THE LANGUAGES

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

OF THE ANDES Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo

Cambridge Universicy Press

WILLEM F. H. ADELAAR
with the collaboration of PIE TER C . MUYSKEN
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
Published in che Uniced Scaces of America by Cambridge Universicy Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Informacion on chis cicle: www.cambridge.org/9780521362757
© Willem F. H. Adelaar and Pieter C. Muysken 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to che provision of

relevanc colleccive licensing agreemencs, no reproduccion of any pare may cake place
wichouc che wriccen permission of Cambridge Universicy Press.

First published in princ formar 2004

ISBN-13 978-o-5n-21050-1 eBook (ebrary)

ISBN-IO o-5n-21050-7 eBook (ebrary)

ISBN-13 978-0-521-36275-7 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-36275-x hardback

Cambridge U niversicy Press has no responsibilicy for che persistence or accuracy of URLs
for externa! or chird-parcy incernet websites referred to in chis publication, and does not
guarancee chac any concenc on such websices is, or will remain, accurace or appropriace.

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS

1 American plains (± 9500 BC). For an overview of the arguments in favour of a rapid
Introduction
In his book Visión histórica del Perú (A Historical Vision of Peru) the Peruvian historian
Pablo Macera (1978) dates the beginning ofhuman presence in the middle Andes at about
20,000 BC. Toe supposition of such an early human occupation, difficult to explain
within the context ofNew World prehistory, is based on datings relating to excavations
conducted by MacNeish at the highland site of Pikimachay ofthe Pacaicasa complex near
Ayacucho (cf. MacNeish 1979). These datings are now considered very controversial (cf.
Rick 1988). Although Macera himselfrecognises the uncertain character ofthe 20,000
BC date, its value is more than just scientific. It acquires the character of a fictitious
date, needed to express the emotional feeling oftimeless antiquity often associated with
Andean culture and tradition, a feeling that is best put into words by the expression
milenarismo andino ('Andean millenarism'). It is not the cold evidence of radiocarbon
datings, but the conscience of an immobile human society that clings fatalistically to
age-old agricultural traditions perfectly adjusted to the formidable Andean landscape,
that determines the view of the Andean intellectual until today. It is the view of a reality
which has always been there, seemingly immune to the triviality of programmes aimed
at modernisation and globalisation.
In the meantime, the antiquity of human settlement in the Andean region. indeed in
all of South America, remains a matter of debate. The rise of sea levels at the end of the
Ice Age (± 10,000--8000 BC) may have hidden the traces of early coastal occupation.
Excavations conducted by Dillehay at Monte Verde, near Puerto Montt in the south
of Chile, have brought evidence of a relatively well-developed village culture that had
its beginnings as early as 11,500 BC. (Dillehay 1989-97; cf. also Fiedel 1992). The
inhospitable southem tip of South America at the Strait of Magellan (Fell's Cave) was
inhabited about 9000 BC. When considering the linguistic evidence, the bewildering
variety of mutually unrelated languages found in South America suggests a protracted,
gradual process of penetration, followed by long periods of isolation. This evidence
appears to be in con:flict with the traditional concept of a rapid colonisation of the
subcontinent by big-game hunters, associated with the Clovis horizon of the North
2 1 Introduction
colonisation of South America after 9500 BC, see Lynch (1999).
For the Pacific side of the South American continent, the alternative of an early human
penetration in a context of marine and coastal activity remains attractive to those familiar
with the Andean situation, even though there is little support from archaeology. The date
at which human activity throughout the Andean region becomes unequivocally visible
is 9000 BC.
From a cultural point ofview, the Andean civilisation initially did not lag behind the
rest of the world. Its agricultural beginnings were among the oldest in the world. The
site ofGuitarrero cave in the Callejón de Huaylas (north-central Peru) contains evidence
of plant domestication (beans, peppers) before 8000 BC (Lynch 1980; Fiedel 1992:
193). Agriculture in the Andes reached a high degree of sophistication, both in diversity
of crops and in engineering techniques (terraces, raised fields, irrigation works). The
Andean camelids possibly became domesticated as early as 4000 BC ( evidence from
Telarmachay, Junin, in central Peru; Fiedel 1992: 195). The mummification techniques
of the Chinchorro fishermen of the coast near Arica in northem Chile ( 5000 to 1500 BC)
predated those ofthe Egyptians (Arriaza 1995). The construction ofthe extensive (pre-
cerarnic) urban settlement of Caral-Chupacigarro, which has been excavated since 1996
near Supe in the central Peruvian coastal area, has been dated at about 2650 BC (Shady
Solís 1997). Curiously, the Andean society failed to develop an indigenous writing sys-
tem, a circumstance that sets it apart from other areas of civilisation elsewhere in the
world.
Toe variety of native cultures and languages in South America, in particular in the
Andes and on its eastem slopes, is remarkable even within the context of the New
World. Kaufman (1990) has calculated the number of language families and geneti-
cally isolated languages in the subcontinent at 118. Recent advances in the study of
historical-comparative relations have tended to reduce this number, but proposed group-
ings reducing the number of families mainly concem the eastern part of South America
(cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999). Toe Andean area, with its wealth ofmutually unre-
lated languages, has remained as opaque as ever in this respect. The linguistic diversity
is not only genetic; the typological distance between sorne of the language groups is
also impressive. It suffices to have a quick look at almost neighbouring languages such
as Quechua, Mochica and Harakmbut to be struck by the differences.
Toe historical picture is further obscured by the radical changes that have affected
South America during the last five centuries of the second millennium. Seores of
native languages, including entire families, have disappeared, often without leaving
a trace. Others have dwindled to insignificant numbers. A few of them, including
Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, maintained a prominent position during the colonial
period, partly at the cost of other languages, only to become endangered themselves
 1 Jntroduction
in the subsequent period. Mapuche, Muisca and Quechua acted as linguae francae for
local tangues, which were considered obstacles to evangelisation and effective domi-
nation. Most languages, however, gave way to Spanish, the language introduced by the
conquerors.
Toe Spanish occupation, which for the Andean region began in Panamá, the Caribbean
coast of Colombia and Venezuela, and at the mouth of the River Plate, brought death
and destruction for many native groups. The prosperous and numerous Cueva people
of the Darien region in eastern Panamá were exterminated between 1510 and 1535,
their country depopulated, given back to the jungle, and partly occupied by other na-
tive groups (Romoli 1987). Many others were forced to participate in civil wars orto
join discovery parties geared at finding the legendary country ofEl Dorado (Hemming
1978). Epidemics of devastating dimensions swept through the continent even befare the
conquest. Huayna Capac, the last ruler ofthe undivided Inca empire, became one oftheir
victims. After the arrival of the Europeans and during the first half of the colonial period
the native population dropped dramatically. Many nations, such as the Quirnbaya ofthe
Cauca river valley in Colombia, known as the New World's most talented goldsmiths,
disappeared with their languages during that period. At the same time a benign and
protective colonial rule guaranteed a state of relative quietude and prosperity. During
most of the colonial period widely used native languages, such as Quechua, benefited
from a certain prestige and legal protection. In 1770 the new Bourbon adrninistration
headed by Charles III banned the use of the indigenous languages from his domains and
started a period of effective repression (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 499-511; Mannheim
1991: 74-9). In Peru the repression gained momentum in 1781 after the unsuccessful
outcome ofthe Indian rebellion led by Tupac Amaru 11.
Toe independence of the South American nations was at first a new drawback for
the native populations. As a last manifestation of indigenous sentiment, the act of 1816
declaring the independence ofthe United Provinces ofRío de la Plata, the predecessor of
Argentina, was printed in Tucumán both in Spanish and in Quechua. Subsequently, the
linguistic and cultural rights of native South Americans were discontinued everywhere.
In the more traditional areas with large indigenous populations, the hacienda system with
its oppressive bondage practices reached its worst dimensions. Physical elimination by
military forces or headhunters struck the Indians of Argentina, Uruguay and Chilean
Tierra del Fuego, who had largely remained independent throughout the colonial period.
The Araucanians of southem Chile lost their independence and integrity as a nation. The
increase in the exploitation of rubber around the tum of the nineteenth century brought
untold misery to the tribes ofthe Peruvian and Colombian rainforest, including slavery,
deportation and ruthless massacres (Taussig 1987; Gray 1996).
Until the second half of the twentieth century, the attitude of the South American
govemments and national societies remained indifferent to the existence of the native
3 4 1 Introduction
languages, if not overtly hostile. Toe survival of these languages depended on the per-
severance of their speakers, occasionally with the support of sympathising groups, such
as indigenista circles or missionaries. Only during the last decades has there been a
growing awareness at the national level ofthe importance ofthe cultural and linguistic
heritage and the practica! consequences of a multilingual reality. It started in 197 5 in Peru
with the recognition of Quechua as a second national language, a measure now largely
forgotten. Meanwhile, the multicultural and multilingual character ofthe Bolivian na-
tion has been recognised at the official level. A strong movement of highland Indians
has come to play a crucial role in Ecuadorian politics. Finally, the cultural and terri-
torial rights ofnative groups have been recognised in Colombia's constitution of 1991
(see section 1.4 below). There have been several more or less successful attempts to
introduce bilingual education in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Needless to say, the prac-
tica! elaboration of ali these measures and their effectiveness still leave much to be
desired.
1.1 The languages of the Andes
Toe languages of the Andes are not at ali structurally similar, nor directly related, and
are spoken in a huge area. Nonetheless, there are many connections between them, and
they share a recent history of domination by Spanish. To us falls the task ofboth pointing
out general traits, and doingjustice to their various properties. It is only when compared
to each other that their individuality emerges most clearly.
In addition, we must try to stay clear of viewing these languages as static. In Race
et histoire (1952) Lévi-Strauss wams against viewing other civilisations as either infant
or stationary. When we sit in a train, our perception of the movement of other trains
depends on the direction they are travelling in, with respect to our own train.
Toe history of the Andes is characterised by an altemation between periods of greater
communication and integration of different peoples and languages, and periods offrag-
mentation and individual development. For this reason we must find, on occasion, a
middle perspective between the Andean region as a whole and individual languages. We
have tried to establish this by describing the Andean languages grouped into different
'spheres', zones which at different points in time have functioned as single units. Within
these cultural spheres, the languages have influenced each other, sometimes rather pro-
foundly. Hence our repeated insistence on the phenomenon of language contact in the
chapters that follow.
This book consists of seven chapters. In the introductory chapter we begin by sketching
the geographical and the historical context in which the languages ofthe Andes attained
their present form and use. We then tum to an overview ofthe linguistic and demographic
situation ofthe Indians in each ofthe Andean countries, and to the history of descriptive
and comparative studies of the languages of the Andes. Finally, we give a brief outline of
 1.1 The languages ofthe Andes 5 6
the history of classificatory efforts far the Andean languages. More details are provided
in chapters 2 to 6, which deal with specific regions or spheres.
Chapter 2 deals with the Chibcha Sphere, which we define as the Venezuelan Andes
and Colombia, including sorne of the border areas of Colombia with Peru and Ecuador.
In chapter 3 the Inca Sphere is discussed, roughly the area covered by the Inca empire:
highland and coastal Ecuador and Peru, highland Bolivia, northem Chile and north-
west Argentina. Chapter 4 deals with the eastem slopes of the Andes and the up-
per Amazon basin in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, and sorne infarmation on the Gran
Chaco area of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay will be included. Chapter 5 is dedi-
cated to the Araucanian Sphere: the Chilean coast and highlands and part of south-
central Argentina. Chapter 6 treats the languages of Tierra del Fuego and adjacent
Patagonia.
Chapter 7, finally, deals with the non-Indian languages, primarily Spanish, but also
Afro-Hispanic survivals, as well as Amerindian contact vernaculars. In addition, policies
ofbilingual education and language maintenance are surveyed.
Language contact in the Andes has taken several farms. First, we find the use of spe-
cific lexical items (e.g. the Quechua word waranqa 'thousand' or reflexes of Quechua
atawa/Ypa 'chicken', 'rooster') in a wide variety of languages, many of which have
never been in direct contact with the language of source. This suggests extensive
and, as Nordenskiold (1922) argues, sometimes fairly rapid transmission, overa wide
area.
Second, we find cases of intense lexical influence from either a demographically or a
culturally dominant language, as in the case of Mapuche influence on Gününa Küne in
Argentina, or Quechua influence on Amuesha on the Andean faothills in Peru.
Third, there is evidence ofhighly complex pattems oflong-term convergence, inter-
ference and mutual lexical influence in the contact between languages ofthe Aymaran
and Quechuan families. Toe contact has been so intense in this case that far a long
time the two families were thought to be directly related. We will address the question
whether the situation of Aymara and Quechua is unique in South America, or whether
there are other cases of intense mutual influence as well.
Fourth, there are documented pattems of language mixture through relexification,
e.g. in the case of Media Lengua in Ecuador and the Callahuaya in Bolivia, a group of
itinerant herbal curers, who used a sort of secret language with elements of Puquina and
Quechua.
Fifth, a phenomenon frequently observed is the fusion of the remnants of a tribe that
has been decimated in number with another more vigorous tribe. Under the protection
of their new social environment such tiny groups may preserve a language far gener-
ations, and only gradually adopt the dominant language, as in the Chiquitano area in
Bolivia.
1 Introduction
Finally, the Indian languages of the Andes have responded in different ways to the
pressures from Spanish, from incidental lexical borrowing, through convergence and
relexification, to shift and substrate.
In the chapters to fallow these different types of contact will be explored in sorne
detail.
1.2 Physical description
Toe Andes - or, more properly speaking, the Cordilleras de los Andes - constitute
a mountain range about 7,000 kilometres long. They stretch all along the west coast
of South America, from near Caracas to Cape Hom. 0n the average, the Andes are
400 kilometres wide, but at the twentieth parallel, at the altitude of Bolivia, over
900 kilometres. Steep on the western or Pacific side, the Andes are flanked by lower
ridges on the eastem side, providing a more gradual transition to the Amazon and La
Plata basins. In the south the Andes start out as a single ridge, but in northem Chile they
split up into several ridges, enclosing the widening altiplano (high plain) ofBolivia and
southem Peru. Through northem Peru and Ecuador there are two ranges, with a valley in
between. In southem Colombia these join again befare fanning out over this country in
three separate cordilleras, the easternmost ofwhich reaches into Venezuela. Toe Andes
are a very high range, with several dozen peaks above 6,000 metres, and generally very
high passes. Only the Chamaya highlands, at the border between Ecuador and Peru,
provide an easypassage from the Amazon basin to the Pacific, as Raymond (1988: 281)
points out, providing the opportunity far tropical farest/coastal plain contacts starting
in early prehistory.
For our purposes, the physical characteristics of the Andes are important far a number
of reasons. First of all, because of their inhospitable character they have provided zones
of refuge far numerous indigenous groups. We have but to compare Bolivia, where
both remote mountainous regions and inaccessible Andean faothill areas have provided
niches far Indian languages, with the Argentinian plains, where widely spread lndian
groups were destroyed by the regular Argentinian army in the nineteenth century, to
realise the effect that the physical environment has in this respect. The linguistic and
cultural zones of refuge exist both where extremely harsh conditions or poor soils made
colonisation difficult or unprofitable, and where the terrain made communication with
and travel to regional centres an ordeal. Within the ecological perspective taken here, it
is important to ask ourselves, far each indigenous language in South America and each
group, how come it still exists, resisting or escaping destruction or assimilation?
A second crucial aspect of the Andes, with its often steep slopes, is that it has made
available different ecosystems evento a single ethnic group. Thus we find the Quechua-
speaking Saraguro Indians in the province ofLoja, southem Ecuador, cultivating maize
and other cereal crops in the highlands in altemation with the raising of cattle on the
eastem slopes. Murra (1975) has documented a very extensive system of 'vertically'
 1.3 Brief history of the region 7 8
organised barter and economic cooperation networks in the Andes of Bolivia and Peru,
in which groups located at di:lferent altitudes were allied. Sometimes these subgroups
belonged to the same ethnolinguistic group, sometimes they did not. Altiplano groups
such as that of the Bolivian Lupaca kingdom relied on an archipelago of lower-down
settlements for their coca leaves and maize crops.
Third, the mountains influence the climates in the Andean region enormously, in
conjunction with the Humboldt current. In the extreme south, the western slopes are
humid, and on the eastern side, Patagonia, it is dry. Near Valparaiso, however, where the
Humboldt current reaches the Chilean coastline, the coast becomes a desert and the east-
ern side more humid. This is the situation throughout Peru. At the altitude of the
Ecuadorian border it changes again: tropical rains fall on both sides of the Andes.
In Colombia, the coastal zone is hot and humid, and the central valleys are cooler. Thus
we have virtually all existing climates represented in the region we are studying: from
the Pacific deserts of Chile and Peru through the rainforest near the Brazilian borders of
Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, to the permanent snow of the mountains in the altiplano
regions around Lake Titicaca.
1.3 Brief history of the region
We will sketch the prehistory ofthe Andean region on the basis of Peruvian prehistory,
since it has been studied in the greatest detail and provides a point of reference for the
whole region. At various points we will link developments in the northern and southern
Andes to the central region focused on here.
In Keatinge (1988a, b) the archaeological evidence is reviewed, and it is concluded
that the earliest human occupation of the central Andes that is well documented dates
back to 9000--8000 BC. The early occupants were hunters and gatherers, and they had
well-de:fined lithic technologies. Soon settlements emerged, on the coast centred around
fishing and gathering shellfish, and in the highlands based on the domestication of
plants and animals. Although in the central Andes the preceramic period lasted till
around 1800 BC, there is evidence of high levels of cultural evolution, e.g. in large
constructions such as at Sechin Alto.
Toe ceramic period is characterised by phases in which cultural elements were shared
by groups in the whole central Andes, called Horizons, and intermediary periods in
which cultural developments (as reflected, for instance, in ceramic patterns) were more
regional. Toe Early Horizon (900 BC-AD 200), is associated with the Chavin de Huántar
religious shrine and represents the consolidation of a pan-Andean religious foundation.
The Middle Horizon (AD 600--1000, according to Keatinge 1988a, b) is linked with the
two large urban centres of Huari and Tiahuanaco, which may have been the capitals of
two empires: Tiahuanaco around the Titicaca basin and extending into western Bolivia
and northern Chile, and Huari extending as far as the northern Peruvian coastal plains.
These zones of influence did not last for more than two centuries, but they formed the
1 Introduction
scene for a large network of exchange of goods, visual motifs and patterns of organisation
throughout the whole central Andes. Toe shared religious heritage remains, however, in
the subsequent period of regionalisation and is preserved in such centres as Pachacamac.
During this period of regionalisation we do see large kingdoms emerging, particularly
on the coastal plains of northern Peru, such as the Chimú kingdom. Toe Late Horizon
corresponds to the Inca period, to which we will tum shortly.
To the north in Ecuador we :find equally old early settlements, both near Quito and
on the Santa Elena Península, where there are traces of sorne ofthe earliest New World
ceramics and textiles. Ecuador was at the crossroads between the Peruvian civilisations
justmentioned and circum-Caribbean cultures. Toe bivalve shell spondylus, fished along
the Pacific coast ofEcuador (and later much further north as well), was a highly valued
object oftrade, notjust in Ecuador but also in Peru, particularly in the Chavin culture.
Colombian archaeological remains date back to 8000 BC at the site of Tequendama
(Correal and Van der Hammen 1977; Lynch 1999). Ceramic techniques were known
as early as 3000 BC at the site of Puerto Hormiga on the Colombian Caribbean coast
(Reichel Dolmato:lf 1965; Rojas de Perdomo 1979; Allaire 1999). The earliest construc-
tions at San Agustín date back to 500 BC (Rojas de Perdomo 1979), but the highly
developed gold-working techniques, which inspired the Spanish thirst for gold and led
to the myth of El Dorado, generally can be dated as having arisen in the first millennium.
Toe San Agustín culture lasted until shortly before the arrival ofthe Spaniards.
Although the Andes are associated in popular opinion with the Inca civilisation,
historically the Incas played a relatively minor role. In the early part of the fifteenth
century, they rose as a military power in southern Peru. Under Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui
the southern highlands were conquered, and one by one the earlier Peruvian states,
including powerful Chimú, were toppled. After 1460 his son Tupac Inca conquered the
northern highlands, as far as Quito in Ecuador, and after 1471 highland Bolivia and
adjacent parts of Chile and Argentina were incorporated into the growing Inca empire.
While most highland territories thus became Inca, the tropical forest remained out of
reach for the new conquerors.
Unlike earlier military powers, the Incas were not content with looting new territory,
but rather they organised and restructured it. Huayna Capac, who succeeded around
1492, only added small parts to the empire, and withstood the first major assault on it,
from the Chiriguanos in the southeast. When Huayna Capac died in 1527, his two sons,
Huascar and Atahuallpa, fought over domination for five years, and when a small group
of Spaniards under Francisco Pizarro invaded Peru in 1532 they could profit from the
divisions caused by the wars of succession and from the disa:lfections among local elites
of nations recently conquered by the Incas. In addition, the Incas were greatly debilitated
by waves ofEuropean epidemic diseases, smallpox and measles, which had reached the
Andes even before the advent ofthe Spaniards themselves.
 1.3 Brief history of the region
From 1538 on Peru was :lirmly under the control ofthe Spanish colonialists, and it
remained under their control inspite of uprisings and resistance during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. Resistance to Spanish colonial rule took severa! forms. While
the Spaniards had been able to conquer most of the Andean region rather rapidly, in
the montaña, on the eastem slopes, the Incas held out for a long time, in fact until
1572, in their stronghold at Vilcabamba. While Europeans played the dominant role
in the highlands, it should not be thought that there were no Indian rebellions during
the colonial and republican periods. Messianic movements (Ossio 1973) kept flaring
up throughout the colonial and early republican periods. Only a few can be mentioned
here.
In 1564 there was a revolt in the Ayacucho region of Peru, inspired by native religious
leaders, called Taki Onqoy (lit. 'dancing sickness', i.e. 'dancing into a trance'), which
spread through large parts of central Peru and lasted seven years (Millones 1973, 1990).
Around 1780 there was the famous uprising in southem Peru of Tupac Amaru 11, a
remote descendant of the Incas, which gained enormous peasant support before being
squashed.
Toe Páez in Colombia withstood the attacks by various Spanish conquistadores, in-
cluding Belalcázar, 1 but here also the Spaniards profited from conflicts between the
various Indian nations. The Magdalena valley remained difficult to control for the colo-
nial rulers until the nineteenth century.
Just as the Incas had never been able to conquer the Mapuche in Chile, the Spanish
conquistadores, after sorne initial successes, were unable to bring this Araucanian group
down. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Mapuche retained their inde-
pendence and proved to be a formidable enemy, requiring repeated military expeditions
by the colonial and later by the republican powers. After new hostilities, in 1869 and
again in 1880, they were finally subdued or 'pacified' in 1882. They were forced to share
their limited agricultura! area with intrusive settlers, but a majority has stayed in the
heartland south of the Biobío river.
Toe independence from Spain of the Andean regions and the formation of new
nation-states brought sorne changes for the Indian populations, but in many ways the
pattems established in the colonial period persisted. Toe overt rebellion against Spain
started in 1810 at the two opposite ends ofthe Spanish empire - Caracas and Buenos
Aires - and spread from there to the central Andean regions. Bolívar in the north
first liberated Venezuela, then Colombia and then Ecuador, with the help of Sucre.
San Martín started in the Argentine and then liberated Chile. The two met in Peru,
where the battle of Ayacucho in 1824 marked the effective end of Spanish rule in South
America.
1 Benalcazar or Benalcacar in the colonial sources.
9 10 1 Introduction
Even though Bolívar attempted to form larger nation-states, e.g. uniting Peru and
Bolivia, and uniting Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the contours of what were to
become the Spanish American republics became clearer as the Wars of Independence
were fought. Toe republics founded in the early nineteenth century have remained till
today, and have now developed strong national identities. It would be a mistake to think
that independence was inspired by the Indians or was beneficia! to them. Toe opposite
is the case, for severa! reasons.
To begin with, independence from Spain did not mean full autonomy. When the
Spanish officials were gone, European bankers, traders and settlers stepped in. The
nineteenth century was a period of more intensive exploitation of a new series of
natural resources in Latin America. Toe guano dug up along the Peruvian coast,
the saltpetre mined in northem Chile and the rubber gathered in the upper Amazon
basin are examples of this. In many areas, the Indians were driven from their home-
steads by new colonists or forced to participate in the new explorations under hardship
conditions.
Further, the nationalism accompanying the forging of new nations was often translated
into a desire for the cultural homogeneity ofthe citizenry. Public education, in Spanish,
was extended into rural areas. Cities expanded, and urban norms and values were seen
as signs of modemity. All of this meant that Indian lifestyles were depreciated and
threatened. An extreme result is the genocide perpetrated against the Indians of the
Argentinian pampas under the command of General Roca (1878-82).
Finally, independence had been fought for and won by elites associated with the import
and export sectors of the colonial economies, who had been clamouring for trading
possibilities with different nations, against the Spanish monopoly. These elites favoured
the breaking up of the traditional feudal landholding system, which had exploited the
Indian work force but at the same time sheltered their culture, or rather a complex
amalgam of their traditional culture and colonial pattems. Modernisation of agriculture
was accompanied by the increasing mobility of rural labourers, and hence by the splitting
up of traditional Indian communities.
These three factors still hold and help shape the relations between Indians and non-
Indians in the Andes. In recent history organised Indian movements have allied them-
selves with political movements, but major guerrilla activities such as Sendero Luminoso
in Peru and FARC in Colombia are only peripherally related to Indian movements (cf. the
contributions in Eckstein 1989).
1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries
All Andean countries have a native population which speaks severa! native languages.
However, the number of languages that became extinct since 1500 probably exceeds
 1.4 Brief averview ofthe Andean countries 11 12 1 Introduction

