REPORT CH ACTIVITIES RELATING TO NSF GRANT HHS-8:20:06

“CHDL TEXTS, VOCABULAR'I AND GRAH‘IAR"

YEAR 1

SEPTEMBER. 1983 TO AUGUST. 1E1!

Nicholas A. Hopkins
J. Kathryn Jaaairlnd

Principal Investignturs

Institute for Cultural Ecology of the Tropics

Tape. Florida
 5'5

CHL'KIN.HS NEH 25 Feb 193”

CLISSIG-AREA HAIIN KIISHIF SISTEHS:

THE EFIDERCE FDR PLTRILIHEILIT!

Nicholas A. Hopkins

Universidad Autonoma Metropolitanar

Iztapalapa

[Paper presented to the symposium on Mayan/flieroglypha and Mayan

Grammar. Taller Maya VI. San Cristobal de Las Casas. Chiapas.
July 16. 1952-]

I. Introduction
A. why does it matter?
B. Kinds of evidence.
c. Evaluation of kinda of evidence

11. Hypothesis and Methodology

A. Hypothesis: Patrilineal systems: Method: Comparative
Ethnology (rather than Linguistics)
B. Limited to ethnographicfethnohiatorieal evidence
from Lowland Hays {Tzeltalfrzotzil. ChoiEanJ, Yucatec}
c. Treatment of whole systems. not individual terms

III. The Evidence

A. Tucatec Hays
B. Chalcnihuitan Tzotail
C. TuliJa Chol
D. Comparative comments/conclusions

1?. Further Questions

A. Role of women in inscriptions: affinal terms in
Tucatec and bipartite names
B. Inscriptions; breaks in the patriline. new
parentage statements. periods of crisis
 1. INTRODUCTION

t Does Kinship Hatter?

The study of kinship is important in the study of Classic

Mayan affairs becauses kinship is a strong principle of social
organization at the level of sociocultural integration
represented by Classic-period Hays so ety. In hesoamerica as a
whole. kinship is not unimportanta/fiilthough it has often been
badly reported or virtually ignore in the study of Hesoamerican
cultures (see Eva Hunt on Cuicatec in the Tehuacan reports for a
relevant discussion of Hesoamerican kinship: see also Nutini,
Carrasco. and Taggart. eds.. 1976. Essays on Mexican Kinship}.
The Classic Mayan inscriptions give some information on kinship--
for instance, parentage statements--but this evidence is not
always unambiguous. He need an explanation of succession
patterns which would permit us to distinguish between periods of
stability and periods of crisis or periods of change from smooth
transitions {for example}.
Several kinds of evidence could be brought to bear on this
problem. Archaeological evidence includes information on
residence patterns and patterns of interaction between groups, as
well as the inscriptionsi evidence itself. This latter includes
parentage statements and statements of succession to important
offices. Evidence from the physical remains of the population
includes information on inherited genetic aberrations (see the
Mesa Redonda volumes). Ethnohistorical evidence includes data
from Lands on Yucatan, which has been analyzed by Eggan (193u),
as well as less comprehensive data from a variety of other
sources. Ethnographic and linguistic evidence includes several
studies of kinship terminology and a number of reports on kinship
behavior (see Romney in the Hull}.
---.

However. the archaeological evidence itself needs to be

interpreted in the light of independent studies. and does not by
..—.—1—-u-—-.-1,—.-..—.—n-

itself make it possible to determine what kinship systems were in

operation in a given period, although the archaeological evidence
limits the hypotheses generated by other lines of investigation.
The ethnohistorical information is not extensive. nor is it
unambiguous. The most extensive source of informtion which can be
brought to bear on the question of Classic Mayan kinship is
r.-.-—

ethnographic and linguistic evidence from the modern Mayan

societies and cultures. This information in turn must be
_

carefully analyzed, since the modern Mayan societies are

separated from the Classic period by nearly 500 years of
acculturative pressures from Hispanic culture. and, before that,
an equivalent period of acculturative pressures of Central
Mexican origin.

