The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.) 1  Research Communica on  years to reconstruct vocabularies of proto-languages spoken in prehistoric times, such as Proto-Indo- European and Proto-Uralic. This involves comparing vocabularies of languages of the same family (all of which are descended from the same proto-language) for phonologically similar words having the same meanings or very similar meanings. If such words show phonological regularities known as sound correspondences, then they are cognate and, conse- quently, are descendant forms (reflexes) of words found in their common ancestral language. Knowledge of sound correspondences facilitates the actual reconstruction of words of a proto-language’s vocabulary. PBL applies the comparative approach of historical linguistics to the reconstruction of words for living things. So far, most PBL attention has focused on words for plants. Reconstruction of the phonological shapes of ancient proto-words for species is usually straightforward, with no ambiguity with respect to principles of comparative linguistics. Reconstruction of the referents of proto-words can be straightforward as well, especially when all the This is the second in a series of papers each present- ing paleobiolinguistic (PBL) maps of a single crop domesticated in the New World. The first, Brown et al. (2013), provides maps for squash (Cucurbita spp.). Papers projected for publication in Ethnobiology Letters include treatments of manioc (Manihot esculenta), maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus spp.), and tobacco (Nicotiana spp.). Our ultimate goal is to produce an online compendium, Paleobiolinguistic Atlas of New World Crops, in which maps for at least 30 botanical taxa are presented. Papers appearing in Ethnobiology Letters will present PBL maps accompanied by brief background discussions of crop-origins studies from archaeology and botany. The method and theory of paleobiolinguistics is discussed in detail in preceding studies (Brown et al. 2013; Brown 2006a,b, 2010). A brief review of highlights is provided here. The comparative method of historical linguistics has been used for around 150 The Paleobiolinguis cs of Domes cated Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.)   Cecil H. Brown1, Charles R. Clement2, Pa ence Epps3, Eike Luedeling4, Søren Wichmann5   Author address: 1Northern Illinois University and University of West Florida, 1700 Scenic Highway, #601, Pensacola, FL,  32503‐6634, 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.  brown.cecil@yahoo.com Received: September 21, 2012  Volume: 4:1‐11  Published: January 19, 2013  © 2013 Society of Ethnobiology  Abstract: Paleobiolinguis cs employs the compara ve method of historical linguis cs 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 reconstruc on of the biological vocabulary of the family’s ancient proto‐language. This study uses  paleobiolinguis cs to establish where and when chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) developed significance for different prehistoric  Na ve American groups. This entails mapping in both  me and geographic space proto‐languages for which words for chili  pepper reconstruct. Maps show the broad distribu on of Capsicum through Mesoamerica and South America mirroring  its  likely  independent domes ca on  in  these  regions. Proto‐language dates  indicate  that human  interest  in  chili pepper had  developed in most of La n America at least a millennium before a village‐farming way of life became widespread.   Key Words: Archaeobotany, Capsicum spp., crop origins, historical  linguis cs, Na ve American Indians, paleobiolinguis cs,  plant domes ca on, plant gene cs   Editor Note: This ar cle is the first in a series we aim to  publish  on  paleobiolinguis cs.  Because  it  is  a  special  series, we have allowed an increased number of figures.  