas: entre la Torre de Babel y la lengua nacional. Colección Miguel Othón de

35

Mendizábal, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.

Tlalpan, D. F.: Ediciones de la Casa Chata.

Deuss, Krystyna

2007 Shamans, Witches, and Maya Priests; Native Religion and Ritual in Highland

Guatemala. London: The Guatemalan Maya Centre.

Diego de Diego, Antonio, Franciso Pascual, Nicolás de Nicolás Pedro, Carmelino Fernando

Gonzales, and Santiago Juan Matías

1996 Diccionario del idioma Q'anob'al. La Antigua Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico

Francisco Marroquín.

Emery, Kitty F., ed.

2004 Maya Ethnozoology: New Directions in Method and Theory. Monograph 51. Cotsen

Institue of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Grube, Nikolai

2004 The orthographic distinction between velar and glottal spirants in Maya hieroglyphic

writing. In The Linguistics of Maya Writing, Søren Wichmann, ed., pp. 61-81. Salt Lake

City: The University of Utah Press.

Grube, Nikolai, and David Stuart

1987 Observations on T110 as the Syllable ko. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, 8.

Center for Maya Research, Washington, D. C.

Henderson, John S., and Rosemary A. Joyce

36

2004 Human use of animals in prehistoric Honduras: a preliminary report from the Lower

Ulúa Valley. In Maya Ethnozoology: New Directions in Method and Theory, Kitty F.

Emery, ed., pp. 223-236. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institue of Archaeology, University of

California, Los Angeles.

Hofling, Charles Andrew

1991 Itzá Maya Texts with a Grammatical Overview. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Hopkins, Nicholas A.

1965 Great Basin prehistory and Uto-Aztecan. American Antiquity 31(1): 48-60.

1967 The Chuj Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

2012 A Dictionary of the Chuj (Mayan) Language as Spoken in San Mateo Ixtatán,

Huehuetenango, Guatemala, ca. 1964-65. Online publication:

www.famsi.org/mayawriting/ dictionary/hopkins/dictionaryChuj.html.

Hopkins, Nicholas A., and J. Kathryn Josserand

2011 A Historical Dictionary of Chol (Mayan). (with Ausencio Cruz Guzmán). Online

publication: http://www.famsi.org/ mayawriting/ dictionary/hopkins/dictionaryChol.html.

Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto

1962 Estudios mixtecos. In Vocabulario en lengua mixteca por Fray Francisco de Alvarado,

pp. 9-162. México. D. F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Instituto Nacional de

Antropología e Historia.

Josserand, J. Kathryn

37

2011 Languages of the Preclassic along the Pacific Coastal Plains of Southeastern

Mesoamerica. In The Southern Maya in the Late Preclassic; The Rise and Fall of an

Early Mesoamerican Civilization, Jonathan Kaplan and Michael Love, eds., pp. 141-174.

Boulder: University of Colorado Press.

Karttunen, Frances

1983 An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kaufman, Terrence S.

2001 Language History and Language Contact in Pre-Classic Meso-America, with Especial

Focus on the Languages of Teotihuacán. Paper prepared for the Tercer Coloquio

Mauricio Swadesh, México, D. F., 29 August-4 September, 2001.

2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary. Online publication: http://www.famsi.org

/reports/ 01051/pmed.pdf.

Köhler, Ulrich

1995 Chonbilal ch'ulelal – alma vendida; elementos fundamentales de la cosmología y religión

mesoamericanas en una oración en maya-tzotzil. México, D. F.: Instituto de

Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Koob Schick, Hildegard María

1979 Fonología del chol de Salto de Agua, Chiapas. Tesis profesional (Lingüística), Escuela

Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D. F.

La Farge, Oliver, and Douglas Byers

38

1931 The Year Bearer's People. Middle American Research Series, Publication 3. Middle

American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Leopold, A. Starker

1959 Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Lobell, Jarrett A., and Eric Powell

2010 More than man's best friend; dogs as food. Archaeology 63(5) (September/October,

2010). [http://www.archaeology.org/1009/dogs/food/html]

Macdonald, David, ed.

1984 The Encyclopedia of Mammals. New York: Facts on File.

Macri, Martha J., and Matthew G. Looper

2003 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Volume One: The Classic Period Inscriptions.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Marcus, Joyce

1983 The first appearance of Zapotec writing and calendrics. In The Cloud People; Divergent

Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus,

eds., pp. 91-96. New York: Academic Press.

Martínez Hernández, Juan

1929 Diccionario de Motul, maya español, atribuido a Fray Antonio de Ciudad Real y Arte de

39

lengua maya por Fray Juan Coronel. Mérida: Talleres de la Compañía Tipográfica

Yucateca.

Masson, Marilyn A.

2004 Fauna exploitation from the Preclassic to the Postclassic periods at four Maya settlements

in northern Belize. In Maya Ethnozoology: New Directions in Method and Theory, Kitty

F. Emery, ed., pp. 97-122. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institue of Archaeology, University of

California, Los Angeles.

Morris, William, ed.

1970 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: American

Heritage Publishing Company.

Nuñez de la Vega, F.

1702 Constituciones diocesanas del Obispado de Chiapas. Rome.

Pío Pérez, J. P.

1843 Ancient chronology of Yucatan; or, a true exposition of the method used by the Indians

for computing time. Translated from the manuscript of Don Juan Pio Perez, Gefe Político

of Peto, Yucatan. In Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, by John L. Stephens, pp. 278-292.

New York: Dover Publications.

Rosenswig, Robert M.

2007 Beyond identifying elites: feasting as a means to understand early Middle Formative

society in the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:1-27.

