The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize (Zea mays L.)   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 52 (respectively, Brown et al. 2013b and Brown et al. 2013c).2 Being the most important cereal crop domesticat- ed in the New World, substantial multidisciplinary attention has been directed to maize’s origin, domesti- cation, and dispersal, much of which is covered in a comprehensive anthology by Staller et al. (2006). Among papers included in Staller et al.’s book is Brown (2006a), an early application of the PBL approach that was neither computer-assisted nor provided proto-language homeland cartography. Since the appearance of the latter, software-based methods for dating and locating proto-languages have been developed and are employed here, rendering the present study the most up-to-date and definitive PBL treatment possible. The present study also advances the earlier investigation (Brown 2006a) by expanding the number of proto-languages treated, especially augmenting the pool of proto-languages from South America. All five species of Zea are native to Mexico and Central America (Buckler and Stevens 2006). Zea mays contains the domesticated populations of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays), its wild ancestor (ssp. parviglumis), and two other subspecies that hybridize with other populations but do not contribute significantly to the Paleobiolinguistics (PBL) employs the comparative method of historical linguistics to reconstruct the biodiversity known to human groups of the unrecord- ed past (Brown et al. 2013a).1 Comparison of words for biological taxa from languages of the same language family facilitates reconstruction of the biological vocabulary of the family’s ancient proto- language. This study uses PBL to establish when and where maize (Zea mays L.) developed significance for different prehistoric groups of Native America. This entails mapping in both time and geographic space proto-languages for which words for maize recon- struct. This information is provided to supplement crop- origin studies of maize from genetics and archaeolo- gy. Our paper’s primary purpose is to supply PBL data for use by scholars directly and intimately focused on maize origin and dispersal. We do not attempt to flesh out nuanced implications of PBL results, but instead offer only the most general interpretation of our findings for understanding developments in the prehistory of maize, leaving consideration of details suggested by PBL to experts dedicated to the taxon. Our limited interpretive approach continues a practice followed in presenta- tion of PBL data relating to chili pepper and manioc published in preceding Ethnobiology Letters papers The Paleobiolinguis cs of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cecil H. Brown1*, Charles R. Clement2, Pa ence Epps3, Eike Luedeling4, and Søren Wichmann5   Author address: 1Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA, 2Ins tuto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus,  AM, Brazil, 3University of Texas at Aus n, Aus n, TX, USA, 4World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 5Max Planck  Ins tute for Evolu onary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, and Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia   * Corresponding author: brown.cecil@yahoo.com   Received: June 26, 2013  Volume: 5:52‐64  Published: May 21, 2014  ©2014 Society of Ethnobiology  Abstract: Paleobiolinguis cs is used to determine when and where maize (Zea mays L.) developed significance for different prehistoric groups of Na ve America. Dates and loca ons of proto‐languages for which maize terms reconstruct generally accord with crop‐origin and dispersal informa on from plant gene cs and archaeobotany. Paleobiolinguis c and other lines of evidence indicate that human interest in maize was extensive millennia before the widespread development of a village‐ farming way of life in the New World. Keywords: Archaeobotany,  crop  origins,  historical  linguis cs, Na ve  Americans,  paleobiolinguis cs,  plant  domes ca on,  plant gene cs     Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 53 Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Maize (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 6178  Siouan‐Catawba  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    5944  Iroquoian  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    5554  Algic  NR  42.67  ‐73.5  Algic    4828  Caddoan  NR  33.33  ‐97.33  Caddoan    4018  Uto‐Aztecan  *suŋu  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan  1  3827  Salishan  NR  49.25  ‐122.5  Salishan    3663  U an  NR  38.33  ‐123  U an    3472  Southern Uto‐Aztecan  *sunu  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan  1  3434  Kiowa‐Tanoan  *Ɂia, *p’ǝa  37  ‐99  Kiowa‐Tanoan  2, 3  3343  Algonquian  NR  42.67  ‐73.5  Algic    3176  N Iroquoian  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    3169  Siouan  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    3035  N Caddoan  NR  33.33  ‐97.33  Caddoan    2980  Interior Salish  NR  48  ‐117  Salishan    2725  Sahap an  NR  46  ‐116  Sahap an    2678  Central Algonquin  NR  43  ‐83  Algic    2576  Northern Uto‐Aztecan  *kuma  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan  3  2500  Yukian  NR  38.5  ‐122.5  Yukian    2459  Central Salish  NR  49.25  ‐122.5  Salishan    2400  Sonoran  *sunu  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan  1  2062  Athabaskan  NR  53.75  ‐123.5  Athabaskan    1926  Southeastern Siouan  NR  36.03  ‐89.39  Siouan‐Catawba    1865  Yuman  *tayač  32.67  ‐116.17  Yuman  Authors  1864  N Interior Salish  NR  50.75  ‐122  Salishan    1850  Missouri River Siouan  NR  47  ‐108  Siouan‐Catawba    1839  Ofo‐Biloxi  NR  30.5  ‐88.67  Siouan‐Catawba    1827  Taracahitan  *sunu  27.75  ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  1  1809  Pawnee  NR  41  ‐98.67  Caddoan    1798  Mississippi Valley Siouan  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    1737  Numic  *kum‐  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan  3  1724  S Interior Salish  NR  48  ‐117  Salishan    1720  Muskogean  NR  34  ‐85  Muskogean    1673  Five Na ons  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    1587  Cupan  NR  33.17  ‐116.5  Uto‐Aztecan    1573  Southern Numic  *kum‐  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan  3  1526  Fox‐Kickapoo‐Sauk  NR  43  ‐83  Algic    1378  Mohawk‐Oneida  NR  43  ‐75.67  Iroquoian    1295  Ojibwa  *mandaamin  47  ‐89  Algic  Authors  1245  Delta‐Californian Yuman  NR  32.67  ‐116.7  Yuman    1241  E Miwokan  NR  38  ‐121  U an    1213  Tarahumaran  *sunu  27.75  ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  1  1188  Eastern Muskogean  NR  34  ‐85  Muskogean    1173  Seneca‐Onondaga  NR  42.75  ‐76.75  Iroquoian    1148  Central Numic  *kum‐  37  ‐117  Uto‐Aztecan  3  1005  Dhegihan  *wathᾴse, *hápa  36.17  ‐94.42  Siouan‐Catawba  4  899  Tepiman  *hunu  29  ‐111  Uto‐Aztecan  1  Table 1. Maize‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of North America and Northern Mexico.  (con nued on next page)    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 54 Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Maize (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 820  Upland Yuman  *tayač  34  ‐113.33  Yuman  Authors  737  Dakota  *wahú‐apa  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba  4  718  Apachean  *naadaa  36.58  ‐104  Athabaskan  Authors  534  River Yuman  *tadič  32.83  ‐114.33  Yuman  Authors  436  Alabama‐Koasa   *čassi  32.33  ‐87.41  Muskogean  Authors  384  Tewa  *khú‐  35.83  ‐110.42  Kiowa‐Tanoan  Authors  345  W Muskogean  *tančiɁ  34  ‐88  Muskogean  Authors  (con nued from previous page)  Proto‐Word Source:  1. Stubbs 2011  2. Davis 1989  3. Hill 2008  4. Carter et al. In Prepara on  Figure 1. Maize‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 1 plo ed on map of North America.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 55 Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Maize (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐ Word Source 6591  Otomanguean  *kwau, *s(a7)ai(n), *nu  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean  1  5498  Popolocan‐ Zapotecan  *nu‐  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean  Authors  5357  Amuzgo‐Mixtecan  *nu‐  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  Authors  4542  Mixtecan  *ndi‐Ɵe(m)34  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  2  4274  Totozoquen  *kyušI ~ *kyi’s  19.92  ‐97.42  Totozoquean  3  3654  Otopamean  *thǫa, *‐sa  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  4  3149  Zapotecan  *š‐okwaɁ  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean  5  3140  Mixtec‐Cuicatec  *ndu  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  6  3036  Popolocan  *na‐, ñu‐hme  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean  2  2445  Chiapanec‐Mangue  *nuu‐  17.07  ‐92.73  