mailto:brown.cecil@yahoo.com� 2  Research Communica on  offspring words designate the same genus or species, such as Capsicum spp. or C. annuum. When meanings of cognate words differ, even if only slightly, e.g., some refer to C. annuum, and others mean ‘spicy’, there is less certainty that the proto-word actually designated the botanical species itself. In our applica- tion of PBL, all reflexes of reconstructed words typically denote the same botanical kind, or, if not, show distributional patterns strongly indicating that the target plant was the proto-term’s referent. An important assumption of PBL is that if a word for a species is found to reconstruct for a proto- language, then that species was of considerable salience to the people who spoke the language. This assumption is strongly supported by research of Berlin et al. (1973) and Balée and Moore (1991) showing that plant words reconstructing respectively for Proto-Tzeltalan (Mayan, Mesoamerica) and Proto- Tupi-Guaraní (South America) designate species that are of robust cultural importance for modern groups speaking offspring languages. On the other hand, plants for which proto-words do not reconstruct are usually not as culturally significant for these groups. If the botanical kind designated by a proto-word occurs as a domesticated crop in modern times, then it may have been a domesticated crop in prehistoric times. However, there is no guarantee that such was the case. The plant in question could have been, for example, a protected wild species, perhaps one on the verge of being intensely managed, and, ultimately, domesticated. The approach of PBL so far has been to assume confidently only that the species was salient to a prehistoric people, meaning that it was known to most adult speakers of the proto-language. All of the approximately 30 species of chili Figure1. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 1 plo ed on map covering North America and Northern  Mexico. Centers of circles locate homeland centers of proto‐languages (see geographic coordinates of Table 1) and circle  size indicates proto‐language age (see “years before present” of Table 1), with larger circles indica ng older proto‐languages  and smaller circles, younger ones. Circles are red filled if a chili pepper term reconstructs for a proto‐language, and transpar‐ ent if not.  3  Research Communica on  pepper are native to the New World, and five contain domesticated populations. The domesticated taxa include the world’s most widely-grown spice, Capsicum annuum L., as well as C. baccatum L., C. chinense Jacq., C. frutescens L., and C. pubescens Ruiz & Pav. Work during the last half century has established that C. annuum was brought into domestication in south-central Mexico, C. baccatum in the Andean foothills and adjacent lowlands of Bolivia and extreme southern Peru, C. chinense in north-central Amazonia, and C. pubescens in the mid-elevation Andes of southern Peru and Bolivia (Eshbaugh 1993; Pickersgill 1984). Capsicum frutescens remains a conundrum, since it hybridizes easily with C. annuum and C. chinense, both of which also hybridize, suggesting the proposal of a C. annuum-chinense-frutescens complex (Pickersgill 1984), and that C. frutescens may be part of C. chinense, rather than a distinct species (Eshbaugh 1993). Nonetheless, C. frutescens is always listed as a domesticated Capsi- cum (Bosland 2008; Perry et al. 2007; Pickersgill 2007), and is believed to have been brought into domestication in Central America (Pickersgill 1984), the Caribbean (Bosland 2008), or southwestern Amazonia (Pickersgill and Heiser 1977). The oldest macro-botanical remains identified as domesticated C. annuum are retrieved from pre- ceramic strata of dry caves in two areas of Mexico, the Tehuacán Valley (Puebla State) and Ocampo (Tamaulipas State), with dates between 9000 and 7000 BP (McClung de Tapia 1992). These dates are produced indirectly through conventional radiocarbon dating of archaeological materials associated with botanical remains, a method yielding less precise dates than those produced by accelerator mass spectrome- try (AMS). If eventually subjected to AMS analysis, the Tehuacan and Ocampo remains may prove to be somewhat younger. Nonetheless, they are comparable in great age with indirect dates of C. chinense from Guitarrero Cave, in the mid-elevation Peruvian Andes (Pearsall 1992). Given the relative imprecision of indirect radiocarbon dating, Pickersgill (2007) and Perry et al. (2007) conservatively suggest that domesti- Figure 2. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 2 plo ed on map covering Mesoamerica.  4  Research Communica on  cated C. annuum was present by 6000 BP at the latest, and C. chinense and C. baccatum by about 4000 BP. Capsicum frutescens is reported from Huaca Prieta, northern Pacific Peru, between 4000 and 3000 BP (Pearsall 1992), but difficulties in distinguishing C. frutescens from C. chinense make this assessment problematic. No clearly identified C. pubescens are recorded from archaeological sites in South America (Pearsall 1992, 2008). Tables 1 - 3 present chili pepper-term reconstruc- tions 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 only New World regions not covered are Arctic and Subarctic parts of Alaska and Canada where chili pepper occurs only as a historical intro- duction. Chili pepper is also a historical introduction to most groups of North America north of Mexico (accounting for the scant attestation of proto- languages in the region for which chili pepper terms reconstruct [see Figure 1]). 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 chili pepper-term reconstruction. For each proto-language listed, either a reconstructed word for chili pepper is presented, or NR which stands for “not reconstructa- Figure 3. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 3 plo ed on map covering Southern Central America and  South America. Area enclosed by yellow square is enlarged in map of Figure 4.  5  Research Communica on  ble.” NR is a designation used when terms for chili pepper are present in all or most languages of a family, but, nonetheless, are not cognate and, hence, do not attest to a chili pepper term in their common ancestral language. NR, then, never indicates non- reconstructibility because of missing data. 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 ASJP (Automated Similarity Judgment Program) chronology, a computational dating approach based on the lexical similarity of languages and a set of 52 calibration dates for proto-language breakups documented through historical, epigraphic, and archaeological records (see Holman et al. 2011). The discrepancies between ASJP estimated dates and the 52 calibration dates are on average 29 percent as large as the estimated dates themselves, a figure that does not differ significantly among language families of the world; also, younger dates tend to be more accurate than older ones (Holman et al. 2011). The 29 percent average difference between an estimated date and its calibration date should be viewed as the estimated date’s margin of error. Since an ASJP date indicates the latest date at which a protolanguage was spoken, plausibly any proto-language could have been spoken hundreds of years if not more before its ASJP date. Occasionally, 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 chronolo- gy when a language group’s breakup is closely Figure 4. Enlargement of the area of map of Figure 3 enclosed in yellow square.  6  Research Communica on  followed in time by the breakup of its immediate subgroup. The attested variability of ASJP dates (i.e., margin of error) accounts for this apparent aberrancy (Holman et al. 2011:872). 