Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: an Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking, People of Highland, Chiapas 0127850473, 9781483220987, 1483220982

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Dedication
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Conventions, Abbreviations, and Key to Pronunciation of Tzeltal Words
PART I: The Setting, Principles, and Methods
CHAPTER 1. THE SETTING
1 Phytogeography of Chiapas
2 Linguistic and Cultural Characteristics of the Central Highlands
3 The Municipio of Tenejapa
4 Informants Utilized in the Research. CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE1 Universal Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Ethnobiology
2. Tzeltal Plant Taxonomy: A General Overview
3 Nomenclature and Classification: Some Possible Qualifications
4 Intermediate Taxa as Covert Conceptual Categories
5 Terminal Taxa
6 Summary of the Overview
7 Detailed Analysis of Tzeltal Plant Nomenclature
CHAPTER 3. METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA
1 Prior Work in Tzeltal Botanical Ethnography
2 Procedures and Techniques Employed in the Present Study. 3 Advantages of General Botanical Collecting Procedures4 Tzeltal Collection Files and Supporting Linguistic and Ethnographic Data
5 Basic and Extended Ranges of Tzeltal Plant Names
6 Informant Variability and the ""Ideal Speaker-Hearer""
7 Establishing Tzeltal Plant Complexes
CHAPTER 4. ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY AND PLANT DEVELOPMENT
1 Linguistic Specification of States of Growth and Development
2 Tzeltal Ethnophytography
3 Descriptive Terminology of Tzeltal Plant Characteristics and Qualities
CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PLANTS. 1 Linguistic Considerations of Cultural Significance2 Ecological Considerations of the Significance of Plants
PART II: The Flora
CHAPTER 6. INTRODUCTION
1 Considerations on the Adequacy of the Description
2 Organization of the Flora
3 Conventions on the Form of Individual Discussion of Tzeltal Plant Names
CHAPTER 7. THE TREES: te?
Covert Complexes: te?
Covert Categories: te?
Tree Isolates
CHAPTER 8. THE HERBS: wamal
Herb Covert Complexes: wamal
Herb Isolates: wamal
CHAPTER 9. THE VINES:?ak'
Covert Categories:?ak'
Vine Isolates:?ak'
CHAPTER 10. THE GRASSES:?ak
?ak Generics. CHAPTER 11. THE UNAFFILIATED PLANTSUnaffiliated Covert Categories
Isolated Unaffiliated Generic Taxa
CHAPTER 12. THE AMBIGUOUSLY AFFILIATED PLANTS
Covert Categories
Ambiguous Isolates
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.1 Alphabetical Inventory of Tzeltal Plant Taxa and Their Botanical Ranges by Folk Generic Name
Appendix 1.2 Alphabetical Inventory of Botanical Names by Genus and Their Associated Tzeltal Plant Referents
Appendix 2: Alphabetical Listing of Plants by Tzeltal Name in Terms of Their Relative Cultural Significance
Appendix 3: Potentially Valid Generic Names.

Citation preview

PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas

LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND CULTURE: Advances in the Study of Cognition Under the Editorship of: E. A. HAMMEL DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY

Michael A gar, Ripping and Running: A Formal Ethnography of Urban Heroin Addicts Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven, Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas

PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas BRENT BERLIN

Department of Anthropology University of California Berkeley, California

DENNIS E. BREEDLOVE

Department of Botany California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, California

PETER H. RAVEN

Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis, Missouri

ACADEMIC PRESS NEW YORK AND LONDON

A Subsidiary ofHarcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers

COPYRIGHT © 1974, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, I N C . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART O F THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.

ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.

Ill Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003

United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD. 24/28 Oval Road, London NW1

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD N U M B E R : 73-7445

ISBN 0-12-785047-3 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TO ALONSO MENDEZ TON Tzeltal ethnobotanist

This page intentionally left blank

It is impossible that men, even the most primeval and unlettered, manage their affairs with various denizens of the plant world without classifying them. Names of plants, generic and specific, and also other names more comprehensive, are part of the vernacular of every tribe of the uncivilized, as well as that of every rural province within the bounds of civilization to-day. The very names attest the fact of classification; for no name is that of an individual plant. It is that of a group of plants, always; a group specific, generic or more comprehensive than either. EDWARD LEE GREENE

Landmarks of Botanical History (1909: 39)

The necessity for aggregating things . . . into classes is a completely general characteristic of living things.. .. Such generalization, such classification in that sense, is an absolute, minimal requirement of adaptation... GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

Principles of Animal Taxonomy (1961:3)

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS Foreword Preface Acknowledgments Conventions, Abbreviations, and Key to Pronunciation of Tzeltal Words

XUl XV

xix

xxi

PARTI

The Setting, Principles, and Methods CHAPTER 1

THE

SETTING

1 Phytogeography of Chiapas 2 Linguistic and Cultural Characteristics of the Central Highlands 2.1 The Dialects of Tzotzil 2.2 The Dialects of Tzeltal 3 The Municipio of Tenejapa 3.1 Plant Communities 3.1.1 Vegetational Formations 3.1.2 Seasonal Formations 3.2 Ethnographic Sketch of Tenejapa 4 Informants Utilized in the Research 4.1 General Distribution across the Municipio 4.2 Biographical Sketches of Principal Informants

3 6 7 7 10 10 10 13 16 21 21 23

CHAPTER 2 G E N E R A L P R I N C I P L E S O F TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE 1 Universal Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Ethnobiology 1.1 General Principles 1.2 Names for Plants and Animals 1.3 Types of Primary Lexemes 1.4 Secondary Lexemes 1.5 Ethnobiological Nomenclature and Folk Taxonomy 2 Tzeltal Plant Taxonomy: A General Overview 2.1 Plants as a Semantic Domain 2.2 Life-Form Taxa and Life-Form Nomenclature 2.3 Generic Taxa and Generic Nomenclature 2.4 Specific (and Varietal) Taxa and Nomenclature

25 25 27 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 32

3 Nomenclature and Classification: Some Possible Qualifications 3.1 Instances Where Generic Taxa Are Labeled by Secondary Lexemes 3.2 Instances Where Specific Taxa Are Labeled by Primary Lexemes 3.3 Type-Specific Nomenclature in Tzeltal 3.4 Aberrant Specific Taxa Marked by Primary Lexemes 3.5 Concluding Comments on Tzeltal Nomenclature and Category Status 4 Intermediate Taxa as Covert Conceptual Categories 5 Terminal Taxa 6 Summary of the Overview 7 Detailed Analysis of Tzeltal Plant Nomenclature 7.1 Nomenclatural Properties of Generic Names Marked by Simple Lexemes 7.2 Nomenclatural Properties of Generic Names Marked by Unproductive Lexemes 7.2.1 Type 1 Unproductive 7.2.2 Type 2 Unproductive 7.2.3 Type 3 Unproductive 7.2.4 Type 4 Unproductive 7.3 Nomenclatural Properties of Generic Names Marked by Productive Lexemes 7.4 Specific Names 7.5 Productivity of Semantic Dimensions of Specific Plant Name Attributives 7.6 Discussion of Most Prominent Semantic Dimensions of Specific Name Attributives 7.6.1 Color

32 32 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 39 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 ix

7.6.2 Focal Membership 7.6.3 Size 7.6.4 Texture 7.6.5 Habitat 7.6.6 Shape 7.6.7 Analogy 7.6.8 Smell, Taste, Edibility 7.7 The Specific Contrast Set: Its Structure and Distributional Characteristics 7.7.1 Semantic Dimensions of Two-Membered Sets 7.7.2 Contrast Sets with Three or More Members CHAPTER 3

4,5 45

46 48 49 49 51 51 52 54 55 56 58 59

ETHNOLINGUISTIC

CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY A N D PLANT DEVELOPMENT 1 Linguistic Specification of States of Growth and Development 1.1 General Periods of Development 1.2 Recognized Substages of Growth 1.2.1 Development of the Seed 1.2.2 Development of the Stem x

44

METHODS OF

COLLECTING D A T A 1 Prior Work in Tzeltal Botanical Ethnography 2 Procedures and Techniques Employed in the Present Study 2.1 Determining Tzeltal Plant Names 2.1.1. Linguistic Criteria in the Recognition of Tzeltal Plant Names 2.1.2 Extralinguistic Criteria of Importance in the Recognition of Plant Names 2.2 Eliciting Tzeltal Plant Names: Initial Inventories 2.3 Eliciting Tzeltal Plant Names in the Field 3 Advantages of General Botanical Collecting Procedures 4 Tzeltal Collection Files and Supporting Linguistic and Ethnographic Data 5 Basic and Extended Ranges of Tzeltal Plant Names 6 Informant Variability and the "Ideal Speaker-Hearer" 7 Establishing Tzeltal Plant Complexes CHAPTER 4

42 43 43 43 44 44 44

CONTENTS

62 62 62 63 63

1.2.3 Development of the Flower and Fruit 1.3 States of Development in the More Important Cultivated Plants 1.3.1 ?isim 'corn' (Zea mays) 1.3.2 cenek' 'beans' (Phaseolus spp.) 1.3.3 True Squashes and Gourds 1.3.4 c'uma te? 'chayote' (Sechium edule) 1.3.5 lo?bal 'banana' (Musa spp.) 1.3.6 wale? 'sugarcane' {Saccharum officinarum) 1.3.7 ?il· 'chili pepper' {Capsicum annuum) 1.3.8 c'/Vî te? 'manioc' (Manihot esculenta) 1.3.9 käslan cenek? 'peanut' (Arachis hypogaea) 2 Tzeltal Ethnophytography 2.1 Plant Part Names General Terms Terms Relative to the Stem Terms Relative to the Leaf Terms Relative to the Root Terms Relative to the Flower Terms Relative to the Fruit 3 Descriptive Terminology of Tzeltal Plant Characteristics and Qualities 3.1 Derivational Desinences of Attributives 3.2 Color 3.2.1 Secondary Color Terms 3.2.2 Unclassified Color Adjectives 3.3 Size 3.4 Texture Terms Relative to Texture 3.5 Shape General Shape Terms Shape Terms Relative to the Stem Shape Terms Relative to VineLike, Creeper-Like Stems General Leaf Shape Terms Terms Relative to the Leaf Margin Shape or Position of the Flower Shape Terms Relative to the Fruit 3.6 Taste 3.7 Edibility 3.8 Length 3.9 Moisture Content 3.10 Thickness

64 64 64 65 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 72 74 75 76 79 79 79 80 84 84 85 85 87 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 94 95 95 95

3.11 Smell 3.12 Maturity 3.13 Strength CHAPTER 5

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

95 95 95

CULTURAL

SIGNIFICANCE OF PLANTS 1 Linguistic Considerations of Cultural Significance Categories of Cultural Significance 1.1 The Internal Structure of Generic Names and Cultural Significance Lexemic Structure of Tzeltal Generic Names and Cultural Significance 1.2 Taxonomic Polytypy of Generic Names 1.3 The Correspondence of Tzeltal and Scientific Botanical Classification 1.3.1 One-to-One Correspondence 1.3.2 Underdifferentiation 1.3.3 Overdifferentiation 1.3.4 Distribution of Variant Mappings 1.3.5 The Mapping of Polytypic Generics 1.3.6 Inventory of Polytypic Generic Taxa 2 Ecological Considerations of the Significance of Plants 2.1 Major Food Plants by Ecological Zone

96

2.2

96 96

2.3

97 99 100 101 101 101 101 102 103 103

2.4 2.5

2.6

Major Food Crops Root Crops Fruits Greens and Leafy Vegetables Other Secondarily Important Food or Trade Items of Plant Origin Introduced Plants and Their Cultural Significance Intensity of Cultivation and Historical Origin Tzeltal Food Types and Food Classification 2.3.1 Major Classes of Food 2.3.2 States of Consumption of Beans, Chilis, and Squash Products Tzeltal Agriculture 2.4.1 The Native Tzeltal Calendar 2.4.2 The Agricultural Cycle Importance of Plants in Material Culture 2.5.1 Tools 2.5.2 Household Furnishings 2.5.3 Utensils Tzeltal House Construction 2.6.1 Major House Parts and Construction Materials 2.6.2 The Process of House Building: House Construction Phases

103 108 109 110 110 111 .112 112 112 117 118 118 119 124 124 126 128 135 135 138

103 PART II The Flora

CHAPTER 6

INTRODUCTION

1 Considerations on the Adequacy of the Description 1.1 Which Groupings 1.2 What Taxonomic Structure(s) 1.3 How to Identify 2 Organization of the Flora 3 Conventions on the Form of Individual Discussion of Tzeltal Plant Names CHAPTER 7

T H E TREES: fe?

Covert Complexes: te? Covert Categories: fe? Tree Isolates

153 153 154 154 157 158 160 164 262

CHAPTER 8 T H E HERBS: wamal Herb Covert Complexes: wamal Herb Isolates: wamal CHAPTER 9

T H E VINES: ?a/r'

Covert Categories: ?ak' Vine Isolates: ?ak'

CHAPTER 10

T H E GRASSES: ?ak

CHAPTER 11

THE

?ak Generics

306 337 373 395 400

UNAFFILIATED

PLANTS Unaffiliated Covert Categories Isolated Unaffiliated Generic Taxa CONTENTS

415 465 xi

CHAPTER 12 THE AMBIGUOUSLY AFFILIATED PLANTS Covert Categories Ambiguous Isolates

500 506

APPENDIXES Appendix 1.1 Alphabetical Inventory of Tzeltal Plant Taxa and Their Botanical Ranges by Folk Generic Name 517 Appendix 1.2 Alphabetical Inventory of Botanical Names by Genus and Their Associated Tzeltal Plant Referents 560

xii

CONTENTS

Appendix 2 Alphabetical Listing of Plants by Tzeltal Name in Terms of Their Relative Cultural Significance Appendix 3 Potentially Valid Generic Names Appendix 4 Systematic List of Plants

580 583

REFERENCES

619

INDEXES Index to Non-Tzeltal Plant Names Index to Tzeltal Plant Names General Index

625 647 657

574

FOREWORD

Unique in numerous ways, this manyfaceted compendium written by an anthropologist and two botanists constitutes a major contribution to tropical ethnobotany. Few, if any, collaborative efforts in this field have yielded such bountiful results. As an ethnographer with descriptive and comparative ethnobotanical interests, I find the publication of extensive systematic and ethnolinguistic data on the thoroughly collected local Tzeltal flora itself an outstanding achievement. Some of the many other noteworthy features of this massive work include: the bringing together and the augmenting of the senior author's various analytic and speculative writings on ethnobiological semantics as they relate to Tzeltal knowledge of plants, insightful commentary on local categorization of ontogenetic as well as morphological differentiation in plants, particularly interesting discussions of shape and color terminology in Tzeltal plant nomenclature, critical examination of folk segregates above the more basic or "generic" level, and innumerable suggestions for the

closer and more profitable study of folk classifications of natural phenomena in general. Reflecting the authors' special concerns, some aspects of Tzeltal ethnobotany receive more attention than others. Floristic descriptions (including illustrations) emphasize material from herbarium vouchers, and, as the title indicates, primary stress is given to local plant identification, nomenclature, and classification rather than to the cultural significance of plant forms. Nonetheless, this publication provides an exceedingly rich source of cultural and phytographic information on the many ways men and plants are related in a particular tropical environment. The long-term usefulness of the appended inventories, as well as of the cross-indexed sections in which various special groupings of plant segregates are considered, cannot be overestimated. In all, Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven have provided us with a rare and invaluable document. HAROLD C. CONKLIN

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

Major Goals What follows is a monograph dealing with the botanical ethnography of a group of Tzeltal Indians of Chiapas, Mexico. We conceive of botanical ethnography as that area of study that attempts to illuminate in a culturally revealing fashion prescientific man's interaction with and relationship to the plant world. In writing this volume we have had two major goals in mind. Our primary concern can be seen as specifically descriptive in nature inasmuch as it aims to reflect nonarbitrary cognitive principles particular to the Tzeltal understanding of plants. As such, we hope to present in as explicit and systematic a fashion as possible the underlying classificatory principles used by the Tzeltal to order the vast array of organisms of the plant world. In this respect, the research presented here can be thought of as an essay into one aspect of the ethnoscience of apreliterate society. A corollary and equally important ethnographic concern is to indicate in what ways the Tzeltal utilize their knowledge of plants to their own benefit, that is, how the recognized natural resources of the plant world are exploited in ways of cultural significance. Our second goal grows directly out of the first but is considered to be broader in scope insofar as it aims at suggesting comparative and general principles of folk systematics. The study should be relevant to certain issues suggested in structural and cognitive anthropology which deal with the nature of primitive classification. We believe that studies in ethnobiological classification will eventually prove to be an especially rich area for the discovery of general principles of thinking which have major implications for a better

understanding of human cognition. We hope that ultimately our research will bear on the following question. In view of a detailed specification of the classificatory relationships that can be found to exist in one prescientific society to one aspect of its biological universe, what principles can be deduced which appear to be applicable to prescientific classification in general? As will be seen in the sections which follow, it has now become apparent that several widespread, if not universal, principles of ethnobiological classification and nomenclature can be recognized, and promise to throw considerable light on primitive man's understanding of his natural universe. It may not be entirely obvious anthropologically that the study of man's classification of nature should provide insights into general principles of cognition, for few ethnologists have explored this domain with the detail that it deserves. There are innumerable excellent accounts of a society's kinship system, ritual, and sexual behavior for every sketchy report of its ethnobiological knowledge. This state of affairs appears to us unfortunate because topics relating to primitive man's understanding of his biological world are often the ones that he is most eager to discuss. (How many ethnologists have bemoaned the difficulty of keeping informants' attention on the subject of 'social structure' when it was clear from the natives' viewpoint that questions relating to plants and animals were actually those which should be asked first !) Anthropology, somewhat like the modern technological society in which it has flourished, has tended to relegate to a rather minor role the study of primitive man's conceptualization of the natural world in which he finds himself—with which he must interact and cope in his daily life.

XV

The Nature of the Collaborative Effort It is obvious, but important to state explicitly, that the two disciplines of ethnography and botany, both with differing assumptions and procedures, are considered here to combine equally in the solution of botanical ethnographic problems. The skills and intuitions of practitioners in both disciplines must be effectively combined if a description is to be maximally revealing. It cannot be, as was so often the case in the past, a one-sided effort. Until recently, most ethnobotanical research (with minor exceptions) was carried out with little regard for the essential elements of folk classification relevant to the native speaker himself. The great majority of all published ethnobotanical descriptions simply presented an arbitrary alphabetical listing of Latin names accompanied by a native name, perhaps with notes on "how the Indians used the plant." Such listings, of limited use even for botanical purposes, clearly failed to actualize the criteria of good ethnographic description. On the other hand, the lack of botanical information has often hindered purely anthropological efforts to describe a society's knowledge of plants in that without such data it is impossible to specify the nature of the organisms being classified. Ethnobotanical definitions which merely indicate that a particular exotic word means "a kind of plant" can hardly be considered adequate and revealing of principles of native classification. There is no doubt that one of the major factors which has retarded research in ethnobiology in general and ethnobotany in particular is the fact that few individuals adequately control the interdisciplinary skills necessary for such study. Even when such skills are found in a single investigator, the time involved in conducting both botanical and ethnographic aspects of a study at one time often make the task of description nearly impossible. (After pressing and drying plants all day, what investigator has time for detailed ethnographic elicitation?) We know of only one example of a modern ethnobotany, as yet unpublished, where a single PREFACE

investigator has admirably managed to develop skills in both botany and ethnography, and this is Conklin's work on the Hanunoo of the Philippines (Conklin, 1954). As more intensive study is required, as longer periods of time must be spent in the field, and as the requirements for an adequate ethnobiological description continue to become more stringent, such single-manned efforts will become increasingly rare. Nothing short of full-time collaboration on the parts of ethnographers and botanists will be required in producing satisfactory descriptions. Our experience in this joint effort has indicated that active collaboration requires more than the simple combining of research, independently carried out by each investigator. On the contrary, accommodations and réévaluations of both assumptions and techniques from each discipline must be constantly made. We have found that there can be no purely ethnographic or purely botanical treatment of the problems presented in our data and suggest that satisfying solutions rest entirely on the truly interdisciplinary evaluation of each. In this regard, the volume is, to our knowledge, the first relatively complete botanical ethnographic description of plant folk systematics held by any New World society which is based on a rather detailed understanding and synthesis of both the anthropological and botanical data involved.

Organization of the Volume Our report falls logically into two major sections. Part I, The Setting, Principles, and Methods, in five chapters, is first concerned with describing the setting of the research, both from a botanical and ethnographic view. Second, a general outline of Tzeltal plant classification and nomenclature is presented in light of basic principles that we feel to be universal to all ethnobiological systems. Third, we describe as fully as possible the methods we have used to collect our data. Fourth, a detailed examination is given to the rich ethnolinguistic terminology

used by the Tzeltal in describing and discussing the structure of plants, a topic we have referred to as ethnophytography. Finally, we discuss the cultural significance of plants to the Tzeltal from a general, topically oriented framework. Here our discussions touch on agriculture, food types, house building, and other areas of material culture where plants and plant products are of major importance. In Part II of the book, The Flora, we deal with the individual description of all known Tzeltal plant classes in detail. The organization is in terms of our best understanding of Tzeltal plant taxonomy. Efforts have been made to provide accurate ethnobotanical definitions of Tzeltal plant taxa in terms of their basic and extended botanical ranges. Discussion in this section also includes a detailed linguistic analysis of the Tzeltal plant terms for each recognized class as well as data on the numerous linguistic alternates for all known classes of plants. (The Tzeltal have not yet held a pan-Mayan congress on botanical nomenclature and, as will be seen, the amount of lexical variation is considerable. Such variation is subject, however, to general principles relating lexicon to cultural significance, a point discussed in detail in Chapter 5.) Other basic information included with each plant description deals with the cultural utility of the plant, historical notes on its

origin, and, when known, the botanical characteristics mentioned by informants as critical for recognizing and distinguishing related groups of organisms. Whenever possible, we have attempted to provide line drawings or photographs of plants when verbal descriptions appear inadequate. The photographs of herbarium specimens are taken from vouchers deposited in the Dudley Herbarium, Stanford University. They are printed at 30% actual size, with a few exceptions, which are noted in the figure captions. Finally, the monograph is accompanied by a series of appendixes that we think will allow the reader, be he anthropologist, botanist, or intelligent nonspecialist, to find his way quickly and easily to subjects in the book which may be of special interest to him. We hope that the information presented in Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification will be of value to scholars in many fields. Theoretically and methodologically, the ethnobiological procedures followed may have some implications for the conduct of ethnographic inquiry. Substantively, the data should be of interest to archaeologists, botanists, ethnologists, ethnohistorians, and geographers interested in an important aspect of the natural history of this fascinating area of Mesoamerica.