11. HIPOTHESES AND HETHDDULDGI

The working hypothesis of this study is that Classical Mayan

society was at least partially organized in terms of a
patrilineal kinship system. probably with non-localized clan
groupings of patrilines. The methodology by which this
hypothesis is to be tested is comparative ethnology rather than
linguistic reconstruction. and a chief concern must be the
treatment of whole systems of kinship, not isolated terms or sets
of terms. In the present paper. the scope of investigation is
limited to Lowland Maya sources, principally Iucetecan. Cholan.
end TzeltalfTsotsili

III. EVIDENCE

The hypothesis of petrilineal sys one is based on the

similarity between some modern Chcl ki hip systems {including
kinship terminology. structure and avior) and some modern
Tzotzil systems (also including terminology. structure and
behavior). The available data suggest a reconstruction
applicable to the Classic period for the western Lowland Maya
area. Data from Iucatec do not contradict the reconstruction, but
are distinct. as are data from other Tzeltal and Tzotsil groups.
Nonetheless. it is not impossible that the reconstruction could
apply to the entire Classic Lowlands. i.e.. to Classic Hays
society on general.

1. TuliJa Chol. In recent field work in the TuliJa Valley

in northern Chispas. some terminology was collected which.
together with data taken from the Chol dictionary and grammar of
Aulie and Aulie [1978) and Harkentin and Scott (1980:11H—115).cen
be interpreted as evidence of the kinship system outlined in
Fig.1.
There is considerable local variation in the terms and there
are considerable differences between individuals. This variation
is especially true for cousin terminology. where Spanish terms
are often used. But the places in the system where Spanish has
been introduced are consistent with the reconstruction. i.e..
Spanish is intrusive in Just those places where native Chol terms
are inadequate to represent a system which is acculturating to
a dominant kinship system of foreign origin. That is, where the
reconstructed kinship system is like Spanish, Chol terms are
used. But where the two systems are different. Spanish terms
have been introduced to represent the new kin types.
The terminology indicates an Omaha system in transition. The
proncipal features of the system are: (a) the lumping of
parallel cousins with siblings. {b} grouping together FaSi and
Si. etc. (the women of the patriline other than ego's direct
ancestors}. and {c} a distinction between patrilateral and
matrilateral oollaterals. Spanish is more prominent in (a)
cousin terminology. e.g.. k+siiun vs. yalobil chich vs. prime. and
{b} nephewfniece terminology. e.g.. kichak vs. yalobil chioh vs.
sobrino or p'eneJel vs. kichak vs. yalobil k+skun vs. sobrino.
These are parts of the system where the reconstructed system and
the Spanish system are most distinct.
Kinship behavior supports the idea of patrilines and clans.
in that there is surname exogsmy and persons with the same
surname, even when not known to be related, can make claims on
each other. Kinship terms can be used between them.
Most importantly. the terminology recorded for Chol maps
one-to-one onto the terminology for Chalchihuitan Tsotzil (see
 /
Fig. 2). which is an attested. functioning Omaha kinship system.
the only one in Hesoamerica {Romney in final. Guiteras Holmes.
Hopkins).

