Untitled - Smithsonian Institution

60 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44
MiXE
(Synonym: Mize)
According to Orozco y Berra (1:176) the territory of the Mixe
embraced parts of the districts of Thicohda, ViUa-Alta, and Tehuantepec,
in Oaxaca, bordering on the east with that of the Chiapanec.
Professor Starr (53) locates them at present in the districts of Yaute-
pec, Villa-Alta, and Tehiiantepec. Garay says (60)
The Mixes constituted formerly a powerful nation, and they still occupy the land
from the Sierra, north of Tehuantepec, to the district of Chiapas. In the Isthmus
they inhabit only the village of Guichicovi, and a small portion of the Sierra, which
is never visited
.
Seemingly forgetful of his statement in regard to the ancient territory
of the Hiiaves, or alluding to a different era, Brass 3ur de Bour-
boiirg (l:iii, 34-35) says the Mixes possessed anciently the greater
part of Tehuantepec, Soconusco, and the Zapotecan area, giving
Burgoa as his authority. The Popoloco of Puebla are a branch.
The language of the IMixe is now fully recognized as related to
the Zoque, and the two form the chief idioms of the Zoquean
family.
Zoque
Orozco y Berra (1:170) describes the territory of the Zoque as
embracing parts of Chiapas, Tabasco, and Oaxaca, joining on the
north the Mexican and Chontal areas, on the east the Tzental, Zotzil,
and Chiapanec, on the south the IMexican, and on the west the
Zapotec and Mixe areas. Williams (225) says:
The Zoques inhabit the mountainous region to the east, from the valley of the
Chicapa on the south, to the Rio del Corte on the north. Originally occupying a small
province lying on the confines of Tobasco, they were subjugated by the expedition
to Chiapas under Luis Marin.
The language, now well known, is taken as the typical idiom of the
Zoquean family.
Doctor Brinton (3: 144) includes in his classification of this family
two subtribes, the Chimalapas, "a subtribe of the Zoques" (no
locality given), and the Tapijulapanes "on Rio de la Sierra," evi-
dently the Tapachulteca (or Tapachula as on the map). The author
has not succeeded in finding the authority on which the first is based,
or whether it is to be taken as indicating a different dialect. How-.
ever, this is repeated l)y Grasserie (6).
the quotation in Pimentcl (ii, 236-243). But whether the language
:
The second may be based on
here referred to is to be considered different from Zoque is not clear,
unless this inference be deduced from the few words and expressions
given, which appear hardly to justify it. The relationship of Tapachulteca
to Zoquean is, however, confirmed by Sapper.