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 1-3 is plotted in Figures 1, 2 and 3 to give a visual perspective on both the chronological and geographic distributions of reconstructed chili pepper terms. These are maps on which proto-languages are located and their ages indicated by the size of circles locating them, larger circles indicating greater chronological depth than smaller circles. Circles are red filled if a chili pepper term reconstructs for the proto-language, and are transparent if not. The map of Figure 4 is an enlarge- ment of a graphically congested area of the map of Figure 3. Due to methodological considerations, reconstructed words for chili peppers found in New World proto-languages cannot be narrowed referen- tially to the species level, although informed specula- tion can sometimes associate some reconstructed names with specific species (see below). PBL analysis of chili pepper dovetails robustly with archaeological and genetic evidence relating to origins of domesticated Capsicum annuum. The oldest Years  Before  Present  Proto‐Language  Proto‐Word for  Chili Pepper (NR =  Not Reconstructable)  Homeland  Center Geographic  Coordinates  Family  Affilia on  Proto‐Word  Source  4018  Uto‐Aztecan  NR  27.5, ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan    3663  U an  NR  38.33, ‐123  U an    3472  Southern Uto‐Aztecan  NR  27.5, ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan    3434  Kiowa‐Tanoan  NR  37, ‐99  Kiowa‐Tanoan    2576  Northern Uto‐Aztecan  NR  39, ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    2500  Yukian  NR  38.5, ‐122.5  Yukian    2400  Sonoran  *ko’okoLi  27.5, ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan  1  2141  Miwokan  NR  38.33, ‐123  U an    1865  Yuman  NR  32.67, ‐116.17  Yuman    1827  Taracahitan  *kokori  27.75, ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1737  Numic  NR  39, ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    1587  Cupan  NR  33.17, ‐116.5  Uto‐Aztecan    1573  Southern Numic  NR  39, ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    1245  Delta‐Californian Yu‐ man  NR  32.67, ‐116.7  Yuman    1241  E Miwokan  NR  38, ‐121  U an    1234  Western Miwokan  NR  38.33, ‐123  U an    1213  Tarahumaran  *kokori  27.75, ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1148  Central Numic  NR  37, ‐117  Uto‐Aztecan    899  Tepiman  *ko’okori  29, ‐111  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  718  Apachean  NR  36.58, ‐104  Athabaskan    384  Tewa  NR  35.83 ‐110.42  Kiowa‐Tanoan    Table 1. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of North America and Northern Mexico.  Proto‐Word Source:  1. Stubbs 2011   7  Research Communica on  Table 2. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Mesoamerica (Southern Mexico and Northern Central  America).  Years  Before  Present  Proto‐Language  Proto‐Word for  Chili Pepper (NR =  Not Reconstructable)  Homeland  Center Geographic  Coordinates  Family  Affilia on  Proto‐Word  Source  6591  Otomanguean  *Ɂki3  18, ‐96.92  Otomanguean  1  5498  Popolocan‐Zapotecan  *ki  17.17, ‐96.17  Otomanguean  Authors  5357  Amuzgo‐Mixtecan  *nɁsah3  16.92, ‐97.58  Otomanguean  1  4542  Mixtecan  *(H)yaɁ, Hyah, HƟaɁ2  16.92, ‐97.58  Otomanguean  1  4274  Totozoquean  NR  19.92, ‐97.42  Totozoquean    3654  Otopamean  *(m)Ɂi  20.08, ‐100.08  Otomanguean  2  3149  Zapotecan  *kiiɁnaɁ  17.17, ‐96.17  Otomanguean  3  3140  Mixtec‐Cuicatec  *ya  16.92, ‐97.58  Otomanguean  Authors  3036  Popolocan  *hña  18, ‐96.92  Otomanguean  1  2445  Chiapanec‐Mangue  *nii‐ngiɁ  17.07  ‐92.73   Otomanguean  1  2220  Mayan  *iihk  15.42, ‐91.83  Mayan  4  2214  Otomian  *Ɂi  20.08, ‐100.08  Otomanguean  5  2209  Chocho‐Popolocan  *hna  17.67, ‐97.42  Otomanguean  Authors  1935  Chinantecan  *ų:HL  17.92, ‐96.5  Otomanguean  6  1783  Popoloca  *hna  18, ‐96.92  Otomanguean  Authors  1676  Zapotec  *kiiɁnaɁ  17.17, ‐96.17  Otomanguean  3  1649  Quichean‐Mamean  *iik  15.42, ‐91.83  Mayan  4  1596  Mixe‐Zoquean  *ni:wi  17.22, ‐96.03  Totozoquean  7  1520  General Aztec  *čiil‐  18.35, ‐99.83  Uto‐Aztecan  8  1492  Greater Mamean  *iik  15.42, ‐91.83  Mayan  4  1437  Mixtec  *ya’a  16.92, ‐97.58  Otomanguean  Authors  1435  Totonacan  *pi’n  19.92, ‐97.42  Totozoquean  9  1432  Cholan‐Tzeltalan  *iihch  