PREFACE

xvii

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work reported here began in 1961 when one of us began casual botanical collecting with the aid of Alonso Méndez Ton in and around San Cristobal de las Casas. Since that time, the number of individuals who have participated in the research in one form or another is so large that it would be tedious to mention them all by name. The contribution of many, however, has been so substantial that we wish to express our appreciation publicly. Several colleagues have actively collaborated with us in the development of many of the theoretical ideas discussed in Chapter 2 and our debt to them is great. To Katherine Branstetter (University of California, Berkeley); RalphN. H. Bulmer (University of Papua and New Guinea); Robbins Burling (University of Michigan); Harold C. Conklin (Yale University); Christopher Day (University of Rochester); Munro Edmonson (Tulane University); Charles O. Frake (Stanford University); Paul Friedrich (University of Chicago); William H. Geoghegan (University of California, Berkeley); Nicholas A. Hopkins (University of Texas); Eugene Hunn (University of Washington); Paul Kay (University of California, Berkeley); Robert M. Laughlin (Smithsonian Institution); Duane Metzger (University of California, Irvine); Robert Randall (University of California, Berkeley); A. Kimball Romney (University of California, Irvine); Michelle Rosaldo (Stanford University); David M. Schneider (University of Chicago); Brian Stross (University of Texas); and Oswald Werner (Northwestern University), we extend our thanks for their continued interest and detailed comments and criticisms. The identification of the large mass of botanical materials collected (in excess of 100,000 specimens) has been facilitated by the generous cooperation of numerous American, Mexican, and European botanists.

As a result, most of our specimens bear their annotations and in many cases have been compared with authentic material. These botanists include: W. R. Anderson, New York Botanical Garden (Rubiaceae); R. C. Barneby, New York Botanic Garden (Astragalus, Doled); D. Bates, Cornell University (Malvales); J. Beaman, Michigan State University (Caryophyllaceae); L. Constance, University of California, Berkeley (Hydrophyllaceae, Apiaceae); D. Denham, Boulder, Colorado (Gesneriaceae); J. A. Dwyer, St. Louis University (Rubiaceae); F. Ehrendorfer, Botanisches Institut der Universität Wien (Galium); C. Epling, deceased (Menthaceae); R. C. Foster, Harvard University (Sisyrinchium); P. A. Fryxell, Texas A & M University (Malvales); H. S. Gentry, U. S. Department of Agriculture (Phaseolus); F. W. Gould, Texas A & M University (Gramineae); S. Graham, Kent State University (Cuphea); F. J. Hermann, U. S. Forest Service Herbarium (Carex, Juncaceae); H. Iltis, University of Wisconsin (Capparidaceae); H. S. Irwin, New York Botanical Garden (Cassia); C. Jeffrey, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Cucurbitaceae); T. Koyama, New York Botanical Garden (Cyperaceae except Carex); B. A. Krukoff, New York Botanical Garden (Erythrina); C. L. Lundell, Texas Research Foundation (Myrsinaceae, Myrtaceae, many other miscellaneous families); P. C. Mangelsdorf, Harvard University (races of maize); E. McClintock, California Academy of Sciences (ornamentals); R. McVaugh, University of Michigan (Asteraceae, Lobeliaceae, Burseraceae, Rosaceae, Euphorbiaceae); F. Meyer, U. S. National Arboretum (Valeriana); H. N. Moldenke, Mountainside, New Jersey (Eriocaulaceae, Verbenaceae); E. Molseed, deceased (Iridaceae, except Sisyrinchium);H.E. Moore, Cornell University (Geraniaceae, Arecaceae); C. V. Morton, U. S. National Museum (ferns and lower vascular plants, xix

Smilax, Solanum); C. H. Müller, University of California, Santa Barbara(Quercus); K. H. Rechinger, Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien (Rumex); C. M. Rogers, Wayne State University (Linum); R. C. Rollins, Harvard University (Brassicaceae); V. Rudd, U. S. National Museum (Papilionaceae); J. Rzedowski, Instituto PolitécnicoNacional, Mexico, D. F. (miscellaneous monocotyledons); J. Sauer, University of California, Los Angeles (Phytolaccaceae, Amaranthus); B. Schubert, Harvard University (Desmodium, Dioscorea); E. E. Sherff, deceased (Asteraceae—Coreopsidinae); L. Shinners, deceased (Convolvulaceae); L. B. Smith, U. S. National Museum (Bromeliaceae, Begonia); J. A. Steyermark, Instituto Botânico, Caracas (Rubiaceae); H. A. Wahl, Pennsylvania State University (Chenopodium); D. Wasshaussen, U. S. National Museum (Acanthaceae); U. T. Waterfall, Oklahoma State University (Physalis)\ G. Webster, University of California, Davis (Euphorbiaceae); L. O. Williams, Chicago National History Museum (Orchidaceae and many families done in conjunction with the flora of Guatemala); and J. Wurdack, U.S. National Museum (Melastomataceae). Margaret Sharp has provided invaluable editorial assistance in connection with the entire volume, and has prepared the indexes. The maps (Figures 1.3-1.5) were produced by Saichi Kawahara (San Francisco State College) and are based on aerial photographs kindly provided by Evon Z. Vogt. Professor Vogt also made available the photographs of Tenejapa landscapes included as Figures 1.6-1.9.

xx

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All of the drawings included in Chapter 4 and several in Chapter 5 were done by Phyllis Platner. The photographs of herbarium vouchers included in Part II, The Flora, were prepared by Claire Etienne (California Academy of Sciences). We have been given secretarial assistance throughout the project by several industrious persons, and especially thank Barbara Heiman, Barbara Gulahorn, Heidi Vives, Carol Heisterberg, Nancy Papalexis, Lynn Dorah, Karen de Nitto, and Mary Vollmer. Our financial support throughout the full term of the research has been generously provided by the National Science Foundation through grants GS-383, GS-1183, and GS-2280. Additional support has come from the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; the Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley; the California Academy of Sciences; and the Missouri Botanical Garden. We appreciate the sustained support of Eugene A. Hammel, the editor of the Language, Thought and Culture series and the staff of Academic Press for seeing the manuscript through to publication despite what can only be termed enormous complexities of production. If the book as it now stands eventually proves to have lasting interest it will be due primarily, of course, to the patient, sincere lessons provided us in folk botany by our many Tzeltal informants who, with unimaginable fortitude, rarely failed to provide good answers to our incessant queries about their views of the world of plants.

CONVENTIONS, ABBREVIATIONS AND KEY TO PRONUNCIATION OF TZELTAL WORDS

The following conventions have been used throughout the monograph. Tzeltal plant names appear in boldface italics (e.g.,/?//iie? 'oak', ?on 'avocado'); other Tzeltal words and expressions appear in regular italics (for example, kuPak'tik 'paraje in central Tenejapa', bac'ilna 'typical Tzeltal house'). At times, especially in Part II, The Flora, a Tzeltal word or plant name will be analyzed linguistically. Analysis is indicated in square brackets [ J. Roots of words are shown in italics; derivational and inflectional affixes are set off from the root by periods and appear in regular type, for example, k'ayob [k'ay.ob] 'drum', >es

CONVENTIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND KEY TO PRONUNCIATION OF TZELTAL WORDS

PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas

This page intentionally left blank

PART I

The Setting, Principles, and Methods

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

1

THE SETTING

1

Phytogeography of Chiapas

Following Mulleried (1957), Chiapas can be divided into seven physiographic regions (see map, Figure 1.1). Floristic associations within one of these regions are more similar to each other than the same floristic associations from two different physiographic regions. That is to say, two pine-oak forest communities from the same region are more alike than two pine-oak forest communities from two different regions. For this reason, the vegetational associations are best studied region by region, even though there will be an overlap of plant associations. Many local endemics are restricted to a particular plant association within a particular physiographic region. The regions and the plant associations found within them are as follows: The Pacific Coastal Plain

This is a narrow strip of metamorphic strata and intrusive rocks of pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic age with several ranges of low hills. It is flat and relatively dry in the north, and hilly and wet in the south. Mangrove swamps with patches of coastal strand form a continuous band along the Pacific Ocean. Tropical deciduous forest, palm forest, thorn woodland, and short-tree savanna are all quite common in the remaining inland areas. Evergreen and semievergreen seasonal forest is found most abundantly in the south. The plant associations found in this region are widespread types scattered along the Pacific coast from Sinaloa to Panama (Standley, 1941). There appear to be very few endemic species.

The Sierra Madré de Chiapas

This is parallel to the coast from the southern end of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec extending through Chiapas into Guatemala. It is a narrow steep range of volcanic mountains ranging in elevation from about 500 m in the north to 4000 m on the Guatemala border. Tropical deciduous forest is common at lower elevations on both escarpments especially in the north, whereas evergreen and semievergreen seasonal forest is restricted to riparian situations in the north and middle elevations of both escarpments. Lower montane rain forest is found only on the lower slopes of Volcan Tacanâ in the Soconusco district. Most of this Pacific rain forest has been destroyed or altered for cultivation of coffee. Pine-oak forest is widespread at middle and higher elevations in the north. It is replaced by pine-oakliquidambar forest, montane rain forest, and evergreen cloud forest in the south. There are many local endemics in this region, especially in the higher-elevation associations about Volcan Tacanâ. Ardisia ovandensis, Buddleia ovandensis, Clethra matudai, Deherainia matudai, Eugenia siltepecana, Quercus ovandensis, Quercus paxtalensis, Symplocos tacanensis, and Zinowiewia matudai are a few of the conspicuous endemic species. The Central Depression*

Beginning with the fast-moving streams flowing out of the Cuchumatan massif, the Rio Grijalva descends slowly through a broad *This region is also known as the Valle Central, (Helbig, 1964a, b) or the Depresion Central (Miranda, 1952; Rzedowski, 1965). 3

-*·

COA87

*ic

>***

\

KltOMITIRS I

Figure 1.1

terraced valley from 1200 m at the Guatemala border to 500 m at the mouth of El Sumidero. This giant basin is characterized by a dry climate (in some places, an annual rainfall of 800 millimeters). The strata are mostly marine limestones and slates. The depression terminates abruptly as the Grijalva flows into El Sumidero, a sheer-faced canyon with walls up to 100 m high. This dry valley [Contreras Arias (1955) refers to this area as semiaridl is more than 200 kilometers long and up to 70 kilometers wide. It is completely surrounded by moist, densely forested mountain areas, affording it complete isolation from other pockets of xeric vegetation. Quite understandably, there are a large number of endemic plants, especially among the shrubs and small trees occurring on dry, exposed slopes. Catopheria chiapensis, Ery4

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

Physiographic regions of Chiapas.

thrina goldmanii, Lopezia langmaniae, and Wimmeria acuminata are particularly conspicuous endemics. · The flora of the Central Depression, although dry, and containing a number of Central Mexican elements, completely excludes a striking number of species from the dry flora of Oaxaca, even though some of these species occur in the dry regions of Eastern Guatemala (Amphipterygium adstringens, Apoplanesia paniculata, Megastigma, Myrtillocactus, and Plocosperma). Another interesting facet of the flora of this region is the occurrence of many species known elsewhere only from the dry regions of the Yucatan Peninsula (Miranda, 1952) (Clusia flava, Coccoloba cozumelensis, Dioon spinulosum, Guaiacum sanctum, Guettarda combsii, Gymnopodium antigonoides).

Most of the valley was probably originally covered with tropical deciduous forest; however, extensive cultivation and grazing have led to large tracts of thorn woodland, and savanna. In certain protected riparian areas, evergreen seasonal and semievergreen forest occurs and palm forest is common on alluvial flats in the southern end of the depression. The Central Plateau*

A highland mass, about 220 kni along its principal axis and from 50 to 100 km in width lies directly east of the Central Depression. It is composed mostly of marine limestones with extrusions of volcanic rocks on the higher peaks. The broad summit is from 2100 to 2500 m in elevation, with a few peaks reaching as high as 2900 m. There is a marked difference in the rainfall between the east and the west escarpments and the vegetation reflects this difference. Tropical deciduous forest and pine-oak forest occur on the drier west side, bordering the Central Depression. Pine-oak-liquidambar and moister rain forest cover the eastern escarpment. The summits and eastern slopes of the higher peaks and ridges have a diverse evergreen cloud forest which contains a large number of endemic species. (Carex chiapensis, Eugenia ravenii, Eugenia tonii, Hidalgoa breedlovei, Magnolia sharpii, Miconia ravenii, Parathesis breedlovei, Salvia querceto-pinorum, and Symplocos excelsa are a few of the more conspicuous species.) Another large group of species is restricted to this region and the limestone areas of Huehuetenango, Alta Verapaz, and Baja Verapaz, Guatemala. This area supports a large population of Mayan swidden agriculturalists, of which the Tenejapa Tzeltal are representative. The 1960 census estimates the population size conservatively between 150,000 and 200,000. Most indigenous peoples live in a dispersed "vacant town" manner and cultivate most of *This region is also commonly referred to as the Central Highlands (Vogt, 1969), La Meseta Central de Chiapas (Miranda, 1952), and Chiapas Highlands (Goldman and Moore, 1945).

the arable land available in this region. As a result, very little primary forest is left. The Eastern Highlands

Eastward from the Central Plateau, there are several ranges of steep mountains gradually sloping off into the drainage of the Rio Usamacinta. The area is mostly limestone with some sandstone and volcanic extrusions. It ranges in elevation from 400 to 1500 m. The vegetation is, for the most part, uniform, with lower montane rain forest being most common. There are, however, patches of short-tree savanna and palm forest scattered throughout the area. Evergreen and semievergreen seasonal forest is common in drier situations in the northern portion of the area. Tropical rain forest is present in the flat areas surrounding the upper drainage of the Rio Usamacinta. Montane rain forest is present only on the crests of the highest ridges. In contrast to the Central Plateau, this area is very sparsely populated and large tracts of virgin forest remain. The floristic associations present here are continous with associations in the Petén region of Guatemala, and the two areas taken together contain many endemic taxa. The Northern Highlands

To the north of the Central Plateau and the Central Depression lies a series of steep ranges of volcanic origin but quite complex geologically. The chasm of the Rio Grijalva traverses this area with steep-faced cliffs and high ridges on both sides. This area is bounded to the north and northwest by an extension of the Sierra Madre, which lies across the border in Oaxaca. Lower montane rain forest occurs along the bases of the ranges, whereas montane rain forest is common on the higher ridges. Pine-oak-liquidambar and evergreen and semievergreen seasonal forests are common in drier situations in temperate and lowland areas, respectively. This region has no major population centers and few roads; much of it can only be reached by footpath. It is quite under1

PHYTOGEOGRAPHY OF CHIAPAS

5

standably the most poorly known of the physiographic regions. The Gulf Coastal Plain

Two small segments of this large physiographic region are found in the northeast corner of Chiapas. The vegetation is mostly second growth from what once was tropical rain forest or evergreen and semievergreen seasonal forest, but now is short-tree savanna and second-growth tropical forest with scattered palm forests. Lundell (1942) and Williams (1938, 1939) discuss the plants of part of this area. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Chiapas flora is the fact that most of the area of the state is contained within narrowly restricted physiographic areas. This alone accounts for the large number of taxa endemic to the state. Only two small portions of the state contain floristic associations that are closely related to similar associations in the rest of Mexico. Both the Gulf Coastal Plain and the Pacific Coastal Plain have their vegetational associations continuously

linked far to the north. Two other physiographic areas (the Sierra Madre and the Eastern Highlands) along with their vegetational associations extend to the south into Guatemala and El Salvador and are strictly Central American in aspect. The remaining three areas (the Northern Highlands, the Central Depression, and the Central Plateau) are strictly Chiapas phenomena. The flora, therefore, although having elements of both Central Mexico and Central America, has an aspect quite its own. 2

Linguistic and Cultural Characteristics of the Central Highlands

The population figures for the Central Highlands are only approximate, but we may cite an estimate of some 236,000 people. The area is divided linguistically into two historically distinct cultural groups. Ladinos, that is Spanish-speaking persons of mixed IndianSpanish descent, comprise approximately CHOL

Simojovel^T HuetiuP a ' n Pueblo Nueyo / SolistahuacaW NORTHERN \ |TZ0TZIL El Bosque· / *Jrtotol I Bochil^ \ Chalchihuitan \WESTERN ΤΖΟΤΖΙΪΑ^ο M . Soyalo« >oyalo*~-jagaaienas* «San Pedro Mt/tK San Andres LairSar ^ β ^ Α ? 1 ^ ' //Mitontic ÉTZELTAL «tfxchuc \ \ CENTRAL //TZOTZIL \2RHSk Ixtapa· EAST CENTRAL TZELTAL , /»Chamula ZOQUE \ Zinacantanr Huistani ^San Cristobal-de

Altamirano

Figure 1.2 Distribution of Tzeltal and Tzotzil speaking communities in the highlands of Chiapas. [Base map after Hopkins (1970).]

6

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

78,000 people. The remaining 158,000, or two-thirds of the total, are indigenous peoples speaking one of four Mayan languages, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, and Choi or, in some municipios, Zoque. Tzeltal and Tzotzil* are bordered on the north and east by Choi and Tojolabal on the west and southwest by Zoque, a non-Mayan language, and to the south by Spanish. About 78,000 Tzeltal speakers inhabit the eastern slopes of the highlands while some 80,000 Tzotzil speakers reside in the western area. The Tzeltal-Tzotzil boundary cuts the highlands almost in half by a general north-south line which runs to the east of the major city of San Cristobal de las Casas (see Figure 1.2). Bilingualism rates are difficult to compute, and those that exist are probably incorrect. The 1960 Mexican census shows 55,951 monolingual speakers of Tzeltal and 57,233 monolingual speakers of Tzotzil. Liberal estimates by the Instituto Nacional Indigenista indicate that some 30% of the TzeltalTzotzil population is bilingual. 2.1

THE DIALECTS OF TZOTZIL

According to Hopkins (1970) Tzotzil is spoken in at least 21 municipios, or counties. On the basis of extensive dialect survey work in the area, Hopkins has recognized four major dialects of Tzotzil; northern, central, western, and southern (Figure 1.2). The names of the municipios in which these dialects are spoken, and the numbers of monolingual and bilingual speakers of Tzotzil (when known), are presented in Table 1.1. *Hopkins (1970) notes that: The single speech community of both Tzeltal and Tzotzil, i.e., that which spoke Proto-7 zeltalTzotzil, had begun to split into two branches about 260 A.D. The branch that became Tzotzil had begun to develop internal varieties by about 650 A.D.; the Tzeltal branch had begun to divide by about 1200 A.D. . . . If allowances are made for dialects that have not been found, and for possible increased cognate retention due to close contact between the various communities, these dates could be moved further back in time [p. 203].

2

According to the 1960 Mexican census, monolingual Tzotzil speakers are found in the following additional municipios. Since many of these speakers are immigrants from other municipios, we are unable to specify which major dialects of Tzotzil are represented.

Municipio Altamirano Amatân Amatenango Coapilla Chicoasén Ishuatân Osumacinta Pueblo Nuevo Solistahuacân Sabanilla San Cristobal de las Casas San Fernando Solusuchiapa Teopisca

Number of monolingual Tzotzil speakers 179 191 94 43 44 404 40 1258 (2154bilinguals) 13 735 3 13 3

Population data are lacking for the Western Tzotzil community of Magdalenas, Santa Marta, and Santiago. Clearly, the most conservative communities are Chalchihuitân, Chenalho, Chamula, Mitontic, Huistân, San Andres Larrainzar, and Zinacantân. In all probability, Pueblo Nuevo Solistahuacân will be classified as Western Tzotzil when linguistic data from that community are available. 2.2

THE DIALECTS OF TZELTAL

Tzeltal is spoken in at least 13 municipios (Vogt, 1963) by 18 dialectly distinct corporate communities (Kaufman, 1964; Hopkins, 1970). Kaufman (1964, p. 3) has tentatively classified the several dialects of Tzeltal into five groupings—Southern, West Central, East Central, Eastern, and Northern (see Figure 1.2). The municipios in which these dialects of Tzeltal are spoken, with numbers of mono-

LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

7

Table 1.1 MAJOR DIALECTS OF TZOTZIL0 Number of monolingual speakers Northern Tzotzil 1. Huetiupân

980

4023 (includes unknown number of Zoque speakers) 260 (Zoque) 4533 3015 (includes unknown number 806 (Tzeltal) of Tzeltal and 32 (Zoque) Zoque)

2. Simojovel

3. Chalchihuitân

5. Bochil 6. Soyalo 7. San Andres Larrainzar 8. Magdalenas 9. Santa Marta 10. Santiago a

198

2366

Western Tzotzil 4. Jitotol

648 1257 201

Number of monolingual speakers

Number of bilingual speakers

800

7

7

7 7

7 7

16. Zapotal 17. Totalapa 18. Venustiano Carranza (San Bartolomé)

2448 1117 (includes 1012 (Tzeltal) unknown number of Tzeltal) 5 228 406 — 499 6719 (includes unknown number of Tzeltal)

1218 (Tzeltal) [sic] Unclassified Tzotzil dialects 966 19. Pantelho 2006 (includes 889 (Tzeltal) unknown number of Tzeltal) 20. El Bosque 2599 (probably includes some Zoque) 284 21. Ixtapa 2520

Data from the 1960 Mexican census.

lingual and bilingual speakers (when known) are presented in Table 1.2. In addition to the above municipios, the census data indicate that Tzeltal is spoken in at least the following additional areas. As with the Tzotzil figures, numbers of bilinguals are impossible to compute . Hence, we cite only the figures for monolingual Tzetzal speakers. Monolingual speakers

Municipio

13 519

Comitân Chenalho 8

1424 (includes unknown number of Tzeltal)

5869 519 (Tzeltal) 3410 12. Mitontic 520 13. Chamula 20,227 1497 14. Zina5764 cantân 293

Southern Tzotzil 15. Huistân

2128 (includes unknown number of Zoque) 2161 316

4781

Central Tzotzil 11. San Pedro Chenalho

Number of bilingual speakers

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

a

Huistân Palenque Pantelho Sabanilla Salto de Agua San Cristobal de las Casas

1012 188 889 12 681 595

San Fernando Simojovel Teopisca Tila Tumbalâ

1 806 499 2313° 363

Probably Petalcingo.

Hopkins (1970), on the b>asis of theextensive dialect siirvev materials collected in the

Table 1.2 MAJOR DIALECTS OF TZELTAL 0 Bilingual

Monolingual

Northern Tzeltal 1. Petalcingo [number unknown, approximately 2240 Indians \as of 1950/>] 4560 1405 (Choi) 2633 (includes unknown number of Choi) 3843 12,228 1182 1520

2. Yajalon

3. 4. 5. 6.

Chilon Sitalâ Bachajon Guaquitepec 7. Tenango

9

9

9

9

9

9

West Central Tzeltal 8. Tenejapa 5530 9. Cancuc ?

1625 ?