2. Chalchihuitan Tzotzil. This system is the only Omaha

system (but not patrilineal system. see Hutini 1961) previously
attested in Hesoamerica. However. the surrounding Tzotzil and
Tseltal systems have been analyzed as Omaha systems which have
aoculturated {in varying degrees} to Spanish. And Highland
Tzeltal systems have variOus kinds of clan and phratry
organisations. as well as surname exogamy and other indications
of a patrilineal past. Chalchihuitan may be said to be
conservative rather than innovative, and is therefore an
appropriate model.
Some of the characteristics of Chalchihuitan social
organization are community endOgamy. cslpul-endogamous first
marriage. surname exogamy. and an affinity between persons who
have the same surname {or parts of a compound surname}. The
oalpul (Ttotzili or parade {Spanish} is a localized territory-r
there are five such in the municipio of Chalchihuitan--within
which various patrilineages are found. Each patrilineage has
control of defined parcels of land within its calpul. and land is
inherited only by males of the controlling patrilineage. Hoone
owns land. which cannot be bought or sold [but which belongs to
San Pablo. the patron saint of Chalohihuitan}. The community as a
whole is endogenous. marriages outside Chalchihuitan being rare
and negatively sanctioned. In addition. an individual‘s first
marriage must be contracted within his or her own calpul.
although later marriages may cross calpul boundaries. A man and
his wife are buried near his father's grave site; a widow may
return to her own patrilineage {and will have to. unless she has
sons old enough to claim and work her husband's lineage lands).
There is strict surname (holsbi) exogany; furthermore there is a
felt affinity between persons who share parts of a compound
surname. Thus. two men who share the same surname will call each
other "brother": if one's wife has the same surname as the other.
he may call him “brotherrin'law“. if one's mother has the same
surname as the other man. he may be called "unclefi. etc. This
usage. however. is in address only. not in reference. these
relations are said not to be "real brothers (etc.)” and they do
not affect marriage (i.e.. there is no evogamy implied).
Calpul endogamy results in multiple marriages between
adjacent patrilineages. Ecusins who do not have the same
surnameis} are marriageable. although there is a tendency not to
marry into Hother's patriline (and Father's patriline is
ineligible because of surname exogamy). Parallel cousins are
called “brothers", although there are indications in the data
that Ego calls them "our brother" rather than "my brother". and
they are said not to be “real“ brothers.
There is a series of petitions for the bride brought by the
groom‘s family. and the last of these is made by the groom. his
parents. and his brothers. Likewise. the petition is mad to the
bride‘s Father if he is alive. otherwise to her Mother. and then
to her Brother (in that order of preference). a widower preferes
to marry his deceased wife's sister; i.e.. there is a principle
of sororate marriage.
As far as authority is concerned. children are taught to
obey and respect older siblings. Father scolds and punishes
sons, Mother the daughters. Grandparents are respected and
obeyed but do not punish their grandchildren. Parents‘ siblings
have no authority over children. In earlier times. it is said
that authority was praorieed by the elders of each patrilineage (the
oldest men with each surname], but this function has now been
taken over by the elder men who have passed through the full
round of ceremonial and civil offices (the cargo system}.
Relations between a woman and her brothers are strong. as he
is the link between her and her patrilineage. a woman‘s Brother
may receive her bride-wealth if the Father is deceased. The
Brother is the only man who can entere the woman's house after
her marriage when she is alone [i.e., if her husband is not
present). a widow‘s Brother may bring in the harvest from the
crop planted by her deceased husband if her sons are not old
enough to harvest the crop. And. a divorced or widowed woman may
be taken in by her Brother if her parents are deceased.

3. Hays of Yucatan. The system repoerted by Lands (Relaeion)

and analyzed by Eggan (193a) is not Omaha. but it does have: {a}
cross-cousin marriage or something else that generates the same
pattern of terminology. and (b) bipartite surnames in which a
female's (patriline's?) name forms part of her children's
surname. The terminology needs a lot of work. which I have not
yet attenpted.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

0n the basis of reconstructed Chol-Tsotsil, I believe there

is support for the hypothesis, although the material needs to be
worked very carefully. Nonetheless. I think that an examination
of succession patterns as reflections of patrilinesl affairs
would be coherent.
One important area that needs explanation is the role of
women. in the inscriptions and in the ethnohistorieal sources.
On the one hand. the dynastic inscriptions show women in
important ruler-as regents. as rulers, as awarders of ceremonial
headgear. etc. On the other hand. Eggan notes an extreme
elaboration of affinel terms (not reported by most ethnographies)
which need to be analyzed for their implications.