Table 1.1 Percentage ofIndian population in the different Andean heritage of the nation and of humanity at large. 2 Article 100 provides for the recog-
countries (afairly conservative estimate based on Instituto Indigenista nition of cultural diversity and equality of all cultures that constitute the Venezuelan
Interamericano 1993) identity. 3 Finally, there is a transitory measure regulating the election of indigenous po-
litical representatives, which includes the requirement that they speak their indigenous
Total population Amerindian population Percentage languages.
Venezuela 21,300,000 315,815 1.48 Colombia. The Andean region of Colombia occupies the western, central and northem
Colombia 35,600,000 620,052 1.74 parts of the country, and is bordered by tropical lowlands in the east. The Andean
Ecuador 10,600,000 2,634,494 24.85 mountain ranges, which run from north to south, are separated by mighty rivervalleys and
Peru 22,900,000 8,793,295 38.39
Bolivia 8,200,000 4,142,187 50.51 extensive forest areas, especially along the Pacific coast. At the arrival of the Europeans
Chile 14,000,000 989,745 7.06 many autonomous ethnic groups inhabited Andean Colombia, which has preserved part
Argentina 33,900,000 372,996 1.10 of its original multilingualism. The languages that have survived belong to different
families and constitute linguistic islands in a largely Hispanicised country.
Toe lndian groups ofthe Colombian Andes are known for their spirit of independence
that of the languages still spoken. There is no longer a full coincidence between lndian
and ethnic awareness. Their high level of organisation is rooted in the defence of their
descent and the preservation ofthe native languages. Nor are languages always spoken
rights to reserved areas (resguardos) inherited from the colonial period. Many ofthem
in their original locations. Toe social developments of the second half of the twentieth
encourage efforts to codify and preserve their languages as long as these are compatible
century have induced many lndians to migrate to urban centres both within and outside
with the interests ofthe community.
their original living are as.
Toe 1991 constitution of Colombia (with modifications in 1997) states in article 10
Toe countries involved in our study differ widely in the variety and relative irnpor-
that Spanish is the official language ofColombia while the languages and dialects ofthe
tance of native languages. Consider the figures for 1993 of the percentages of the lndian
ethnic groups are also official in their territories. Education in communities with their
ethnic groups ofthe total population in different countries (these figures refer to cultur-
own linguistic traditions will be bilingual. 4
ally identifiable ethnic groups, not to speakers of Indian languages) in table 1.1. Bolivia,
Ecuador. Ecuador has one of the highest percentages of Indian population in South
Ecuador and Peru differ clearly from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela in the
America. It is mainly concentrated in the inter-Andean valleys and the Amazonian low-
size of their indigenous populations. Although overall figures have changed somewhat
land to the east, referred to as the oriente in Ecuador. Sorne small communities inhabit the
since 1993, the percentages remain comparable. These figures are rather conservative
northem part of the forested region separating the Pacific Ocean from the Andean ranges.
estimates; for individual countries, sometimes higher figures are given. With the excep-
Toe majority ofEcuadorian Indians speak Quichua, the local variety ofthe Quechua lan-
tion of Chile, all Andean countries mention Amerindian languages explicitly in their
guage spoken in the Andean countries further south. Quichua is found in the entire high-
constitutions. Of course, these documents are no more than that, and explicit mention in
land region except for its northem and southem extremities (in the provinces of Carchi
the constitution is no guarantee of the existence or otherwise of an indigenous language.
and Loja). The Quechuanisation ofhighland Ecuador became complete during the colo-
However, these texts do reflect the self-perception of the political classes, at least, of the
nial period when it replaced a multitude oflocal languages. At the same time Quichua was
different countries.
introduced in the Ecuadorian oriente, where it also gradually replaced sorne ofthe local
Let us briefly look at these countries one by one.
Venezuela. In so far as the region covered by this book is concemed, the Indian
languages of Venezuela have been preserved mainly in the area to the west of Lake 2 El idioma oficial es el castellano. Los idiomas indígenas también son de uso oficial para los
Maracaibo. In the Andes all native languages, including severa! isolates and small fam- pueblos indígenas y deben ser respetados en todo el territorio de la República, por constituir
patrimonio cultural de la Nación y de la humanidad.
ilies, are considered extinct. 3 Las culturas populares constitutivas de la venezolanidad gozan de atención especial, recono-
Toe 1999 Venezuelan constitution states in its article 9 that Spanish is the official ciéndose y respetándose la interculturalidad bajo el principio de igualdad de las culturas.
language, while the indigenous languages are also for official use by the indigenous 4 El castellano es el idioma oficial de Colombia. Las lenguas y dialectos de los grupos étnicos
son también oficiales en sus territorios. La enseñanza que se imparta en las comunidades con
peoples and must be respected throughout the Republic, since they constitute a cultural
tradiciones lingüísticas propias será bilingüe.
 1.4 Brief averview ofthe Andean countries 13
languages. Varese (1983) estimated the Indian population ofthe Ecuadorian oriente at be-
tween 30,703 (mínimum) and 58,353 (maximurn). The Abya-Yala cultural organisation
on its website Peoples ofEcuador (bttp://abyayala.nativeweb.org/ecuador/pueblos/php)
mentions a figure of overa 100,000.
Article 1 of the 1998 constitution of Ecuador perhaps goes furthest in declaring that
the state respects and stimulates the development of all the Ecuadorian languages. While
Spanish is the offi.cial language, Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are
to be used offi.cially for the indigenous peoples. 5 Article 23 states that every person has
the right to be informed in her or his mother tongue, of proceedings against her or him. 6
Article 69, finally, guarantees a form of bilingual education in which the indigenous
language is the principal one and Spanish the language for intercultural relations. 7
Peru. Like Ecuador, Peru has an Indian population of severa! millions concentrated
mainly in the Andes. The Peruvian eastern lowlands (selva) and the foothills (montaña)
separating them from the Andean highlands are inhabited by a substantial nurnber of
ethnic groups. Their nurnber has been estimated between 200,000 and 220,850 (Varese
1983). More recent estimates (Pozzi-Escot 1998) are slightly higher, but the nurnber of
speakers of lowland languages of five years and older has been calculated at 130,803
by Chirinos Rivera (2001). The Peruvian coast harbours severa! communities that have
native American roots but have lost their language.
The Andean highlands are dominated by the presence oftwo languages, Quechua and
Aymara. Peruvian Quechua shows a considerable amount of interna! dialect diversity.
The nurnber of Quechua speakers in Peru has been calculated at 4,402,023 (Cerrón-
Palomino 1987a). A recent estímate by Chirinos Rivera (2001), based on the national
census of 1993, is much lower, however: 3,199,474 speakers of five years and older.
Aymara is mainly confined to the southern departments of Puno, Moquegua and Tacna
and has around 350,000 speakers in Peru. It has 412,215 speakers of five years and older
according to Chirinos Rivera.
Article 48 of the 1993 Peruvian constitution talks of offi.cial languages in the plural,
declaring these to be Spanish and, in those zones where they are dominant, Quechua,
Aymara and the other aboriginal languages. 8 In the general motivation for the 1993 con-
stitution it is mentioned that Peru is to be conceived of as a multiethnic and multicultural
5 El Estado respeta y estimula el desarrollo de todas las lenguas de los ecuatorianos. El castellano
es el idioma oficial. El quichua, el shuar y los demás idiomas ancestrales son de uso oficial para
los pueblos indígenas, en los términos que fija la ley.
6 Toda persona tendrá el derecho a ser oportuna y debidamente informada, en su lengua materna,
de las acciones iniciadas en su contra.
7 El estado garantizará el sistema de educación intercultural bilingüe; en él se utilizará como lengua
principal la de la cultura respectiva, y el castellano como idioma de relación intercultural.
8 Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, también lo son el quechua,
el aimara y las demás lenguas aborígenes, según la ley.
14 1 Introduction
country, where all citizens have the right to express themselves in their own language
before any authority. 9
Bolivia. The Bolivian highland region is again characterised by the dominance of
Quechua and Aymara. Only small pockets of speakers of other highland languages
remain. In the lowlands surrounding the northern edge ofthe Andean high plateau there
is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages.
The nurnber of Quechua speakers in Bolivia is estimated at 2,194,099 on the basis
ofthe 1992 census figures, that of Aymara speakers at 1,503,754 (Albó 1995, I: 19).
Speakers of the lowland languages are estimated at more than 96,000 (Albó 1995,
I: 19).
The 1967 constitution of Bolivia, with modifications dating from 1994, guarantees
in article 171 the rights of the indigenous peoples, including those concerning their
identity, values, languages and customs, and institutions. 10
Chile. The Mapuche people, who constitute the majority of the Chilean indigenous
population, are mainly concentrated in the region called La Araucanía in the south of
that country. Originally, they inhabited most ofthe central and southern rnainland parts
of Chile, including the island of Chiloé, but centuries of war and colonising pressure
have reduced their territorial space. Although there rnay be a million people ofMapuche
descent, only an estirnated 40 per cent continue to speak the language. There are no
reliable figures as to the actual nurnber of speakers, however. In addition to Mapuche
only a few other native languages are found in the northern and southern extremities of
the country.
The current Chilean constitution makes no reference, as far as we could establish, to
language and culture, indigenous or not. This rnay reflect the fact that Chileans tend not
to perceive themselves as a partly Amerindian nation.
Argentina. The northwestern part of Argentina is inhabited by Indians and mestizos
belonging to the Andean cultural sphere. Many ofthem speak Quechua or did so in the
past. The Gran Chaco, to the east of the northern Argentinian Andes, is inhabited by
the Tupi-Guaraní Chiriguano and severa! other important indigenous groups speaking
Guaicuruan and Matacoan languages. Araucanian (Mapuche) is the dominant Indian
language in the south and southwest of Argentinia. Other groups in Patagonia and Tierra
del Fuego are extinct or nearly so. In the central and western part of the country all
9 La primera visión que tiene el Proyecto concibe al Perú como país pluriétnico y pluricultural; en
consideración a ello el Proyecto comienza estableciendo por ejemplo, que todos los peruanos
tienen el derecho a expresarse en su propio idioma, no solamente en castellano, sino también en
quechua o en aymara, ante cualquier autoridad.
10 Se reconocen, respetan y protegen en el marco de la ley, los derechos sociales, económicos
y culturales de los pueblos indígenas que habitan en el territorio nacional, especialmente los
relativos a sus tierras comunitarias de origen garantizando del uso y aprovechamiento sostenible
de los recursos naturales, a su identidad, valores, lenguas y costumbres e instituciones.
 1.5 History ofthe study of the Andean languages 15 16 1 Introduction

aboriginal Indian languages have disappeared. Indians or people of local indigenous Table 1.2 Early grammars ofAndean languages (arranged
descent number severa! hundred thousand in Argentina. from north to south)
Article 75 ofthe 1994 constitution of Argentina states that Congress rnust recognise
the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of the Argentinian indigenous peoples, and Chibcha 1609 Bernardo de Lugo
Mochica 1644 Fernando de la Carrera
guarantee the respect fortheir identity and right to bilingual and intercultural education. 11
Quechua (Inca) 1560 Domingo de Santo Tomás
The term 'pre-existence' presumably refers to the Argentinian self-perception as a non- 1607 Diego González Holguín
lndian immigrant nation. Aymara 1603 Ludovico Bertonio
Morocosi (Mojo) 1699 Anonyrnous Jesuit
Mapuche 1606 Luis de Valdivia
1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages Allentiac 1607 Luis de Valdivia
Millcayac 1607 Luis de Valdivia
Little if anything is known about linguistics in the preconquest era, although there
rnay have been awareness of linguistic differences in the Inca ernpire. The colonial
era, in which missionary priests started recording the richness of the lndian linguistic
the Andes were taken frorn the north by Spanish bands of conquistadores in the 1530s.
heritage, is well worth describing in sorne detail. The nineteenth century is dominated
With the conquistadores carne the priests.
by laymen: primarily European scholars, often with an archaeological and historical
Frorn the very beginning of the European presence in South America Indian languages
interest. In the twentieth century we find a stronger American presence, in addition to
were studied and documented by Rornan Catholic missionaries. Sorne ofthe early lin-
the ernergence of groups of researchers in the different Andean countries thernselves.
guistic descriptions written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are admirably
The recent period shows severa! new developrnents: the participation of speakers of
accurate for the time. They contain a wealth of information, which is particularly valu-
native languages in the research, the widening concem for language use, the concem
able when placed in the interpretative context ofrecent findings. Rowe (1974) calculates
about language endangerment and the role of rnultilingualisrn in Andean society.
that by 1700 grammars of 21 Amerindian languages had been published, 19 of which
We will describe the developrnents in these periods in sequence, first looking at the
dealt with languages of Mexico and South America. In addition, we find a large num-
externa! history of language study in each period, and then consider the treatment of a
ber of vocabularies, catechisrns, etc. Sorne of the first grammars written for Andean
particular grammatical construction. Relative clauses in Quechua are used asan example
languages are listed in table 1.2.
to illustrate different phases in the thinking about Andean languages: they are cornplex
The early grammars had an ecclesiastical use, and this rneant that they were couched
and unfamiliar enough to have posed a challenge for different generations of outside
in a vocabulary a priest could understand. Grammatical descriptions often 'reduced'
scholars.
grammars to the Latin rnould. Most rnissionaries used the rnodel developed by the
Spanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija in his Introductiones Latinae (c.1488); see
1.5 .1 The colonial period Dümmler (1997).
The :lirst data on any Andean language gathered by an outsider, as far as we know, consist Still, we should not underestimate the achievernent of early colonial grammarians.
ofvocabulary noted down by Pigafetta, as Vocables Des Géantz Pathagoniens. Antonio First of all, they were writing at a time when very few languages had been described
de Pigafetta accornpanied Femando de Magalhaes (Magellan) on his voyage around yet in Europe. Fray Domingo de Santo Tornás's (1560a) grammar ofQuechua antedates
the world between 1519 and 1522 (Pigafetta 1956: 177 ff). The list ofwords includes the :lirst grammars ofGerman (1573) and ofEnglish (1586). Second, we find, next to
body parts, sorne terms referring to social status (her 'chief') and the physical universe. or subsequent to fumbling first efforts, early seventeenth-century rnasterpieces, still un-
No grammatical iterns were recorded, except chen [cen] 'us'. The list reveals only a surpassed, of grammatical description and lexicographic exploration. Examples include
superficial dialogue context and probably reflects sorne profound misunderstandings. Bertonio (1603a, b) on Aymara, Valdivia (1606) on Mapuche and González Holguin
Contacts did not lead to immediate colonisation. This was different, of course, when (1607) on Quechua. An adequate assessrnent oftheir intellectual background and insights
into the organisation of grammar is still lacking, even though a number of studies are
11 Reconocer la preexistencia étnica y cultural de los pueblos indígenas argentinos. Garantizar el filling the gap (Suárez Roca 1992; Troiani 1995; Zimmermann 1997; Dedenbach-Salazar
respeto a su identidad y el derecho a una educación bilingüe e intercultural ...
 1.5 History ofthe study of the Andean languages 17
Sáenz and Crickmay 1999; Nowak 1999; Zwartjes 2000). Toe work ofHervás (Hervás y
Panduro 1784, 1800-5) reflects the detailed knowledge which Jesuits and missionaries
of other congregations had in the eighteenth century of the linguistic situation in South
America.
We will illustrate the evolution ofthe grammatical tradition by using the example of
the treatment ofQuechua relative clauses. Quechua relative clauses are generally fonned
with nominalising particles. When the subject is relativised, -q is used (examples are
given from the Cuzco variety):
(1) kay-man hamu-q runa ruwa-nqa
this-AL come-AG man do-3S.F
'Toe man who comes here will do it.'
The relative clause precedes the antecedent, and the relativised element is generally not
expressed in the clause itself; cf. Weber (1983, 1989), Cole et al. (1982), Lefebvre and
Muysken (1982, 1988). In the Central Peruvian varieties the relative clause generally
follows the antecedent; if it precedes the antecedent, it is often interpreted generically.
When a non-subject is relativised, a different nominalising particle, such as -sqa, is
used:
(2) qaynunfaw riku-sqa-yki runa ruwa-nqa-n
yesterday see-SN-2S man do-3S.F-AF
'Toe man you saw yesterday will do it.'
Toe grammars by Santo Tomás (1560a) and González Holgu.ín (1607) illustrate
the early tradition. The unfamiliar features of Quechua relative clauses, such as the
subject/non-subject distinction, their position and the absence of tense marking, posed a
considerable challenge for Spanish priests. Santo Tomás (1560a) does not discuss nom-
inalising particles in relation with relative clauses. Rather, he introduces a periphrastic
construction in his fifteenth chapter ('Ofrelatives'), as in (3) (his spelling):
(3) Pedro pori-rca, pay-pas, o chay-pas, o quiquin-pas, micu-rca
Pedro walk-PA.3S he-AD or that-AD or self-AD eat-PA.3S
'Pedro walked, the same ate.' (Pedro anduvo, el cual comió.)
This coordinate construction occurs in Quechua, but it is not the most common way to
fonn a relative.
González Holguin's (1607) grammar constitutes a considerable improvement. It is
noted that the primary way offonning relative clauses is with a participle and without a
relative pronoun, as in (1), but then González Holguin goes on to say that a clearer and
more elegant way (oración muy clara y elegante) exists to express the same meaning, as
18 1 Introduction
in (4), involving the question word pi 'who', which again recalls the European models
(original spelling):
(4) Dios-pa gracia-n-pac pi-ch camari-cu-n, o pi-pas camari-cu-n
chay-ca usachi-cu-nca-tac-mi
God-G grace-3P-B who-DU prepare-RF-3S or who-AD prepare-RF-3S
that-TO attain-RF-3S.F-EM-AF
'Whoever prepares himself for God's grace, that person will certainly
attain it.'
González Holgu.ín also mentions a third way of forming relatives, corresponding to
Santo Tomás's example (3).
An admirably detailed and generally faithful account of the language is coupled
with Jesuit certainty and missionary zeal, and with a desire to cultivate the language
(somewhat along the lines of Latin). This cultivation of Quechua was part of Spanish
colonial policy (see chapters 3 and 7). University chairs were established for Quechua
and Aymara at the University of San Marcos in Lima, for Quechua in Quito and for
Muisca in Santafé de Bogotá.
Half a century later we find the first grammar of Quechua in which different varieties
are explicitly treated (Torres Rubio 1619), and this coincides with the beginning ofthe
comparative tradition in Andean language studies, which will be the subject ofthe final
sections ofthis chapter.
1.5.2 The nineteenth century
Toe opening up of Latin America to other European nations after independence was
accompanied by a new type of scholar dedicated to the languages ofthe Andes. Wilhelm
von Humboldt had already paid attention to languages such as Quechua, basing himself
on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources (1836, 1971). He saw the Quechua
relative clauses in an evolutionary perspective, in a fashion typical of nineteenth-century
historicist thought. The nominalised participles, as in (1) and (2), reflectan early, more
primitive phase in Quechua language and culture; the relative clauses involving question
words as in (4) correspond to the higher attainments oflnca civilisation.
Toe same tendency to view Andean culture patterns in tenns ofthe Great Civilisations
is found in Ernst Middendorf, a curious but highly impressive figure who arrived in Peru
as a physician in 1855, twenty-five years old. He spent a total oftwenty-five years in the
country, in three extended periods, first as a physician in Lima and then as a hacendado,
a landowner, in the Cuzco region. Middendorf combined the edition of surviving texts
in a number of Andean languages with actual fieldwork. In his Quechua grammar
(1890a, 1970) the relatives fonned through coordination, (3), and those fonned with a
 1.5 History ofthe study of the Andean languages 19
question word, (4), move to the second plan. The crucial subject (1)/non-subject
(2) distinction is stated clearly for the :first time.
For the :first time as well we :lind an explicit discussion of possible Spanish influence
on the Andean languages: are relative clauses formed with a question word the result
of Spanish grammatical influence? Middendorf considers the question unanswerable,
and indeed the issue is highly complex (see, for instance, Lefebvre 1984; Appel and
Muysken 1987: 161), since already in the earliest Quechua sources we find a special
type of correlative formed with question words, but no ordinary relative clauses formed
this way.
1.5 .3 Contemporary Andean linguistics
Particularly after the Second World War, the study of Andean languages underwent a
new upsurge, stimulated by linguists from the United States and Europe, both secular
and evangelist. The activities of the early missionary grammarians have received a
modem continuation in the work ofthe Summer Institute ofLinguistics (SIL; in Spanish:
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, ILV), whose members study the native lndian languages
for purposes of evangelisation. SIL members have been active in most South American
countries.
Two typical examples of post-Second World War descriptive linguistics are Yokoyama
(1951) and Levinsohn (1976). In contrast with the notionally based grammars oftra-
ditional and nineteenth-century linguists, these scholars focus on formal patterns and
resemblances. Yokoyama discusses relative clauses in Quechua in terms of their con-
stituent morphemes, going through sorne of the different uses of a suffix such as -sqa,
before coming up with sorne examples of a relative clause.
Levinsohn (1976), working in the framework oftagmemics, sets up numerical for-
mulas for different verb and suffix combinations. We get examples such as (5a), which
can be glossed as (5b):
(5) a. Vb 1331.1 - H:nighua
b. ni-g-wa
say-AG-C
'with the one who says'
While the formula in (5a) may have made it possible for the author to describe the lan-
guage economically and consistently, for outsiders it is difficult to gain much information
from it without a lot of puzzle work. Work in more contemporary grammatical frame-
works such as Lefebvre and Muysken's (1988) analysis, couched in the Govemment
and Binding model, while providing more examples, similarly has proven little more
accessible.
20 1 Introduction
In work done by scholars from the Andean countries often a more tradition-based,
practica! perspective is adopted.
1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes
Linguistic fieldwork is, of course, the principal source of information conceming the
languages presently spoken. Cases where this type of research is particularly urgent are
numerous. Notwithstanding its essential importance, field research cannot answer all
the questions relevant to the past and present state of the South American languages.
Manuscripts with word lists, travel accounts andrecordings in public archives or librarles,
or in private possession, may provide data conceming extinct languages and earlier stages
ofliving languages.
As we have said before, early Spanish grammarians contributed substantially to our
knowledge of native American languages, and sorne of them played a role in efforts
towards the standardisation ofthe Quechua language to suit its use asan instrument of
evangelisation. Among these was the team that translated the Doctrina Christiana and
the Catechism into Quechua following the Third Lima Council of 1583. They designed a
unified, phonologically simple version of Quechua in which the regional differences were
to sorne extentattenuated (Cerrón-Palomino 1987b: 84--90). Others, such as Bertonio and
González Holguín, wrote grammars and dictionaries (of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua,
respectively) considered among the classics ofrenaissance linguistic description. How-
ever, they too focused their attention mainly upon those languages considered useful
for purposes of colonisation and evangelisation. When unimportant from a numerical
point of view, languages were mostly left unrecorded, or the grammars, dictionaries
and catechisms dedicated to them remained in single manuscript versions. Many of
these subsequently became lost. One manuscript grammar that fortunately has sur-
vived is de la Mata (1748), kept in the British Library in London. It is a grammar
of the Cholón language spoken until recently in the Huallaga valley in the Peruvian
department of San Martín. However, the previous existence ofBarzana's grammar (pub-
lished in 1590; see Brinton 1891: 170) ofthe Diaguita or K.akán language, once spoken
in what is now northwestem Argentina and northem Chile, is only known to us from
an indirect source. Most unfortunately, there is no grammatical nor lexical information
on this language apart from a substantial number of place names and a few terms in
local use.
Not until shortly before the end of Spanish colonial presence in the Andean region, do
we :linda renewed interest in local linguistic and cultural conditions. A remarkable figure
representing this current, inspired by the European Enlightenment, is Baltasar Jaime
Martínez Compañón, who collected word lists of the native languages still spoken about
1780 in the northem Peruvian coastal and sierra regions (Martínez Compañón 1985).
Martínez Compañón stood at the beginning of a tradition of systematically collecting
 1. 6 Sources for study 21
data for a variety of Amerindian languages that lasted through the nineteenth and part
ofthe twentieth centuries.
Toe analysis of texts in native languages collected for different purposes, published
and unpublished, constitutes another promising :field. Much work remains to be done in
this area.
Several areas in South America, especially in the Andes, exhibit an ancient agricultura!
tradition rooted in the pre-Columbian and early colonial past but have lost their original
languages. In such areas, the study of toponymy can provide information about the
linguistic situation as it was in early postconquest times. Such an undertaking can help
not only to identify the languages formerly spoken in a particular area, but also to provide
an indication of their territorial extension at the time before they became extinct. This
type of research has been carried out in recent years in relation to the coast and sierra
ofnorthern Peru (Torero 1986, 1989; Adelaar 1988, 1999).
As regards the issue of extinction, a precaution is in arder. Rediscoveries oflanguages
thought extinct are not unusual. Elderly people may remember a language whereas the
younger generation is hardly aware that it ever existed. Cholón, for instance, was found
to be still in use with a few individuals in the Peruvian Huallaga valley (Barbira 1979,
cited in Cerrón-Palomino 1987a), although it is probably extinct now. Van de Kerke
(1998, 2000) found a number of speakers ofLeco, a language on the slopes of the Andes
in Bolivia that had been considered extinct as well.
Several surveys dealing with the present-day situation of the native languages in the
South American countries have provided data for this book. For Colombia the principal
sources are publications ofthe Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborígenes
(CCELA) of the Universidad de Los Andes and González and Rodríguez (2000). For
both Colombia and Ecuador a basic source are publications of the Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Torero (1974) and Cerrón Palomino (1987a) are important reference works
for Quechua. For Aymara there is Hardman et al. (1988), and Cerrón Palomino (2000).
For Chile the main reference for Mapuche is Salas (1992a). Toe Argentinian situation is
treated in Klein (1985) and Censabella (1999); as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego
are concemed, a basic source is Clairis (1985a).
With respect to the Amazon area, important compilations have appeared, such as
Key (1979), Pottier (1983), Klein and Stark (1985a), Derbyshire and Pullum (1986,
1990, 1991, 1998), Doris L. Payne (1990a), Queixalós and Renault-Lescure (2000) and
Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). Loukotka (1968), Tovar and Larrucea de Tovar (1984),
Migliazza and Campbell (1988), Campbell (1997) and Fabre (1998) provide the most
complete recent bibliographical data. These books give a fairly complete listing ofSouth
America 's native languages, accompanied by remarks concerning existing classi:ficatory
proposals. Their aim is not to contribute a reasoned classi:fication in itself. The Atlas
ofthe World's Languages (Moseley and Asher 1994), with a contribution by Kaufman,
provides additional information.
22 1 Introduction
1. 7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages
South America has rightly been called 'the least known continent' (Lyon 1974). This
statement holds true, in particular, when applied to the genetic relationships of the
native languages of its western half. Much remains to be done before a comprehensive
classification can be established of the numerous native languages spoken, or once
spoken, in the Andes and in the pre-Andean lowlands. Genetically isolated languages
and small language families predominate in the area. Not the number of languages,
but rather the number of irreducible genetic units constitutes its most striking feature.
Toe resulting impression of extreme linguistic diversity is partly due to insuflicient
documentation, but in cases where good data are available the situation seems to be
no less complex. The linguistic situation in the Andes is comparable in many ways
to that in other parts of the Americas, except for the circumstance that maybe more
languages became extinct here during the last five centuries than anywhere else on the
continent. In a majority of cases, such languages have remained undocumented. Their
extinction implies the loss ofjust as many potential genetic links between the languages
still in use. Consequently, sorne ofthe best-known languages ofthe Andean region, such
as Araucanian or Mochica, do not form part of any genetic grouping that could meet
with the consensus oflinguistic scholarship. The same holds true for 'shallow' genetic
units such as Quechua, a conglomerate of closely related dialects, and Aymaran (also
known as Aru or Jaqi), the language family that includes Aymara as its most important
representative.
Toe existence in South America of a number of large genetic groupings including
many widely scattered individual languages has been known for a long time. They in-
elude the Arawakan, Cariban, Chibchan and Tupi linguistic stocks. All four of them
are represented in the Andes, in the pre-Andean lowlands or in both. However, with
the exception of Chibchan in the northem Andes, they all occupy a predominant place
elsewhere in South America. There have been several attempts to link linguistic isolates
ofthe eastem Andean slopes to one ofthe larger stocks just mentioned, but in most cases
without lasting success. The genetic status of several languages that were once tenta-
tively classi:fied as Arawakan or Chibchan will have to be reconsidered. The Amuesha
language ofthe central Peruvian forest slopes constitutes a remarkable exception to this.
Its supposed membership of the Arawakan family was long considered controversia!,
but its clase genetic relationship with other Arawakan languages of the Pre-Andine
subgroup has now become established beyond reasonable doubt (Wise 1976).
Like in North America, the diversity of languages seems to have been the greatest
along the mountainous spine on the Paci:fic side of the continent, which may also have
constituted the scene of the earliest wave of migrations. Early colonial observers, such
as Bibar (1558), Cieza de León (1553), Cabo (1653) and Simón ([1626] 1882-1892,
II: 116, 284; cited in Pérez de Barradas 1955: 17-19) speak of an amazing variety
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Indian languages 23
of languages in what is now Colombia, Pero and northem Chile. It is often not clear,
however, whether the languages referred to were actually different languages or merely
local varieties ofmore widespread languages. When Simón, for instance, speaks ofthe
numerous languages used in the highlands surrounding Santafé de Bogotá and Tunja
in New Granada (present-day Colombia), he may have been referring to dialects ofthe
prevailing Muisca and Duit languages with the possible inclusion of sorne unrelated
neighbouring idiomatic groups. 0n the other hand, the linguistic variety in the northem
Peruvian bishopric of Trujillo observed by Garcilaso de la Vega (Royal Commentaries
ofthe Incas, 1609, Book VII, chapter 3) turned out to be quite real. Except for Mochica,
these languages remained virtually without record throughout the colonial period and
hardly received any attention until their extinction at a relatively recent date.
Toe cultural and political developments that took place in the Andes have favoured the
spread of a few languages, i.e. Quechua, Aymara and Araucanian, at the cost of seores
of local languages originally present in the area. Their expansion was initiated before
the establishment of the Inca empire and the European invasion. In quite a few cases, the
local languages did not disappear before the end of the colonial period. A few of them
remained vital well into the twentieth century. In addition to the expansion ofthe major
native languages, the rapid spread of Spanish also contributed to further reducing the
complexity of the linguistic situation in the Andes. Spanish, for instance, has directly
replaced Mochica and severa! other languages on the northem Peruvian coast as well as
in its mountainous hinterland.
Toe disappearance without record of so many potential relatives has doubtlessly con-
tributed to the apparent genetic isolation ofthe languages still spoken. Tenacious efforts
to relate sorne of the surviving languages of the area to each other, rather than con-
sider them within the framework of more comprehensive genetic constructs, may have
contributed to further obscuring the situation. This holds true, in particular, for the two
lndian languages most widely spoken in the Andes, Quechua and Aymara.
After centuries of increasing uniformisation, considerable language diversity, as may
once have existed everywhere in the Andes, is still found nowadays on the eastem slopes
along the upper reaches of the Amazonian rivers. Lowland Bolivia and eastem Ecuador,
as well as the Colombian and Peruvian Amazonian regions adjacent to Ecuador, are
typical areas in this respect.
1. 7.1 History of classijicatory efforts
Opinions about the origin ofthe South American Indians and their languages date back
to the early years of European presence on the continent. If we leave aside the initial
postdiscovery beliefthat America was part of Asia, Acosta in his Historia natural y moral
de las Indias (Natural and Moral History of the Indies; 1590, Book I, chapters 20---4) was
probably the :first to intuitively sense the way in which the ancestors of America's lndian
24 1 Introduction
population had entered the New World in times long gone. He assumed that they carne
mainly over land, crossing estuaries whenever necessary, in small bands and without
the intention of peopling a new continent. Acosta also indicated the areas where this
could have taken place: in the Arctic regions, where the boundaries ofthe Old and New
World had not yet been discovered by his contemporaries. It was precisely the diversity
of nations and languages found throughout the Americas that incited Acosta to reject
prevalent theories about shipwrecks and maritime expeditions organised by historically
known peoples. Quite correctly, he predicted that such diversity must have taken a long
time to develop.
In the linguistic domain, Cobo in his Historia del Nuevo Mundo (History ofthe New
World; 1653, Book XI, chapter 10) assigned a common origin to Quechua and Aymara,
the two predominant languages in the Inca empire, on account of their being remarkably
similar (cf. Mannheim 1985b, 1991 ). He compared their relationship to that of Spanish
and Italian, both descendants from Latin. By doing so, Cobo underestimated the power
oflong-term contacts between two languages sharing a common geographic and cultural
space, a fact of which he was well aware nevertheless. As he posited the genetic unity
ofQuechua and Aymara, Cobo also laid the foundations for a debate bound to continue
until the present.
In the eighteenth century, as a result of expanding missionary activity, the awareness
grew that the languages of many South American ethnic groups could be reduced to a
few comprehensive genetic units. Missionaries were well informed about the existence
of a multitude of tribes speaking different languages in the South American lowlands.
Among them, the Italian Gilij (1780--4) drew the contours of severa! genetic groupings
oflasting validity, including Arawakan (still referred to as Maipuran at that time) and
Cariban (Hoff 1968). Another representative of the church, the abbot Hervás (1784,
1800-5), published a substantial amount of data, collected from, among others, Jesuit
missionaries residing in Europe aftertheir expulsion from the SpanishAmerican domains
in 1767. When pointing out the fact that the Omagua of the Upper Amazon valley
and the Guaraní of the Paraguayan missions spoke closely related languages, despite
geographic separation and different environments, Hervás showed himself to be aware
of the existence of a Tupi-Guaraní linguistic family. Hervás refers to information from
Gilij, among others, when assigning a number oflanguages to the Maipuran or Arawakan
family. Among them is the language of the Achagua people of the Colombian llanos
'plains', of whose good disposition towards Spanish rule and religion Hervás speaks
highly. On the other hand, his concept of the existence of a Cariban language family
seemed to be partly inspired by the idea that the Caribs did not easily submit to Spanish
colonial domination. Arawakan nations who resisted colonisation efforts were classified
as Cariban in company with a number ofunsubjugated North American tribes. Hervás
held an interesting concept of language families. If severa! languages appeared to be
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 25
related, one of them was assigned the status of lengua matriz ('mother language' or
'principal language'), from which the others, by extension, were derived. This approach
must be viewed in relation to the necessity felt at that time to select a limited number of
languages for the purpose of evangelisation carried out among a much larger number of
linguistic groups.
There is a definite contrast between the amount of information provided by Hervás
concerning the Andes and the Pacific coast on one hand and the Amazonian lowlands on
the other. The latter is remarkably accurate and full of detail; the former exhibits many
lacunae, particularly in the sphere of the minor languages spoken within the limits of
the former Inca empire. As it appears, the availability of Quechua as a vehicle used
for evangelising purposes made these languages less interesting in the opinion of the
missionaries and information concerning them was not passed on systematically. It may
explain why languages such as Culli, Sechura and Tallán, spoken until the nineteenth
century in the northern Peruvian coastal plains and highlands, and the Pre-Quechuan
languages of highland Ecuador received almost no attention before they eventually
became extinct.
Toe nineteenth century marks a renewed interest in native American linguistics and
ethnography. In the southem half ofthe Andean region, including the adjacent lowlands,
the French traveller and natural scientist d'Orbigny recorded word lists and ethnographic
information on many Indian groups (d'Orbigny 1839). His information on the lowland
Bolivian tribes brought together in the Chiquitos and Moxos missions is particularly
valuable. D'Orbigny's classification oflndian nations is still primarily based on ethno-
graphic and geographic rather than on linguistic considerations, however.
Efforts towards a genetically based classification of the South American languages
gained importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Brinton published
The American Race (1891), a survey of the native American peoples with a strong
emphasis on linguistic classification. Almost simultaneously, Uhle (1890) proposed the
existence of a Chibchan family, and Middendorf (1890-2) published his monumental
work on the indigenous languages of Peru, in which he also discusses the nature ofthe
relationship between Quechua and Aymara.
Henceforth, two types of contributions must be distinguished, those aiming at overall
classifications meant to include all documented South American languages, or, at the
least, as many ofthem as possible, and those aiming at establishing genetic links between
specific languages or language families. Both activities have been going on, often without
much mutual feedback. Proposals conceming genetic relations involving native Andean
languages have been numerous and often contradictory. Here they will be dealt with
very selectively.
We will first enumerate and discuss sorne of the proposed classifications. Propos-
als concerning individual languages or language families will be treated subsequently.
26 1 Introduction
Classifications are termed conservative if their authors refrain from including genetic
units of which the intemal cohesion is still open to doubt. Virtually no classifications are
entirely consistent in this respect. Two classifications stand at the conservative end of
the scale, Loukotka (1968), with 117 independent units for all ofSouth America and the
Caribbean islands, and Kaufman ( 1990), with 118. At the other end we find Greenberg
(1987) with one comprehensive Amerind phylum thought to include all the native lan-
guages of South and Central America, the Caribbean and most ofNorth America as
well. Conservative classifications do not necessarily imply a rejection ofpossible com-
prehensive groupings, as their authors explicitly indicate, but they are meant to provide
a list of firmly established 'shallow' language families, which can be used in further
rearrangements.
One ofthe earliest overall classifications ofthe South American languages, apart from
Brinton's, is that of Chamberlain ( 1913 ). It is a conservative classification containing 84
groups, most ofwhich are represented in the Andes and the eastern foothills. Toe lower
number of units in relation to, for instance, Loukotka's classification is due to the fact
that many languages and small families were still absent from Chamberlain's account.
In Rivet's classification of the South American and Caribbean languages, which ap-
peared in Meillet and Cohen's well-known handbook Les tangues du monde (1924),
sorne reductions in the number of groups can be observed (to a total of 77; expanded to
108 in the revised edition of 1952). These reductions reflect Rivet's comparative views
and concem, in particular, the Chibchan language family, to which several groups previ-
ously thought independent had been added. Languages thus classified as Chibchan were
Andaquí, the Barbacoan languages (Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer), the Coconucan
languages (including Guambiano), the Paniquitan languages (including Páez), Cofán
and Cuna. Rivet also proposed a subgroup consisting ofBarbacoan, Cuna and the Costa
Rican groups Guatuso and Talamancan (the latter comprising all Costa Rican languages
except Guatuso ). Further innovations of Rivet's classification concern the inclusion of
the Tacanan family of northem Bolivia within Arawakan and the inclusion of Uruan
and Puquina (wrongly considered a unit) within that same family. Ofthese proposals
only the classification of Cuna as a member of the Chibchan family became generally
accepted.
Mason's contribution to the Handbook of South American Indians (1950) contains
an extensive and very useful discussion of previous classificatory efforts. It also brings
a further reduction of the number of language families. Proposals to establish new
groupings are partly taken from other authors. For the Chibchan family and its possible
expansions (classified as Chibchan, probably Chibchan, or doubtful), Jijón y Caamaño
(1940---5) is the main source, although the latter's proposals are presented with much re-
serve. Following up suggestions ofRivet, Harrington (1944) and Jijón y Caamaño, Mason
groups the Huitotoan, Boran and Zaparoan languages of the Colombian, Ecuadorean
and northem Peruvian lowlands with Tupi-Guaraní. Two innovations in Mason's
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 27 28 1 Introduction

classification are the terms Kechumaran and Ataguitan, the former referring to a ge- Table 1.3 Greenberg's (1956) classification ofthe languages of the Andes
netic grouping consisting of Quechua and Aymara and the latter bringing together the
Atacameño, Diaguita and Humahuaca languages of northern Argentina and northern HOKAN Yurumangui
Chile. Mason presents the proposed Ataguitan grouping with much hesitation. It has MACRO-CHIBCHAN A. Chibchan proper Chibcba-Duit, Tunebo group, Aruaco group,
never gained much support, in particular, because the Diaguita and Humahuaca groups Cuna-Cueva.
are virtually undocumented. In contrast, Mason considers Kechumaran 'yet unproved B. Paezan Choco, Cuaiquer, Andaki, Paez-Coconuco,
Colorado-Cayapa, Jirajira, Yunca (=Chimú,
but highly probable' (again referring to Jijón y Caamaño's work). Subsequently, the term Mochica), Atacameno (=Kunza), Itonama.
has become widely used in the alternative spelling Quechumaran. It is remarkable that GE-PANO---CARIB A. Macro-Ge l. Ge: Caingang, Chiquita, Guato.
Mason explicity excludes the Cauqui or Jaqaru language from this grouping, although 2. Bororo.
B. Macro-Panoan Tacana-Pano, Moseten, Mataco, Lule, Vilela,
Cauqui was already thought (and is now known) to be closely related to Aymara.
Mascoy, Cbarrua, Guaycuru-Opaie.
McQuown's classification (1955) follows Mason's in severa! respects, including the [C. not applicable]
acceptance ofthe Ataguitan and Quechumaran groupings, which he considers less con- D.Huarpe
E. Macro-Carib Carib, Peban ( = Yaguan), Witotoan.
vincing than Mason does (1955: 562), the unjusti:lied exclusion ofCauqui and the ex-
ANDEAN-EQUATORIAL A. Andean A l. Ona, Yahgan (=Yamana), Alakuluf
panded Tupi-Guaraní. On the other hand, it is a conservative classification since it allows (=Kawesqar), Tehuelche, Puelche
forno less than 629 unclassi:lied languages in South America in addition to 12 large fam- (=Gennaken), Araucanian (=Mapuche).
ilies and 38 minor families. Characteristic ofMcQuown's contribution is an attempt to 2. Quechua, Aymara.
3. Zaparoan (including Omurano, Sabela),
enumerate and locate on maps ali the native Latin American languages ever mentioned Cahuapana.
in literature (1820 for all Latin America). Although doubtlessly useful, McQuown's lan- 4. Leco, Sec, Cu1le, Xibito-Cholon, Catacao,
guage list contains many items which are geographic denominations rather than language Colan.
5. Simacu ( =ltucale, Urarina).
names. This is the case, in particular, of the Quechua-dominated middle Andean region,
B.AndeanB Jibaro-Kandoshi, Esmeralda, Cofan, Yaruro.
where names of towns, provinces and valleys figure as just as many separate languages. C. Macro-Tucanoan l. Tucano (including Auixira), Ticuna, Muniche,
This procedure apparently rests on the assumption that Quechua was introduced at a Yuri, Canicbana, Mobima.
2. Puinave.
recent stage in most places where it is now spoken (or known to have been spoken),
D. Equatorial Arawak (including Chapacura-Uanbarnan,
and that in each case a different language must underlie it. Toe linguistic parcelling that Chamicuro, Apolista, Amuesba, Araua, Uru),
results from it is merely hypothetical and is also accessory to a spectacular increase in Tupi, Timote, Zamuco, Guahibo-Pamigua,
the number ofunclassified languages. Saliban, Otomaco-Taparita, Mocoa
(=Kamsá, Sibundoy), Tuyuneri (=Toyeri,
In 1956 Greenberg presents a classification which is distinguished from the previous
Harakmbut), Yurucare, Cayuvava.
ones by its greater sophistication and classificatory explicitness (Greenberg 1960a). In it
few South American languages, however poorly documented, remain unaccounted for.
Although it was published without a factualjustification ofthe groupings proposed, it in table 1.3. For this classification see also Key (1979) with sorne minor orthographic
became widely known after its appearance in the 1958 edition of the Encyclopaedia variation. Occasionally, alternative language names are added in parentheses and pre-
Britannica, in Steward and Faron (1959) and in Current Anthropology (Greenberg ceded by an equation sign in order to facilitate comparison with other classifications.
1960b). Much later work on individual South American native languages begins with There are minordifferences between the versions in circulation ofGreenberg's classifi-
a statement locating the language at issue in Greenberg's classi:lication. It was also cation. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Current Anthropology versions, Greenberg's
used and given credit in the development of anthropological and archaeological theory classification is mapped onto McQuown's (1955) language list; Sirnacu (better known
conceming past migrations; see, for instance, Lathrap (1970: 83) and Meggers (1979). as Itucale or Urarina) is classi:lied as Macro-Tucanoan, not Andean; Atacameño (also
Greenberg's initial classi:lication was superseded by a rather revolutionary proposal known as Kunza) is left out (possibly as a result ofa confusion with the extinctEcuadorian
advanced in his book Language in the Americas (Greenberg 1987). It will be the subject language called Atacame or Esmeraldeño); the subdivisions are more detailed and ex-
of a separate section (1. 7.4). Since the influence of Greenberg's initial classification has plicit and their denominations (phylum, stock, family, subfamily) more differentiated.
been particularly great, the essentials of it regarding the Andean region are reproduced In the Steward and Faron version, Sirnacu is not mentioned.
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 29
Table 1.4 Thefour networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962)
MACRO-MAYAN: Chibchan (in its limited sense, see below, but including Timote) and
Tucanoan; most languages ofMeso-America.
MACRO-CARIB: Cariban (including Jirajaran), Zaparoan (including Yaguan), Arawa,
Kaingangan (including Ge), Guamo and Guató; many language
groups ofBrazil.
MACRO-ARAWAKAN: Campan (including part ofthe Arawakan farnily: Campa,
Machiguenga, Charnicuro, Amuesha, and additionally Chirino),
Arawakan, Guahiboan, Camsá, Chapacuran, Saliban, Yurian
(including Ticuna and Cofán), Mobima, Tupí, Bororoan (including
Chiquitano), Sec, Lecoan (including Chocó) and Mochica; several
language groups ofBrazíl, Venezuela and Florida (Timucua).
MACRO-QUECHUAN: Quechuan (including Aymara, Cauqui and Uru--Chipaya), Paezan
(including the Barbacoan and Coconucan languages, Andaqui,
Atacameño and the Brazilian Kapishana and Mashubí), Cullian
(including Hibito--Cholón), Itonama, Cayuvavan (including
Esmeralda), Pano-Tacanan, Sonchon (which includes Mosetén,
Chon and Hongote), Yuracare, Macuan (which includes
Macú-Puinave, Het, Charrúan, Ahuishiri, Zamucoan, Yirrumangui,
Canichana, the Brazílian Otí, Ofaié-Xavante and Catuquina, and the
Venezuelan Macu), Muran (which includes Jivaroan--Cahuapanan,
Boran and Huitotoan, along with the Brazílian Matanauí and
Mura-Pirahá), Puelche (Gennaken), Huarpean, Urarina,
Guaicuruan, Mapuchean (including Matacoan), Guachian
(including Vilela and Guachi ofMato Grosso, Brazil), Yamanan
(including Alacaluf), Lule, Otomaco and Yaruro (Venezuela),
Lengua-Mascoy (Paraguay), Trumai and Huari (Brazíl). Outside
South America: Tarascan (Mexico) and Zuni (New Mexico, USA).
Swadesh's classification (1959, 1962) is to a certain extent comparable with
Greenberg's in that it seeks to account for as many languages as possible. Swadesh
sees the differentiation of languages as a geographic continuum. He does not define it
exclusively in terms of genetically independent units which are internally structured by
chronologically ordered moments of splitting. Instead of the usual tree model, Swadesh
opts for a model of interconnected networks designed to cover the whole world, not
only the Americas. As in the case of Greenberg's initial classification, the publication of
factual evidence supporting the classification was announced but remained fragmentary.
Swadesh's classification is less well known than Greenberg's. Nevertheless, sorne ofthe
surface-level proposals brought forward in it have oflate received renewed attention (for
instance, the Jívaro---Cahuapana connection and the proposed link between Atacameño
and the Brazilian Kanoe or K.apishana; see K.aufinan 1990).
Swadesh distinguishes four networks in South America represented in table 1.4.
Tiniguan, Omurano and Nambikwara (Brazil) have a status independent from the
networks. Sorne languages are left unclassified for lack of data: Puruhá, Cañari, Aconipa
30 1 Introduction
(Tabancale), Copallén, Diaguita, Gorgotoqui, Humahuaca, Munichi, Sabela and Mayna
(considered by others to be a group with Omurano). The networks are linked to each
other at different points and also to the North American Macro-Hokan network.
Loukotka (1968) was published posthumously by Wilbert. It had been preceded by
several other classifications, elaborated by the same author, the first ofwhich dates back
to 1935. Loukotka's work is well known among scholars of South American lndian
languages because it provides the reader with short word lists of almost every language,
whether spoken or extinct, that had been documented before 1960. Although the data
presented are frequently inaccurate, the availability in one single work of sorne basic
vocabulary of so many different languages constitutes an invitation to browsing and
amateur linguistic comparison.
Loukotka divides the South American and Caribbean languages into languages of
Paleo-American tribes, languages of Tropical Forest tribes and languages of Andean
tribes. This general division, together with its subsequent subdivisions, seems to have a
geographic oran anthropological inspiration, rather than a linguistic one. More essential
are the 117 genetic units (stocks, small stocks and isolated languages) which Loukotka
distinguishes and his endeavour to assign to as many languages as possible a place in the
classificatory framework which he develops. Loukotka's classification is conservative in
the sense that the proposed groupings basically contain languages ofwhich the genetic
unity is unquestioned. Unnecessary splitting, such as observed elsewhere in the separa-
tion of Aymara and Cauqui (Mason, McQuown) or in that of Puquina and Callahuaya
(K.aufinan 1990: 44), is successfully avoided. On the other hand, two cases ofunjustified
grouping occur, both ofthem concerning the northem Andes (see also K.aufinan 1990:
37-8): (l) the inclusion into the Arawakan family of the Guahiboan languages of eastem
Colombia; and (2) the inclusion into the Chibchan family ofYaruro, Esmeraldeño anda
substantial number of language groups of Ecuador and southern and eastem Colombia
that are not visiblyrelated to it: Betoi, Andaquí, Páez, Coconuco, Barbacoa and Sibundoy.
The assignment ofthe Misumalpa family ofCentral America to the Chibchan stockmust
equally be rejected if indisputable internal genetic cohesion is to be the leading criterion
(Constenla Umaña 1981). Loukotka's postulation oftwo separate isolates in the south
of Chile, Alacaluf and Aksanás, will be discussed in chapter 6.
In table 1.5, those ofLoukotka's 117 stocks and families relevant to the Andean region
are enumerated. We will distinguish three approximate categories: (1) groups located in
the Andes and along the Pacific coast, (11) groups which are predominantly located in the
eastem lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, and (III) groups
which are strongly represented in other areas, but also in the Andes, or in the eastern
lowlands as defined above. The original numbering is retained.
As can be observed from table 1.5, 75 ofLoukotka's 117 units are represented in the
Andes or in the eastem lowlands ofthe Andean countries. Admittedly, sorne groups are
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 31 32 1 Introduction

Table 1.5 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968) Table 1.6 Groupings suggested by Suárez (1974) oflanguagefamilies and isolates
included in Loukotka (1968)
Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast:
Yámana (1), Alacaluf(2), Aksanás (3), Patagon or Tshon (4), Timote (95), Jirajara Suárez (1974) Loukotka (1968)
(96), Chocó (97), Idabaez (98), Yurimangui (99),* Sechura (101), Catacao (102), Culli
(103), Tabancale (104), Copallén (105), Chimú (106), Quechua (107), Aymara (108), Alacalufan Aksanás, Alacaluf
Puquina (109), Uro (110), Atacama (111), Mapuche (113), Diaguit (114), Hurnahuaca Bora-Huitotoan Bora, Uitoto
(115), Huarpe (117). Cariban Chocó, Karaib
11 Linguistic groups located in the eastem lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia Guaycurú---Charruan Charrua, Guaicuru
and Argentina: Jebero--Jivaroan Jíbaro, Kahuapana
Gennaken (5), Chechehet (6), Sanaviron (7), Vilela (9), Chiquito (13), Gorgotoqui Lulean Lule, Vilela
(14), Tinigua (51), Yagua (54), Kahuapana (55), Munichi (56), Cholona (57), Mayna Macro-Chibchan Chibcha, ltonama, Warao (Venezuela), Yanoama (Brazil, Venezuela)
(58), Murato (59), Auishiri (60), Itucale (61), Jíbaro (62), Sabela (63), Záparo (64), Macro-Ge Boróro, Kaingán anda number ofBrazilian groups
Cayuvava (71), Mobima (72), Itonama (73), Canichana (74), Tacana (76), Toyeri (77), Macro-Mayan Uro and the Mayan languages (Meso-America)
Yuracare (78), Mosetene (79), Andoque (82), Uitoto (83), Bora (84), Cofan (100), Macro--Pano-Tacanan Mosetene, Pano, Patagon!Tshon, Tacana, Yuracare
Leco (112), Lule (116). Quechumaran Aymara, Quechua
III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas:
Guaicuru (8), Mataco (10), Lengua (11 ), Zamuco (12), Charrua (15), Kaingán (16),
Boróro (27), Tupi (45), Arawak (46), Otomac (47), Guamo (48), Piaroa (50),
Tucuna (53), Chapacura (65), Pano (75), Guató (80), Tucano (81), Yuri (85), Makú Suggestions for further grouping are accompanied by the qualifications 'good', 'good?',
(86), Arawá (88), Karaib (89), Chibcha (94). 'promising', 'probable' or 'rnaybe'. Considering the greater methodological rigidity
observed by Kaufman, one may wonder why the number of groups in his classification
* The original sources refer to this group as Yurumangui, which is also the name of a river are not substantially higher. This is mainly because a number of poorly documented
in the present-day Colombian department Valle del Cauca. The form Yurimanguí is found in
extinct languages and language groups have not been included.
Loukotka (1968) and, as Yurimangi, in Kaufman (1990, 1994).
In table 1.7 we have arranged the genetic groups ofKaufman's classification insofar as