16.83, ‐92.83  Mayan  4  1225  Kanjobalan‐Chujean  *iik  15.83, ‐91.83  Mayan  4  1198  Corachol  *ku'ukuri  22.17, ‐104.83  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1186  Aztec  *čiil‐  20.63, ‐98.58  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1148  Cholan  *iich  14.81, ‐89.38  Mayan  4  1058  Chujean  *ich  15.92, ‐91.58  Mayan  4  997  Cha no  *kìnáɁ  16.25, ‐97.38  Otomanguean  3  981  Greater Quichean  *iik  14.78, ‐91.5  Mayan  4  948  Sub aba‐Tlapanecan  *dutų  17.08, ‐99  Otomanguean  Authors  900  Mixe  *ni:wi  17.02, ‐96.07  Totozoquean  7  802  Kanjobalan  *iik  15.83, ‐91.83  Mayan  4  790  Yucatecan  *iihk  20, ‐89  Mayan  4  787  Zoque  *niwi  16.9, ‐94.68  Totozoquean  7  741  Otomi  *Ɂi  20.08, ‐100.08  Otomanguean  10  511  Tzeltalan  *ich  16.83, ‐92.83  Mayan  4  1. Rensch 1976 2. Bartholomew 1965 3. Campbell 2013 4. Brown and Wichmann 2004 5. Newman and Weitlaner 1950b 6. Rensch 1989 7. Wichmann 1995 8. Campbell and Langacker 1978 9. Brown et al. 2011 10. Newman and Weitlander 1950a Proto-Word Source: 8  Research Communica on  Years  Before  Present  Proto‐Language  Proto‐Word  for Chili Pepper (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  *tsi   ‐10.33, ‐74.33  Arawakan  Authors  4400  Chibchan  NR  9.75, ‐83.42  Chibchan    4134  Arawakan  *ačɨdɨ  1, ‐69.17  Arawakan  1  4085  N Arawakan  *ači  1, ‐69.17  Arawakan  Authors  3943  Panoan‐Tacanan  NR  ‐7.5, ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan    3585  Tupi  NR  ‐8, ‐62  Tupi    3518  Caribbean N Arawakan  *(h)ači  12, ‐72  Arawakan  Authors  3310  Salivan  *tare'te  5, ‐67  Salivan  Authors  3178  Zaparoan  NR  ‐3.25, ‐74  Zaparoan    3124  Nadahup  NR  0, ‐69  Nadahup    3041  Barbacoan  NR  0.67, ‐79  Barbacoan    2927  Witoto‐Ocaina  *hiɁpí‐  ‐2.75, ‐71.75  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya  2  2909  Guaykuruan  NR  ‐26.5, ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru    2857  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya  *(hi)pi‐  ‐1.25, ‐72.5  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya  3  2807  Nambiquaran  NR  ‐13, ‐59  Nambiquaran    2774  Misumalpan  *kuma  13, ‐84.5  Misumalpan  4  2731  Talamancan  *yibah  9.75, ‐83.42  Chibchan  Authors  2699  Tucanoan  *p’ia  0.33, ‐70.25  Tucanoan  5  2593  Inland N Arawakan  *(h)a(Ɂ)(n)tsi  1, ‐69.17  Arawakan  6  2503  Venezuelan Cariban  *pëmëi  6.5, ‐66  Cariban  Authors  2433  Southern Guaykuruan  *kodai  ‐26.5, ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru  Authors  2414  North Barbacoan  NR  1.5, ‐78.25  Barbacoan    2412  Cariban  *pëmëi  10.17, ‐72.75  Cariban  7  2404  Matacoan  *pA‐ahn‐Ajn  ‐22.5, ‐62.58  Mataco‐Guaykuru  8  2271  Boran  *dĩĩ‐Ɂoï  ‐2.17, ‐72.33  Boran  2  2258  Chocoan  NR  6.83, ‐77.17  Chocoan    2156  Western Tucanoan  *p’ia  ‐2.83, ‐72.5  Tucanoan  Authors  1931  Chapacuran  NR  ‐13.42, ‐63.17  Chapacuran    1850  Tupari  *kõy  ‐12.5, ‐62.5  Tupi  9  1780  Mascoian  *yam‐na khik  ‐23.2, ‐58  Mascoian  Authors  1764  Arauan  *kashi’i  ‐6, ‐70.5  Arauan  10  1717  Quechuan  *uchu  0.33, ‐78  Quechuan  11  1672  Panoan  NR  ‐7.5, ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan    1647  Bolivia‐Parana  *iče   ‐15.17, ‐65.42  Arawakan  Authors  1634  Mainline Panoan  *yoči  ‐7.5, ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan  12  Table 3. Chili pepper‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Southern Central America and South America.  (con nued on next page)  9  Research Communica on  1607  Jabu   NR  ‐12.25, ‐62.25  Macro‐Ge    1590  Tacanan  *biju  ‐13.33, ‐66.5  Panoan‐Tacanan  13  1569  Harakmbet  *ɨg  ‐12.5, ‐70.5  Harakmbet  Authors  1550  Tupi‐Guarani  *kɨɁɨj  ‐8, ‐62  Tupi  14  1519  Kampan  *tsi kana  ‐10.33, ‐74.33  Arawakan  Authors  1419  Cayapa‐Colorado  *tʸuN  0.67, ‐79  Barbacoan  15  1402  Guianan Cariban  *pëmëi, *asï(sï)  3.25, ‐55.75  Cariban  Authors  1395  Cabecar‐Bribri  *dipa  9.42, ‐83  Chibchan  Authors  1335  Kakua‐Nukak  *tubni  0.88, ‐69.56  Kakua‐Nukak  Authors  1319  Yanomam  *praki  3.5, ‐62.83  Yanomam  Authors  1291  Guahiban  *noN‐hi  6.5, ‐71.33  Guahiban  16  1241  Eastern Tucanoan  *bia  0.33, ‐70.25  Tucanoan  Authors  1185  Kawapanan  *nu(Ɂ)kaɁ  ‐5.5, ‐77  Kawapanan  17  1169  Pemongan  *pëmëi  4, ‐60  Cariban  Authors  992  Taranoan  *pëmëi  1, ‐73  Cariban  18  974  Quechua II  *uchu  0.33, ‐78  Quechuan  Authors  875  Embera  *pʰi'da  5.25, ‐76.66  Chocoan  Authors  678  Jivaroan  *ximya  ‐2.5, ‐78  Jivaroan  Authors  419  Coconucan  *kɨ’rɨ  2.5, ‐76.5  Barbacoan  Authors  414  Witoto Proper  *hipi‐  ‐1, ‐73.5  Witoto‐Ocaina‐Nonuya  2  389  Mayoruna Panoan  *sia  ‐4.42, ‐70.25  Panoan‐Tacanan  Authors  Years  Before  Present  Proto‐Language  Proto‐Word  for Chili Pepper (NR =  Not Reconstructable)  Homeland Cen‐ ter Geographic  Coordinates  Family Affilia on  Proto‐Word  Source  reconstructed term for Capsicum is found for Proto- Otomanguean (6592 BP). This language’s homeland is in south-central Mexico (Figure 2), the area in which C. annuum was domesticated at the latest by 6000 years ago. Proto-Southern Arawakan shows the oldest date for an ancestral language of South America (Figures 3 and 4) for which a chili-pepper term reconstructs (4461 BP). The location and chronology of this proto- language suggest a relationship with the domestication of C. baccatum in the Andean foothills and adjacent lowlands of Bolivia and extreme southern Peru by 4000 BP at the latest. The location and age of Proto- Arawakan suggests a relationship with C. chinense, which is hypothesized to have been domesticated in north-central Amazonia by 4000 BP at the latest. Proto-languages for which chili pepper terms reconstruct are found broadly distributed through Mesoamerica and South America, reflecting the likely independent domestication of Capsicum in these two major regions. The early dates of these ancestral languages indicate a human interest in chili peppers in most parts of Latin America that preceded widespread development of a village-farming way of life by at least a millennium. 1. Payne 1991  2. Aschmann 1993  3. Echeverri and Seifart 2011  4. Constenla‐Umaña 1987  5. Chacon 2012  6. Ramirez 2001  7. Sergio Meira, per. com.  8. Najlis 1984  9. Moore and Galucio 1994  10. Dixon 2004  11. Willem Adelaar, per. com.  12. Shell 2008  13. Girard 1971  14. Mello 2000  15. Moore 1962  16. Chris an and Ma eson 1972  17. Pilar Valenzuela, per. com.  18. Meira 2000  Proto-Word Source: (con nued from previous next page)  10  Research Communica on  Acknowledgements Thanks to Bernard Comrie and an anonymous reviewer who read and commented on a draft of this paper. Also we are indebted to Willem Adelaar, Sergio Meira, and Pilar Valenzuela who supplied data on South American languages. References Cited Aschmann, R. P. 1993. Proto Witotoan. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington, Texas. 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. Edmon- son, 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 Evi- dence. 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 Ethnobiolo- gy: 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 Internation- al 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 Exploi- tation 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 Agricul- ture 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 11  Research Communica on  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, Oklaho- ma. 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 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. 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. Biosketches 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 con‐ cerned with projec on of climate change impacts on  agricultural and natural ecosystems and with the  development of appropriate adapta on strategies.  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   << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice