The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.)
Paleobiolinguistics employs the comparative method of historical linguistics to reconstruct the biodiversity known to human groups of the remote, unrecorded past. Comparison of words for biological species from languages of the same language family facilitates reconstruction of the biological vocabulary of the family’s ancient proto-language. This study uses paleobiolinguistics to establish where and when chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) developed significance for different prehistoric Native American groups. This entails mapping in both time and geographic space proto-languages for which words for chili pepper reconstruct. Maps show the broad distribution of Capsicum through Mesoamerica and South America mirroring its likely independent domestication in these regions. Proto-language dates indicate that human interest in chili pepper had developed in most of Latin America at least a millennium before a village-farming way of life became widespread.
Bartholomew, D. A. 1965. The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Balée, W. L., and Denny Moore. 1991. Similarity and Variation in Plant Names in Five Tupi-Guarani languages (Eastern Amazonia). Bulletin-Florida Museum of Natural History 35(4):209-262.
Berlin, B., D. E. Breedlove, R. M. Laughlin, and P. H. Raven. 1973. Cultural Significance and Lexical Retention in Tzeltal-Tzotzil Ethnobotany. In Meaning in Mayan Languages, edited by M. S. Edmonson, pp. 143-164, Mouton, The Hague.
Bosland, P. W. 2008. Capsicum spp. pepper. In The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts, edited by J. Janick and R. E. Paul, pp. 859-867. CABI, Wallingford.
Brown, C. H. 2006a. Glottochronology and the Chronology of Maize in the Americas. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolutions of Maize, edited by J.E. Staller, R.H. Tykot, and B.F. Benz, pp. 648-663. Elsevier: San Diego.
Brown, C. H. 2006b. Prehistoric Chronology of the Common Bean in the New World: The Linguistic Evidence. American Anthropologist 108:507-516.
Brown, C. H. 2010. The Development of Agriculture in Prehistoric Mesoamerica: The Linguistic Evidence. In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Mesoamerica, edited by J.E. Staller and M. Carrasco, pp. 71-107. Berlin: Springer.
Brown, C. H., D. Beck, G. Kondrak, J. K. Watters, and S. Wichmann. 2011. Totozoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 323–372.
Brown, C. H., E. Luedeling, S. Wichmann, P. Epps. 2013. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Squash (Cucurbita spp.). In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, edited by M. Quinlan and M. D. Lepofsky. Society of Ethnobiology, Denton, TX.
Brown, C. H., and S. Wichmann. 2004. Proto-Mayan Syllable Nuclei. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:128–186.
Campbell, E. 2013. The Internal Diversification and Subgrouping of Chatino. Forthcoming in International Journal of American Linguistics.
Campbell, L. and R. W. Langacker. 1978. Proto-Aztecan Vowels: Part III. International Journal of American Linguistics 44:262–279.
Chacon, T. 2012. A Revised Proposal of Proto-Tukanoan Consonants and Tukanoan Family Classification. Manuscript in possession of the authors.
Christian, D. R. and E. Matteson. 1972. Proto Guahiban. In Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages, edited by E. Matteson et al., pp. 150-159. Mouton, The Hague.
Constenla-Umaña, A. 1987. Elementos de Fonología Comparada de las Lenguas Misumalpas. Filología y Lingüística 13(1):129–161.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Proto-Arawá Phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 46:1-83.
Echeverri, J. A. and F. Seifart. 2011. Una Re-evaluación de las Familias Lingüísticas Bora y Witoto. Paper Presented at Congreso Arqueología y Lingüística Histórica de las Lenguas Indígenas Sudamericanas, Universidad de Brasília.
Eshbaugh, W. H. 1993. Peppers: History and Exploitation of a Serendipitous New Crop Discovery. In New Crops, edited by J. Janick and J. E. Simon, pp. 132-139. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Girard, V. 1971. Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Holman, E. W., C. H. Brown, S. Wichmann, et al. 2011. Automated Dating of the World's Language Families based on Lexical Similarity.” Current Anthropology 52:841-875.
McClung de Tapia, E. 1992. The Origins of Agriculture in Mesoamerica and Central America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 143-171. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Meira, S. 2000. A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan: Phonology and Morphology. Lincom Europa, Muenchan.
Mello, A. A. S. 2000. Estudo Histórico da Família Lingüística Tupi-Guarani Aspectos Fonológicos e Lexicais. Tese apresentada ao Departamento de Língüística e Língua Vernácula do Instituto de Comunicação e Expressão da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina como parte dos requisitos para a obtenção do grau de Doutor em Lingüística.
Moore, B. R. 1962. Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages: I, edited by Catherine Peeke, pp. 270-289. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Norman, Oklahoma.
Moore, D. and A. V. Galucio. 1994. Reconstruction of Proto-Tupari Consonants and Vowels. In Survey of California and Other Indian Language, Report 8, edited by M. Langdon, pp. 119-137.
Najlis, E. L. 1984. Fonología de la Protolengua Mataguaya. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Newman, S. and R. Weitlander.1950a. Proto-Otomi Reconstructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 16:1-19.
Newman, S. and R. Weitlander. 1950b. Central Otomian II: Primitive Central Otomian Reconstructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 16:73-81.
Payne, D. L. 1991. A Classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) Languages based on Shared Lexical Retentions. Handbook of Amazonian Languages 3:355-499.
Pearsall, D. M. 1992. The Origins of Plant Cultivation in South America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 173-206. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Pearsall, D. M. 2008. Plant Domestication and the Shift to Agriculture in the Andes. In Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by H. Silverman and W. Isbell, pp. 105-120. Springer, New York,
Perry, L., R. Dickau, S. Zarrillo, I. Holst, D. M. Pearsall, D. R. Piperno, M. J. Berman, R. G. Cooke, K. Rademaker, A. J. Ranere, J. S. Raymond, D. H. Sandweiss, F. Scaramelli, K. Tarble and J. A. Zeidler. 2007. Starch Fossils and the Domestication and Dispersal of Chili Peppers (Capsicum spp. L.) in the Americas. Science 315:986. Doi: 10.1126/science.1136914
Pickersgill, B. 1984. Migrations of Chili Peppers, Capsicum spp., in the Americas. In Pre-Columbian Plant Migration, edited by D. Stone, pp. 105-124. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 76, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Pickersgill, B. 2007. Domestication of Plants in the Americas: Insights from Mendelian and Molecular Genetics. Annals of Botany 100:925 Doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm193
Pickersgill, B. and C. B. Heiser. 1977. Origins and Distribution of Plants Domesticated in the New World Tropics. In Origins of Agriculture, edited by C. A. Reed, pp. 803-835. Mouton, The Hague.
Ramirez, H. 2001. Línguas Arawak da Amazonia Setentrional. Editora da Universidade do Amazonas, Manaus.
Rensch, C. R. 1976. Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington.
Rensch, C. R. 1989. An Etymological Dictionary of the Chinantec Languages. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington, Texas.
Shell, O. A. 2008. Estudios Pano III: Las Lenguas Pano y su Reconstrucción. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Lima, Perú.
Stubbs, B. D. 2011. Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary. Shumway Family History Services, Flower Mound, Texas.
Wichmann, S. 1995. The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Wichmann, S., A. Müller, and V. Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the World’s Language Families: A Quantitative Approach. Diachronica 27(2):247–276.
Copyright (c) 2013 Ethnobiology Letters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.