A Prehistory of Western North America: The Impact of Uto-Aztecan Languages

11: Chasing the Uto-Aztecans: A Model of Uto-Aztecan Prehistory

268 CHAPTER 10 a rejoinder Comparative Tepiman Mythology and Beyond In this chapter, I examine the creation mythology of the O’odham and other peoples speaking Tepiman languages. Finding a common sequence, I then compare this myth schema to those of a UA-speaking people to the south (Nahua) and two to the north (Hopi, Shoshone). In considering myths, I use the term mytheme to mean a minimal , distinctive character, action, prop, setting, or other design element that occurs in a myth. The term myth schema designates a distinctive arrangement of mythemes (whether linear or otherwise), derived by comparing myth sequences. The term comparative mythology can mean at least four things. One is the cross-cultural comparison of mythemes and myths; work by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, among others, comes to mind in this regard. Another approach is to incorporate myth as a part of ethnohistory (Vansina 1985). In this approach, myth is about creation and other ancientness, and is separated from the present by a “floating gap” where oral history and living memory leave off. A third possible approach to comparative mythology is culture-specific, like Vansina’s, but focuses on cultural borrowing by/in cultures in the same geographic situation. This areal approach has been taken by Donald Bahr (1998, 2004) in comparing O’odham mythology with neighboring ones. Bahr states that the “principle of parody [his specific approach to areal comparative mythology] holds that neighboring peoples base their account [of ancientness ] on each other’s” (2004:715). A fourth approach assumes that some of a proto-culture continues as its language, a proto-language, develops into separate languages. Presumably, a given mythology (say, Aztec or O’odham) incorporates both proto- and real elements. A REJOINDER: COMPARATIVE TEPIMAN MYTHOLOGY AND BEYOND 269 I mostly use the second and fourth senses of comparative mythology in this chapter. The data reflect a PUA horizon, as well as subfamily and regional levels. At the end of the chapter, I reconstruct the name of the central actor of the myth described here. comparative tepiman creations I consider the available information on creation myth schemas from the following Tepiman-speaking groups: • Akimel O’odham (area around Phoenix, Arizona) • Tohono O’odham (southern Arizona) • O:b No’ok (Mountain Pima, in between Sonora and Chihuahua) • Northern Tepehuan (southernmost Chihuahua) • Southeastern Tepehuan (Durango) The first three are Piman varieties, the last two Tepehuan varieties. All these groups make up the Tepiman subfamily of the UA language family. It is worth noting that the term Pima Bajo (Lower Pima) is a geographic designation and is used by some to refer both to Lowland Pima Bajo (Nevome, Onavas Piman) and its speakers, and to Mountain Pima (Ooba, or Oob). The figure 7. Petroglyph figure with burden basket. This motif could illustrate the Uto-Aztecan mytheme discussed in this chapter in its northern (Shoshone) guise. Details are largely lacking, perhaps due to the difficulty of marking on a rock face. (Line drawing by D. Shaul after a petroglyph in the San Rafael Swell site, Utah) CHAPTER 10 270 two languages are not mutually intelligible; the ecological adaptations are different ; and in the past there was not much mutual interaction. It is therefore best to keep them distinct, especially when talking about languages, since there is no single Pima Bajo language, but rather two different languages: Lowland Pima Bajo (or whatever one calls it) and O:b No’ok. The difference is underscored in their self-names: the lowlanders call themselves and their language O’otam and the highlanders call their language O:b No’ok (‘O:b language’). In the lowland idiom (as in all other Piman varieties to the north), o:b means ‘enemy/non-tribesman.’ I will refer to the Mountain Pimas as O:b and their lowland relatives as Lowland Pima Bajo (for want of better, more precise terms). o’odham creation traditions An extended narrative of O’odham existence from creation until well after the Hohokam period is in Bahr et al. (1994), made up of three subnarratives (two Akimel O’odham, one Tohono O’odham). Other Tohono versions—broken up by other material (fables, including coyote stories)—are in Saxton and Saxton (1973). The following rather lengthy creation myth schema is drawn from Bahr et al. (1994). Jioṣ begets Earth Maker (Jeweḍ Ma:kai, Earth Doctor), Buzzard, and Si’ihe (Older Brother, also known as I’itoi); they make earth...