ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Number 99: 112 pp. October 10, 2013

Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2013

ISSN 0065-9452

http://dx.doi.org/10.5531/sp.anth.0099

PANOAN LANGUAGES
AND LINGUISTICS

DAVID W. FLECK

Division of Anthropology

American Museum of Natural History

Adjunct Research Associate, Department of Linguistics

University of Oregon

ABSTRACT

Knowledge of Panoan languages and linguistics has increased significantly over the last several decades. The present paper draws upon this new information to produce a current internal classification of all the extant and extinct languages in the Panoan family based on lexical, phonological, and grammatical comparisons. This classification pays special attention to distinguishing dialects from independent languages and to mismatches that exist between linguistically defined languages and socially defined ethnic groups. An evaluation of previously proposed genetic relations to other language families is followed by a discussion of lexical borrowing and possible areal diffusion of grammatical features from and into neighboring non-Panoan languages and Kechua. The history of Panoan linguistics is chronicled from the first Jesuit and Franciscan vocabularies to the most recent contributions, and priorities for future research are suggested. A typological overview of Panoan phonology, morphology, and syntax is provided along with descriptions of some of the extraordinary linguistic features found in the family. Name taboos, postmortem word taboos, in-law avoidance languages, trade languages, ceremonial languages, and other ethnolinguistic phenomena found in the Panoan family are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

With approximately 32 known languages and 40,000–50,000 speakers, Panoans compose a medium-sized family, the fifth largest in South America, following the Arawakan, Cariban, Tupian, and Ge families. They are or were found in eastern Peru, western Brazil, and northern Bolivia. Panoan speakers were traditionally relatively small seminomadic ethnic groups, many of which were contacted for the first time in the 20th century. They all traditionally practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting, fishing, and collection of wild foods, as most continue to do today.

Panoan languages have been known by name since the 1600s, their word lists first became publically available in the 1830s, and by the 1940s they began to be topics of academic linguistic studies. Knowledge of Panoan languages and linguistics has improved significantly over what was known 50 or even 10 years ago, but there is nevertheless a sense of urgency to describe and analyze these languages. Of the approximately 32 known Panoan languages, only about 18 are still spoken today, 6 of which are no longer spoken as everyday languages. A few large, viable Panoan speech communities still exist. Notably, Shipibo-Konibo has 30,000–40,000 speakers, and Matses, Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River, Yaminawa, Kashibo, Marubo, and Chakobo all have 1000 or more speakers. But most other extant Panoan languages are obsolescent or in danger of extinction due to low populations and language replacement by Spanish, Portuguese, or Shipibo-Konibo, and most of these are incompletely described. Among the major aims of the present paper is to qualify and put into context the linguistic information available for the family, and to pull together new and old information to provide a more accurate classification and linguistic description of the family, with the hope of facilitating future research on Panoan languages.

This paper begins with a classification of the family, which also serves as an inventory of all the extant and extinct Panoan languages and dialects. Next follow descriptions of genetic ties beyond the family level and of lexical borrowing and areal diffusion of grammatical features from, and into, neighboring non-Panoan languages and Kechua. Next is a history of Panoan linguistics, from the first Jesuit notes on affiliation and Franciscan vocabularies to the most recent contributions to the field, followed by suggested priorities for future Panoan linguistic research. Then a brief typological overview of Panoan phonology, morphology, and syntax is outlined, pointing out some of the more extraordinary grammatical features found in the family. Ethnolinguistic phenomena are discussed in the final section.

CLASSIFICATION AND INVENTORY OF PANOAN LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS

Table 1 provides a classification of all the extant and extinct languages and dialects known to be linguistically Panoan, and map 1 shows their locations. This classification is based strictly on linguistic features (lexical, phonological, and grammatical similarity), and consequently differs from most previous classifications in several ways: (1) only languages for which there exists at least a word list are included; (2) ethnic identity is not taken into account, so that very similar varieties spoken by separate ethnic groups are not treated as distinct languages, but as dialects of the same linguistically defined language; (3) subgrouping does not take into account geographical proximity, but rather is guided by relative linguistic similarity.

It is important to keep in mind that the classification in table 1 is a classification of relative similarity, rather than one produced through the application of the comparative method, and therefore is not purported to be a genetic classification. A proper genetic classification will rely on a proto-Panoan reconstruction, which cannot be reliably carried out until more Kasharari data become available: there are no Kasharari dictionaries or long word lists available, and the two Kasharari phonological studies (Sousa, 2004; Couto, 2005) differ diametrically in many important points. I have begun a reconstruction and can say that I do not expect a Panoan genetic classification to differ much from my classification of relative similarity, but nevertheless I reiterate that readers should not take the present classification as genetic. I note that a genetic classification that takes into account new Kasharari data and considers whether similarities between Kashibo and languages of the Nawa Group are due to largely to areal contact may lead to the treatment of Kasharari and/or Kashibo as additional highest-level branches of the family. Although classifications based on a reconstruction and application of the comparative method are considered more important by linguists, a classification of relative similarity is nevertheless valuable for understanding relations within the family. For example, differences between the two types of classifications will reveal cases where linguistic contact has caused languages to become more similar. Additionally, the comparative method cannot be applied reliably to extinct languages with limited linguistic data available. See Fleck (2007a) for the methodology used for lexical comparisons and the quantitative results of a lexical comparison among 16 Panoan languages. Appendix 2 lists all the data examined while preparing the classification in table 1.

In addition to the known Panoan languages and dialects included in table 1, surely other Panoan speech varieties became extinct before they could be documented. For some extinct, possibly Panoan ethnic groups we have only ethnonyms and occasionally notes on linguistic or ethnic affiliation. The lack of linguistic information for these does not allow us to incorporate them into the classification in table 1. Even if we felt sure that any one of these ethnonyms referred to Panoan speakers, we often cannot know if it was a synonym for or the name of a dialect of a language already included in table 1. Table 2 provides a list of ethnonyms/language names that have been claimed to be Panoan, but for which no linguistic data are available.

Additionally, there are several uncontacted groups in westernmost Brazil suspected to be Panoans (Erikson, 1994). It is also believed that there are uncontacted Panoan groups in easternmost Peru, although, unlike the areal photographs of communal longhouses in Brazil, interviews with locals are the only evidence for the purported Panoan uncontacted groups in Peru (see Huertas, 2004; Krokoszyński et al., 2007). It is possible that one or more of these uncontacted groups are remnants of one of the presumably extinct groups listed in tables 1 and 2, or hitherto unknown Panoan groups.

Map 1. Locations of Panoan languages. The first letter of the name is positioned at the location where extant languages are spoken, where extinct languages were spoken, or where languages of captives were spoken prior to their capture. In those cases where languages are spoken over a large or disparate territory, particularly where multiple ethnic groups speak dialects of a single language, the first letter of the name indicates roughly the center of the area over which the language is spoken. See appendix 3 for the precise locations of dialects.

TABLE 1. Fleck’s Classification of Panoan Languages and Dialects (that have linguistic data available)(a)

I. Mayoruna branch (4 extant and 4 documented extinct languages)

A. Mayo group

i. Matses subgroup

a. Matses (3 dialects):

Peruvian Matses; Brazilian Matses

†Paud Usunkid

b. *Kulina of the Curuçá River (3 dialects):

*Kapishtana; *Mawi

*Chema

c. †Demushbo

ii. Korubo (2 dialects)

Korubo

*Chankueshbo

iii. Matis subgroup (most similar to Mainline branch)

a. Matis (most divergent from other extant Mayoruna languages)

b. †Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River

c. †Mayoruna of the Amazon River (2 dialects):

†Settled Mayoruna of the Amazon River

†Wild Mayoruna of the Amazon River

B. †Mayoruna of Tabatinga (the phonologically most divergent Mayoruna unit)

II. Mainline branch (about 14 extant and about 10 documented extinct languages)

A. Kasharari (most divergent Mainline language)

B. Kashibo (4 dialects; similar to Nawa group due to contact with Shipibo)

Kashibo (Tessmann’s “Kaschinõ”)

Rubo; Isunubo

Kakataibo

Nokaman (formerly thought to be extinct)

C. Nawa group (subgroups ordered from most to least divergent)

i. Bolivian subgroup

a. Chakobo/Pakawara (2 dialects of 1 language)

b. †Karipuna (may be a dialect of Chakobo/Pakawara)

c. †Chiriba (?)(b)

ii. Madre de Dios subgroup

a. †Atsawaka/†Yamiaka (2 dialects of 1 language)

b. †Arazaire

iii. †Remo of the Blanco River

iv. †Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River

v. Marubo subgroup

a. Marubo (of the Javari Basin)

b. Katukina

Katukina of Olinda; Katukina of Sete Estrelas

†Kanamari

c. †Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença

“Central Panoan Assemblage”: evidently there has been areal influence among neighboring languages, such that the boundaries among subgroups vi–viii are somewhat blurred.

vi Poyanawa subgroup

a. *Poyanawa

b. *Iskonawa (very close to Poyanawa, but also resembles Shipibo-Konibo-Kapanawa and Amawaka)

c. *Nukini

d. *Nawa (of the Môa River) (tentatively classified due to lack of useful linguistic data)

e. †Remo of the Jaquirana River

vii. Chama subgroup

a. Shipibo-Konibo (3 dialects of 1 language)

Shipibo; Konibo (currently fused)

*Kapanawa of the Tapiche River

b. *Pano

†Pano

*Shetebo; *Piskino

c. †Sensi (see Fleck to be published)

viii. Headwaters subgroup

a. Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River

Brazilian Kashinawa

Peruvian Kashinawa

†Kapanawa of the Juruá River

†Paranawa

b. Yaminawa (large dialect complex)

Brazilian Yaminawa (probably represents 2 or more dialects)

Peruvian Yaminawa

Chaninawa

Chitonawa

Mastanawa

Parkenawa

Shanenawa

Sharanawa; *Marinawa

Shawannawa (= Arara)

Yawanawa

*Yaminawa-arara (very similar to Shawannawa/Arara)

†Nehanawa

c. Amawaka

Peruvian Amawaka (intermediate between this subgroup and Chama subgroup, perhaps as a result of areal contact)

†Nishinawa (= Brazilian Amawaka)

†Yumanawa (also very similar to Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River)

d. †Remo of the Môa River (resembles Amawaka)

e. †Tuchiunawa (resembles Yaminawa dialects)

(a) Includes about 18 extant languages plus about 14 documented extinct languages = about 32 languages total (the values are approximate because †Karipuna and *Nawa may not be distinct languages, and †Chiriba is tentatively classified as Panoan). Languages in bold; dialects in italics; † = extinct; * = obsolescent (i.e., no longer spoken as an everyday language, but a few speakers remember it). Dialects with minor differences are listed on the same line. See appendix 2 for the data upon which this classification was based.

(b) Chiriba is an otherwise unknown language from Bolivia with a historical list of only seven words, some of which match or resemble word in Panoan languages (and none resemble other languages in the area), particularly Pakawara, as kindly pointed out to me by Harald Hammarström. It cannot be classified as Panoan with complete certainty.

TABLE 2. Tentative Classification of Possibly Panoan Languages/Dialects Lacking Linguistic Dataa

I. Mayoruna branch

Chirabo – probably a Mayoruna faction (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 453)

Korugo – “Maiorumas Corugos” (Zárate, 1904 [1739]: 393)

Marubo of Maucallacta – Mayoruna subtribe (Castelnau, 1850–1859: V: 40; Raimondi, 1862: 100, etc.; see Fleck, 2007a, for more sources and discussion)

Maya (of the Quixito River) – partially mutually intelligible with Matses (Anonymous, 1978; Erikson, 1994: 22)

Mayo – Panoan, possibly Mayoruna (Tastevin, 1924b: 424). There might be a list in Tastevin’s archive near Paris

Pisabo – Mayoruna subtribe (Grubb, 1927: 83)

II. Mainline branch

B. Aino – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Barinawa – Kashibo branch (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425; Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Buninawa – Kashibo subtribe (Ordinaire, 1887: 302; Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425; Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Chashono – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Choromawa – Kashibo subtribe (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425)

Hunino – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Inono – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Kamaigohuni – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Naibo – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Naitabohuni – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Puchanawa – Kashibo subtribe (Ordinaire, 1887: 302)

Ruino – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Shirino – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Shokeno – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Shuchanawa – Kashibo subtribe (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425)

Tonano – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Tsalguno – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Winano – Kashibo subtribe (Tessmann, 1930: 128)

Komabo – same as Kashibo (Marqués, 1931 [1800]: 119; Steinen, 1904: 22)

Inuaka – Komabo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

Kuinua – Komabo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

Ruanawa – Komabo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

Zepa – Komabo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

C. Nawa group

i. Bolivian subgroup

a. Kapuibo – Pakawara division (Cardús, 1886: 291)

Sinabo of the Mamoré River – Pakawara division (Cardús, 1886: 291)

Chumana – related to Chiriba (Hervás, 1800: 250)

ii. Madre de Dios subgroup

a. Tiatinawa – dialect similar to Yamiaka (Stiglich, 1908: 427)

Yaguarmayo – Yamiakas of the Yaguarmayo River (Stiglich, 1908: 427)

v. Marubo subgroup

c. Kiraba – descendants of Kulinas of São Paulo de Olivença (Coleti, 1975 [1771]: II: 321; Fleck, 2007a: 144)

vi. Poyanawa subgroup

b. Awabakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Hawanbakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Inubakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Isubenebakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Naibakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Runubakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Tsinubakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Waribakebo – same dialect as Iskonawa (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

Yawabakebo – part of Iskonawa confederation (Whiton et al., 1964: 102)

e. Yaya – Nawa subtribe (Hassel, 1905: 52; Stiglich, 1908: 428)

Punhamunawa – could be understood with difficulty by Poyanawas (Oppenheim, 1936: 152–153)

vii. Chama subgroup

a. Awanawa – branch of Shipibo (Velasco, 1981 [1788–1789]: 546, Markham, 1910: 81; Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Barbudo – same as Shipibo, Shetebo, and Kapanawa (Figueroa, 1904: 115)

Chai – Shipibo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

Kusabatai – Manamabobo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547)

Makonawa – Barbudo faction (Figueroa, 1904: 122)

Manamanbobo – Shipibo dialect (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 281, 291; Veigl, 1785: 63)

Mawishi – Konibo horde (Bates, 1863: 379)

Pachikta – Manamabobo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547)

Pahenbakebo – clan of Kapanawa of the Tapiche River speaking a distinct dialect (Loos and Loos, 1998: 9)

Sinabo of the Ucayali basin – Shipibo subtribe (Stiglich, 1908: 426; Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 472; Grubb, 1927: 84; also given as a synonym of Shipibo)

Shipinawa – Shipibo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546)

Turkaguane – Konibo faction (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 284)

Tawakua – Manamabobo dialect (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547)

Uniwepa – Konibo faction (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474)

Zaminawa – Konibo horde (Bates, 1863: 379)

b. Chakaya – speak same language as Shipibos and Shetebos (Marcoy, 1869: I: 683), Shetebo faction (Marcoy, 1869 [2001: II: 463–464])

Iltipo – Pano dialect (Hervás, 1800: 263)

Manannawa – Pano faction (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 294)

Yawabo – Shetebo faction (Rodríguez, 2004–2005 [1870]: 529), Panoan (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474; Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 111; Castlenau, 1850–1859: IV: 387)

c. Inubo – Sensi faction (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342)

Runubo – Sensi faction (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342)

Kasca – Sensi faction (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342)

Puinawa – same language as Panos, Shipibos, etc. (Stiglich, 1908: 421–422); same as Shetebo (Tessmann, 1928: 2; Steward and Métraux, 1948: 559–560). But see Plaza’s 1813 classification where Puinawa is classified as non-Panoan (Lehnertz 1974: 451), and Carvallo, (1906 [1918]: 348) and Plaza and Cimini (1907 [1841]: 81) who explicitly say it is distinct from the other known or Panoan languages. Ordinaire (1887: 316) maintains that it is derived from Kokama

Southern Remo – Very similar to Konibo (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 296); mutually understandable with Chama languages (Alemany, 1906: iii)

Hisisbakebo – Southern Remo faction (Amich, 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 418)

Sakaya – Southern Remo subtribe (Grubb, 1927: 100; Mason, 1950: 267)

viii. Headwaters subgroup

a. Tushinawa – Belong to Kashinawa “clan” (Tastevin, 1926: 53, though I am not sure which Kashinawa he referred to). The large geographic separation (see appendix 3) suggests that there are probably two separate groups with the same name (with no indication whether the Jutaí group is Panoan)

b. Aninawa – possibly same as Yaminawa (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 451)

Deenawa – former Yaminawa subgroup (Townsley, 1994: 249)

Mashonawa – Yaminawa subgroup (Ribeiro and Wise, 1978: 194)

Morunawa – understood by Yaminawas (Ribeiro and Wise, 1978: 143)

Shaninawa – extinct Yaminawa subgroup of which some survivors live among the Sharanawas (Townsley, 1994: 250)

Shishinawa – extinct Yaminawa subgroup of which few survivors live among the Yaminawas of the Purus River and the Parkenawas (Townsley, 1994: 250)

c. Arawa – Amawaka branch (Stiglich, 1908: 402)

Biubakeu – Amawaka faction (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 296)

Espino – probably Amawaka branch (Stiglich, 1908: 416)

Inubakeu – Amawaka faction (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 296)

Yuminawa – Amawaka subtribe (Hassel, 1905: 52; Stiglich, 1908: 428)

Yura – Amawaka subtribe (Hassel, 1905: 53; Stiglich, 1908: 426)

III. Other ethnonyms said to designate Panoan languages/dialects but with no further clues as to their classification. The citation following the ethnonym is the author(s) that associated it with the Panoan family.

Awanateo (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 452, “with doubt Panoan”)

Binabo (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Binannawa (Steinen, 1904: 21)

Chipinawa (Tastevin, 1914: 14, 1929)

Chunti (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Diabo (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Eskinawa (Tastevin, 1929: 12)

Isunawa (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Kamarinigua (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 455, “very probably Panoan”)

Kontanawa (Tastevin, 1929: 13; Aguiar, 2007: 40, 48).

Kurunawa (Carvalho, 1931: 248 “verified that they speak a Panoan dialect”; Tastevin, 1929: 12)

Kustanawa (Loukotka, 1968: 169)

Mochobo (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 555)

Nianawa (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 555)

Ormiga (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567)

Pakanawa (Reich and Stegelmann, 1903: 137; Steinen, 1904: 22)

Pitsobo (Castelnau, 1850–1859: IV: 387)

Rununawa (Tastevin, 1929: 12)

Soboibo (Steinen, 1904: 26)

Tiuchunawa (Tastevin, 1929: 13)

Trompetero (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 567; possibly this is simply the Spanish translation of Nianawa, if nia is a corruption of nëa, “trumpeter”)

Zurina (Mason, 1950: 269)

IV. In category III, except for Kurunawa, Pakanawa, and Pitsobo, all these ethnonyms are assumed by the cited author to be Panoan, evidently based only on the ethnonyms ending in -bo or -nawa and/or geographic location (most of these authors never even visited Amazonia, and therefore they could just as well be Panoan exonyms for non-Panoans). Based on such clues, one could add the following, which lack linguistic affiliation in the literature, as possibly Panoan:

Bamunawa (Tastevin, 1926: 51)

Buinawa (Tastevin, 1926: 51)

Bitinawa (Tastevin, 1925: 415)

Chipanawa (Figueroa, 1904 [1661]: 164)

Hsunawa (Tastevin, 1925: 414, mixed with Kashinawa)

Isaknawa (Dueñas, 1792: 175)

Kayubo (Stiglich, 1908: 406)

Komanawa (Rodríguez, 2004–2005 [1780]: II: 110; Córdova, 1957: 221, 222)

Michanawa (Whiton et al., 1964: 100, Iskonawa enemies)

Panatawa (Dueñas, 1792: 181, captives of Panos)

Pimisnawa (Whiton et al., 1964: 100, Iskonawa enemies)

Suyabo (Dueñas, 1792: 175)

Takanawa (Tastevin, 1925: 415)

Tsawesbo (Erikson, 1999: 113, descendants live among the Matis)

Uniabo (Taboada, 1859 [1796]: 132)

Unibo (Viegl, 1875: 106)

a Ethnonyms that lack accompanying linguistic data are here placed into categories proposed in table 1 based on historical reports of mutual intelligibility or their presentation as dialects, factions, or subtribes of another language/ethnic group. Ethnonyms are followed by published sources of information on affiliation or mutual intelligibility (not necessarily the first source that mentions the name); see appendix 3 for locations. Note that this table excludes obvious errors, such as Aguano, Chamikuro, Jakaria, Pama(na), Maparina, Urarina, Panau, and Piro, which have been erroneously classified as Panoan by early authors. Also excluded from this table (and table 1) are many denominations for moieties, marriage sections, or coresidential “clans,” which typically end with -bo, -nawa, bake, huni, or variants or combinations of these. As subcategories of ethnonyms/language names, table 1 includes only documented regional dialects, and this table includes only terms stated to be dialects, subtribes, factions or (as far as I could tell) non-coresidential “clans.”

Ethnonyms and Orthography

In addition to providing a classification of the Panoan languages, table 1 represents a complete inventory of all the Panoan languages and dialects (and of all the Panoan ethnic groups; here I consider an “ethnonym” a term that circumscribes a recognized ethnic group, and which is also the designation for their speech variety, which may be either a dialect or a language). The ethnonyms in table 1 (and table 2) were selected by me as their principal English denominations. Below I note the conventions I followed for selecting the principal ethnonyms and their spelling.

The first issue to deal with is synonymy: for many languages/ethnic groups, multiple synonymous terms exist in the literature. For example, Shipibo has also been called Calliseca and Chama in the historical literature, and Kashibo has been referred to by the pseudo-autodenomination Uni (“people”) in some recent publications (e.g., Frank, 1987, 1993, 1994). From such synonym sets the term that is most common in the current academic literature is selected as the primary ethnonym, and if two or more terms are similarly common, the older term is selected.[1] All other terms are treated as secondary synonyms, and can be found listed in appendix 1.

The second issue relevant to nomenclature conventions is homonymy within the family, which is very common in the Panoan family. As can be seen in table 3, Mayoruna, Kulina, Remo, Kapanawa, and Kashinawa are each the most widely accepted ethnonym for more than one Panoan language or dialect. Rather than invent new ethnonyms, resurrect obscure synonyms, or apply different spelling/pronunciation variants to differentiate the speech varieties, here I modify these denominations with a location (e.g., Kulina of the Curuçá River), as can be seen in tables 1, 2, and 3. Other cases of homonymy within the family exist where the term in question is the principal ethnonym for one Panoan language, and a secondary synonym for another Panoan language. Most notably, Katukina is used to designate a language on the Gregorio River, but Shanenawa is also sometimes called “Katukina (de Feijó)”; and Nawa is used for a now obsolescent language from the Môa River area in Brazil, but Parkenawa (a.k.a. Yora) is also sometimes called Nawa. In these cases the homonymous term is used, unmodified, as the principal ethnonym only for the language/ethnic group that it commonly designates.

Cases of inter-family homonymy are also pervasive in the Panoan family. In these cases, the Panoan language name is not modified, and when referring to the non-Panoan homonym in this paper, the family is specified (e.g., “Arawan Kulina”). Table 4 lists these interfamily homonyms, along with some potentially confusing look-alike language names.

The final issue is orthography. Many ethnonyms have multiple spelling variants, due to historical vs. modern spellings, Brazilian vs. Peruvian/Bolivian orthography, difficulty of transcribing sounds not found in an author’s language, etc. For example, historically Shetebo has been written as Cheteo, Gitipo, Jitipo, Schitebo, Schitipo, Setebo, Setevo, Setibo, Settebo, Sitibo, Ssetebo, Xetebo or Xitipo (some of these occasionally with an accent on the first or second syllable).[2] Two modern examples are Kashinawa and Yaminawa, spelled Cashinahua and Yaminahua in Peru, and Kaxinauá/Caxinauá and Jamináwa/Jaminaua in Brazil. Here I adopt a standardized (English) orthography for Panoan ethnonyms, which is similar to that used by Rivet and Tastevin (1921), Tessmann (1930), and Valenzuela (2003b). In addition to establishing a single form for each denomination, the orthography also aims to make pronunciation straightforward. Thus, (1) sounds absent in English are replaced with the closest English phoneme, most notably, the high central vowel [ɨ], the retroflex fricative [ş], and the bilabial fricative [β] are represented, respectively, by e, sh, and b (this is relevant only for those languages, such as some Mayoruna languages, that do not already have well-established denominations in the national languages or in the academic literature); (2) defects of (modern and archaic) Spanish and Portuguese orthography, such as the use of u/hu/gu for w, qu/c for k, x for sh or h, ch for sh, g for h, j for y, etc., have been eliminated; (3) letters/symbols not in the English alphabet, such as š, č, ë, and IPA characters, are excluded; and (4) all stress marks are left out, due to the inconsistency with which these are applied. After these four provisos have been applied, there may be more than one variant left (which would actually be pronunciation variants, at least in English), such as Konibo vs. Kunibo vs. Konivo, or Kulina vs. Kulino vs. Kurina, in which case I chose the form in more common usage, or the one resembling the more common unmodified forms(s) (assuming it can be established that these in fact refer to the same ethnic group/language).

TABLE 3. Panoan Intrafamily Homonymya

Denomination

Full or more common denomination

Relevant notes on classification

Kapanawa

Kapanawa of the Tapiche River

†Kapanawa of the Juruá River

dialect of Shipibo-Konibo

dialect of Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River

Kashinawa

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River

†Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River

Headwaters Subgroup

independent member of Nawa Group

Kulina

Kulina of the Curuçá River

†Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença

Mayoruna Branch

Mainline Branch

Marubo

Marubo of the Javari Basin

†Marubo of Maucallacta

Mainline Branch

Mayoruna Branch

Remo

†Remo of the Blanco River

†Remo of the Môa River

†Remo of the Jaquirana River

†Southern Remo

independent member of Nawa Group

Headwaters Subgroup

Poyanawa Subgroup

Chama Subgroup

Sinabo

†Sinabo of the Mamoré River

†Sinabo of the Ucayali Basin

Bolivian Subgroup

Chama Subgroup

Katukina

Katukina

Shanenawa (= Katukina of Feijó)

Marubo Subgroup

dialect of Yaminawa

Nawa

Nawa

Parkenawa

Poyanawa Subroup

dialect of Yaminawa

Mayoruna

†Mayoruna of the Amazon River

†Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River

†Mayoruna of Tabatinga

Matses

Barbudo

Matis Subgroup

Matis Subgroup

independent member of Mayoruna Branch

Matses Subgroup

Chama Subgroup

Demushbo

Demushbo

Chema

Matses Subgroup

dialect of Kulina of the Curuçá River

a Denominations that lack accompanying linguistic data are in small caps and listed in table 2; the rest have linguistic data and are listed in table 1. Kulina and Marubo synonymy was illustrated in Fleck (2007a); and Katukina synonymy in Aguiar (1993). Mayoruna homonymy was treated in Fleck (2003). Kapanawa, Kashinawa, Remo, and Nawa homonymy were detected between 2005–2006 while conducting comparisons of all available Panoan lexica for the classification presented in Fleck (2007a).

TABLE 4. Interfamily Homonymy (the earliest references are given for lesser-known cases)

Denomination

Family

Source(s)

Arara (Pará)a

Cariban

Arara (Mato Grosso)a

Tupian

Arasa (cf. Arazaire)b

Takanan

Nordenskiöld (1905: 275–276)

Arasairi (cf. Arazaire)b

Harakmbut

Aza (1933, 1935, 1936)

Arawác

Arawan

Stiglich (1908)

Atsahuacab

Takanan

Farabee (1922: 162)

Chama (= Ese’eja)

Takanan

Firestone (1955)

Kanamarid

Katukinan

Kanamari, Kanamirimd

Arawakan

Martius (1867); Rivet and Tastevin (1919–1924)

Karipuna (Rondônia)

Tupian

Karipuna (Amapá)

French Creole

Kasharari, Cacharary

Arawakan

Ehrenreich (1891: 58); Masô (1919)

Katukinae

Katukinan

Katukinarúe

Tupian

Church (1898)

Kulina, Curinaf

Arawan

Kunibo, Kuniba

Arawakan

Rivet and Tastevin (1919–1924); Nimuendajú and Bentes (1923)

Mayorunag

Arawakan

Tessmann (1930)

Pacaguara, Pakaguarah

Arawakan

Nusser (1890); Rivet and Tastevin (1919–1924); Castillo (1929: 123)

Yamiaca, Yamiacob

Takanan

Cipriani (1902: 187–189); Barranca (1914: 5–8)

Yamiacab

mixi

Anonymous (1901)

Yura/Yuracare (Bolivia)

isolate

Grouped by family (excluding nonneighboring languages):

Arawakan (5): Kanamari, Kasharari, Kunibo, Mayoruna, Pakaguara

Takanan (4): Arasa, Atsahuaca, Chama, Yamiaka

Katukinan (2): Katukina, Kanamari

Tupian (2): Karipuna, Katukinarú

Arawan (2): Kulina, Arawá

Harakmbut (1): Arasairi

a See Rivet and Tastevin (1921: 451–452) for Arara (= Shawannawa) homonymy.

b See Lyon (1975) for discussion of Arazaire, Atsawaka, and Yamiaka homonymy.

c Though no linguistic material is available for the reportedly (Peruvian) Panoan group called Arawa, it is not likely a misidentification of the Arawan Arawá, as this latter group was Brazilian and extinct by the time Stiglich (1908) made his observation that the Arawas were a branch of the Amawakas.

d See Rivet and Tastevin (1921: 456–457) for Kanamari homonymy.

e See Rivet (1920) and Aguiar (1993) for discussion of Katukina homonymy; Katukinarú looks like a hoax.

f See Fleck (2007a) for discussion of Kulina homonymy.

g Also known as Moríke; see Fleck (2007d) for discussion of Mayoruna homonymy.

h See Montaño (1987: 16–17) for discussion of Pakawara homonymy.

i Contains a mix of Panoan words and words from other local non-Panoan languages; clearly a hoax.

Former Misconceptions about the Panoan Family

Past classifications have suffered from both overdifferentiation and underdifferentiation. By overdifferentiation I mean that the best-known speech varieties, particularly those in the Chama and Headwater subgroups, have been misinterpreted as representing more languages than there really are. Consider, for example, that Shipibo and Kapanawa of the Tapiche River share 90% of their vocabulary and have fewer phonological differences than American and British dialects of English. Conversely, there has been consistent underdifferentiation of the Mayoruna languages. Erikson (1990, 1992, 1994) revealed that Mayoruna referred to multiple extant groups, but most linguists, even in some relatively recent publications (e.g., Kaufman, 1994; Campbell, 1997; Loos, 1999b), have failed to recognize the internal diversity of the Mayoruna branch, treating “Mayoruna” instead as a single language. Consider, for example, that Matses and Matis share only 57% of their vocabulary (Fleck, 2007a), and have a long list of phonological, morphological, and syntactic differences (Fleck, in prep.).

In addition to underestimating Mayoruna diversity within the Mayoruna branch, divergence from the rest of the family has also been misjudged. Many authors have commented on the high level of divergence of the Mayoruna languages from the other Panoan languages, both in reference to the historical Mayorunas (Sagols, 1901 [1874]: 364; Larrabure, 1908: XIII: 261; Izaguirre, 1922–1929: IX: 40), and to the modern Matses (d’Ans, 1982: 92; Kneeland, 1994: 23; Lanes, 2000: 162, 2002: 116; Dorigo, 2001: 9–10). However, except for Lanes,[3] previous classifiers of the Panoan family have not separated the Mayoruna languages at the highest level as I have done, typically instead placing the Mayoruna languages (or “language”) on the same level as groupings that according to my classification are subdivisions of the Nawa group (e.g., Bright, 1992; Valenzuela, 2003b; Gordon, 2005: Lewis, 2009). Additionally, I find Kasharari to be clearly the most divergent Mainline language, at least lexically and phonologically, yet its very divergent status has been completely ignored by almost all Panoan linguists (Campbell’s 1997 and Lanes’ 2000 Panoan classifications being two notable exceptions). This imbalance must be rectified before sound reconstructions and comparative studies can be carried out.

Traditionally the Panoan language family has been characterized as extraordinarily homogenous (e.g., Rivet and Tastevin, 1932: 232), particularly in comparison with other Amazonian families, such as Arawakan (e.g., Lathrap, 1970: 79). The authors who initially made such statements did not have access to detailed information on Kasharari or the Mayoruna languages, and thus did not take into account the most divergent units of the family, but, nevertheless, the notion of homogeneity has persisted even after data became available on these languages (e.g., Erikson, 1993). In fact, it is still common for linguists to describe a feature in a Nawa language, and then erroneously assume that that feature exists and is the same in the rest of the family. In comparison with the larger Amazonian families, the Panoan family is indeed relatively less diverse, but not as homogenous as the family was once thought to be.

On Dialects and Languages

Dialects are notoriously difficult to define, but most linguists will agree that distinct speech varieties that share more than 80% of their vocabulary are dialects of the one language. This is the primary criterion that I used for making the distinction between dialects and languages in table 1.[4] This difference between the categories dialect and language has multiple repercussions on how we think about Panoan languages. For example, one cannot say that Kapanawa (of the Tapiche River) is an endangered language, as it is a codialect of Shipibo-Konibo, whose speakers number in the tens of thousands, nor is Pano an extinct language as long as the few speakers of its codialect Shetebo remain alive. Likewise, it affects the count of Panoan languages or the world’s languages, the relative weight given to a speech variety in a linguistic reconstruction, estimates of the length of time since different Panoan groups have been separated, and so on.

In addition to those listed in table 1, we would expect there to be many unnamed dialects. For example, Hassel (1905: 34) reported that the Amawakas in Peru were divided into numerous subtribes, Déléage (personal commun.) reports that there are at least three fairly distinct extant dialects of Amawaka in Peru (in addition to two extinct ones from Brazil that I have identified; see table 1), yet in the literature they are not distinguished by different names. Meanwhile, many of the dialects in the Yaminawa dialect complex have distinct names (and have often been treated as separate languages by linguists).[5] Thus, the linguistic situation may not be so different between Yaminawa and Amawaka with respect the their multiple dialects, but rather it appears to be a case of different autodenomination/denomination practices, perhaps based on a desire, or the lack of a desire, of closely related non-coresident societies to be distinguished from each other.

Panoan Internal Classification and Panoan Dispersal

The conclusions from the preceding two sections have several important implications for hypotheses about the initial dispersal of the Panoan family and later movements that eventually led to the current geographic distribution of the family. The first issue is the date of the initial dispersal of the family, considering that it is generally assumed that “The [Panoan] languages show close similarities, indicating a fairly shallow time-depth and recent expansion and split” (Loos, 1999b: 227). According to Lathrap (1970: 187), “It is likely that not much more than 1000 years ago all these people shared the same language and had a common culture.” André-Marcel d’Ans (1973), in an oft-cited publication, calculated, through the controversial glottochronological method, that 17–19 centuries ago the Panoan languages began to differentiate, and 12.5–14 centuries ago dispersed geographically into distinct groups. Once the Mayoruna languages and Kasharari are taken into account, however, estimates calculated by any method will lead to much older dates for the initial dispersal of the family.

It is not only the date of initial dispersal that must be reconsidered, but also the nature of this dispersal. Based on my linguistic classification, the scenario that suggests itself is as follows: (1) first the Mayoruna ancestors split off from the Mainline Panoans; (2) later, the Kasharari ancestors split off from the other Mainline Panoans; (3) next, the Kashibo ancestors split off from the Nawa Panoans; (4) then the Bolivian Panoans split off from the rest of the Nawa group; and (5) finally a period of fission (and perhaps occasional fusion) resulted in the rest of the Nawa ancestors. I note that these first four units to break away are now found, respectively, at the northernmost, easternmost, westernmost, and southernmost reaches of Panoan territory. A proto-Panoan homeland in east-central Peru and westernmost Brazil (i.e., at the center of the family’s current territory) would allow for the simplest dispersal scenario leading to the current distribution of the family. Although other prehistorical Panoan homelands cannot be ruled out based on these findings on family-internal linguistic relations, considering that the Panoan-Takanan relation has not been adequately demonstrated (see below), one cannot accurately use “linguistics” as an argument for a Bolivian homeland.

Lathrap (1970: 186) explains the current distribution of Panoan speakers with a postulated scenario whereby the current Riverine Panoans forced the current Backwoods Panoans, from the overpopulated the riparian ecosystems along the Ucayali River, into the interfluvial areas. Consider, however, that the Kapanawas of the Tapiche River are an interfluvial group, properly classified as Backwoods Panoans following Lathrap’s definition, while the Konibos are the prototypical Riverine Panoans. Yet the Kapanawas of the Tapiche River and the (Shipibo-)Konibos are so closely related linguistically that their separation must have taken place closer to 1600 a.d. Thus, it would appear that in the case of the Kapanawas of the Tapiche River (and perhaps a few others, such as the Manamanbobos and Manannawas), the current distribution of Panoan speakers can be partly accounted for by much more recent fissions from the present large riparian cultures. This also raises the question whether, at the time of this fission, the Shipibo-Konibo-Kapanawa ancestors were an inland group, with the Konibo settling on the Ucayali banks only after Loyola’s 1557 voyage. Myers (1974: 141) stated “Barring any major population shifts, for which there is no evidence, the sixteenth century Pariache are probably Conibo.” However, the close relation between Kapanawas, Shipibos, and Konibos seem to be evidence of population shift during this period. Thus, a competing hypothesis is that after European diseases wiped out or severely reduced non-Panoan groups living along the Ucayali, such as the Pariaches, which Loyola found on the upper Ucayali.

RELATIONS TO OTHER SOUTH AMERICAN FAMILIES

Panoans are or were in geographic proximity with speakers of languages belonging to the large Arawakan and Tupian families, a well as the smaller Katukinan, Arawan (not to be confused with Arawakan), Takanan, Chapakuran, Harakmbet, Zaparoan, and Peba-Yaguan families, and the linguistic isolates Tikuna, Movima, and Cayuvava. It would be expected that Panoan languages have some relations to some of these neighboring languages, whether these relations be genetic or areal.

Panoan-Takanan Relations

Rudolph Schuller (1933: 480) first attempted to demonstrate the genetic relationship between the Panoan and Takanan families, highlighting shared personal pronominal forms, and considered it confirmed despite his scanty evidence. Before that, Armentia (1886; apud Navarro, 1903: 172), Navarro (1903: 172), Groeteken (1907: 733), Hestermann (1910), Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1921: 298–301), and Rivet (1924: 676) had noted similarities between the two families. Later, more extensive “Proto-Pano-Takanan” reconstructions were carried out by Key (1963/1968) and Girard (1971),[6] after which the grouping of the Panoan and Takanan language families was generally unreservedly accepted (“proved beyond doubt” according to Suárez, 1973: 137), despite Girard’s conclusion that “Unless one can extract roots, one is left with a meager corpus of allegedly cognate material—so meager indeed that the evidence for a Pano-Takanan relationship seems only probable” (1971: 145) and his severe and apt criticism of Key’s reconstruction (1970) (see Key, 1971, for her rebuttal). Girard’s work, however was equally sloppy and suffered from the same grave error as Key’s: both authors treated Shell’s (1965/1975) reconstruction (which included only seven languages, and did not include Kasharari and the Mayoruna languages) to be proto-Panoan, despite Shell’s (1965: 2, 1975: 11) clear warning that her reconstruction should not be taken to be proto-Panoan, but rather should be referred to provisionally as “reconstructed Panoan” until a more inclusive reconstruction could be carried out.

Presumably, like Shell (1965: 2), Key and Girard imagined that the rest of the Panoan languages would not be very different from the seven she had reconstructed, and therefore that proto-Panoan would be essentially the same as Shell’s reconstructed Pano. However, it is known now that the Mayoruna languages are considerably distinct from the Mainline languages lexically, phonologically, and grammatically, so there is good reason to expect that a proto-Panoan reconstruction including Mayoruna languages (and Kasharari) will differ significantly from Shell’s reconstructed Pano. Additionally, the Mayoruna languages are the most geographically distant from the Takanan family, and therefore the least likely to exhibit contact-induced similarities with the Takanan languages.

According to Swadesh’s (1959: 18) lexicostatistical calculations, Panoan and Takanan would have separated 47 centuries ago, approximating the date (5000 years) beyond which conservative linguists consider genetic relations to be impossible to demonstrate. More recently some authors have questioned this grouping (e.g., Fabre, 1998; Loos, 1999b), suggesting similarities may be due to areal rather than genetic factors. However, this new wave of skepticism is not based on any new reconstruction or comparative studies, but on recent general rejection of long-distance connections among Amazonian families. Even more recently Amarante Ribeiro (2003) claims to have proven the Panoan-Takanan connection, but his lexico-statistical method does not distinguish borrowing from chance occurrence of lexical matches and therefore brings us no closer to resolving the issue. Loos (2005) points out that some Panoan and Takanan languages share SOV constituent order, split-ergative pronominal systems, metrical tense systems, a similar imperative suffix, and a few body-part prefixes. However, it turns out the Takanan languages do not actually have body-part prefixes, and the rest of the shared features Loos identified still need to be looked at more closely.

In short, a genetic Panoan-Takanan relationship has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. Comparative studies have shown that there are indeed more lexical matches and phonological and grammatical similarities than could be attributed to mere chance; however, only further reconstruction work demonstrating that alleged cognates and shared grammatical features are common to both Proto-Panoan and Proto-Takanan will reveal whether the similarities can be attributed to genetic relation.

Borrowing between Takanan and Panoan languages may have been going on for thousands of years, regardless of their genetic relation. Though only sound reconstructions will allow us to identify ancient borrowings, relatively recent borrowing can be more readily detected. I end this section with some information on postcolonial borrowing between Takanan languages and the southernmost Panoan languages. Consider the following language contact situation in Bolivia in the 1880s:

The language spoken by the Indians of the Cavinas mission is a mix of Pakawara and Takana, due undoubtedly to the mix of Araonas [speakers of a Takanan language that Armentia considered essentially the same as the Takana language] and Pakawaras who have composed or formed the population of said mission... (Armentia, 1887: 180–181).[7]

Moving westward along the Panoan-Takanan contact area, as is evident upon inspection of Nordenskiöld’s (1905: 275–276) 46-word comparative list, the most notable difference between Yamiaka and its co-dialect Atsawaka is that Yamiaka has of at least five borrowings from neighboring Takanan languages, while Atsawaka lacks these words (more such instances may be found in Nordenskiöld’s list published by Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913). The closely related Arazaire language shares only two of these five Takanan loans, namely the numerals one and two (Llosa, 1906b: 306). This distribution of loanwords suggests, not only that these shared lexical items are not of genetic origin, but also that there was postcolonial linguistic contact, possibly as late as the rubber boom era.[8]

Other Proposed Genetic Tiesbeyond the Family

Schuller (1933) placed Panoan and Takanan in a larger group he called “Carib-Aruác.” Since then, many authors have put forward higher-order affiliations of the purported Pano-Takanan unit, which I list in table 5. It is worth noting that most of the classifications include Moseten and Yuracare, both linguistic isolates in Bolivia, south of Takanan territory. These can be seen as serious possibilities worthy of further study, but the proposed connections with Patagonian languages, Yanomami, and especially Uto-Aztecan seem less plausible. More controversial has been Greenberg’s (1987) classification of Macro-Panoan into his Ge-Pano-Carib phylum; see Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), Rodrigues (2000), and Gildea and Payne (2007) for objections. Swadesh’s proposed higher-order link between Pano-Takanan (“Tacapano” by his terminology) and Kechuan arouses skepticism, particularly in light of the obvious borrowing from Kechua into western lowland South American languages (next section), but it is of interest in that several early missionaries claimed a fundamental similarity or suggested possible affiliation between Panoan languages and Kechua (e.g., Navarro, 1903: 172; Alemany, 1906: 51). The association of Panoan with the Arawakan family (top of table 5) is by way of observed similarities between Takanan and Arawakan languages (also noted by Loukotka, 1968: 174), which nevertheless likely originate from borrowing among neighbors, in Bolivia, where Takanan and Arawakan languages are in close contact.

TABLE 5. Proposed Affiliations of Pano-Takanan with Other Languages and/or Families

Author; stock name (if given)

Languages/families

Location

Schuller (1913); Carib-Aruac

Arawakan

South America

Rivet (1924), Rivet and Loukotka (1952)

Arawakan

Cariban

South America

South and Central America

Swadesh (1959, 1962); Macro-Kechua

Moseten

Yuracare

Chon

Kechuan

Cayuvava

Yaruro

(many more)

Bolivia

Bolivia

Southern Chile

Andes

Bolivia

Venezuela

Suárez (1969, 1973); Macro-Pano-Takanan

Moseten

Yuracare

Chon

Bolivia

Bolivia

Southern Chile

Greenberg (1960, 1987); Macro-Panoan

Moseten

Mataco

Lule-Vilela

Guaicuru

Charruan

Lengua

Bolivia

Argentina-Bolivia

Argentina

Argentina-Brazil, Paraguay

Uruguay-Argentina

Paraguay

Key (1978), Key and Clairis (1978)

Moseten

Mapuche

Chon

Kaweskar

Bolivia

Chile, Argentina

Southern Chile

Southern Chile

Migliazza (1982, 1988); Macro Pano-Takanan

Moseten

Yuracare

Yanomami

Bolivia

Bolivia

Venezuela-Brazil

Wistrand (1991)

Uto-Aztecan

U.S., Mexico

Contact with Other Amazonian Groups and Kechua Speakers

Panoan languages possess areal features found in Amazonia in general or only in western Amazonia, such as ergativity, evidentiality, and the high central vowel (ɨ), suggesting that Panoan languages have been influenced by and/or have influenced neighboring languages. These Amazonian areal features are listed in Derbyshire (1987), David Payne (1990), Doris Payne (1990), Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999: 8–9), and Aikhenvald (2007: 193). Below, in the typological overview, I consider some of these areal characteristics found in the Panoan family. Taking of captives and coresidence at mission villages are two situations that entailed contact between Panoans and non-Panoans, but I have not yet been able to pin down any specific linguistic repercussions of this.

Borrowing from, and into, Arawakan languages has been noted, particularly Ashaninka (e.g., Valenzuela, 2003b: 63). For example, the Ashaninka word for “dog,” uchiti, is found in Shipibo-Konibo, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Pano (but not Shetebo) and Poyanawa; the Ashaninka word shima (“fish”) is found in some Yaminawa dialects; and Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913: 56) noted that Arazaire, Atsawaka, and Yamiaka, rather than the Panoan words for “woman/wife,” used the Kampa word for “woman,” činani (tsinane in Ashaninka and Nomatsiguenga; Kinberg, 1980; Shaver, 1996). Arawakan influence is also evident in Brazil; specifically, Kanamari appears to have borrowed the word for “tapir” (chemá) from Manetenery (Chandless, 1866: 118). Linguistic influence has not been one-way: Campbell (1997: 12) and Wise (1976: 356) report Panoan (and Kechuan) borrowings in Amuesha (Arawakan). Dienst (2005, 2006: 349–351) noted minor linguistic influence on Arawan Kulina and Deni from neighboring Panoan languages, and Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido (2005a) noted at least one Arawan Kulina loan in the Shanenawa and Yawanawa dialects of Yaminawa, namely yuma(i), “jaguar.”

The Peruvian Amazonian Spanish words conta (“Attalea tessmannii palm”), shebón (“Attalea cf. septuagenata palm”), and paca (“bamboo”) appear to be borrowings from Chama languages, and the Panoan word for (large) river, paru/paro, appears in the historical literature as an alternate Spanish name for the Ucayali River (e.g., Marqués, 1931 [1800]: 117). Additionally many tributaries of the Ucayali have official names of Chama origin, such as the Tamaya (from tama, “peanut,” + -ya “having” = “river of [bountiful] peanuts”) and Pacaya rivers; likewise several towns along the Ucayali and its tributaries. I know of no traces of Panoan linguistic influence on western Amazonian Portuguese, and this may be due to the lesser prominence of Brazilian Panoans compared with the larger societies of speakers of the Chama languages in Peru. Borrowings from Spanish or Portuguese are now abundant in all the Panoan languages; see Fleck (2003: 200–201, 332), Valenzuela (2006), Zariquiey (2011a), and Elias (in prep.) for examples of Spanish borrowings into Matses, Shipibo-Konibo, and Kashibo.

Various authors have noted that Shipibo has many words of Kechua origin (e.g., Steinen, 1904; Lathrap et al., 1985; Valenzuela 2003b). García (1990) identified 49 words and three suffixes of probable Kechua origin in Shipibo. Although in my opinion a few of these are doubtful (especially the three suffixes), it is clear that most are indeed of Kechua origin. Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido (2005c) point out the numerals kimisha “three” in Shipibo-Konibo, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Pano, Amawaka, and Kashibo (I add Karipuna and Pakawara; see Martius, 1867: 241; and Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913: 78) and chosko “four” and picha “five” in Shipibo-Konibo, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, and Pano, all three words of obvious Kechua origin. The most widespread Kechua loan in Panoan languages may be tashi (“salt”) found in Shipibo-Konibo, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Pano, Amawaka, Kashibo, Yaminawa, Mastanawa, Nukini, and Iskonawa. The controversy surrounding Kechua loans in Panoan languages is the question of whether these words were borrowed directly from Inkas in precolonial times, or whether they were borrowed after Spanish contact, when Kechua was used as a lingua franca in the Peruvian Amazon. This question cannot be readily resolved with linguistics because there is no reason why all the loans would have to have been borrowed at once: some could have been borrowed from Inkas (directly or through pre-Andean neighbors) and others later from priests and other speakers of the lingua franca. Therefore, although it is possible to show that some Kechua loans were not borrowed directly from Inkas, for many other words there is no way to determine when they were borrowed. We can be fairly sure that Inkas had contact with more westerly groups (e.g., Arawakans like the Amueshas and Kampas), but no linguistic evidence that Kechua speakers ever had direct contact with Panoans has been uncovered.

HISTORY OF PANOAN LINGUISTICS

The Jesuits (1640s–1768)

As will be related in detail below, the first Panoan linguistic data became available outside Amazonia only in the 1800s. However, the earliest data recorded for Panoan languages were vocabularies, grammars, and catechisms prepared by Jesuit missionaries as early as the second half of the 1600s. As related by Father Francisco de Figueroa (1904 [1661]), the first Panoan society to be reduced in a mission was that of the Barbudos of the Huallaga River in 1653, but before that the Jesuits were already at least vaguely familiar with the languages of other Panoans captured by the Kokamas (whom the Jesuits contacted in 1644; Figueroa, 1904: 100) on the Ucayali River, namely the Shipibos, Shetebos, and Kapanawas, the first two of whom were later reduced at the Jesuit mission of Santiago de la Laguna in 1670 (Luzero, 1904 [1681]: 415; Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 222). The Jesuits also reduced Panos, Konibos, Mayorunas, Manamanbobos, and Manannawas (Zárate et al., 1904 [1735]; Zárate, 1904 [1739]; Maroni 1988 [1889–1892]). It is be assumed that the Jesuits prepared linguistic materials for most of these, but no such documents survived the exodus of the Jesuits from the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the late 1760s (Veigl, cited by Pallarés and Calvo, cited by Bayle in the introduction to Uriarte, 1952 [1771]: II: xiv–xv; Hervás, 1800: 271; Chantre, 1901: 91–93).[9] Thus, from the Jesuit era we have only early notes on linguistic affiliation, like the following:

1654

The language [of the Barbudos] is the same as Chipeo [Shipibo], Cheteo [Shetebo], and Capanagua [Kapanawa], which are [spoken] on the Ucayali River (Figueroa, 1904: 115; original manuscript dated 1661, citing a letter by Father Raymundo de Santa Cruz written in 1654)[10]

1730–1750s

The Pano [language], related to others, and matrix of Chepea [Shipibo] and Mayoruna. (Chantre, 1901: 93, original manuscript written around 1770–1801)[11]

1768

At the mission they generically call Panos the descendents of different branches of the Chepæos (Tschepäos) [Shipibos], or, as others call them, Chipæos, Zipivos, Xitipos, including the Mananaguas [Manannawas], which means ‘people of the hills.’ All of them speak the same language with somewhat different dialectal variation. (Veigl, 1785: 63)[12]

The source of the second of the above three citations is from Father Martin Iriarte, who worked in the Maynas missions from the 1730s to the 1750s and was renowned for his ability to learn the local languages (Chantre, 1901: 367). These early notes of the Jesuits can be considered the first steps toward recognition and circumscription of the Panoan family, although most of this type of information was not published until the beginning of the 20th century. Veigl’s 1785 publication could be seen as the first fairly accurate, if brief, information on the Panoan family to be made available to the outside world.[13] By contrast, one of the few other documentations of Jesuit knowledge of the western Amazon to be made widely available at an early date can be seen as a step backward for Panoan linguistics. Based on second-hand accounts from Jesuits expelled from the Spanish colonies, Juan Velasco wrote a three-volume work on all aspects of the Jesuit missions in Peru and Ecuador, which he finished in 1789, and although some copies and translations of the manuscript were circulated, it was not published until 1837 (and French and Italian translations were published in the 1840s). Along with much other implausible information, Velasco came up with some ludicrous classifications of Panoan languages; for example, Amawaka and Remo as Kampa (Arawakan) dialects (1981: 546) and Mayoruna as an Urarina (isolate) dialect (1981: 548). Unfortunately, Velasco’s misinformation was copied by Hervás into his opus on the world’s languages (1800: 262–263), which in turn was copied by Adelung (1817: 580–581), and has been repeated up until fairly recent times (e.g., Steward and Métraux, 1948: 557).

Most of the work done by the Jesuits was in the Maynas missions in Peru. Due to conflicts between Portuguese slave raiders and Maynas Jesuits in the first half of the 18th century, it was not until 1756, shortly before their expulsion, that Portuguese Jesuits were sent to missionize Indians in the upper Amazon, where they established a mission at Tabatinga (at the present Peru-Brazil border on the Amazon River) with Tikunas; before that, Carmelite priests worked the Brazilian stretch of the Amazon River (Uriarte, 1952: II: 208; Werlich, 1968;). It is possible that the Portuguese Jesuits and Carmelites had contact with Panoans in the vicinity of Tabatinga, but there is no record of them having reduced Mayorunas, and Sampaio (1825: 64) explicitly stated that it had been impossible to reduce the Kulinas of São Paulo de Olivença. D’Orbigny (1838) claims that Pakawaras were taken to Jesuit missions in Bolivia several times, though I have found no other information corroborating this or any linguistic comments or documentation on Panoan languages by Jesuits in Bolivia. No missionaries visited the remote headwaters of the Juruá and Purus rivers, where most of the Brazilian Panoan ethnic groups are found, until the early 20th century. In the end, the Jesuits considered their work in the Maynas missions a failure, and the diversity and difficulty of the local languages was identified as one of the principal contributing factors (e.g., Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 167–168).

The Franciscans (1657–1930s)

When the Jesuits were expelled from the South American colonies in 1767–1768, secular priests took over the Maynas missions for a few years, but they did not leave any information on Panoan languages. In 1790 the Maynas missions were eventually handed over to the Franciscans of the missionary college of Santa Rosa de Ocopa, but it should be noted that almost as early as the Jesuits began working with Panoans, the Franciscans had began working with Panoan groups on the upper Ucayali River[14]; and they did leave much valuable linguistic information.

As early as 1800, Father Buenaventura Marqués had prepared an extensive Konibo vocabulary with accompanying grammatical notes, and also a Pano vocabulary, but these were not published until a century later (Marqués, 1903, 1931). Around 1810–1812 and 1877, two unknown Franciscan monks prepared Shipibo vocabularies accompanied by grammatical notes, but these were also not published until much later (Steinen, 1904). A mission for the Pakawaras was first established in 1771 (Santiago de Pacaguaras on the Madidi River; Armentia, 1887: 22), and by the late 1800s Franciscans were publishing linguistic data on Bolivian Panoan languages. Meanwhile, linguistic contributions by Franciscans working in Peru became available only at the beginning of the 20th century (table 6). (From Brazil we have no linguistic reports from Franciscans.) It is worth noting that the Franciscans’ substantive productions were all on Chama languages.[15]

Like the Jesuits, Franciscans also made early observations about similarities among Panoan languages, as in the following passages:

1800

This language [Konibo] is very different from the rest on the Ucayali River, and even among the Konibos themselves there are different manners of speaking, with different terms and words, as is the case with the Inga [Kechua] language, and it should be considered the general language among the Shetebo, Shipibo, Amawaka, Sensi, and Kapanawa nations, and others, because they have many terms and words in common, and with ease these nations understand each other. (Marqués, 1931: 197).[16]

1883–1884

The Pano language is the one that the Pano Indians speak, which extends along the Ucayali, in Peru. Although this language is not spoken in Bolivia, I include a sample of it because it is like the mother of the dialects that are spoken by the Chakobos, Sinabos, Karipunas, Pakawaras, and others. (Cardús, 1886: 308)[17]

1887

Pakawara [is spoken by] the tribes of the Chakobos, Pakawaras, Karipunas, and even by the tribes of the Ucayali, where it is known as the Pano language, which is divided into several dialects. (Armentia, 1887: 181)[18]

1906

By means of this [Shipibo] language, it is possible to communicate, not only with the Shipibos, but also the Konibos, Shetebos, Amawakas, Remos, and Panos.... The languages that they speak are all related: all are agglutinating, have identical structure, have the same sounds, are based on a lexicon of common origin with variations in letters and syllables, their suffixes are similar.... (Alemany, 1906: III)[19]

To summarize all such observations made by Franciscans, we can say that by the early 1800s Franciscans had noticed that the Panoan languages/dialects of the Ucayali basin with which they were familiar (Konibo, Shipibo, Pano, Shetebo, Amawaka, Remo, Kashibo, Sensi, and often Mayoruna[20]) were related, and by the late 1800s Bolivian languages/dialects (Pakawara, Chakobo, Karipuna, and Sinabo of the Mamoré River) were recognized as also being close to these. In the Jesuits’ and Franciscans’ understanding of linguistics, some “dialects” were derived from, or corruptions of, more pure “languages” (perhaps in analogy to how Latin and the modern Romance languages were at the time thought to be related). As can be seen in the various citations above, the principal such “pure” or “mother” varieties were sometimes called “matrix languages,” “general languages,” or simply “languages” with related varieties being but dialects of these. “Pano” was most frequently considered to be the principal/matrix Panoan language of the Ucayali, and was used as a lingua franca in missions such as Sarayacu. “Pano” has been used at several levels of inclusiveness: (1) as a codialect of Shetebo; (2) as a language that includes Shetebo as a dialect or a synonym; and (3) as a superordinate category that includes Shipibo, Konibo, and Shetebo, and even all the Panoan speech varieties of the Ucayali basin. As such, it is not surprising that Pano was chosen to name the family.[21]

TABLE 6. Published Panoan Linguistic Works by Franciscans

Language/dialect

Vocabularya

Grammarb

Datec

Collector/publication

Konibo

3300

15

1800

Marqués (1903/1931)

Pano

1600

—

1800

Marqués (1903/1931)

Shipibo

Shipibo

3100

2500

}9d

1810–1812

1877

Anonymous in Steinen (1904)

Anonymous in Steinen (1904)

Chakobo

36

—

?

Cardús (1886)

Pakawara

57

2

1881–1882

Armentia (1887)

Shipibo

3800

—

?

Armentia (1898)

Pano

3000

23

1903

Navarro (1903/1927)

Shipibo

2000

9

?

Alemany (1906/1927)

Konibo

2400

—

1896?e

Anonymous (1927)

a Approximate number of entries.

b Pages of notes.

c Of manuscript preparation.

d Steinen (1904) combined the two anonymous Franciscans’ Shipibo grammar notes.

e Erikson et al. (1994) gave this date and gave the author’s name as “Delgado, Eulogio” (who wrote a Campa vocabulary).

Foreign Travelers of the 1800s

The Franciscans were not able to work continuously with Panoan groups primarily due to multiple Indian uprisings during which priests were killed and/or forced to retreat to the highlands for many years. As damning as these insurrections was the independence of Peru in 1821, when all the Franciscans working in Panoan territories were forced to leave the country, except for the Ecuadorian-born Father Manuel Plaza, who remained as the lone missionary in Panoan lands until the 1840s. Meanwhile, Peruvian independence opened up the country to many foreign explorers and scientists. Father Plaza remained essentially the reservoir of Franciscan knowledge of Panoan tribes, and he related this knowledge to the many foreign travelers who passed by the Sarayacu mission as they travelled the Ucayali-Amazon route to the Atlantic. While the thitherto unpublished Panoan lexica were likely in circulation among the Franciscan priests, the earliest lists to actually become available to a wider audience were collected by foreign travelers, who often did not tarry in publishing their lists. Table 7 lists, in the chronological order in which they became known to the outside world, the Panoan languages or dialects for which published lexica became available in the 1800s.

Of the authors listed in table 7, only Armentia and Cardús were missionaries, and the rest were scientists and explorers from foreign countries[22]; see appendix 2 for details on these and other sources. In contrast to the Franciscans’ Chama lexica (table 6), these travelers’ published lists were relatively short, contain many misunderstandings (due to the travelers’ lack of familiarity with these languages, and their probable rudimentary skills in the contact languages), and were not accompanied by grammatical notes, with only a very few minor exceptions. French naturalist Francis de Castelnau published two pages of grammatical notes on Pano that he copied from the work of Ucayali missionaries (1850–1859: V: 304–305). He also published information on affiliation of Panoan languages that he learned from Father Plaza at Sarayacu:

1846

According to the information that I was able to collect, all the following peoples speak a language derived from that of the Panos: Konibos, Kashibos, Shipibos, Amawakas, Sensis, Remos, Tapanaouas [Kapanawas?], Pitsobos, and Yawabos. (Castelnau, 1850–1859: IV: 387)[23]

Italian-born Peruvian scholar Antonio Raimondi likewise published information on affiliation and a very brief phonological and grammatical characterization of the Pano language:

1859

The Pano language, considered relative to the necessities of the Indians who speak it, has a very rich vocabulary, because it has many words that cannot be translated into another language, other than by a phrase. The pronunciation is somewhat difficult because there are many words that are very much aspirated, and others are guttural, and finally, some that are pronounced touching the tip of the tongue to base of the teeth. Also, its construction does not fall short in presenting some difficulties, with the existence of some particles [bound morphemes] that when interposed in words change entirely the sense of the sentence. (Raimondy, 1862: 123)[24]

Although not stated explicitly, Franciscan missionaries on the Ucayali are undoubtedly the source of at least some of Raimondi’s information.

Other travelers of the 1800s who mentioned Panoan affiliations are Paul Marcoy (1862–1867: X: 185) and F. L. Galt:

ca. 1871

The old “Pano” lives now only as a sort of basis for some of the dialects, especially Remo, Conibo [Konibo], Sipibo [Shipibo], and Setibo [Shetebo]. (Galt, 1878: 313)

Paul Marcoy (alias Laurent St-Cricq), in addition to the short Konibo list published in 1864 (see table 7), claims to have produced, while in the Pampa de Sacramento (the area between the middle course of the Ucayali River and the eastern foothills of the Andes), a vocabulary of approximately 3000 words and grammar of Konibo (St-Cricq, 1853: 286) and/or to have produced, with the help of missionaries and a Pano Indian, an extensive vocabulary and grammar of the Pano language (Marcoy, 1869: I: 675). Most likely both references are to the same manuscript, with “Pano language” in the second reference meant to be read generically as Panoan or Chama (i.e., for Marcoy to document Konibo would be to document a dialect of the “Pano language”). In any case, the manuscript(s) is(are) apparently lost (Schuller, 1911), and one can only wonder whether Marcoy actually copied it/them from Marqués’ Konibo vocabulary (of ca. 3300 entries) and grammar (and Pano vocabulary), and later removed it when a copy of Marqués’ manuscript found its way to England.

In summary, we can make the general observation that until the beginning of the 20th century, missionaries had access to higher-quality materials and had a more precise understanding of Panoan languages and the relationships among them than did contemporary academics in Europe and North America. The travelers introduced in this section can be credited with making bits of Panoan linguistic information available to a wider audience, either through collection of short word lists, or by relaying fragments of missionaries’ knowledge about classification and grammar.

While Father Plaza and later Franciscans provided foreign travelers with much information on local tribes and languages, comparable information was not thus obtained on Panoans in Brazil.

TABLE 7. Publications from the 1800s Containing Panoan Linguistic Data

Language/dialect

Lexicon entries

Publication/collector

Nationality

Collection date

Sensi

12

Smyth and Lowe (1836)

British

1835

Pakawara

23

52

57

d’Orbigny (1838)

Heath (1883)

Armentia (1887)

French

American

Spanish

1830–1833

1880–1881

1881–1882

Pano

94

Castelnau (1851)

French

1846–1847

Settled Mayoruna

54

Castelnau (1851)

French

1847

Wild Mayoruna

80

Castelnau (1851) (by Melville)

French

1847

Konibo

119

Marcoy (1864)

French

1846

Mayoruna of Tabatinga

137

Martius (1867)a (by Spix)

Bavarian

1820

Kulina of Olivença

243

Martius (1867)(by Spix)

Bavarian

1820

Karipuna

162

Martius (1867) (by Natterer)

Austrian

1829

Kanamari

5

Chandless (1866, 1869)

British

1864–1867

Chakobo

36

Cardús (1886)

Spanish

1883–1884

Shipibo

3800

Armentia (1898)

Spanish

18??

a Martius (1867) also published Castelnau’s Pano and Mayoruna lists.

European Philologistsof the Late 1800s

Based on a comparison of word lists of seven of the languages listed in table 7 (Mayoruna of the Amazon River [both dialects], Mayoruna of Tabatinga, Pakawara, Karipuna, Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença, Konibo, and Pano), Raoul de la Grasserie presented at the 1888 International Congress of Americanists held in Berlin the first formal demonstration that Panoan languages constitute a linguistic family (Grasserie, 1890). Grasserie’s lecture (and its subsequent publication) was a landmark in Panoan linguistics in that, unlike the travelers’ reports, it provided data to substantiate his claim. Prior to Grasserie’s paper, there was much confusion (outside of Amazonia) about the affiliation of Panoan languages. For example, Martius, who published several of the lists upon which Grasserie based his work, wrote that Pano was closely related to Tupi and Movima (Martius, 1867: I: 298). There was also Hervás’ (1800) misguided classification mentioned above, which repeated Velasco’s errors. Nevertheless, Grasserie’s presentation can hardly be called a discovery, since the affinities among the seven Panoan languages were already well-known among missionaries in Peru, and information on Panoan affiliation like Castelnau’s, Ramondi’s, and others’ was already in the public domain. Grasserie’s internal classification, based entirely on phonetics (or, more accurately, on transcriptions by different nonlinguists), could not have been more wrong: he divided the two Mayoruna languages into different categories, divided Pano and Konibo, grouped together Mayoruna of the Amazon River and Konibo, and grouped together Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença, Pano, and Pakawara.

The most comprehensive 19th-century work on Amazonian languages was by Daniel Brinton (1891), who added Barbudo, Cochiquinas (as a Mayoruna subtribe), Kashibo, Kanamari, Remo, Sensi, Shetebo, Shipibo, Calliseca (as a synonym for Shetebo), and, mistakenly (following Veigl, 1785: 56), Chamikuro. Brinton did not subclassify the languages, and some of the languages he added did not yet have linguistic data available, so they must have been added based on historical comments on these languages’ affiliation. His work can be seen as representing what was known about Panoan linguistics by European and American linguists at the end of the century, which was essentially limited to the awareness of the existence of a handful of closely related languages in western Amazonia.

A New Generation of List Collectors and Linguists (1900–1930s)

In the first third of the 20th century many more languages and dialects became known for the first time, thanks to a new generation of mostly foreign travelers and missionaries. These are listed in table 8, in the order in which the language/dialect became known (see appendix 2 for more details on these and other sources).

Most of the publications in tables 7 and 8 contain relatively short word lists collected following different institutions’ standard lists (e.g., Heath used the Smithsonian list), the collector’s own standard lists (e.g., Tessmann), or simply randomly; and often the same collector produced divergent lists for different languages. The consequence of this is that when a linguist wishes to compare a pair of lists of, say, 100–200 entries, often only a handful of lexical items are contained in both lists, making lexical comparisons imprecise and a systematic comparison of all the languages impossible. Similarly, the short-list collectors were typically unfamiliar with the sounds of the languages they documented, and so their transcriptions are too imprecise to draw more than a few speculative observations on the phonology of the languages. This problem was partially solved when better and larger vocabularies of more than 1000 words began to be published at the turn of the century, all on languages for which brief lists had already been made available. These more substantial works include the Franciscans’ contributions on Chama languages mentioned above (table 6), and, importantly, Abreu’s (1914/1941) monograph on Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River containing a vocabulary (1779 entries), a phonology/grammar (22 pages) and the first Panoan text collection (488 pages with 5926 sentences). Koch-Grünberg (1941: 623) called Abreu’s 1914 edition “the most substantial and best material that has ever been published on a South American Indian language.” Karl von den Steinen, in addition to publishing the two Franciscans’ Shipibo dictionaries in his 1904 book, also included a valuable ethnohistorical study of the family, some comparative grammatical material, and an inventory of all the Panoan languages known at the time.

Father Constant Tastevin collected word lists of many thitherto-unknown or little-known Panoan languages/dialects in Brazil during the first third of the 20th century (Tastevin mss.: a–f). Four of these (Nawa, Kapanawa of the Juruá River, Katukina, and Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River) were published as part of an analytical publication (Rivet and Tastevin, 1927–1929/1932), but the others were either published much later and only partially (Paranawa, Yumanawa, Nehanawa, Nishinawa, Mastanawa, and Yawanawa; Loukotka, 1963), or have never been published (Poyanawa, Yaminawa, and Nukini lists exist in Paul Rivet’s archive in Paris). This material and possibly additional Panoan linguistic data may exist in Tastevin’s archive near Paris, to which I have not yet had access.[25]

Paul Rivet can be considered the foremost Panoan linguist of the first third of the 20th century, when the first Panoan comparative works were produced (e.g., Rivet, 1910; Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913; Rivet and Tastevin, 1927–1929/1932). Rivet’s first (1910) attempt was a failure due to confusion stemming from the homonymy between the Panoan and Takanan languages called Yamiaka and Arazaire/Arasa. Meanwhile, his subsequent publications were genuine contributions to Panoan linguistics. His 1913 paper with Créqui-Montfort contains the first comparative description of Panoan grammar, and his paper presented with Tastevin at the 1922 International Congress of Americanists held in Rio de Janeiro (published in 1927–1929 and in 1932) contains a lexical comparison incorporating data from all of the Panoan languages for which word lists were available. Rivet and Tastevin (1921) contains about 50 Panoan ethnonyms with information on geography, synonymy, affiliation, and (speculative) etymology that was more useful than any other publication available at the time for sorting out the Panoan ethnic groups/languages.

Tessmann’s work (1928, 1929, 1930), despite his questionable methodology, is also noteworthy in that he made an important contribution with new data on several thitherto undocumented Panoan languages and a detailed grammar of Shipibo-Konibo.