It should be stressed that there is no ethnographic or

ethnohistorical evidence for natrilinea or matrilineal clans.
and it is thus risky to postulate than in order to explain
archaeological data.
 Go

Fig. I. Chol Terminology and System

++++++++++++++++

+ Ma+F
+ yum + k0'
I! II-
§ 1-
+ MIOF

+ rum + ku'
+ +
+ +
+| + I I I
H - + F F . H M - + F F H - F
-- * chich -- yumjel ta; + na' na‘Jel 'ichan sl'lm
++ II-

+ -l-
fi""'F + F +
'ichak' + chlch '+akun +
+++ +
+ t
+ I +++
H - + F F . M M - + F
-- + chich '+skun E60 + 'IJnan
-
++¢+ II-
+ +++
H——F + F—fi F—--H +
‘1chak' + p'enejel 'lxik p'anel +
+ p'enal +
+ - 'alobil +
+++++++++++++++++++

+ + + + marks the limit: of the patrlllneage

 H

r13. 2. Izotzil Terminology (Chalohihuitnn}

[Selected Terms]

+¢+¢§++++++++¢

1- HI'FF
* uni not + rane'
+ - 4'
+ +
II- 4|-
+| I +
M - + F F - M M -+ F F H - F
--I + nix -- Juntot tot + me' Junme' Ham chich
f + +
I + +
up -+F “u +
'Ichok' + Hi: bankil. +
+ 'ltz'in +
1- -Ir
1- +
1- I ++
H -+ F F - H EGO H -+ F
-- {+H12 hankil. + 'aJnil
-
I + 'itz'in +
{1- ++++
I + +
H—_F+—F H F—H +
'ichok'+ hum nich'on nich‘on *
4- 4|-
++++++++++++++¢+

++++++ indicate: the 11I1t: of thI patrilinansa

 ‘1.

MAHKIHJIB [RAH 20 xv 198:]

memos nl manic HAIAII KIIIHIP

(HI'I'II hammer: to HATRILIHEAGES no PATRILIHBARS)

Adana. 11.3.3.
1969 "Hays Archaeology 1953-1968. A Review.” Latin American
Research Review Hi2):3—A5.

Bandelier, A.
1979 "On the distribution and tenure of lands. and the
customs with respect to Inheritance among the ancient
Mealcans.‘l Peabody Museum Reports 2:335-AAB.

Deals, Ralph L.
1932 “Unilateral organizations in Mexico.“ American
Anthropologist 3H:A5?-"T§.

Buohler. Ira and Henry A. Selby. Jr.

1968 Kinship and Social Organization. Haw Iork: XIX.

Cos. Michael D.
1965 "A nodal of ancient community structure in the Hays
Lowlands.“ Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:97-11".

1966 The Maya. New York: Praeger.

Cassius. Clemency Chase

1915 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and
Iconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Fine Arts. Harvard University
(University Hicrofilms. Ann Arbor).

1979 "A new order and the role of the calendar: Some
characteristics of the Middle Classic Period At Tikal.!
in H. Hammond and G. H. Hilley. eds.. Maya Archaeology
and Ethnohistory. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Pp. 33-50.
Essen. Fred
19st "The Maya kinship system and cross-cousin narriage.‘I
American Anthropologist 36:138-202.

Fox, James A. and John S. Justeson

n.d. "Classic Hays dynastic alliance and succession.“ in
Victoria H. Bricker and Ronald M. Spores. eds..
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 2:
Bthnohistory. Austin: University oi Texas Press. In
PRESS.

Goodenough. Herd H.
1961 Review or Social Structure in Southeast Asia. G.P.
Burdock, ed.; American Anthropologist 63:13t1-13A1.
 1963 Review of Hatrilineal Kinship. D.H. Schneider and K.
Cough. eda.; American Anthropologist 65:923-928.

1970 Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology.

Chicago: 311.

Guitsras Holmes. Calixta

19nd Diario de San Pablo Chalohihuitan. Unpublished
manuscript.

i9"? “Clanes y sistens do parantesoo de Cancun {Mexico}.'

Aota Americana 5(1 and 2): xxx

1951 “El calpulli de San Pablo i'll'ullcl'iiI‘Iui.tem,‘l in

Juan Comes. ed., HonansJe al Dr. Alfonso Caso. Mexico.
D.F.: lmprenta Nuevo Mundo. Pp. 199-206.

n.d. Background of a Changing Kinship System Among the

Taotzil Indians of Chiapas. Unpublished manuscript.

Hauiland. Hillism A.
1968 "Ancient Lowland Maya social organization." in Tulane
University. Middle Aneriosn Research Institute.
Publication 26(5):?3-118.

1970 "A note on the social organization of the Chantal

Hays.“ Ethnology 9:96-93.

1971 ? “Entombnent, authority and descent at Altar do

Sacrifioios, Guatemala,“ American Antiquity. IN PRESS.

1972 “Marriage and the family soon; the Maya of Cozumel

Island. 1570." Estudios de Cultura Hays 8:217-226.

1973 “Rules of descent in Sixteenth Century Yucatan."

Estudios de Cultura Hays 9:135-150. .

I977 "Dynastic genealogies from Tihal. Guatemala:

Implications for descent and political organization.“
American Antiquity 92:61-67.

Hellnuth, Nicholas M.
1969 Preliminary Bibliography of the Chol Lacandon. Yucatec
Laoandonl| CholI Itsa. Hopan and Guehsche of the
Southern Hays Loulands, 152u-1969. Himeographed.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Broun
UnIVersity. [Cited thus in Hauiland 1973 ECH:1H9.J

Hopkins. Nicholas A.
w-v

1967 'A short sketch of Chalohihuitan Tzotsil.'

Anthropological Linguistics 9:9-25.

1969 I'A formal account of Chalohihuitan Tzotzil kinship

fiwfi.

torminoloay.‘I Ethnology 8(1):85-102.

 ‘1

1932 Classic-Area Mayan Kinship Systems: The Evidence for

Patrilineality. Paper presented to the symposium on
Mayan Hieroglyphs and Mayan Grammar. Taller Maya HI,
San Cristobal Las Casas. Chiapaa, July 16. 1952.

Jones. Christopher
1977 “Inauguration dates or three Late Classic rulers or
I Tikal. Guatemala,“ American Antiquity uzaza-fio.

Joyce, Rosemary A. -
1931 "Classic Haya kinship and descent: An alternative
suggestion." Journal of the Steward Anthropological
Society 13(1):"5'57-

Kirchhoff. Paul
1959 "The principles of clanahip in human societies," in
Horton H. Fried, ed.. Readings in Anthropology. vol. 2.
New York: Thomas Y. Crouell. Pp. xxx.

Landa. Diego de
1938 Belacionea de Ias cases do Yucatan. Hexico, D.F.:
Pedro Bobredo.

I973 Helacion de las cosas do Yucatan. Hexioo. D.F.: Porrua.

Las Casas. Fray Bartolome do

1909 Apologetics histories. Madrid: Bailly y Bailliere e
Hijos.

Lounsbury. Floyd
ififil "The formal analysis of Crou- and Omaha-type kinship
terninolozies.“ in Hard H. Goodenough. ed..
Explorations in Cultural Anthropology. flew York: xxx.
PP. 351-393.
19TH "The inscription of the sarcophagus lid at Palenque.".
in Herle Greene Robertson. ed.. First Palenque Round
Table. 1973. Part II. Pebble Beach. California: Pre-
Columbian Art Research. Robert Louis Stevenson School.
Pp. 5-20.

1975 “A rationale for the initial data of the Temple of the

Cross at Palenque." in Merle Greene Robertson. ed.,
Segunda Mesa Hedonda de Palenque: The Art. Iconography
and Dynastic History or Palenque. Part III. Pebble
Beach. California: Pro-Columbian Art Research. Robert
Louis Stevenson School. Pp. 211-22fl.

Martinez Hernandez, Juan (ed.)

1929 Diccionario de Hotul: Espanol atrihuido a Fray Antonio
de Ciudad Real y Arte de Iengua naya por Fray Juan
Coronal. Herida: Tipografis Yucateca.