40

2010 The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization; Inter-Regional Interaction and the

Olmecs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santamaría, Francisco

1959 Diccionario de mejicanismos. México, D. F.: Porrúa.

1988. Diccionario general de americanismos. 3 vols. Villahermosa: Gobierno del Estado de

Tabasco.

Schele, Linda

1984 Some suggested readings of the event and office of heir designation at Palenque. In

Phoneticism in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, J. S. Justeson and L. Campbell, eds., pp.

287-305. Albany: Institute of Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York.

Schlesinger, Victoria

2001 Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya; A Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schoenhals, Louise C.

1988 A Spanish-English Glossary of Mexican Flora and Fauna. México, D. F.: Instituto

Lingüístico de Verano.

Schumann, Otto

1971 Descripción estructural del maya itzá del Petén, Guatemala, C. A. Centro de Estudios

Mayas, Cuaderno 6. México, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Stephens, John Lloyd

41

1963 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. 2 vols. New York: Dover Publications. [Original edition,

1843, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatán, New York: Harper]

Stone, Andrea, and Marc Zender

2011 Reading Maya Art; A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Maya Painting and Sculpture.

London: Thames and Hudson.

Stuart, David

1998 "The fire enters his house": architecture and ritual in Classic Maya texts. In Function and

Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, Stephen D. Houston, ed., pp. 373-425.

Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Teeter, Wendy G.

2004 Animal utilization in a growing city; vertebrate exploitation at Caracol, Belize. In Maya

Ethnozoology: New Directions in Method and Theory, Kitty F. Emery, ed., pp. 177-191.

Monograph 51. Cotsen Institue of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Termer, F.

1930 Zur Ethnologie und Ethnogeographie des nördlichen Mittel-amerika. Ibero-

Amerikanishes Archiv 4(3). Berlin and Bonn.

Terraciano, Kevin

2001 The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Thompson, J. Eric S.

42

1960 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing; An Introduction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Tozzer, Alfred M.

1941 Landa's Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán; A Translation. Papers of the Peabody

Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. XVIII.

Cambridge.

Urcid, Javier

2000 Zapotec Writing: Knowledge, Power, and Memory in Ancient Oaxaca. Online

publication: http://www.famsi.org/zapotecwriting/

VanDerwarker, Amber

2006 Farming, Hunting and Fishing in the Olmec World. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wake, Thomas A.

2004 A vertebrate archaeofauna from the Early Formative period site of Paso de la Amada,

Chiapas, Mexico: preliminary results. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in

Methodology and Theory, Kitty F. Emery, ed., pp. 209-222. Cotsen Institute of

Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.

Wake, Thomas A., and Lady R. Harrington

2002 Appendix 2: Vertebrate faunal remains from La Blanca, Guatemala. In Early Complex

Society in Pacific Guatemala: Settlements and Chronology of the Río Naranjo,

Guatemala, M. W. Love, ed., pp. 237-252. Papers of the New World Archaeological

43

Foundation, 66. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Weathers, Nadine

1947 Tsotsil phonemes with special reference to allophones of b. International Journal of

American Linguistics 13:108-111.

Wichmann, Søren

1995 The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press.

2004 The Linguistics of Maya Writing, Søren Wichmann, ed. Salt Lake City: The University of

Utah Press.

Wing, Elizabeth S.

1981 A comparison of Olmec and Maya foodways. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors, E. P.

Benson, ed., pp. 375-386. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection.

44

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig, 1. Agouti, Dasyprocta punctata. After Leopold 1959:fig. 146.

Fig. 2. Paca, Agouti paca. After Leopold 1959:fig. 145.

Fig. 3. The distribution of agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.) in Mexico. After Leopold 1959:fig.146.

Fig. 4. The distribution of pacas (Agouti paca) in Mexico. After Leopold 1959:fig.145.

Fig. 5. The Epicenter of Southern Maya Diversification (after Campbell 1988:map 1)

Fig. 6. Variants of the day name Oc. After Thompson 1960:fig. 8. UAX, Uaxactún murals; PAL,

Palenque, Tablets of the Sun, Foliated Cross and Olvidado; CPN, Copán; YAX, Yaxchilán;

QRG, Quiriguá; Perez, Dresden, and Madrid codices; Landa, Tozzer 1941:134.

Fig. 7. Thompson's Glyph 765, "Black-spotted dog." From Thompson 1962:366.

Fig. 8. The Oc glyph, Stone and Zender 2011:187.

Fig. 9. The Oc glyph, Macri and Looper 2003:74.

Fig. 10. The skull of an agouti. After Leopold 1959:fig. 146.

45

Fig, 1. Agouti, Dasyprocta punctata. After Leopold 1959:fig. 146

Fig. 2. Paca, Agouti paca. After Leopold 1959:fig. 145.

46

Fig. 3. The distribution of agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.) in Mexico. After Leopold 1959:fig.146.

Fig. 4. The distribution of pacas (Agouti paca) in Mexico. After Leopold 1959:fig.145.

47

Fig. 5. The Epicenter of Southern Maya Diversification, with Preclassic Cultural Centers on and

near the Pacific Coast (after Campbell 1988:map 1)

48

Fig. 6. Variants of the day name Oc. After Thompson 1960:fig. 8. UAX, Uaxactún murals; PAL,

Palenque, Tablets of the Sun, Foliated Cross and Olvidado; CPN, Copán; YAX, Yaxchilán;

QRG, Quiriguá; Perez, Dresden, and Madrid codices; Landa, Tozzer 1941:134.

Fig. 7. Thompson's Glyph 765, "Black-spotted dog." From Thompson 1962:366.

49

Fig. 8. The Oc glyph, Stone and Zender 2011:187.

Fig. 9. The Oc glyph, Macri and Looper 2003:74.

50

Fig. 10. The skull of an agouti. After Leopold 1959:fig. 146.