Otomanguean  2  2220  Mayan  *ii’m  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  7  2214  Otomian  *thᶏ  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  8  2209  Chocho‐Popolocan  *nu‐  17.67  ‐97.42  Otomanguean  Authors  1935  Chinantecan  *kwɨ:L  17.92  ‐96.5  Otomanguean  9  1783  Popoloca  *nuwa  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean  Authors  1676  Zapotec  *š‐okwaɁ  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean  5  1649  Quichean‐Mamean  *‐ii’m  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  7  1596  Mixe‐Zoquean  *mo:k  17.22  ‐96.03  Totozoquean  10  1520  General Aztec  *sɨn‐  18.35  ‐99.83  Uto‐Aztecan  11  1492  Greater Mamean  *‐i’m  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  7  1437  Mixtec  *noniɁ  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  12  1435  Totonacan  *kúši’  19.92  ‐97.42  Totozoquean  7  1432  Cholan‐Tzeltalan  *‐ii’m  16.83  ‐92.83  Mayan  7  1225  Kanjobalan‐Chujean  *‐ii’m  15.83  ‐91.83  Mayan  7  1198  Corachol  *iku  22.17  ‐104.83  Uto‐Aztecan  13  1148  Cholan  *‐ii’m  14.81  ‐89.38  Mayan  7  1058  Chujean  *‐i’im  15.92  ‐91.58  Mayan  7  997  Cha no  *n‐sukwàɁ  16.25  ‐97.38  Otomanguean  5  981  Greater Quichean  *‐iim  14.78  ‐91.5  Mayan  7  948  Sub aba‐Tlapanecan  *iši  17.08  ‐99  Otomanguean  Authors  900  Mixe  *mo:hk  17.02  ‐96.07  Totozoquean  10  802  Kanjobalan  *‐i’m  15.83  ‐91.83  Mayan  7  790  Yucatecan  *‐i’m  20  ‐89  Mayan  7  787  Zoque  *mok  16.9  ‐94.68  Totozoquean  10  741  Otomi  *thᶏ  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  14  511  Tzeltalan  *‐im  16.83  ‐92.83  Mayan  7  Table 2. Maize‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Mesoamerica (Southern Mexico and Northern Central America).  Proto‐Word Source:  1. Kaufman 1990  2. Rensch 1976  3. Brown et al. 2011  4. Bartholomew 1965  5. Campbell 2013  6. Longacre 1957  7. Brown and Wichmann 2004  8. Newman and Weitlaner 1950b  9. Rensch 1989  10. Wichmann 1995  11. Campbell and Langacker 1978  12. Josserand 1983  13. Stubbs 2011  14. Newman and Weitlaner 1950a    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 56 domesticated genome (but see Heerwaarden et al. 2011 for the importance of ssp. mexicana). Initial domestication of subspecies mays occurred in the Balsas River valley of southern Mexico from local populations of ssp. parviglumis (Benz 2006; Buckler and Stevens 2006) as early as 9000 BP (Matsuoka et al. 2002; Heerwaarden et al. 2011). The earliest microbo- tanical evidence dates the crop to 8700 BP in the Balsas River valley (Piperno et al. 2009) and the earliest macrobotanical evidence to 6200 BP at Guilá Naquitz cave, Mexico (Piperno and Flannery 2001). From the Balsas River valley, maize spread both north and south, reaching the U.S. Southwest by 3200 BP, the Eastern U.S. by 2300 BP (Hart et al. 2007), the inter-Andean valleys of Colombia by 7500 BP, northern coastal Peru by 6500 BP (Grobman et al. 2012), and lowland Amazonian Ecuador by 6000 BP (Piperno 2011). Molecular genetic analyses confirm the dispersal from southern Mexico into the south- western U.S. and then into the northern U.S.3 The southward dispersal led to a split into two major genetic groups, an Andean and a lowland South American group (Matsuoka et al. 2002; Vigouroux et al. 2008; Heerwaarden et al. 2011). Much of maize’s dispersal occurred well before it developed as a staple crop between 3000 and 2000 BP (Blake 2006; Piperno 2011), suggesting that it was only a minor crop, perhaps having uses other than general consumption. Iltis (2000) hypothesizes that sugar in the plant’s stem was initially more important than its kernel, an idea elaborated by Smalley and Blake (2003) with the proposal that maize was first used to produce an alcoholic beverage. Detection of abundant kernel starch grains at the site of early domestication, and lack of stalk phytoliths (Piperno et al. 2009) weaken support for this proposal. Sugar is the basis for fermentation, and can be produced from kernel starch as well as from the stem. Consequently, kernel starch might have been selected for fermentation relating to gifting and feasting events (Bonzani and Oyuela- Figure 2. Maize‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 2 plo ed on map of Mesoamerica. The yellow star locates the  Balsas River valley and the white star locates Guilá Naquitz cave.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 57 Table 3. Maize‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Southern Central America and South America.  Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Maize (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 7266  Macro‐Ge  NR  ‐11.3  ‐53  Macro‐Ge    4701  Mataco‐Guaykuru  NR  ‐22.5  ‐62.58  Mataco‐Guaykuru    4461  Southern Arawakan  *šinki  ‐10.33  ‐74.33  Arawakan  Authors  4400  Chibchan  *eba  9.75  ‐83.42  Chibchan  1  4134  Arawakan  *marikɨ  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan  2  4085  N Arawakan  *mariki  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan  Authors  3943  Panoan‐Tacanan  *žikɨ, *žɨki  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan  3  3585  Tupi  NR  ‐8  ‐62  Tupi    3518  Caribbean N Arawakan  *mariki  12  ‐72  Arawakan  Authors  3310  Salivan  *nyamo  5  ‐67  Salivan  Authors  3241  Barbacoan  *pijo  0.67  ‐79  Barbacoan  4  3196  Wapishanan  *mariki  1  ‐59  Arawakan  Authors  3178  Zaparoan  *sauku  ‐3.25  ‐74  Zaparoan  5  3124  Nadahup  NR  0  ‐69  Nadahup    3023  Ge  NR  ‐15  ‐52.5  Macro‐Ge    2927  Witoto‐Ocaina  NR  ‐2.75  ‐71.75  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya    2909  Guaykuruan  NR  ‐26.5  ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru    2807  Nambiquaran  *ka3yat3  ‐13  ‐59  Nambiquaran  6  2774  Misumalpan  *aja  13  ‐84.5  Misumalpan  1  2765  Zamucoan  NR  ‐20.25  ‐59.25  Zamucoan    2731  Talamancan  *ipo ~ *ikwo  9.75  ‐83.42  Chibchan  Authors  2699  Tucanoan  *we'a  0.33  ‐70.25  Tucanoan  7  2593  Inland N Arawakan  *(ma)kaanhai  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan  8  2503  Venezuelan Cariban  *ana‐  6.5  ‐66  Cariban  Authors  2433  Southern Guaykuruan  NR  ‐26.5  ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru    2414  North Barbacoan  *pija  1.5  ‐78.25  Barbacoan  Authors  2412  Cariban  *‐na‐  10.17  ‐72.75  Cariban  9  2404  Matacoan  *iphAtha  ‐22.5  ‐62.58  Mataco‐Guaykuru  10  2271  Boran  NR  ‐2.17  ‐72.33  Boran    2258  Chocoan  *pe  6.83  ‐77.17  Chocoan  Authors  2219  Purus  *šiki  ‐12.5  ‐69.33  Arawakan  Authors  2156  Western Tucanoan  *we'a  ‐2.83  ‐72.5  Tucanoan  Authors  1931  Chapacuran  *mapak  ‐13.42  ‐63.17  Chapacuran  11  1853  Panoan  *šɨki, *šiki  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan  Authors  1853  Pekodian  *‐nat  ‐14  ‐55  Cariban  Authors  1850  Tupari  *atsitsi  ‐12.5  ‐62.5  Tupi  12  1821  Southern Ge  *gãr  ‐26  ‐52  Macro‐Ge  13  1764  Arauan  *kimi  ‐6  ‐70.5  Arauan  14  1717  Quechuan  *sara  0.33  ‐78  Quechuan  15  1712  Monde  *maek  ‐10.97  ‐61.13  Tupi  Authors  1647  Bolivia‐Parana  *soporo  ‐15.17  ‐65.42  Arawakan  Authors  1634  Mainline Panoan  *šɨki  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan  16  1607  Yabu   *čiči  ‐12.25  ‐62.25  Macro‐Ge  Authors  1590  Tacanan  *jike  ‐13.33  ‐66.5  Panoan‐Tacanan  3  1569  Harakmbet  NR  ‐12.5  ‐70.5  Harakmbet    1550  Tupi‐Guarani  *aβa   ‐8  ‐62  Tupi  17  (con nued on next page)    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 58 Caycedo 2006; Benz and Staller 2006), a possible explanation of maize’s use before becoming a food staple. Maize-term reconstructions are presented for proto-languages of three major regions of the New World: (1) North America and Northern Mexico (Table 1); (2) Southern Mexico and Northern Central America (henceforth Mesoamerica) (Table 2); and (3) Southern Central America and South America (Table 3). The tables list major proto-languages of the Americas widely regarded by historical linguists as demonstrated. Some major proto-languages are not included because lexical information from daughter languages is not sufficiently available for drawing either positive or negative conclusions about maize- term reconstruction. In addition to identifying proto- languages with maize terms and the terms themselves, the tables report proto-languages for which these terms are “not reconstructable” (NR). NR is a designation used when terms for maize are present in all or most languages of a family, but, nonetheless, are not cognate and, hence, do not attest to a maize term in their shared ancestral language. NR, then, never indicates non-reconstructibility because of missing data.4 Dates for proto-languages presented in the tables are intended to be the latest dates at which these languages were spoken (just before breaking up into daughter languages). These are calculated through use of Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP) chronology, a computational dating approach based on the lexical similarity of languages (Holman et al. Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Maize (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 1520  Chipaya‐Uru  *tura  ‐19  ‐68.4  Chipaya‐Uru  Authors  1519  Kampan  *šinki  ‐10.33  ‐74.33  Arawakan  Authors  1480  Mundurucu  *muira  ‐7  ‐55.57  Tupi  Authors  1418  Cayapa‐Colorado  *pijo  0.67  ‐79  Barbacoan  Authors  1402  Guianan Cariban  *‐na‐  3.25  ‐55.75  Cariban  Authors  1395  Cabecar‐Bribri  *ikwo  9.42  ‐83  Chibchan  Authors  1335  Kakua‐Nukak  NR  0.88  ‐69.56  Kakua‐Nukak    1319  Yanomam  NR  3.5  ‐62.83  Yanomam    1291  Guahiban  *hétsa  6.5  ‐71.33  Guahiban  18  1241  Eastern Tucanoan  *we'a  0.33  ‐70.25  Tucanoan  Authors  1185  Kawapanan  *čiʔ ʔ  ‐5.5  ‐77  Kawapanan  19  1169  Pemongan  *anaik  4  ‐60  Cariban  9  992  Taranoan  *a:naci  1  ‐73  Cariban  20  974  Quechua II  *sara  0.33  ‐78  Quechuan  15  875  Embera  *pe  5.25  ‐76.66  Chocoan  Authors  678  Jivaroan  *šaa  ‐2.5  ‐78  Jivaroan  Authors  609  Araucanian  *wa‐  ‐38  ‐72  Araucanian  Authors  419  Coconucan  *pura‐  2.5  ‐76.5  Barbacoan  Authors  414  Witoto Proper  *beǰa  ‐1  ‐73.5  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya  Authors  389  Mayoruna Panoan  *šik(š)u  ‐4.42  ‐70.25  Panoan‐Tacanan  Authors  (con nued from previous page)  Proto‐Word Source:  1. Constenla 1990  2. Payne 1991  3. Girard 1971  4. Curnow and Liddicoat 1998  5. Lev Michael, per. com.  6. Price 1978  7. Thiago Chacon per. com.  8. Ramirez 2001  9. Sergio Meira per. com.  10. Najlis 1984  11. Angenot‐de Lima 1997  12. Moore and Galucio 1994  13. Jolkesky 2010  14. Dixon 2004  15. Willem Adelaar per.com.  16. Shell 2008  17. Mello 2010  18. Chris an and Ma eson 1972  19. Pilar Valenzuela per. com.  20. Meira 2000    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 59 2011).5 Possible geographic coordinates for proto- language homeland centers given in the tables are produced through automation using an algorithm for identifying the maximum lexical diversity within a language family (Wichmann et al. 2010). The geo- graphic center of lexical diversity of a family is assumed to correlate with where the family’s proto- language was spoken. Tables also give a linguistic family affiliation for each proto-language. The information reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3 is plotted on maps of Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to give a visual perspective on both the chronological and geographic Figure 3. Maize‐term reconstruction information from Table 3 plotted on map of Southern Central America and South America.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 60 distributions of reconstructed maize terms. Figure 4 is an enlargement of a highly congested area of the map of Figure 3. PBL findings reported here are offered as a resource for scholars of maize prehistory interested in pursuing lines of evidence in addition to those provided by genetics and archaeology. While we leave consideration of details suggested by PBL to those with specialized knowledge of the origin and dispersal of maize, we can observe now that PBL chronological and geographic determinations for Zea mays L. generally accord with preceding observations relating to the time and place of its domestication, and to subsequent dispersal. For example, the homeland of the oldest ancestral language showing a reconstructed maize term, Proto-Otomanguean (6591 BP), is in southern Mexico, not far from the postulated area of maize’s domestication in the Balsas River valley (Benz 2006; Buckler and Stevens 2006; Matsuoka et al. 2002; Heerwaarden et al. 2011) and the Guilá Naquitz cave in Oaxaca from which the earliest macro-botanical examples of maize (6200 BP) have been retrieved (Blake 2006) (see stars on the map of Figure 2 locating these two sites). PBL determinations also mirror the archaeologically attested early appearance of the crop in South America (Piperno et al. 2011), and its relatively late manifestation in the Eastern U.S. (Hart and Lovis 2013). Generally, proto-languages for which maize terms reconstruct are broadly distributed in the Americas, reflecting the crop’s substantial dispersal from its origin in southwestern Mexico. ASJP dates for these proto-languages, like archaeobo- Figure 4. Enlargement of congested region (northwestern South America and adjacent areas) of map of Figure 3.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 61 tanical ones, indicate that domestication and dispersal of the crop occurred before the general development of a village-farming way of life in the New World from 4000 to 3000 BP (Piperno and Pearsall 1998) and before maize became a major food crop after 3000 BP (Blake 2006). Acknowledgements Our gratitude goes to Willem Adelaar, Thiago Chacon, Bernard Comrie, Sergio Meira, Lev Michael, and Pilar Valenzuela for sharing data and insights, and to Dolores R. Piperno and Yves Vigouroux for critical suggestions to improve the archaeological and genetic associations. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Declarations Permissions: Not applicable. Sources of funding: Epps’ work on this project was supported by the National Science Foundation (HSD0902114). Conflicts of interest: None declared. References Cited Angenot de Lima, G. 1997. Fonotática e Fonologia do Lexema Protochapakura. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universidade Federal de Rondônia, Guajara-Mirim, Rondônia. Bartholomew, D. A. 1965. The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Benz, B. F. 2006. 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. 9-20. Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Benz, B. F., and J. E. Staller. 2006. The Antiquity, Biogeography, and Culture History of Maize in the Americas. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestica- tion, and Evolutions of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 665-673. Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Blake, M. 2006. Dating the Initial Spread of Zea mays. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approach- es to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolutions of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 55-72. Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Bonzani, R. M., and A. Oyuella-Caycedo. 2006. The Gift of the Variation and Dispersion of Maize: Social and Technological Context in Amerindian Societies. 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. 343-356. Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Brown, C. H. 2006. 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, CA. 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, and P. Epps. 2013a. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesti- cated Squash (Cucurbita spp.). In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, edited by M. Quinlan and M. D. Lepofsky, pp. 132-161. Society of Ethnobiology, Denton, TX. Brown, C. H., C. R. Clement, P. Epps, E. Luedeling, and S. Wichmann. 2013b. The Paleobiolinguistics of Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.). Ethnobiology Letters 4:1- 11. Brown, C. H., C. R. Clement, P. Epps, E. Luedeling, and S. Wichmann. 2013C. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Manioc (Manihot esculenta). Ethnobi- ology Letters 4:61-70. Brown, C. H., and S. Wichmann. 2004. Proto-Mayan Syllable Nuclei. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:128–186. Buckler, E. S., and N. M. Stevens. 2006. Maize Origens, Domestication, and Selection. In Darwin’s Harvest: New Approaches to the Origin, Evolution, and Conservation of Crops, edited by T. J. Motley, N. Zerega, and H. Cross, pp. 67-91. Columbia Univer- sity Press, New York. Campbell, E. 2013. The Internal Diversification and Subgrouping of Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics 79:395-420. Campbell, L. and R. W. Langacker. 1978. Proto-   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 62 Aztecan Vowels: Part III. International Journal of American Linguistics 44:262–279. Carter, R. T., A. W. Jones, J. E. Koontz, R. L. Rankin, and D. S. Rood. In Preparation. Comparative Siouan Dictionary. Computer database from the University of Colorado, Denver. 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. 1990. Una Hipótesis sobre la Localización del Protochibcha y la Dispersión de sus Descendientes. Revista de Filología y Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica 16:111-123. Curnow, T. J., and A. J. Liddicoat. 1998. The Barba- coan Languages of Colombia and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40:384-408. Davis, I. 1989. A New Look at Aztec-Tanoan. In General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: In Remembrance of Stanley Newman, edited by M. R. Key and H. M. Hoenigswald, pp. 365-790. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Proto-Arawá Phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 46:1-83. Girard, V. 1971. Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Press, Berkeley. Grobman, A., D. Bonavia, T. D. Dillehay, D. R. Piperno, J. Iriarte, and I. Holst. 2012. Preceramic Maize from Paredones and Huaca Prieta, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:1755-1759. Hart, J. P., H. J. Brumbach, and R. Lusteck. 2007. Extending the Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) and Squash (Cucurbita sp.) in Central New York. American Antiquity 72:563-583. Hart, John P., and W. A. Lovis. 2013. Reevaluating What We Know About the Histories of Maize in Northeastern North America: A Review of Current Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Research 21:175- 216. van Heerwaarden, J., J. Doebley, W. H. Briggs, J. C. Glaubitz, M. M. Goodman, J. J. Sanchez Gonzalez, and J. Ross-Ibarra. 2011. Genetic Signals of Origin, Spread, and Introgression in a Large Sample of Maize Landraces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(3):1088-1092. Hill, J. H. 2007. The Proto-Uto-Aztecan Cultivation Hypothesis: New Linguistic Evidence. Invited paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA. 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. Iltis, H. H. 2000. Homeotic Sexual Translocations and the Origin of Maize (Zea mays, Poaceae): A New Look at an Old Problem. Economic Botany 54:7-42. Jolkesky, M. P. V. 2010. Reconstrução Fonológica e Lexical do Proto-Jê Meridional. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campi- nas, Campinas, SP. Josserand, J. K. 1983. Mixtec Dialect History. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. Kaufman, T. S. 1990. Early Otomanguean Homeland and Cultures: Some Premature Hypotheses. University of Pittsburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 1:91-136. Longacre, R. E. 1957. Proto-Mixtecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 23, supplement. Bloomington, Indiana. Matsuoka, Y., Y. Vigouroux, M. M. Goodman, J. Sanchez G., E. Buckler, and J. Doebley. 2002. A Single Domestication for Maize Shown by Multi- locus Microsatellite Genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencies USA 99:6080-6084. Meira, S. 2000. A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan: Phonology and Morphology. Lincom Europa, München, Germany. Mello, A. A. S. 2000. Estudo histórico da familía linguística Tupi-Guaraní. PhD dissertation, Univer- sidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Moore, D. and A. V. Galucio. 1994. Reconstruction of Proto-Tupari Consonants and Vowels. In Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 8: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas July 2-4, 1993 and the Hokan-Penutian Workshop July 3, 1993, edited by M. Langdon, pp. 119-137. Berkeley: Dept. of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. Najlis, E. L. 1984. Fonología de la Protolengua Mataguaya.   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 63 Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenas Aires, Argentina. Newman, S., and R. Weitlaner. 1950a. Proto-Otomi Reconstructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 16:1-19. Newman, S., and R. Weitlaner. 1950b. Central Otomian II: Primitive Central Otomian Reconstruc- tions. International Journal of American Linguistics 16:73-81. Payne, D. L. 1991. A Classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) Languages Based on Shared Lexical Retentions. [In] Handbook of Amazonian Languages, [edited by D. Derbyshire and G. Pullum], 3:355- 499. Piperno, D. R. 2011. The Origins of Plant Cultivation and Domestication in the New World Tropics: Patterns, Process, and New Developments. In The Beginnings of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas, edited by D. Price and O. Bar-Yosef. Current Anthropology 52 (S4):S453-470. Piperno, D. R., and K. V. Flannery. 2001. The Earliest Archaeological Maize (Zea mays L.) from Highland Mexico: New Accelerator Mass Spec- trometry Dates and Their Implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98(4):2101- 2104. Piperno, D. R., and D. M. Pearsall. 1998. The Origins of Agriculture in the Lowland Neotropics. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Piperno, D. R., A. J. Ranere, I. Holst, J. Iriarte, and R. Dickau. 2009. Starch Grain and Phytolith Evidence for Early Ninth Millennium B.P. Maize from the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:5019-5024. Price, P. D. 1978. The Nambiquara Linguistic Family. Anthropological Linguistics 20:14-37. Ramirez, H. 2001. Línguas Arawak da Amazânia Setentrional. Editora da Universidade do Amazonas, Manaus, AM. Rensch, C. R. 1976. Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington, IN. Rensch, C. R. 1989. An Etymological Dictionary of the Chinantec Languages. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington, TX. Shell, O. A. 2008. Estudios Pano III: Las Lenguas Pano y su Reconstrucción. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Lima, Peru. Smalley, J., and M. Blake. 2003. Sweet Beginnings: Stalk Sugar and the Domestication of Maize. Current Anthropology 44:675-703. Staller, J. E., R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, eds. 2006. Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolutions of Maize. Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Stubbs, B. D. 2011. Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary. Shumway Family History Services, Flower Mound, TX. Vigouroux, Y., J. C. Glaubitz, Y. Matsuoka, M. M. Goodman, J. Sánchez G., and J. Doebley. 2008. Population Structure and Genetic Diversity of New World Maize Races Assessed by DNA Microsatel- lites. American Journal of Botany 95:1240-1253. Wichmann, S. 1995. The Relationship among the Mixe- Zoquean Languages of Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Wichmann, S., A. Müller, and V. Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the World’s Language Families: A Quantitative Approach. Diachronica 27:247-276. Biosketch Cecil H. Brown  is  a  linguis c  anthropologist  with  interests  in  ethnobiology,  historical  linguis cs,  and  Na ve American languages.  Charles R. Clement is a gene cist studying the origin and  domes ca on  of  na ve  Amazonian  crops,  and  the  ethnobotany  associated  with  anthropogenic  soils  and  other domes cated landscapes.  Pa ence Epps  is  a  linguist  whose  work  inves gates  lowland  South  American  languages  from  historical,  typological, and descrip ve perspec ves.  Eike Luedeling is an agricultural scien st mainly working  on  the  development  of  holis c  analysis  methods  for  agricultural development interven ons.  Søren Wichmann specializes  in quan ta ve methods  in  historical  linguis cs and Mesoamerican  languages. He  is  General  Editor  of  the  journal  Language Dynamics and Change.  Notes 1This is the third PBL study published in Ethnobiology Letters, the first treating chili pepper (Brown et al.   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 130. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.130. 64 2013b) and the second manioc (Brown et al. 2013c). The method and theory of PBL (and also the PBL of squash) is discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2013a) and briefly summarized in Brown et al. (2013b). Given this coverage, a discussion of PBL method and theory will not be repeated here. 2PBL analysis is in its infancy, so that it is difficult to predict what detailed contributions to crop-origin studies may emerge. Our ultimate goal is to produce a PBL atlas of New World crops that presents maps for as many as 31 different taxa. An anticipation of this proposed work is that distribution of reconstructed words for many different crops across New World proto-languages will show hemispheric patterns revealing areas of intensified domestication activities and crop dispersal that may not be so apparent when crops are considered on a one-by-one basis. 3Archaeological dates cited in this paper come from various different sources, some firsthand, others second-party reports. Some are direct radiocarbon dates and some indirect, and it is often difficult if not impossible to determine if calibration is involved. We report all dates as if they were non-calibrated, calendric dates. 4NR should not necessarily be interpreted as indicat- ing that a term for maize did not pertain to a proto- language and, by implication, that people who spoke the language were not familiar with the taxon. Another possibility is that a maize term did indeed pertain to a proto-language, but that its referent was not especially salient, accounting for the term’s failure to survive in offspring languages and, thus, to be reconstructable for the proto-language (cf., Brown et al. 2013a:140). 5Occasionally, an ASJP date for a proto-language may be older than a date for its own parent language. For example, Proto-Southern Arawakan (4461 BP) has an ASJP date older than that for Proto-Arawakan (4134 BP). This sometimes occurs in ASJP chronology when a language group’s breakup is closely followed in time by the breakup of its immediate subgroup. The attested variability of ASJP dates accounts for this apparent aberrancy (Holman et al. 2011:872).