Indian languages of Mexico and Central America and their geographical distribution / by Cyrus Thomas, assisted by John R. Swanton ; accompanied with a linguistic map.

  • Thomas, Cyrus, 1825-1910.
Date:
1911
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Indian languages of Mexico and Central America and their geographical distribution / by Cyrus Thomas, assisted by John R. Swanton ; accompanied with a linguistic map. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    29/126 (page 17)
    territory of Orozco y Berra’s map, where it abuts on the Mexican (Aztec) territory, the two languages, which seem to have been cog- nate, may have been, and in all probability were, idioms of the Yaqui group. Although the evidence on this point is not positive, they were probably in the territory of the Yaqui group. Orozco y Berra seems to be justified by the evidence in placing Nio on his map as a distinct idiom, though extinct. It is stated by Zapata (404-405) that a league and a half northeast of San Pedro Guazave was the pueblo of San Ignacio de Nio, in which the language spoken was “particular,” called Nio, though Mexican was also in common use. The only subsequent mention found is that by Alegre (i, 294), who states that Padre Mendez commended the pueblos and languages of the Ocoroiri [Ocoroni], Nio, and some others which he had held, to the charge of Padre Tapia. This evidence, though direct, is somewhat slender, yet the name has been placed within the Cahita territory on the map accompanying this volume, surrounded, how- ever, with a narrow line. The evidence in regard to Basopa, which Orozco y Berra places in his list of languages, is very meager, the only notice, so far as known, being the statement by Zapata (408) to the effect that five leagues to the north [of Concepcibn de Chicorato] is the pueblo of San Ignacio deChicuris. “The language is in part Tepehuana and in part Basopa, which is that which is commonly spoken.” -Zapata says, further, (407) that in Concepcion de Chicorato the natives are divided into two parties which speak distinct languages, “the Chicurata, and the Basopa.” This appears to be the only authority on which Orozco y Berra bases the introduction of these two names into his fist of lan- guages. Both are extinct. ZOE AND TepAHUE Zoe and Baimena, both extinct languages, can best be considered together, as it seems they were related. The Zoe occupied a limited region on the eastern border of the territory of the Yaqui group, on the headwaters of the Rio del Fuerte adjoining the Tubar area. The tribe was a small one, speaking a language of its own. The Baimena, who joined them on the south, probably spoke a dialect of the same tongue. Ribas (208) says the Zoe were mountain Indians, residing about the headwaters of the Rio Sinaloa (del Fuerte) in the skirts of the sierra, and spoke a language different from that of the Sinaloas. He also states, page 145 ( tienen tambien amistad los Ahomes, y parentesco, y son de la misma lengua con los Guapaues”), that tfiey maintained friendly relations with the Ahome, and were related to and spoke the same language as the Guazave, who, as has been shown above, were related to the Yaqui group and spoke a dialect of their Ian-