Language and subsistence patterns in the Amazonian Vaupés ...

Language and subsistence patterns in 

the Amazonian Vaupés 

Patience Epps 

University of Texas at Austin 

Historical linguistics and hunter-gatherer populations in global perspective 

August 12, 2006, MPI-EVA Leipzig 

Forager-farmer interaction: 

cross-cultural similarities 

• Hunted meat, forest products, and labor exchanged for 

agricultural produce and non-native trade goods 

• Little intermarriage 

• Farmers consider foragers socially inferior 

• ‘Patron-client’ relationships are common 

• Unreciprocated bilingualism is typical, often resulting in 

complete shift to farmers’ language 

(Peterson 1978, Spielmann and Eder 1994, Woodburn 1988, Bahuchet 1993, Blust 1987, etc.) 

What this talk is about… 

Forager-farmer interaction in the Vaupés 

• Dynamics 

- Resemblance to other forager-farmer relationships 

• History 

- Time-depth of the interaction? 

- Time-depth of Nadahup association with horticulture? 

• Linguistic clues 

- Lexical comparison 

- Numeral systems 

- Language contact phenomena 

Forager-farmer interaction: 

a symbiosis 

Africa: 

Mbuti, Aka and Bantu (Turnbull 1965, Bahuchet and Guillaume 1982) 

!Kung and Bantu/Tswana (Lee 1979) 

Hadza of Tanzania and surrounding peoples (Woodburn 1988) 

Okiek of Kenya and Maasai (Woodburn 1988) 

SE Asia: 

Agta and Palanan (Peterson 1978, Headland and Reid 1989) 

Batek Semang and Senoi (Endicott 1984, etc.) 

South India: 

Paliyans and Tamils (Gardner 1972) 

Malapantaram and surrounding peoples (Morris 1982) 

Naiken and surrounding peoples (Bird 1983) 

And many others… 

A forager-farmer symbiosis in Amazonia: 

The Vaupés region 

Forest-dwelling 

foragers: 

Nadahup (Makú) family 

(Hup, Yuhup, Dâw, Nadëb) 

River-dwelling 

agriculturalists: 

E. Tukanoan family 

(Tukano, Desano, etc.) 

Arawak family 

(Tariana, Baniwa, etc.) 

Hup 

Yuhup 

ARAWAK 

TUKANOAN 

TUKANOAN 

ARAWAK 

TUKANOAN 

TUKANOAN 

Dâw 

ARAWAK 

Nadëb 

The “people of the river”: 

Tukanoans and Arawaks in the Vaupés 

• Settled river-dwellers 

• Fishing and large-scale farming (bitter manioc) 

• Linguistic exogamy: obligatory marriage across 

language groups 

! Multilingualism 

! Language = identity 

! Cultural inhibition against 

language mixing 

(so little lexical borrowing)

Comparative vocabulary: cultivated plants Comparative vocabulary: manioc and manioc-processing 

(N=Native to general region) HUP UN. HUP YUHUP DÂW NADËB TUKANO BANIWA 

avocado yuhúm yuhúm b$r$j$$ :yû piirídz$ 

banana p,h,t p,h,t w,h,t sél% m$sææl ohô p$l!n$ 

[brought by Portuguese 1502] (Hup: wild ‘banana’: p,h,t, h$y’$y p,h,t) 

bottle-#ourd (N) b’&% (t$t) b’&% (t$t) b’&% (t$t) b&%l;l wen, hök$ 

c!ne (!rrow) (N?) muh te" k’i" muh k’i" té" s1(" 

(= ‘arrow-stick’) (= ‘shoot.with.arrow-arrowcane) 

cane (sugar) (Non-N) muh te" né4-te" h1.t k$n$ [Pt. c!n!] )r, m!$p$ 

(= ‘honey stick’) 

cará (N) j’)h j’)h j’)h %ìn m$n$%,n y$%mû !$xi 

coca (N) p:%:k cohó tu% p$tóo p$9tu hiip!to 

(cf. Hup !uk- ‘fill hand with loose stuff (farinha, seeds, etc.) and put in mouth’; %uk b&% coca cuia ) 

cocoa fruit (Non-N?) k$k$w$ b1%uk k$k$w$ húl% k’$$w k!k$w$ 

[from Port. cacao] [Hup: similar wild fruit b1h%uk] 

corn (N) p,h,t yúm p,h,t yúm hók$ w’;t ohôk$ k!$n$ 

(= ‘banana-plant/sow[v.]’) 

manioc (N) k$y$k t&% kiy$k t&% y#k t&% y!k b&" kií káini 

(t&% ‘tuber’??) 

