Southern Origin of Uto Aztecan hypothesis

[Huaxyacac at aol.com]

In a message dated 01/21/2002 11:28:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mdmorris at indiana.edu writes:

> I also lean toward a western
> hypothesis (whether north or south I know not) for eruption of Nahuatl in
> central and eastern Mexico and the consequent separation of  "Mayan"
> languages into northern and southern branches, and I believe that the Rio
> Balsas-Rio Atoyac route into the Tlaxcala-Puebla valley would be the
> probable route of Nahuatl's migration into central-eastern Mesoamerica.

Given my current work in the Mezquital, this makes sense to me, as I am quite
sure that Nahuatl was not spoken in that area in the Postclassic except by
elites and small migrant groups. I don't see any evidence for a sea of Otomi
migrants arriving prior to that, so I assume it (or an ancestral form) has
been spoken across Hidalgo for a long time, if not since the initial
divergence from proto-Otomanguean. Nahuatl entering from the west rather than
the north fits with this.

> Given the clear presence of Nahuatl in the culture of the
> Olmeca-Xicallanca who establish in Cholula and Cacaxtla by 650 A.D. and
> who had been the key mediators of long distance trade between Teotihuacan
> and the region of the Usamacinta River, I have a hard time imagining that
> Nahuatl was not a key part of the fluorescence of culture, commerce and
> communication in the "Classic" period of Teotihuacan and Cholula.

I'm curious what you base the linguistic identity of the Olmeca-Xicallanca
on. I'm not disputing the statement, although I still am inclined to think
that the major movement of Nahua-speakers came in the Epiclassic, not the
Classic, I'm just curious what amounts to a "clear presence."

Alec Christensen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20020121/29b454cf/attachment.htm>