East Central Tzeltal 7766 10. Oxchuc 9 11. Abasolo 3321 12. Chanal

1808 ? 188

Monolingual Eastern Tzeltal 13. Ocosingo 14. Sibacâ 15. Altamirano

Southern Tzeltal 16. Amatenango

17. Aguacatenango 18. Villa las Rosas

Bilingual

8973

4569

9

9

1625 179 (Tzotzil) 1483 (includes 779 (Tojolabal)I unknown number of Tzotzil and Tojolabal)

597 94 (Tzotzil)

1515 (includes unknown number of Tzotzil)

1218c

9

772

1681

α

Α11 figures in this table are derived from the 1960 Mexican census. ^Indicated in the University of Chicago Project Report, population table 1, n.d. c From the Venustiano Carranza record, as the cabecera of the municipio, with which Aguacatenango is politically affiliated.

A comparison of Kaufman's and Hopkins' University of Chicago's Chiapas projects, 1959-1962, has also attempted to establish classifications shows agreement in most reTzeltal dialect clusters as well as major Tzot- spects. Each recognizes the Southern diazil groupings mentioned above. He suggests lects. Hopkins' divisions of Central Tzeltal the recognition of three major clusters of correspond exactly with Kaufman's more conservative West Central and East Central Tzeltal speaking communities as follows: dialects. Central Tzeltal Northern Tzeltal The major differences occur in the treatA. Oxchuc A. Petalcingo ment of the Northern and Eastern dialects Chanal Bachajon (see Figure 1.2). Hopkins places GuaquiteAbasolo Sitalâ Yajalon pec, Tenango, and Sibacâ, all northern diaB. Cancuc Chilon lects in Kaufman's groupings, with Sibacâ, Tenejapa Ocosingo, and Altamirano, that is, KaufB. Guaquitepec man's eastern Tzeltal group. It is not clear Tenango Southern Tzeltal Sibacâ Amatenango from either author's report which classificaAguacatenango Ocosingo tion is best supported by the available data. Pinola (Villa las Rosas) Altamirano From the 10 lexical items selected by HopHopkins (1970) notes that "Within the kins to show typical distributions in the southern communities there are a number of Tzeltal cases, 5, or half, are identical forms features which cut the three [groupings] into for each of his 10 Northern Tzeltal groups. Further data must be collected before a more alternate two-way divisions [p. 202]." 2

LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

9

definitive statement can be made about these northern dialects. It should be noted that the census figures for the whole highlands are conservative, and that the actual population for all communities is most certainly higher than that cited. 3

The Municipio of Tenejapa

3.1

PLANT COMMUNITIES

Geographically, the municipio of Tenejapa lies on the northeastern escarpment of the Central Plateau, and all of its streams flow into the Rio Tanaté, one of the smaller tributaries of the Rio Grijalva. Aside from the limestone sink at Tenejapa center, the rest of the municipio is a steep east- and northfacing slope. A treatment of the vegatational formations of Chiapas (Breedlove, 1971) gives a breakdown of the forest types that can be found in Tenejapa. Two optimum formations—montane rain forest and evergreen cloud forest— are scattered and local. Four seasonal formations—seasonal evergreen forest, tropical deciduous forest, pine-oak-liquidambar forest, and pine-oak forest—are widespread throughout the municipio and once covered most of the land that is now the primary source for corn swiddens. The areas these forests occupy are now greatly reduced. Replacing each of the above associations is a variety of second growth and successional shrub and low tree associations. At present this is the prominent vegetational cover in Tenejapa. All of the associations are restricted ecologically and altitudinally. Figure 1.3 delimits the cold-, temperate-, and hot-country areas which are referred to throughout the text. 3.1.1

Vegetational Formations

The classification of the vegetational formations used in this account is strongly pattered after the one established by Beard (1944). Certain modifications and additions have been made in order to better describe 10

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

the formations as they occur in highland areas. None of the available treatments of vegetation types of Mexico which are applicable to Chiapas (Miranda 1952; Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Gomez Pompa, 1965; Wagner, 1964; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968) adequately takes into account Beard's formation series concept. This concept is essential to the classification presented here and it is felt that it gives the simplest terminology for the tropical forest types found in Chiapas. Optimum Formations

The two formations are quite similiar physiognomically, being composed of many layers of evergreen trees and having abundant epiphytes and lianas. A dry season is absent or is at most only a few weeks long, and the forest floor never dries out. Deciduous-leaved trees are quite uncommon and occur mostly in the zones of intergradation with seasonal formations. The most notable plant products, aside from firewood, produced from the optimum formations are wood for various tool handles from the rare trees Photinia matudai and Wimmeria chiapensis. Montane Rain Forest*

This is a common formation on steep slopes and crests of middle elevation ridges in the eastern portion of the Chiapas plateau. In Tenejapa it once was more widespread than at present. It now occurs in only a small area (perhaps 5 hectares) on a ridge dividing paraje mahosik' from paraje ? ose? wie. The rivers of the middle and low elevation parajes are lined with an evergreen tropical forest which in some areas fits the characteristics of montane rain forest but more often these forests are like seasonal evergreen forests. This formation is composed of three or sometimes two layers of trees and a dense shrubby T h i s region is also known as Selva Mediana y Baja Siempre Verde, in part (Miranda, 1952, 1957); Selva Mediana or Baja Perenniflora, in part (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Gomez Pompa, 1965; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968).

Figure 1.3

Major ecological zones inhabited by the Tenejapa Tzeltal.

11

understory. Epipytes including a profusion of mosses are characteristic of all levels of this formation. Epiphytic ferns, orchids, bromeliads, aroids, and many other groups are best developed here of all forest formations. Herbaceous plants are quite common on the forest floor. Montane rain forest can occur at altitudes between 900 and 2200 m and is often associated with steep slopes. The canopy is not nearly so continuous as that of lower montane rain forest and is often only 25-35 m high, although occasional taller trees are commonly encountered. The second layer is composed of shrubs and small trees between 5 and 15 m tall. The more common trees of the canopy layer are Ardisia alba, Brunellia mexicana, Hedyosmum mexicanum, Meliosma matudae, Mosquitoxylum jamaicense, Nectandra reticulata, Oecopetalum mexicanum, Oreopanax sanderianum, Oreopanax xalapensis, Quercus peduncularis, Platanus chiapense, Rinorea guatemalensis, Synardisia venosa, and Turpinia occidentalis. The more common trees and shrubs of the understory are Acalypha skutchii, Billia hippocastanum, Centropogon cordifolius, Cephaelis axillaris, Cephaelis elata, Ceratozamia mexicana, Chamaedorea concolor, Eugenia ravenii, Hampea longipes, Miconia lauriformis, Mollinedia guatemalensis, Oreopanax liebmanii, Parathesis micwcalyx, Psychotria spp., Trophis mexicana, and Ureraalceifolia. Evergreen Cloud Forest*

Well-developed examples of this forest are scarce and fast disappearing, owing to pressure from man. At present in Chiapas, evergreen cloud forest can be found only about the crests of the highest peaks of the Central Highlands at elevations between 2000 and 2700 m and in the southern Sierra Madre, between 1900 and 3200 m. The evergreen cloud forest is the least exploited forest association in Tenejapa. It occurs only in three semi-disjunct areas in the T h i s region is also known as cloud forest (Leopold, 1950); Selva Mediana y Baja Siempre Verde, in part (Miranda, 1952, 1957); Selva Mediana o Baja Perenniflora, in part (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Gomez Pompa, 1965; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968). 12

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

cold country areas of macab, banabil, and ? ac'lum on the crests of the ridges and peaks at elevations so high or slopes so steep that maize can not be grown. In the neighboring municipio of Chamula these forests have been cut and made into carbon for the stoves of the ladinos in San Cristobal. This association extends in narrow fingers down along a few large rivers where it intergrades with the montane rain forests and seasonal evergreen forests. This formation consists of one to two layers of closely spaced trees and a dense shrubby understory. The canopy can be as high as 40 m with straight smooth trunks in protected locations, but it is often much lower, especially on windswept ridges where it resembles the elfin woodland described by Beard (1944). Tree ferns are most common here although they also occur in montane and lower montane rain forests. There are a great many narrowly endemic species in this formation. Lianas are almost completely absent in this formation; herbaceous vines, however, are quite abundant. Epiphytic angiosperms such as orchids and bromeliads are uncommon and limited to a few species. Mosses hang in sheaves from the branches and epiphytic ferns are common. Fog and clouds seem always to be hanging over these forests and drip from their cover accounts for much of the precipitation that falls here. Frost is common in January on cleared or exposed land adjacent to these forests, although the temperature rarely drops to 0° C on the forest floor. Common trees of the canopy are Abies guatemalensis, Acer negundo, Chiranthodendron pentadactylon, Clethra lanata, Clethra oleoides, Drimys granadensis, Magnolia sharpii, Olmediella betschleriana, Oreopanax capitatum, Persea donnell-smithii, Persea schiedeana, Photinia matudai, Pinus ayacahuite, Quercus acatenangensis, Weinmannia pinnata, and Wimmeria chiapensis. Common shrubs of the understory include Cavendishia guatemalensis var. chiapensis, Cleyera theoides, Deppea grandiflora, Eugenia tonii, Fuchsia microphylla, Fuchsia paniculata, Gentlea micrantha, Mahonia paniculata, Miconia ravenii, Rapanea juergensenii, Saurauia oreo-

phila, Symplocos limoncillo, Vaccinium confer turn, and Viburnum blandum. 3.1.2

Seasonal Formations

Well over half of the forest area of Chiapas consists of seasonal formations. These formations are quite diverse physiognomically but are floristically related and form bands of intergradation. Characteristically, they are open forests with a closed canopy. Some percentage of deciduous trees occur in all of the formations. The forest floor does not have a continuous understory; however, shrubs are common. Lianas are uncommon or totally absent whereas epiphytic angiosperms are abundant and can become more prominent than in the optimum formations. Epiphytic mosses are poorly developed. Evergreen and Semievergreen Seasonal Forest*

Although often split into two formations, the zones of intergradation are so large as to make the distinction meaningless. This is the first in a transitional series of forest types from tropical and lower montane rain forests to thorn woodland. Superficially, it is quite similar to the rain forest formations but differs in having only two and sometimes one layer of trees. The canopy is discontinuous and contains some percentage of deciduous trees, depending on the aridity of the locality. The forest attains a height of 25-35 m. The dry season is very marked and the forest floor becomes quite dry. There is a great seasonal variation in herbaceous plants. Lianas and epiphytes are usually quite abundant. As already mentioned, this association is found in Tenejapa only along the lowland rivers and adjacent slopes. These forests often have the understory cleared and trees of Mangifera indica and Pouteria mammosa are *This region is also known as Selva Alta Subdecidua (Miranda, 1952; 1957); Selva Alta o Mediana Subperennifolia (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Gomez Pompa, 1965; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968); Selva Alta o Mediana Subcauducifolia (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Gomez Pompa, 1965; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968).

planted. Many other kinds of trees with useful products are also planted or selectively left in this association. It also is cleared often and planted to sugarcane. Some of the common trees of this formation are Brosimum alicastrum, Bumelia per similis, Ceiba pentandra, Calycophyllum candidissimum, Cordia alliodora, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Ficus glaucescens, Guettarda combsii, Hymenaea courbaril, Licania arborea, Sterculia mexicana, Tabebuia chrysantha, and Vatairea lundellii. Common shrubs and small trees include Amyris chiapensis, Ardisia escallonioides, Bourreria huanita, Clusiaflava, Eugenia acapulcensis, Gentlea venosissima, Karwinskia calderonii, and Psycho tria erythrocarpa. Tropical Deciduous Forest*

This is a diverse association of deciduous and semideciduous trees that is common in dry situations from Sonora to Panama. This association is normally between 10 and 20 m high with a dense, thicket-like understory. However, in some protected semiriparian situations the trees can be as tall as 40-50 m with straight trunks and a low understory. There are many species of trees common in this association, and the dominants vary with the environment of the specific locality. Lianas and epiphytes are present but quite reduced in number. The dry season is very long (4-6 months) and severe. Almost all of the trees and understory plants lose their leaves. Many trees flower at this time and are quite showy, but the general appearance is of complete dormancy. A few weeks after the rains begin, this once-desert looks like a verdant jungle. A great many species of herbaceous plants sprout and cover the ground, often producing a stand 1 or 2 m high. Tropical deciduous forest is very local in Tenejapa occurring only on steep dry slopes above ti?ha?; in paraje mahben caok it is not *This region is also known as deciduous seasonal forest (Beard, 1944); Selva Baja Decidua (Miranda, 1952, 1957); Selva Baja Cauducifolia (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968); Bosque Tropical Decidua (Rzedowski and McVaugh, 1966). 3

THE MUNICIPIO OF TENEJAPA

13

very well developed, with few large trees. Perhaps its most important plant product is the incense producing tree Bursera bipinnata. Some of the common trees are Bursera excelsa, Bursera simaruba, Calycophyllum candidissimum, Cecropia peltata, Cedrela oaxacensis, Cochlospermum vitifolium, Cordia alliodora, Eysenhardtia adenostylis, Gliricidia sepium, Godmania aesculifolia, Hauya elegans, Hura polyandra, Luehea Candida, Lysiloma aurita, Pseudobombax ellipticum, Spondias mombin, and Tabebuia rosea. Pine-Oak-Liquidambar Forest*

This is the most prominent primary forest association in Tenejapa. Most of the temperate parajes and large parts of the adjacent cold- and hot-country parajes were until recently covered with this forest. As a source of firewood and construction materials, this association is unequaled. Much of the best land for corn swiddens came from pineoak-liquidambar forest covered slopes. This forest is a diverse association with many species of deciduous and semideciduous trees. Epiphytes are very common, with numerous species, and oaks are often so heavily laden that one can barely see the branches. The understory is variable, ranging from a dense association with many species of shrubs, subshrubs and vines, to a tall grassy expanse with scattered shrubs. The trees are commonly between 15 and 35 m high, and can be widely spread, but usually are close enough together so that their crowns form a continuous canopy. Many of the trees are quite broad crowned. This association is always diverse and one never finds pure stands of one or two species. Some of the common species of trees are Brunellia mexicana, Carpinus caroliniana, Citharexylum donnellsmithii, Clethra suaveolens, Cornus disciflora, Cupania dentata, Cassia oxyphylla, Erythrina chiapasana, Fraxinus uhdei, Liquidambar *This region is also known as deciduous forest (Miranda and Sharp, 1950); Bosque Deciduo (Miranda, 1952); pine-oak-liquidambar forest (Carlson, 1954); Bosque Caducifolia (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963; Pennington and Sarukhân, 1968).

14

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

styrciflua, Montanoa hexagona, Nyssa sylvatica, Ostrya guatemalensis, Pinus chiapensis, Pinus montezumae, Quercus candicans, Quer eus ooearpa, Quercus polymorpha, Quercus sapotifolia, Quercus segoviensis, Quercus skinnerii, Toxicodendron striatum, Saurauia scabrida, Styrax argenteum, and Turpinia occidentalis. The following shrubs are common in the understory: Aphelandra gigantiflora, Baccharis trinervis, Bocconia gracilis, Cestrum guatemalensis var. gracile, Fuchsia microphylla subsp. quercetorum, Gaultheria odorata, Guamatela tuerckheimii, Hibiscus bifurcatus var. pilosus, Liabum glabrum var. hypoleucum, Parathesis chiapensis, Phenax mexicanus, Rapanea myricoides, Rhus terebinthifolia, Solanum brachystachys, and Viburnum hartwegii. Pine-Oak Forest*

Much of the cold-country parajes are forested with this association which may be secondary in origin but appears fairly stable at this time. It occurs in drier or poor soil situations and intergrades into pine-oakliquidambar forest. In Chiapas outside Tenejapa this association is much more widespread altitudinally, on the dry borders of the Central Depression. Pine-oak forest is an open forest association composed of relatively few species of trees. Mixed pines and oaks are most common; however, stands of pure pine and pure oak occur in specialized edaphic situations. The trees range in height from 15 to 40 m and can be quite variable in their spacing. Epiphytes are sparse to common, but only heavy in canyon situations. The understory is usually herbaceous with occasional shrubs and often only low grassy patches between the trees. The common trees are Arbutus xalapensis, Buddleia skutchii, Crataegus pubescens, Pinus michoacana, Pinus oaxacana, Pinus oocarpa, Pinus pseudostrobus, Quercus acatenangensis, Quercus corrugata, Quercus crassifolia, *This region is also known as pine-oak forest (Leopold, 1950); Pinares y Encinares (Miranda, 1952, Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963); Bosque de pino y encino (Rzedowski and McVaugh, 1966).

Quercus mexicana, and Quercus rugosa. The following shrubs are common in this formation: Buddleia crotonoides, Ceanothus coeruleus, Chiococca phaenostemon, Garrya laurl· folia. Holodiscus argenteus, Lippia chiapensis, Litsea neesiana, Mahonia volcania, Monnina· xalapensis, Myrica cerifera, Rhus schiedeana, Senecio cristobalensis, Solanum nudum, Solanum hispidum, and Viburnum jucundum. In addition to the above generally distributed associations there are three narrowly restricted vegetation types occurring in Tenejapa. They are either ecologically delimited by standing or running water (temperate riparian forest, herbaceous swamp) or by thick poorly draining soil (bunch grassland). Temperate Riparian Forest

Along streams at altitudes about 1500 min Tenejapa, a number of trees and shrubs that do not occur in abundance in the forest are common. The understory is dense and often thicket-like. Trees are mostly between 10 and 25 m tall and can occur in very pure stands. The most common species are Acer negundo, Alnus arguta, Alnusferruginea, Baccharis heterophylla, Berchemia scandens, Cornus excelsa, Crataegus pubescens, Cuphea hyssopifolia, Platanus chiapensis, and Salix bonplandiana. Bunch Grassland*

At high elevations in the cold-country parajes there occur large stands, often up to several hectares, of tall bunch grasses. The clumps are closely spaced and can be as tall as 2 m. The origins of this association may be secondary, but it appears to be quite stable. Most of the material for roof thatching comes from plants in this association. Common species are Briza rotundata, Bromus carinatus, Festuca arnplissima, Mühlenbergia gigantea, Muhlenbergia macroura, Muhlenbergia robusta, Stipa ichu, Stipa virescens, and Trisetum irazuense. *This region is also known as zacatonal (Miranda, 1952, 1957; Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963).

Herbaceous S w a m p *

This distinct herbaceous cover of shallow, standing water has very different associations in temperate and lowland situations. In the larger nondraining valleys of the central highlands like Tenejapa Center, and in many local situations, a temperate marsh occurs which is often associated with bogs. Car ex spp., Cladium jamaicense, Cyperus spp., Juncus spp., Ludwigia peruviana, Lythrum vulneraria, Rhynchospora spp., Scirpus californica, and Typha latifolia are common associates. Second Growth and Successional Forest and Shrub Associations

Great expanses of virgin forest are presently being cut down in Chiapas either for lumber or pasture or for some crop. In many areas even successional forests are being cut for the planting of maize or for firewood. These decimated lands recover slowly, and it will take several centuries to replace the primary forest. Second-growth associations are prominent and are, in some areas, the dominant vegetation. This account does not attempt to describe the myriad possible successions and their component associations. One example to illustrate vegetation type is given here. When the pine-oak, pine-oak-liquidambar, and evergreen cloud forest association in Tenejapa are cut off, burned, planted to maize, and, after a few years, allowed to grow back, the regeneration begins with a scrub association which can last up to 10 years. This man-perpetuated succession has been going on in this area for several thousand years. Many of the races of maize used are narrowly restricted endemics. This association is naturally quite variable in its composition depending upon the locality and the forest type that it is succeeding. It is usually a quite uniform cover of shrubs and herbaceous plants up to 3 m tall. Common *This region is also known as tulare (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963); popal (Miranda and Hernandez X., 1963).

3

THE MUNICIPIO OF TENEJAPA

15

species are Abutilon tridens, Acacia augustissima, Arctostaphylos lucida, Baccharis vaccinioides, Calliandra grandiflora, Calliandra houstoniana, Ceanothus coeruleus, Clabadium arboreurn, Coaxana ebracteata, Lantana hirta, Lantana hispida, Lippia hypoleia, Malvaviscus arbor eus, Muehlenbeckia tannifolia, Pavonia paniculata, Polymnia maculata, Rhamnus discolor, Rhamnus nelsonii, Rubus spp., Salvia spp., Tithonia diversifolia, Tithonia scaberrima, Vernonia leiocarpa, and Viburnum lautum. 3.2

ETHNOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF TENEJAPA

The town of Tenejapa is located some 20 miles northeast of San Cristobal de las Casas. At the time of the research, it could be reached by truck or four-wheel-drive vehicle over what many experienced Chiapas investigators claimed to be one of the state's most

16

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

interesting roads (a winding, muddy line that passes along narrow mountain ledges and down stony creek beds until finally opening into a magnificent box canyon). More reliable means of entry are on foot or on horseback, a trip that may take from 5 to 8 hours depending on the weather. The cabecera ('head') of the municipio, known in Tzeltal as lum (lit. 'land'), is actually two towns in one. The majority of its regular inhabitants are Ladino store keepers and traders who reside in adobe-walled, tileroofed houses along one of the town's two major streets. The other residents of the center, with few exceptions, are Tzeltal Indians who have come to Tenejapa on a temporary basis, usually for a period of a Figure 1.4 Tenejapa center as viewed from the escarpment just northeast of the town. Note the Indian houses in a scattered pattern toward the bottom of photograph. Ladino houses and stores line the streets. The road visible above the church leads to San Cristobal de las Casas.

Figure 1.5

Municipio of Tenejapa indicating relative paraje boundaries, major trails, and place names of importance.

17

Figure 1.6 (Top) Road east of Tenejapa center along the creek, yuk'umal cik ha? (see Figure 1.5). [Photograph courtesy of Evon Z. Vogt.] Figure 1.7 (Bottom) View looking northwest across the municipio of Tenejapa from behind the two major hills Vin ?ahaw (left) and wie ?anhel hmacab (see Figure

1.5). The major visible trail in center leads to the school house of macab. Tenejapa center lies in the canyon f up the photograph and is indicated by trails on the northern wall of canyon leading into town. The high ridge near horizon is in the municipio of Chenalho. [Photograph courtesy of Evon Z. Vogt.]