sweet manioc k$y$k wæ-d wæ-d kiy$k y$k wæd y$k y$% m$h&ur kapíwali 

(= ‘manioc-eat’) (= ‘manioc-grill’) 

papaya (Non-N?) mæmæw [Port. mamão] mamáw máw mapah mamu 

peanut (N?) y’æ% tutú y’æ% tutú y’æ% tutú% (=‘feces-into.ground’) 

pimenta (N) k&(w k&(w k&-w x&(w pohó biâ áati, mítsa 

pineapple (N?) s$n$ s$n$ y&(y w#:n m$w$$d s"r! m!$wiro 

y&-y (type of pineapple) y&(y 

potato (N?) pí% pí% j’)h (=‘cara’) y&% k$r$h,,r yãpî kalíri 

squash (Non-N) b&%-wæd b&%-wæd b&%-wæd (= ‘gourd-eat’) 

tobacco (N) h&t h&t h&t h&t h&:t m#rô dzéema 

BUILT FROM NATIVE PARTS – BORROWED OR CALQUED – COGNATE – COGNATE DÂW-NADËB ONLY 

Horticulture in the Vaupés 

Nadahup horticultural vocab is much more innovative overall 

(i.e. newer) than non-cultivated plant terminology: 

• Many fewer cognates across the family 

• Greater morphological complexity 

and semantic transparency 

• More loans and calques 

!Suggests the Nadahup have always 

had a primary emphasis on foraging - 

probably not reverted horticulturalists 

(scenario 4) 

Horticulture in the Vaupés 

Many horticultural terms predate the later splits in the family; some 

loans are phonologically fully integrated. 

!Suggests the Nadahup are not undergoing an abrupt, 

recently initiated shift to horticulture (scenario 1) 

Many terms are common to Hup-Yuhup-Dâw (and not Nadëb): 

bottle-gourd pineapple type 

manioc pimenta 

But others are common to Dâw-Nadëb (and not Hup-Yuhup): 

banana coca (borrowing) 

cará (potato type) manioc meal (borrowing) 

pineapple roça (chop down trees) 

Possible explanation: 

After initial breakup of family, Dâw speakers retained contact with both 

branches simultaneously for some time. 

HUP UN. HUP YUHUP DÂW NADËB TUKANO BANIWA 

caxiri huptok huptok peêru pádzawaro 

(manioc beer) (= ‘person-belly’) (??bubble, ferment?) 

comata (strainer) koy%y tõhôpaha ttíiroli, báats 

manioc meal kæn cíh cak pój s"k masuuk poká matsóka 

(= ‘toast[v.]) (=‘grass’) (=‘mash-toasted’) (pieces, bits in general) 

grater h,.p h,.p h,.p h8:p h,.p sõkôro (v. oé) ada 

griddle b’&k k$b b$k k$b b’&k%!h b&

Nadahup-River Indian interaction 

Lexical evidence 

! Lexical evidence points to Nadahup horticulture as a long-term 

- but not ancient - secondary subsistence strategy (scenario 2): 

Earliest manioc-related and other terms probably entered Nadahup languages 

between the initial and subsequent splits of the family. 

! Nadahup-River Indian interaction is probably of comparable age: 

• Horticultural loanwords from Tukanoan and Arawak 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

• Word meaning ‘River Indian’ is cognate in Hup-Yuhup-Dâw: 

Hup Yuhup Dâw 

w&-h w&h w&-h 

• Non-linguistic evidence is consistent: 

- Early European visitors to the region report a symbiotic relationship much like 

that seen today (Koch-Grünberg 1906; Nimuendajú 1927/1950). 

- Local ethnohistorical accounts treat interaction as ancient. 

Numeral 

6-20 


Numeral systems 

Vaupés River Indian languages have similar numeral systems: 

Tukano 

(Eastern Tukanoan; Ramirez 1997: 332-3) 

ni%k$< 

p,,! 

i%ti! 

b$%p9-$itise 

“companion-NMLZ” 

ni%k9muk) (ni%k$-$muk)) 

“one-hand” 

adding fingers, hands, feet/toes 

Tariana 

(Arawak; Aikhenvald 2003: 217-9, 2002: 107-8) 

pa:- 

ñama- (yama-) 

madali- 

kephunipe (ka-iphu-nipe) 

(rel + accompany-NMLZ) 

“the one who has a companion” 

pa:-kapi or pa-kapi 

“one-hand” or “imp-hand” 

adding fingers, hands, feet/toes 

• Lexical ‘atoms’ 1-3 (etymologically opaque) 

• Term for 4 meaning ‘has sibling/is accompanied’ (calqued from Tukanoan into 

Tariana, replacing original native term; Aikhenvald 2002:107-8) 

• Term for 5 meaning ‘one hand’ (calqued from Tukanoan into Tariana, replacing 

original native term; Aikhenvald 2002:107-8) 

• Base-5 system for 5-20 based on hands and feet, fingers and toes 



! 1-3 in Hup, Yuhup, Dâw are etymologically transparent and appear to be 

derived from a common ancestral form or concept. 