represented very marginally (Arawa, Guató, Kaingán, Yuri). On the other hand, there
is an additional enumeration of 'unclassified or unknown languages', sorne of which
probably represent separate groups, and, as we saw earlier, the Arawak and Chibcha
groups are subject to further splitting.
Another relatively conservative classification was carried out by Suárez, and published
in the fifteenth edition (1974) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It distinguishes 82
language groups for all South America. In relation to Loukotka (1968), Suárez proposes
the groupings listed in table 1.6.
Apart from these groupings, which apparently meet with Suárez's approval, he in-
dicates possible additional linkings advanced by others. Of Suárez's groupings sorne
are relatively well established, such as Lulean (Balmori 1967; Lozano 1977), and Pano--
Tacanan (Key 1968) without its Fuegian-Patagonian extension. Others have been refuted
(Chocó and Cariban; Uru---Chipaya and Mayan, see below) or rest upon extensive bor-
rowing (Quechua and Aymara).
Kaufman's classification of 1990 (see also Kaufman 1994) is a conservative proposal,
comparable to Loukotka's insofar as the number of genetic groups (118 for all South
America) is concemed. According to the author, every group 'is either obvious on
inspection or has been demonstrated by standard procedures' (Kaufman 1990: 37).
they concem the Andean region by using the same geographic distinctions as observed
in relation to Loukotka's work above.
As can be deduced from tables 1.5 and 1.7, the extinct languages and language
groups figuring in Loukotka's classification, but not included in Kaufman's, are
ldabaez in Colombia, Tabancale and Copallén in northem Peru and four Argentinian
groups, Diaguit, Humahuaca, Chechehet and Sanaviron because they are undocumented.
Kaufman observes that rnaybe Gorgotoqui should be excluded as well for the same
reason. 12 The differences between the two classifications reside in the treatment of
the Chibchan family (L94) (Kaufman has six units where Loukotka has one), the
Arawakan family (L46) (Kaufman keeps Guahibo apart from Arawakan), Puquina
(L109) (Kaufman has two units where Loukotka has one), the Je family (K74) (Kaufman
has one unit where Loukotka has two), and Kawéskar (K58) (Kaufman has one unit where
Loukotka has two). Otherwise, apart from a minor readjustment conceming the demar-
cation between Arawakan and Harákmbut/Toyeri (Kl 8, L77), the two classifications are
identical insofar as the Andean region is concemed.
12 Toe Gorgotoqui people are well attested historically, and so is the existence of a grammar of the
language written by a father Ruíz (Gonzales de Barcia 1737-8). Unfortunately, no one has been
able to locate this grammar in recent years.
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 33
Table 1. 7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with
their correlates in Loukotka (1968) *
Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast:
Yurimangi (1, L99 Yurimangui), Timótean (2, L95 Timote), Hiraháran (3, L96 Jirajara),
Chokó (4, L97 Chocó), Páesan (6, L94 Chibcha: Andaquí/ Paez/ Coconuco), Barbakóan
(7, L94 Chibcha: Barbácoa), Ezmeralda (27, L94 Chibcha: Esmeralda), Chimúan (41,
Ll06 Chimú), Kulyi (43, Ll03 Culli), Sechura (44, LlOl), Katakáoan (45, L102 Catacao),
Kechua (47, Ll07 Quechua), Haki (48, Ll08 Aymara), Chipaya (49, LllO Uro), Pukina
(50, Ll09 Puquina: Puquina), Kolyawaya (51, Ll09 Puquina: Callahuaya), Chon (56, L4
Patagon or Tshon), Yámana (57, Ll), Kawéskar (58, L2+L3 Alacaluf, Aksanás),
Mapudungu (59, Ll 13 Mapuche), Warpe (61, Ll 17 Huarpe), Kunsa (99, Ll 11 Atacama).
11 Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands ofColombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and
Argentina:
Betoi (5, L94 Chibcha: Betoi), Kamsá (10, L94 Chibcha: Sebondoy), Tiníwan (11, LSI
Tinigua), Wahivoan (15, L46 Arawak:: Guahibo), Harákmbut (18, L46+L77 Arawak:
Mashco, Toyeri), Tekiraka (21, L60 Auishiri), Kanichana (22, L74 Caníchana), Muníchi
(26, L56), Kofán (29, Ll00 Cofán), Kandoshi (30, L59 Murato), Hívaro (31, L62 Jíbaro),
Kawapánan (32, L55 Kahuapana), Sáparoan (33, L64 Záparo), Yáwan (34, L54 Yagua),
Omurano (35, L58 Mayna), Sabela (36, L63), Urarina (37, L61 Itucale), Bóran (38, L84
Bora), Witótoan (39, L83 Uitoto), Andoke (40, L82 Andoque), Cholónan (42, L57
Cholona), Leko (46, Ll12 Leco), Yurakare (52, L78 Yuracare), Takánan(54, L76 Tacana),
Mosetén (55, L 79 Mosetene), Puelche (60, LS Gennaken), Lule (65, Ll 16), Vilela (66,
L9), Gorgotoki (69, L14 Gorgotoqui), Chikitano (70, Ll3 Chiquito), ltonama (98, L73),
Movima (107, L72 Mobima), Kayuvava (108, L71 Cayuvava).
III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas:
Chíbchan (8, L94 Chibcha), Otomákoan (12, L47 Otomac), Wamo (13, L48 Guamo),
Chapakúran (14, L65 Chapacura), Maipúrean (16, L46 Arawak), Arawán (17, L88
Arawa), Puinávean (19, L86 Makú), Tukánoan (23, L81 Tucano), Tikuna (24, L53
Tucuna), Juri (25, L85 Yuri), Jaruro (28, L94 Chibcha: Yaruro), Pánoan (53, L75 Pano),
Matákoan (62, LlO Mataco), Waikurúan (63, LB Guaicuru), Charrúan (64, LIS Charrua),
Maskóian (67, L11 Lengua), Samúkoan (68, L12 Zamuco), Boróroan (71, L27 Boróro), Je
(74, L16+L24, Kaingán, Ge), Guató (82, L80), Tupían (109, L45 Tupi), Káriban (110,
L89 Karaib), Sálivan (114, LS0 Piaroa).
* Along with the group numbers introduced by Kaufman, the numbers of Loukotka's classifi-
cation are given in the formula Lx, followed by his group or language names when different
from those used by Kaufinan. In the main text, Kaufman's group numbers are referred
to as Kx.
Kaufman suggests that further grouping may be possible in the following cases (the
spelling is Kaufman's): Páesan (K6) and Barbakóan (K7); Chibchan (K8) and Misumalpa
(a Central American group); Wamo (K13) and Chapakúran (K14); Tikuna (K24) and
Jurí (K25); Ezmeralda (K27) and Jaruro (K28); Hívaro (K31) and Kawapánan (K32);
Sáparoan (K33) and Yáwan (K34); Bóran (K38), Witótoan (K39) and Andoke (K40);
Sechura (K44) and Katakáoan (K45); Kechua (K4 7) and Haki (K48); Pukina (K50) and
Kolyawaya (K51); Pánoan (K53) and Takánan (K54); Mosetén (K55) and Chon (K56);
34 1 Introduction
Lule (K65) and Vilela (K66); Chikitano (K70), Boróroan (K71), Je (K74), Guató (K82)
and nine other Brazilian groups; Kunsa (K99) and Kapishaná.
In connection with otherclassifications, we commented en passantupon sorne ofthese
suggested groupings (Lule and Vilela, Panoan and Tacanan, Chibchan and Misumalpa,
Aymara and Quechua). Arguments for a comprehensive Macro-Ge grouping including
Ge, Guató and Bororoan, as well as several other language groups, can be found in
Davis (1968) and in Rodrigues (1986, 1999), but do not, as yet, extend to Chiquitano.
Toe proposal of a special genetic relationship between Esmeralda and Yaruro was ad-
vanced by Seler (1902); see section 2.19. Loukotka located them in the same subgroup
of Chibchan. Doris Payne (1984) has presented evidence for a genetic relationship of
Yaguan (K34) and Zaparoan (K33). Callahuaya (Kaufman's Kolyawaya) is a profes-
sionaljargon composed ofroots taken from a Puquina dialect and Quechua endings (see
section 3.5). The unity ofthe extinct Sechura and the equally extinct Tallán languages
ofthe Piura area (K45 Katakáoan) was proposed by Rivet (1949) but the evidence for
it considered inconclusive by Torero (Torero 1986); see section 3.9.2. Toe possibility
of a genetic relationship between the Boran and Huitotoan languages, on one hand, and
Andoque, on the other, was considered unconvincing by a leading expert on this lan-
guage (Landaburu 1979). As for the proposed special relationship between the Kunza or
Atacameño language and the Brazilian Kanoé or Kapishana, the geographic and cultural
barriers seem formidable, and there would need to be a very strong linguistic case to
support it (see also section 3.7).
1.7 .2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran
Toe two dominant language groups of the central Andes, Quechuan and Aymaran,
must be viewed as language families rather than as single languages. Traditionally,
however, Quechuan is more often referred to as the Quechua language. Toe internal
comparison of Quechuan, a linguistic entity consisting of numerous local varieties,
became an issue in the 1960s when Parker (1963) and Torero ( 1964) published their well-
known articles about the Quechua dialect situation (see section 3.2.3). Hardman (1975,
1978a, b) introduced the name Jaqi ('man', 'human being') for the Aymaran farnily,
which, according to her, has three living members to be treated as separate languages:
Aymara, Cauqui and Jaqaru. For a discussion ofthe terminology and ajustification of
our use ofthe term Aymaran see section 3.1.
Quechua(n) and Aymara(n) have repeatedly been compared to each other, but rarely
to other languages. Harrington (1943) suggested a relationship between Quechua and
Hokan; Dumézil (1954, 1955) compared sorne of the Quechua numerals to those of
Turkish. Following an unconvincing :first attempt by Swadesh (1967), Liedtke collected
a list of lexical and grammatical resemblances between Quechua and Tarascan, sorne
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 35
of which are quite suggestive (Liedtke 1996). No thorough comparative study has been
carried out, however.
Orr and Longacre ( 1968) set out to prove Mason's Quechumaran hypothesis by trying
to reconstruct the phoneme system and part of the lexicon of the proto-language un-
derlying it. Although they apparently achieved their aim, the lexicon they reconstructed
consists almost exclusively of shared vocabulary, which is evidently due to intensive
borrowing between the two languages at an early stage of their development. Given
the virtually identical form of the shared items, the radically different character of the
remainder ofthe lexicon is left unexplained. The same holds for the grarnmatical com-
ponents of the two language groups, which show quite a few semantic but hardly any
formal sirnilarities (Davidson 1977). Notwithstanding the lack of proof, the idea of a
Quechumaran genetic unity exclusive of all other languages still has supporters. For
an attempt to revive the Quechumaran hypothesis on a more sophisticated basis see
Campbell (1995).
Toe relationship between the Quechuan and Aymaran linguistic farnilies is indeed
unique. When the effects of loan traffic between individual Quechua dialects and the
different languages of the Aymaran farnily are left aside, a substantial basis of common
lexicon remains (about 20 per cent of the root vocabulary in each group ), which can be
traced back to the proto-languages. Toe phoneme inventories ofthe two proto-languages
were probably very similar, as most of the existing differences may be explained by
later intemal developments in each of the two families. Toe existence of glottalised
and aspirated consonants in Aymaran and in a number of Quechua dialects (Cuzco,
Puno, Arequipa, north and south Bolivian Quechua) is generally attributed to diffusion
from Aymaran into Quechuan, although its distribution within the latter group is far
from predictable (see section 3.2.5). Morphological and lexico-semantic coincidences
are highly specific and difficult to ascribe to parallel developments of a typological
nature (see chapter 3 for more details). For a systematic inventory and discussion of
all the coincidences see also Cerrón-Palomino (1994a). Toe obvious similarities that
have united Quechuan and Aymaran since the stage of the proto-languages stand in
contrast with differences that are equally irnpressive. The very characteristic phonotac-
tics and vowel suppression rules of all Aymaran languages (see section 3.3.4) are not
found in Quechuan. Toe structure of the verbal inflection, personal reference marking
in particular, differs considerably between the two language groups, and, of course, a
major part of the lexicon and affixes do not show any systematic formal relationship
at all.
All this leads to the conclusion that Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymaran were spoken in
contiguous areas, if not in the same area, which were probably situated in central Peru, the
heartland ofthe Middle Andean civilisation. Toe bi-directional loan influence between
the two linguistic farnilies was so intense, that possible surviving correspondences of a
36 1 Introduction
genetic kind became hard to detect. If the languages were not genetically related - and
there is no decisive evidence that they were - at the least one of them must have suffered
a profound structural transformation adopting the phonological and morphosyntactic
model represented by the other. This scenario presupposes a period of intense interaction
and common development prior to the stage of the proto-languages. It may have begun
well before the beginning of our era. Although it is risky to venture a statement on
such a speculative matter, a variety of Aymaran would be the best candidate for having
provided such a model because ofthe more homogeneous character of Aymaran verbal
and nominal inflection in comparison to Quechuan inflection.
Toe remaining languages ofthe central Andean region do not participate in the same
sort of lexical and grammatical entwining that characterises the relationship between
Quechuan and Aymaran, although lexical borrowing has occurred. Since these languages
have been poorly studied so far, further research may eventually cast additional light on
their relationship with either Quechuan, or Aymaran (or both).
1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families
As we anticipated, there have been many proposals of genetic connections between
specific groups which were formulated outside the framework of an overall classification.
For the earlier period (before 1960), two scholars, Rivet and Jijón y Caamaño, deserve
to be specially commended for the size oftheir contribution to South American Indian
linguistics, including much classificatory work. Many of their classificatory proposals
have been the subject of drastic reconsideration. Therefore, it is not necessary to treat
them in detail here, but the amount of data they brought together and their influence have
been considerable. Among Rivet's classificatory contributions we find the proposed
connection of Arawakan and Tacanan (see above), the inclusion ofUru and Puquina
within the Arawakan farnily ( see also above), a rearrangement of the Chibchan family
involving many groups in Ecuador and southem Colombia (see also above), and the
association of the isolated Yurumangui language of the Colombian Pacific coast with
Sapir's Hokan phylum (Rivet 1942). Well known was also Rivet's conviction that the
Chon languages (Tehuelche and Ona) of Patagonia were genetically related to languages
spoken by the Australian aborigines (Rivet 1925). Rivet's comparative methods have
met with much criticism. In the case of Yurumangui, for instance, he compared the
vocabulary of this poorly documented extinct language with that of a wide array of
North American and Mesoamerican languages of supposed Hokan affiliation. A lexical
sirnilarity between Yurumanguí and any ofthese languages would be considered evidence
ofa genetic relationship.
In his monumental El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa-
ñola (Inter-Andean and Western Ecuador before the Spanish Conquest, 1940--5), Jijón y
Caamaño assigned most languages of northwestem South America to a Macro-Chibchan
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 37
phylum, which. in its turn, would fit into Hokan-Siouan. His Macro-Chibchan was
more comprehensive than any of the previous proposals concerning Chibchan and its
connections. Jijón y Caamaño's Macro-Chibchan not only included all the languages in
Loukotka's Chibcha, but also Timote, Cofán, Murato (Candoshi), Yurumanguí, Mochica
(Chimú), Cholona and the Central American Lenca, Xinca, Jicaque and Subtiaba.
By contrast, Tucano and Huitoto--Bora-Záparo are listed as separate phyla. Jijón y
Caamaño's interpretation ofthe comparative method has beenmuch criticised, inter alia,
for its acceptance of systematic equations of phonetically unrelated sounds. Constenla
Umaña (1981) mentions sorne striking examples ofthis procedure. Nevertheless, both
Rivet and Jijón y Caamaño must be credited with having brought to public attention a
wealth of data on many extinct and poorly documented languages, which until then had
been virtually unknown.
Recent investigations of the Chibchan farnily have tended to reduce the number of
languages associated with it. In his thorough phonological reconstruction of Proto-
Chibchan, Constenla Umaña (1981) found that the Barbacoan, Paezan, Andaquí, Kamsá,
Betoi, Jirajaran and Misumalpa languages are not Chibchan. What is left is a farnily
based primarily in Central America and represented in Colombia and Venezuela by the
Cundinamarcan Chibchan languages Muisca and Duit, Tunebo, the Arhuacan languages
of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Barí, Chimila and Cuna. In a revised version of
his reconstruction, Constenla Umaña (1989) proposes a Paya---Chibchan farnily con-
sisting of a Paya branch (represented by the sole Paya language of Honduras) and a
Chibchan branch. Toe Chibchan branch comprises severa! subgroups. One ofthem is a
Colombian Chibchan group which comprises the Arhuacan, Tunebo and Cundinamarcan
Chibchan languages. Cuna is found to belong to a different subgroup with the extinct
Dorasquean languages of Panarna. Chimila and Barí remain unclassified as to subgroup
for lack of data. Severa! poorly documented languages once spoken in the Colombian
department of Antioquia (Nutabe, Catío Chibcha) are also classified as Chibchan. The
linguistic evidence seems to point to a relatively recent arrival of the Chibchan people
from Central America, making it less likely for all proposed South American connec-
tions to be correct. The alleged genetic relationship of Chibchan with Warao (in the
Venezuelan Orinoco delta) and with Yanomarna (in the Brazilian-Venezuelan border
lands; Greenberg 1959, 1960a, b; Migliazza 1978a) has been the object of an investi-
gation by Weisshar (1982). Among many other similar proposals, we may mention that
ofLévi-Strauss (1948), who suggested a genetic relationship between Chibchan and the
Brazilian Nambikwara languages (refuted in Constenla Umaña 1981).
Toe reduced Chibchan farnily, such as proposed by Constenla Umaña, is almost the
same as that originally outlined by Uhle (1890). Toe affinities ofthe different mem-
bers of the farnily thus being reconsidered, many languages previously classified as
Chibchan are again left unclassified. There is convincing evidence that the Barbacoan
38 1 Introduction
languages Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer are related in a farnily which also includes
the Coconucan languages Guambiano and Totoró (Constenla Umaña 1991; Curnow and
Liddicoat 1998). Whether the extinct languages of the northem Ecuadorian highlands
and the adjacent highlands in the Colombian department ofNaríño (Cara, Pasto) also
belonged to the same grouping is a question which deserves further investigation (see
section 3.9.1). Although Greenberg and Kaufrnan classify Guambiano as Paezan, the
distance between Guambiano and Páez seems to be greaterthan that between Guambiano
and the Barbacoan languages. The position of Páez, Andaquí, Kamsá and Betoi requires
renewed attention.
Toe Caríban language family, which has it greatest concentration of speakers in the
Guyanas and eastem Venezuela, is represented in the Colombian-Venezuelan border
mountains, west ofLake Maracaibo, with the Yukpa or Motilones group. Rivet (1943a)
assumed a more generalised presence of Carib-speaking peoples in the Colombian
Andes, by assigning the (extinct) Muzo, Colima, Panche, Pijao, Pantágora and Opón-
Carare languages of the Magdalena basin to the same family. He also believed the
Chocoan languages ofthe Colombian Pacific area to be related to Cariban (Rivet 1943b).
Durbin and Seijas ( 1973a, b, 1975) have shown that only the Opón and Carare languages,
located to the northwest ofthe Cundinamarcan highlands, were demonstrably Cariban.
Ofthe other languages Muzo and Colima may have been Cariban as well. For the tbree
remaining languages, however, the lexical similarity with Cariban is not such that it
can provide the assumed relationship with a so lid basis ( see section 2.11 ). Toe alleged
connection ofChocoan and Cariban has been superseded by Greenberg's proposal relat-
ing the Chocoan languages to Paezan. For similarities between Chocoan and Barbacoan
see section 2.3. Similarly, Constenla and Margery (1991) have published evidence for a
relation between Chocoan and Chibchan.
Genetic connections have been sought between the Mochica language (also known
as Yunga and, erroneously, as Chimú) and Chibchan (Jijón y Caamaño, Greenberg),
and also with the Mayan language farnily in Mesoamerica (Stark 1972a, 1978). Another
language that has been associated with Mayan is Mapuche (Stark 1970, Hamp 1971).
Olson ( 1964, 1965) has proposed a genetic relationship between Mayan and the Chipaya
language ofthe Bolivian altiplano (closelyrelated to Uru). As this theory became widely
accepted- Longacre ( 1968: 320) considers it proven - Uru---Chipaya carne to be included,
along with Mayan, into the North America-based Macro-Penutian phylum in published
classifications ofthe North American and Mesoamerican languages (e.g. Voegelin and
Voegelin 1965). Campbell (1973) later showed that many of the similarities observed by
Olson between Chipaya and Mayan couldhave been the result of contact with Quechua or
Aymara. Very little is left ofthe arguments that seemed to have convinced the Americanist
linguistic community for sorne time. A serious drawback is the lack of a good grammar
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 39
and dictionary of Uru and Chipaya, which makes verification a di:fficult task for the
non-initiated.
Family-intemal reconstruction work was carried out for Panoan by Shell ( 1965, 197 5),
and for Tacanan by K.ey (1968) and by Girard (1971). Another complex ofproposals
concems the connection of Panoan and Tacanan with the Bolivian Mosetén language
(Suárez 1969) and the relationship ofboth groups to Uru-Chipaya, to Yuracaré (also in
Bolivia) and to the Chon languages of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Suárez 1973,
following Swadesh 1962 in the latter two suggestions). Key (1978) compared Pano--
Tacanan and Mosetén to Araucanian.
Toe extensive Arawakan or Maipuran family has been the subject ofmuch comparative
and classificatory work (Shafer 1959, Kingsley Noble 1965, Matteson 1972, Tovar 1986,
Valenti 1986, Payne 1991a). Kingsley Noble includes the Uru and Puquina groups and
Arawá in bis comparison. Arawakan and Arawá share rather specific features of their
gender systems but are quite far apart lexically. Matteson includes Madi (Arawá) and
Harakmbut, a procedure which is rejected by Tovar. David L. Payne (1991a) does not
include Arawá and Harakmbut within the Arawakan family. Harakmbut has now been
shown to be related to the Brazilian Katukina family with a suggested further connection
to Macro-Ge (Adelaar 2000).
Although Arawakan as a whole constitutes a closely-knit family with strong lexical
resemblances (Rodrigues 1986: 70), the supposed affiliation between Arawakan anda
number of languages in the Andean region has met with reserve. Such languages are
Amuesha (recognised as Arawakan by Tello in 1913), Apolista (shown to be Arawakan
by David L. Payne 1991 b ), Chamicuro (Parker 1987) and Resígaro. Although Amuesha
(spoken in the Andean foothills of the Peruvian department of Paseo) seemed at the
best a highly divergent member of the Arawakan family, Wise (1976) convincingly
demonstrated that Amuesha is closely related to pre-Andean Arawakan groups, such
as Campa, Machiguenga and Piro, the relationship being obscured by rather unusual
phonetic changes that tookplace in Amuesha. These changes must have occurredrecently
because they have also affected loan words from Spanish. The classificatory status of
Resígaro is discussed by Allin ( 1975) and by David L. Payne (1985); see also Aikhenvald
(2001).
Toe fact that Uru---Chipaya and Puquina are by no means closely related invalidates
their inclusion into Arawakan as a subgroup, a hypothesis which is nevertheless defended
by de Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1925-7), Kingsley Noble (1965) and Greenberg
(1987). It does not, however, preclude the possibility that one of the two languages,
i.e. Puquina, exhibits a remate Arawakan affinity. There are, in fact, similarities in the
lexicon and, above all, in the pronominal system (cf. section 3.5). Toe ongoing inves-
tigation of the interna! relations within the Arawakan family, which once spread over
40 1 Introduction
much of South America and the Caribbean, holds great promise for the unravelling of
the continent's linguistic puzzle.
David L. Payne (1990) has pointed at sorne very striking similarities concerning the
formation of possessive nouns in four South American families, Arawakan, Arawá,
Cariban and Candoshi, which are di:fficult to explain through borrowing. 0n the other
hand, Rodrigues (1985a) has presented well-documented lexical evidence relating the
Cariban family to the Tupi stock (tronco Tupí), a huge genetic construct attaining its
maximum differentiation in the Brazilian Madeira basin. Lexical similarities between
Tupi and Macro-Ge (tronco Macro-Jé) were already noticed by Davis (1968, 1985) and
confirmed in Rodrigues (1985b). Toe suggested genetic relationship of Tupi, Cariban
and Macro-Ge is supported by typological similarities (a relatively loase morphological
structure anda lack ofpolysynthesis), as observed by Doris Payne (1990b); see also
Rodrigues (2000).
David L. Payne (1981) investigated the alleged relationship of the Jivaroan languages
and Candoshi (proposed in both Greenberg's classifications). Although he found lexical
similarities, these lay in the sphere of flora and fauna and seemed to point at bor-
rowing. David L. Payne (1990: 84--5) no longer considers the evidence for a Jívaro--
Candoshi grouping convincing, but he mentions sorne grammatical similarities between
Arawakan, Candoshi and Cariban. In Suárez's classification (1974), Jivaroan is linked to
Cahuapanan, another small language family of the northem Peruvian foothills. Kau:fman
(1990) considers this a possible relationship. Among severa! other suggestions, Kau:fman
(1994: 63) offers an interesting new proposal conceming a genetic relationship between
Candoshi, Omurano (Mayna), and Taushiro (all in the Peruvian Amazon).
A new proposal concerning a possible genetic relationship between two linguistic
groups that had never been associated befare has been made by Croese and Payne
(Croese 1990). They observed rather striking lexical similarities between Araucanian
(Mapuche) and the Arawakan family. Toe matter requires further investigation.
For the Panoan languages Migliazza (1978a, mentioned in Migliazza 1985) propases
a rather clase genetic relationship with Yanomaman, based on a cognate number of about
40 per cent, anda more remate relationship with Chibchan (see above).
Toe Guaicuruan language family (including Toba as its principal representative in
the pre-Andean space) and the Matacoan language family have, together with a third
group, Lengua-Mascoy, their centre of gravity in the Gran Chaco. Tovar ( 1981) found
considerable lexical resemblance between Toba and the Matacoan languages. Whether
this is due to a common genetic origin or borrowing is an issue awaiting further in-
vestigation. Tovar also observes lexical similarities between Matacoan and Arawakan.
In Greenberg's classification Matacoan, Guaicuruan and Lengua-Mascoy are taken
together. For Charrúan, a group of extinct languages once located in Uruguay and
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 41
Argentinian Entre Ríos, Arawakan, Matacoan, Lule---Vilelan and Guaicuruan connec-
tions have been proposed by Perea y Alonso (1937), Ferrario (Ms), Rana (1964) and
Suárez (1974), respectively. See far the three first proposals the discussion in Longacre
(1968: 353--4), who seems to give most credit to Ferrario's arguments far the Matacoan
connection, cited in Censabella (1999: 61). Susnik (1978: 94) appears to favour a
Guaicuruan connection.
Among the languages of the southernmost part of South America, a grouping
was recognised as early as 1913 by Lehmann-Nitsche. It consisted ofthe Patagonian
languages (Tehuelche, Tehues) and the languages of Tierra del Fuego's main island
(Selk'nam or Ona, Haush). This grouping was called Tshon or Chon, a denomination
that includes elements of the words 'Tehuelche' and 'Ona'. For many languages once
spoken in Argentina it will probably never be possible to even approximately determine
a genetic a:ffiliation because the populations in question were exterminated befare their
languages could be recorded. Viegas Barros has proposed a genetic relationship between
Kawesqar and Yahgan (Censabella 1999: 88).
A final word about possible trans-Pacific genetic connections. Although there have
been many proponents of such connections (Rívet 1925; Imbelloni 1928; !barra Grasso
1958), no valid arguments were brought farward to support them. The search far them,
however, has shown at the least two lexical items shared by Polynesian languages and
languages in South America. One of them is the name of a plant domesticated in the
N ew World, the sweet patato (Jpomoea batatas), Easter Island kumara, Hawaiian 7uala,
which is faund as k'umar or k'umara in Quechua and Aymara. The second word is toki,
Easter Island 'stone axe', Mapuche 'stone axe', 'military chief (the holder ofthe axe)';
compare also Yurumanguí totoki 'axe' (Jijón y Caamaño 1945). Although the farmer
case constitutes near proof of incidental contact between inhabitants of the Andean
region and the South Pacific, the latter is not nearly as convincing but certainly deserves
attention. Apparently, there were sporadic contacts that led to an occasional interchange
of words, not to migrations of entire populations that could have brought along their
languages.
1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal
The appearance of Greenberg (1987) brought the discussion about the origins oflan-
guage, both in the Andes and elsewhere in the New World, into a new phase. Rather than
merely containing the long expected factual justification of Greenberg's earlier proposal,
which, in part, it did, the terrain of comparison was widened to include the whole of
native America. It also brought a revision of the classification of the South American
lndian languages proposed befare. In short, Greenberg (1987) contains the fallowing
new elements:
42 1 Introduction
A. All the languages ofthe New World belong to three families: Eskimo--Aleut, Na-
Dene and Amerind; Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene are limited to the Arctic and parts of
North America. Consequently, all South American and Mesoamerican Indian languages,
as well as most North American Indian languages are related. They belong to a single
farnily: Amerind. The tripartite division ofthe native American languages is associated
with three consecutive waves ofmigration, the first ofwhich is represented by speakers
of Amerind. Support far this hypothesis is sought from physical anthropology (blood
groups, dental structure) and archaeology; a first outline of it had already been published,
befare the appearance of Greenberg (1987), in Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (1985,
1986).
B. The South American languages are divided into seven subgroups: Macro-Ge,
Macro-Panoan, Macro-Carib, Equatorial, Macro-Tucanoan, Andean and Chibchan-
Paezan. As in Greenberg's earlier classification, one language, Yurumanguí is assigned
to a North American subgroup, Hokan. In addition, Macro-Ge, Macro-Panoan and
Macro-Carib are said to farm a group at an indermediate level, which corresponds
to the Ge---Pano--Carib of Greenberg's earlier classification; the same holds far Equa-
torial and Macro-Tucanoan, which farmed part of Andean-Equatorial in the earlier
classification. Andean-Equatorial as such is abandoned. So there are faur groups at
the intermediate level between Amerind and the seven subgroups just enumerated: Ge---
Pano--Carib, Andean, Equatorial-Tucanoan and Chibchan-Paezan (the farmer Macro-
Chibchan). For Amerind as a whole, including North America and Mexico, Greenberg
posits eleven subgroups and six groups at the intermediate level. As Swadesh (1962)
did befare him, Greenberg :linds more genetic diversity in South America than in
North America (except far the presence of non-Amerind Na-Dene and Eskimo--
Aleut).
C. Chibchan-Paezan receives extensions in North America and elsewhere in the
Americas. Its Chibchan division is made to include Tarascan and Cuitlatec, two lan-
guage isolates located in Mexico; the Paezan division now includes Timucua, a lan-
guage isolate once to be faund in Florida. Huarpean (Allentiac), originally classified
as Ge---Pano--Carib, has been reassigned to Paezan, where it :linds itself together with
Atacameño. Jívaro--Candoshi and the languages associated with it (Esmeralda, Yaruro
and Cofán), originally a separate division of Andean-Equatorial, have been reclassi-
:fied as Equatorial. Quechua and Aymara are both classi:fied as Andean but no longer
treated as a unit. Greenberg (1987: 100) admits 'that Aymara appears relatively isolated
within Andean'.
Greenberg's new classification comes ata point in time when historical linguísts tend
to be increasingly reluctant to accept distant genetic relationships if not accompanied
by salid proof (see, in particular, Campbell and Mithun 1979). Greenberg shows him-
self highly critical of the current methods of obtaining such proof, 'the use of sound
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 43 44 1 Introduction

correspondence tables and asteriskedreconstructed fonns' (1987: 1). Instead, Greenberg Table 1.8 Greenberg's (1987) classification ofthe languages of the Andes
advocates the search for lexical and grammatical similarities that become apparent from
a comparison ofmany languages at the same time ('multilateral comparison'). He does l. NORTHERN AMERIND C. Hokan 5. Yurumangui.
III. CIIlBCHAN-PAEZAN A. Chibchan 3. Nuclear Chibchan: a. Antioquia (incl.
not pursue phonetic exactitude and considers it premature to look for regular sound cor-
Katio, Nutabe). b. Aruak (incl.
respondence lest other significant similarities should be missed. Greenberg also allows Guamaca and Kagaba). c. Chibcha
for a substantial amount of error in his data: 'the method of multilateral comparison (incl. Duit and Tunebo) d. Cuna.
f. Malibu (incl. Chimila). h. Motilan.
is so powerful that it will give reliable results even with the poorest of materials. In-
B. Paezan 1. Allentiac (incl. Millcayac).
correct material should have merely a randomizing effect' (1987: 29). As a matter 2. Atacama. 3. Betoi. 4. Chimu.
of fact, the data included in Greenberg (1987) are riddled with errors. For instance, 5. Itonama. 6. Jirajara. 8. Nuclear
Cochabamba Quechua 'to see' is given as ruk, instead of rik!'u-, and quechuologists Paezan: a. Andaqui. b. Barbacoa (incl.
Cara, Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer).
are puzzled about identifying the 'Huanacucho dialect' (probably a designation for c. Choco. d. Paez (incl. Guarnbiano).
Ayacucho affected by a confusion with the name of sorne other dialect, such as Huánuco IV. ANDEAN A. Aymara Aymara, Jaqaru.
or Huanca). Old misunderstandings are perpetuated and even reinforced. For instance, B. Itucale---Sabela l. Itucale. 2. Mayna. 3. Sabela.
C. Kahuapana-Zaparo l. Kahuapana (incl. Jebero and
the alleged unity ofUru-Chipaya and Puquina is not only defended, but Olson's work is
Chayahuita). 2. Zaparo (incl. Arabela
quoted as evidence for it (Greenberg 1987: 84). In reality, Olson (1964) merely observed and !quito).
that sorne Chipaya call their language Puquina, which says nothing about the undeni- D. Northem l. Catacao. 2. Cholona (incl. Hibito).
3. Culli. 4. Leco. 5. Sechura.
able fact that there also existed a Puquina language quite distinct from present-day
E. Quechua.
Chipaya. Identical namegiving is no proof of identity. On the other hand, possible clase F. Southem l. Alakaluf. 2. Araucanian. 3. Gennaken
connections, such as Guambiano and Barbacoan, or Harakmbut and Katukina, were (=Gününa Küne). 4. Patagon (incl.
missed. Ona). 5. Yamana.
V. EQUATORIAL-TUCANOAN A. Macro-Tucanoan l. Auixiri. 2. Canichana. 10. Mobima.
It is not surprising that Greenberg's work has met with vigorous criticism; see, for ll. Muniche. 15. Puinave. 17. Ticuna-
instance, the discussion in Current Anthropology 28: 647---67, Kaufman (1990), and the Yuri: a. Ticuna. b. Yuri. 18. Tucano.
reviews by Adelaar (1989) andMatisoff( 1990). N evertheless, not all his proposals should B. Equatorial l. Macro-Arawakan: a. Guahibo.
c. Otomaco. d. Tinigua. e. Arawakan:
be dismissed lightly. Sorne ofthe proposed genetic links will undoubtedly turn out valid,
(i) Arawa. (ii) Maipuran (incl.
even though the factual basis is still insufficient. Greenberg also gives an inventory of Amuesha, Apolista, Chamicuro,
grammatical elements that are widespread in the Amerindian languages. Of sorne cases Resígaro and the Harakmbut
languages). (iii) Chapacura.
Greenberg was not the first to have noticed them (see, for instance, Swadesh 1954).
(iv) Guamo. (v) Uro (incl. Puquina and
The grammatical elements in question are not merely cases of typological resemblances Callahuaya). 2. Cayuvava. 3. Coche
because they concern the formal aspects ofmorphemes. One ofthe best-known cases (=Kamsá). 4. Jibaro-Kandoshi:
is a pattem consisting of n, or another non-labial nasal, for reference to first person, in a. Cofan. b. Esmeralda. c. Jíbaro.
d. Kandoshi. e. Yaruro. 5. Kariri-Tupi:
combination with m for reference to second (both usually followed by a vowel). One b. Tupi. 6. Piaroa (incl. Saliba).
may be tempted, for instance, to investigate the possibility of a genetic link between, 8. Timote. 11. Yuracare. 12. Zamuco.
say, Araucanian and Califomian Penutian on the basis of Araucanian rzYi 'my' and mi VI.GE-PANO--CARIB A. Macro-Carib 1. Andoke. 2. Bora-Uitoto: a. Bora.
b. Uitoto. 3. Carib. 5. Yagua.
'your', on the one hand, and Wintu ni 'I' and mi 'you', on the other, only to fmd out later
B. Macro-Panoan l. Charruan. 2. Lengua. 3. Lule---Vilela:
that many other Amerindian languages exhibit similar or related pattems of personal a. Lule. b. Vilela. 4. Mataco-Guaicuru:
reference. Whatever the origin of such resemblances may be, they can hardly be due to a. Guaicuru. b. Mataco. 5. Moseten.
6.Pano-Tacana:a.Panoan.b. Tacanan.
borrowing.
C. Macro-Ge l. Bororo. 4. Chiquito. 7. Ge---Kaingan:
In table 1.8, we summarise the classi:lication proposed in Greenberg (1987) insofar as a. Kaingan. 8. Guato.
it concems the languages and language groups located in the Andean region. Alternative
 1. 7 Genetic relations ofSouth American Jndian languages 45

names are occasionally added, preceded by an equals sign ( =) in order to ease identi-
fication. The lowest level of the classification is left out because not all the language
names listed in Greenberg's classification actually represent different languages but,
rather, dialects or different designations of the same language. In other cases, however,
they do represent different languages, a fact which may give rise to confusion.