Figure 1.8 (Top) View of central portion of paraje sibanilha? at school house of pokolum (tin roofed building, left center) in northeastern Tenejapa (see Figure 1.5). Figure 1.9 (Bottom) School house (lower center) of the central paraje of kuPak'tik. The large stones above the

playing court have been brought there by students. Note the corn swiddens in various stages of fallow and individually selected trees left (saved) in the swidden at the lower left. View looking west. [Photographs courtesy of Evon Z. Vogt.]

year, during which time they fulfill their political or religious duties as officials in the traditional Indian government. Most Tzeltal houses lie to the northeast of the valley of Tenejapa and are arranged in no clearly obvious pattern (see Figure 1.4). The majority of the Indian population reside in parajes, which surround the central town on all sides. Our best estimates show that the lands falling within the boundaries of the municipio proper may cover an area of as much as 70 square miles. It should be noted that this figure differs considerably from that given in the 1950 and 1960 Mexican census data of 67 square kilometers, an area which surely must represent some small section of the municipio. There are 21 recognized parajes in Tenejapa. The general distribution of these subunits, with approximate boundaries and major place names, can be seen in Figure 1.5. Each paraje is represented in the Indian government and, as such, they constitute important political subdivisions. The population of the municipio, as mentioned earlier, is stated to be 8356 persons, 7155 being classified as Indians. The actual indigenous population is probably much nearer 10,000 persons at present. In general, the settlement pattern in Tenejapa is one of dispersed individual houses throughout the countryside as can be appreciated by reference to Figures 1.6-1.9. It is uncommon for large clusters of houses to be found here although there are exceptions, especially in the paraje of sibanilha?. Population density is difficult to compute in that more people appear to reside in the hot and temperate parajes than in the colder ones. The exact historical significance of the paraje in the municipio is not clear although there is some evidence that the groupings are not entirely the result of Spanish governmental control. Nonetheless, several of the larger subdivisions, especially mahben cauk and macab, include named subdivisions which are, from the Tzeltal point of view, much more important for identification purposes than the individual paraje. Ecologically, the municipio of Tenejapa 20

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

is divided into two major climatic zones, the boundary of which runs approximately diagonally northwest-southeast, and which grade into one another toward the middle of the area. The major zones, referred to linguistically as k'isin k'inal 'hot country' and sikil k'inal 'cold country' are not equally represented in amounts of land included, cold country comprising more than half of the total area. The total agricultural production of the fewer hot country parajes, however, makes the population of these areas considerably better off economically, there being the potential for producing such cash crops as oranges, mangos, peanuts, coffee, and sugarcane. Unlike certain other highland Mayan municipios, the intermediate zone of temperate country ('tierra templada') is not recognized linguistically in Tenejapa Tzeltal. When finer classification is called for, informants will indicate that certain borderline parajes are either k'isin htebuk 'a little hot' or sikil htebuk 'a little cold', depending on the relative elevation of the parajes involved. Thus, the central paraje of kuPak'tik, bounded by cold-country parajes to the south and hot-country parajes on the north, is kTsin htebuk. yas?anal, on the other hand, while mostly a 'cold-country' paraje, is bounded on the east by theyuk'umalyas ? anal 'yaPanal river', placing some of its inhabitants in rather temperate country (see Figure 1.4). The validity of the municipio being conceptually divided into "hot" and "cold" regions is given added support in the political and religious organization of the Tenejapa Tzeltal. It is common for two ecologically defined groups, people from ?alan k'inal 'low country' ('hot country') and ?ahk'ol k'inal 'high country'. ('cold country') to carry out political and religious functions jointly. Thus, a particular saint will have a group of kaptanetik 'captains' from both ^alan and 9ahk'ol k'inal. Likewise, the religious center of Tenejapa proper is conceptually divided in half, persons from "high country" ideally residing in one section, those from "low country" in another.

The ethnoecological assignment of parajes to k'isin or sikil k'inal is as follows: sikil k'inal parajes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

?

ok'oc balun k'anal Fahkomaha Fulha* hums e'en macab nabil pahalton sibakte?ela sisintonil0 sohlen yaPanal0

k'isin k 'inal parajes 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

9

ose wic cahalVena c'ahkibilhok'0 hkotolte90 kuPak'tik" mahbencauk mahosik' sibanilha9

21. JWÎC'

9

uk'um

Total parajes:

21

As indicated earlier, several Tenejapa parajes are quite large, and they are further subdivided into smaller areas named hamlets. While these hamlets, or 'barrios,' have no political representation, they are nevertheless important social units. Parajes that include habitually named subdivisions are as follows:

sikil k'inal macab

sohlen

kHsin k'inal 9 ose9 wie

yehc" 9uk'um

yehc' 9uk'um ca9was

sibanilha9

sibanilha9 pokolum c'istontik

9

indicates parajes conceived to have both "hot" and "cold" regions, that is, temperate climates.

paraje

9 ihk'al lumil cue hesab

'barrios ' macab winikton tuk sohleh hehc ha9

ose9wic kokil Fuhte9al 9

hkotolte9

hkotolte9 sisim yocib

kuPak'tik

kuPak'tik cana

mahbencauk

mahbencauk husal ha 9 kurus pilai ~ ti?ha9 habenal homanicim ~ homal nicim pakteton san antonyo

With the exception of a few individuals who have taken employment with the Indian Institute as rural school teachers, all Tenejapa Tzeltal Indians obtain their livelihood from swidden agriculture, the major crops being corn, beans, squash, and chilis, a diet supplemented with a host of other cultivated or protected fruits and vegetables. The topics of agriculture, food types, distribution of plants by ecological zone, and the like, are dealt with in detail in Chapter 5. 4

Informants Utilized in the Research

During the period in which we were engaged in ethnobotanical research among the Tenejapa Tzeltal, we were aided by many native informants. We utilized a total of 64 informants in many phases of the research, ranging from simple naming of botanical specimens to actual collection, pressing, and drying of specimens. We also employed several informants as fully trained assistants—individuals who control their language well, and can write and perform rather detailed ethnographic tasks. The geographic range across the municipio of the informants utilized in the research is uneven. However, each écologie zone is well represented (see Figure 1.3). We have good reason to believe that our data represent the major areas of linguistic and botanical variability within the total municipio of Tenejapa. 4.1

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE MUNICIPIO

Names of informants utilized in the research, approximate ages, and their localities by ecological zone, are given in Table 1.3 (see Figure 1.3 for relative distribution geographically). 4

INFORMANTS UTILIZED IN THE RESEARCH

21

Table 1.3 PARAJE REPRESENTATION BY INFORMANTS CONSULTED

Informants

Approx. age

Number in research files

k'anal (4)

(0) hmanel santis tu lie

30

(10)

h9alus komes k'in h9alus komes k'in

40

(20)

heiak luna c'ahkas

—

(62) (63)

—

(17)

h7antun mêla nuhkul

22

(27)

h7antun silom wes hmikel komes k'in

20 19

(22) (30)

3. c'ahkomah (1) hnik mesa nuhkul 4. c'ulha9 (1) 5. kurus c'en (2) 6. macab hsaw komes te7

(12)

55

hmikel komes te9

18

h9alus luna c'akas h9antun silom c'eh heiak luna

45 27

—

h9 antun pères yan hmanel luna heiak pères 9elaw heiak luna h9alus lopis tuhk'awil [winikton] h9antun santis bin ht in silom eu lin 7. nabil 8. pahalton (5) h9alus lopis ca9mut heiak mentes ton hsaw kusman c'uhkin hmikel lopis ca9mut hpetul kusman c'uhkin 9. sibakte?el (2) h9alus pères 9antares hpetul belasko sil

(Π) (12) (14) (26) (53) (54)

— — — — —

(55) (59)

28

(21) (43) (44)

— — — —

(67) (68) (69) (70)

(57) (58)

hsaw silom sabin hmikel lopis ca?mut h9antun hinein sian h7antun mentes ton hsaw ?incin sian

(31) (33)

40 28

(23) (28) (56)

— —

(60) (61)

12. yas9anal ?

(2) Total:

h alus silom eu lin hkap siwnes wôwo 34

13. ?ose?wic 14. cahalc'enI hmikel silom bot (3) htun silom ?os h7antun silom bot 15. c'ahkibilhok' 16. hkotolte? hsaw mentes tonil (1) 17. kuPak'tik htin mentes ton (3) h?alus mentes ton hciak kusman c'uhkin 18. mahben cauk htin ?incin sian (8) (habenal) h?alus kuman c'ihk (habenal) h?alus mentes ca?pat (habenal) h?alus lopis puyc'P (pakteton) ÏÏsun Worn sabin (tPha? = hmanel luna kuruspilal) hciak komes k'in hsun silom c'usuw 19. mahosik' hciak mentes ca?pat (4) hmanel kusman ?osil h?alüs kusman ?osil hnik kusman c'ihk 20. sibanilha7 (2) (pokolum) hpetul peres konte (sibanilha?) hsun lopis kastil 21. yehe' ? uk'um Total: 21

27 35 40

(24) (5) (29)

45

(7)

35 30

(6) (8) (39)

—

(42)

29

— — —

(2) (40) (41) (16) (36)

— —

(37) (38)

38 20

28

(32) (25) (18) (33)

27

(1)

27

(3)

40 45

(13) (24)

—

Colonias

— —

10. sisintonil 11. sohleh (5)

Number in research files

k'isin k'inal parajes

sik'il k'inal parajes 1. ?o\Coc 2. balum

Informants

Approx. age

40

—

22. lum [Tenejapa center] (2) 23. banabil colonia (1) 24. ^ac'lum (6)

(15) (35)

Total:

9

h ?alus kusman c'urin h9antun santis tue'

h9alus lopis howilc'i9 hsaw (lopis) tuhk'awil hmanel mentes holba hmikel mentes penka htin lopis tuhk'awil h9alus santis tuluk' h9alus lopis set et

(19)

— — —

(50) (51) (52) (64) (65) (66)

In addition to the parajes 1-21, we have data from the colonias (ejido land) of ?aFlurn and banabil as well as from two individuals with permanent residences in Tenejapa center (22-24). In summary form, informants are distributed as follows: hot country cold country colonias (cold country)

6 of 9 parajes 21 informants 9 of 12 parajes 34 informants ? a?lum, banabil and Tenejapa center 9 informants Total:

4.2

64 informants

either ethnographer or botanist and has been responsible for the collection of what is truly an incredible amount of basic data. His knowledge of plant collecting procedures, as well as his writing abilities, have allowed him to collect plant material in several other Tzeltal communities, namely Aguacatenango and Amatenango, with great success. He has held important political offices in Tenejapa, that of bankilalrenrol, 'first lieutenant', and in 1970 became kunerol, 'president', of the municipio of Tenejapa. While he continues to hold land in kuPak'tik (his father remains there), it is unlikely that he will return to swidden farming as a major activity. Pedro Perez Conde (hpetul peres konte): Age 32, approximate, born sibanilha? in the barrio of pokolum hpetul was first employed for linguistic work in 1962 and has worked at irregular intervals since that time. He is highly skilled in phonemic transcription of Tzeltal and toward the end of the project was utilized on many occasions as scribe on collecting trips in Tenejapa. He has an excellent ear, and records accurately linguistic variations that might exist between informants. He has held two civil posts, including scebal bankilal renrol, 'second lieutenant', perhaps the fourth most important political office in Tenejapa. He is married and has two wives, one who resides in his paraje, another who lives with him in Tenejapa center while he performs his political functions.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PRINCIPAL INFORMANTS

We employed several informants almost constantly during our time in the field. One informant has been employed full time since the beginning of the research in 1964. Since a large number of data, much of it in the form of linguistic texts relating to classification of botanical specimens, have been elicited from these informants, we feel it important to provide here brief biographic sketches of each, with a short summary of the type for which he has been responsible. Alonso Méndez Ton (h?alus mentes ton): Age 34, born in the temperate border paraje of kuPak'tik

Alonso Guzman Ch'ihk (h?a lus kusman c'ihk): Age 33, born in the paraje of mahben cauk, locality of habenal First employed in 1964, h?alus has worked regularly as a linguistic and ethnographic informant. He lacks some skill and accuracy in phonemic transcription but is quite knowledgeable in areas relating to plants. Due to his land holdings in lowland Tenejapa he is considered to be wealthy by Tenejapa standards. He has held the second most important political office in Tenejapa, that of ?eskerwanu, 'secretary', and owns two houses in Tenejapa center. One is con-

Alonso has worked almost full time as an ethnographic and linguistic informant since the fall of 1960 and was a major collaborator in the research reported by Berlin (1968). Although lacking even a third-grade education in rural Indian schools, he is clearly the best trained informant we have utilized. He is not only highly skilled and accurate in the phonemic transcription of Tzeltal, but also is now an accomplished botanical collector knowledgeable in locating, pressing, and drying botanical specimens. He has worked two field sessions with little guidance from 4

INFORMANTS UTILIZED IN THE RESEARCH

23

structed of adobe with a tile roof and is clearly an important status symbol. It is highly likely that he will run for the office of kunerol 'president' in the near future. During his political tenure he lives in town with his wife and children. Antonio Giron Bot (h? antun silom bot): 40, born in the paraje of cahal e'en

Age

Affectionately addressed as htatik bot 'honored Mr. bot\ he first worked as an infor-

24

CHAPTER 1 :

THE SETTING

mant in 1964. He is in some ways the most traditional of all of our informants in the domain of botany. He has perfect knowledge of the traditional Tzeltal calendar and the appropriate planting dates for the relevant field crops. His writing is accurate but relatively slow. He shows initiative in discussion of problems relating to plant taxonomy. He has held the political offices of bankilalrehrol and ?eskerwanu but has remained outside of politics since 1950.

CHAPTE

R2

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

1. In all languages it is possible to isolate linguistically recognized groupings of organisms of varying degrees of inclusiveness. These classes are referred to here as taxa and can be illustrated by the groupings of organisms indicated by the names oak, vine,plant,

red-headed woodpecker, and so forth in English. 2. Taxa are further grouped into a small number of classes known as taxonomic ethnobiological categories. These ethnobiological categories, definable in terms of linguistic and taxonomic criteria, probably number no more than five. They may be named as follows: unique beginner, life form, generic, specific, and varietal. A sixth category, called intermediate, may also be required as further research is carried out on ethnobiological classification. 3. The five universal ethnobiological categories are arranged hierarchically and the taxa assigned to each rank are mutally exclusive, except for the unique beginner of which there is only one member. 4. The taxa of the same ethnobiological category characteristically, though not invariably, occur at the same taxonomic level within any particular taxonomic structure.* The taxon that is a member of the category unique beginner occurs at level zero. Lifeform taxa occur only at level one. Generic taxa characteristically occur at level two, but, if not, always occur at level one. Specific taxa characteristically occur at level three, but, if not, always occur at level two and are immediately included in a generic taxon that occurs at level one. Varietal taxa, if present, characteristically occur at level four, but, if not, occur at level three and in this case can be shown ultimately to be included in a generic taxon that occurs at level one.

*A portion of this chapter has appeared in The American Anthropologist, 15, 214-242 (1973).

*For a discussion of the concepts "taxonomic structure," "taxonomic level," and the like, the reader is referred to the definitive paper by Kay (1971).

1

Universal Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Ethnobiology*

Man is, by nature, a classifying animal. His continued existence depends, in fact, on his ability to recognize similarities and differences among objects and events in his physical universe and to mark these similarities and differences linguistically. Recently, primarily through the combined efforts of ethnographers and biologists, the study of ethnobiological classification has become a major focus of research, and a number of regular patterns have been observed which appear to be widespread if not universal (see Berlin, 1972; Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1973; Raven, Berlin, and Breedlove, 1971; Bulmer, 1970; Bulmer and Tyler, 1968). Our treatment of Tzeltal plant taxonomy and nomenclature will be organized largely in terms of these more general considerations of ethnobiological classification and it is relevant here to outline the major features of these principles prior to our specific discussion of Tzeltal plant knowledge. 1.1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

25

Level 0

UB

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

v.,

The relationship of these proposed ethno- Figure 2.1 Schematic relationship of the five universal biological taxonomic categories and their ethnobiological taxonomic categories and their relative relative taxonomic levels in any particular hierarchic levels in an idealized folk taxonomy: UB, unique beginner; If, life form; g, generic; s, specific; v, varietal. taxonomic structure can be seen in the idealized schematic diagram, Figure 2.1. The taxa assigned to each of the fundamental ethnobiological categories character- such words as tree, vine, bird, grass, mammal, istically exhibit linguistic and/or taxonomic and so forth. features that allow for their recognition. In 7. In typical folk taxonomies, the taxa that addition to what has already been said, the are members of the ethnobiological category, following general tendencies should be noted: generic, are much more numerous than life5. In folk taxonomies it is quite common form taxa, but are nonetheless finite, ranging that the taxon found as a member of the cate- in the neighborhood of 500 classes. gory unique beginner is not labeled linguistiMost generic taxa are immediately in eluded cally by a single habitual expression. That is, in one of the few life form taxa. It is not unthe most inclusive taxon, for example,/?lant, common to find, however, a number of classes animal, is rarely named. of generic rank that are aberrant (in terms 6. The taxa that are members of the ethno- of the defining features of the life form taxa) biological category life form, are invariably and, as such, are conceptually seen as unaffew in number, ranging from five to ten, and filiated (that is, they are not included in one among them are included the majority of all of the life forms). Aberrancy may be due to a named taxa of lesser rank. All life form taxa number of factors, but morphological conare polytypic. Life form taxa are labeled by spicuousness and/or economic importance linguistic expressions which are analyzed appear to be the primary reasons involved. lexically as primary lexemes (see below) and Folk generic taxa may be recognized in may be illustrated by the classes named by terms of several criteria, one of the most 26

CHAPTER 2:

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

important of which is nomenclatural. In general, generic names are labeled by primary lexemes. Examples of typical (versus aberrant) generic taxa are the classes named by the words oak, pine, catfish, perch, robin, and so forth. Examples of generic taxa that often are considered unique are those indicated by the names cactus, bamboo, pineapple, cassowary, pangolin, platypus, and so forth. Finally, as will be shown later, generic taxa are the basic building blocks of all folk taxonomies. They represent the most commonly referred to groupings of organisms in the natural environment, are the most salient psychologically, and are likely to be among the first taxa learned by the child (see Stross, 1969). 8. Taxa that are members of the ethnobiological categories specific and varietal are, in general, less numerous than taxa found as members of the generic category. Specific and varietal taxa characteristically occur in contrast sets* of few members, the most frequent being a set of two classes. Contrast sets of more than two members tend to refer to organisms of major cultural importance and larger sets of 20 or more taxa invariably do. Varietal taxa are extremely rare in most folk taxonomies. Both specific and varietal taxa are linguistically recognized in that they are most commonly labeled by secondary (versus primary, for life forms and generics) lexemes. Examples of specific taxa are the classes named by the secondary lexemes blue spruce, white fir, and post oak. Examples of varietal taxa are the classes labeled by the names baby lima bean and butter lima bean. 9. Intermediate taxa are those classes which can be assigned to the ethnobiological category, intermediate. Taxonomically, an intermediate taxon is one that is immediately included in one of the major life form taxa and that immediately includes taxa of generic *A contrast set has been defined by Kay (1971) as any set of taxa, all of whose members are immediately included in an identical superordinate taxon. Thus, pinto bean, lima bean, string bean, and kidney bean are members of a contrast set in that each member of the set is immediately included in the taxon, bean. 1

rank. We have found such taxa to be invariably rare in natural folk taxonomies and, when evidence has been presented that unambiguously demonstrates their existence (see Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1968), the classes are not linguistically labeled. As a consequence, we have referred to such classes as covert categories. The rarity of intermediate taxa in folk taxonomies, but more importantly, the fact that they are not named, leads us to doubt whether one is empirically justified in establishing an absolute ethnobiological category for taxa of this rank. The question can only be resolved by further research. 1.2

NAMES FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS

In this section, we shall discuss the relationship of the formal linguistic structure of plant and animal names and the cognitive status of the taxa to which such names apply. While no isomorphic correspondence is claimed to exist between nomenclature (that is, names given to classes of plants and animals) and classification (that is, the cognitive relationships that hold between classes of plants and animals), the overwhelming body of evidence now in hand suggests that nomenclature is often a nearly perfect guide to folk taxonomic structure. Furthermore, when nomenclature fails to mirror accurately the taxonomic status of a particular biological class, it usually can be shown that the class in question is undergoing semantic change. In all ethnobiological lexicons, one may distinguish two types of names for classes of plants and animals. One class consists of forms that are, for the most part, unique, "single-word" expressions that can be shown to be semantically unitary and linguistically distinct. Examples of such semantically unitary names in English folk biology might be oak, pine, maple, rabbit, quail, and bass. A second group of expressions consists of members of the first class in variously modified form, for example, post oak, ponder osa pine, sugar maple, cottontail rabbit, blue quail, and large-mouth bass. Psychologically, examples

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE IN ETHNOBIOLOGY

27

tive primary expressions in that the former occur only in contrast sets, all of whose members are labeled by secondary lexemes that share the same superordinate constituent. Thus, jack oak is unambiguously a secondary lexeme in that (a) one of its constituents, oak, labels a taxon which is its immediate superordinate {oak) and (b) it occurs in a contrast set whose members are also labeled by secondary lexemes which include a consti1.3 TYPES OF PRIMARY LEXEMES tuent that labels the taxon oak (that is, post Primary lexemes can be further analyzed oak, scrub oak, blue oak, and so forth). semantically. Some are clearly simple exProductive primary lexemes such as plane pressions that are not linguistically analyzable, tree, tulip tree, and lead tree, however, occur such as oak and pine. Other primary lexemes as members of contrast sets some of whose are linguistically analyzable, and can be illus- members are labeled by expressions such as trated by such expressions as beggar-tick, maple, walnut, and elm. jack-in-the pulpit, plane tree, lead tree, pipe The relationship between these various vine, Rocky Mountain bee plant, catfish, blue- types of lexemes can be seen in Figure 2.2.* bird, and swordfish. Analyzable primary lexemes can be easily 1.5 ETHNOBIOLOGICAL divided into two obvious classes. One group, NOMENCLATURE AND composed of forms such as plane tree, lead FOLK TAXONOMY tree, and pipe vine are distinguishable in that In work done thus far on ethnosystematics, one of the constituents of each expression it seems likely that the vast majority of priindicates a category superordinate to that of mary lexemes, as defined in the preceding the form in question, for example, lead tree is discussion, refer to biologically natural a kind of tree, plane tree is a kind of tree, pipe groupings of organisms that can be referred to vine is a kind of vine, and so on. These expresasfolk genera. A much smaller number of prisions are productive primary lexemes. mary lexemes refer to groupings larger than A second group, composed of forms such folk genera and appear to label such higheras beggar-tick, jack-in-the-pulpit, and hensorder taxa as tree, bush, vine, grass, fish, bird, and-chickens, is distinguishable in that no consnake, and "land mammal." Such groupings stituent marks a category superordinate to the can be referred to as life forms. In some naturforms in question. Thus, beggar-tick is not a ally occurring biotaxonomies, the complete kind of tick, jack-in-the-pulpit has little to do with either jack or pulpits, hens-and-chickens *The above classification of lexemic types found in does not refer to poultry. These expressions ethnobiological nomenclature derives in large part from are unproductive primary lexemes. Conklin's (1962) important paper on the nature of folk from the first class of terms seem to be more basic or salient than those of the second, in much the same sense that the color terms red, yellow, and green are more basic than pale red, yellowish, and bluish green. It will be useful to refer to members of the first set as primary lexemes and to those of the second as secondary lexemes.