Hup 

!ayup 

From demonstrative yup 

‘that’ 

ka!ap or k&w&g-!ap 

‘eye-quantity’ 

m%ta!ap or m%t-w#g-!ap 

‘rubber.tree -seedquantity’ 

Yuhup 

cã(h or cãhyã(pã 

From demonstrative 

‘other’ 

b’&! 

[etymology unknown] 

m&d,("-w’#p 

From ‘rubber.tree - 

seed-quantity’ 

m’=.% 

[etymology unknown] 

t##b 

compare t#b ‘eye’ 

mutuw$p or mutw!p 

From ‘rubber.tree - 

seed-quantity’ 

! 4+ (‘even’) in Dâw and 4, 5, 6-20 in Hup/Yuhup are Tukanoan calques. 

4: ‘has sibling/is accompanied’ 

5: ‘one hand’ 

6-20: hands and feet, fingers and toes 

Dâw 

Common feature 

Derived from demonstrative 

Derived from ‘eye’ 

‘Rubber-tree seed quantity’ 

!Other cultural features 


Lexical evidence 

• Post-contact? 

Cultural vocabulary shared across unrelated regional languages: 

Dabacuri ritual [calque ‘pour out’ in Tukano, Hup] 

caapi (hallucinogenic plant) [loanword, shared Hup, Tukano, Baniwa (Arawak)] 

principal deity/culture figure [calque ‘Bone-Son’ in Hup, Tukano; Baniwa ‘One 

on the Bone’] 

• Pre-contact? 

Cognate Nadahup cultural/material vocabulary: 

Hup Yuhup Dâw Nadëb 

hammock y!" y#" yæ" y!" 

canoe h&h-t'" h&(h x&: h’&&h 

axe m&-m m&(m m!:m m,,m 

blowgun/shoot with blowgun c&w coow 

shaman c1(w c1-w c1(w c11w 

fishhook d!y’ l#y’ karãay 



Nadahup numeral systems vary widely: 

1. Nadëb: 

• 1-3 only (alternative and approximate meanings; not truly ‘basic’) 

2. Dâw: 

• Lexical atoms 1-3 

• 4,6,8,10 expressed as ‘has sibling’ (lit. ‘even’); 5,7,9 as ‘has no sibling’ 

(lit. ‘odd’) 

3. Hup/Yuhup: 

• Lexical atoms 1-3 

• 4 ‘has sibling/is accompanied’ 

• 5 ‘one hand’ 

• 5-20 base-5 system based on hand and feet, fingers and toes 



! Nadahup numeral systems are probably younger than the River Indian 

numeral systems 

• Within Nadahup, only Hup/Yuhup have a true lexical system for numerals 

over 3, all calques from Tukanoan 

• 1-3 etymologically transparent in Hup/Yuhup/Dâw; not cognate in Nadëb 

! Higher numerals probably developed through contact with River Indians 

• Presumably motivated by language contact and by increased need for 

numerals in trade 

! Supports picture of Nadahup increase in socio-economic complexity 

through contact with River Indians (as opposed to an agriculturalist > 

forager reversion) 

! Supports picture of significant interaction with River Indians as later 

than the Nadahup family breakup 

(Epps forthcoming a)


Language contact 

The contemporary picture: 

Vaupés region 

Hup/Yuhup: Dâw: Nadëb: 

Unilateral bilingualism in Tukano Some contact with No contact with Tukano; 

Tukano, less bilingualism some Arawak contact in 

past (degree unknown) 

The Vaupés linguistic area: 

Language = identity in regional culture 

! Conscious avoidance of language mixing 

!Restrained lexical borrowing 

But areal diffusion within Vaupés has resulted in 

profound grammatical convergence 

(Tukanoan and Tariana (Aikhenvald 2002, etc.); Tukanoan and Hup/Yuhup (Epps forthcoming b); Dâw (S. Martins 

2004); Nadëb (Weir 1984)) 