The newly collected Panoan material made available during this time also generated many new internal classifications of the Panoan family (e.g., Rivet, 1924; Schmidt, 1926; Rivet and Tastevin, 1927–1929/1932; Loukotka, 1935, 1939), but these classifications were all geographically based. Geographic classifications made it possible include a large number of languages for which no data were available, but were linguistically unsound.

TABLE 8. Languages and Dialects That Became Known during the First Third of the 20th Century

Language/Dialect

Lexicon entries

Publications (1900–1933)

Yaminawa

71

Reich and Stegelmann (1903)

Amawaka

84

335

39

Reich and Stegelmann (1903)a

Farabee (1922)

Tessmann (1930)

Yamiaka

46

118

Nordenskiöld (1905)

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913)

Atsawaka

49

223

Nordenskiöld (1905)

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913)

Arazaire

133

Llosa (1906b)

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu R.

1779

Abreu (1914)

Katukina

16

317

Rivet (1920)

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932)

Kashinawa of the Tarauacá R.

129

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932)

Kapanawa of the Juruá R.

397

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932)

Nawa

39

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932)

Remo of the Blanco R.

179

Leuque (1927)

Shetebo

33

Tessmann (1929)

Kapanawa of the Tapiche R.

32

Tessmann (1930)

Kashibo (Kashibo dialect)

220

Tessmann (1930)

Kakataibo (Kashibo dialect)

30

Tessmann (1930)

Rubo (Kashibo dialect)

30

Tessmann (1930)

Nokaman (Kashibo dialect)

228

Tessmann (1930)

Poyanawa

383

Carvalho (1931)

Tuchiunawa

127

Carvalho (1931)

Remo of the Jaquirana R.

109

Carvalho (1931)

a Evidently through some type of error, this Amawaka list was labeled “Kaschinaua.”

The Summer Institute of Linguistics (1940s–present)

In 1942 Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) missionaries began work on Panoan languages, mostly in Peru (table 9). In addition to Matses (Peruvian dialect) and the Sharanawa dialect of Yaminawa, which are listed in table 9 among Panoan languages and dialects studied in detail, SIL personnel documented for the first time several other Panoan languages and dialects (not listed in table 9), during the 1960s (Iskonawa and the Marinawa dialect of Yaminawa), 1970s (the Paud Usunkid dialect of Matses, all three dialects of Kulina of the Curuçá River, Kasharari, and Remo of the Môa River), 1980s (the Parkenawa dialect of Yaminawa), and 1990s (the Chitonawa dialect of Yaminawa). Except for a short article on Marinawa (Pike and Scott, 1962), these were documented only with short lists that were not published (they exist as microfiche in the SIL archives in Dallas or as documents in the personal archives of Eugene Loos; see appendix 2 for references). Meanwhile, for the languages/dialects listed in table 9, the SIL produced an unprecedented flood of academic articles and pedagogical materials, partly in compliance with a contract made with the Peruvian ministry of education to produce such materials and run bilingual schools. A few linguistics articles were published in international journals (next section), but most of this work was printed as in-house publications or archived as microfiche.

Franciscan missionaries and Abreu had written traditional Latin-style grammars (i.e., mostly conjugation and declension paradigms), and additionally made some observations about the Panoan languages with respect to the qualities in which they differed from well-known European languages (of the type in the citation by Raimondi above). By the beginning of the 1900s, many academic linguists (e.g., Ferdinand de Saussure, Franz Boas, and Edward Sapir) preferred descriptions that were guided by the language’s unique structure, rather than pressed to fit into Indo-European–style grammars. Unfortunately, during this period no such descriptions were produced for Panoan languages. By the 1950s, academic linguists were interested in describing languages using complex abstract models often embedded in very intricate notation and which are considered of little use today. During the 1960s, some of the SIL missionaries working in Peru obtained M.A. and Ph.D. linguistics degrees in American universities and wrote theses on Panoan languages (table 9). Most of these theses and many publications by SIL missionaries of this period followed the then in-vogue abstract models, producing generative phonologies (e.g., Loos, 1967/1969) and tagmemic (e.g., Prost, 1965/1967a), grammemic (e.g., Shell, 1957), and transformational (e.g., Russell, 1965/1975) grammars. Exceptionally, Shell (1965/1975b) produced her reconstruction of seven Panoan languages, which remains the only Panoan lexical reconstruction study and is the hitherto soundest contribution to the genetic classification of the Panoan languages.

In the 1970s, more valuable descriptive studies of Panoan languages began to be produced by the SIL (e.g., Loos, 1978a [1973] inter alia, 1978b [1973] inter alia). Starting in the 1980s, lengthy (lexicographically naive, but useful) dictionaries with short grammar sketches of Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River (Montag, 1981), Shipibo-Konibo (Loriot et al., 1993), and Kapanawa of the Tapiche River (Loos and Loos, 1998/2003) became available, along with some shorter vocabularies (Amawaka: Hyde, 1980; Kashibo: Shell, 1987; Pano: Parker, 1992; Sharanawa: Scott, 2004).[26] Pedagogical grammars (which include short vocabularies) were written for Shipibo-Konibo (Faust, 1973), Matses (Kneeland, 1979), Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River (Montag, 1979/2004), and Yaminawa (Eakin, 1991), though it should be kept in mind that in these the language’s grammar is simplified and that these were not written for use by linguists; the only SIL descriptive grammars aimed at academic audiences are for Yaminawa (Faust and Loos, 2002) and Amawaka (Sparing 2007). Olive Shell did not continue her excellent reconstructive Panoan work, and Eugene Loos became the foremost expert on the Panoan family, becoming consultant for the SIL personnel working on Panoan languages and writing several comparative works and edited volumes on Panoan linguistics (Loos, 1975b, 1976a, 1978a, 1978b, 1978c, 1978d, 1978e, 1999b, 2005).

All the Panoan languages (and many dialects) in Peru and Bolivia were studied by the SIL at some level. Meanwhile, in Brazil we have from the SIL only a Portuguese translation of Montag’s (1979) Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River pedagogical grammar (Montag, 2004), an unpublished Kasharari word list (Pickering, 1973) and an unpublished Kasharari phonology (Couto, 2005). Generally speaking, the real value of the SIL’s Panoan linguistic descriptions, particularly the later ones, is that the missionaries spent enough time in the field to become intimately familiar with the languages. Thus, even if some of their analyses are fallacious, one can feel fairly confident that the data and the generalizations are valid (often imprecise, but unlikely to be completely wrong).

While the SIL were the only missionaries conducting linguistic work on Panoan languages in Peru, non-SIL missionaries working in Bolivia and Brazil produced a few linguistic descriptions. A lengthy Chakobo dictionary with a short grammar sketch was compiled by Zingg (1998) of the Swiss Mission. New Tribes Mission personnel worked with the Marubos and Katukinas (in Brazil), but they produced mostly readers, and the only linguistic descriptions available, for Marubo, were never published (Kennell, 1976, 1978).

TABLE 9. Languages Studied in Detail by the Summer Institute of Linguistics

Language/dialect

Country

Missionary

Start datea

Theses, dissertations

Shipibo

Peru

Peru

Peru

Lauriault, Erwin

Loriot, James

Eakin, Lucille

1942

1950s?

1968

Kashibo

Peru

Peru

Shell, Olive

Wistrand, Lila

1947

1958

Ph.D., 1965

M.A., 1968; Ph.D., 1969

Amawaka

Peru

Peru

Peru

Peru

Peru

Russell, Robert

Russell, Dolores

Hyde, Richard

Hyde, Sylvia

Sparing, Margareth

1953

1953

1960s?

1960s?

1985

M.A., 1965

Kapanawa of the Tapiche R.

Peru

Peru

Loos, Eugene

Loos, Betty

1954

1954

Ph.D., 1967

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu R.

Peru

Peru

Peru

Peru

Peru

Kensinger, Kenneth

Cromack, Gail

Cromack, Robert

Montag, Richard

Montag, Susan

1955

1965

1965

1969

1969

M.A., 1967

Ph.D., 1968

M.A., 1992

Ph.D., 1998

Chakobo

Bolivia

Bolivia

Prost, Gilbert

Prost, Marian

1956

1956

Matses

Peru

Peru

Fields, Harriet

Kneeland, Harriet

1969

1969

Sharanawa

Peru

Peru

Scott, Eugene

Scott, Marie

1960s?

1960s?

Yaminawa

Peru

Faust, Norma

1975

a Of language study.

University Academics (1970s–present)

During the 1970s, the only academic (i.e., without a missionary agenda) institution to take interest in Panoan linguistic research was the San Marcos national university in Lima (UNMSM). The academics working on Panoan languages at the UNMSM were André-Marcel d’Ans and his students. d’Ans produced several publications, including an analytical study of Navarro’s (1903) Pano vocabulary (d’Ans, 1970), a new classification based on lexicostatistics (d’Ans, 1973, 1975) and some vocabularies (Yaminawa: d’Ans, 1972a; Amawaka: d’Ans and Van den Eynde, 1972).[27] However, none of these were based on extensive fieldwork and contain many inaccuracies and unfortunate errors.

In the 1980s many other university academics began to take interest in the description of Panoan languages. Table 10 lists the bachelor’s and master’s theses, and Ph.D. dissertations that have been completed on Panoan linguistics by nonmissionaries. As can be seen in table 10, most of these are on Brazilian languages by students enrolled in Brazilian universities, and these complemented the SIL’s contributions on Peruvian languages. Prior to the descriptive linguistic work in Brazil, personnel from the FUNAI (the Brazilian bureau of Indian affairs) and the national museum at Rio de Janeiro collected short word lists of Brazilian languages, documenting some Panoan languages and dialects for the first time, including Marubo (Boutle, 1964; Souza, 1979), Matis (Souza, 1979), the Brazilian dialect of Matses (Souza, 1979), and Nukini (FUNAI, 1981). Later, the work of Brazilian linguistics students added the Shanenawa and Shawannawa/Arara dialects of Yaminawa to the list of newly described Panoan speech varieties. Demushbo and Korubo (both the Korubo and the Chankueshbo dialects) are the most recent languages to be documented for the first time (Fleck and Voss, 2006; Oliveira, 2009; Fleck, in prep.).

Since the publication of its first issue in 1917, the International Journal of American Linguistics has been the most prestigious academic journal for the field or Amerindian languages. As can be seen in table 11, the first Panoan works to appear in this journal were by SIL missionaries, initially on phonological topics and then on transitivity. The next topic of interest was Panoan classification, and the latest contributions are descriptive works produced by university academics.

The beginning of this century is marked by a new priority and methodology in language description: the archiving of high-quality annotated, translated, and parsed digital recordings of endangered languages. This form of language documentation not only makes it possible for future generations to study these languages, but can also be used to make contemporary linguistic articles and grammars accountable by making the data accessible to readers. The contents of these archived digital collections are often of great interest to anthropologists, and in fact ethnographers often undertake similar documentation projects, which sometimes produce materials that are of use to linguists (if at least some of the transcriptions are parsed and/or good dictionaries and grammars exist of the language in question). Additionally, speakers of these languages or their descendants may take interest in the content of these archived collections. So far, six projects for archiving recordings of five Panoan languages have been completed or are underway (in parentheses are the principal investigators followed by archive information): Kashinawa of the Ibuaçú River (B. Comrie, P. Erikson, E. Camargo, et al.; DoBeS Archive); Parkenawa dialect of Yaminawa (C. Feather; Endangered Languages Archive); Matses, Kulina of the Curuçá River, and the Chankueshbo dialect of Korubo (D. Fleck; Endangered Languages Archive); Marubo (J. Ruedas; not yet archived); and Kashibo (R. Zariquiey; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, project in progress; and D. Valle; Endangered Languages Archive, project in progress).

TABLE 10. Languages That Have Been the Subject of Linguistics Theses by Academics

(theses are grouped by language and follow chronological order)

Language/dialect

Thesis

Degree

Universitya

Shipibo-Konibo

Guillen (1974)

García (1994)

Valenzuela (1997)

Elias (2000)

Valenzuela (2003b)

Master’s

Bachelor

M.A.

Bachelor

Ph.D.

UNMSM, Peru

UNMSM, Peru

U. Oregon, USA

UNMSM, Peru

U. Oregon, USA

Kapanawa of the Tapiche R.

Elias (2006)

Ph.D.

Rutgers U., USA

Kashibo

Cortez (1980)

Valle (2009)

Zariquiey (2011a)

Valle (in prep. a)

Bachelor

Bachelor

Ph.D.

Ph.D.

UNMSM, Peru

UNMSM, Peru

La Trobe U., Australia

U. Texas, USA

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu R.

Camargo (1987)

Camargo (1991)

Bachelor

Ph.D.

U. Paris, France

U. Paris, France

Katukina

Barros (1987)

Aguiar (1988)

Aguiar (1994a)

Master’s

Master’s

Ph.D.

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

Marubo

Costa (1992)

Costa (2000)

Master’s

Ph.D.

UFRJ, Brazil

UFRJ, Brazil

Matses

Carvalho (1992)

Dorigo (2001)

Fleck (2003)

Master’s

Ph.D.

Ph.D.

UFRJ, Brazil

UFRJ, Brazil

Rice U., USA

Poyanawa

Paula (1992)

Master’s

UFPE, Brazil

Yaminawa (Shawannawa dialect)

Cunha (1993)

Souza (2012)

Master’s

Ph.D.

UFPE, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

Yaminawa (Shanenawa dialect)

Cândido (1998)

Cândido (2004)

Master’s

Ph.D.

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

Yaminawa (Yawanawa dialect)

Garcia (2002)

Paula (2004)

Master’s

Ph.D.

UFG, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

Yaminawa (Yaminawa-arara dialect)

Souza (2004)

Master’s

UNICAMP, Brazil

Yaminawa (Brazilian Yaminawa dialect)

Couto (2010)

Master’s

UFPE, Brazil

Panoan family

Cortez (1996)

Lanes (2000)

Zariquiey (2006)

Barbosa (2012)

Lanes (2005)

Master’s

Master’s

Master’s

Master’s

Ph.D.

UNMSM, Peru

UFRJ, Brazil

PUCP, Peru

UNICAMP, Brazil

UFRJ, Brazil

Matis

Spanghero (2000)

Ferreira (2001a)

Spanghero (2005)

Ferreira (2005)

Master’s

Master’s

Ph.D.

Ph.D.

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

UNICAMP, Brazil

Kasharari

Garcia (2004)

Master’s

UNICAMP, Brazil

Nukini

Okidoi (2004)

Bachelor

UFG, Brazil

Korubo

Oliveira (2009)

Master’s

UnB, Brazil

Pano

Gomes (2010)

Master’s

UNICAMP, Brazil

Chakobo-Pakawara

Tallman (in prep., a)

Ph.D.

U. Texas, USA

a Abbreviations: PUCP, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; UFG, Universidade Federal de Goiás; UFPE, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; UFRJ, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro; UnB, Universidade de Brasilia; UNICAMP, Universidade Estadual de Campinas; UNMSM, Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos.

TABLE 11. Articles on Panoan Languages Published in the International Journal of American Linguistics

Language(s)

Citation

Affiliation

Topic

Shipibo

Lauriault (1948)

SIL

phonology

Amawaka

Osborn (1948)

SIL

phonology

Kashibo

Shell (1950)

Shell (1957)

SIL

SIL

phonology

grammar: transitivity

Chakobo

Prost (1962)

SIL

grammar: transitivity

Panoan family

Suárez (1973)

Key (1978)

Kensinger (1981)

IIISEO

U. of California

Bennington College

classification

classification

literature review

Pano

Parker (1994)

SIL

phonology

Marubo

Ruedas (2002)

Tulane U.

sociolinguistics

Matses

Fleck (2006b)

Fleck (2008a)

La Trobe U.

La Trobe U.

grammar: prefixation

grammar: pronouns

Kapanawa

Elias (2009)

Stony Brook U.

phonology

Shipibo-Konibo

Valenzuela (2010a)

Chapman U.

grammar: applicatives

Matses

Munro et al. (2012)

Stanford U., et al.

grammar: reported speech

Kashibo

Zariquiey and Fleck (2012)

PUCP, U. Oregon

grammar: prefixation

a Abbreviations: IIISEO, Instituto de Investigación e Integración Social del Estado de Oaxaca; PUCP, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; SIL, Summer Institute of Linguistics.

PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

A reconstruction or comparative work should be based on high-quality dictionaries and grammatical descriptions that follow modern academic standards of as many languages as possible.[28] It is also important that all the major categories (branches, groups, etc.) in the family be represented. A proto-Panoan reconstruction should first include low-level reconstructions of the main Panoan groups, and then midlevel reconstructions of the two branches. In a comparative study the first priority is to include languages from the Mayoruna branch and the Nawa group, and also Kashibo and Kasharari. As more Nawa languages are added, Chakobo/Pakawara, the most divergent of the (extant or documented beyond word lists) Nawa languages, should not be left out. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to conduct such ideal Panoan reconstructions and comparative studies, but the situation is rapidly improving. Full length, high-quality grammatical descriptions of Shipibo (Valenzuela, 2003b), Matses (Fleck, 2003), and Kashibo (Zariquiey, 2011a) have become available during the last 10 years, and a full-length grammar of Chakobo is underway (Tallman, in prep.), but the rest of the Panoan languages are still in need of further description. The crucial missing piece of the puzzle is Kasharari, for which only short word lists and phonological studies are available (Pickering, 1973; Cabral and Monserrat, 1987; Lanes, 2000; G. Sousa, 2004; Couto, 2005). Considering that this language is in danger of extinction, by far the highest priority for Panoan linguistics is the publication of a thorough grammatical description of this language, accompanied by a dictionary or lengthy vocabulary.

Another topic of interest is the teasing apart of areal vs. genetic factors contributing to similarities among Panoan languages, and between the Panoan and Takanan families (and other South American families). Kashibo is an interesting language to study in this respect: we can be sure there has been significant areal influence from Shipibo, but how old is it? Also, why does Amawaka in some ways seem to fit into the Headwaters subgroup and in other ways into the Chama subgroup, while having other quite unique features?

TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Below I present a brief typological overview of the phonology, morphology, and syntax of the family, based on the available linguistic data. Further study of some Panoan languages, especially Kasharari, will be needed to learn how widespread some of the features mentioned here are within the family.

Phonology

Loos (1999b: 230) listed the following phoneme inventory for proto-Panoan: p, t, k, ʔ, ts, tʃ, s, ʃ, ʂ, β, r, m, n, w, j, h, a, i, ɨ, and o. However, this inventory is probably valid only for proto-Nawa, considering all the Mayoruna languages and Kasharari have the phoneme /tʂ/, and all the Mayoruna languages, Kasharari, and Kashibo have six vowel phonemes (/a, i, ɨ, e, o, and u/).

Many Panoan languages have minor instances of vowel harmony, perhaps remnants of historically more general vowel harmony. A few Panoan languages have been described as having contrastive high and low tones, specifically Chakobo (Prost, 1960: 8, 1962: 111, 1967: 64), Kapanawa of the Tapiche River (Loos, 1969: 186ff.), and Amawaka (Russell, 1958; Russell and Russell 1959). Unlike tonal languages in the vicinity, like Tikuna, Bora, and Witoto, in all Panoan languages where they have been described, these contrastive tones play only a minor role. Panoan tones appear to be recent innovations specific to these Nawa languages, rather than a proto-Panoan feature (see Loos, 1999b: 230).

Within the family, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River has attracted the most attention from phonologists (e.g., Loos, 1967/1969); some of the topics of interest have been metrical syllable structure (Safir, 1979; Loos, 1986, Elias 2006, González, 2003, in prep.), nasal spreading (Safir, 1982; Piggott, 1992; Walker and Pullum, 1999), and glottal stop deletion (Elias, 2004, 2009). The last of these topics, phonemic glottal stops, is one of the few phonological features in which Kapanawa of the Tapiche differs from Shipibo and Konibo (and the other Panoan languages). Nasal spreading is common to other Nawa languages (Loos, 1975a, 1999b, 2006).

Morphology

Panoan languages are primarily suffixing and could be called highly synthetic due to the potentially very long words (up to about 10 morphemes), but the typical number of morphemes per word in natural speech is not large. It is the large number of morphological possibilities that is striking about Panoan languages, not the typical length of words. For example, up to about 130 different verbal suffixes express such diverse notions as causation, associated motion, direction, evidentiality, emphasis, uncertainty, aspect, tense, plurality, repetition, incompletion, etc., which in languages like English would be coded by syntax or adverb words.

Ergativity is unusually common in Amazonia (Gildea and Queixalós, 2010), and all hitherto studied Panoan languages have been found to be morphologically ergative (Costa, 1995, 1998, 2000b, 2002a; Ferreira, 2000; Valenzuela, 2000a, 2004, 2010b; Camargo, 2002b, 2005b; Camargo et al., 2002; Dorigo, 2002; Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido, 2005b; Fleck, 2005, 2006a, 2010; Zariquiey, 2006, 2011c, Camargo Tavares in prep.), always with some alignment splits, most typically in the pronominal paradigms. Whether proto-Panoan pronouns followed an ergative, nominative, or a mixed alignment is a topic of debate in Panoan linguistics (Valenzuela, 2004; Zariquiey, 2006; Fleck, 2010). Of additional synchronic and diachronic interest is that in all the Panoan languages the ergative case marker (-n) also marks instrumental and genitive cases, and in some languages also locative and/or vocative.

Matses has one of the most intricate systems in the world for coding evidentiality (Fleck, 2007b). Valenzuela (2003a) found noncognate evidential(-like) markers in several groups of the Panoan family, an interesting finding in light of evidentiality being an areal feature of Amazonia (Aikhenvald and Dixon, 1998). Body-part prefixation was first recognized by Steinen (1904: 37) and has continued to be a topic of interest (e.g., Hall and Loos, 1978 [1973], Erikson, 1989; Fleck, 2006b; Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido, 2008; Ferreira, 2008; Zariquiey and Fleck, 2012; Barbosa 2012). Mayoruna languages, like some North American languages, have fourth-person (i.e., third-person coreferential) pronouns (Fleck, 2008a; Fleck, in prep.).

Associated motion, whereby meanings like “go and do [verb]” or “come while doing [verb]” are coded by verbal suffixes, is the most recent Panoan (and Takanan) morphological feature to be recognized as being of typological importance. See Guillaume (in prep.) for a comparative study of associated motion in the Panoan and Tacanan families.

Syntax

Transitivity was one the first grammatical topics to attract attention in Panoan linguistics, specifically the transitive/intransitive verb pairs that are found in Panoan languages (Shell, 1957; Prost, 1962; Loos 1978e). The topic of Panoan transitivity continues to attract attention in recent times (Valenzuela, 1999, 2002a, 2003b). Related to transitivity, Panoan languages have the rare and interesting property of “transitivity agreement,” whereby various parts of the grammar (including adverbs, suffixes, and enclitics) vary depending on whether the matrix verb is transitive or intransitive (Valenzuela, 1999, 2005a, 2005b, in prep.; 2005: 93-96, 2010: 50-54; Ferreira, in prep.). Indeed, awareness of the transitivity status of verbs is essential for the Panoan speaker, as it is almost impossible to utter a grammatically correct sentence without knowing it.

Panoan discourse is characterized by “clause chaining” (or “switch-reference”): up to about 10 clauses can be linked together using suffixes that mark argument coreference (e.g., same subject, object = subject) and temporal/logical relations (e.g., “while,” “after,” “in order to”) between subordinate and matrix clauses. This intricate type of clause reference is unique to Panoan languages. For detailed descriptions of clause chaining in Amawaka, Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Shipibo, Matses, Matis, Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River, and Kashibo, see Sparing (1998, 2005), Loos (1999a), Valenzuela (2003b: chap. 9), Fleck (2003: 1132–1159), Ferreira 2005: chap. 11), Montag (2005), and Zariquiey (2011a: chap. 18), respectively.

Panoan languages are some of the few languages in the world where both nonsubject arguments of bitransitive verbs like give are grammatically identical (Valenzuela, 1999, 2002a; Fleck, 2002, 2003b; Ferreira, 2005; Torres-Bustamante, 2011; Zariquiey, 2012b, in prep. b). Interestingly, two of the few other languages described as having this feature are Panoan neighbors, namely Yagua (Peba-Yaguan family; see Payne and Payne, 1990) and Cavineña (Takanan family; see Guillaume, 2008), suggesting that this may be another areal feature of (western) Amazonia. This characteristic of having trivalent verbs with identical (or in some cases, nearly identical) nonsubject arguments has drawn interest in valence-increasing grammar in Panoan family, namely causative (Fleck 2001, 2002; Valenzuela 2002a; Zariquiey 2012a) and applicative (Valenzuela 2010a; Zariquiey, in prep. a) constructions.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC FEATURES

Linguistic Taboos

The Shipibos (Morin, 1998: 363) and Marubos have a type of name taboo that is common in Amazonia, where birth-given names are relatively secret and cannot be used to address people or uttered loudly when talking about a living or dead person, particularly adults; instead, relational kinship terms, teknonyms, and nicknames are commonly used. Although not adhered to so closely now, a more common phenomenon among Panoans, including the Mayorunas (sans the Matis, who have no onomastic taboos), Kashinawas of the Ibuaçu River (Kensinger, 1995: 236), Amawakas (Dole, 1998: 211–212), and Iskonawas (Whiton et al., 1964: 100) is “postmortem name taboo,” whereby a person’s name or nicknames are avoided only after they die. Beyond the tactful notion that people not be reminded of recently deceased relatives, some tribes (the Matses, Kulinas of the Curuçá River, and Demushbos) believe that uttering a dead person’s name might invoke their spirit which can cause harm to the speaker.

The linguistically interesting aspect of these postmortem name taboos is their extension in some Panoan languages (such as Yaminawa: Eakin, 1991: 11; Townsley, 1994: 305–306) to word taboo; that is, where common words that are components of names or nicknames of the deceased are also prohibited. In Matses, Kulina, and Demushbo, the prohibition even extends to words that sound similar to postmortem-tabooed names or nicknames (as in some Polynesian languages; Simons, 1982). “Word taboo by phonological analogy to postmortem name taboo,” as I call it, was first reported for the Matses by Fields (1973), and has been described in detail for the Matses, Kulinas, and Demushbos by Fleck and Voss (2006).

A linguistic taboo reported by the Matis is one where special substitute vocabulary is used instead of certain words that cannot be uttered while preparing curare, lest the resultant poison be impotent (Erikson, 1996: 215).

In-law Avoidance Speech

In-law avoidance speech in Shipibo-Konibo has been described by Girard (1958: 245), Morin (1998: 354), Tournon (2002: 201–202), and Valenzuela (2003b: 16–18). Parents-in-law and their sons-in-law cannot speak directly to each other, but communicate through their daughter or wife. “Even in a situation when a father-in-law and his son-in-law travel far away and remain without contact with any other person for some time, they are not supposed to talk to each other directly and may behave as if the daughter or wife were present pretending they communicate through her” (Valenzuela, 2003b: 17). This avoidance speech also extends to a man’s wife’s grandfather and to his wife’s maternal aunt (Tournon, 2002: 201; Valenzuela, 2003b: 17–18). Older Kashibo speakers report that they once followed a similar practice (R. Zariquiey, personal commun.).

Weeping Kinship Lexicon

When a relative dies, the Matses (and formerly the Kulinas of the Curuçá River and the Demushbos) gather around the deceased in a house to mourn for one day and one night, by fasting, weeping, and chanting. In the chants, rather than use everyday kinship terms, a separate set of kinship terms for referring to the deceased relative is used. The weeping terms in Matses, Kulina, and Demushbo are very similar, and probably precede their historical separation. Older people know the full set of weeping chant terms, and when someone dies they inform others of the correct terminology to use when weeping (Fleck et al., 2012, contains the complete inventory for Matses). The weeping lexicon ignores some distinctions in the everyday language, such as relative age, and incorporates other distinctions including paired ego–gender-specific terms for almost all relatives (not just for cross-relatives, as in the everyday terms), and distinctions depending on the moiety membership of the deceased person (this moiety distinction does not occur in the everyday kinship terminology[29]). Therefore, the weeping terms are not simply synonyms, but can be seen as composing a separate kinship-classification system.

Lingua Francas and Pidgins

Lingua francas (also known as trade languages) and pidgins (simplified lingua francas) have been reported for Panoan speakers. As mentioned above, Pano was a lingua franca on the Ucayali River, especially at the Franciscan mission Sarayacu:

The inhabitants of Sarayacu are divided into three distinct tribes, called Panos, Omaguas, and Yameos. They dwell in different parts of the town. Each tribe has its peculiar dialect; but they generally communicate in the Pano language. (Herndon, 1954: 204).

One would assume that Pano was simplified when used as a lingua franca, but this was never specified in the historical literature.

Pidgins have been reported in recent times for languages in the Headwaters subgroup. “When Cashinawas converse with Sharanawas [speakers of a dialect of Yaminawa] they are known to resort to a kind of pidgin-Pano by suppressing the use of most suffixes, especially those not shared between them” (Loos, 1999b: 228). Similarly, Kensinger reports that Marinawas (speakers of a dialect of Yaminawa), Kashinawas of the Ibuaçu River, and Amawakas have a type of pidgin with which they can communicate with each other (Shell, 1975: 25). D’Ans (1972a: 1) mentions a Marinawa-based pidgin used by speakers of Yaminawa dialects. According to Déléage (personal commun.), the Sharanawas and Amawakas of the Purus River area converse in a mix of the two languages.

Ceremonial Languages

1850s

In order to carry out their religious ceremonies, the infidels of the Ucayali River congregate occasionally in the shelter of one of their chiefs, whom the recent converts call sorcerer and the infidels Muraya. ...and as they all sit in the most profound silence, the Muraya begins to speak in a language that none of the onlookers understand, and answering him in the same language, a second voice is heard.... (Amich 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 306)[30]

The above statement did not specify which Ucayali dwellers had this ceremonial language, but as mëraya is a Shipibo-Konibo and Pano word meaning “sorcerer/shaman” (translated as “brujo” and “brujo-a” by Loriot et al., 1993: 263; and Navarro, 1903: 14, respectively), we can assume the reference was to Panoans of the Chama subgroup. In any case, such ceremonial languages have been found in other Panoan cultures.

The Matses used to hold a traditional ceremony called komok (described in Romanoff et al., 2004), which involved adult men dressing as “singing spirits” in full-body hoods made from the pounded bark of komok trees (Couratari sp., Family Lecythidaceae). These spirits chanted and talked in a special “language,” that is, the Matses consider it a distinct language, but in fact it is simply the Matses language with substituted ceremony-specific vocabulary (34 words/terms have been recovered so far and are listed in Fleck et al., 2012). Some, but not all the Mayoruna groups practiced this ceremony and had a comparable ceremonial “language.” The Sharanawas have a parallel speech variety, whereby special vocabulary, obscure to the uninitiated, is substituted for certain words in shamanic chants (Déléage, 2005: 361–366).

The Marubos also have a ceremonial speech variety that, following Marubo oral history, originated from a distinct language. According to the Marubos, the current-day Marubo ethnic group is composed of several tribes who spoke mutually intelligible Panoan languages (Melatti, 1977: 93, 106, 1986: 30–37; Ruedas, 2001: 709–941, 2003: 37–39, 2004: 30–34), and the language of one of these groups (the Shainawabo people) is what the Marubos speak now, and a second language was in part retained as a ceremonial/shamanic language called Asan ikiki by the Marubos (Cesarino, 2008, 2011). However, the oral history does not match the linguistic facts, as Asan ikiki seems to actually be Marubo with substituted words, which may or may not originate from a sister language.

Gender-specific Speech

Gender-specific language is not prominent in Panoan languages. It has only been found in interjections. Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River and Shipibo-Konibo have two words for “yes” one used by men and the other by women (Montag, 1981: 534; Valenzuela 2003b: 182). Abreu (1941 [1914]: 13) and Fleck (2003: 743) documented, in Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River and Matses, respectively, several exclamations (i.e., interjections of surprise, pain, astonishment, etc.) used exclusively by men or by women. The most complex (and first to be recorded) case of gender-specific interjections in the family is in Pano:

My attention turned to the interjection yau that he uttered in the Pano language, and which manifested his certainty that the person in sight was a man and not a woman. Footnote to yau: Oh! Aah! Hey! Footnote to sentence: Such an interjection varies according to the gender of the individual who employs it and the gender of the individual being referred to. For example, man to man, yau! man to woman, papau! woman to man, tutuy! woman to woman, ñauñau! (Marcoy, 1862–1867: XII: 206).[31]

Many Panoan kinship terms vary with respect to the gender of ego, but this does not restrict who can utter the kinship terms (other than in the vocative).

Game Synonymy and Pet Vocative Terms

Matses and Kulina of the Curuçá River (and perhaps other Panoan languages) have an unusually high level of synonymy distributed nonrandomly in their lexicons. Specifically, these languages have as many as five synonyms for most game animals. Fathers and grandfathers teach their sons and grandsons the synonym sets, and a good hunter is expected to know the full set of synonyms. While word taboos, mutual intelligibility, group identity, and incorporation of captives may have contributed to the genesis of these game synonyms, the elaboration of this phenomenon appears to be primarily the product of conscious manipulation of the lexicon to serve cultural purposes, primarily that of providing a means of publicly displaying hunting knowledge. See Fleck and Voss (2006) for a full discussion.

Several Panoan languages have paired terms for a subset of the local fauna: one term for typical reference to an animal species or genus, and a second (usually completely distinct) word for calling to the same species when tamed as a pet. These languages include Matis, Katukina, Marubo, Kashibo, and Shipibo (Erikson, 1988; Lima, 2002: 439; Fleck and Voss, 2006; Dienst and Fleck, 2009). These vocative terms are typically duplicated in speech, as one calls a house cat in English (Here, kitty kitty!). As with game synonymy, it is mostly game species that have the extra terminology. Dienst (2006: 341–342) describes a parallel pattern for the geographically proximate, but linguistically unrelated Kulinas of the Arawan family. More recently, other Arawan languages, namely Jamamadi, Paumari, and Jarawara, and also Kanamari (Katukinan family), have been found to have sets of pet vocative terminology and a few pet terms have been found in dictionaries of other non-Panoan languages in this area that have not yet been researched on this topic; thus, this appears to be an areal feature within southwestern Amazonian Brazil (Dienst and Fleck, 2009).

REFERENCES

Abreu, J. Capistrano de. 1914. Rã-txa hu-ni ku-i: a lingua dos Caxinauás do Rio Ibuaçu, afluente do Muru, prefeitura de Tarauacá. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Leuzinger.

Abreu, J. Capistrano de. 1941. Rã-txa hu-ni ku-i: a lingua dos Caxinauás do Rio Ibuaçu, afluente do Muru, prefeitura de Tarauacá (revised 2nd ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Briguiet.

Adelaar, W.F.H. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Adelung, J.C. 1817. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde. Berlin: Vierter Theil.

Acuña, C. de. 1641. Nuevo descubrimiento del gran rio de las Amazonas. Madrid: Imprenta del Reyno.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 1988. Elementos de descrição sintática para uma gramática do Katukina. Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 1993. Os grupos nativos “Katukina.” Amazonía Peruana 23: 141–152.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 1994a. Análise descritiva e teórica do Katukina-Pano. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 1994b. Classificação das línguas Pano. In A. Fernández Garay and J.P. Viegas Barros (editors), Actas: segundas jornadas de lingüística aborígen: 279–284. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 1994c. Fontes de pesquisa e estudo da família Pano. Campinas, São Paulo: Editora da Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 2001. Estudos do sintagma nominal Katukina-Pano. In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história: atas do I encontro internacional do grupo de trabalho sobre línguas indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 121–127. Belém, Pará: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 2004. Pesquisar para conhecer a língua Nukini. Unpublished ms., Goiânia.