1.4

SECONDARY LEXEMES

Secondary lexemes, like productive primary forms, are identifiable in that one of the constituents of such expressions indicates a category superordinate to the form in question, for example, jack oak (a kind of oak), oriental plane tree (a kind of plane tree), and blue spruce (a kind of spruce). On the other hand, secondary lexemes differ from produc28

CHAPTER 2:

taxonomies. Conklin suggests the recognition of two basic lexemic types, unitary and composite. One of the defining features of composite lexemes is that they include constituents which designate " . . . categories superordinate to those designated by the forms in question . . . [p. 122]." As such, both tulip tree and jack oak are composite expressions in that both, as we have seen, satisfy this condition. We find it theoretically advantageous and empirically justified to recognize that tulip tree and jack oak are only superficially similar linguistically and that they may be readily distinguished, as we have shown, as primary productive and secondary lexemes, respectively.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

Lexeme

(Unanalyzable)

Productive

Unproductive

Secondary

oak pine tree maple

plane tree pipe vine lead tree crabgrass

beggar-tick cattail poison oak jack-in-the-pulpit

jack oak oriental plane tree swamp beggar-tick white pine blue spruce

Figure 2.2

Classification of lexemes by lexemic type.

set of organisms being classified may be recognized conceptually and referred to by a primary lexeme, for example, plant or animal. An all-inclusive named category of this sort, though rare in most systems we know of, would be known as the unique beginner. In contrast to the kinds of taxa marked by primary lexemes, secondary lexemes generally label classes of organisms of lesser inclusiveness than either folk genera or life forms. Such groupings could be called folk species and, more rarely, folk varieties, depending on the degree of specification indicated linguistically. The relationship between these conceptual categories and the names by which they are referred can be stated as a set of four general nomenclatural principles which are subject to verification and modification by further research. I n any folk taxonomy of plants and animals: 1. Some taxa marked by primary lexemes are terminal or immediately include taxa 1

designated by secondary lexemes. Taxa satisfying these conditions are generic; their labels are generic names. 2. Some taxa* marked by primary lexemes are not terminal and immediately include taxa designated by primary lexemes. Taxa satisfying these conditions refer to life form categories; their labels are life form names. 3. Some taxa marked by secondary lexemes are terminal and are immediately included in taxa designated by primary lexemes. Taxa satisfying these conditions are specific; their labels are specific names. 4. Some taxa marked by secondary lexemes are terminal and are immediately included in taxa which are designated as well by secondary lexemes. Taxa satisfying these conditions are varietal; their labels are varietal names. The foregoing remarks allow us now to focus in detail on the major outlines of Tenejapa Tzeltal plant classification. *This condition excludes the taxon that occurs as the unique beginner, also marked by a primary lexeme (if labeled), and includes all taxa in the set being classified.

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE IN ETHNOBIOLOGY

29

2

2.1

Tzeltal Plant Taxonomy: A General Overview

PLANTS AS A SEMANTIC DOMAIN

With the exception of all fungi, lichens, algae, and the like, the boundaries of the domain of plants as conceived by the Tzeltal corresponds almost perfectly to the standard plant division of Western systematic botany. The domain as a conceptual class, however, is not marked by an habitual linguistic expression comparable to the English term plant. Nonetheless, there are numerous expressions that may be used to contrast any one member of the plant world with a member of some other domain, for example, animals. Characteristically, plants 'don't move' ma snihik, whereas animals do; plants 'don't walk' ma sbenik, whereas animals do; plants are 'planted in the earth' ?ay c'unulik ta lum or 'possess roots ?ay yisimik, clearly features not characteristic of animals. On more formal linguistic grounds, plant names uniquely occur with the numeral classifier tehk. Numeral classifiers are obligatory expressions that must be used when counting certain objects in Tzeltal (see Berlin, 1968). Thus, 'three trees' would be stated as ? os-tehk te? 'three members of the plant class tree'. Animal names, on the other hand, occur with the numeral classifier koht (for example, ?os-koht c'P 'three members of the animal class dog'), and names for human beings occur with the classifier tul (for example, can-tul winik 'four members of the human class men'). On both botanical and linguistic grounds, then, the plant domain for the Tzeltal, though not named as such, is unambiguously bounded and distinctly defined. 2.2

LIFE FORM TAXA AND LIFE FORM NOMENCLATURE

In the Tzeltal conception of the plant world, four major life form categories are unique in that, between them, they include at least 75% of all other plant taxa. Each of these four categories is labeled by a simple 30

CHAPTER 2:

primary lexeme. These major plant class names refer to the most obvious and widespread life forms that plants can assume, namely 'trees' fe?, 'vines' ">ak\ 'grasses' ?a/c, and 'broad-leafed, net-veined herbaceous plants' wamal. In general, the four major life form taxa may be defined in terms of stem habit and leaf morphology. More refined glosses could be stated as follows: te?

'plants exhibiting erect to ascending woody stem habit and aborescent stems, generally more than 2 m tall at maturity'

?

ak'

'plants exhibiting twining stem habit and lianous stems'

?ak

'plants exhibiting grass-like leaves and herbaceous stems'

wamal

'plants exhibiting net-veined leaves and herbaceous to infrutescent stems generally less than 2 m tall at maturity'

As will be seen in our detailed treatment of these major classes such definitions as those given above will require elaboration and modification. They are offered at this point principally as mnemonic heuristics that should aid the reader as the description progresses. 2.3

GENERIC TAXA AND GENERIC NOMENCLATURE

At this time, a total of 471 mutually exclusive generic taxa have been established as legitimate Tzeltal plant groupings. Of the total 471 generic classes, 356, or approximately 75%, are immediately included in one of the four life form categories, fe?, ?ak\ ">ak, or wamal. Some 97 generic forms, about 20%, are not included in any of the four life form taxa and are thought of by the Tzeltal as unaffiliated generics. Plants conceived asunaffiliated are almost without exception cultivated and/or morphologically peculiar in some fashion. Examples are ?isim 'corn', cenek' 'bean', ha/a/ 'bamboo', and ci 'agave'. Finally, a residue of some 18 generic taxa,

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

approximately 5% are ambiguous in that they recent origin, that is, are loan words or loan exhibit characteristics of two (or, rarely, expressions, primarily from Spanish. All of three) life form classes, that is, they fall on the the remaining 380 taxa are labeled by native boundaries of the major classes. Tzeltal expressions which can be analyzed A listing of potentially valid generic names linguistically as primary lexemes. One hunwhich we believe worthy of further investiga- dred one taxa are labeled by simple primary tion but for which we have insufficient data lexemes, 125 are labeled by unproductive at this time to discuss fully is given in Appen- primary lexemes, and 154 are labeled by dix 3. productive primary expressions. Examples of The distribution of the inventory of 471 generic names exhibiting these various lexigeneric taxa over these six categories can be cal types can be seen in Table 2.1. seen as follows: Most generic plant taxa in Tzeltal ethnosystematics are monotypic, that is, they are terminal taxa marked by primary lexemes Number of generic taxa Category that include no other named categories. Our data now indicate that of the total inventory te? 'trees' 178 of 471 named generic taxa (including those wamal 'herbs' 119 labeled by loan words), 398, or 85% are ?ak 'grasses' 35 ?ak' 'vines' 24 monotypic. The remaining 73 generic taxa, or unaffiliated taxa 97 15% are polytypic, including from 2 to 15 ambiguous taxa 18 named specific classes. Furthermore, our research indicates that Total: 471 generic taxa form the basic core of Tzeltal Some 91 of the 471 generic taxa are labeled plant taxonomy. The names for such fundaby expressions that can be shown to be of mental categories are those most readily eliTable 2.1

EXAMPLES OF TZELTAL GENERIC NAMES ILLUSTRATING THE THREE LEXICAL TYPES OF PRIMARY LEXEMES Simple primary ?on 'avocado' (Persea americana) ?ic 'chili pepper' {Capsicum pubescens, C annuum) siban 'dogwood' {Cornus excelsa) tok'oy 'willow' {Salix bonplandiana) tab 'pine' {Pinus spp.) Unproductive primary eis caok 'meadow rue' (Thalictrum guatemalense ) < eis 'fart', + caok 'thunder', lit. 'thunder fart' cln te? 'manioc' (Manihot esculenta) < c'in unanalyzable constituent + te? 'tree', lit. 'c'm tree' [but not a kind of tree] balam kin 'wild sunflower' (Polymnia maculata) < balam 'jaguar', Win 'day', lit. 'jaguar day'. cic ?ak (no common name) (Tagetes spp.) < cic 'kind of avocado' + ?ak 'grass', lit. 'avocado grass' [but not a kind of grass] yisim ?ahaw 'wax calla' (Anthurium spp.) < y-?isim 'its corn' + ?ahaw 'kind of snake', lit. 'snake's corn' Productive primary mes te? 'coyote bush' (Baccharis vaccinioides) < mes 'broom', te? 'tree', lit. 'broom tree' kuT ?ak 'greenbriar' (Smilax spp.) < kul unanalyzable constituent ?ak' 'vine', lit. 'kul vine' citam ?ak 'kind of grass' (Muhlenbergia macroura) < citam 'pig' + ?ak 'grass', lit. 'pig grass' k'an cu? wamal 'spurge' (Euphorbia graminea) < k'an 'to want it, to resemble it', cu? 'woman's breast', wamal 'herb', lit. 'resembles-woman's-breast herb' [due, perhaps, to white sappy milk exuded from broken stems of plant] cihil te? 'elderberry' (Sambucus mexicana) > cihil unanalyzable constituent + te? 'tree', lit. 'cihil tree' 2

TZELTAL PLANT TAXONOMY: A GENERAL OVERVIEW

31

cited from Tzeltal informants and most easily recalled by them, suggesting that they are highly salient psychologically. There is evidence from the investigations of Stross (1969, in press) that generic names are learned quite early in the acquisition of botanical terminology by the Tzeltal child, a finding which can be taken as an independent measure of psychological importance. 2.4

SPECIFIC (AND VARIETAL) TAXA AND NOMENCLATURE

As already noted, 73 Tzeltal generic classes are partitioned into two or more smaller taxa which we will refer to as specific taxa. There are 237 such taxa in our inventory at present. With the exception of several rare instances, the names for such specific taxa are all linguistically analyzed as secondary lexemes. The general nomenclatural rule in Tzeltal specific name formation is to modify the generic name involved with a single attributivizing expression. The resulting form is logically comparable to the Linnaean binomial. Examples of specific names exhibiting this binomial structure can be seen in Table 2.2. Table 2.2

EXAMPLES OF TZELTAL SPECIFIC NAMES ANALYZABLE AS SECONDARY LEXEMES Generic names ?ahate?

'white sapote' {Casimiroa edulis)

sc'ul

'amaranth' {Amaranthus spp.)

pehtak

'prickly pear' {Opuntia sp.)

Specific names sakil lahate? 'white white sapote' kanal tahate? 'yellow white sapote' celum ?ahate? 'elongated white sapote' sakil se'ul 'white amaranth' {A. hybridus) cahal sc'ul 'red amaranth' (A. cruentus) els sc'ul 'spiny amaranth' {A. spinosus) sakil pehtak 'white prickly pear' cahalpehtak 'red prickly pear'

At the present time, we have found only four specific taxa which are subdivided further into varietals. Three classes refer to 32

CHAPTER 2:

highly important cultigens. The first two are types of beans cenek'; the third is a type of banana lo?bal\ a fourth is limited to one of the classes of tree legumes, sasib. As might be expected, varietal names are formed by the modification of the specific name through the addition of an attributive. An example can be seen in the division of the generic cenek' 'bean'. Beans are divided into 15 specific taxa, one of which is slumil cenek' 'common bean' (Phaseolus vulgaris). This specific taxon is further partitioned into the two color variants cahal slumil cenek' 'red common bean' and ?ihk'al slumil cenek" 'black common bean'. No plant names in Tzeltal ethnobotany have been elicited which refer to groupings of greater specificity than that of the varietal. However, if such names were found, we can be assured that they would be formed in an analogous fashion to that mentioned above and that they would always be labeled by secondary lexemes. 3

Nomenclature and Classification: Some Possible Qualifications

We have shown that in Tzeltal ethnobotanical systematics, life form and generic names are labeled by primary lexemes and that specific and varietal names are labeled by secondary lexemes. As such, Tzeltal plant-name terminology conforms to the nomenclatural principles outlined in Section 1 of this chapter. Our data reveal a small number of exceptions to these general rules, however, which merit discussion. There are at least three generic names in Tzeltal that appear to be labeled by secondary lexemes. Likewise, there may be some evidence that at least one specific taxon is labeled by a primary lexeme. We feel that the circumstances underlying these apparent exceptions are sufficient to indicate that they are, in fact, exceptions that prove the general rule. 3.1

INSTANCES WHERE GENERIC TAXA ARE LABELED BY SECONDARY LEXEMES

It will be recalled that a secondary lexeme is a complex expression which (a) is com-

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

?isim 'grains'

môro ?isim 'sorghum'

kanal ?isim

sakil ?isim

cahal ^ihk'al ?isim ?isim 'kinds of corn'

pintu ?isim

Figure 2.3 Inferred taxonomic structure showing relationship of corn, wheat, and sorghum.

posed of a constituent that labels a taxon immediately superordinate to the form in question and (b) occurs in a contrast set whose members also are labeled by secondary lexemes that share the same superordinate constituent. Three taxa which we would treat as generic classes appear to be labeled in Tzeltal by secondary lexemes. The taxa involved are all introduced to the highland Chiapas area and refer to sorghum, wheat, and strawberry. We will discuss them in turn. Sorghum and Wheat

The native term for corn (Zea mays) in Tzeltal is ?isim. It is a polytypic generic name including at least five widely recognized specifics, namely, sakil ?isim 'white corn', cahal ?isim 'red corn', k'anal ?isim 'yellow corn', ?ihk'al ?isim 'black corn', and pintu ?isim 'spotted corn'. At the time of the Spanish Conquest, the highland Mayan groups were introduced to two similar and yet quite distinct edible grains—wheat and sorghum. These grainbearing crops were considered to be similar by the Tzeltal population to their own polytypic class of corn. Logically enough, the two introduced classes were linguistically designated as kaslan ?isim* 'Castilian corn', that is, wheat, and moro ?isim 'Moors' corn', that is,

*kaslan < 16th century Spanish /kastilyâno/. It is interesting to note that the Mayan Chuj name for rice is kaslan ?isim (Breedlove and Hopkins, 1970). 3

sorghum. The conceptual affiliation of these two taxa with corn is verified in that both names occur as responses to the query bitik sbil huhuten ?isim "What are the names of each kind of corn?" Further questioning, however, clearly demonstrates that these two introduced plants are not kinds of genuine corn, Zea mays, & fact linguistically noted by the expression bac*il ?isim 'true corn'.Taxonomically, the relationship among corn, sorghum, and wheat is seen in Figure 2.3. Strawberry

A comparable situation to the classification of 'grains' is seen in the treatment of the polytypic generic name makum 'blackberry' in Tzeltal. In this case, the Spanish introduced the European strawberry Fragaria vesca. The Tzeltal taxon makum is a generic including five to six specific taxa. The strawberry is obviously similar to the known varieties of blackberries but not similar enough to simply be included as a kind of makum. Thus, as with ?isim, the class makum was elevated to become a higher order taxon including now the native blackberry (bacll) makum, and the introduced strawberry kaslan makum. The taxonomic structure of this complex of plants can be seen in Figure 2.4. Each of the above examples describes special situations brought on by culture contact and indicates that under certain conditions a native polytypic generic name will be elevated to mark a superordinate category of a higher order than that of the folk genus. Taxa immediately included in this new category may include generic names which are linguis-

NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION: SOME POSSIBLE QUALIFICATIONS

33

makum 'composite ^ ^ ^

\

berries'

{bac'il) makum 'blackberry' kaslan makum 'strawberry'

/ylvs.

1

2,

3,

4,

5

'kinds of blackberries' Figure 2.4 Inferred taxonomic structure indicating relationship of blackberry and strawberry.

tically analyzable as secondary lexemes. However, such a situation can develop only when (a) a labeled native polytypic generic already is present in the taxonomy and when (b) conceptually similar (at the generic level, not the specific) plants are introduced. Finally, it should be reiterated that the native generic must be polytypic. If the native form is unsegmented and an introduced variety is seen to be similar enough to be a "kind of" the native plant, the generic taxon is simply segmented into two specific taxa. In almost all cases, the native specific takes the attributive bac'il 'genuine', the introduced variety kaslan 'foreign'.

generic name, or as Wyman and Harris (1941) have said in referring to this kind of nomenclature in Navaho, "The situation is as if in our binomial system the generic name were used alone for the best known species of a genus, while binomial terms were used for all other members of the genus [p.120l." A second situation occurs when, for reasons not clearly understood, a specific taxon appears to be in the process of assuming a generic status. In so doing, it ceases to be marked by the standard binomial expression characteristic of specific taxa. Each of these various exceptions to the binomiality of specific nomenclature will now be discussed in detail. 3.3

TYPE-SPECIFIC NOMENCLATURE IN TZELTAL

In nearly all Tzeltal specific contrast sets, one of the members of the set is considered as the focal or most dominant member. Our tentative evidence suggests that the reason allowing for such a situation to develop is that one of the taxa includes members which are generally most widespread, larger in size, or the best known. 3.2 INSTANCES WHERE SPECIFIC In many natural contexts, it is often the TAXA ARE LABELED BY case that one can refer to this type specific PRIMARY LEXEMES by the generic name alone, (that is, by the Just as there are some examples where a polysemous use of the generic name) with generic taxon may be labeled by a secondary total confidence of being understood. An lexeme, a situation contrary to our general example can be seen in the classification of principle of nomenclature, one also finds k'eweë 'custard apple' (Annona spp.) For the Tzeltal, there are three specific instances of specific taxa taking labels that must be analyzed as primary lexemes. As taxa in this set as seen in Figure 2.5. In many situations, k'ewes can be used with generic taxa, we suggest that the atypicality of such examples can be explained and alone to refer to the most prominent type that they in fact provide confirmation of the specific class, A. cherimola. However, when general rule. greater precision of designation is desired, There appear to be two types of situations informants readily provide binomial designainvolved where specific taxa may be indi- tion by the addition of the attributive bac'il cated by primary lexemes. The first, and most 'genuine', leading to the form bad I k'ewes widespread, occurs when one of the specific 'genuine custard apple'. In fact, the linguistic classes included in a generic taxon is con- contrast required between type-specific sidered to be the type specific of the set. Often, members and all other members of the spethe label of this type-specific class will be cific contrast set is invariably indicated by the polysemous with that of the superordinate addition of the attributive bac"il in all other 34

CHAPTER 2 :

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

k'ewes 'custard apple'

Figure 2.5 Type-specific nomenclature as exemplified in custard apple names.

c'isc'is k'ewes 'spiny custard apple' (A. muricata)

k'ewes '(type) custard apple' (Anona cherimola)

k'ewes mas 'monkey's custard apple' (A. reticulatd)

ihihte?]

cikinib armadillo-eared oak' Figure

2.6

nomic

structure

Inferred taxoindicating

relationship of large leafed oaks and small leafed oak, cikinib.

ca?pat hih te? 'excrementbarked oak'

cases found in Tzeltal where the type specific is polysemous with the generic name. (For a detailed discussion of this process, which can be understood as a type of linguistic marking, see Berlin, 1972.) 3.4

ABERRANT SPECIFIC TAXA MARKED BY PRIMARY LEXEMES

Some specific taxa may be labeled by primary lexemes if the taxa in question appear to be achieving generic status. We have data for one case in Tzeltal, but as will be pointed out later, the process appears to be a general one. For most Tzeltal informants, the generic hih te? 'oak' includes four specific taxa, ca?pat hih te? 'excrement-barked oak', sakyok hih te? 'white-footed oak', k'ewes hih te? 'custard-apple oak', and cikinib hih te? 'armadillo-eared oak'. This latter form may, for most informants, be cited in abbreviated form-simply cikinib. For some informants, this is the preferred usage. Some other Tzeltal speakers, however, recognize only the first three classes of oaks as 'genuine oaks' and treat cikinib as being a closely related but distinct taxon coordinate 3

sakyok hih te? 'white-footed oak'

k'ewes hih te? 'custard-apple oak'

with hih te? 'oak'. One Tzeltal Indian for whom the above classification of oaks holds, produced the taxonomic diagram indicated in Figure 2.6. That such a situation could arise is partially explained in that cikinib is by far the most divergent class of oaks with many characters readily distinguishing it from the other three classes. 3.5

CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON TZELTAL NOMENCLATURE AND CATEGORY STATUS

In the preceding sections, we have presented several examples from Tzeltal where the nomenclatural properties of a particular plant name were at variance with those expected, given its ethnobiological category membership. On the one hand, we pointed out examples where generic taxa were labeled by secondary lexemes and, on the other, showed at least one example where a specific taxon was labeled by a primary lexeme. In the first case, it appears that all such names result from a change in the taxonomic structure due to the introduction of new organisms. In the latter case, taxonomic change appears to be

NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION: SOME POSSIBLE QUALIFICATIONS

35

taking place, which suggests that a oncespecific taxon is achieving generic status due to its quite dissimilar characteristics when compared with contrasting specific forms. While all of those cases are exceptions to the nomenclatural principles outlined in Section 1, the processes allowing for such deviations to arise appear to bedescribable. It is of some interest that the number of exceptions are as few as those noted. 4

Intermediate Taxa as Covert Conceptual Categories

As noted earlier, the majority of all named Tzeltal plant classes mark generic taxa. Four taxa of greater inclusiveness than the folk genus have been referred to as life form categories. It will be recalled that te? 'trees' immediately includes 178 generic names, wamal 'herbs' immediately include 119 generics, ?ak 'grasses', and ?ak? 'vines' immediately include 35 and 24 generic names, respectively. Labeled midlevel categories that are of lesser inclusiveness than the four life form taxa, yet are of greater generality than generic taxa, are conspicuously absent in the Tzeltal classificatory view of the plant world. This lack of named midlevel groupings is not unique to the Tzeltal and probably represents a feature universal to all folk ethnobiological taxonomies. We have compiled considerable evidence indicating that several intermediate taxa are recognized covertly by the Tzeltal and have discussed methods for establishing such unnamed categories elsewhere (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1968). There, we argued that a recognition of unlabeled taxa could be of considerable importance in understanding fundamental principles of native classification and should not be ignored by placing too much stress solely on named taxa. The establishment of covert categories is a difficult task. Thus far, we have been able to establish midlevel categories included in three of the four major life form classes. For te? 33 such groupings have been discovered, 36

CHAPTER 2:

including 106 of the 178 generic tree names. In the category wamal, 14 covert taxa are established, including 32 generic names. The taxon ?ak" includes 6 covert categories which account for 21 of the 24 generic names. The last major class grouping, ?ak 'grasses', includes no covert taxa. As concerns the unaffiliated generics, several groupings of morphologically similar organisms can be reliably recognized. We are confident that certain mosses (con te?), agaves (ci), bamboos (ha/a/), large leafy monocots, including bananas, elephant ears, and the like, and cacti (pehtak) represent covert categories of plants. Finally, there are a number of tentative covert taxa for which we lack firm data, but that we will suggest as potentially worthy of further study. 5

Terminal Taxa

For some purposes, it will be useful to refer at times to the number of terminal taxa, that is, taxa of any category, generic, specific, or varietal—that include no further named subdivisions. The number of terminal taxa in the taxonomy as we now understand it is 642. This number is computed by adding the total number of monotypic generics (397), monotypic specifics (237), and monotypic varietals (8). 6

Summary of the Overview

The Tzeltal world of plants as seen from this broad overview may now be summarized as follows. The domain as a whole corresponds very closely with the standard botanically defined plant division of western science. It is not indicated by a single habitual linguistic expression, although certain circumlocutions may be utilized to contrast the domain with other natural groupings of organisms such as animals. The occurrence of all plant names with the numeral classifier, tehk, also allows the category to be defined unambiguously on a strictly linguistic basis.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

Table 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF PLANT TAXA IN TERMS OF MAJOR GROUPINGS Grouping

Total generics

Monotypic generics

Polytypic generics

Specifics

178 119 35 24 97 18 471

149 114 34 23 61 16 397

29 5 1 1 35 2 73

80 10 4 9 127 7 237

fe?

wamal ?ak ?ak"

Unaffiliated Ambiguous

Totals:

Linguistic and taxonomic considerations allow for the recognition of four conceptual classes of named plant taxa: life form taxa, generic taxa, specific taxa, and varietal taxa. Generic taxa appear to represent the most important division of the plant world. There are four life form taxa: te?, wamal, ?ak, and ?ak\ There are 471 generic taxa, 237 specific taxa, and 8 varietal taxa. The total number of terminal plant classes recognized is 642. All generic taxa are included in one of the four life form taxa or are considered to be either unaffiliated and/or ambiguous. A summary of the distribution of plant classes for each of these categories, indicating monotypy and polytypy, can be seen in Table 2.3. Finally, there appears to be a strong correlation between the linguistic form of a plant name and the taxonomic category which it labels. With few exceptions, most of which are explainable, primary lexemes are restricted to generic and life form taxa, while secondary lexemes almost invariably label taxa of lesser inclusiveness than the folk genus, that is, specific or varietal taxa. As such, Tzeltal ethnobotanical terminology is highly systematic and can be understood in terms of a small number of regular nomenclatural principles. 7

Detailed Analysis of Tzeltal Plant Nomenclature

In Sections 2 and 3 we discussed, in a general fashion, the characteristics of Tzeltal plant nomenclature. In this portion of the book 7

we shall outline principles found tion of generic productive) and 7.1

Varietals 2

— — — 6

— 8

in detail the nomenclatural to be operative in the forma(simple, unproductive, and specific names.