Phonological features 



Inside Vaupés Outside Vaupés 

E. Tukanoan Arawak Nadahup 

Nadahup 

Tukano Tariana H u p Dâw Nadëb 

Tone y e s y e s yes yes no 

Nasalization morpheme-level morpheme-level morpheme-level segment- segment-level 

level only only 

Word-initial /g/ no no no yes yes 



Tense specifications 

E. Tukanoan 

Tukano 

Past Recent 

Distant 

(obligatory 

portmanteau 

suffixes) 

Future Several 

suffixes 


Nadahup 

Hup Yuhup 

Recent páh Recent p á h 

Distant j’ám / Distant ãm 

j’ãh (optional) (optional) 

Suffix -teg/-te- Tone change 

(temporal 

discontinuity 

in general) 

Nadahup 

Dâw Nadëb 

One optional past: One past: paah 

e 

(cognate with Hup 

(cognate with Hup recent past 

perfective aspect marker?) 

marker?) 

Suffixes 

Particle dah 

- ej, - y 

(may be largely 

aspectual) 



For Nadahup languages, convergence toward Tukanoan 

languages is consistent with proximity to Vaupés: 

Heavy influence No apparent influence 

Hup----Yuhup-------------Dâw-----------------Nadëb 


!Nadëb is now very different typologically from Hup-Yuhup-Dâw: 

- ergative-absolutive vs. nominative-accusative 

- predominantly prefixing vs. predominately suffixing 

- head-marking vs. dependent-marking 

- etc. 



Evidentiality 

Visual paradigm 

(evid.person-tense 

East Tukanoan 

Tukano Tuyuca 

number) 

Nonvisual paradigm 

(evid.person-tense 

Inference 

(assumed) 

number) 

paradigm 

(evid.person-tense- 

number) 

Inference2 -nii 

construction 

Reported paradigm 

(evid.person-tensenumber) 


paradigm 

(evid.-persontense-number) 

paradigm 

(evid.- persontense-number) 

paradigm 


paradigm 


paradigm 


Arawak 

Tariana 

paradigm 

(evid.tense) 

paradigm 

(evid.tense) 

-nhina, 

-nihka 

paradigm 

(evid.tense) 

Nadahup 

Hup Yuhup 

=h 

=cud 

-ni- 

constr. 

=mah 

=h 

-ni 

constr. 

=mah 



Nadahup 

Dâw Nadëb 

= m a h 

Other probable contact-influenced features in Hup: 

– Verb compounding 

– Mostly suffixing morphology 

– Numeral system (4+) 

– Noun classification 

– Nominal number 

– Passive construction 

– Case marking 

– Verb-final word order 

– Etc. 

• Resistance to language shift, but profound 

convergence toward Tukanoan. 

• Suggests period of intense contact between 

Hup/Yuhup and Tukanoan; less intense for Dâw. 

m h


Summing up 

Features of Nadahup languages: 

• Innovative horticultural lexicon 

• ‘River Indian’ cognate in Hup-Yuhup-Dâw 

• Numeral complexity is recent and Tukanoan-inspired 

• Grammatical convergence of Nadahup > Tukanoan languages within Vaupés 

The available linguistic evidence points to the following historical picture: 

Nadëb 

Proto-Nadahup 

Initial contact with River Indians 

Initial extended contact with horticulture 

Dâw Increased contact with Tukanoans and 

emphasis on trade 

Hup Yuhup 

Time-depth of interaction in years? Probably at least 500? 



Language maintenance + grammatical convergence 

! Fostered by regional perception that language = identity 

Implications for language variation and change in 

prehistoric times? 

• Forager-farmer interaction has probably been present on virtually all 

continents since the inception of agriculture. 

• In cases where this did not induce language shift, it probably involved 

some degree of convergence, resulting in similar typological profiles. 

! Could this have been one mechanism behind large-scale areal 

patterns, such as those appearing in WALS? 



• Linguistic evidence suggests a long history of foragerfarmer 

interaction with maintenance of separate lifeways. 

• Vaupés case is typical in many ways of contemporary 

forager-farmer interaction elsewhere in the world. 

• Consistent with Bellwood’s (1997:131-2) observation that 

“Ethnographic foragers have never adopted agriculture. Even when they 

occasionally include a small amount of cultivation in their subsistence 

round… they never do this to the extent that they are able to compete both 

demographically and technologically with surrounding long-term 

agriculturalists.” 

• Consistent with archaeological data suggesting that foragers in the past 

did not just give up their way of life when agriculture appeared, but 

were out-competed or switched very gradually (e.g. Bray 1977:294).

Language and subsistence patterns in the Amazonian Vaupés ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?