Murdock, George Peter

lflhfl Social Structure. New York: xxx.
 65

I960 'Cognatic forms or social organization." Viking Fund

Publications in Anthropology 29:1-1A.

Hutini. Hugo G.
1961 “Clan organization in a Nahuatl-speaking village of
the State of Tlsucala. Mexico." American Anthropologist
63(1)=62-78.

Olson. Ronald L. ‘
1933 "Clan and moiety in native America." University or
California Publica tions in America n Archaeo logy and
Ethnology 32:351-fl32.

Poses. Ricardo A.
1959 Chamois: Un pueblo indio de loa altos de Chiapas.
Mexico. Mexico. D.F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

Poses. Ricardo A. and Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran

195k "Instituciones indigsnas en el Mexico actual.‘I in
Alfonso Case, ed.. Hetcdos y resultados de la politics
indigenista en cico. Mexico. D.F.: Instoituto
Nacional Indigenista. Pp. xxx.

Radio. Paul
1931 "Mexican kinship terns.“ University of California
Publications in. American Archaeology and Ethnology
31:1'1l.

flolney. A.K.
1967 "Kinship and family." in ...Handbook of Middle American
Indiana 6:202-237.

Boys. Ralph
19AC I‘l’ersonal nanes of the Maya of Yucatan." in
Contributions to American Anthropology and History 31
(Publication 5231. Carnegie Institution of Hashingtcn.
Hashington. D.C. Pp. 31-fl3.
19A3 The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan. Carnegie
Institution of Hashington. Publication 5A8.

1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie

Institution of Washington. Publication 613.

1962 “Literary sources for the history of Hayapan.“ in

Carnegie Institution of flashington. Publication 619.
Pp. 23-86.

1965 "Lowland Maya native society at Spanish contact.“

in...Handbook of Hiddle American Indians 3:659-678.

Boys. Ralph 1...: F. v. Scholes and 3.3. Adams

19HD Report and Census of the Indiana or Cozumel. 1570.
Carnegie Institution of Hashington. Publication 523.
Contribution 36.
 ‘6

Soheffler. Harold H. and Floyd Lounsbury

1971 A Study in Structural Salantics: The Siriono Kinship
System. Engleuood Cliffs. N.J.: Prenticerflall.

Sohele. Linda
19T6 “Accession iconography of Chen Bahlum in the Group of
the Cross at Palenque." in Merle Greene Robertson. ed..
Segundo Hes-a Redonda tie Palenque: The Art, Iconography
and Dynastic History of Palenquc. Part III. Pebble
Beach. California: Pre-Columbian Art Research, Robert
Louis Stevenson School. Pp. 9'3fl.

193D workbook for the Maya Hieroglyphic writing Workshop at

Texas. March 22'23, 1950. Austin: Institute of Latin
American Studies. The Unoersity of Texas at Austin.

Thompson. J. E. S.
1966 "The Maya Central Area at the Spanish Conquest and
later: A problem in demography." Proceedings of the
Reyal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland (1966):23'37.

Thompson. Philip C.
1978 Tekanto in the Eighteenth.Century. Ph. D. dissertation.
Tulane University. New Orleans (University Hicrorilms.
Ann Arbor).

1952 “Dynastic marriage and succession at Tikal." Estudios

de Cultura Hays 1h:261-281.

Toszer. A. H.
190? A Comparative Study of the Hayes and Lacandones. Hen
fork: Macmillan.

19h1 Landa‘s Relacion de Las Casas do locatan: A -

Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum. 15.

Villa Rojas. Alfonso

19H? "Kinship and nagualism in a Tseltal community.
Southeastern Hexico." American Anthropologist 89:5?8—
587.

Iimenez. Francisco
1926 Les histories del arisen de los indios de esta
provincie de Guatemala. San Salvador.

Zuidema. R. Tom
1977 ''The Inca kinship system: A new theoretical VIEH." in
Ralph Bolton and Enrique Meyer. eda.. Andean Kinship
and Marriage. Publication T. Hashinstoh. D.C.: American
Anthropological Association. Pp. can-281.