NOMENCLATURAL PROPERTIES OF GENERIC NAMES MARKED BY SIMPLE LEXEMES

One hundred one generic taxa, approximately 25% of all forms in the inventory of 471 generic expressions, are labeled by simple primary lexemes. Lexemes of this class may assume one of eight canonical forms, namely, CV, CVC, CVhC, CVCVC, CVhCVC, CVVC, CVCCVC, and CVCV^QVC. Examples of each canonical form as illustrative of each type are seen in Table 2.4. 7.2

NOMENCLATURAL PROPERTIES OF GENERIC NAMES MARKED BY UNPRODUCTIVE LEXEMES

Of the 380 native Tzeltal generic names, 125 are characterized by complex unproductive lexemes. Several subtypes of this class of forms are readily recognizable. 7.2.1

Type 1 Unproductive

Some plant types are seen to conceptually similar to some earlier recognized generic class. A helpful example from English can be seen in such pairs as oak : poison oak, apple : horse apple, and orange : mock orange. The second generic name in each pair can be said to share certain conceptual features in common with the first. Thus, poison oak, though clearly not a kind of oak for speakers of

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF TZELTAL PLANT NOMENCLATURE

37

Table 2.4 EXAMPLES OF CANONICAL FORMS OF TZELTAL SIMPLE LEXEMES

cv

Loasa triphylla var. rudis Lagenaria siceraria Agave spp.

la cu ci CVC bat cic ?ic

Heliocarpus donnell-smithii Per sea americana Capsicum annuum

CVhC si he' nahk tuht

Cordia ferruginea, Alnus ferruginea E quise turn spp.

CVCVC ?ahoh tusus makum ?isim cenek'

Saurauia spp. Tagetes spp. Rubus s p p . Zea mays Phaseolus spp.

CVhCVC ? uhcum c'uhlem lohe* op tahtam

Carica papaya Sature ja brownei Gonolobus spp., M ate lea quirosii Desmodium spp.

CVCCVC ?uskum b orb os

Galinsoga caracasana Govenia spp., Bletia spp.

CVVC moen

Solanum

CVCViQVC hififui lo?lo?in

Lonchocarpus rugosus Bomarea spp.

Baccharis

trinervis

nodiflorum

English, shows certain features of leaf shape, leaf color, and the like similar to a 'true oak\ In Tzeltal, a similar nomenclatural situation can be seen and numerous complex unproductive names are found which have been formed by analogy with some other plant class. All of the examples attested thus far are pairs whereby the dominant plant class has some important cultural utility, while the name formed by analogy lacks the useful characteristics of its model or is useful only as a medicine. An example of plants labeled in this fashion are: c'oma te?c'o 'rat's chayote' (Cyclanthera bourgeana), which closely resembles, in terms of leaf shape, stem habit, and small fruits, its 38

CHAPTER 2:

culturally significant model, c'oma te? 'chayote' (Sechium edule), but differs in that its fruits are considered unsuitable for human use. Unproductive plant names formed by analogy are typically realized linguistically in one of two ways. The Tzeltal plant name that refers to the useful variety enters into a headadjunct compound the postposed adjunctive member of which is either (a) a noun the nominal referent of which is either an animal or some outstanding morphological plant part, (b) a major life form name (that is, te?, ?ak, ?ak\ wamal), or (c) the noun pos 'medicine'. Examples of analogic name formation employing postposed animal name adjuncts are as follows: cenek" (Phaseolus spp.): cenek' mut 'bird's bean' (Canavalia spp.) ?isim (Zea mays): ?isim ?ahaw 'snake's corn (Anthurium spp.) tumat (Lycopeisicum esculentum var. cerasiforme) tumatc'o 'rat's tomato' (Physalisgracilis) ?on (Persea americana)'. yon cue 'squirrel's avocado' (Persea donnell-smithii) Examples of analogic name formation employing a postposed name of a major life form as an adjunct are as follows: kaslan cenek' (Arachis hypogaea): kaslan cenek' wamal 'peanut herb' (Medicago polymorpha, Kallstroemia spp.) c'oliw (Dahlia spp.): c'oliw wamal 'dahlia herb' (Valeriana sorbifolia) sc'ul (Amaranthus spp.): sc'w/wa/na/'amaranthus herb' (Iresine celosia) ha?as (Pouteria mammosa): ha?as te? 'sapote tree' (Cedrela oxacensis) ? on (Persea americana): ?on te? 'avocadolike tree' (Arbutus xalapensis) péta (Psidium guajavd): péta te? 'guava-like tree' (Hauya spp.) cu?um (Pennisetum bambusiforme): cu?um ?ak 'canelike grass' (Panicum biglandulare) kaslan ?isim (Triticum aestivum): kaslan ?isim ?ak 'wheat-like grass' (Lasiacis spp., Panicum bulbosum + others)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TZELTAL PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

c'aben (Crotalaria longirostrata): c'aben ?ak' 'crotolaria-like vine' (Nissoliafruticosa) karanâto (Passiflora ligularis): karanàto ?ak" 'passion-fruit-like vine' (Passiflora membranacea) Examples of analogie name formation employing the postposed adjunctpos, 'medicine' are as follows: C'/AI te? (Manihot esculenta): ein te? pos 'medicine plant, like sweet manioc' (Aralia humilis) pay te? (Archibaccharis androgyna): pay te? pos 'pay fe?-like medicinal plant' (Petiveria alliacea) poloc (Cyclanthera langaei): poloc" pos 'soap-root-like medicine' (Asclepias contrayerba) wale? (Saccharum officinarum): wale? pos 'sugarcane-like medicine' (Cystopodium punctatum) 7.2.2

Type 2 Unproductive

A large number of unproductive lexemes are composed of the constituent posil 'medicine', plus adjunctive nominal constituents. In all of these expressions the adjuncts indicate the disease or malady for which the plant is considered to be a cure or subjects on which the derived medicinal portions of the plant are employed. Examples of lexemes of this subtype are seen as follows: posilbehc em 'sprain medicine' (Lisianthus nigrescens) posil m ah ben 'severe infection medicine' (Begonia spp.) posil sakpehc 'white skin blotch medicine' (Erigeron karvinskianus) posil ?alal 'child medicine' (Micropleura renifolia)

(Abutilon tridens) is a member of the life form class te? 'tree' and is not, as its name suggests, a member of the class ?ak" 'vine'. Its bark, however, is tough and leathery and often used as a lashing material in house construction, hence, perhaps, the reference to vine in its name. Examples of generic names exhibiting this structure are seen as follows: man ?ak" (Belotia mexicana) [a member of te?} yehc" ?ak" (Cavendishia guatemalensis var. chiapensis) [a member of te?] pahal te? (Ar thro sterna ciliatum) [a member of warn all ein te? (Manihot esculentum) [an unaffiliated generic] cic ?ak (Tagetes lucida, T. schiedeand) tan ambiguous generic] 7.2.4

Type 4 Unproductive

The last class of easily recognizable unproductive lexemes are compounds, normally of only two members, the nonbotanical referential meanings of which are obscure. Examples are as follows: ca? tuluk" (Diospyros digynd) lit. 'turkey feces' eis caok (Thalictrum guatemalense) lit. 'thunder fart' balam kin (Polymnia maculât a) lit. 'tiger day' si haben (Panicum bulbosum, Tripsacum pilosum) lit. 'fear leaf (?) 7.3

NOMENCLATURAL PROPERTIES OF GENERIC NAMES MARKED BY PRODUCTIVE LEXEMES

In our corpus, 154 of the 380 native Tzeltal generic names are labeled by productive complex lexemes. Names of this class all exhibit a uniform structure. They are all compound 7.2.3 Type 3 Unproductive names, the heads of which are obligatorily Many unproductive generic lexemes are one of the four life forms—te?, ?ak\ ?ak, or compounds, the head of which is a major life wamal. As pointed out earlier, productive form name. However, the categories refer- lexemes are found as labels of generic classes red to by such expressions are not members of more commonly in some life form taxa than the major life form indicated by the respec- others. Thus, 46% of the generic names in tive head. Thus sakil ?ak" literally 'white vine' wamal and more than half of the names in 7

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF TZELTAL PLANT NOMENCLATURE

39

Table 2.5

DISTRIBUTION OF TZELTAL SPECIFIC PLANT NAME ATTRIBUTIVES BY SEMANTIC DIMENSION

Semantic dimension

Number of separate attributives per dimension

Color Type-specific Analogy on some object Shape Size Texture Habitat Authenticity Smell Taste Edibility Unanalyzable

Number of occurrences

8 1

11 37

25 2 8 1 6 7 1 1 1 46

25 15 13 13 6 5 1 1 1 46

te? are formed by productive lexemes, and 45% of the names for vines (?ak') are so named. In grasses (?ak) all generic names are labeled by productive lexemes except the introduced Job's tears, san péro martin. Examples of such expressions are seen below: ?ac'am te? (Rapanea myricoides) ?ulsim te? (Myriocarpa spp.) sabal c'unun wamal (Salvia spp.) kulis wamal (Plantago major) citam ?ak (Muhlenbergia macroura) cuhkum ?ak (Setaria spp.) kul ?ak" (Smilax subpubescens) c'unun ?ak" {Malvaviscus arboreus var. aboreus, var. mexicanus, var. penduliflorus) 7.4

SPECIFIC NAMES

With the exception of several rare instances, Tzeltal specific plant names are Table 2.6

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SIMPLE AND COMPLEX ATTRIBUTIVES IN TZELTAL SPECIFIC PLANT NAMES 0 ?

ancil 'woman-like' awas < Sp habas 'broad bean' baFil 'genuine' bakbak 'bone-like' beléko < Sp verga 'penislike' borbon < Sp borbon *bot sit 'Z?oi-eyed' *buluk' sit 'caterpillareyed' cahal 'red' cancail 'immature' ca?mut chicken feces' celum 'ridged' cic uc^ coccoc 'hairy' *coc ni? 'hairy-nosed' *coc 9it 'hairy-butted' Firin 'stripped' Fisim 'ant-like' cicu 'tomato-like' cik 'red' cikinib 'armadillo-eared' FiF nP 'bloody-nosed' Fin 'small' (sing.) Fis 'spine' FisFis 'spiney' Fis te? 'spine tree' FuhFul 'small' (plural) Fulul 'smooth' ? elemones 'lemon-like' < Sp lemones 9

khinya 'guineo-like' < Sp guineo holinom 'head-like' holnom 'head-like' htab 'twenties' huruwetan < Sp ruetan nhk'al 'black' ?ik'os uc kampara < Sp campana 'bell-like' karanato < Sp granada 'granada-like' karawanco < Sp garabanso kaslan 'foreign' < Sp castillano kerem 'boy-like' koyol uc kurus 'crosslike' < Sp cruz k'ahk'al 'hot' k'anal 'yellow' k'ewes 'custard apple-like' k'isis uc k'uk' uc luk'nuk' 'hooked neck' mäcu < Sp macho mak te? 'fence' mancàna < Sp manzana manko < Sp mango mantarina < Sp mandarina

^Asterisk indicates complex attributive. 40

CHAPTER 2:

merikano < Sp americano *moin te9 'tree climber' mokoc 'kind of insect' mores 'curley' morte < Sp morder muk'ul 'large' (sing.) niwak 'large' (plural) *no? ci? 'no7 sweet' ? oalil 'necklace-like' ?os eel 'three sided' paF 'tamale-like' pahal 'sour' paka? uc peFeF 'flattened' peF sit 'flat-eyed' pehk" me7el 'old lady's tumpline' petenâro < Sp ? pintu < Sp pinto pocpoc 'wrapped' pohowil 'pus' pom 'incense-like' prisko > Sp ? puhiltik 'hollow' p'arp'as pat 'flakey bark' p'ehel 'solid' p'eh h?ok 'solid legged' sakil 'white' sak yok 'white legged' satab uc sayino < Sp sallino scibul 'fern of the—'

sFil uc sera < Sp sera sila < Sp citron *sit ?isim 'corn kernel' sot 'gourd rattle' sälu awaë öenek' sc'ucl haben sc'os

'ground bean' (Phaseolus vulgaris) 'scarlet runner bean' (P. coccineus) 'broad bean' (Viciafaba) 'canna' (Canna edulis) 'philodendron' (Philodendron polytomun)

2.1.2

Extralinguistic Criteria of Importance in the Recognition of Plant Names

able to present informants with several score of simulated hypothetical situations which lends support to our lexemic analysis of forms such as niwak tumat and sakil cacames. Presumably, if niwak functions as a simple attributive in a noun phrase with the meaning 'large', one should be able to change the state or characteristics of the referent of the noun in such a way as to require a change in the attributive, (for example, what does one call an unusually 'small' niwak tumat ?). As we would expect, simulated reduction in size does not alter the presence of niwak—the hypothetical construction is simply

Nonformal linguistic criteria, admittedly less satisfactory in solving a problem of the kind discussed here, are nevertheless invaluable clues in determining the lexemic status of an expression. Such criteria primarily concern the reliability and stability of a particular linguistic designation over time and across informants. Descriptive phrases are considerably less stable. It is unlikely that a descriptive designation will be given in an identical form as the name for a particular plant category by many informants on many separate confrontations. Our data strongly c'uhc'ul niwak tumat '(a) small, tree toindicate that this is the case. mato' [lit. 'small large tomato'] The most difficult problem in distinguishWe are reminded in this regard of the now ing lexical items and descriptive phrases, classic example of Sidney Lamb's concerning however, concerns those Tzeltal specific the lexeme, redheaded woodpecker. One can (versus generic) plant names which are identipresumably paint a redheaded woodpecker's cal in morphological and syntactic structure head black and the result would simply be to Tzeltal noun phrases. Thus, the Tzeltal something like a blackheaded, redheaded specific plant name for the introduced tree woodpecker, not a blackheaded woodpecker. tomato, niwak tumat (Cyphomandra crasOf course, we have been unable, to persicaulis), is literally 'large tomato'. This exform such behavioral validation procedures pression is phonologically, morphologically on all Tzeltal specific plant names that look and syntactically identical to hundreds of suspiciously like Tzeltal noun phrases, since Tzeltal noun phrases which include the atthe task would require more time than we had tributive niwak, for example, to spend. However, we are relatively certain niwak mesa 'large table' of the outcome should such tests be carried niwak yabenal 'large leaves' out. Nonetheless, wherever we are in doubt as to the lexemic status of a potential plant niwak ste?el 'large stems' name, we have made every effort to indicate niwak scikin 'large ears' in our analysis that its status as a plant cateLikewise, a Tzeltal specific plant name such gory is tentative—not definitive. as sakil cacames

'white cacames' (Sida rhombifolia, S. alba)

is identical in structure to such noun phrases as: sakil kawayu sakil na sakil hun

'white horse' 'white house' 'white paper'

Whereas we have not been ingenious enough to discover simple, nonarbitrary linguistic criteria by which such expressions may be easily distinguished, we have been 2

2.2

ELICITING TZELTAL PLANT NAMES: INITIAL INVENTORIES

As mentioned earlier, Metzger and Williams (1966) had already elicited the four major Tenejapa Tzeltal life form plant classes: te? 'trees', ?ak' 'vines', ?ak 'grasses', and wamal 'herbs'. Attempts to replicate all the results reported in the Metzger and Williams (1966) paper were not entirely successful. The unique beginner, te^ak" 'plants', observed by Metzger and Williams (1966) does

PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN THE PRESENT STUDY

51

not appear to be totally general to the majority of Tenejapa Tzeltal informants interviewed in the present research. In general, most informants recognize te?ak' as meaning 'forest' or 'woods'. However, regardless of the acceptability of this compound form as a unique beginner, it became clear that each major life form name {te?, ?ak\ ?ak, and wamal) could be utilized in appropriate Tzeltal questions to obtain relatively long lists of Tzeltal plant names. As an initial, tentative, and admittedly incomplete step, three of our principal informants, all of whom had been trained to write Tzeltal phonemically, were requested to transcribe all the Tzeltal plant names that they could recall from memory for each major class. These inventories were derived independently for each informant after extensive informal discussions concerning the nature of the task, what was desired, and so on. The Tzeltal queries presented each informant were as follows: 1. bitik sbil huhuten te?etik ?ay ta tenehapa. 'What are the names of each kind of tree in Tenejapa?' 2. bitik sbil huhuten ?aketik ?ay ta tenehapa. 'What are the names of each kind of grass in Tenejapa?' 3. bitik sbil huhuten ?ak'etik ?αγ ta tenehapa. 'What are the names of each kind of vine in Tenejapa?' 4. bitik sbil huhuten wamaletik ?ay ta tenahapa. 'What are the names of each kind of herb in Tenejapa?' This initial elicitation revealed certain taxonomic complexities which were not reported in the earlier Metzger and Williams paper, namely, that all recognized Tzeltal plants do not fall neatly into one of the four major life form taxa. This fact was brought to our attention when two informants, apparently after joint discussions one evening, came to us and noted that several plant names could neither be considered te?, ?ak\ ?ak, or wamal. A series of unaffiliated categories immediately included in the unnamed taxon "plants" and coordinate with the four major plant classes was thus suggested, most of 52

CHAPTER 3:

which, as we were to learn later, were botanical morphological rarities such as lo?bal 'banana', ?eb'> 'bromeliad', ci 'agave', or cultivated field crops such as ?isim 'corn', wale? 'sugarcane', cenek' 'beans', and so on. After the initial lists of names were obtained, each informant was requested to reread each item in each inventory and determine, by utilizing the identical question frame, if there were additional subclasses. Thus, if hih te? 'oak' were elicited as a kind of te? 'tree', the informants would produce the subsequent question: bitik sbil huhuten hih te?etik ?ay ta tenehapa. 'What are the names of each kind of oak in Tenejapa?' Should there be no kinds, it was so noted; should there be subclasses, the name of each was noted. The process was continued until names of all subclasses were elicited. These inventories ranged in number from 411-459 generic classes, and provided us with critical information concerning the relative number of plants in each class as well as a check on whether or not a named plant had been collected when intensive collecting was begun. The lists also provided important information concerning the linguistic structure of Tzeltal plant names, informant variability, and so on. Over the complete field period, we collected 13 complete lists of plant names from as many informants by the above methods. Inventories ranged from as low as 187 names to as high as 565, providing an average number of 398 names for all informants. 2.3

ELICITING TZELTAL PLANT NAMES IN THE FIELD

While the initial inventories of plant names obtained from informants served as a guide to native classification, such lists are, of course, of minimal value in and of themselves. Actual identification and classification of plants in natural contexts provides the basic data on the referents of elicited plant names. Preliminary identification and classifi-

METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA

cation of plant specimens was carried out during the course of general botanical collecting trips. In the early stages of collecting, botanist and ethnographer were present with an average of three or four Tzeltal native informants. No attempt was made to collect only those plants for which Tzeltal names had been elicited. On the contrary, a widemeshed collection program was followed where efforts were made to collect all identifiable plants in any given area on any particular collecting sortie. General botanical collecting quickly revealed that the Tzeltal lacked legitimate plant names for much of the local flora. On the other hand, when presented with a particular plant specimen, informants rarely responded that the specimen had no name. Instead, they would systematically attempt to classify or relate the specimen under observation to one of the categories in their named taxonomy. For example, an informant might state that such and such a plant was "kol pahaluk sok X" where X represents the name of a known category. As will be seen later, these classificatory responses allowed for relatively accurate statements to be made as to the actual conceptual range of a plant category, for it provided information as to focal (basic) and peripheral (extended) ranges of each category. Like any collaborative research effort, actual procedures and techniques utilized in obtaining both botanical and ethnobotanical information at the time of collection were worked out in atrial-and-errormannerinthe early stages of research. From the beginning, two collection notebooks were kept. One was a regular botanical field notebook which provided (1) a collection voucher number, (2) date, (3) locality, and (4) general description of the specimen. The second record book, the Tzeltal Collection Book was keyed to the botanical notebook through the use of identical collection numbers. Informants were assigned identification numbers which were written after the respective informants' linguistic designation of the specimen at hand. Some sample entries from the Tzeltal collection notebook are given in Table 3.1. 2

Table 3.1

SAMPLE PAGE FROM A TZELTAL COLLECTION NOTEBOOK Botanical coll. number 12,557

11,136 10,953 989

Tzeltal plant name kulis pimil wakas kulis bok kawäyu kulis pimil kawâyu ? icil pimil lo?/owil lo?lo?il kps nukOha? ?ak kps wale? ?ak wena wamal kps c'a bakal

Informant no. 1 20 23,24 22 1 2 7 8 8 67,68

As can be seen from the examples in Table 3.1, considerable variation was observed between informants in their linguistic designation of a plant specimen. At the linguistic level, variation may be manifest lexically or phonologically. Two forms are considered lexical variants if one or more of their constituents are lexically distinct. Such a situation can be seen in collections 12,557, 10,953, and 989. Two forms are phonological variants if they are merely phonological alternations of the same underlying form, as can be seen in collection 11,136. At the conceptual or classificatory level, two or more informants may differ as to what class they feel a particular plant specimen is in fact a member, if any, as in collections 10,953 and 989. A full discussion of informant variability will be found in Section 3.6. At one point in the research, informants' linguistic designations were taken in the field at the time of collection. When more than one informant was present, which was the case for the majority of collections, immediate naming and recording clearly required too much time. Consequently, as plant specimens were collected they were placed in large plastic sacks where they remained until they could be sorted for pressing at some later time during that particular collecting day. Sorting and subsequent naming normally took place in some sheltered area in the field, for example, a protective shade tree, a Tzeltal house, or in a rural school building. At this time, specimens were arranged into classes,

PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN THE PRESENT STUDY

53

placed in rows on the ground, and assigned sequential botanical collection numbers. This was followed immediately by the transcription of Tzeltal plant names, first by the ethnographer who later in the research was joined by one of the transcribing informants who had been trained to perform this task. Those informants who participated in naming always included one of our three major informants, and on many occasions all of them. For the majority of our collections, one or more informants from the immediate locality of the day's collections were also present. It was common that such "local informants," as we referred to them, were hired early in the day and had been present at the actual collection of the plant. There were occasions, however, when the situation allowed for permanent residents of the immediate area to be present only at the time of naming and pressing. None of our data reveal that not being present at the collection of a plant hindered an informant in recognizing that plant before it was pressed some hours later. Assignment of names to a specimen by several informants was not, as it ideally should have been, independent in all cases. Practical considerations literally prohibited our querying each informant individually concerning the names of as many as 100 specimens at a time. However, each informant was instructed carefully before each naming session to provide his own particular designation, regardless of the fact that it might be different from other informants. The reliability with which an informant would continue to use a particular plant name over scores of occasions for newly encountered specimens of the same category is very high. We are confident that informants were little influenced in naming by hearing other informants' linguistic designations. Informal responses and discussions among informants also indicated that little bias toward providing the same name was apparent. In fact, informants were interested and amused at the amount of lexical variability found and long discussions of this topic would often ensue. 54

CHAPTER 3:

Systematic querying concerning important ethnobotanical aspects of every plant specimen collected was also hindered radically by practical considerations. Time simply did not allow for a standardized series of questions relating to uses, preparation, plant parts, and so forth to be asked of all plants collected. Information of this sort relating to cultural significance was elicited on separate occasions using the complete collection files, which was carried out in a more intensive manner than would have been possible while engaged in general botanical collections. Many times, separate collecting trips were made when specialized knowledge concerning the use of plants was required, for example, collections of medicinal herbs, or plants utilized in house construction, and so on. In addition, large amounts of textual material relating to the preparation of plants for medicinal potions, material culture, and the like were collected independently of the general collecting process. 3

Advantages of General Botanical Collecting Procedures

In order to ensure complete coverage of the plant world known to the Tzeltal, our goal was to sample the flora of the municipio of Tenejapa as fully as possible during the time alloted us. Every effort was made to collect, again with the aid of native informants, in all areas of the municipio, at all times of the year. Over the 36-month field period, 15,000 specimens, in sets of four or more sheets, were collected and identified. We have strong reason to believe that the general collections represent an almost complete inventory of the flora of the area. One highly important advantage to our general collecting procedures was that many named plants were collected several times with different informants and at different places and times of the year. Accordingly, the majority of names in our Tzeltal plant inventory have an average of five or more botanical collection numbers. The comprehensiveness of the general collecting has thus allowed us to make fairly reliable statements

METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA

as to the botanical range of all Tzeltal plant names in our data. The lack of a broad base ofbotanical collections is a weakness of many of the earlier ethnobotanical studies where the botanical determinations of a native plant name are rarely based on more than one collection taken at one time during the year, and identified by a single informant.

Casas, where drying of specimens took place in our permanent ethnobotanical field facilities. Here electric heat could be employed easily and at times as many as six plant dryers were kept running constantly. 4

Tzeltal Collection Files and Supporting Linguistic and Ethnographic Data

The Collecting Schedule

Over time, several standardized tasks and procedures were worked out which allowed for a large amount of both botanical and ethnobotanical data to be collected during a typical collecting trip. A standard daily schedule that came to be followed rather consistently on any such trip can be summarized as follows: 1. Proceed to area for which collections are lacking or incomplete. 2. Begin general collections in early morning and work until midday. 3. Sort, press and record botanical and ethnobotanical data. 4. Repeat general collections for a portion of the afternoon. 5. Sort, press, and record botanical and ethnographic information. 6. Prepare collected specimens for final drying presses. The normal day's work required an average of 10-14 hours effort for both investigators and informants. Attempts to dry plants in the field in Tenejapa were not entirely successful, though several methods were attempted. The most reliable procedure was the use of Coleman lanterns or stoves. After several collecting trips, we found it more convenient to store plant specimens in wet presses for periods of up to 4 or 5 days during our work in the field. Plants were subject to severe rot if left for a longer period. The average number of collections during a typical 5-day collecting sortie ran from 300 to 500 numbers in sets of five. At the completion of a collecting trip, plants were taken to San Cristobal de las 4

In addition to the elicited inventories of Tzeltal plant names from our principal informants, a series of Tzeltal collection files were begun early in the research. These files were drawn directly from our Tzeltal collection notebooks and arranged arbitrarily in alphabetical order. A collection file entry, made on 4 x 6-inch slips, would include the Tzeltal name and all collection numbers of that plant with their corresponding informant identification numbers. As botanical determinations on each collection became available, a duplicate file, made on regular 8^ x 11-inch paper, was begun, which included the botanical identifications, as these became available. An example of one such collection sheet from our files is given in Table 3.2. The variability of names received both in the field and from elicited lists is, as stated Table 3.2 EXAMPLE OF COLLATED TZELTAL PLANT COLLECTIONS FILE Tzeltal name ?ac'am te?

Coll no. Informant's no. 204 499 587 6876 6954 7032 7393 7755 8853 9321 9657 10,824 12,477 14,093 14,121

8 8, 53, 54, 55 8, 56 2 3 1, 2A, 3 1, 2, 6, 7 1, 2, 6, 7 8.9 1 8 1, 2, 8 1, 20, 21, 22 2 2

Botanical determinations Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Myrica cerifera Rapanea juergensenii Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea myricoides Rapanea juergensenii Rapanea juergensenii

TZELTAL COLLECTION FILES AND SUPPORTING LINGUISTIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA

55

earlier, quite large. We attempted to preserve this lexical variability by a filing system that systematically cross indexed each specimen collected. The analysis of these data have allowed us to state clearly what portion of the plant lexicon in our inventory are invariant Tzeltal botanical designations and what portion are area-, paraje-, or even idiolectrestricted. In addition to the collection files and crossindexed files, we drew up "use" files for several informants. For every Tzeltal plant name in our data, these files include information concerning known utilizations of that plant. For example, if a medicine, what disease or diseases does, it cure, what portion^) of the plant are employed for each use, its wild or cultivated state, where grown or where it occurs, what time of year available, and related information. Each entry allowed for related information-for example, named states of the individual plant as it is prepared for each use, criteria of preference, and so on—to be obtained. Another major source of data was textual materials. Hundreds of pages of Tzeltal texts, complementing especially the use files, were compiled by our linguistically trained Tzeltal informants. As well as providing raw data for further eliciting (many additional leads occur in each Tzeltal text as regards plant parts and plant characteristics, plant stages, and so forth), these texts represent a permanent native-language record of botanical knowledge available for only a small number of non-Western cultures. In addition to these textual materials, intensive elicitation was carried out, both directly in the field and in the field headquarters context, on various aspects of ethnobotanical knowledge. Topics of major concern related to classification (taxonomy, principles of identification, and the like; see especially Section 7), ethnophytography (including detailed data on plant-part terminology and plant descriptive vocabulary), growth stages of plants in general, as well as particular important cultivated plants that receive special attention; aspects of knowledge of plants in house building, food types 56

CHAPTER 3:

and food classification, material culture, folk medicine, agriculture, including considerations of the native calendar as it is related to the agricultural cycle, swidden preparation and ecological considerations relating to the swidden cycle, and so forth. The amount of information of this sort came to several large file drawers. 5

Basic and Extended Ranges of Tzeltal Plant Names

As noted in Section 3, we claimed that numerous botanical collections with several informants allowed for the possibility of more accurately stating the botanical range of a plant name. We also noted that informants will regularly classify a plant specimen as either (1) a legitimate member of a named class or (2) as related to some recognized category. A similar situation can be imagined in English folk botany where one may be able to state unambiguously that some specimen X is "an oak," but that some specimen Y is merely "like an oak." Another way to think about classificatory behavior of this sort is to consider conceptual categories as having relatively unambiguous foci which shade into rather ambiguous boundaries. Thus, some plants are clearly seen as focal members of a category and are unambiguously so classified. Other plants may be within the boundaries of the category (that is, Y is more "like an oak" than any other kind of tree) but still not the best example of the category in question. Some of the preceding observations are diagrammed in Figure 3.2. Here we represent recognized classes by solid circles, labeled for illustrative purposes as jack oak, post oak, and crabgrass. The broken circles represent the theoretical "outer boundaries" of classes as defined in terms of decreasing numbers of their defining characteristics. Numbers indicate individual plant species. Where a specimen falls in the intersection of two broken circles, for example, species 3, it is likely to be seen as "related t o " or "similar to" either of the overlapping classes. We presume that some classes share very few charac-

METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA

5

Figure 3.2 Hypothetical relationships indicating basic and extended ranges of three folk English plant taxa.

teristics in common, perhaps none other than their common characteristic of "planthood." The two classes of oak and the class crabgrass are illustrative of this point and, as such, no overlap is indicated for crabgrass with the two classes of trees. In fact, in all of our data, we have recorded no responses indicating that a form is ambiguous as to its membership as a tree or a grass, a situation which has obvious intuitive plausibility. Summarizing to this point, the Tzeltal plant world is seen as being divided into a number of hierarchically arranged taxa, each of which may be defined in terms of a set of defining characteristics, although our data may be such as to prohibit our stating them for all classes. Grouped about these conceptually recognized classes are plants sharing some, but not all of the named classes' characteristics. If these considerations are valid, we now may speak of the basic and extended range of a plant class. The basic range of a class includes all of its genuine referents; the extended range includes all those plants which habitually are seen as being more closely related to it than any other category. (For a related though different interpretation, see Bright and Bright, 1964.) Basic ranges of plant taxa sharing the same immediately superordinate taxon are always mutually exclusive, that is, their ranges do not overlap. Extended ranges of terms, however, may overlap in some instances and, in fact, often do. The concepts of basic and extended ranges of plant categories may also be relevant in 5

|

6

("Crabgrass

understanding the ambiguous assignment of certain plant species to one of the four major life form taxa. As will be shown in greater detail at a later point, ambiguous plants lie on the ill-defined boundaries of life form classes, exhibiting some characteristics of at least two major taxa. The most common examples of such plants are the so-called shrubs and undershrubs, in other words, organisms that exhibit some of the characteristics of fe? 'trees' and some of the features of wamal 'herbs'. Finally it should be noted that a specimen falling within the extended range of a particular plant taxon may at the same time be within the basic range of that taxon's superordinate class. For example, a particular species may be considered a conceptual affiliate of the class jack oak in that it shares some but not all of the characters of jack oak proper. The species may, however, exhibit all of the focal features of the superordinate taxon oak and, as such, the plant clearly falls within the basic range oïoak. We have made numerous observations of situations such as that just described in the daily classifying behavior of most of our informants. The most classic instances may be cited from informants' identifications of plants when taken on collecting trips distantly removed from their familiar surroundings. It is quite easy to recognize a tree as an "oak," for example, and just as simple to note that the newly encountered specimens are not genuine examples of any recognized specific class of "oak" as found in their own territory. We have used certain operational criteria in determining whether or not any particular plant specimen is within the extended, vs. the basic range of a recognized class. The first

BASIC AND EXTENDED RANGES OF TZELTAL PLANT NAMES

57

and most important consideration are informants' responses that the specimen in question is "like an X." Linguistically, this is observed when an informant is presented with a specimen in the field and, when asked to name it, states: kol pahaluk sok X 'it is related to an X'. Several other comparable phrases indicating the same information have also been elicited. Second, we have relied heavily on the stability of informant naming responses over numerous trials. If, for example, an informant states that ten different collections of Quercus acatenangensis, all of which have been taken from widely different locations, are kol pahaluk sok cikinib hih te? 'related to the armadillo-ear leafed oak', we are supported in our assumption that plants identified as Q. acatenangensis are within the extended range ofthat term. Third, gross morphological affinity, as determined both by informants' statements and botanical analysis, has been considered. We may have very few collections of some plants that have been classified as "related to class X." However, if these specimens exhibit obvious characteristics of gross morphology or stem habit to some named class, then it is highly likely that these specimens may be considered within the extended range of the linguistically recognized taxon. Strict and Loose Application of Tzeltal Plant Names

In natural speech, Tzeltal informants do not consistently restrict a term to all but only those referents that fall within the basic range ofthat term. In many contexts, an informant may note that a particular specimen "is an X" when it actually is merely "like an X." Indeed, when pressed, he will respond with some such remark as, kere.. .ma ba bad I lehpat hih te? mak kol pahaluk sok te lehpat hih te? 'well, brother, it's not actually a genuine lehpat oak, it's really just similar to a lehpat oak'. In some contexts, then, no distinction will be made between the denotation of the basic and extended ranges of a term. 58

CHAPTER 3:

Whereas such a situation is often aggravating to the ethnographer and botanist alike, it is a common enough feature of natural speech in all languages. Any ambiguity likely to arise by the loose application of plant names in some contexts usually can be cleared up by intensive eliciting. 6

Informant Variability and the "Ideal Speaker-Hearer"

It became clear very early in our research that it was impossible to speak literally of the "Tenejapa Tzeltal classification of plants." In actuality, there are many such classifications, some idiosyncratic, others best described as microdialectical or ecological variants. Decisions relating to how this variability is to be best displayed have been difficult and we cannot be certain that our present solution is the most feasible or plausible. There are several alternatives available to the ethnographer presented with the task of adequately providing for informant variability in the description. At one extreme, one might decide to report only those areas of knowledge for which there is total, unambiguous agreement. This view would require the inclusion of such universally true statements as: hih te? 'oak' {Quercus spp.) is a kind of te? 'tree' in the Tzeltal view of the plant world. It would not include, however, any statements which were not considered to be true by the total population of informants consulted. Another view would be to include information collected from all informants, even*that which could be said to represent a single idiosyncratic variant. For example, there are several instances where a single informant recognized specific names of a particular generic while all other informants consulted treated the generic as monotypic. Nonetheless, the latter view would note that the generic was polytypic. Both viewpoints have been lucidly described by Oswald Werner (1969) in his paper on the basic assumptions of ethnoscience.

METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA

(α)

(b)

Figure 3.3 (a) The range of culture as defined by the competences common to all members (intersection of individual competences), (b) The range of culture as defined by an ideal omnicient native speaker-hearer (union of individual competences). [From Werner (1969, p. 333).]

Werner writes: The knowledge of informants, varies with their intelligence, interest, opportunity, and with the facts of the social division of labor. No informant has a total knowledge of his culture. A full description approaching a 'complete' description must be a complex picture of the cultural competence of many informants. Such a complex picture is conceivable only as the supraindividual record of an ideal 'omniscient' native speakerhearer. Culture may be viewed as the common element which all members share, or the set theoretical INTERSECTION of individual competences. In ethnographic ethnoscience, as in traditional lexicography, the complementary view is taken: the description is an attempt to characterize the set theoretical UNION of all individual competences. The two definitions of the range of culture can be pictured as follows: 1 , 2 , . . . /, . . . n are competences elicitable from individual members of a culture [p. 333].

See Fig. 3.3a and b. Insofar as possible, we have attempted to stress those aspects of ethnobotanical knowledge that our data suggest are widely shared for the majority of speakers of Tenejapa Tzeltal. On the other hand, we also have made efforts to present in detail those aspects of plant knowledge that differ among informants and to provide, where we can, explanations as to why such differences exist. 7

7

Establishing Tzeltal Plant Complexes*

In Section 2.4, we noted that certain closely related generic taxa are grouped into covert "midlevel" categories. It is always the case that these midlevel taxa are unnamed by single lexical expressions. Thus, whereas any Tzeltal informant will readily group together all varieties of Citrus, for example ?alcas, ? e/emones, si/a, and lima, the conceptual category that immediately includes these taxa is not indicated by any lexical expression. We have referred to such unlabeled covert groupings of two or more generic taxa as complexes. In general, we set out to determine the existence of culturally significant subgroupings by employing several field procedures. The first consisted of simple ethnographic observations and recordings of informants' comments on plants in natural contexts. During the process of collecting some 15,000 botanical specimens with native informants, much evidence was accumulated suggesting that some plants were conceptually more closely related than others. These data included discussions of ethnobotanical features of certain groups of plants, visual demonstrations of similar plants, and so on. Such observations, while sporadic and anecdotal in character, were important checks on the results of the methods of grouping to be discussed later. *A portion of this section appeared in Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven (1968). ESTABLISHING TZELTAL PLANT COMPLEXES

59

A second method found useful in searching for possible covert taxa was to determine the extent to which informants subdivided lists of generic plant names. Instruction concerning the task of grouping was accomplished as follows. Several generic names of plants and animals, written on separate 4 x 6 inch slips of paper, were presented to an informant. He then was instructed to read the names on each slip and to put into separate groups those that were "most like one other."* The Tzeltal interrogation was as follows: bitik sbilya shun sba sok (Which names group with one another?) Informants had no problem in grouping these names correctly, animal names being placed in one set, plant names in another. These data, along with observation in natural contexts, indicated the existence of an unnamed group, "plants" as mentioned in the introduction. Following the grouping of plants and animals, a set of plant names was presented to each informant, some of the names included in one major Tzeltal class, some to another, for example, names for two kinds of trees as opposed to the name for a particular kind of herb. Instructions were the same as those given for the grouping of animal and plant names. As expected, info r*The discovery of semantic features, or "characteristics," that are utilized by native speakers in making judgments of similarity is one of the major goals of ethnoscientific research. We do not believe, however, that a prior knowledge of these features is & prerequisite to the recognition of semantically related sets of items. Informants in the field and in quasi-experimental situations continually volunteered the fact that items "A, B, and C go together," or "are companions." Consequently, we feel that as an operational procedure it is desirable at the outset to request that informants make judgments in terms of overall similarity without specifying some set of specific features. Berlin (1968) offers discussions of these procedures in reference to other kinds of linguistic data. Romney and D'Andrade (1964) discuss this problem in reference to the applicability of the method of triads-testing discussed earlier. Sokal (1966) presents a lucid account of problems dealing with overall similarity in reference to biological classification i n general. 60

CHAPTER 3:

mants had no difficulty in grouping names that belonged to the same major Tzeltal plant class. Once it became clear that the task was understood, the names of the generic taxa of each major life form class, written on separate slips of paper, were presented to informants with instructions to read through the lists and place in separate piles those names that applied to plants judged to be most.similar. We found that such subgrouping of closely semantically related generics is easily accomplished by trained informants. The ability of native informants to perform such grouping tasks is one indication of the psychological saliency of the classification. We also found it possible to determine at least some of the conceptual features shared among generic taxa plants within each complex, as well as to determine certain features that distinguish taxa of the same complex. We used three main procedures to elicit characteristics of similarity and difference. The first was the so-called triads test, used by Romney and D'Andrade (1964) in their analysis of American kinship data and first employed ethnographically by D'Andrade (n.d.) in his early Tzeltal ethnobotanical work. The procedure requires informants to specify which item in a set of three is "most different" from the others. The results, when run for all logical triads in a set of terms, provide some indication of the overall cognitive similarity of the referents of each term to all others in the set. The procedure is restricted to sets of relatively small size because of the larger and larger numbers of triads that an informant must examine as the number of items in the set increases. A second procedure in the discovery of features of ethnobotanical relevance is the construction of folk keys by informants. Keys are routinely employed for biological purposes and consist of a series of successive binary divisions of a set of organisms, the characteristics used for each division being specified, until each organism in the set has been "keyed out" and distinguished from all others. In our field procedures, an informant was presented with a set of plant names

METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA

that he had earlier isolated as being cognitively similar to one another. He was then asked to construct a key for this set of organisms, accounting for all the included forms. By this means, the informant was required to verbalize all of the conceptual distinctions he had utilized in making the divisions. Such keys provide useful data when compared with the results obtained by other methods. Our third procedure consisted of paired comparisons of all lexical items in a particular delimited set of plant names. In completing this task the informant was requested to compare all logical pairs in any complex in terms of all the similarities and differences that he

7

felt were relevant for any pair. Such characteristics as the manner of stem growth, size and shape the stem and leaves, internode length, and fruit size and shape have been verbalized as important in making these discriminations. Responses obtained by this method allow the investigator to consolidate those terms that are most similar with regard to the number of shared characteristics of any two taxa. All of these simple techniques can be used by any intelligent, semiliterate informant (for a detailed description of the uses of these procedures, see Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1968).

ESTABLISHING TZELTAL PLANT COMPLEXES

61

CHAPTER

4

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY AND PLANT DEVELOPMENT 1

Linguistic Specification of Stages of Growth and Development

For the Tzeltal, the process of growth and development is a continuum linguistically demarcated into four broad but distinct periods. Each of these four periods may further be subdivided in a fashion that recognizes the gradual process of growth. Period I may be glossed as attainment of maximum vertical growth, Period II as a stage whereby maximum development of the fruit is achieved, Period III as a period of "mellowing" or "ripening" of the fruit, and Period IV as a series of stages of deterioration leading ultimately to the death of the organism. 1.1

GENERAL PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT

Period I: Early Growth (ya sc'ie/) 'It Grows'

As a plant develops in this period, it may be referred to as yakal ta Fiel 'it is in the process of growing'. Attainment of maximum vertical growth of the plant is marked by the phrase la sta sc'iel 'it has attained its maximum growth'. Here the focus is primarily on the development of the stem. Period II: Fruit Development (ya sy/'hub)

and is seen literally as a period whereby the fruits have attained full growth just prior to the ripening process. Period III: Fruit Ripening (ya sk'anub ya stak'ahub)

~

'It Ripens'

As a fruit ripens one may characterize it as yakal ta k'anubel ~ yakal ta tak'ahubel 'it yellows, it ripens'. Attainment of total ripeness is indicated by the phrase la sta k'anubel ~ la sta tak'ahubel. The period is conceived as that when maximum flavor and richness of the fruit is achieved and when consumption is most appropriate. Period IV: Decline (ya Wa)

'It Rots'

A final period is seen when the fruit of a plant, or the plant itself, has passed its period of maximum ripeness and begins a process of decline yakal ta k'ael 'it is in the process of rotting'. The period is ended when the organism attains total rottenness, la sta k'ael. As one might expect, the most readily recognizable segments in each of these major periods are the ultimate periods of any stage. The periods of cessation of vertical stem growth, maximum fruit development, full ripeness, and complete rottenness are readily recognized by nearly all informants.

'It Becomes Firm'

1.2

The beginning of this stage is indicated by the phrase yakal tayihubel and its termination by the expression la sta yihubel 'it has attained maximum firmness'. The focus is on the fruit of plants as they develop toward maturity

Within each of the four major recognized periods of growth, individual plants also pass through a series of stages which may be recognized with greater specificity. The

62

RECOGNIZED SUBSTAGES OF GROWTH

s-ba ^abe no/ ~ y-unin ^abenol ' s-c' in tabenal (in dicots)

Figure 4.1

y-akan

s-bak\ seed'.

major observable periods of growth are linguistically indicated in a fashion revealing an intimate and extremely detailed knowledge of plant development.*

y-isim

1.2.1 Development of the Seed Most of the major morphological features of the s-bak" 'seed', are recognized by the Tzeltal. It is divided linguistically into the 'embryo' y-al (lit. 'its child, woman speaking'), which is surrounded by endosperm s-bak'etal (lit. 'its flesh') both of which are enclosed in a seed coat s-sulil (lit. 'its outer covering of seeds') (see Figure 4.1).

y-uninal

s-n/"? ■

(in monocots) * ■ - " · " - ' " ■·*

y-isim

il (b)

Figure 4.2

Dicot (a) and monocot (b) seed leaves.

As the seed germinates, the first recogniz- appear above ground is called y-unin s-nP, able change is the appearance of the first lit. 'its young its nose' (see Figure 4.2). roots. This is linguistically characterized by the expression ya slihk lok" ok y-isim 'the roots 1.2.2 Development of the Stem begin to come out'. In dicots development of the stem is Following the appearance of the first roots marked by the appearance of the pedicle is the appearance, above ground, of the coty- directly beneath the cotyledons {y-akan, lit. ledons (in many dicots) or the first foliage 'its foot'). This is followed by elongation of leaf (in monocots). The intransitive verb the stem below the first true foliage leaves hehc'ah- is utilized to mark this period of called appropriately s-bac'il ?abenal 'true growth, for e x a m p l e , ^ shehc'ah 'it sends up leaves' or s-muk'ul ?abenal 'large leaves'. its first leaves' or alternatively,^ slihk' lok'ok Further development of the stem in plants s-ba ?nbenal 'it begins to send out its first showing erect stem habit is marked by the leaves'. appearance of numerous branches, for The cotyledons of those dicotyledonous example, ya slihk lok'ok s-te'els-nP s-k'ab te plants that send these seed leaves above s-muk'ul te?ele 'the erect nose stem-arm of ground are known as s-ba ?abenal'first leaves', the major stem begin to come out', ya slihk y-unin ?abenal 'young leaves', or s-c'in ?abenal yak' s-k'abk'ab 'it begins to give out 'small leaves'. In monocots, the first leaf to branches', a process that continues throughout the life of the plant. In vines, the lengthening of the stem *In this section, the third person possessive prefix becomes evident at this stage: ya slihk (s-/y-) is separated from the possessed root morpheme nahtubuk bel ta Fiel te y-ak'ul s-nP s-muk'ul by a hyphen, for example s-bak' 'seed' (lit. 'its seed' ? ak'ul 'the vine-like nose of the major vine [of some fruit]). This prefix is obligatorily present in begins to lengthen in its growth'. plant part names. 1

LINGUISTIC SPECIFICATION OF STAGES OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

63

1.2.3 Development of the Flower and Fruit The appearance of the flower in most plants is the next major growth stage that consistently is recognized linguistically: ya slihk lok'ok s-nic 'its flowers begin to come out'. This, in turn, is followed by the rotting of the flowers ya slihk k'auk te? s-nice and appearance of the fruit, ya slihk' lok'ok s-sit 'its fruits begin to come out'. The recognized substages of development seen for fruits vary in terms of the particular plant (the more important ones are discussed later), but most fruits pass through at least three major periods: y-unin sit 'undeveloped fruit' (lit. 'tender fruit'); y-ihubsit 'developed but unripened fruit' (lit. 'firmfruit')\k'anubel sit ~ tak'ubel sit 'ripened fruit (lit. 'yellowed or ripened fruit'); and takehel sit 'dried fruit.' Fruits that are not used eventually enter a fifth stage of rot, ya sk'aukis 'they rot'.

1.3

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE MORE IMPORTANT CULTIVATED PLANTS

Several plants, most of them cultivated, show more finely discriminated stages of growth than have been described for plants generally. This could be due to both economic importance (as for ?isim 'corn') and/ or peculiarities of development of particular plants (as with wale?, 'sugarcane; cln te? 'manioc' and lo?bal 'banana'). We have selected nine of the most important cultivated plants as illustrative of the detailed knowledge the Tzeltal have acquired concerning the growth of plants with which they are intimately concerned. 1.3.1

?isim 'corn' {Zea mays)

The development of corn is of major concern to the Tzeltal, and this interest is reflected in a highly specific recognition of its stages of growth from seedling to harvest. At least 13 distinct growth stages have been attested as commonly recognized, although there may be finer distinctions of which we are not aware. 64

CHAPTER 4:

1. ya slihk lok'ok y-isim 'its roots begin to appear'. At this stage, corn is identical to other seed plants in that the first recognized period of growth is marked by the appearance of the roots from the germinating seed. (The roots are not actually visible, of course, but their prior appearance is attested by numerous instances of contact with seedlings at this stage of growth which have been uncovered, allowed to germinate above ground, etc.). 2. ya slihk luhpuk y-uninal s-ni? 'its first leaf begins to appear'. Unlike other monocots, the appearance of the first foliage leaves is marked by a distinctive lexical item, s-luhp, and may be glossed as 'first foliage leaf of corn'. In answer to the question, bi yilel a ?k'al 'at what stage is your corn swidden' (lit. 'how does your corn swidden look') one will receive the response s-hehc' ahetis 'it has sprouted' (< ivhehc'ah'to send up cotyledons'). 3. ya slihk ta lac'etal te y-abenale 'the leaves begin to become compressed'. Stage 3 is marked by the appearance of several, closely compacted leaves. The swidden at this point is s-lac'etis 'leaves compacted'. 4. ya slihk ta ceslahetal tey-abenal 'the leaves begin to become leaf-like'. Here one notes the elongation of the blades of the major leaves, broadening and becoming more leaf-like in appearance. The swidden has become sceslahetis 'leafy' < ces numeral classifier for 'leaf-like objects'. 5. ya slihk pec'9 ok ta y-akane 'the stem begins to show evidence of sheath covering'. As growth continues, the stem, or culm, of the plant now becomes apparent, as does the leaf sheath covering each node. When a swidden has reached this stage it is pec'?okiltikis 'stem covered with sheath' < tv pec' 'to braid', ?ok 'foot'. 6. ya slihk c'al haben te y-abenale 'the leaves begin to appear as levels' The leaves now are well formed and the stem is clearly apparent. Leaves present an

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT

aspect of moving up vertically in levels. A swidden now may be described as sc'alhabenis 'leaves in levels' < c'al 'to stack up', haben 'leaf. 7. ya slihk ta tek'nP te s-te?el sok ya slihk lok'el s-pakumal ?a te s-hiale 'the staminate inflorescence of the stem begins to appear and the first immature corn ear begins to come out'. Stage 7 sees the final growth of the stem proper as it approaches full height (tek'nP lit. 'standing-up nose'). The staminate inflorescence or 'tassel' (s-c'utohil) is beginning to form at this point. The developing ear (s-pakumal) now also can be observed as the leaf sheaths or 'husks' which will eventually come to enclose the s-hial (immature corn—Stage 1) begin to develop. A swidden can now be said to be pakumiltik s-hial. 8. ya slihk ta tohkel s-c'utohil 'the staminate inflorescence begins to be born'. 9. ya slihk lok' s-hial 'the young immature corn ear begins to come out'. 10. me?hiiltikis 'the mature hi with immature styles'. Stages 8-10 cover the period involved in the development of the ear from the appearance of the first flowers on the staminate inflorescence to that just prior to the drying off of the corn silks. The corn flower (s-c'utohil) begins to bloom several days prior to the appearance of the first silks (s-c'uk). When the first silks do occur, the developing ear, now 140-160 days old, is no longer considered a s-pakumal but has now become hi. As the ear develops, the silks continue to grow, their ultimate stage being recognized linguistically as me?hiiltikis 'mature hV < me? 'mother' hi 'immature corn'. 11. camholtikis 'mature roasting ear'. When the silks finally darken and dry off, approximately 160-200 days after planting, the corn has now reached the roasting-ear stage. The ear has developed from hi and has become ?ahan. The time of the year is refer1

red to as yorail ?ahan ?ismaltik 'time of corn in the ?ahan stage'. 12. ya sk'anub y-ismal k'alk'altik 'the corn ripens'. Having attained full maximum growth, the ear of corn now enters a period of internal ripening, ya sk'anub 'it yellows'. This may cover a period of 15-20 days. The season is known as yorail k'anik y-ismal k'alk'altik 'time of corn's ripening'. 13. ya stakeh y-ismal k'alk'altik 'the corn dries'. The last recognized stage of development is seen with the onset of drying, most of which occurs in the field. To prevent stalks from being blown over in the wind, increasing the likelihood that the ears will rot or sprout, each stalk is broken over (but not completely in two). The ear is now referred to as takin ?isim 'dry corn', ?ac ?isim 'new corn', or simply, ?isim 'corn'. 1.3.2

cenek' 'beans' (Phaseolus spp.)

The stages of growth recognized in the development are similar to those seen for plants generally. The major periods are as follows: 1. ya slihk lok'ok y-isim 'the roots begin to appear'. 2. ya slihk lok'ok s-ba ?abenal 'the first cotyledons appear'. 3. ya slihk lok'ok s-bac'il ?abenal 'the first true leaves appear'. 4. ya slihk lok'ok s-nP 'the growing point of developing vine appears'. 5. ya lihk lok'ok s-nic 'the flowers appear'. Beans at this stage are said to be s-waslahet, referring to the general appearance of the plant when blown by the wind. 6. ya slihk yak' s-pahk'umal 'appearance of immature bean pods'. During the early development of the pod, the fruits may be referred to as y-ehk'ec mutiltik sit 'bird's fingernail-sized fruit'. Toward full development of the pod a period noted as pahk'umaltik is recognized.

LINGUISTIC SPECIFICATION OF STAGES OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

65

7. ya slihk yak' y-unin bak' 'small young seeds begin to appear'. Here, one observes the growth of young immature seeds within the developing pod. Beans at this time are referred to as sakyihiltik 'almost firm', lit. 'white firmness'. 8. ya slihk ?ihk'ubuk te cenek' 'the beans begin to darken'. Here the pod is apparently fully grown and begins to become black in color. It is now yihik 'developed'. 9. ya slihk k'anubuk te cenek' 'the beans begin to ripen'. 10. ya slihk ta a takehel te cenek' 'the beans begin to dry'. This marks the last period in the plants' development prior to harvest. 1.3.3

True Squashes and Gourds

There are three important cultivated squashes, c'um (Cucurbita moschata), mayil (C ficifolia), and c'ol (C. pepo) and two native classes of gourd, bohc and cu, both of which are shape varieties of the bottle gourd Lagenaria siceraria. Recognized growth stages are identical to those for seed plants in general, that is, appearance of roots (y-isim), cotyledons (s-ba ?abenal), true foliage leaves (s-bac'il ? abenal), creeping stem (y-ak'ul), flower (s-nic), fruit (s-sit), ripening of fruit (ya sk'anub s-sit), and drying of vine (ya stakehub te y-ak'ule). The developing fruit of members of the squashes in this group is referred to as s-wayec, a term restricted specifically to squash plants. 1.3.4 c'uma te? 'chayote' (Sechium edule) Chayote is one of the major food crops among the Tzeltal. As its name suggests c'um-a(h)-te?, lit. 'squash of the tree' < c'um 'squash' (Cucurbita moschatap, it is conceptually related to the native squashes of the same family. Recognized growth stages are as follows: 1. ya slok'ok y-isim 'appearance of the first roots'. 66

CHAPTER 4:

2. ya lihk lok'ok s-nP kululel'first cotyledons appear'. The term s-nP kululel is unique to the cotyledons of the c'uma te? plant. 3. ya slihk lok'ok s-bac'il ?abenal 'first true leaves appear'; 4. ya slihk lok'ok y-ak'ul 'the vine begins to grow'. 5. ya slihk yak' s-nic 'it begins to give flowers'. 6. ya slihk yak' s-sit 'it begins to fruit'. 7. ya slihk k'anub y-abenal 'its leaves begin to yellow'. 8. y a slihk k'okel te s-site 'its fruits are harvested'. 9. ya slihk takehub tey-ak'ule 'its vine begins to dry up'. 10. ya slihk ta hok'el s-koesanule 'one begins to dig up the edible tuber, koesan'. c'uma te? not only produces edible fruits but forms as well a large underground starchy rhizome known as koesan. Its flavor is much like a yam-bean rhizome. 11. ya slihk k'auk te y-ak'ule 'its vine begins to rot'. 1.3.5 lo?bal 'banana' (Musa spp.) Bananas were probably introduced into Highland Chiapas early in the 16th century and the name of the class, lo?bal < tv lo? 'to eat soft foods' is indicative of its recentness. Nonetheless, they have now become one of the major supplemental food crops for the Tenejapa Tzeltal. lo?bal is a vegetatively reproduced plant, and cuttings of suckers, (aerial shoots), called y-al, lit. 'its child, female speaking' from the underground rhizome are planted individually After the y-al has been planted, a series of at least 10 growth stages can be linguistically recognized. 1. ya slihk lok'ok s-pentonil 'first developing leaf as it unrolls from the cutting'. s-pentonil 'unrolling leaf is restricted to plants which produce broad leaves typical of most members of Araceae.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT

2. ya slihk lok'ok s-muk'ul ?abenal 'first large leaves to emerge after the s-pentonil stage'. 3. ya slihk c'inehuk ~ tup'ik y-uninal s-ni? y-abenal 'the final leaf, that which carries the inflorescence, begins to emerge'. The recognition of the growth of the small, elongated leaf carrying the terminal bud is marked by the verbal forms c'ineh-, which, to our knowledge, is used only to describe banana growth, or, alternatively, -tup', a transitive verb meaning 'to put out', but in this context signifying cessation of growth of the stem. 4. ya slihk lok'ok y-ec'ul 'the flower of the banana begins to appear'. The flower develops at the end of the last aerial shoot, and is referred to as y-ec'ul < ? ec' 'bromelaid'. This term, like s-pentonil, is restricted specifically to the inflorescence of banana plants, and must have been coined due to the apparent similarity of the developing flower, especially the brightly colored red bracts of certain epiphytic bromeliads. 5. ya slihk lok'ok s-pahc'ul 'the banana fruits begin to develop'. Early fruit development is noted by the appearance of s-pahc'ul, another banana-restricted fruit term derived from pahc' 'pineapple', to which the small developing fruits are apparently similar in aspect. 6. ya slihk yak' s-sakil 'the fruited-banana stalk begins to develop'. As flowering takes place over several months, maturing fruit, which are arranged in 'hands', develop symmetrically around the branch. The developing fruit at this period are known as sakil < sak 'many branched, forked', a term restricted to the banana plant. 7. ya slihk' k'anubuk ~ tak'ahuk s-sit 'the fruit ripens'. 8. y a slihk' takehuk s-te?el 'the stem dries'. 9. ya slihk k'auk s-te?el 'the stem rots'. Stages 7-9 represent the periods when the developing fruit (s-sakil) now begins to ripen (Stage 7), followed by the drying-up and final rotting of parent stem itself (Stages 8 and 9). 1

1.3.6

wa/e? 'sugarcane' ficinarum)

(Saccharum of-

wa/e? is reproduced vegetatively by cuttings from the upper portions of the stalks of old canes. These pieces of cane are placed in the ground and begin to develop roots in about 20 days. Growth stages which are linguistically recognized are as follows: 1. ya slihk lok'ok y-isim 'the roots begin to come out'. 2. ya slihk lok'ok y-uninal s-nP 'the first new growth at the top of the planted cane begins to appear'. 3. y a slihk lok'ok s-muk'ul ?abenal 'the first new true leaves begin to appear'. 4. ya slihk lok'ok s-c'uhc'ul ?alatak 'the first new shoot roots begin to develop'. The new 'shoot roots' develop at the base of the planted cane. The expression s-c'uhc'ul ?alatak is literally 'small children' < ?al 'child, woman speaking'. 5. ya slihk yak' y-akan te y-al wale?e 'the shoot roots begin to develop an observable internode'. 6. y a slihk takehuk y-abenal te wale?e 'the leaves begin to dry up'. 7. ya slihk tup'uk y-uninal s-nP te wale?e 'the arrow (flower) of the plant begins to appear'. 8. y a slihk ta takehel te y-akan wale?e 'the stem of the sugarcane begins to dry'. 9. ya slihk ta k'a?el te y-isim wale?e 'the roots begin to rot'. 1.3.7

?

ic 'chili pepper' (Capsicum annuum)

The several types of ?ic planted by the Tzeltal show at least 10 stages of growth, most of which are characteristic of plant development generally. 1. ya slihk lok'ok y-isim 'the roots begin to appear'. 2. ya slihk lok'ok s-ba ?abenal 'the cotyledons begin to appear'.

LINGUISTIC SPECIFICATION OF STAGES OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

67

3. ya slihk lok'ok y-akan 'the stem begins to become obvious'.

6. ya slihk ta takehel te y-abenale 'the leaves begin to wilt'.

4. ya slihk lok'ok s-muk'ul ?abenal 'the first true leaves begin to appear'.

7. ya Petan te y-e?tale 'the tuberous root ripens'.

5. ya slihk yak' s-k'ak'ab 'the first branches begin to appear'.

The intransitive verb ?etan- is restricted to the ripening processes found in the underground parts oîkaslan cenek' 'peanut', cahal cPin 'sweet potato', and c'umate? 'chayote'.

6. ya slihk yak' s-nic 'it begins to give flowers'. 7. ya slihk yak' y-unin sit yas ?ic 'it begins to give its first young fruits, green peppers'. yas ?ic is the name of the developing fruit at this period. Note that it is not a simple descriptive phrase indicating its color, which would be yasal ?ic. 8. ya slihk cahubuk te s-site 'the fruit begins to become red'. 9. ya slihk k'anubuk y-abenal 'the leaves begin to turn yellow'. 10. ya slihk takehuk s-te?el 'the stem of the plant begins to dry'. 1.3.8 c'in te? 'manioc' {Manihot esculentd) c'in te? is of secondary importance to the Tzeltal as a food crop, but is widely cultivated in the lower elevations. The plant is propagated by stem cuttings, normally middle sections, which are placed upright in the soil. After planting, the following stages of growth are noted linguistically. 1. ya slihk lok'ok te y-isime 'the roots begin to appear'.

8. yu slihk ta hok'el te y-e9tale 'one begins to harvest the edible tuber'. 1.3.9 kaslan cenek' 'peanut' (Arachis hypogaed) Peanuts are one of the important cash crops, along with kahpe 'coffee' for the Tenejapa Tzeltal. They are planted in large fields, usually on second-year beanswiddens. Stages of growth are similar to those noted for beans. 1. ya slihk lok'ok y-isim 'the roots begin to appear'. 2. ya slihk lok'ok s-ba ?abenal 'the cotyledons begin to appear'. 3. ya slihk lok'ok s-bac'il ?abenal 'the first true leaves begin to appear'. 4. ya slihk lok'ok s-k'abk'ab stems begin to come out'.

'its lateral

5. ya slihk nicinuk 'it begins to flower'. 6. ya slihk yaluk s-lohp' 'the flower stalk begins to fall with the developing ovary'.

2. ya slihk lok'ok y-abenal s-puTleaves begin to appear at the internodes of the planted stem'. The term y-abenal s-pul is, to our knowledge, limited to the new leaf growth of c'in te? stems after planting.

The use of s-lohp' 'developing ovary' is restricted in occurrence to the peanut plant. The ovary is carried below ground level by the flower stalk where it ripens.

3. ya slihk lok'ok s-k'abk'ab te s-pule 'the developing leaves develop branch-like structures'.

8. ya Petan te y-e?tale 'the underground fruit begins to ripen'.

4. ya slihk lubahuk te y-abenal 'the leaves begin to hang down'.

9. ya slihk takehuk y-abenal 'the leaves begin to dry'.

5. ya slihk yak' tey-e?tal 'it begins to form an edible tuber'. 68

CHAPTER 4:

7. ya sk'anubuk y-abenal 'the leaves yellow'.

10. ya slihkis ta hok'el harvest'.

?

a 'one begins to

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT

2

Tzeltal Ethnophytography

The Tenejapa Tzeltal have an extensive vocabulary relating to plant morphology and plant description. Plants, as we have noted, are often the center of considerable discussion, and the detail indicated in the vocabulary for parts of plants as well as their physical characteristics indicates clearly the central focus of the plant world for the Tzeltal. 2.1

PLANT PART NAMES

We have arranged the plant part names recognized in Tenejapa Tzeltal into groups of expressions referring to stem, bark, leaves, roots, flowers, fruits, and so on. Names within each subclass are arranged alphabetically on the Tzeltal root. Where possible, line drawings have been provided as an additional aid to the reader. As will be seen in examining this section, the Tzeltal are astute ethnophytographers.

Their recognition of relevant aspects of plant morphology compares favorably with that of trained Western systematic botanists, given the restriction that they work unaided by microscopes. We have determined some 116 widely used and unambiguously understood expressions which refer to plant parts. The vast majority of these terms are restricted to the lexicon of plants. Some 21 terms, however, occur elsewhere in Tzeltal as human anatomical terms. These expressions, when used in conjunction with specific plants part names, (a noun + noun phrase) allow for a great deal of specificity in reference to some area of the plant part. They are of the structure, X of the Y, for example, tip of the leaf, base of the fruit, head of the fruit, and so forth. Some forms are productive in that they may refer to a certain appropriate area of any plant part with total freedom of occurrence. Others are nonproductive and are restricted to a particular plant part or parts.

General Terms T E R M S R E L A T I V E T O T H E STEM

y- ?akan basal stem region of erect plant, from ground to first branches or leaves. < ?akan 'leg'.

y-ak'ul nonerect climbing or scrambling stem which lacks its own manner of support; leathery, long sheet-like sections of outer bark, which can be utilized as binding. < ?afc' 'vine'. 2

y-al round stems sprouting from base of perennial root. < ?al 'child, woman speaking'.

s-bakel xylem, the hard, center portion of stem.