Aguiar, M.S. de. 2007. The Brazilian Panoan languages. In L.W. Wetzels (editor), Language endangerment and endangered languages: linguistic and anthropological studies with special emphasis on the languages and cultures of the Andean-Amazonian border area. Lenguas indígenas de América latina 5: 39–50. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden.

Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2007. Languages of the Pacific coast of South America. In O. Miyaoka, O. Sakiyama, and M. Krauss (editors), Vanishing languages of the Pacific: 183–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A.Y., and R.M.W. Dixon. 1998. Evidentials and areal typology: a case study from Amazonia. Language Sciences 20: 241–257.

Alemany, A. 1906. Vocabulario de bolsillo castellano-shipibo. Lima: Tip. Del Colegio Apostólico de P. F. del Peru.

Alemany, A. 1927. Castellano-shipibo y elementos de gramatica. In B. Izaguirre (editor), Historia de las misiones Franciscanas en el oriente del Peru, 13: producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros de la orden: 283–348. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Alviano, F. de. 1957. Ensaios da língua dos índios Magironas ou Maiorunas do Rio Jandiatuba. Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro 237: 43–60.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A. 2003. Uma proposta de método quantitivo aplicado à análise comparativa das línguas Pano e Tacana. LIAMES (Línguas Indígenas Americanas) 3: 135–147.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A. 2006. Uma proposta de clasificação interna das línguas da família pano. Investigações: Lingüística e Teoría Literária (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife) 19 (2): 157–182.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A., and G. Vieira Cândido. 2005a. Empéstimos na língua Shanenawa (Pano). Revista do Museu Antropológico (Goiânia) 8 (1): 51–59.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A., and G. Vieira Cândido. 2005b. A marca de transitividade em nomes na língua Shanenawa – Pano. In Coletânea de artigos: III seminário de iniciação científica e I jornada de pesquisa de pós-graduação da UEG. Anápolis, Brazil: Universidade Estadual de Goiás.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A., and G. Vieira Cândido. 2005c. Uma descrição do sistema numérico da família Pano. MOARA 24: 96–108.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A., and G. Vieira Cândido. 2008. A formação de palavras a partir de morfemas monossilábicos nominais e bases verbais em línguas indígenas da família Pano: prefixação ou incorporação nominal? Veredas On Line (Universidade Federal de Río de Janeiro) 1: 129–145. Online resource (http://www.ufjf.br/revistaveredas/files/2009/12/artigo92.pdf), accessed February 2, 2013.

Amarante Ribeiro, L.A, and G. Vieira Cândido. 2009. O universalismo semântico cognitivo em um estudo sobre termos básicos referentes a cores na língua indígena Shanenawa. Ciências and Cognição (Universidade Federal de Río de Janeiro) 13: 152–162.

Amich, J. 1854. Compendio histórico de los trabajos, fatigas, sudores y muertes que los ministros evangélicos de la seráfica religión han padecido por la conversión de las almas de los gentiles, en las montañas de los Andes, pertenecientes a las provincias del Perú. Paris: Librería de Rosa y Bouret.

Amich, J. 1988 [1854, 1870]. Historia de las misiones del Convento de Santa Rosa de Ocopa. Iquitos, Peru: Centro de Estudios Teológicos de la Amazonía.

Anonymous. 1901. Los salvajes de San Gabán. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 11: 353–356.

Anonymous. 1927. Diccionario cunibo-castellano y castellano-cunibo conservado entre los documentos de San Luis de Shuaro, incompleto y de autor ignorado. In B. Izaguirre (editor), Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Peru, tomo 13: producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros de la orden: 391–474. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Anonymous. 1955. Capanahua short comparative list. Unpublished list in archive of the National Museum at Rio de Janeiro.

Anonymous. 1965. Canamari of Feijó. Unpublished word list in the archives of Eugene Loos.

Anonymous. 1978. Atração pelos botões. Revista de Atualidade Indígena 8 (11): 16–24.

Aristio. 1794. Prosiguen los viajes del padre misionero Fray Narciso Girbal. Mercurio Peruano 11: 276–284.

Armentia, N. 1886. Diario del viaje al Madre de Dios. La Paz.

Armentia, N. 1887. Navegación del Madre de Dios. Biblioteca Boliviana de Geografia e Historia (La Paz) 1–2: 43–91.

Armentia, N. 1888 Vocabulario de los dialectos Tacana, Araona, Pacaguara, Cavineño y Shipibo. Unpublished ms.

Armentia, N. 1898. Idioma schipibo. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de la Paz 1 (1): 43–91.

Aza, J.P. 1933. La tribu arasairi y su idioma. Misiones Dominicanas del Perú 77: 139–144.

Aza, J.P. 1935. Vocabulario arasiri o mashco. Misiones Dominicanas del Perú 90: 190–193.

Aza, J.P. 1936. Vocabulario Español-Arasairi. Lima: Sanmarti y Cia.

Barbosa, Raphael Augusto Oliveira. 2012. Aspectos tipológicos na formação de palavras em um grupo de línguas da família Pano. Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Barbosa de Faria, J. 1948. Vocabulario dos Índios Caripuna (E’loé) do rio Madeira. In C.M.S. Rondon and J. Barbosa de Faria (editors), Glossário geral das tribos silvícolas de Mato-Grosso e outras da Amazônia e do norte do Brasil. Vol. 1: 163–174. Conselho Nacional de Protecão aos Indios, Publicação 76. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional.

Barranca, J. 1914. Yamiaco. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 30: 5–8.

Barros, L. Guimarães. 1987. A nasalização vocálica e fonologia introdutória à língua Katukína (Páno). Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Biedma, M., et al. 1989. La conquista franciscana del alto Ucayali. Iquitos, Peru: CETA.

Boutle, P.E. 1964. Formulário dos vocabulários padrões para estudos comparativos preliminares nas línguas indígenas brasileiras: Marubo. ms. at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro.

Boutle, P.E. n.d. Jaminawá – Seringal Santa Cruz – Rio Juruá. Unpublished list in the archives of Eugene Loos.

Bright, W. 1992. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brinton, D.G. 1891. The American race. New York: N.D.C. Hodges.

Cabral, A.S. Arruda Câmara. 1995. Contact-induced language change in the western Amazon: the non-genetic origin of the Kokama language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Cabral, A.S. Arruda Câmara, and R. Monserrat. 1987. Actualização léxico-semântica de línguas indígenas: documentação da língua Kaxarari. Relatório CNPq/FNPM. Unpublished report in the Fundação Nacional do Indio archive in Brasilia.

Camargo, E. 1987. Esquisse linguistique sur le Kashinawa, langue de la famille Pano. Diplôme d’études approfondies (bachelor’s) thesis, Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Paris.

Camargo, E. 1991. Phonologie, morphologie et syntaxe: etude descriptive de la langue caxinaua (pano). Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Paris.

Camargo, E. 1994. Les différents traitements de la personne dans la relation actancielle: l’exemple du caxinaua. Actances (Paris) 8: 121–144.

Camargo, E. 1995. Léxico caxinauá-português. Chantiers Amerindia 19/20 (supplement 3).

Camargo, E. 1996. Des marqueurs modaux en caxinaua. Amérindia 21: 1–20.

Camargo, E. 1997. Elementos da base nominal em caxinauá (Pano). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, série Antropologia 13: 141–165.

Camargo, E. 1998. La structure actancielle du caxinaua. La Linguistique 34: 137–150.

Camargo, E. 2000. “Mío,” “ser mío”: relación de pertenencia y atribución en cashinahua. In L. Miranda (editor), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica. Vol. 1: 207–217. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.

Camargo, E. 2002a. Cashinahua personal pronouns in grammatical relations. In M. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira, and H. van der Voort (editors), Current studies on South American languages. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

Camargo, E. 2002b. Ergatividade cindida em caxinauá. In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história, atas do I encontro internacional do grupo de trabalho sobre línguas indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 72–88. Belém: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Camargo, E. 2003. Construções adjetivais e participais em caxinauá (pano). LIAMES (Línguas Indígenas Americanas) 3: 39–51.

Camargo, E. 2005a. Manifestações da ergatividade em caxinauá (pano). LIAMES (Línguas Indígenas Americanas) 5: 55–88.

Camargo, E. 2005b. A construção genitiva em caxinauá (páno). In A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues and A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral (editors), Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas: 215–227. Brasília: Editora UnB.

Camargo, E, R. Costa, and C. Dorigo. 2002. A manifestação da ergatividade cindida em línguas pano. In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história, atas do I encontro internacional do grupo de trabalho sobre línguas indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 70–71. Belém: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Camargo Tavares de Souza, L. de. In prep. Tripartite case marking and the nature of ergativity in Yawanawa (Pano). In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Campbell, L. 1997. American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 1998. Aspectos fonológicos da língua shanenawá (pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 2004a. Descrição morfossintática da língua shanenawá (pano). Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 2004b. O processo de harmonia nasal na língua shanenawa-pano. Estudos Lingüísticos 33: 989–994.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 2004c. O sistema pronominal pessoal da língua shanenawa (pano). In D.E. Garcia da Silva (editor), Atas do II encontro nacional do grupo de estudos de linguagem do centro-oeste: ontegração lingüística, étnica e social (2003: Goiânia). Vol. 2: 551–556. Brasília: Oficina Editorial do Instituto de Letras da UnB.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 2005a. Construções relativas na língua shanenawa (pano). Estudos Lingüísticos 34: 575–579.

Cândido, G. Vieira. 2005b. Processos de composição na língua Shanenawa. In L.M. Pinheiro Lobato et al. (editors), Anais do IV Congresso Internacional da ABRALIN (Brasília): 1021–1030. Brasília. Internet resource (http://abralin.org/site/data/uploads/anais/brasilia-2005/abralin2005.pdf), accessed on February 2, 2013.

Cândido, G. Vieira, and L.A. Amarante Ribeiro. 2009. Evidencialidade na língua Shanenawa (Pano). Estudos Lingüísticos (São Paulo) 38: 223–232.

Cardús, J. 1886. Las misiones franciscanas entre los infieles de Bolivia: descripción del estado de ellas en 1883 y 1884. Barcelona: Librería de la Inmaculada Concepción.

Carrasco, F. 1901. Principales palabras del idioma de las cuatro tribus de infieles que siguen. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 11: 205–211.

Carvalho, C.T. Dorigo de. 1992. A decodificação da estrutura fasal em matsés (pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Carvalho, J. Braulino de. 1931. Breve notícia sobre os indígenas que habitam a fronteira do Brasil com o Peru elaborada pelo médico da comissão, Dr. João Braulino de Carvalho, e calcada em observações pessoais. Boletim do Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro) 7: 225–256.

Carvalho, J. Braulino de, and M.M. Sobrinho. 1929. Os Caxinauás. Rio de Janeiro: Empreza Graphica Paulo, Pongetti and Cia.

Carvallo, P.A. 1906 [1818]. Misiones del rrío Ucayali. In V.M. Maúrtua (editor), Juicio de límites entre el Perú y Bolivia: prueba peruana. Vol. 12: 339–355. Barcelona: Imprenta de Henrich y Comp.

Castelnau, F. de. 1850–1859. Expédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du sud, de Rio de Janeiro à Lima, et de Lima au Para; exécutée par ordre du gouvernement français pendant les années 1843 à 1847. 14 vols. Paris: P. Bertrand.

Castillo, M. del. 1929. El corazón de la América Meridional. Vol. 1. Barcelona.

Cesarino, P. de Niemeyer. 2008. Oniska: a poética da morte e do mundo entre os Marubo da Amazônia ocidental. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidaded Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Cesarino, P. de Niemeyer. 2011. Oniska: poética do xamanismo na Amazônia. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

Chambers, J.K., and P. Truggill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chandless, W. 1866. Ascent of the River Purus. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society 36: 86–118.

Chandless, W. 1869. Notes on a journey up the River Juruá. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society 39: 296–311.

Chantre y Herrera, J. 1901. Historia de las misiones de la Compañia de Jesús en el Marañon español, 1637–1767. Madrid: Imprenta de A. Avrial.

Chavarría Mendoza, M.C. 1983. Bibliografía pano-tacana. Documento de Trabajo 47. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüística Aplicada.

Church, G.E. 1898. Notes on the visit of Dr. Bach to the Katukinarú Indians of Amazonas. Geographical Journal 12: 63–67.

Cipriani, C.A. 1902. Traducción de algunos vocablos castellanos al dialecto de los Haauñeirosó ó Yamiacas. In Vías del Pacífico al Madre de Dios, junta de vias fluviales: 187–189. Lima: Imprenta de “El Lucero” Baquijano.

Coleti, G. 1975 [1771]. Diccionario histórico-geográfico de la América Meridional. Bogota: Banco de la Republica. [translation of Italian original]

Córdoba, L., P.M. Valenzuela, and D. Villar. 2012. Pano meridional. In M. Crevels and P. Muysken (editors), Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. 2, Amazonía: 27–69. La Paz: Plural Editores.

Corréard, M.H. 2006. Bilingual lexicography. In K. Brown (editor), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 7: 787–791. Elsevier: Oxford.

Cortez Mondragon, M. 1980. Esbozo fonológico del cacataibo, grupo cashibo, pano. Licenciatura (bachelor’s) thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos, Lima.

Cortez Mondragon, M. 1996. Panamericanismos en lenguas pano. Master’s thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos, Lima.

Costa, R. Guimaraes Romankevicius. 1992. Padrões rítmicos e maracação de caso em marubo (pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro.

Costa, R. Guimarães Romankevicius. 1995. Manifestaciones de la ergatividad en marubo (pano). Actas: II Jornadas de Lingüística Aborigen (Buenos Aires): 205–223.

Costa, R. Guimarães Romankevicius. 1998. Aspects of ergativity in marubo (panoan). Journal of Amazonian Languages 1 (2): 50–103.

Costa, R. Guimaraes Romankevicius. 2000a. Aspetos da fonologia marubo (pano): uma visão não-linear. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Costa, R. Guimarães Romankevicius. 2000b. Case marking in Marubo (Panoan): a diachronic approach. Proceedings from the Third Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 10: 3–15. Santa Barbara: University of California.

Costa, R. (Guimarães Romankevicius). 2002a. Ergatividade cindida em Marubo (Pano). In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história, atas do I encontro internacional do grupo de trabalho sobre línguas indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 89–101. Belém, Pará: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Costa, R. Guimarães Romankevicius. 2002b. Interações entre restrições em marubo (pano). Revista da ABRALIN 1: 11–34.

Costa, R. (Guimaraes Romankevicius) and Carmen Dorigo. 2005. A expressão da posse em marúbo e matsés (páno). In A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues and A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral (editors), Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas: 69–83. Brasília: Editora UnB.

Coutinho, W., Jr. 1998. Relatório de identificação e delimitação da terra indígena Vale do Javari. Unpublished report in the Fundacão Nacional do Indio in Brasilia.

Couto, A. 2005. Ortografia Kaxarari: uma proposta. Porto Velho: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Internet resource (http://www.sil.org/americas/brasil/publcns/ling/KXFono.pdf), accessed on February 2, 2013.

Couto, C.A. Cavalcanti. 2010. Análise folológica do Saynáwa (Pano) – a língua dos índios da T. I. Jamináwa do Igarapé Preto. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.

Couto, C.A. In prep. A influência da prosódia sobre o sistema vocálico da língua saynáwa. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Créqui-Montfort, G. de, and P. Rivet. 1913. Linguistique bolivienne: les dialectes pano de Bolivie. Le Muséon (new ser.) 14: 19–78.

Créqui-Montfort, G. de, and P. Rivet. 1921. La famille linguistique Takana (part 2). Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 13: 281–301.

Cromack, G.W. 1967. Cashinawa “spirit” narratives and their cultural context. M.A. thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, Hartford, Connecticut.

Cromack, G.W. 1976. Narraciones cashinahuas sobre “espíritus” y su contexto cultural. Datos Etnolingüísticos 51. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Cromack, R. 1968. Language systems and discourse structure in Cashinawa. Ph.D. dissertation, Hartford Seminary Foundation, Hartford, Connecticut.

Cunha, C.M. 1993. A morfossintaxe da língua arara (pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1970. Materiales para el estudio del grupo lingüístico pano. Lima, Peru: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1972a. Léxico yaminahua (pano). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1972b. Repertorios etno-botánico y etno-zoológico amahuaca (pano). Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 38: 352–384.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1973. Reclasificación de las lenguas pano y datos glotocronológicos para la etnohistoria de la Amazonía peruana. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 39: 349–369.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1975. Etude glottochronologique de neuf languages pano. In Atti del XL Congresso Intenationale degli Americanisti. Vol. 3, lingüística – folklore – storia americana – sociologia: 87–97. Geneva: Casa Editrice Tilgher.

d’Ans, A.-M. 1982. L’Amazonie péruvienne indigène. Paris: Payot.

d’Ans, A.-M., and M. Cortez M. 1973. Términos de colores cashinahua (pano). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

d’Ans, A.-M., and E. Van den Eynde. 1972. Léxico amahuaca (pano). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Déléage, P. 2005. Le chamanisme sharanahua: enquête sur l’apprentissage et l’épistémologie d’un rituel. Ph.D. dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

Derbyshire, D.C. 1987. Morphosyntactic areal characteristics of Amazonian languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 53: 311–326.

Dienst, S. 2005. The innovation of s in Kulina and Deni. Anthropological Linguistics 47: 424–441.

Dienst, S. 2006. A reference grammar of Kulina. Ph.D. dissertation, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.

Dienst, S., and D.W. Fleck. 2009. Pet vocatives in south-western Amazonia. Anthropological Linguistics 51: 209–243.

Dixon, R.M.W. 2007. Field linguistics: a minor manual. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60: 12–31.

Dixon, R.M.W., and A.Y. Aikhenvald. 1999. Introduction. In R.M.W. Dixon and A.Y. Aikhenvald (editors), The Amazonian languages: 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dole, G.E. 1998. Los amahuaca. In F. Santos and F. Barclay (editors), Guía etnográfica de la alta Amazonía. Vol. 3: 125–273. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

d’Orbigny, A. 1839. L’homme américain (de l’Amérique méridionale) considéré sous ses rapports physiologiques et moraux. 2 vols.
Paris: Pitois-Levrault.

Dorigo (de Carvalho), C.T. 1995. Las marcas de tiempo y aspecto en la lengua Matsés (Pano). Actas II Jornadas de Lingüística Aborigen (Buenos Aires): 235–249.

Dorigo (de Carvalho), C.T. 2001. Fonologia matsés: uma análise baseada em restrições. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

Dorigo (de Carvalho), C.T. 2002. Ergatividade cindida em matsés (pano). In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história, atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Línguas Indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 102–111. Belém, Pará: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Dorigo, C.T. and R. Guimaraes Romankevicius Costa. 2005. A expressão da posse em marúbo e matsés (páno). In A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues and A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral (editors), Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas: 69–83. Brasília: Editora UnB.

Dueñas, J. 1792. Carta y diario de Fr. Juan Dueñas. Mercurio Peruano 6: 165–186.

Durand, J. 1915. Etimologías peruanas: la lengua pano. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 21: 306–313.

Eakin, L. 1991. Lecciones pare el aprendizaje del idioma yaminahua. Yarinachocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

East, G. 1969–1970. Pacaguara: análisis fonológico, vocabulario y frases, datos fonológicos, frases útiles para conversaciones, textos misceláneos, fonológicas misceláneos, words and phrases, Información de Campo: 197–198, 200–203, 227 (microfiche, Boliva: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

East, G., and J. East. 1969. Lista de palabras pacaguara. Información de Campo, 189 (microfiche, Boliva: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Ehrenreich, P. 1891. Beiträge zur völkerkunde Brasiliens. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde 2: 1–80.

Elias Ulloa, J. 2000. El acento en shipibo. Licenciatura (bachelor’s) thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Elias Ulloa, J. 2004. Quantity (in)sensitivity and underlying glottal-stop deletion in Capanahua. In T. Granadillo, M. O’Donnell, and S. Oberly, (editors) Coyote papers XIII, special volume dedicated to the indigenous languages of the Americas. University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 15–30.

Elias Ulloa, J. 2006. Theoretical aspects of Panoan metrical phonology: disyllabic footing and contextual syllable weight. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Elias Ulloa, J. 2009. The distribution of laryngeal segments in Capanahua. International Journal of American Linguistics 75: 159–206.

Elias Ulloa, J. 2011. Una documentación acústica de la lengua shipibo-conibo (pano) (con un bosquejo fonológico). Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Elias-Ulloa, J. In prep. Stress adjustments in Shipibo-Konibo nominal loanwords from Spanish. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Erikson, P. 1988. Apprivoisement et habitat chez les Amerindiens Matis (langue Pano, Amazonas, Brésil). Anthropozoologica 9: 25–35.

Erikson, P. 1989. Les Matis de la tête aux pieds et du nez aux fesses. In M.-L. Beffa and R. Hamayon (editors), Les figures du corps: 287–295. Paris: Publications du Laboratoire d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie Comparative de l’Université de Paris X–Nanterre.

Erikson, P. 1990. Les Matis d’Amazonie: parure du corps, identité ethnique et organisation sociale. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris X–Nanterre.

Erikson, P. 1992. Uma singular pluralidade: a etno-história pano. In M. Carneiro da Cunha (editor), História dos indios no Brasil: 239–252. São Paulo: Companhia Das Letras.

Erikson, P. 1993. Une nébuleuse compacte: le macro-ensemble pano. L’Homme 33 (2–4): 45–58.

Erikson, P. 1994. Los Mayoruna. In F. Santos and F. Barclay (editors), Guía etnográfica de la alta Amazonía. Vol. 2: 1–127. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Erikson, P. 1996. La griffe des aïeux: marquage du corps et démarquage ethnique chez les Matis d’Amazonie. Paris: Editions Peeters.

Erikson, P. 1999. El sello de los antepasados: marcado del cuerpo y demarcación étnica entre los matis de la Amazonía. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Erikson, P. 2000. Bibliografía anotada de fuentes con interés para la etnología y etnohistoria de los pano setentrionales (matses, matis, korubo…). Amazonía Peruana 27: 231–287.

Erikson, P., and E. Camargo. 1996. Caxinauá mais guère amazoniennes: qui sont-elles? les devinettes transcrites par Capistrano de Abreu. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 82: 193–208.

Erikson, P., B. Illius, K. Kensinger, and M.S. de Aguilar. 1994. Kirinkobaon kirika (“Gringo’s books”): an annotated Panoan bibliography. Amérindia 19, Supplement 1.

Espinoza Pérez, L. 1955. Contribuciones lingüísticas y etnográficas sobre algunos pueblos indígenas del Amazonas peruano. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Bernardino de Sahagun.

Estrella, R. 1905 [1871]. Exploración de los rios Urubamba i Ucayali por don Raimundo Estrella. In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 3: 77–93. Lima: Imprenta de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Fabre, A. 1998. Manual de las lenguas indígenas sudamericanas II. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Farabee, W.C. 1922. Indian tribes of eastern Peru. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 10: 1–194.

Faust, N. 1973. Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma shipibo-conibo. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Faust, N. 1984. Parquenahua word list. Unpublished ms. in the archives of Eugene Loos.

Faust, N., and E.E. Loos. 2002. Gramática del idioma yaminahua. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Ferreira, R.V. 2000. Um ensaio sobre a ergatividade na língua matis (pano). In L. Miranda (editor), Actas: I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica. Vol. 1: 259–264. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.

Ferreira, R.V. 2001a. Língua matis: aspetos descritivos da morfossintaxe. Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Ferreira, R.V. 2001b. Língua matis (pano): aspetos descritivos da morfossintaxe. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ferreira, R.V. 2005. Lingua matis (pano): uma descrição gramatical. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Ferreira, R.V. 2008. Morfemas “partes do corpo” em matis e algumas línguas da família pano. Raído (Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados) 2 (4): 35–39.

Ferreira, R.V. In prep. Concordância de participante em matis (pano). In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Fields, H.L. 1963. Informe sobre los “mayorunas” o “capanahuas salvajes” del río Yaquerana. Información de Campo, 131–b (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Fields, H.L. 1970. Panoan comparative vocabulary. Información de Campo, 224a (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Fields, H.L. 1978 [1973]. Una identificación preliminar de los sufijos indicadores de referencia en mayoruna. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos II: 283–311. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Fields, H.L., and M.R. Wise. 1976. Bosquejo de la fonología matsés (mayoruna). Datos Etno-lingüísticos, 31 (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Figueirêdo, J. de Lima. 1939. Indios do Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.

Figueroa, F. de. 1904. Relación de las misiones de la Compañía de Jesús en el país de los Maynas. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.

Firestone, H.L. 1955. Chama phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 21: 52–55.

Fleck, D.W. 1997. Mammalian diversity in rainforest habitats recognized by the Matses Indians in the Peruvian Amazon. M.S. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Fleck, D.W. 2001. Culture-specific notions of causation in Matses grammar. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 87: 177–196.

Fleck, D.W. 2002. Causation in Matses (Panoan, Amazonian Peru). In M. Shibatani (editor), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation: 373–415. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fleck, D.W. 2003. A grammar of Matses. Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, Houston.

Fleck, D.W. 2005. Ergatividade em matsés (pano). LIAMES (Línguas Indígenas Americanas) 5: 89–111.

Fleck, D.W. 2006a. Antipassive in Matses. Studies in Language 30: 541–573.

Fleck, D.W. 2006b. Body-part prefixes in Matses: derivation or noun incorporation? International Journal of American Linguistics 72: 59–96.

Fleck, D.W. 2006c. Complement clause type and complementation strategies in Matses. In R.M.W. Dixon and A.Y. Aikhenvald (editors), Complementation: a cross-linguistic typology: 224–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fleck, D.W. 2006d. Panoan languages. In K. Brown (editor), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 9: 156–157. Oxford: Elsevier.

Fleck, D.W. 2007a. Did the Kulinas become the Marubos? a linguistic and ethnohistorical investigation. Tipití, Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 5: 137–207.

Fleck, D.W. 2007b. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language 83: 589–614.

Fleck, D.W. 2007c. Field linguistics meets biology: how to obtain scientific designations for plant and animal names. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60: 81–91.

Fleck, D.W. 2007d. ¿Quiénes eran los mayoruna (moríke) de Tessmann? Amazonía Peruana 30: 305–331.

Fleck, D.W. 2008a. Coreferential fourth-person pronouns in Matses. International Journal of American Linguistics 74: 279–311.

Fleck, D.W. 2008b. Sugerencias metodológicas para realizar trabajo de campo lingüístico en la Amazonía. Lexis (Lima) 32: 251–280.

Fleck, D.W. 2010. Ergativity in the Mayoruna branch of the Panoan family. In S. Gildea and F. Queixalós (editors), Ergativity in Amazonia: 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fleck, D.W., F. Shoque Uaquí Bëso, and D. Manquid Jiménez Huanan. 2012. Diccionario matsés-castellano, con índice alfabético castellano-matsés e índice semántico castellano-matsés. Iquitos: Tierra Nueva Editores.

Fleck, D.W. To be published. Los Sensis de la familia Pano. Amazonia Peruana 32.

Fleck, D.W. In prep. The Mayoruna languages of the Panoan family.

Fleck, D.W., and J.D. Harder. 2000. Matses Indian rainforest habitat classification and mammalian diversity in Amazonian Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology 20: 1–36.

Fleck, D.W., and R.S. Voss. 2006. On the origin and cultural significance of unusually large synonym sets in some Panoan languages of western Amazonia. Anthropological Linguistics 48: 335–368.

Fleck, D.W., R.S. Voss, and J.L. Patton. 1999. Biological basis of saki monkey (Pithecia) species recognized by Matses Indians of Amazonian Peru. International Journal of Primatology 20: 1005–1028.

Fleck, D.W, R.S. Voss, and N.B. Simmons. 2002. Underdifferentiation and sublexemic categories: an example from Matses bat classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 22: 63–104.

Frank, E.H. 1987. Bibliografía anotada de fuentes con interés para la etnología y la etnohistória de los Uni. Amazonía Peruana 8 (14): 151–160.

Frank, E.H. 1993. Los pueblos indios en sus mitos 2: Uni. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Frank, E.H. 1994. Uni. In F. Santos and F. Barclay (editors), Guía etnográfica de la alta Amazonía. Vol. 2: 129–237. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Frantz, D.G. 1973. On question word movement. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 531–534.

Fritz, S. 1922. Journal of the travels and labours of Father Samuel Fritz in the River of the Amazons between 1686 and 1723, translated from the Evora ms. and edited by the Rev. Dr. George Edmunson. London: Hakluyt Society.

FUNAI. 1981. Relatório da viagem realizada a áreas indígenas do município de Cruzeiro do Sul. Unpublished report in the archives of the Fundação Nacional do Índio in Brasilia.

Galt, F.L. 1878. The Indians of Peru. In Annual report of the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution showing the operations, expenditures, and condition of the institution for the year 1877: 308–315. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Garcia, M. de Souza. 2002. Um estudo lingüístico Yawanawá. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.

García Rivera, F. 1990. Préstamos quechuas en el shipibo. In R. Cerrón-Palomino and G. Solís Fonseca (editors), Temas de lingüística amerindia: Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Lingüístico-Filológicas: 309–315. Lima: CONCYTEC.

García Rivera, F. 1993. Etnohistoria shipibo: tradición oral de los shipibo-conibo. Lima: Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica.

García Rivera, F. 1994. Aspectos de la fonología del shipibo. Licenciatura (bachelor’s) thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Gildea, S., and D. Payne. 2007 Is Greenberg’s “Macro-Carib” viable? Special issue of Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 2 (2): 19–72.

Gildea, S., and F. Queixalós (editors). 2010. Ergativity in Amazonia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Girard, R. 1958. Indios selváticos de la Amazonía peruana. Mexico City: Libro Mex Editores.

Girard, V. 1970. Review of “Comparative Takanan phonology (with Cavineña phonology and notes on Pano-Takanan relationship)” by Mary Ritchie Key. International Journal of American Linguistics 36: 73–78.

Girard, V. 1971. Proto-Takanan phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Girbal y Barceló, N. 1927 [1791] Diario del viaje que yo Fr. Narciso Girbal y Barceló, misionero apostólico del Colegio de Ocopa, sito en el arzobispado de Lima y reyno del Perú, hice desde el pueblo de Laguna, capital de Maynas, por los famosos ríos Marañón y Ucayali. In B. Izaguirre (editor), Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Perú. Vol. 8, 1791–1815: 101–187. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Gomes, G. de Jesus. 2010. Aspectos morfossintáticos da língua Huariapano (Pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

González, C. 2003. The effect of stress and foot structure on consonantal processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

González, C. 2005. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Panoan: towards an analysis. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 39–56.

González, C. In prep. Tipología de los sistemas métricos de veinticuatro lenguas pano. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Gordon, R.G., Jr. (editor). 2005. Ethnologue: languages of the world. 15th ed. Dallas: SIL International.

Lewis, M.P., Jr. (editor). 2009. Ethnologue: languages of the world. 16th edition, online version. Dallas: SIL International. Internet resource (http://www.ethnologue.com), accessed February 2, 2009.

Grasserie, R. de la. 1890. De la famille linguistique pano. Congrès International des Américanistes compte-rendu de la septième session, Berlin 1888: 438–449. Berlin: Librairie W.H. Kühl.

Greenberg, J.H. 1960. The general classification of Central and South American languages. In A. Wallace (editor), Selected papers of the 5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences (1956). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Greenberg, J.H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Grubb, K.G. 1927. The lowland Indians of Amazonia. London: World Dominion Press.

Groeteken, A P. 1907. Bishop Armentia O.F.M. und die Erforschung des Rio Madre de Dios. Anthropos 2: 730–734.

Guillaume, A. 2008. Ditransitivité en cavineña: constructions à objet double. Amérindia 31: 135–156.

Guillaume, A. In prep. Sistemas complejos de movimiento asociado en las lenguas tacana y pano: perspectivas descriptivas, comparativas y tipológicas. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Guillen Aguilar, F.N. 1974. Léxico shipibo. Master’s thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Hall de Loos, B. 1976. Katukina. In E.E. Loos, (editor), Materiales para estudios fonológicos. Vol. 1: 92–94. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Hall de Loos, B. 1981. Auto-corrección en el relato capanahua. Revista Latinoaméricana de Estudios Etnolingüísticos 1: 47–70.

Hall Loos, B. 1986. Self-correction in Capanahua narration. In G. Huttar and K. Gregerson (editors), Pragmatics in non-Western perspective: 99–114. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 73. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Hall de Loos, B., and E.E. Loos. 1978 [1973]. La estructura semántica y fonológica de los prefijos verbales en capanahua. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos I: 63–132. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Hall Loos, B., and E.E. Loos. 1980 [1976]. Textos capanahua. 2 volumes. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Hanke, W. 1949. Algumas vozes do idioma Karipuna. Arquivos: Coletanea de Documentos para a História da Amazônia (Manaus) 10: 3–12.

Hanke, W. 1954. The Chacobo in Bolivia. Ethnos (Stockholm) 23: 100–126.

Hanke, W. 1956. Los indios chacabo del río Benisito. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 2 (1): 11–31.

Hanke, W. 1957. Los indios chacabo del río Benisito. Khana: Revista Municipal de Arte y Letras 3–4: 39–55.

Harder, J.D., and D.W. Fleck. 1997. Reproductive ecology of New World marsupials. In N.R. Saunders and L.A. Hinds (editors), Marsupial biology: recent research, new perspectives: 175–204. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Hassel, J.M. von. 1905. Las tribus salvajes de la región amazónica del Perú. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 17: 27–73.

Heath, E.R. 1883. Dialects of Bolivian Indians, a philological contribution from material gathered during three years residence in the department of Beni, in Bolivia. Kansas City Review of Science and Industry 6: 679–687.

Herndon, W.L. 1853. Explorations of the Valley of the Amazon, made under direction of the Navy Department, Part 1. Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Public Printer.

Hervás y Panduro, L. 1800. Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas y numeración, división, y clases de estas según la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos, vol. I: lenguas y naciones americanas. Madrid: Imprenta de la Administración del Real Arbitrio de Beneficencia.

Hestermann, P.F. 1910. Die pano Sprachen und ihre Beziehungen. Acts of the XVIth International Congress of Americanistes (Vienna). Vol. 2: 645–650. Vienna: A. Hartleben’s Verlag.

Hestermann, P.F. 1913. Nachtrag zur Quellenliteratur der Panosprachen, Bolivien. Anthropos 8: 1144.

Hestermann, P.F. 1919. Die Schreibweise der Pano-vokabularien, mit Benutzung von Angaben J. Capistrano de Abreu’s und Said ben Ali Ida’s. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 11: 21–33.

Huertas Castillo, B. 2004. Indigenous people in isolation in the Peruvian Amazon: the struggle for survival and freedom. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, document 100. Copenhagen: IWGIA.

Hyde, S. 1980. Diccionario amahuaca. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico Peruano.

Ibarra Grasso, D.E. 1982. Las lenguas indígenas en Bolivia. La Paz: Libreria Editorial “Juventud.”

Ijurra, M. 1905 [1849–1850]. Resumen de los viajes á las montañas de Mainas, Chachapoyas i Pará por Manuel Ijurra, presentado i dedicado al Excmo. Señor don Ramón Castilla, presidente del Perú (1841–1845). In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 6: 276–412. Lima: La Opinión Nacional.

Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 1997a. Nõ anenõ, leamos, libro de lectura y escritura no. 3, Yora. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 1997b. Nõ koshi tapinõ, vamos a aprender rápido, libro de lectura y escritura no. 4, Yora. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 2001. Vamos a leer, aprestamiento no. 2 para la lectura y escritura, Yora. Lima: Ministério de Educación.

Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 2005. Nõ ane sharaño, vamos a leer bien, libro de lectura y escritura no. 5, yora. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Izaguirre, B. 1922–1929. Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Peru. 14 vols. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Jakway, M. 1975. Listas comparativas de palabras usuales en idiomas vernáculos de la selva. Datos Etno-lingüísticos, 4 (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüistico de Verano).

Kästner, K.-P. 1980. Der begriff “Chama”-stämme (Ost-Peru). Abhandlungen und Berichte des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde (Dresden) 38: 59–85.

Kaufman, T. 1994. The native languages of South America. In Christopher Moseley and R.E. Asher (editors), Atlas of the world’s languages: 46–76. London: Routledge.

Keller, F. 1874a. The Amazon and Madeira rivers: sketches and descriptions from the note-book of an explorer. London: Chapman and Hall.

Keller Leuzinger, F. 1874b. Vom Amazonas und Madeira. Stuttgart: Berlag von U. Aröner.

Kennell., G.R., Jr. 1976. Descrição da fonemica de marubu (chainawa). Processo FUNAI 3779/76: 2–5. Unpublished ms. in the archive of the Fundação Nacional do Indio in Brasilia.

Kennell., G.R., Jr. 1978. Descrição da gramática e da fonêmica de marúbo (chainawa). Processo FUNAI 3507: 6–52. Unpubished ms. in the archive of the Fundação Nacional do Indio in Brasilia.

Kensinger, K.M. 1961. Brief vocabulary of the Isconahua. Información de Campo, 111–a (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Kensinger, K.M. 1963. The phonological hierarchy of Cashinahua (Pano). Studies in Peruvian Indian languages. Vol. 1: 207–216. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Kensinger, K.M. 1981. Recent publications in Panoan linguistics. International Journal of American Linguistics 47: 68–75.

Kensinger, K.M. 1983. Investigación lingüística, folklórica y etnográfica: retrospección y perspectiva. América Indígena 43: 849–875.

Kensinger, K.M. 1985. Panoan linguistic, folkloristic and ethnographic research: retrospect and prospect. In H.E. Manelis Klein and L.R. Stark (editors), South American Indian languages: retrospect and prospect: 224–285. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Kensinger, K.M. 1995. How real people ought to live: the Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Key, M.R. 1963. Comparative phonology of the Takanan languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Key, M.R. 1968. Comparative Tacanan phonology, with Cavineña phonology and notes on Pano-Tacanan relationships. The Hague: Mouton.

Key, M.R. 1971. Response to Girard on Tacanan. International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 196–201.

Key, M.R. 1978. Araucanian genetic relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: 280–293.

Key, M.R. 2000. Intercontinental dictionary series: South American Indian languages. Vol. 1. Irvine: University of California. Accessible online (http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ids/ids.pl?com=simple_browse&lg_id=279).

Key, M.R., and C. Clairis. 1978. Fuegian and central South American language relationships. Actes du XLIIème Congrès International des Américanistes. Vol. 4: 635–645. Paris: Société des Américanistes, Musée de l’Homme.

Kinberg, L. 1980. Diccionario ashaninca (edición provisional). Yarinacocha, Peru: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Kneeland, H. 1973. La frase nominal relativa en mayoruna y la ambigüedad. In E.E. Loos, (editor), Estudios panos II: 53–105. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Kneeland, H. 1979. Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma mayoruna. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Kneeland, H. 1982. El “ser como” y el “no ser como” de la comparación en matsés. In M.R. Wise and H. Boonstra (editors), Conjunciones y otros nexos en tres idiomas amazónicos: 77–128. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Kneeland, H. 1994. Cultural crisis and ideal values in cultural change among the Matses of eastern Peru. Notes on Anthropology 16: 23–48.

Kneeland, H. 1996. El aumentativo -pa: su efecto sobre el narrador y el tema en matsés. In Å. Bergli (editor), Estudios lingüísticos de textos de la Amazonía peruana: 129–155. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Kneeland, H., and H.L. Fields. 1976. Mayoruna. In E.E. Loos (editor), Materiales para estudios fonológicos. Vol. 1: 181–213. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Koch-Grünberg, T. 1941. Estudo crítico. In J. Capistrano de Abreu, Rã-txa hi-ni ku-i: a lingua dos Caxinauás do rio Ibuaçu, afluente do Muru, prefeitura de Tarauacá (revised 2nd ed.): 631–635. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Briguiet.

Krokoszyński, Ł., I. Stoińska-Kairska, and A. Martyniak. 2007. Indígenas aislados en la Sierra del Divisor (zona fronteriza Perú-Brasil). AIDESEP. Internet resource (http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/6563.pdf), accessed February 2, 2013.

Landin, D. 1972. Formulário dos vocabulários padrões para estudos comparativos preliminares nas línguas indígenas brasileiras: Jamináua. Unpublished ms. at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro.

Lanes, E.J. 2000. Mudança fonológica em línguas da família Pano. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Lanes, E.J. 2002. Análise acústica de segmentos vocálicos de línguas da família Pano. In A.S. Arruda Câmara Cabral and A. Dall’Igna Rodrigues (editors), Línguas indígenas brasileiras: fonologia, gramática e história, atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Línguas Indígenas da ANPOLL. Vol. 2: 112–120. Belém, Pará: Editora Universitária UFPA.

Lanes, E.J. 2005. Aspectos da mudança lingüística em um conjunto de línguas amazônicas: as línguas pano. Ph.D. disseration, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Larrabure i Correa, C. 1905–1909. Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Lima: Imp. de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Lathrap, D.W. 1970. The upper Amazon. New York: Praeger.

Lathrap, D.W., A. Gebhart-Sayer, and A.M. Mester. 1985. The roots of Shipibo art style: three waves of Imiríacocha or there were “Incas” before the Incas. Journal of Latin American Lore 11: 31–119.

Lathrap, D.W., A. Gebhart-Sayer, T. Myers, and A.M. Mester. 1987. Further discussion of the roots of the Shipibo art style: a rejoinder to DeBoer and Raymond. Journal of Latin American Lore 13: 225–271.

Lauriault, J. 1948. Alternate mora timing in Shipibo. International Journal of American Linguistics 14: 22–24.

Lehnertz, J.F. 1974. Lands of the infidels: the Franciscans in the central Montaña of Peru, 1709–1824. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Leuque, E.P. 1927. Algunos términos y frases en el idioma remo. In B. Izaguirre (editor), Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Perú. Vol. 13, producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros de la orden: 538–540. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Lewis, M.P., Jr. (editor). 2009. Ethnologue: languages of the world. 16th edition, online version. Dallas: SIL International. Internet resource (http://www.ethnologue.com), accessed February 2, 2009.

Lima, E. Coffaci de. 2002. Classificação dos animais do Alto Juruá pelos Katukina. In M. Carneiro da Cunha and M. Barbosa de Almeida (editors), Enciclopédia da floresta: o Alto Juruá: práticas e conhecimentos das populações: 437–443. Sao Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

Linhares, M. 1913. Impressões de um auxiliar de Inspetoria do Servico do Acre, CPI: os indios do territorio do Acre. Jornal do Commercio (Rio de Janeiro), 12 January, 3–6.

Llosa, E.S. 1906a. Las hoyas del Madre de Dios y Madera y la nueva ruta de Urcos, Marcapata y Tahuantisuyo. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 19: 260–301.

Llosa, E.S. 1906b. Tribu de los Arazaires: algunas voces de su dialecto. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 19: 302–306.

Loos, E.E. 1963. Capanahua narration structure. University of Texas Studies in Literature and Language 4 (supplement): 697–742.

Loos, E.E. 1964. Maps of Panoan languages. Unpublished dialect maps showing movement of Panoan languages northward into Peru from Bolivia (microfiche; Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas).

Loos, E.E. 1967. The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Loos, E.E. 1969. The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Loos, E.E. 1973–1974. Listas de palabras y frases para estudios comparativos en el idioma remo. Información de Campo, 210–a (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Loos, E.E. 1975a. Nasalization in Sharanahua. Work Papers of the SIL (University of North Dakota) 19: 24–27.

Loos, E.E. 1975b. Rasgos sintático-fonémicos en la historia lingüística de los idiomas de la familia Pano. In Lingüística e indigenismo moderno de América: trabajos presentados al XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. Vol. 5: 181–184. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Loos, E.E. 1976a. Estudios panos V: verbos performativos: partículas que tienen significado performativo o significado relacionado a los performativos en idiomas panos. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. 1976b. Materiales para estudios comparativos de la familia pano: frases y textos del idioma mastanahua. Datos Etnolingüísticos 48. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. (editor). 1978a [1973]. Estudios panos I. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. (editor). 1978b [1973]. Estudios panos II. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. 1978c [1973]. Algunas implicaciones de la reconstrucción de un fragmento de la gramática del proto-pano. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos II: 263–282. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. 1978d [1973]. La construcción del reflexivo en los idiomas panos. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos II: 161–261. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. 1978e [1973]. La señal de transitividad del sustantivo en idiomas panos. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios Panos I: 133–184. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loos, E.E. 1986. Capanahua syllable restructuring in relation to comparative studies. In B. Elson (editor), Language in global perspective: papers in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the SIL, 1935–1985: 291–301. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Loos, E.E. 1999a. “If” in Capanahua. In E.E. Loos (editor), Logical relations in discourse: 195–217. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Loos, E.E. 1999b. Pano. In R.M.W. Dixon and A.Y. Aikhenvald (editors), The Amazonian languages: 227–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Loos, E.E. 2005. Un breve estudio de la gramática del proto-pano. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolingüísticos 11: 37–50.

Loos, E.E. 2006. Discontinous nasal spread in Yaminahua. Summer Institute of Linguistics Electronic Working Papers, 2006-001: 1–20. Internet resource (http://www.sil.org/silewp/abstract.asp?ref=2006-001), accessed February 2, 2013.

Loos, E.E., and B. Loos. 1971. Palabras y frases del idioma isconahua. Información de Campo, 111–b (microfiche, Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Loos, E.E., and B. Loos. 1998. Diccionario capanahua-castellano. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico Peruano.

Loos, E.E., and B. Loos. 2003. Diccionario capanahua-castellano. 2nd ed. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico Peruano. Internet resource (http://www.sil.org/americas/peru/pubs/slp45.pdf), accessed February 2, 2013.

López, A. 1913. Letter to María Candamo, Requena 6th November 1911. In Slavery in Peru: message from the president of the United States transmitting report of the secretary of state, with accompanying papers concerning the alleged existence of slavery in Peru. House of Representatives document 1366. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lord, M.A. 1996. Word list: Sharanahua, Roadijo Yora, Yaminahua, Chitonahuaa. Unpublished ms. in the archives of Eugene Loos.

Loriot, J. 1965. Shipibo cognates with Tacanan. Información de Campo, 224 (microfiche; Yarinacocha: Insitituto Lingüístico de Verano).

Loriot, J., E. Lauriault, and D. Day. 1993. Diccionario shipibo-castellano. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Loukotka, Č. 1935. Clasificación de las lenguas sudamericanas. Edición “Lingüística Sudamericana” 1. Prague: Tipografiía Josef Bartl.

Loukotka, Č. 1939. Línguas indígenas do Brasil. Revista do Archivo Municipal (São Paulo, Brazil) 54: 147–174.

Loukotka, Č. 1963. Documents et vocabulaires inédits de langues et de dialectes sud-américains. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 52: 7–60.

Loukotka, Č. 1968. Classification of South American Indian languages. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ludewig, H.E. 1858. The literature of American aboriginal languages. London: Trubner and Co.

Ludwig, R.A., R. Munro, D.W. Fleck, and U. Sauerland. 2010. Reported speech in Matses: obligatory perspective shift with syntactic transparency. In S. Lima (editor), Proceedings of SULA 5: semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 41: 33–47.

Luzero, J.L. 1904 [1681]. Copia de dos cartas escritas de un missionero, y del superior de las missiones de los Maynas, en el rio Marañon, jurisdiccion de la Real Audencia de Quito, avisando al Padre Vice-Provincial de la Compañía de Iesus, del Nuevo Reyno de Granada; el uno, el estado del pueblo en que assiste; y el otro, el que tiene parte de aquella gloriosa mission, que avia visitado el año passado de 1681: segunda carta. In F. de Figueroa, Relación de las misiones de la Compañía de Jesús en el país de los Maynas: 412–418. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.

Lyon, P.J. 1975. Dislocación tribal y clasificaciones lingüísticas en la zona del río Madre de Dios. In Lingüística e indigenismo moderno de América: trabajos presentados al XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. Vol. 5: 185–207. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Manus, R. 1959. Sharanahua+Marinahua, Mastanahua, Chaninahua. Unpublished word lists in the archives of Eugene Loos.

Marcoy, P. 1862–1867. Voyage de l’océan Atlantique à l’océan Pacifique, à travers l’Amérique du Sud, 1848–1860. Le Tour du Monde 6: 81–113, 242–288, 7: 225–304, 8: 97–144, 9: 129–224, 10: 129–192, 11: 161–233, 12: 161–221, 14: 81–152, 15: 97–160, 16: 97–154.

Marcoy, P. 1869. Voyage de l’océan Pacifique à l’océan Atlantique à travers l’Amérique du Sud. 2 vols. Paris: Hachette.

Markham, C. 1859. Expeditions into the valley of the Amazonas. New York: Burt Franklin.

Markham, C. 1910. A list of the tribes of the valley of the Amazons, including those on the banks of the main stream and all the tributaries, 3rd ed. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 40: 73–140.

Maroni, P. 1988 [1889–1892]. Noticias autenticas del famoso rio Marañón. Iquitos, Peru: CETA.

Marqués, B. 1903. Vocabulario de los idiomas indicos conocidos por Cunibos y Panos o Setebos. Gaceta Científica (Lima) 14.

Marqués, B. 1931. Fragmento del arte del idioma conivo, setebo, sipibo, y casivo o comavo que hablan los indios así llamados que residen a las márgenes del famoso río Paro, alias Ucayali, y sus tributarios Manoa, Cushibatay, Pisqui, Aguaytia y Pachitea. Revista Histórica 11: 111–128.

Martius, C.F.P. von. 1867. Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasiliens. 2 vols. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer.

Masô, J.A. 1919. Os indios Cachararys. Revista da Sociedade de Geographia do Rio de Janeiro 22–24: 98–100.

Mason, J.A. 1950. The languages of South American Indians. In Julian H. Steward (editor), Handbook of South American Indians. Vol. 6, physical anthropology, linguistics and cultural geography of South American Indians: 157–317. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mattos, J. Wilkens de. 1984. Diccionario topographico do departamento de Loreto, na republica do Perú [1874]; roteiro da primeira viagem do vapôr Monarcha desde a cidade da Barra do Rio Negro, capital da provincia do Amasonas, até a povoação de Nauta, na republica do Perú [1854]. Iquitos: IIAP/CETA.

McQuown, N.A. 1955. The indigenous languages of Latin America. American Anthropologist 57: 501–570.

Métraux, A. 1948. Tribes of eastern Bolivia and the Madeira headwaters. In J. H. Steward (editor), Handbook of South American Indians. Vol. 3, the tropical forest tribes: 381–454. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Migliazza, E.C. 1982. Linguistic prehistory and the refuge model in Amazonia. In G.T. Prance (editor), Biological diversification in the tropics: 497–519. New York: Columbia University Press.

Migliazza, E., and L. Campbell. 1988. Panorama general de las lenguas indígenas en America. Guillermo Morón (editor), Historia general de America, vol 10. Caracas: Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia.

Montag, R. 1978 [1973]. La estructura semántica de las relaciones entre frases verbales en cashinahua. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos II: 107–159. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Montag, R. 1992. Cashinahua folklore: a structural analysis of oral tradition. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Arlington.

Montag, R. 1998. A tale of Pudicho’s people: Cashinahua narrative accounts of European contact in the 20th century. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New York, Albany.

Montag, R. 2005. Participant referencing in Cashinahua. Summer Institute of Linguistics Electronic Working Papers 2005-013: 1–11. Internet resource (http://www.sil.org/silewp/abstract.asp?ref=2005-013), accessed February 2, 2013.

Montag, S. 1979. Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma cashinahua. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Montag, S. 1981. Diccionario cashinahua. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Montag, S. 2004. Lições para a aprendizagem da língua Kaxinawá. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Montagner, D. 2007. Construção da etnia Náwa. Revista de Estudos e Pequisas 4: 33–108.

Montaño Aragon, M. 1987. Guia etnográfica lingüística de Bolivia: tribus de la Selva. Vol. 1. La Paz: Editorial Don Bosco.

Morin, F. 1998. Los shipibo-conibo. In F. Santos and F. Barclay (editors), Guía etnográfica de la alta Amazonía. Vol. 3: 275–435. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Munro, R., R. Ludwig, U. Sauerland, and D.W. Fleck. 2012. Reported speech in Matses: perspective persistence and evidential narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics 78: 41–75.

Myers, T.P. 1974. Spanish contacts and social change on the Ucayali River, Peru. Ethnohistory 21: 135–157.

Myers, T.P. 1990. Sarayacu: ethnohistorical and archaeological investigations of a nineteenth-century Franciscan mission in the Peruvian Montaña. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Navarro, M. 1903. Vocabulario castellano-quechua-pano con sus gramáticas quechua y pana. Lima: Imprenta del Estado.

Navarro, M. 1927. Vocabulario castellano-quechua-pano con sus gramáticas quechua y pana. In B. Izaguirre (editor), Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Perú. Vol. 13, producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros de la orden: 15–282. Lima: Imprenta Arguedas.

Nimuendajú, C., and E.H. do Valle Bentes. 1923. Documents sur quelques langues peu connues de l’Amazonie. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 25: 215–222.

Nordenskiöld, E. 1905. Beiträge zur Kenntnis einiger Indianerstämme des Rio Madre de Dios-Gebietes. Ymer 25: 265–312.

Nordenskiöld, E. 1906. Comentarios referentes al conocimiento de algunas tribus indias del territorio del rio Madre de Dios. Revista del Ministerio de Colonización y Agricultura de La Paz 2: 516–550.

Nordenskiöld, E. 1911. Indianer och Hvita i Nordöstra Bolivia. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.

Nusser-Asport, C. 1890. Von Madre de Dios zum Acre. Das Ausland 63: 792–796.

Okidoi, A. 2004. Descrição fonológica preliminar da língua indígena nukini-pano. Bachelor’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia.

Oliveira, S. Castro Soares de. 2009. Preliminares sobre a fonética e a fonologia da língua falada pelo primeiro grupo de índios Korúbo recém contatados. Master’s thesis, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.

Oppenheim, V. 1936. Notas ethnographicas sobre os indigenas do Alto Juruá (Acre) e valle do Ucayali (Perú). Annaes da Academia Brasileira de Sciencias 8: 145–155.

Ordinaire, O. 1887. Les sauvages du Pérou. Revue d’Ethnographie 6: 265–322.

Ordinaire, O. 1892. Du Pacifique à l’Atlantique par les Andes péruviennes et l’Amazone. Paris: Plon.

Orton, J. 1876. The Andes and the Amazon: across the continent of South America. 3rd ed., revised and enlarged, containing notes of a second journey across the continent from Para to Lima and Lake Titicaca. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Osborn, H. 1948. Amahuaca phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 14: 188–190.

Palau, M., and B. Saiz. 1989 [1794]. Moxos: descripciones exactas e historia fiel de los indios, animales y plantas de la provincia de Moxos en el virreinato del Perú por Lázaro de Ribera, 1786–1794. Madrid: Editorial El Viso.

Pallarés F., and V. Calvo. 1870. Noticias históricas de las misiones de fieles e infieles del Colegio de Propaganda Fide de Santa Rosa de Ocopa: continuación del compendio histórico del R.P. Fr. José Amich. Barcelona.

Parker, S.G. 1992. Datos del idioma huariapano. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Parker, S.G. 1994. Coda epenthesis in Huariapano. International Journal of American Linguistics 60: 95–119.

Paula, A. Santos de. 1992. Poyanáwa: a língua dos índios da Aldeia Barão: aspectos fonológico e morfológicos. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife.

Paula, A. Santos de. 2004. A língua dos índios Yawanawá do Acre. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Pauly, A. 1928. Ensayo de etnografía americana: viajes y exploraciones. Buenos Aires: Talleres S.A.

Payne, David L. 1990. Some widespread grammatical forms in South American languages. In Doris L. Payne (editor), Amazonian linguistics: studies in lowland South American languages: 75–87. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Payne, Doris L. 1990. Morphological characteristics of lowland South American languages. In Doris L. Payne (editor), Amazonian linguistics: studies in lowland South American languages: 213–241. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Payne, Doris L., and T.E. Payne. 1990. Yagua. In D.C. Derbyshire and G.K. Pullum (editors), Handbook of Amazonian languages. Vol. 2: 249–474. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Payne, T.E. 1997. Describing morpho-syntax: a guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pickering, W. 1973. Vocabulário Kaxarirí. Série Linguística (Summer Institute of Linguistics, Brazil) 1: 63–66.

Piggott, G.L. 1992. Variability in feature dependency: the case of nasality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 33–77.

Pike, E., and E. Scott. 1962. The phonological hierarchy of Marinahua. Phonetica 8: 1–8.

Plaza, M., and J.C. Cimini. 1907 [1841]. Viaje a los rios Pachitea i Pozuzo por los PP. Fr. Manuel Plaza i Fr. Juan Crisóstomo Cimini. In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 11: 73–82. Lima: Imprenta de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Portillo, P. 1905 [1900]. Exploración de los rios Apurimac, Ene, Tambo, Ucayali, Pachitea i Pichis por el prefecto de Ayacuho, coronel don Pedro Portillo. In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 3: 463–550. Lima: Imprenta de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Prost, G. 1960. Fonemas de la lengua chacobo. Notas Lingüísticas de Bolivia 2: 1–13.

Prost, G. 1962. Signaling of transitive and intransitive in Chacobo (Pano). International Journal of American Linguistics 28: 108–118.

Prost, G. 1965. Chacobo. In E. Matteson (editor), Gramáticas estructurales de lenguas bolivianas. Vol. 2: 1–130. Riberalta: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Prost, G. 1967a. Chacobo. In E. Matteson (editor), Bolivian Indian grammars. Vol. 1: 285–359. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Prost, G. 1967b. Phonemes of the Chácobo language. Linguistics 35: 61–65.

Raimondi, A. 1874–1879. El Perú. Vol. 3. Lima: Imprenta del Estado.

Raimondy, A. 1862. Apuntes sobre la provincia litoral de Loreto. Lima: Tipografia Nacional.

Reich, A., and F. Stegelmann. 1903. Bei den Indianern des Urubamba und des Envira. Globus 83 (9): 133–137.

Ribeiro, D., and M.R. Wise. 1978. Los grupos etnicos de la Amazonía peruana. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Ricketson, O.G. 1943. Notes on the Pacaguara Indians of the Rio Madeira and their language. Unpublished mimeographed report prepared for the Exploration Department, Rubber Development Corporation, held at the Tozzer Library of the Harvard College Library.

Rivet, P. 1910. Sur quelques dialectes pano peu connus. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 7: 221–242.

Rivet, P. 1920. Les katukina, étude linguistique. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 12: 55–63.

Rivet, P. 1924. Langues de l’Amérique du Sud et des Antilles. In A. Meillet and M. Cohen (editors), Les langues du monde par un groupe de linguistes. Vol. 16: 639–712. Paris: E. Champion.

Rivet, P., and C. Tastevin. 1919–1924. Les langues du Purús, du Juruá et des régions limitrophes, I: le groupe arawak pré-andin. Anthropos 14/15: 857–890; 16/17: 290–325, 819–828; 18/19: 104–113.

Rivet, P., and C. Tastevin. 1921. Les tribus indiennes des bassins du Purús, du Juruá et des régions limitrophes. La Geographie 35: 449–482.

Rivet, P., and C. Tastevin. 1927–1929. Les dialectes pano du haut Juruá et du haut Purus. Anthropos 22: 811–827; 24: 489–516.

Rivet, P., and C. Tastevin. 1932. Les dialectes pano du haut Juruá et du haut Purus. Acts of the XXth Intenational Congress of Americanists. Vol. 3: 227–278. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional.

Rivet, P., and Č. Loukotka. 1952. Langues de l’Amérique du Sud et des Antilles. In A. Meillet and M. Cohen (editors), Les langues du monde par un groupe de linguistes. Vol. 2: 1099–1152. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Rodrigues, A.D. 1986. Línguas brasileiras: para o conhecimento das línguas indígenas. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.

Rodrigues, A.D. 2000. “Ge-Pano-Carib” x “Jê-Tupí-Karib”: sobre relaciones lingüísticas prehistóricas en Sudamérica. In L. Miranda (editor), Actas: I congreso de lenguas indígenas de Sudamérica. Vol. 1: 95–104. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.

Rodríguez, M. 1684. El Marañon y Amazonas. Madrid: Imprenta de Antonio Gonçalez de Reyes.

Rodríguez Tena, F. 2004–2005 [1780]. Crónica de las misiones franciscanas del Perú siglos XVII y XVIII. Iquitos, Peru: CETA.

Romanoff, S., D.M. Jiménez Huanan, F.S. Uaquí Bëso, and D.W. Fleck. 2004. Matsesën nampid chuibanaid: la vida tradicional de los matsés. Lima: Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica.

Ruedas, J. 2001. The Marubo political system. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Ruedas, J. 2002. Marubo discourse genres and domains of influence: language and politics in an indigenous Amazonian village. International Journal of American Linguistics 68: 447–482.

Ruedas, J. 2003. Social context and creation of meaning in indigenous Amazonian performances of myth and oral history. Journal of Ritual Studies 17: 35–71.

Ruedas, J. 2004. History, ethnography, and politics in Amazonia: implications of diachronic and synchronic variability in Marubo politics. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 2: 23–64.

Ruhlen, M. 1987. A guide to the world’s languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Russell, C. 1960. Iskonawa vocabulario lista. Unpublished list.

Russell, R. 1958. Algunos morfemas de amahuaca (pano) que equivalen a la entonación del castellano. Perú Indígena 7 (16–17): 29–33.

Russell, R. 1965. A transformational grammar of Amawaka. M.A. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Russell, R. 1975. Estudios pano IV: una gramática transformacional del amahuaca. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Russell, R., and D. Russell. 1959. Syntactonemics in Amahuaca. Publicações do Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro), Série Lingüística Especial 1: 128–167.

Safir, K. 1979. Metrical structure in Capanahua. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 95–114.

Safir, K. 1982. Nasal spreading in Capanahua. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 689–694.

Sagols, F. 1901 [1874]. Los habitantes de la Pampa de Sacramento. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 11: 357–366.

Salvador, I.A. 1972. El misionero del remo. Lima: Editorial San Antonio.

Schmidt, P.W. 1926. Die sprachfamilien und sprachhenkreise der erde. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlund.

Schuller, R. 1911. Weitere Ergänzungen zur Bibliographie der Nusprachen (Pano-Gruppe). Anthropos 4: 640–642.

Schuller, R. 1933. The language of the Tacana Indians (Bolivia). Anthropos 28: 99–116, 463–84.

Schultz, H., and V. Chiara. 1955. Informações sôbre os Índios do alto rio Purus. Revista do Museu Paulista (new ser.) 9: 181–201.

Scott, E., and D.G. Frantz. 1974. Sharanahua questions and proposed constraints on question movement. Linguistics 132: 75–86.

Scott, E., and D.G. Frantz. 1978 [1973]. La pregunta en sharanahua y constrenimientos, propuestos sobre la permutación de la pregunta. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos I: 184–209. Lima: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Scott, M. 2004. Vocabulario sharanahua-castellano. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Shaver, H. 1996. Diccionario nomatsiguenga-castellano, castellano-nomatsiguenga. Yarinacocha, Peru: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Shell, O.A. 1950. Cashibo I: phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 16: 198–202.

Shell, O.A. 1957. Cashibo II: grammemic analysis of transitive and intransitive verb patterns. International Journal of American Linguistics 23: 179–218.

Shell, O.A. 1959. Aanua bana hunánti: vocabulario cashibo-castellano. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico Peruano.

Shell, O.A. 1965. Pano reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Shell, O.A. 1973. Los modos del cashibo y el análisis del performativo. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos I: 23–62. Lima: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Shell, O.A. 1975a. Cashibo modals and the performance analysis. Foundations of Language 13: 177–199.

Shell, O.A. 1975b. Estudios panos III: las lenguas pano y su reconstrucción. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Shell, O.A. 1987. Vocabulario cashibo-cacataibo. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico Peruano.

Silva, A.J. da. 1952. Relatório da excurção feita a tribu dos índios Marubu, setembro de 1952. Unpublished ms. in the archives of Darcy Ribeiro in Brasília, according to Loukotka (1968).

Simons, G.F. 1982. Word taboo and comparative Austronesian linguistics. Pacific Linguistics C–76: 157–226.

Smyth, W., and F. Lowe. 1836. Narrative of a journey from Lima to Para, across the Andes and down the Amazon. London: William Clowes and Sons.

Soares, M. Facó. 2000. On the relation between syntax and phonology in Tikuna (isolated), Marubo and Matsés (Panoan family). In H. van der Voort and S. van de Kerke (editors), Essays on indigenous languages of lowland South America: contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists in Quito, 1997. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

Soares, M. Facó. 2006. Negação e sintaga modo em línguas pano. Estudos da Língua(gem) 4: 99–115.

Soares, M. Facó, R.C. Romankevicius Costa, and C.T. Dorigo de Carvalho. 1993. Para uma classificação rítmica das línguas Pano. Signo and Seña (Universidad de Buenos Aires) 3: 95–116.

Sobreviela, M. 1791a. Carta escrita a la sociedad por el padre predicador apostólico Fray Manuel Sobreviela, guardian del Colegio de Santa Rosa de Ocopa. Mercurio Peruano 3: 91–104, 107–120.

Sobreviela, M. 1791b. Plan del curso de los ríos Huallaga y Vcayali y de la Pampa del Sacramento (folding map). Mercurio Peruano 3: 120.

Solís Fonseca, G. 2003. Lenguas en la Amazonía peruana. Lima: Unión Europea y República del Perú.

Sombra, L. 1913. Os Cachinauás: ligeiras notas sobre usos e costumes. Jornal do Commercio (Rio de Janeiro), 11 January, 13 January.

Sousa, G. Cavalcante. 2004. Aspectos da fonologia da língua kaxarari. Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Souza, E. Carvalho de. 2004. Aspectos fonológicos da língua jaminawa-arara (pano). Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.

Souza, E. Carvalho de. 2012. Aspectos de uma gramática shawã (pano). Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Souza, R. Wallace de Garcia. 1979. [no title]. Brasilia: FUNAI archives. Unpublished typescript field report.

Spanghero Ferreira, V.R. 2000a. Língua matis (pano): uma análise fonológica. Master’s thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Spanghero (Ferreira), V.R. 2000b. Nasalidade em matis (pano): um exercício de análise. In L. Miranda (editor), Actas: I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica. Vol. 1: 191–196. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.

Spanghero Ferreira, V.R. 2001. Língua matis (pano): uma análise fonológica. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Spanghero Ferreira, V.R. 2005. Estudo lexical da lingua matis: subsídios para um dicionário bilíngüe. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Sparing-Chávez, M.W. 1998. Interclausal reference in Amahuaca. In D.C. Derbyshire and G.K. Pullum (editors), Handbook of Amazonian languages. Vol. 4: 443–485. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sparing-Chávez, M.W. 2003. I want to but I can’t: the frustrative in Amahuaca. Summer Institute of Linguistics Electronic Working Papers 2003-002: 1–13. Internet resource (http://www.sil.org/silewp/abstract.asp?ref=2003-002), accessed February 2, 2013.

Sparing-Chávez, M.W. 2005. La referencia entre cláusulas en el Amahuaca. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolingüísticos 11: 19–35.

Sparing-Chávez, M.W. 2007. Aspects of grammar: Amawaka, an endangered language of the Amazon Basin. Lima: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Spix, J.B., von, and C.F.P. von Martius. 1823–1831. Reise in Brasilien auf Befehl Sr. Majestät Maximilian Joseph I: Königs von Baiern in den Jahren 1817 bis 1820. Munich: M. Lindauer.

St-Cricq, M. de. 1853. Voyage du Pérou au Brésil par les fleuves Ucayali et Amazone, indiens conibos. Bulletin de la Société de Géographie 6: 273–295.

Steinen, K. von den. 1904. Diccionario sipibo. Berlin: Deitrich Reimer.

Steward, J.H., and A. Métraux. 1948. Tribes of the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Montana. In J.H. Steward (editor), Handbook of South American Indians. Vol 3, the tropical forest tribes: 535–656. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stiglich, G. 1908. La región peruana de los bosques. In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 15: 308–495. Lima: Imp. de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Suárez, J.A. 1969. Moseten and Pano-Tacanan. Anthropological Linguistics 11/9: 255–266.

Suárez, J.A. 1973. Macro-Pano-Tacanan. International Journal of American Linguistics 39: 137–154.

Swadesh, M. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: with special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 452–463.

Swadesh, M. 1959. Mapas de clasificación lingüística de México y las Américas. Cuadernos del Instituto de Historia, Serie Antropológica 8, México.

Swadesh, M. 1962. Afinidades de las lenguas amerindias. Akten des 34 Internationalen Amerikanisten Kongress: 729–738. Wein: Verlag Ferdinand Berger.

Taboada y Lemos, F.G. de. 1859. Memorias de los Vireyes que han governado el Perú. Vol. 6. Lima: Libreria Central de Felipe Bailly.

Tastevin, C. 1924a. Chez les indiens du haut Juruá. Les Missions Catholiques 56: 65–67, 78–80, 90–93, 101–104.

Tallman, A.J.R. In prep. a. A grammar of Chacobo-Pacaguara, a Panoan language of the northern Bolivian Amazon (tentative title). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Tallman, A.J.R. In prep. b. Prosody and morphosyntax in Chácobo (Panoan). In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Tastevin, C. 1924b. Les études ethnographiques et linguistiques du P. Tastevin en Amazonie. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, 16 (new series): 421–425.

Tastevin, C. 1925. Le fleuve Murú: ses habitants. – Croyances et mœurs cachinaua. La Geographie 43: 401–422; 44: 14–35.

Tastevin, C. 1926. Le haut Tarauacá. La Géographie 45: 34–54, 158–175.

Tastevin, C. 1929. Os indios da prefeitura apostólica de Teffé. O Missionario (Brazil) 1: 10–14.

Tastevin, C. ms. a. Dialecte kachinawa (foz do Jordão et haut Jordão, avril–mai 1924). Unpublished lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 b #4.

Tastevin, C. ms. b. Dialecte kaśinawa. Unpublished lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 b #4.

Tastevin, C. ms. c. Kaśinawa (foz do Tarauacá). Unpublished lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 b #5.

Tastevin, C. ms. d. Chama de l’Ucayali et des rivières et cochas voisines (cunibos). Unpublished lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 b #6.

Tastevin, C. ms. e. Notes linguistiques póya-nawa (Cruzeiro do Sul, nov. 1922). Unpublished lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 b #8.

Tastevin, C. ms. f. Amawaka (niśi-nawa), nǝhanawa, čani-nawa + mastanawa, yawanawa-iskunawa (1924). Unpublished comparative lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 c #6.

Tastevin, C. ms. g. Paranawa, kaśinaua ou hǝunawa, yumanawa (1924). Unpublished comparative lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 c # 7.

Tastevin, C. ms. h. Poya-nawa, yaminawa, katukina (1922–1923). Unpublished comparative lexicon in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, 2 AP 1 A3 c #8.

Tastevin, C. ms. i. Dialecte nukuini (Haut Môa) rio Juruá. Unpublished manuscript in the archives of Paul Rivet at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.

Távara, S. 1905 [1868]. Diario del primer viaje de la comisión hidrográfica del Amazonas presidida por el almirante Tucker, llevado por el médico de la misma, don Santiago Távara. In C. Larrabure i Correa (editor), Colección de leyes, decretos, resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento de Loreto. Vol. 2: 394–429. Lima: Imprenta de “La Opinión Nacional.”

Tessmann, G. 1928. Menschen ohne Gott, ein Besuch bei den Indianern des Ucayali. Stuttgart: Strecker und Schröder.

Tessmann, G. 1929. Die Tschama-Sprache. Anthropos 24: 241–271.

Tessmann, G. 1930. Die Indianer nordost-Perus: grundlegende Forschungen für eine systematische Kulturkunde. Hamburg: Friederichsen.

Tizón y Bueno, R. 1911. La hoya peruana del Madre de Dios. Lima: La Opinión Nacional.

Torres-Bustamante, T. 2011. Symmetrical objecthood in Panoan languages. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 225–234.

Tournon, J. 2002. La merma mágica: vida e historia de los shipibo-conibo del Ucayali. Lima: Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica.

Tovar, A. 1961. Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur: enumeración, con indicaciones tipológicas, bibliografía y mapas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.

Tovar, A., and C. Larrucea de Tovar. 1984. Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur: con classificaciones, indicaciones tipológicas, bibliografía y mapas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Townsley, G. 1994. Los yaminahua. In F. Santos and F. Barclay (editors), Guía etnográfica de la alta Amazonía. Vol. 2: 239–258. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Uriarte, M.J. 1952. Diario de un misionero de Mainas. Madrid: Instituto Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo.

Vacas Galindo, E. 1906. Mapa geográfico-histórico de la república del Ecuador. Quito.

Valenzuela, P.M. 1997. Basic verb types and argument structures in Shipibo-Conibo. M.A. thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Valenzuela, P.M. 1998. “Luna-avispa” y “tigre-machaco”: compuestos semánticos en la taxonomía shipiba. In Z. Estrada Fernández, M. Figueroa Esteva, G. López Cruy, and A. Acosta Félix (editors), IV Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste: tomo I: lenguas indígenas. Vol. 2. Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial Unison.

Valenzuela, P.M. 1999. Adverbials, transitivity, and switch-reference in Shipibo-Konibo. Chicago Linguistic Society 35 (panels): 355–371.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2000a. Ergatividad escendida en wariapano, yaminawa y shipibo-konibo. In Hein van der Voort and Simon van de Kerke (editors), Essays on indigenous languages of lowland South America: contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists in Quito 1997: 111–128. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2000b. Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 42: 1–36.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2002a. Causation and transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo. In M. Shibatani (editor), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation: 417–483. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2002b. Relativization in Shipibo-Konibo: a typologically-oriented study. Munich: LINCOM Europa.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2003a. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan. In A.Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon (editors), Studies in evidentiality: 33–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2003b. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2004. El sistema de marcación de caso ergativo-escindido en wariapano: análisis sincrónico y comparativo. In Z. Estrada Fernández, A.V. Fernández Garay, and A. Álvarez González (editors), Estudios en lenguas amerindias: homenaje a Ken L. Hale: 309–369. Hermosillo, México: Universidad de Sonora.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2005a. Adjuntos orientados hacia un participante en chacobo (pano): acercamiento comparativo y tipológico. UniverSOS Revista de Lenguas Indígenas y Universos Culturales (Valencia, Spain): 185–200.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2005b. Participant agreement in Panoan. In N.P. Himmelmann and E. Schultze-Berndt (editors), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: the typology of depictives: 259–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2006. Los verbos del español en el shipibo-konibo: aportes a un propuesto universal del contacto lingüístico. In C. Chamoreau and Y. Lastra (editors), Dinámica Lingüística de las Lenguas en Contacto: 141–168. Hermosillo, México: Universidad de Sonora.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2010a. Applicative constructions in Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan). International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 101–144.

Valenzuela, P.M. 2010b. Ergativity in Shipibo-Konibo. In S. Gildea and F. Queixalós (editors), Ergativity in Amazonia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Valenzuela, P.M., and O.A. Iggesen. 2007. El desarrollo de un marcador suprasegmental en chácobo (pano). In A. Romero-Figueroa, A. Fernández Garay, and Á. Corbera Mori (editors), Lenguas indígenas de América del Sur: estudios descriptivo-tipológicos y sus contribuciones para la lingüística teórica: 187–199. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.

Valenzuela, P.M., L. Marquez Pinedo, and I. Maddieson. 2001. Illustrations of the IPA: Shipibo. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31: 281–285.

Valenzuela, P. In prep. Armonía transitiva en las lenguas pano y takana. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Valle Arévalo, D. 2009. El sistema de marcación de caso en kakataibo. Licenciatura [bachelor’s] thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Valle, D. 2011. Differential subject marking triggered by information structure. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America–V. Internet resource (http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/events.html), accessed February 2, 2013.

Valle, D. In prep. a. A grammar of Kashibo-Kakataibo (San Alejandro dialect) with a focus on information structure (tentative title). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Valle, D. In prep. b. Desarrollo de morfemas de concordancia de sujeto en kakataibo. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Veigl, F.X. 1785. Gründliche Nachrichten über die verfassung der landchaft von Maynas in Süd-Amerika, bis zum jahre 1768. In C.G. von Murr (editor), Reisen einiger missionarien der Gesellschaft Jesu in Amerika. Nüremberg: Johann Eberhard Seh.

Velasco, J. de. 1981 [1788–1789]. Historia del reino de Quito en la América Meridional. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho.

Villanueva, M.P. 1902. Fronteras de Loreto. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 12: 361–479.

Villarejo, A. 1959. La selva y el hombre: estudio antropocosmológico del aborigen amazónico. Lima: Editorial Ausonia, S.A.

Voegelin, C.F., and Z.S. Harris. 1951. Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95: 322–329.

Voegelin, C.F., and F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and index of the world’s languages. New York: Elsevier.

Voss, R.S., and D.W. Fleck. 2011. Mammalian diversity and Matses ethnomammalogy in Amazonian Peru, part 1: primates. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 351: 1–81.

Walker, R., and G.K. Pullum. 1999. Possible and impossible segments. Language 75: 764–780.

Weisshar, E., and B. Illius. 1990. Eine Grammatik des Shipibo-Conibo mit Textbeispiel. In B. Illius and M. Laubscher (editors), Circumpacifica, Festschrift für Thomas S. Barthel: 563–587. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Werlich, D.P. 1968. The conquest and settlement of the Peruvian Montaña. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Whiton, L.C., H.B. Greene, and R.P. Momsen. 1964. The Isconahua of the Remo. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 53: 85–124.

Wise, M.R. 1976. Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece la clasificación de su idioma. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 42: 355–366.

Wistrand de Robinson, L. 1968. Cashibo relative clause constructions. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Wistrand de Robinson, L. 1969. Folkloric and linguistic analysis of Cashibo narrative prose. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Wistrand de Robinson, L. 1971. Cashibo verb stems, causatives and proposition consolidation. Papers from the 5th Kansas linguistic conference: 204–213. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Wistrand de Robinson, L. 1978. Some generative solutions to problems of Cashibo phonology. In M.A. Jazayery and E. Polome (editors), Linguistic and literary studies in honor of A.H. Hill. Vol. 2: 257–295. The Hague: Mouton.

Wistrand Robinson, L. 1984. Biota of the Cashibo/Cacataibo of Peru. Forest, VA: Lingua-Folk Publications.

Wistrand-Robinson, L. 1991. Uto-Aztecan affinities with Panoan of Peru I: correspondences. In M.R. Key (editor), Language change in South American Indian languages: 243–276. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Woodroffe, J.F. 1914. The upper reaches of the Amazon. London: Methuen and Co.

Young de Hyde, S. 1978 [1973]. El verbo reflexivo del amahuaca. In E.E. Loos (editor), Estudios panos II. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Zárate, A. de. 1904 [1739]. Informe que haze á Su Magestad el Padre Andrés de Zárate, de la Compañía de Jhesús, visitador y vizeprovinzial que acaua de ser de la provinzia de Quito, en el Reyno de el Perú, y sus misiones del rio Napo y del Marañon. In F. de Figueroa, Relación de las misiones de la Compañía de Jesús en el país de los Maynas: 341–407. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.

Zárate, A. de, G. Detré, L. Deubler, F. Reen, and P. Maroni. 1904 [1735]. Relación de la mision apostólica que tiene á su cargo la provincia de Quito, de la Compañía de Jesús, en el gran rio Marañon, en que se refiere lo sucedido desde el año de 1725 hasta el año de 1735. In F. de Figueroa, Relación de las misiones de la Compañía de Jesús en el país de los Maynas: 293–339. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. 2006. Hacia una reconstrucción del sistema personal del protopano: aspectos fonológicos y morfológicos. Master’s thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. 2011a. A grammar of Kashibo-Kakataibo. Ph.D. dissertation, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.

Zariquiey, R. 2011b. Aproximación dialectológica a la lengua cashibo-cacataibo (pano). Lexis 35: 5–46.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. 2011c. Relaciones gramaticales en cashibo-cacataibo. In W.F.H. Adelaar, P. Valenzuela Bismark, and R. Zariquiey Biondi (editors), Estudios sobre lenguas andinas y amazónicas, homenaje a Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino: 327–350. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Zariquiey, R. 2012a. Construcciones causativas en cashibo-cacataibo (pano): semántica y sintaxis. Lexis 36: 69–106.

Zariquiey, R. 2012b. Ditransitive constructions in Kashibo-Kakataibo and the non-distinguishable objects analysis. Studies in Language 36: 882–905.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. In press a. Del «Kaschibo» de Tessmann al cashibo-cacataibo contemporáneo: algunas notas para la comprensión de la historia lingüística de un pueblo pano. Revista Brasileria de Linguistica Antropológica.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. In press b. Tessmann’s «Nokaman»: a linguistic characterization of a mysterious Panoan group. Cadernos de Etnolingüística.

Zariquiey Biondi, R. In prep. a. Aplicativos en cashibo-cacataibo: una aproximación semántica y morfosintáctica. In F. Queixalós and B. Franchetto (editors), Incrementeo de valencia en la Amazonía.

Zariquiey, R. In prep. b. Construcciones ditransitivas en pano: una aproximación basada en propiedades. In A. Guillaume and P. Valenzuela (editors), Estudios pano y takana: fonología, morfología y sintaxis. Amérindia.

Zariquiey Biondi, R., and D.W. Fleck. 2012. Prefixation in Kashibo-Kakataibo: synchronic or diachronic derivation. International Journal of American Linguistics 78: 385–409.

Zingg, P. 1998. Diccionario chácobo-castellano, castellano-chácobo con bosquejo de la gramática chacobo y con apuntes culturales. La Paz, Bolivia: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación Viceministro de Asuntos Indígenas y Pueblos Originarios.

APPENDIX 1

Index of Common Denomination Synonyms, Variants, and Homonyms

Principal names of languages and dialects are in bold and italic, respectively (as in table 1). Principal ethnonyms claimed to be Panoan but for which no linguistic data exist are in small caps (as in table 2); names in plain, or Roman, type are synonyms for languages, dialects, or ethnonyms, according to the respective remarks. Entries for principal names are followed by their location in the classification in table 1 (T1) or table 2 (T2), followed by any spelling/pronunciation variants (“var”), synonyms (“syn”), and intrafamily homonyms (“hom”). Bibliographic references follow synonyms and some spelling variants. Accents are ignored here, as they are inconsistently applied in the literature.

______

Abakabu – see Nukini.

Aguanaco – see Awanawa.

Aguanaga – see Awanawa.

Aguanagua – see Awanawa.

Aino (T2: II.B) – var: Ainõ.

Ainõ – see Aino.

Amaguaca – see Amawaka.

Amahuaca – see Amawaka.

Amahuaco – see Amawaka.

Amajuaca – see Amawaka.

Amawaka (T1: II.C.viii.c) – var: Amaguaca, Amahuaca, Amahuaco, Amajauca, Amenguaca (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 111), Amjemhuaco (Hervás, 1800: 263), Amjenguaca (Velasco, 1981 [1788–1789]: 546), Amouaca (Castelnau, 1950–1959: IV: 377), Andahuaca (Sagols, 1901: 364), Hámue-huáca (Marqués, 1931: 197). syn: Impeniteri, Maspo (both synonyms according to Stiglich, 1908: 401, 419). hom: Nishinawa, Yumanawa.

Amenguaca – see Amawaka.

Amjemhuaco – see Amawaka.

Amjenguaca – see Amawaka.

Amouaca – see Amawaka.

Andahuaca – see Amawaka.

Aninawa (T2: II.C.viii.b).

Aqueti – var of Haqueti. see Kashibo.

Aragua – see Arawa.

Aranawa – see Shawannawa.

Arara – see Shawannawa.

Ararawa – see Shawannawa.

Aratsaira – see Arazaire.

Araua – see Arawa.

Arawa (T2: II.C.viii.c) – var: Araua, Aragua.

Arazaire (T1: II.C.ii.b) – var: Aratsaira.

Atsahuaca – see Atsawaka.

Atsawaka (T1: II.C.ii.a, codialect of Yamiaka) – var: Atsahuaca.

Auanateo – see Awanateo.

Auñeiri – see Yamiaka.

Avantiu – see Awanateo.

Awabakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Awabakëbo.

Awabakëbo – see Awabakebo.

Awanateo (T2: III) – var: Auanateo, Avantiu (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 452), Hahuanateo (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474).

Awanawa – var: Aguanaco (Markham, 1910: 81), Aguanagua, Aguanaga (Velaco, 1981 [1788–1789]: 546), Haguanahua (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474).

Bamunawa (T2: IV) – var: Vamunawa.

Barbudo (T2: II.C.vii.a) – syn: Mayoruna of the Huallaga River (Figueroa, 1904: 111); Dallus (Figueroa, 1904: 111).

Bari-nagua – see Barinawa.

Barinawa (T2: II.B) – var: Bari-nagua, Warinõ.

Bashonahua – var of Bashonawa – see Brazilian Yaminawa.

Bashonawa – var: Bashonahua – see Brazilian Yaminawa.

Bastanaua – see Mastanawa.

Bastanawa – see Mastanawa.

Binabo (T2: III) – var: Binabu, Viabu.

Binabu – see Binabo.

Binanawa – see Binannaua.

Binannaua – see Binannaua.

Binannawa (T2: III) – var: Binanawa, Binannaua.

Biti naua – see Bitinawa.

Bitinawa (T2: IV) – var: Biti naua.

Biubakeu (T2: II.C.viii.c) – var: Viuvaqueu.

Brazilian Matses (T1: I.A.i.a).

Brazilian Yamianawa (T1: II.C.viii.b). syn: Bashonawa, Dishinawa, Shaonawa (Bashonawa/Dishinawa and Shaonawa would seem to be two separate dialects according to Townsley [1994: 249–250], but I do not have the linguistic data to show it).

Buinawa (T2: IV) – var: Vuinawa.

Buni-nagua – see Buninawa.

Buninahua – see Buninawa.

Buninawa (T2: II.B) – var: Buninahua, Buni-nagua, Buninõ.

Buninõ – see Buninawa.

Buskipani – var: Busquipani.

Busquispani – var of Buskipani – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River.

Cacataibo – see Kakataibo.

Cacetero – see Korubo.

Cacharary – see Kasharari.

Cachibo – see Kashibo.

Cachinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Cacibo – see Kashibo.

Čakaya – see Chakaya.

Caliseca – var of Calliseca. See Shipibo, Kashibo, Konibo.

Calliseca – var: Caliseca, Kaliseka. See Shipibo, Kashibo, Konibo.

Camarinigua – see Kamariniwa.

Camunahua – see Komanawa.

Canabae Uni – see Kashibo.

Canamari – see Kanamari.

Canamary – see Kanamari.

Canawary – see Kanamari.

Čaninawa – see Chaninawa.

Capacho – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River.

Capanagua – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Capanahua salvaje – see Matses.

Capanahua – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Capanaua – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Capanawa – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River, Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Capishto – see Kapishto.

Capuibo – see Kapuibo.

Carapache – see Carapacho.

Carapacho – var: Carapache. See Kashibo.

Caripuna – see Karipuna.

Casca – see Kaska.

Caschibo – see Kashibo.

Caschivo – see Kashibo.

Cashibo – see Kashibo.

Cashiboyano – see Pano.

Cashinahua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Cashivo – see Kashibo.

Casibo – see Kashibo.

Cataquina – see Katukina.

Catsinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Catuquina – see Katukina.

Caxinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Caxivo – see Kashibo.

Cayubo – see Kayubo.

Cepeo – see Shipibo.

Cepibo – see Shipibo.

Cetevo – see Shetebo.

Chacaya – see Chakaya.

Chacobo – see Chakobo.

Chai (T2: II.C.vii.a).

Chakaya. (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Chacaya, Čakaya.

Chakobo (T1: II.C.i.a, codialect of Pakawara) – var: Chacobo, Tsakobo.

Chama – superordinate term used to refer to Shipibo, Konibo, and often also Shetebo; less frequently it is a synonym for Shipibo. var: Tschama (Tessmann, 1929).

Chandenawa – see Shanenawa.

Chandinawa – see Chaninawa.

Chanenawa – see Shanenawa.

Chaninawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yamianawa) – var: Čaninawa, Chandinahua, Tchaninawa, Tyaninawa (Tastevin, 1926: 34, 50).

Chankueshbo (T1: I.A.ii, dialect of Korubo) – var: Chankuëshbo. syn: Pinsha (Villarejo, 1979).

Chankuëshbo – see Chankueshbo.

Charanahua – see Sharanawa.

Chashono (T2: II.B) – var: Tšažnõ.

Chaunaua – var of Shaonawa. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

Chema (T1: I.A.i.b, dialect of Kulina of the Curuçá River) – syn/hom: Dëmushbo (Fleck, in prep.).

Chepaeo – see Shipibo.

Chepenagua – see Shipinawa.

Chepeo – see Shipibo.

Cheteo – see Shetebo.

Chipanagua – see Chipanawa.

Chipanawa (T2: IV) – var: Chipanagua.

Chipeo – see Shipibo.

Chipibo – see Shipibo.

Chipinawa – see Shipinawa.

Chirabo (T2: I) – var: Čirabo.

Chiriba (T1: II.C.i.c) – var: Chíriva.

Chíriva – see Chiriba.

Chitodawa – see Chitonawa.

Chitonahua – see Chitonawa.

Chitonawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yamianawa) – var: Chitodawa, Chitonahua.

Choromagua – see Choromawa.

Choromawa (T2: II.B) – var: Choromagua.

Choshunahua – var of Choshunawa – see Peruvian Yaminawa.

Choshunawa – var: Choshunahua – see Peruvian Yaminawa.

Chumana (T2 II.C.i).

Chunti (T2: III).

Cipibo – see Shipibo.

Čirabo – see Chirabo, Schiroba (Veigl, 1785: 106).

Colino – see Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença.

Collina – see Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença.

Comabo – see Komabo.

Comanagua – see Komanawa.

Comanahua – see Komanawa.

Comavo – see Komabo.

Comobo – see Komabo.

Comunahua – see Komanawa.

Conebo – see Konibo.

Conibo – see Konibo.

Conigua – see Konibo.

Contanawa – see Kontanawa.

Coronawa – see Kurunawa.

Corubo – see Korubo.

Corugo – see Korugo.

Cuinúa – see Kuinua.

Culina – see Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença.

Culino – see Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença.

Cumabo – see Komabo.

Cumabu – see Komabo.

Cumala (Spanish translation of tonnad) – see Kapishtana, Mawi.

Cumavo – see Komabo.

Cuniba – see Konibo.

Cunibo – see Konibo.

Cunio – see Konibo.

Cunivo – see Konibo.

Curina – see Kulina of Sào Paulo de Olivença.

Curiveo – see Konibo.

Cusabatay – see Kusabatai.

Custanawa – see Kustanawa.

Cuyanawa – var of Kuyanawa. See Kuyanawa.

Dallus – see Barbudo.

Deenahua – var: Deenawa.

Deenawa (T2: II.C.viii.b) – var: Deenahua.

Dëis – see Mawi.

Demushbo (T1: I.A.i.c) – var: Dëmsuhbo. syn: Remo (Fields, 1963). hom: Chema.

Dëmushbo – see Demushbo.

Diabo (T2: III) – var: Diabu.

Diabu – see Diabo.

Dishinahua – var of Dishinawa. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

Dishinawa – var: Dishinahua. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

E’loé – see Karipuna.

Epetineri – var of Impetineri. See Amawaka.

Eskinawa (T1: 52: IV).

Espino (T2: II.C.viii.c).

Gitipo – see Shetebo.

Grillo – see Kapishtana, Mawi.

Gritones – see Sinabo of the Mamoré River.

Haguanaga – see Awanawa.

Hagueti – var of Haqueti. See Kashibo.

Hahuanateo – see Awanateo.

Hámue-huáca – see Amawaka.

Haqueti – var: Aqueti (Espinoza, 1955: 583), Hagueti (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547). See Kashibo.

Hawanbakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Jawanbakëbo.

Hepetineri – var of Impetineri. See Amawaka.

Hǝunawa – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Hisisbakebo (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Hisisbaquebo, Isis baquebu (Amich, 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 418).

Hisisbaquebo – see Hisisbakebo.

Hotentot – see Puinawa.

Hsu-naua – see Hsunawa.

Hsunawa (T2: IV) – var: Hsu-naua.

Huariapano – var: Wariapano – see Pano.

Huni Kuin – var: Junikuin – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Hunino (T2: II.B) – var: Huninõ.

Huninõ – see Hunino.

Iltipo (T2: II.C.vii.b).

Impetineri – var: Epetineri, Hepetineri, Ipetineri. See Amawaka, Mayoruna of the Jannditatuba River.

Inobu – see Inubo.

Inono (T2: II.B) – var: Inonõ.

Inonõ – see Inono.

Inuaca – see Inuaka.

Inuaka (T2: II.B) – var: Inuaca.

Inubakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Inubakëbo.

Inubakëbo – see Inubakebo.

Inubakeu (T2: II.C.viii.c) – var: Inuvaqueu.

Inubo (T2: II.C.vii.c) – var: Inobu, Inubu, Ynubu.

Inubu – see Inubo.

Inukuini – see Nukini.

Inuvaqueu – see Inubakeu.

Ipetineri – var of Impetineri. See Amawaka.

Isaknawa (T2: IV) – var: Ysacnagua.

Iscobaquebo – see Iskonawa.

Isconahua – see Iskonawa.

Isis baquebu – see Hisisbakebo

Iskonawa (T1: II.C.vi.b) – var: Isconahua, Iscobaquebo, Iskunaua, Iskunawa.

Iskunaua – see Iskonawa, Yawanawa.

Iskunawa – see Iskonawa.

Isnagua – see Isunawa.

Isubenebakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Isubënëbakëbo.

Isubënëbakëbo – see Isubenebakebo.

Isunagua – see Isunawa.

Isunawa (T2: III) – var: Isnagua (typo in Girbal, 1927: 161), Isunagua, Ysunagua.

Isunoobu – see Isunubo.

Isunubo (T1: II.B, dialect of Kashibo) – var: Isunoobu (Tessmann, 1930: 128).

Jaminaua – see Yaminawa.

Jaminawa – see Yaminawa.

Jaobo – see Yawabo.

Jawabo – see Yawabo.

Jawabu – see Yawabo.

Jawanbakëbo – see Hawanbakebo.

Jitipo – see Shetebo.

Junikuin – var of Huni Kuin. See Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kachinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kakataibo (T1: II.B, dialect of Kashibo) – var: Cacataibo.

Kaliseka – var of Calliseca. See Shipibo, Kashibo, Konibo.

Kamaigohuni (T2: II.B).

Kamãnawa – see Kanamari.

Kamariniwa (T2: III) – var: Camarinigua.

Kanamari (T1: II.C.v.b, dialect of Katukina) – var: Canamari, Canamary, Canawary (the latter is a frequently reproduced typo on page 188 of Chandless, 1866), Kamãnawa (autodenomination; Anonymous, 1965).

Kapanahua – see Kapanawa of the Tapiche River.

Kapanaua – see Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Kapanawa of the Juruá River (T1: II.C.viii.a, dialect of Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River) – var: Capanagua, Capanahua, Capanaua, Capanawa, Kapanaua. hom: Kapanawa of the Tapiche River.

Kapanawa of the Tapiche River (T1: II.C.vii.a, dialect of Shipibo-Konibo) – var: Capacho, Capanagua, Capanahua, Capanaua, Capanawa, Kapanahua. syn: Buskipani (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 346). hom: Kapanawa of the Juruá River.

Kapishtana (T1: I.A.i.b, dialect of Kulina of the Curuçá River) – syn: Kapishto (Fields, 1970), Tonnadbo, Cumala (both synonyms from Fleck, in prep.), Grillo (Villarejo, 1979).

Kapishto – var: Capishto. See Kapishtana, Mawi.

Kapuibo (T2: II.C.i) – var: Capuibo.

Karipuna (T1: II.C.i.b) – var: Caripuna; syn: Jaun-avo (Martius, 1867: II: 240), E’loé (Barbosa, 1948).

Karunawa – see Kulina of Sào Paulo de Olivença.

Kaschibo (T1: II.B, dialect of Kashibo) – var: Kaschinõ (Tessmann, 1930: 124, 128), Canabae Uni (Wistrand, 1998: 113)

Kaschibo – see Kashibo.

Kaschinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kaschinõ – see Kashibo.

Kasharari (T1: II.A) – var: Kaxarari, Kaxarirí, Cacharary.

Kashibo (T1: II.B) – var: Cachibo, Cacibo, Caschibo, Cachivo, Cashibo, Cashivo, Casibo, Casigua (Stiglich, 1908: 404), Caxivo, Kaschibo, Kassibo. syn: Uni (Frank, 1987), Carapacho (Smyth and Lowe, 1836: 203; Steinen, 1904: 22; Stiglich, 1908: 404; Markham, 1910: 88; but see Amich, 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 333, who suggests they are a distinct group), Calliseca (see fn. 1), Haqueti (Tessmann, 1930: 127; though Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547, called this a Manannabobo dialect).

Kashinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River (T1: II.C.viii.a.) – var: Cachinaua, Cashinahua, Catsinaua, Caxinaua, Kachinaua, Kaschinaua, Kashinaua, Kasinaua, Kasinawa, Kašinawa, Katsinawa syn: Huni Kuin, Hǝunawa (Tastevin ms. g), Sheminaua (Schmidt, 1926: 228).

Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River (T1: II.C.iv) – var: Kašinawa du P. Tastevin (Rivet and Tastevin, 1927: 819). hom: Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kasinaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kašinawa du P. Tastevin – see Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River.

Kasinawa – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kašinawa – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Kaska (T2: II.C.vii.c) – var: Casca.

Kasshibo – see Kashibo.

Katsinawa – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Katukina (of the Gregório River) (T1: II.C.v.b) – var: Catuquina, Cataquina. syn: Waninawa (Tastevin, 1924a; Loukotka, 1968: 172). hom: Shanenawa (= Katukina de Feijó), Shawannawa.

Katukina of Olinda (T1: II.C.v.b, dialect of Katukina).

Katukina of Sete Estrelas (T1: II.C.v.b, dialect of Katukina).

Kaxarari – see Kasharari.

Kaxariri – see Kasharari.

Kayubo (T2: IV) – var: Cayubo.

Kiraba (T2: II.C.v.c) – var: Quiraba, Quirabae (plural)

Komabo (T2: II.B) – var: Comabo, Comavo, Comobo, Cumabo, Cumabu, Cumavo. syn: Univitza (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 286, though on pp. 297 and 301 Univitzas are listed as a separate group).

Komanawa (T2: IV) – var: Camunagua, Comanagua, Comanahua, Comunagua.

Konibo (T1: II.C.vii.a, codialect of Shipibo) – var: Conebo, Conibo, Conigua (Stiglich, 1905: 341), Cuniba, Cunibo, Cunio (Figueroa, 1904 [1661]: 164), Cunivo, Curiveo (Rodríguez, 1684: 388), Kunibo. syn: Chama (see fn. 1), Manoa (Smyth and Lowe, 1836: 203; Markham, 1910: 96), Calliseca (see fn. 1), Pariache (Myers, 1974: 141, speculation based on geography).

Kontanaua – see Kontanawa.

Kontanawa (T2: III) – var: Contanawa, Kontanua, Kuntanawa.

Koronaua – see Kurunawa.

Korubo (T1: I.A.ii) – var: Corubo. syn: Cacetero.

Korugo (T2: I) – var: Corugo, Maioruma Corugo.

Kuinua (T2: II.B) – var: Cuinúa.

Kulina do Curuçá – see Kulina of the Curuçá River.

Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença (T1: II.C.v.c) – var: Culino, Colino, Collina, Culina, Curina. hom: Kulina of the Curuçá River. n.b. Rivet and Tastevin (1921: 458) gave Karunawa as a synonym for Arawan Kulina, not for (either) Panoan Kulina, despite the obvious Panoan origin of the ethnonym.

Kulina of the Curuçá River (T1: I.A.i.b) – var: Kulina do Curuçá. syn: Kulina-Pano. hom: Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença.

Kulina-Pano – see Kulina of the Curuçá River.

Kunibo – see Konibo.

Kuntanawa – see Kontanawa.

Kununaua – var of Kununawa. See Kurunawa.

Kununawa – var: Kununaua. See Kurunawa.

Kurunawa (T2: III) – var: Coronaua, Koronawa. syn Kununawa (Tastevin, 1929: 12).

Kusabatai (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Cusabatay.

Kustanaua – see Kustanawa.

Kustanawa (T2: III) – var: Kustanaua, Custanawa.

Kuyanaua – var of Kuyanawa. See Poyanawa.

Kuyanawa – var: Cuyanawa, Kuyanaua. See Poyanawa.

Machonawa – see Mashonawa.

Maconagua – see Makonawa.

Magirona – see Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River.

Mai-i-naua – var of Mainawa. See Peruvian Yaminawa.

Mainagua – var of Mainawa. See Peruvian Yaminawa.

Mainahua – var of Mainawa. See Peruvian Yaminawa.

Mainaua – var of Mainawa. See Peruvian Yaminawa.

Mainawa var: Mainagua, Mainahua, Mainaua, Mai-i-naua. See Peruvian Yaminawa.

Maioruma Corugo – see Korugo.

Maioruna – see Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River.

Majuruna – see Mayoruna.

Makonawa (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Maconagua.

Manamabobo – see Manamanbobo.

Manamanahua – see Manannawa.

Manamanbobo (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Manamabobo (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 281, 291), Mananabobo (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474).

Mananabobo – see Manamanbobo.

Mananabua – see Manannawa.

Mananagua – see Manannawa.

Mananava – see Manannawa.

Manannawa (T2: II.C.vii.b) – var: Manamanahua, Mananabua (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 547), Mananava (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 294), Mananagua (Veigl, 1785: 63), Manava (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 111).

Manava – see Manannawa.

Mangeroma – see Mayoruna.

Manoa – see Konibo, Pano, Shetebo.

Manoita – see Shetebo.

Manoyta – var of Manoita. See Shetebo.

Marinahua – see Marinawa.

Marinaua – see Marinawa.

Marinawa. (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var: Marinahua, Marinaua.

Marova – see Marubo of Maucallacta.

Maruba – see Marubo of the Javari Basin, Marubo of Maucallacta.

Marubiu – see Marubo of the Javari Basin.

Marubo of Maucallacta (T2: I) – var: Marova, Maruba, Marugo, Moruba. syn: Mayoruna (Fleck, 2007a). hom: Marubo of the Javari Basin.

Marubo of the Javari Basin (T1: II.C.v.a) – var: Maruba, Marubiu. syn: Chainawa (Kennell, 1976, 1978). hom: Marubo of Maucallacta, Mawi.

Marugo – see Marubo of Maucallacta.

Mashonawa (T2: II.C.viii.b) – var: Machonawa, Masrodawa, Masronahua (note: the Panoan pronunciation would have a retroflex sh, hence the representations with r).

Mashoruna – var of Maxuruna. See Mayoruna of Tabatinga.

Maspa – var of Maspo. See Amawaka.

Maspo – var: Maspa. See Amawaka.

Masrodawa – see Mashonawa.

Masronahua – see Mashonawa.

Mastanahua – see Mastanawa.

Mastanawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var: Bastanaua, Bastanawa (Tastevin, 1926: 50), Mastanahua, Nastanawa (Loukotka, 1968: 170).

Matis (T1: I.A.iii.a) – var: Matšese (Souza, 1979).

Matses (T1: I.A.i.a.) – syn: Mayoruna (Fields, 1963), Capanahua salvaje (Fields, 1963); hom: Paud Usunkid.

Matšese – see Matis.

Mauishi – see Mawishi.

Mawi (T1: I.A.i.b, dialect of Kulina of the Curuçá River) – syn: Cumala, Dëis, Kapishto, Tonnadbo, (all five synonyms from Fleck, in prep.), Grillo (Villarejo, 1979), Marubo (Fields, 1970).

Mawishi (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Mauishi.

Maxuruna – var: Mashoruna. See Mayoruna of Tabatinga.

Maya (T2: I uncontacted; Erikson, 1994: 22). syn: Quixito. hom: Mayo.

Mayiruna – see Mayoruna.

Mayo (T2: I) – var: Maya (Tastevin, 1924b: 424). hom: Mayoruna.

Mayo – see Mayoruna.

Mayoruna (T1: I., generic or uncertain references) – var: Majuruna, Mangeroma, Mayiruna, Mayruna, Mayuruna, Mayuzuna, Moyoruna. syn: Pelado (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 267), Marubo, Mayo. hom: Barbudos, Matses).

Mayoruna civilisé – see Settled Mayoruna of the Amazon River.

Mayoruna domestica – see Settled Mayoruna of the Amazon River.

Mayoruna fera – see Wild Mayoruna of the Amazon River.

Mayoruna of Tabatinga (T1: I.B). Maxuruna (Martius, 1867: II: 236).

Mayoruna of the Amazon River (T1: I.A.iii.c).

Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River (T1: I.A.iii.b) – var: Maioruna, Magirona (both from Alviano, 1957). syn: Impetineri (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921).

Mayoruna sauvage – see Wild Mayoruna of the Amazon River.

Mayourna of the Huallaga River – see Barbudo.

Mayruna – see Mayoruna.

Mayuzuna – see Mayoruna.

Michanahua – see Michanawa.

Michanawa (T2: IV) – var: Michanahua.

Mochobo (T2: III) – var: Mochovo, Mochubu.

Mochovo – see Mochobo.

Mochubu – see Mochobo.

Moruba – see Marubo of Maucallacta.

Morunahua – see Morunawa.

Morunawa (T2: II.C.viii.b) – var: Morunahua.

Moyoruna – see Mayoruna.

Nagua – see Nawa.

Nahua – see Nawa.

Naibakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Naibakëbo.

Naibakëbo – see Naibakebo.

Naibo (T2: II.B).

Naitabohuni (T2: II.B).

Nastanawa – see Mastanawa.

Naua – see Nawa.

Nawa (T1: II.C.vi.d) – var: Nahua, Nagua, Naua. hom: Parkenawa, Panoan (as a general term, Nawa has been used as a synonym for the whole family, or to refer only to Panoans in the Juruá-Purus area; see Tastevin, 1924b; Carvalho and Sobrinho, 1929; Villarejo, 1959). In this paper, Nawa designates the largest group of Mainline Branch of the Panaon family, in addition to the Nawa language.

Nehanawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yamianawa) – var: Nohanaua (Tastevin, 1925: 49, 1926: 415).

Niamagua – see Nianawa.

Nianagua – see Nianawa.

Nianawa (T2: III) – var: Niamagua, Nianagua, Niaragua.

Niaragua – see Nianawa.

Nishidawa – see Nishinawa.

Nishinahua – see Nishinawa.

Nishinawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Amawaka) – var: Nishidawa, Nishinahua, Nišinawa. syn: Amawaka (Tastevin, 1926: 50).

Nišinawa – see Nishinawa.

Nohanaua – see Nehanawa.

Nokaman (T1: II.B, dialect of Kashibo), Kamano, Camano.

Nucuini – see Nukini, Remo of the Blanco River.

Nukini (T1: II.C.vi.c) – var: Nucuini (Oppenheim, 1936a: 151), Nukuini, Inukuini (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921), syn: Abakabu (Tastevin, ms. i).

Nukuini – see Nukini.

Oni – var of Uni. See Kashibo.

Ormiga (T2: III).

Otentot – see Hotentot.

Pacabara – see Pakawara.

Pacaguara – see Pakawara.

Pacahuara – see Pakawara.

Pacanaua – see Pakanawa

Pacavara – see Pakawara.

Pachicta – see Pachikta.

Pahenbakebo (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Pahenbaquebo.

Pahenbaquebo – see Pahenbakebo.

Pakaguara – see Pakawara.

Pakanawa (T2: III) – var: Pacanaua.

Pakawara (T1: II.C.i.a, codialect of Chakobo) – var: Pacabara, Pacaguara, Pacahuara, Pacavara, Pakaguara.

Pana – see Panoan, Pano.

Panatagua – see Panatawa.

Panatawa (T2: IV) – var: Panatagua.

Panavarro – see Pano.

Pano (T1: II.C.vii.b) – var: Pana, Panobo (Tessmann, 1930), Panavarro (d’Ans, 1973), Huariapano (Parker, 1992), Wariapano. syn: Pelado, Manoa (Dueñas, 1791: 172; Tessmann, 1930: 106), Cashiboyano (Tessmann, 1930: 106). hom: Panoan.

Panoan (family) – var/hom: Pano (Pano/pano is the name of the family in Spanish, Portuguese and French, and has occasionally been used in English instead of “Panoan”), Pana. syn: Nawa (Tastevin, 1924b; Carvalho and Sobrinho, 1929; Villarejo, 1959).

Panobo – see Pano.

Pano-Purús – see Yaminawa.

Papavo – see Yumanawa (Tastevin, 1925: 415, 1926: 50, said Papavo was used by non-Indians to refer specifically to Yumanawas, while Grubb, 1927: 101, said non-Indians used Papavo to refer to several pacific ethnic groups in the area of the upper Tarauacá and Jordão rivers).

Paranaua – see Paranawa.

Paranawa (T1: II.C.vi.b, dialect of Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River) – var: Paranaua.

Pariache – see Konibo.

Parkenawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa). syn: Nawa, Yora, Yura, Yoranahua. var: Parquenahua.

Parquenahua – see Parkenawa.

Paud Usunkid (T1: I.A.ia, dialect of Matses). syn: Matsés (Fields, 1970), Shëbimbo, Shapaja (both synonyms from Fleck, in prep.).

Payanso – see Shipibo.

Pelado – see Mayoruna, Pano. Sometimes given as subroup of Pano, following Hervás (1800: 263).

Peruvian Matses (T1: I.A.i.a).

Peruvian Yaminawa (T1: II.C.viii.b). syn: Mainawa, Choshunawa (both synonyms from Townsley, 1994: 250; see also Chandless, 1866: 113, and Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 465, for more on Mainawa).

Pičabo – see Pitsobo.

Pichabo – see Pitsobo.

Pichobo – see Pitsobo.

Pičobo – see Pitsobo.

Pimisnahua – see Pimisnawa.

Pimisnawa (T2: IV) – var: Pimisnahua.

Pinche – var of Pinsha. See Chankueshbo.

Pinsha. (local Spanish translation of chankuësh “toucan”) var: Pinche. See Chankueshbo.

Pisabo (T2: I) – var: Pisabu, Pisahua, Pissabo.

Pisabu – see Pisabo.

Pisahua – see Pisabo.

Piskino (T1: I.C.vii.b, dialect of Pano) – var: Pisquibo, Piquino.

Pisquibo – see Piskino.

Pisquino – see Piskino.

Pissabo – see Pisabo.

Pitsobo (T2: III) – var: Pichabo, Pichobo, Pičabo, Pičobo, Pitsobu.

Pitsobu – see Pitsobo.

Poianaua – see Poyanawa.

Poianawa – see Poyanawa.

Poyanaua – see Poyanawa.

Poyanawa (T1: II.C.vi.a) – var: Poianaua, Poianawa, Poyanaua. syn: Kuyanawa, (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 465).

Puchanahua – see Puchanawa.

Puchanawa (T2: II.B) – var: Puchanahua.

Puinagua – see Puinawa.

Puinawa (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Puinagua, Puynagua, Puy-nahua. syn: Hotentot (Amich, 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 299; Leceta in Izaguirre, 1922–1929: IX: 41, XII: 437).

Punhamumanawa (T2: II.C.vi) – var: Punhamumanaua, Puyamanawa (Mason, 1950 : 268), Puyumanawa (Steward and Métraux, 1948: 555).

Puyamanawa – see Punhamumanawa.

Puynagua – see Puinawa.

Puy-nahua – see Puinawa.

Puyumanawa – see Punhamumanawa.

Quiraba – see Quiraba.

Quirabae – see Quiraba.

Quixito – see Maya.

Remo – see Remo of the Blanco River, Remo of the Jaquirana River, Remo of the Môa River, Southern Remo.

Remo of the Blanco River (T1: II.C.iii) – var: Rhemu (Oppenheim, 1971: 168). hom: Nukini (autodenomination, Oppenheim, 1936a: 151).

Remo of the Jaquirana River (T1: II.C.vi.e) – var: Rhemu, Remu (both from Carvalho, 1931).

Remo of the Môa River (T1: II.C.viii.d) – var: Rïmo (Loos and Loos, 1973–1974).

Remu – see Remo of the Jaquirana River.

Rhemo – see Southern Remo.

Rhemu – see Remo of the Jaquirana River, Remo of the Blanco River.

Rheno – see Southern Remo.

Rimbo – see Southern Remo.

Rïmo – see Remo of the Môa River.

Rounõ – see Rubo.

Ruanababa – see Ruanawa.

Ruanagua – see Ruanawa.

Ruanawa (T2: II.B) – var: Ruanababa (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546), Ruanagua.

Rubo (T1: II.B, dialect of Kashibo) – var: Rounõ (Tessmann, 1930: 128), Ruubu (Wistrand, 1998: 113).

Ruino - (T2: II.B) – var: Ruinõ.

Ruinõ – see Ruino.

Runubakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Runubakëbo.

Runubakëbo – see Runubakebo.

Runubo (T2: II.C.vii.c) – var: Runubu.

Runubu – see Runubo.

Rununawa (T2: IV).

Ruubu – see Rubo.

Sacaya – see Sakaya.

Sacuya – see Sakaya.

 ahnindawa – see Shanenawa.

Sakaya (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Sacaya, Sacuya, Sakuya, Sayaca (Mason, 1950: 266; probably a misprint of Sacaya), Shacaya (Estrella, 1905: 91).

Sakuya – see Sakaya.

Saninawa – see Shanenawa.

Sawanaua – see Shawannawa.

 awánawá – see Shawannawa

Sayaca – see Sakaya.

Schahnindaua – see Shanenawa.

Schenábu – see Sinabo of the Mamoré River.

Schipibo – see Shipibo.

Schitebo – see Shetebo.

Schitipo – see Shetebo.

Schunuman – see Shunuman.

Senci – see Sensi.

Senči – see Sensi.

Sensi (T1: I.C.vii.c.) – var: Senci, Senči, Senchi, Sensivo, Sentci, Senti, Shensivo, Ssensi, Tenti (Mason, 1950: 263), Tsönsi (Tessmann, 1930: 107).

Sensivo – see Sensi.

Sentci – see Sensi.

Senti – see Sensi.

Sepibo – see Shipibo.

Sepivo – see Shipibo.

Setebo – see Shetebo.

Setevo – see Shetebo.

Setibo – see Shetebo.

Settebo – see Shetebo.

Settled Mayoruna of the Amazon River (T1: I.A.iii.c) – var: Mayoruna civilisé (1850–1859: V: 299), Mayoruna domestica (Martius, 1867: II: 238).

Shakaya – see Sakaya.

Shanenawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var: Chandenawa, Chanenawa, Saninawa,  ahnindawa, Schahnindaua. syn: Katukina (de Feijó).

Shaninahua – see Shaninawa.

Shaninawa (T2: II.C.viii.b) – var: Shaninahua.

Shaodawa – var of Shaonawa. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

Shaonahua – var of Shaonawa. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

Shaonawa – var: Chaunaua (Tastevin, 1925: 415), Shaodawa, Shaonahua. See Brazilian Yaminawa.

Shapaja (Spanish translation of shëbin) – see Paud Usunkid.

Sharanahua – see Sharanawa.

Sharanawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var: Sharanahua, Charanawa, Xaranaua.

Shawã – see Shawannawa.

Shawãdawa – see Shawannawa.

Shawãnawa – see Shawannawa.

Shawannawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var:  awánawá, Sawanaua, Shawã, Shawãdawa, Shawãnawa. syn: Arara (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 452 fn.), Ararawa (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 452), Aranawa (Loukotka, 1968: 172, probably a typo), Katukina (Tastevin, 1925: 415).

Shëbimbo – see Paud Usunkid.

Sheminaua – see Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River.

Shensivo – see Sensi.

Shepegua – see Shipibo.

Shetebo (T1: II.C.vii.b. dialect of Pano) – var: Cetevo, Cheteo, Gitipo, Jitipo, Schitebo, Schitipo, Setebo, Setevo, Setibo, Settebo, Shetegua (Stiglich, 1905: 313), Sitibo, Sitivo, Ssetebo, Xetebo, Xitipo. syn: Chama (see fn. 1 for references), Manoa (Dueñas, 1791: 172; Steinen, 1904: 25), Manoita (Sobreviela, 1791a: 95, 97).

Shetegua – see Shetebo.

Shipebo – see Shipibo.

Shipeo – see Shipibo.

Shipibo (T1: II.C.vii.a, codialect of Konibo) – var: Cepeo, Cepibo, Chipaeo, Chepeo, Chipeo, Chipibo, Cipibo, Schipibo, Sepibo, Sepivo, Shepegua (Stiglich, 1905: 30), Shipebo, Shipeo, Sipibo, Sipivo, Ssipibo, Xipibo, Zipivo. syn: Calliseca, Chama (see fn. 1 for references to these two synonyms); Payanso (Myers, 1990: 8, speculation based on geography and dress).

Shipinawa (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Chepenagua (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546), Chipinawa (Tastevin, 1919: 146), Sipinawa (Tastevin, 1919: 149),  ipinawa.

Shirino (T2: II.B) – var:  irinõ.

Shirino (T2: II.B) – var: Ssirino.

Shishinahua – see Shishinawa.

Shishinawa (T2: II.C.viii.b) – var: Shishinahua.

Shokeno (T2: II.B) – var:  okenõ.

Shuchanawa (T2: II.B) – var: Shuschanagua.

Shunuman (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Schunuman.

Shuschanagua – see Shuchanawa.

Sinabo of the Mamoré River (T2: II.C.i) – var: Sinabu, Schenábu (Martius, 1867: I: 416). syn: Gritones (Métraux, 1948: 449). hom: Shipibo (Stiglich, 1908: 423, 426).

Sinabo of the Ucayali basin (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Sinabu. hom: Sinabo of the Mamoré River.

Sinabu – see Sinabo of the Mamoré River, Sinabo of the Ucayali basin.

Sipibo – see Shipibo.

Sipinawa – see Shipinawa.

 ipinawa – see Shipinawa.

Sipivo – see Shipibo.

 irinõ – see Shirino.

Sitibo – see Shetebo.

Sitivo – see Shetebo.

Soboibo (T2: III) – var: Soboyobo.

Soboyobo – see Soboibo.

 okenõ – see Shokeno.

Southern Remo (T2: II.C.vii) – var: Rhemo, Rheno, Rimbo (Castelnau, 1859: 364). hom: Demushbo.

Ssensi – see Sensi.

Ssetebo – see Shetebo.

Ssipibo – see Shipibo.

Ssirino – see Shirino.

Suabu – see Suyabo.

Suyabo (T2: IV) – var: Suabu, Suyabu.

Suyabu – see Suyabo.

Taguacúa – see Tawakua.

Takanaua – see Takanawa.

Takanawa (T2: IV) – var: Takanaua.

Tawakua (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Taguacúa.

Tchaninawa – see Chaninawa.

Tenti – see Sensi.

Tiatinagua – see Tiatinawa.

Tiatinawa (T2: II.C.ii.a) – var: Tiatinagua

Tiuchunawa (T2: IV) – var: Tyuchunaua.

Tochinawa – see Tushinawa.

Tonano (T2: II.B) – var: Tonanõ.

Tonanõ – see Tonano.

Tonnadbo – see Kapishtana, Mawi.

Tošinawa – see Tushinawa.

Trompetero (T2: III).

Tsakobo – see Chakobo.

Tsalguno (T2: II.B) – var: Tsalgunõ.

Tsalgunõ – see Tsalguno.

Tsawesbo (T2: IV) – var: Tsawësbo.

Tsawësbo – see Tsawesbo.

Tšažnõ – see Chashono.

Tschama – see Chama.

Tsinubakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Tsinubakëbo.

Tsinubakëbo – see Tsinubakebo.

Tsönsi – see Sensi.

Tuchinaua – see Tushinawa.

Tuchinawa – see Tushinawa.

Tuchiunawa (T1: II.C.viii.e) – var: Tutxiuanaua, Tutoriunaua (Figuêiredo, 1931: 245, probably a typo).

Turcaguane – see Turkaguane.

Turcaguano – see Turkaguane.

Turkaguane (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Turcaguane, Turcaguano.

Tushinawa (T2: II.C.viii.a) – var: Tuchinawa, Tuchinaua, Tochinawa, Tošinawa, Tušinawa.

Tušinawa – see Tushinawa.

Tutoriuanaua – see Tuchiunawa.

Tutxiuanaua – see Tuchiunawa.

Tyaninawa – see Chaninawa.

Tyuchunaua – see Tiuchunawa.

Uni – var: Oni (Valenzuela, 2010b). See Kashibo.

Uniabo (T2: IV) – var: Uniabu.

Uniabu – see Uniabo.

Unibo (T2: IV).

Unihuepa – see Uniwepa.

Univitza – see Komabo.

Uniwepa (T2: II.C.vii.a) – var: Unihuepa.

Vamunawa – see Bamunawa.

Viabu – see Binabo.

Viuvaqueu – see Biubakeu.

Vuinawa – see Buinawa.

Waninawa – see Katukina.

Wariapano – var of Huariapano. See Pano.

Waribakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Waribakëbo.

Waribakëbo – see Waribakebo.

Warinõ – see Barinawa.

Wild Mayoruna of the Amazon River (T1: I.A.iii.c) – var: Mayoruna fera (Martius, 1867: II: 238), Mayoruna sauvage (Castelnau, 1850–1859: V: 300).

Winano (T2: II.B) – var: Winanõ.

Winanõ – see Winano.

Xetebo – see Shetebo.

Xípibo – see Shipibo.

Xitipo – see Shetebo.

Yabinawa – see Yaminawa.

Yaguarmayo (T2: II.C.ii.a).

Yambinawa – see Yaminawa.

Yamiaca – see Yamiaka.

Yamiaka (T1: II.C.ii.a, codialect of Atsawaka) – var: Yamiaca. syn: Auñeiri (Stiglich, 1908: 402).

Yaminahua – see Yaminawa.

Yaminawa (T1: II.C.viii.b) – var: Jaminaua, Jaminawa, Yabinawa, Yambinawa, Yaminahua. syn: Pano-Purús (d’Ans, 1973).

Yaminawa-arara (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yamianawa).

Yaobo – see Yawabo.

Yauavo – see Yawabo.

Yaubo – see Yawabo.

Yawabakebo (T2: II.C.vi.b) – var: Yawabakëbo.

Yawabakëbo – see Yawabakebo.

Yawabo (T2: C.vii.b) – var: Jaobo, Jawabo, Jawabu, Yaobo, Yauavo, Yaubo.

Yawanaua – see Yawanawa.

Yawanawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Yaminawa) – var: Yawanaua. syn: Iskunawa (Tastevin ms. f.; not certain whether it is meant to be synonym or a subgroup of Yawanawa).

Yaya (T2: II.C.vi.e).

Ynubu – see Inubo.

Yora – var of Yura. See Parkenawa, Yura.

Yoranahua – see Parkenawa.

Ysacnagua – see Isaknawa.

Ysunagua – see Isunawa.

Yumanawa (T1: II.C.viii.b, dialect of Amawaka) – var: Yumbanawa. syn: Amawaka (Tastevin, 1926: 50), Papavo.

Yumbanawa – see Yumanawa.

Yuminagua – see Yuminawa.

Yuminahua – see Yuminawa.

Yuminawa (T2: II.C.viii.c) – var: Yuminahua, Yuminagua.

Yura (T2: II.C.viii.c) – var: Yora. hom: Parkenawa.

Zaminaua – see Zaminaua.

Zaminawa (T2: II.C.vii.a) var: Zaminaua.

Zepa (T2: II.B).

Zipivo – see Shipibo.

Zurina (T2: III).

APPENDIX 2

Available Linguistic Data for Panoan Languages and Dialects

This appendix provides a list of available first-hand data for the Panoan languages. For the extinct (†) languages (bold) and dialects (italic), all original sources are listed, along with some notable reproductions of these. For the extant languages and dialects, all original sources preceding 1950 are listed, along with a selection of the more useful (relative to the available materials for that language or dialect) post-1950 sources containing original or previously unpublished linguistic data. At the end are listed synthetic, classification, reconstructive, comparative, and bibliographic works on the family. All data in this appendix were considered for the classification in table 1, except materials tagged as “(have not been able to obtain it).” It should be mentioned that the bibliographies by Erikson et al. (1994) and Fabre (1998), both with internet updates, were instrumental in the compilation of this literature. Order of entries follows table 1.

_____

Matses

Peruvian Matses – Fields (1970) 452-entry lexicon

Fields (1973) grammatical study

Jakway (1975) 357-entry lexicon collected by H. Fields in 1970 and 1975

Fields and Wise (1976) phonology

Kneeland and Fields (1976) phonology

Kneeland (1973, 1982, 1996) grammatical topics

Kneeland (1979) pedagogical grammar and a 750-entry vocabulary

Fleck (1997), Harder and Fleck (1997), Fleck and Harder (2000), Fleck et al. (1999), Fleck et al. (2002), Fleck and Voss (2006), Voss and Fleck (2011) folk classification and/or ethnolinguistics

Fleck (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2007b, 2008a, 2010) grammatical studies

Fleck (2003) 1257/897-page phonology and grammar

Fleck (2007d, in prep.) ethnohistory/linguistics

Fleck et al. (2012) 4000-entry dictionary

Ludwig et al. (2010), Munro et al. (2012) grammatical studies

Brazilian Matses – Souza (1979) 243-entry lexicon

Carvalho (1992) 185-page grammar sketch

Dorigo (1995, 2002), Dorigo and Costa (1996), Costa and Dorigo (2005) grammatical studies

Dorigo (2001) 247-page phonology

†Paud Usunkid – Fields (1970) 283-entry lexicon

Fleck (in prep.) 20-word list collected from Fields’ late informant’s husband

partial reproduction: Jakway (1975) 33 entries copied from Fields

*Kulina of the Curuçá River – Fleck (in prep.) phonology, grammar, and 400-word lexica of all three dialects

Fleck (2010) grammatical study

Fleck (2007a) historical and lexical study, 242-entry lexicon

*Kapishtana – Fields (1970) 404-entry lexicon and 85 elicited sentences

partial reproduction: Jakway (1975) 156 entries copied from Fields

*Mawi – Fields (1970) 124-entry lexicon (called “Marubo” by Fields)

Coutinho (1998) 60 words

Fleck and Voss (2006) 51 animal names

*Chema – Fields (1970) 283-entry lexicon and 22 elicited sentences

partial reproduction: Jakway (1975) 37 entries copied from Fields

†Demushbo – Fleck (in prep.) phonology, grammar and 400-word lexicon

Fleck and Voss (2006) 25 animal names

Fleck (2010) grammatical study

Korubo

Korubo – Oliveira (2009) 119-page phonology

Fleck (in prep.) 22-word list collected from Matis speakers

*Chankueshbo – Fleck (in prep.) phonology, grammar, and 400-word lexicon

Fleck and Voss (2006) 25 animal names

Matis – Souza (1979) 340-entry lexicon

Ferreira (2000, 2008, in prep.) grammatical studies

Spanghero (2000a/2001) 143-page phonology

Spanghero (2000b) phonology

Ferreira (2001a/2001b) 171-page grammar sketch

Ferreria (2005) 216-page grammar

Spanghero (2005) 1530-entry dictionary and lexical study

Fleck and Voss (2006) 43 animal names

Fleck (2010) comparative grammatical study

Fleck (in prep.) comparative phonology and grammar

Dienst and Fleck (2009) 98 animal names

†Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River – Alviano (1957: 44–56) 503-word lexicon

complete reproduction: Fleck (in prep.) reproduction and phonology

†Mayoruna of the Amazon River

†Settled Mayoruna – Castelnau (1850–1859: V: 299–300) 54-word list

complete reproductions: Martius (1867: II: 238); Fleck (in prep.) reproduction and phonology

†Wild Mayoruna – Castelnau (1850–1859: V: 300–301) 80-word list collected by M. Deville

complete reproductions: Martius (1867: II: 238–239); Fleck (in prep.) reproduction and phonology

†Mayoruna of Tabatinga (“Maxuruna”) – Martius (1867: II: 236–237) 137-word lexicon collected by Spix

complete reproduction: Fleck (in prep.) reproduction and phonology

Kasharari – Pickering (1973) 72-word list collected in 1962

Cabral and Monserrat (1987) 7-page phonological analysis and 141-entry lexicon (though most are Portuguese borrowings)

Lanes (2000) 164-word list

Sousa (2004) 99-page phonology including a 378-word lexicon

Couto (2005) detailed phonology

Kashibo

Zariquiey (2011b, in press a.) dialectal studies

Kashibo – Tessmann (1930: 154–155) 220-word list plus 272 terms in the ethnographic text

Shell (1950) phonology

Shell (1957, 1973/1975) grammatical studies

Shell (1959, 1987) ca. 2100-entry vocabulary

Wistrand (1968) 81-page grammatical study

Wistrand (1971, 1978) grammatical studies

Wistrand (1969) 359-page folklore text study

Wistrand (1984) ca. 350 animal and ca. 190 plant names

Cortez (1980) phonology

Frank (1993) 13 unparsed texts

Valle (2009) 119-page grammatical study

Valle (2011, in prep. b) grammatical studies

Valle (in prep. a) full-length phonology and grammar

Zariquiey (2011a) full-length phonology and grammar

Zariquiey (2011c, 2012a, 2012b, in prep. a) grammatical studies

Zariquiey and Fleck (2012) grammatical study

partial reproductions: Key (2000) compiled a 648-entry lexicon based on Shell (1959, 1987).

Kakataibo – Tessmann (1930: 154) 30-word list

Zariquiey (2011b) 380-word list

Rubo – Tessmann (1930: 154) 30-word list

Zariquiey (2011b) 380-word list

Isunobo – Zariquiey (2011b) 380-word list

Nokaman – Tessmann (1930: 184–187) 228-word list plus 139 terms in the ethnographic text

Zariquiey (in press b) dialectal study.

Chakobo/Pakawara

Chakobo – Cardús (1886: 315) 36-word list

Nordenskiöld (1911: 230–240) 78-entry lexicon

Hanke (1954/1956/1957) 360-entry lexicon and phonological notes

Prost (1960/1967b) phonology plus 104-/66-entry lexica

Prost (1962) grammatical study

Prost (1965/1967a) tagmemic grammar

Zingg (1998) ca. 5000-entry dictionary with 44-page grammar sketch

Valenzuela (2005a) grammatical study

Valenzuela and Iggesen (2007) phonological-grammatical study

Córdoba et al. (2012) sociolinguistic, phonological and grammatical sketch with 3 short texts

Tallman (in prep. a) full-length phonology and grammar

Tallman (in prep. b) phonological study

complete reproduction: Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913) of Cardús and Nordenskiöld

partial reproductions: Pauly (1928: 138) 27 words copied from Cardús; Key (2000)

839-entry lexicon compiled from various unpublished microfiche by Prost; Montaño

(1987) copied 60 words from Prost (1960) and 48 words and phrases from unpublished materials by Prost.

Pakawara – Palau and Saiz (1989 [1794]: 170) 7-word list

Orbigny (1838: I: 164, II: 263) 23-word list and brief phonological notes

Heath (1883) 52-word list

Armentia (1887/2006) 57-word list and 2 pages of grammatical notes

Armentia (1888) (have not been able to obtain it)

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913) reproduction of Orbigny, Heath, and Armentia, plus an unpublished lexicon collected by Orbigny (= 414 words total from Orbigny)

East (1969–1970) word lists and phonological study (have not been able to obtain it, but see reproduction in Key)

East and East (1969) word list (have not been able to obtain it, but see reproduction in Key)

complete reproductions: Cardús (1886: 326) of Orbigny; Rivet (1910: 20–24) of

Orbigny, Heath, and Armentia; Keller (1974a: 170/1974b: 141) of Orbigny (n.b.: Keller called it “Maropa/(Pakaguara)” in the German edition, but only “Maropa” in the English edition); Ricketson (1943) English translation of Créqui-Montfort and Rivet

partial reproductions: Orton (1876) copied 8 words (and the Maropa mistake)

from Keller; Key (2000) 93-entry lexicon copied from East, and also, coded separately, many entries copied from Orbigny, Heath, Armentia and Créqui-Montfort and Rivet

†Karipuna – Martius (1867: II: 240–242) 162-word list collected by Natterer ca. 1829

Pauly (1928: 142–143) 24-word list

Castillo (1929: 135–137) 181-word lexicon

Barbosa (1948) 502-word lexicon collected in 1927

Hanke (1949: 7–12) 168-word lexicon, phonological notes, and lexical comparison

complete reproduction: Montaño (1987) of Castillo and Pauly

partial reproductions: Keller (1874a: 132/1874b: 112) copied 50 words from Martius; Orton (1876) copied 9 words from Keller

†Chiriba – Palau and Saiz (1989 [Lázaro 1794]: 170) 7-word list

†Atsawaka/Yamiaka

†Atsawaka – Nordenskiöld (1905: 275–276/1906: 526–527) 49-word list

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913: 46–78) 223-word lexicon collected by Nordenskiöld that includes the 49 words of Nordenskiöld (previous entry in this list)

†Yamiaka – Nordenskiöld (1905: 275–276/1906: 526–527) 46-word list

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913: 46–78) 118-word lexicon collected by Nordenskiöld that includes the 46 words of the previous entry in this list

partial reproduction: Rivet (1910: 225–226) copied 26 words from Nordenskiöld

†Arazaire – Llosa (1906b) 133-word lexicon

complete reproductions: Rivet (1910: 227–236) of Llosa; Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913: 46–78) of Llosa.

†Remo of the Blanco River – Leuque (1927: 538–540) list of 179 words and phrases

†Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River – Tastevin (ms. c) 144-entry lexicon

partial reproductions: 125 entries in Tastevin ms. b; 128 entries in Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929, 1932)

Marubo (of the Javari Basin) – Boutle (1964) 162-entry lexicon

Fields (1970) 310-entry lexicon; 121-entry lexicon collected by H. Scheltamo

Souza (1979) 332-word list

Silva (1952) word list (have not been able to obtain it)

Kennell (1976, 1978) phonology and grammar

Costa (1992) 287-page phonology and grammar sketch

Costa (2000a) 261-page phonology

Costa (1995, 1998, 2000b, 2002a) grammatical studies

Costa (2002b) phonological study

Costa and Dorigo (2005) grammatical study

Dorigo and Costa (1996) grammatical study

Ruedas (2002) sociolinguistic study

Fleck and Voss (2006) list of 49 animal names

Fleck (2007a) comparative Marubo-Kulina vocabulary

Cesarino (2008, 2011) appendix with 62 words or phrases in Marubo and in their ceremonial language

Dienst and Fleck (2009) 129 animal names

partial reproduction: Jakway (1975) 156-entry lexicon copied from Fields

Katukina – Rivet (1920) 16-word list

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) 317 words

Tastevin ms. h. ca. 1320-entry lexicon, transcription and translation of 1 myth, collected in 1923.

Hall (1976) 59 words compiled by Hall from Katukina readers

Barros (1987) 112-page phonological study

Aguiar (1988) 78-page grammatical study

Aguiar (1994a) 430-page phonology and grammar including 983-entry lexicon

Aguiar (2001) grammatical study

Lanes (2000) 163-word list

Key (2000) 1058-entry lexicon collected by G. R. Kennell, Jr.

Lima (2002) >100 animal names in tables and text

Katukina de Olinda – Aguiar (1993) 30-word list

Katukina de Sete Estrelas – Aguiar (1993) 30-word list

†Kanamari – Chandless (1866: 118) 4-word list

Chandless (1869: 302) 1 word

Anonymous (1965) 76-word list

complete reproduction: Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) of Chandless (1866)

†Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença (“Culino”) – Martius (1867: II: 242–244) 243-word list collected by Spix in 1820

complete reproduction: Fleck (2007a) reproduction and ethnohistory

*Poyanawa – Tastevin ms. e. ca. 1450-entry lexicon collected in 1922

Tastevin ms. h. ca. 1040-entry lexicon

Carvalho (1931: 239–245) 383-entry lexicon

Paula (1992) 133-page phonology and grammar including a 267-entry lexicon

partial reproduction: Figueirêdo (1939: 103) 31 words copied from Carvalho

*Iskonawa – Russell (1960) 602-entry lexicon

Kensinger (1961) 689-entry lexicon

Whiton (1964) 64-word list and an additional 25 words in the text

Loos and Loos (1971) list of 824 words and phrases, text with 35 sentences

*Nukini – Tastevin (ms. i) 15-word list from a man who worked with them 1902–1906

FUNAI (1981) 24-word list

Okidoi (2004) 101-page phonology including a 693-entry lexicon (most entries are phonological variants; the actual number of lexemes is ca. 210)

Aguiar (2004) 139-entry lexicon

*Nawa – Chandless (1869: 305) 1 word

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) list of 39 verbs

Montagner (2007) 38-word list

Note: it cannot be known for certain that these three linguistic sources are for the same language.

†Remo of the Jaquirana River – Carvalho (1929/1931: 254–256) 109-word list

partial reproduction: Figueirêdo (1939: 204–205) 20 words copied from Carvalho

Shipibo-Konibo

Shipibo – Armentia (1898: 43–91) ca. 3800-entry vocabulary

Carrasco (1901: 205–211) 167-word list collected in 1846

Steinen (1904: 32–128) 2513- and 3108-entry vocabularies with 9 pages of combined grammatical notes prepared by two unknown Franciscans in 1877 and 1810–1812

Alemany (1906) 2046-word vocabulary and 14/9 pages of grammatical notes

Tessmann (1929) 369-word vocabulary and 24 pages of grammatical notes

complete reproduction: Izaguirre (1927) of Alemany

Konibo – Marcoy (1862–1867: X: 182/1969: I: 674–675) 119-word list

Carrasco (1901: 205–211) 167-word list collected in 1846

Marqués (1903, 1931: 117–195) ca. 3300-entry vocabulary and 15 pages of grammatical notes prepared in 1800

Reich and Stegelmann (1903) 29-word list

Farabee (1922: 88–95) 464-entry lexicon and conjugation paradigms for 4 verbs

Anonymous (1927) 2400-entry vocabulary

Tessmann (1929) 395-word vocabulary and 24 pages of grammatical notes

Shipibo-Konibo (post-1940) – Lauriault (1948) phonology

Faust (1973) pedagogical grammar

Guillen (1974) lexical study (have not been able to obtain it)

Weisshar and Illius (1990) 25-page grammar

Loriot et al. (1993) ca. 5200-entry dictionary with 55-page grammar sketch

García (1994) 77-page phonology

García (1993) 10 unparsed texts

Valenzuela (1997) 134-page grammatical study

Valenzuela (1998, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2005b, 2010a, 2010b) grammatical studies

Valenzuela et al. (2001) phonological study

Valenzuela (2003b) 1029-page phonology and grammar

Elias (2000) 158-page phonological study

Elias (2011) 329-page phonetic and phonological study

Elias (in prep.) phonological study

partial reproduction: Key (2000) 917-entry lexicon compiled using Loriot et al.

Kapanawa of the Tapiche River – Tessmann (1930: 157) 32-word list

Anonymous (1955) 66-word list (have not been able to obtain it; cited by Aguiar 1994c: 99).

Loos (1963) discourse study

Loos (1967/1969) 233-page transformation grammar and phonological study

Loos (1976a, 1999a) grammatical studies

Loos (1986) phonological study

Loos and Loos (1998/2003) ca. 4400-entry dictionary with 43-page grammar sketch

Hall and Loos (1978 [1973]) grammatical study

Hall and Loos (1980 [1976]) 21 unparsed texts in 2 vols., 175 and 261 pp.

Hall (1981/1986) discourse study

Jakway (1975) 344-entry lexicon collected by E. Loos in 1971

Elias (2006) 274-page phonological study

Elias (2009) phonological study

*Pano

†Pano – Castelnau (1850–1859: V: 292–3, 301–302) 94-word lexicon and brief grammatical notes

Cardús (1886: 324) 42-word lexicon, some appear to be copied from Castelnau, but others are original, perhaps from some unpublished manuscript

Navarro (1903) ca. 3000-entry vocabulary with 23 pages of grammatical notes

Tessmann (1930: 120–124) 261-word list plus 208 terms in the ethnographic text

Marqués (1901/1931: 198–228) ca. 1600-entry vocabulary prepared in 1800

Shell (1965/1975b) original lexical data included in cognate sets

Parker (1992) 626-word lexicon, 230 sentences, and 2 short texts

Parker (1994) phonology

Gomes (2009) 151-page morphology based on Navarro (1903) and Parker (1992)

complete reproductions: Martius (1867: II: 298–299) of Castelnau; Izaguirre (1927) of Navarro; d’Ans (1970) of Navarro

partial reproduction: Pauly (1928: 138) 10 words copied from Cardús (and 2 from an unknown source)

*Shetebo – Tessmann (1928: 230/1929: 241–242, 246) 35-word list

Tessmann (1930: 104–105) 7 terms in the Chama ethnographic text

Loriot et al. (1993) 4 Shetebo forms included in Shipibo dictionary

Marcoy (1862–1867: XII: 206) 4 interjections

(see fn. 16 for alleged Shetebo lexica)

*Pisquino – Loriot et al. (1993) 14 Pisquino forms included in Shipibo dictionary

†Sensi – Smyth and Lowe (1836: 229) list of 12 star/constellation names

Tessmann (1930: 188–189) 35-word list

complete reproduction: Fleck (to be published) of Smyth and Lowe and Tessmann

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River

Brazilian Kashinawa – Abreu (1914/1941) 1779-entry vocabulary, 22-page phonology/grammar, text collection of 5926 sentences

Tastevin ms. a. ca. 2000 entry lexicon, collected in 1924

Tastevin ms. g. 510-entry lexicon, collected in 1924

Carvalho and Sobrinho (1929) 540-entry vocabulary

Camargo (1987) 88-page phonology and grammar sketch

Camargo (1991) 448-page phonology and grammar

Camargo (1995) ca. 2800-entry lexicon

Camargo (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, in prep.) grammatical studies

Erikson and Camargo (1996) text analysis

Lanes (2000) 164-word list collected by E. Camargo

partial reproduction: Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) published 248 words from Abreu

Peruvian Kashinawa – Kensinger (1963) phonology

Cromack (1967/1976) 158-page narrative text study

Cromack (1968) 381-page discourse study, Swadesh 100 word list

d’Ans and Cortez (1973) study of color terms

Montag (1978 [1973]) grammatical study

Montag (1979/2004) pedagogical grammar

Montag (1981) ca. 6000-entry dictionary with 59-page grammar sketch

Montag (1992) 171-page folklore text study

†Kapanawa of the Juruá River – Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929, 1932) 397 words

†Paranawa – Tastevin (ms. g) ca. 350-entry list collected in 1924

reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 34) 34 word-list from Tastevin

Yaminawa

Chitonawa – Lord (1996) 206-entry lexicon

Mastanawa – Tastevin (ms. g) ca. 440-entry mixed Mastanawa-Chaninawa list

Manus (1959) 270-word list

Loos (1976b) list of 966 words and phrases and 15 pages of texts

partial reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 35) 30-word list from Tastevin

Chaninawa – Tastevin (ms. g) ca. 440-entry mixed Mastanawa-Chaninawa list

Manus (1959) 152-word list

partial reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 35) 30-word list from Tastevin

†Nehanawa – Tastevin (ms. f) ca. 430-entry list collected in 1924

partial reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 34) 22-word list from Tastevin

Parkenawa – Faust (1984) 171-entry lexicon

Lord (1996) 205-entry lexicon

Instituto Lingüístico de Verano (1997a, 1997b, 2001, 2005) readers

Shanenawa – Aguiar (1993) 22-word list

Cândido (1998) 139-page phonology including a 20-entry lexicon

Cândido (2004) 264-page grammar including a 361-entry lexicon

Cândido (2004b) phonological study

Cândido (2004c, 2005a, 2005b) grammatical studies

Cândido and Amarante Ribeiro (2008) grammatical study

Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido (2005b) grammatical study

Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido (2009) color terms

Lanes (2000) 162-word list

Sharanawa – Manus (1959) combined Sharanawa-Marinawa 391-word list

Frantz (1973) grammatical study

Scott and Frantz (1978 [1973], 1974) grammatical studies

Loos (1975a) phonological study

Jakway (1975) 365-entry lexicon collected by E. Scott in 1971

Scott (2004) ca. 3000-entry vocabulary

Marinawa – Manus (1959) combined Sharanawa-Marinawa 392-word list

Pike and Scott (1962) phonological study

Shawannawa – Cunha (1993) 174-page phonology and grammar

Lanes (2000) 158-word list

Souza (2012) 154-page grammar

Peuvian Yaminawa – d’Ans (1972a) ca. 700-entry lexicon

Jakway (1975) 80-entry lexicon collected by E. Scott in 1969

Key (2000) 1129-entry lexicon collected by I. Shive

Faust and Loos (2002) 174-page grammar sketch

Eakin (1991) pedagogical grammar

Loos (2006) phonological study

Brazilian Yaminawa – Reich and Stegelmann (1903) 71-entry list

Tastevin ms. h. ca. 600-entry lexicon

Boutle (n.d.) 39-word list

Landin (1972) 278-entry lexicon

Lanes (2000) 163-word list

Couto (2010) 221-page phonology

Couto (in prep.) phonological study

complete reproduction: Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) of Reich and Stegelmann

Yaminawa-arara – Souza (2004) 85-page phonology including 125-word list

Yawanawa – Tastevin (ms. f) ca. 250-entry list collected in 1924 (labeled “Yawanawa-Iskunawa”)

Garcia (2002) 166-page phonological and morphological study

Paula (2004) 302-page phonology and grammar, including a 528-entry lexicon

Lanes (2000) 163-word list

Camargo Tavares (in prep.) grammatical study

reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 35) 26-word list from Tastevin

Amawaka

Amawaka – Reich and Stegelmann (1903) 83-entry list (called it “Kashinawa”)

Farabee (1922: 110–114) list of 305 words and 30 phrases

Tessmann (1930: 172) 39-word list plus 135 terms in the ethnographic text

Osborn (1948) phonology

d’Ans (1972b) 766 botanical and zoological terms

d’Ans and Van den Eynde (1972) 1502-entry lexicon

Hyde (1980) ca. 2500-entry vocabulary

Hyde (1978 [1973]) grammatical study

Russell (1958) phonology

Russell and Russell (1959) phonology

Russell (1965/1975) 112/108-page transformational grammar

Sparing (1998) grammatical study

Sparing (2007) 82-page grammar sketch

complete reproduction: Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) of Reich and Stegelmann’s “Kaschinaua” lexicon

partial reproduction: Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) published 78 words from Farabee

†Nishinawa – Tastevin (ms. f) ca. 200-entry list collected in 1924

reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 34) 21-word list from Tastevin

†Yumanawa – Tastevin (ms. g) ca. 230-entry list collected in 1924

reproduction: Loukotka (1963: 34) 26-word list from Tastevin

†Remo of the Môa River – Loos (1973–1974) 2 lists of 70 and 81 words and phrases

†Tuchiunawa – Carvalho (1931: 249–252) 127-word list collected in 1923

Linguistic studies on the Panoan family in general (Unlike the above entries in this appendix, the following list does not exclude studies based solely on second-hand data.)

linguisitc synopses and internal classifications – Grasserie 1890 classification

Brinton (1891) Panoan language inventory

Steinen (1904) Panoan language inventory

Rivet (1924) classification

Schmidt (1926) classification

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) classification

Loukotka (1935, 1939, 1968) classifications

Mason (1950) classification

Rivet and Loukotka (1952) classification

McQuown (1955) classification (following Mason)

Tovar (1961), Tovar and Tovar (1984) classifications

Shell (1965/1975) classification based on reconstruction

Voegelin and Voegelin (1977) classification

Ruhlen (1987) classification

Migliazza and Campbell (1988) synopsis (following Shell and d’Ans)

Bright (1992) classification (following Ruhlen), language inventory

Kaufman (1994) classification

Campbell (1997) classification (same as Kaufman 1994)

Loos (1999) synopsis, classification

Valenzuela (2003b) synopsis, classification

Solís (2003: 168–174) synopsis

Adelaar (2004: 418–22) synopsis

Amarante Ribeiro (2006) classification

Fleck (2006d) synopsis

Fleck (2007a) classification

comparisons and reconstructions – Grasserie (1890) phonological comparison

Rivet (1910) lexical comparison

Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1913) lexical, phonological and grammatical comparisons

Hestermann (1919) orthographic comparison

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) lexical comparison

Shell (1965/1975) reconstruction of 7 Peruvian Panoan languages

Loos (1975b, 1976a, 1978c, d, e; 1999b; 2005) grammatical comparisons

Ibarra (1982) lexical comparison of languages of the Bolivian subgroup

Aguiar (1994b) grammatical comparison

Soares (2000) phonological comparison

Valenzuela (2000, 2003a, in prep.) grammatical comparisons

Lanes (2000) phonological and lexical comparison of Brazilian Panoan languages

Lanes (2002) acoustic analysis of Panoan vowels

Lanes (2005) phonological comparison (have not been able to obtain it)

González (2003: chap. 5, 2005, in prep.) phonological comparisons

Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido (2005c, 2008) lexical/grammatical comparisons

Zariquiey (2006) reconstruction of Panoan pronouns

Soares (2006) grammatical comparison

Soares et al. (1993) phonological comparison

Ferreira (2008) grammatical comparison

Torres-Bustamante (2011) grammatical comparison

Barbosa (2012) grammatical comparison

Guillaume (in prep.) grammatical comparison

Valenzuela (in prep.) grammatical comparison

Zariquiey (in prep. b) grammatical comparison

bibliographies – Steinen (1904: 21–26) list of sources of linguistic data available for each Panoan language

Abreu (1941 [1914]) discussion of thitherto available Panoan linguistic sources

Hestermann (1910, 1913) bibliographical notes on Panoan linguistics

Rivet and Tastevin (1927–1929/1932) bibliography of (almost) all sources of Panoan linguistic data available at the time

Kensinger (1983/1985) annotated Panoan ethnographic and linguistic bibliography

Chavarría (1983) annotated Panoan and Takanan bibliography

Frank (1987) annotated Kashibo bibliography

Aguiar (1994c) annotated bibliography for all Panoan topics

Erikson et al. (1994) nearly exhaustive annotated bibliography for all Panoan topics (with internet updates)

Fabre (1998) bibliography for all Panoan and Takanan topics (with internet updates)

Erikson (2000) annotated bibliography for all topics on the Mayoruna branch

APPENDIX 3

Geographic Locations of Panoan Languages and Dialects

Part 1 gives location information for all the Panoan languages/dialects for which linguistic information is available and part 2 for all ethnonyms purported to designate Panoan speakers. The order of entries in part 1 follows that of table 1, and those in part 2 follow that of table 2. For extant languages/varieties, current locations are given, followed by historical locations, if different from current locations. For extinct languages and dialects the earliest location I have found is given. For languages spoken by captives of the Matses, the location where they were captured is given. Abbreviations: af(s) = affluent(s) of (i.e., tributary of); l = lower (course of river x); lb = left bank (i.e., while facing downstream); m = middle (course of river x); R(s) = river(s); rb = right bank; u = upper (course of river x).

PART 1

Matses – Javari (Yavarí) and Jaquirana (Yaquerana or Upper Javari) Rs and their afs, Peru and Brazil.

Peruvian Matses – lb of u Javari, lb of m Jaquirana R, Gálvez R (lb af Javari R), Chobayacu

Creek (lb af Jaquirana R), Peru.

Brazilian Matses – rb of Javari R, both banks of Jaquirana R, Curuçá R (rb af Javari R), Lobo

Creek (rb af Jaquirana R), Brazil and one village in Peru.

†Paud Usunkid – rb of l Curuçá R (rb af Javari R), Brazil.

*Kulina of the Curuçá River – m Curuçá R (rb af Javari R), Brazil.

*Kapishtana – rb of m Curuçá R.

*Mawi – rb of m Curuçá R.

*Chema – rb of Pardo R. (lb af Curuçá R).

†Demushbo – in or near Curuçá R basin (rb af Javari R), Brazil.

Korubo – l Ituí R (lb af l Itacoai R), Brazil.

Korubo – l Ituí R.

*Chankueshbo – lb of m Ituí R.

Matis – m Ituí R (lb af l Itacoai R), Brazil.

†Mayoruna of the Jandiatuba River – Jandiatuba R (rb af Amazon R), Brazil, to where they

purportedly migrated from Ucayali R (Peru) via the Javari basin (Alviano, 1957: 43).

†Mayoruna of the Amazon River – Amazon and l Javari Rs, Peru and Brazil.

†Settled Mayoruna – town of Cochiquinas (rb of Amazon R), Peru (Castelnau, 1850–1859: V: 40, 299).

†Wild Mayoruna – mouth of Itacoaí R (lb af Javari R, near its confluence with Amazon R), Brazil (Castelnau, 1850–1859: V: 53, 300).

†Mayoruna of Tabatinga – near town of Tabatinga (lb of Amazon R), Brazil (Martius, 1867: II: 236, Spix and Martius, 1823–1831: III: 1188).

Kasharari – Abunã R (lb af u Madeira R), Marmelo R (lb af Abunã R), and Curuquetê R (rb af Ituxi R, rb af Purus R), Brazil.

Kashibo – Pachitea and Aguaitía Rs (lb afs Ucayali R) and their afs, and Inuya R (rb af l Urubamba R), Peru.

Kashibo – l Aguaytía R (lb af m Ucayali R), Peru (Wistrand, 1969: 15).

Kakataibo – San Alejandro R (rb af Aguaytía R), Peru (Wistrand, 1969: 15).

Rubo – u Aguaitía R, Peru (Wistrand, 1969: 15).

Isunubo – Sungaroyacu R, Peru (Wistrand, 1969: 15).

Nokaman – headwaters of Inuya R (Tessmann, 1930: 172), near Pachitea River (Zariquiey, 2011a, 2011b).

Chakobo/Pakawara – Beni and Mamoré Rs (which join to form the Madeira R) and their afs, Bolivia.

Chakobo – Ivon R (rb af Beni R) and Yata R (lb af Mamoré R), Bolivia.

Pakawara – confluence of Beni and Mamoré R (d’Orbigny, 1839); Beni R (Heath, 1883); Beni R, Mamoré R, l Madre de Dios R, u Madeira R and Abunã R (lb af u Madeira R) (Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913: 21), Bolivia.

†Karipuna – u Madeira R (Martius, 1867: I: 416; Keller, 1874a; Pauly, 1926: 142, Castillo, 1929: 136; Barbosa, 1948: 163), Bolivia and Brazil.

†Chiriba – Reyes de los Moxos, Bolivia (Palau and Saiz, 1989 [Lázaro, 1794]: 170).

†Atsawaka/Yamiaka – area of Inambari and Tambopata Rs (both rb afs Madre de Dios R), Peru.

†Atsawaka – Carama/Atsahuaca R (lb af Tambopata R) and u Chaspa R (rb af Inambari R), Peru (Nordenskiöld, 1906: 519).

†Yamiaka – near mouth of Yaguarmayo R (rb af Inambari R) (Nordenskiöld, 1906: 519), upper Inambari R. (Stiglich, 1905: 428), Peru.

†Arazaire – Marcapata/Arasa R (lb af Inambari R), Peru (Llosa, 1906a ).

†Remo of the Blanco River – Blanco R (rb af Tapiche R), Peru (López, 1913; Salvador, 1972); possibly extended to Brazilian side of Javari R.

†Kashinawa of the Tarauacá River – Tarauacá R (af Envira R, rb af u Juruá R).

Marubo – u Curuçá R (rb af Javari R), u Ituí R (lb af l Itacoaí R, lb af l Javari R), Brazil.

Katukina – u Juruá R area, Brazil.

Katukina de Olinda – Gregório R (af u Juruá R), Brazil (Aguiar, 1993).

Katukina de Sete Estrelas – between Campinas R (rb af u Juruá R) and Vai-Bem R (af Liberdade R, in turn rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Aguiar, 1993).

†Kanamari – south of u Purus R above Rixala R (Chandless, 1866); vicinity of town of Feijó (on Juruá R) (Anonymous, 1965), Brazil.

†Kulina of São Paulo de Olivença – Jandiatuba, Acuruí, and Cumatiá Rs (all rb afs Amazon R in the vicinity of the town of São Paulo de Olivença), Brazil (Fleck, 2007a).

*Poyanawa – u Môa R (lb af Juruá R), Brazil.

*Iskonawa – u Utuquinía R; in 1962 relocated to the l Callaría R (both rb af Ucayali R), Peru (Whiton et al., 1964).

*Nukini – u Môa R (lb af Juruá R), Brazil.

*Nawa – Mu or Liberdade R (Chandless, 1966: 305), u Juruá and Môa Rs (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: map), Môa R (Montagner, 2007).

†Remo of the Jaquirana River – Batã R (rb af Jaquirana R), Brazil (Carvalho, 1931).

Shipibo/Konibo

Shipibo – originally (1600) reported on m Aguaitía R, and later (1700s) also on the m Pisqui R (both lb af m Ucayali R); by 1800s they were along m Ucayali R and l and m afs both banks of m Ucayali, especially the Aguaitía, Pisqui, Cushibatay, Tamaya, and Callería Rs, Peru.

Konibo – Pachitea and u Ucayali Rs above mouth of Pachieta R, Peru.

Shipibo-Konibo (post-1940) – m and u Ucayali R and its tributaries, between the towns of Orelhana and Bolognesi, Peru.

Kapanawa of the Tapiche River – Maquía R (Aristio, 1794), Guanache R (Castelnau, 1850–1859: IV: 377); u Tapiche and Buncuya R (the latter is rb af Guanache R, the other three are rb afs l Ucayali R), Peru.

*Pano

†Pano – Lakes Cashiboya and Cruz Muyuna (both on rb of Ucayali R) and Manoa/Cushibatay R area.

*Shetebo – m Manoa or Cushibatay R (lb af Ucayali R); later also along the m Ucayali R at and near Sarayacu; currently living among Shipibo-Konibos.

*Piskino Pisqui R (lb af Ucayali R); currently living among Shipibo-Konibos.

†Sensi – Chunuya Creek (rb af Ucayali R; Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342), Lake Cruz Muyuna (rb of Ucayali R; Tessmann, 1930: 188), Peru.

Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River

†Kashinawa of the Ibuaçu River – Basins of u Juruá and u Purus Rs, Peru and Brazil.

†Kapanawa of the Juruá River – several rb afs u Juruá R (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 457–458), Brazil.

†Paranawa – Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) (Loukotka, 1963: 33); Teixeira Stream (rb af u Muru R) (Tastevin, 1925: 414), Brazil.

†Nishinawa – Jordão R (lb af u Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Loukotka, 1963: 33).

†Yumanawa – Serrano R (rb af u Juruá R, Tastevin, 1925: 415), u Ibuya R (lb af u Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R); (Tastevin, 1926: 34, 49); Muruzinho R (lb af u Muru R, in turn rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R) (Loukotka, 1963: 33), Brazil.

Yaminawa

Brazilian Yaminawa – u Juruá R and its afs, and Iaco R (= Yaco R, rb af m Purus R), Brazil.

Peruvian Yaminawa – mostly on u Purus R and its afs and a few in headwaters of Juruá R, Peru and Brazil.

Chaninawa – u Xinani R (lb af u Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R; Tastevin, 1926: 34, 49); Valparaiso, Libertade and Humaitá Rs (Loukotka, 1963: 33); among Sharanawas (Ribeiro and Wise, 1978: 176), Brazil.

Chitonawa – headwaters of Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Peru.

Marinawa – headwaters of Furnaya R (af u Envira R, rb af u Juruá R) and divide between Envira and Purus Rs (Linhares, 1913 apud Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 466; Tastevin, 1925: 415; Carvalho, 1931: 249), Brazil; u Purus R at mouth of Curanja R (Pike and Scott, 1962), Peru.

Mastanawa – Tarauacá R (Tastevin, 1926: 50); u Jordão R (lb af u Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) (“Nastanawa”; Loukotka, 1968: 170), Brazil; u Purus near international border (Loos, 1976; Ribeiro and Wise, 1978: 176), Peru.

†Nehanawa – Matapá/Bernardo Creek (af Jordão, in turn lb af u Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) and Laurita or Papavos Creek, near headwaters of Tarahuacá R, originally from lb af Envira R (Tastevin, 1925: 415, 1926: 34, 49); l Jordão R (Loukotka, 1963: 33), Brazil.

Shanenawa – Riozinho R (af u Envira, rb af u Juruá R; Reich and Stegelmann, 1903: 133), Brazil.

Sharanawa – Purus R, Peru and Brazil, also in Bolivia (Scott, 2004: 9).

Shawannawa – u Juruá and Humayta Rs (af u Juruá R) (Linhares, 1913; Sombra, 1913, apud Rivet and Tastevin 1921), u Gregório R (Tastevin, 1925: 415), Brazil.

Yaminawa-arara – lb of Bagé R (rb af Tejo R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) (Souza, 2004: 4), Brazil.

Yawanawa – Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) area (Tastevin, 1925: 415), Valparaiso, Libertade and Humaitá Rs (Loukotka, 1963: 33), Brazil.

Parkenawa – u Manu R (in Manu national park) and headwaters of nearby rivers, Peru (purported 20th-century migration from Purus-Juruá headwaters).

Amawaka – currently, Sepahua, Purús, Curiuja, Curanja, Yuruá, u Ucayali and Río de las Piedras Rs, Peru and supposedly uncontacted Amawakas on the u Purus in Brazil (Sparing, 2007); Liberdade R (rb af Juruá R), Brazil (Rodrigues, 1986); historically at similar locations in Peru and af u Purus

and Juruá Rs, Brazil (Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 450).

†Nishinawa – Jordão R (lb af u Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Loukotka, 1963: 33).

†Yumanawa – Serrano R (rb af u Juruá R; Tastevin, 1925: 415), u Ibuya R (lb af u Envira R, rb af u Juruá R; Tastevin, 1926: 34, 49); Muruzinho R lb af u Muru R, rb af Tarauacá R, lb af Envira R, rb af u Juruá R (Loukotka, 1963: 33), Brazil.

†Remo of the Môa River – u Môa R (lb af Juruá R), Brazil (Loos and Loos, 1973–1974).

†Tuchiunawa – mouth of Progresso Creek (af u Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Carvalho, 1931: 249).

PART 2

Chirabo – between Tahuayo R (rb af Amazon R) and Yavarí Mirim R (lb af Javari R), Peru (Vacas, 1906 apud Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 453), between Tapiche (rb af u Ucayali R) and Yavari or upland areas of Cochiquinas R (rb af Amazon R) and Ylinué R, Peru.

Korugo – Tabayay R (rb af Amazon R), Peru (Zárate, 1904 [1739]: 393).

Marubo of Maucallacta – town of Maucallacta (rb Amazon R), Cochiquinas R (rb af Amazon R), and area south thereof, Peru (Ijurra, 1905 [1849–1850]: 365; Castelnau, 1850–1859: V: 40).

Maya – Quixito R (lb af Itacoaí R, rb af Javari R), Brazil (Anonymous, 1978).

Mayo – lb of u Itacoaí R (rb af Javari R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1924b: 424).

Pisabo – Gálvez R (lb af Javari R), Peru. (Grubb, 1927: 83).

Barinawa – between Pachitea and Aguaitía Rs, Peru (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425).

Buninawa – from banks of Pachitea R (lb af u Ucayali R) fled to the valleys of the Aguaitía and Pisqui Rs (lb af m Ucayali R), Peru (Ordinaire, 1892: 198).

Choromawa – between Pachitea and Aguaitía Rs, Peru (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425).

Komabo – east of u Ucayali R (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 112), Taraba/Apurimac R, above the Ene R (Amich, 1988 [1854]: 119), Peru.

Inuaka – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546).

Isunubo – Sungaroyacu R (af Pachitea R, lb af u Ucayali R), Peru (Wistrand, 1969: 15).

Kuinua – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546).

Puchanawa – from banks of Pachitea R (lb af u Ucayali R) fled to the valleys of the Aguaitía and Pisqui R (lb af m Ucayali R), Peru (Ordinaire, 1892: 198).

Ruanawa – west of u Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Shirino – Kashibo territory (see Kashibo entry in this appendix for locations), Peru (Tessmann, 1930: 624).

Shuchanawa – between Pachitea and Aguaitía Rs, Peru (Távara, 1905 [1868]: 425).

Zepa – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546).

Kapuibo – Biata R (lb af Beni R, af u Madeira R), Bolivia (Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913: 21).

Sinabo of the Mamoré River – u Mamoré R (af u Madeira R), Bolivia (Cardús, 1886: 291; Créqui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913: 21).

Chumana – Reyes de los Moxos, Bolivia (Hervás, 1800: 250).

Tiatinawa – Beni R, Bolivia (Stiglich, 1908: 427).

Yaguarmayo – Yaguarmayo R (rb af Inambari R) (Stiglich, 1908: 427), Peru.

Shipinawa – u Liberdade and u Valparaiso R (rb afs of Juruá R), Brazil (Linhares, 1913, apud Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 472), between the u Liberdade and u Juruá Rs (Tastevin, 1919: 146), Brazil.

Kiraba – north of u Amazon R (Coleti, 1975 [1771]: II: 321), Peru.

Awabakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area; 1 went to live with the Iskonawas (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Hawanbakebo – Capua and Amua Creeks (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Inubakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Isubenebakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Naibakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Runubakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Tsinubakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area; 5 went to live among the Iskonawas (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Waribakebo – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Yawabakebo – Yumaiya R (Whiton et al., 1964: 102), Peru-Brazil border.

Yaya – lb of Juruá R, Brazil (Hassel, 1905: 52).

Punhamunawa – Hubuya R (rb af u Tapiche R), Peru (Oppenheim, 1936: 152–153).

Awanawa – Ucayali R (Figueroa, 1904 [1661]: 164), east of m Ucayali R (Dueñas, 1792: 175), Peru.

Barbudo – inland from [left bank of] l Huallaga R (rb af Marañón R, Peru (Figueroa, 1904: 115).

Chai – Ucayali R., upriver from the Kokamas (Rogríguez, 1684: 163).

Kusabatai – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546), possibly along the Cushibatay R (lb af Ucayali R).

Makonawa – area of Huallaga R (rb Marañón R), Peru (Figueroa, 1904: 122).

Manamanbobo – originally near the Pachitea R (lb af u Ucayali R) and later moved south, Peru (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 291).

Mawishi – headwaters of the Juruá R, Brazil? (Bates, 1863: 379; possibly refers to Arawakan Kuniba).

Pachikta – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546).

Pahenbakebo – among Kapanawas of the Tapiche River, Peru (Loos and Loos, 1998: 9).

Sinabo of the Ucayali basin – inland east of Ucayali R, (Dueñas, 1792: 175), Pisqui R. (Stiglich, 1908: 426), Peru.

Tawakua – Maynas missions, Peru (Velasco, 1988 [1788–1789]: 546).

Turkaguane – north of Konibos along the Ucayali R (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 290), Peru-Brazil border.

Uniwepa – Ucayali R, Peru (Magnin in Maroni, 1988: 474).

Zaminawa – headwaters of the Juruá R, Brazil? (Bates, 1863: 379, possibly refers to Arawakan Kuniba).

Chakaya – between the Ucayali and Tapiche Rs (Marcoy, 1869: II: 234), Peru-Brazil border.

Iltipo – Peru (Hervás, 1800: 263).

Manannawa – inland from Ucayali R, later reduced at mission on Taguacoa Creek (between Huallaga and Ucayali Rs), Peru (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 295).

Yawabo – 20 leagues east of Ucayali R (Castelnau, 1850–1859: IV: 377), Peru, Acuria/Aturia stream (right bank af of the u Juruá R) (Linhares, 1913, apud Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 475), Brazil.

Inubo – east of Ucayali R (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342), Peru.

Runubo – east of Ucayali R (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342), Peru.

Kasca – east of Ucayali R (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 342) Peru.

Puinawa – Deseada Island (separated from lb Ucayali R by the Puinahua Canal), Peru (Carvallo, 1906 [1818]: 348).

Southern Remo – Tamaya, Callaría, and Abujao Rs (rb afs m Ucayali R), Peru (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 296; Girbal [1794] in Izaguirre, 1922–1929: XIII: 242, 304–309).

Hisisbakebo – Callaría R (rb af Ucayali R), Peru (Amich, 1988 [Pallarés and Calvo, 1870]: 418).

Sakaya – Tamaya R (rb af Ucayali R), Peru (Amich, 1988 [1854]: 334).

Tushinawa – Humayta R (af of u Muru R, in turn rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) and Furnaya (af of u Envira R) (Linhares, 1913, apud Rivet and Tastevin, 1921: 473),

between Muru and Enviira Rs (Tastevin, 1926: 50); Jutaí R (rb af m Amazon R; Castelnau, 1851: V: 85), Brazil.

Aninawa – u Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Linhares, 1913).

Deenawa – originally from the Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), a few among the Yaminawas of the Juruá R and the Shaonawas (Townsley, 1994: 249), Peru.

Mashonawa – Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 49).

Morunawa – u Juruá R, Peru (Townsley, 1994: 250), headwaters of Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), possibly presently in Brazil (Ribeiro and Wise, 1978: 143).

Shaninawa – originally from the Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), some among Sharanawas, Peru and Brazil (Townsley, 1994: 250).

Shishinawa – a few among the Yaminawas of the Purus R and the Parkenawas, Peru and Brazil? (Townsley, 1994: 250).

Arawa – Chivé Creek in Madre de Dios, Peru (Stiglich, 1908: 402).

Biubakeu – Imiria R (af Tamaya R, rb af m Ucayali R), Peru (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 296).

Espino – Inland west of u Curumahá R (lb af u Purus R), Brazil (Chandless, 1866: 106).

Inubakeu – Imiria R (af Tamaya R, rb af m Ucayali U), Peru (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 296).

Yuminawa – rb afs of the u Juruá R (Villanueva, 1902: 426–427), Peru.

Yura – Pique-Yacu, Torolluc and neighboring afs u Juruá R (Villanueva, 1902: 426), Peru.

Awanateo – right bank of Javari R, Brazil (Fritz, 1922 [1707]: map), between headwaters of Tapiche R (rb af l Ucayali R) and Javari R, Peru (Veigl’s map in Chantre, 1901).

Binabo – east of m/l Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175; Girbal, 1791: 70/1927: 161).

Binannawa – Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 50).

Chunti – east of m/l Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Diabo – east of m/l Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175; Girbal, 1791: 70/1927: 161).

Isunawa – east of m/l Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175, Girbal, 1791: 70/1927: 161).

Kamarinigua – Camarinigua or Cumaria R (rb af u Ucayali R), Peru (Sobreviela, 1791b),

Kontanawa – u Tarauacá R (lb af Envira R, rb af u Juruá R) (Tastevin, 1919: 146), between u Envira R and Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R) (Tastevin, 1925: 415; 1926: 34, 49), Brazil.

Kurunawa – Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 50); headwaters of Curanja and Curanjinha R (lb af u Purus R), Peru, and between the headwaters of the Envira and Purus R, Brazil (Carvalho, 1931: 248).

Kustanawa – u Purus R, above Curanja R (lb af u Purus R), Brazil (Schultz and Chiara, 1955: 199).

Mochobo – west of u Ucayali R (Sobreviela, 1791b), near Unini, Inua and other af of u Ucayali u river from the Konibos (Richter in Maroni, 1988: 286), Mazarobeni R (af Ene R) (Amich, 1988 [1854]: 120), Peru.

Nianawa – east of m Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175, 181).

Ormiga – east of m Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Pakanawa – headwaters of Envira R (rb af u Juruá R), Brazil (Reich and Stegelmann, 1903: 137).

Pitsobo – rb of Ucayali R (Castelnau, 1850–1859: IV: 387); on small af of Ucayali between the Coingua/Coenhua and Camariniguaa/Cumaría Rs (rb afs u Ucayali R) (Sobreviela, 1791b), Peru.

Soboibo – on small af of Ucayali between the Coingua/Coenhua and Camarinawa/Cumaría Rs (rb afs u Ucayali R), Peru (Sobreviela, 1791b)

Trompetero – east of m Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Zurina – south of Amazon R below Cuchiguara R (Markham, 1859: 107 identified this as the Purus R), Peru (Acuña, 1641: 30).

Bamunawa – u Juruá area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 51).

Buinawa – u Juruá area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 51).

Bitinawa – Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R, lb af Envira R, rb af u Juruá R) area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1925: 415).

Chipanawa – Ucayali R, Peru (Figueroa, 1904 [1661]: 164).

Eskinawa – u Juruá area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 51).

Hsunawa – Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1925: 414).

Isaknawa – east of m Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Kununawa – between Muru (rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) and Envira R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1925: 415, 1926: 50).

Kayubo – Yacaré and Yacaré-Mirim, Brazil (Stiglich, 1908: 406).

Komanawa – Province of Panataguas (i.e., western Pampas de Sacrametno), Peru (Córdova, 1957: 221, 222; Izaguirre, I: 123–126).

Michanawa – u Utuquinía R-u Môa R area (Whiton et al., 1964: 100), Peru-Brazil border.

Panatawa – captives of Panos, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 181).

Pimisnawa – area of u Utuquinía and Môa Rs (Whiton et al., 1964: 100), Peru-Brazil border.

Rununawa – u Juruá area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1926: 51).

Suyabo – east of m Ucayali R, Peru (Dueñas, 1792: 175).

Takanawa – Muru R (rb af Tarauacá R, in turn lb af Envira R, in turn rb af u Juruá R) area, Brazil (Tastevin, 1925: 415).

Tiuchunawa – headwaters of Jurupari or Yuraya R (rb af l Taraucá R), Brazil (Tastevin, 1925: 415).

Tsawesbo – probably near current Matis territory, Brazil (Erikson, 1999: 113).

Uniabo – Amazonian Peru (Taboada, 1859 [1796]: 132).

Unibo – between Tapiche (rb af u Ucayali R) and Yavari Rs or upland areas of Cochiquinas R (rb af Amazon R) and Ylinué R, Peru.

[1]In analogy to biological species nomenclature, precedent would seem a more straightforward principle for selecting official ethnonyms, but in practice it is often not possible. Unlike in biology (where published coined names are accompanied by precise descriptions and type specimens), we often cannot be sure of the precise referent of the first usages of some of these older ethnonyms. For example, the earliest use of Chama (translated as “friend” by Portillo, 1905 [1900]: 506) that I have found is by Fritz (1922: 130) for an ethnic group on the Ucayali River in 1721, but one cannot be completely certain that the reference was to Shipibos, particularly considering that, while in some instances Chama has been used to refer specifically to Shipibos (e.g., Woodroffe, 1914) or Konibos (Tizón, 1911: 5), more frequently its use is more generic, referring collectively to Shipibos, Konibos, and typically also the Shetebos (e.g., Stiglich, 1908: 414; Tessmann, 1928, 1929). (In the present paper I use the term Chama only in reference to the subgroup in my classification; see Kästner, 1980 for more discussion on the term Chama). Likewise, while some early sources equate the Shipibos with the Callisecas (e.g., Rojas [1686] and Vital [1791] in Biedma, 1989: 197, 263; Sobreviela, 1791: 99; Amich, 1854: 29; Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 501; Alemany, 1906; Steward and Métraux, 1948: 561), others claim Calliseca is a synonym for Kashibo (e.g., Smyth and Lowe, 1936: 232; Herndon, 1854: 205, Marcoy, 1862–1867: XI: 222; Markham, 1910: 87; Tessmann, 1930:127; Espinoza, 1955: 583) or Konibo (Rodríguez, 2004–2005 [1780]: I: 128).

[2]Variants of Shetebo and Shipibo (pronounced [şɨtɨβo] and [ʃipiβo] in the respective languages) missing the b (or v) were very likely of Kokama origin (see below on the Jesuits’ first contact with Shipibos/Chipeos and Shetebos/Cheteos, who were captives of the Kokamas), considering that the Kokama language lacks both a /b/ phoneme and the [β] sound, the most similar sound in the language being [p]. Note also that Kokama lacks fricatives (i.e., they would likely mispronounce the initial consonants of Shipibo and Shetebo, using instead an affricate ch [tʃ]), but the absence of sh ([ʃ] or [ş]) in Spanish surely also contributed the large number variant spellings. With respect to variation in vowels I point out that Kokama and all the Nawa languages lack a contrast between i and e (and between o and u; cf. Conibo vs. Cunibo) and Spanish lacks a high central vowel ([ɨ], i.e., the first two vowels in Shetebo). See Cabral (1995: 58ff.) for Kokama phonololgy.

[3]Lanes actually places Matses in a separate stock. This was evidently due to the inaccurate Matses data he used (from Dorigo) and a result of lexical replacement due to word taboo (see below on word taboos), but also a reflection of the high level diversion between the Mayoruna and Mainline branches.

[4]Mutual intelligibility is more commonly offered as the principal criterion for defining dialects, but this is a complex, gradable, and highly subjective measure, and therefore quite imprecise (Vogelin and Harris, 1951; Chambers and Trudgill, 1980: 3–4). Nevertheless, in my classification I have also considered observations of communication attempts among speakers of different speech varieties (Matses, Matis, Marubo, and Shipibo-Konibo) and, secondarily, judgments of mutual intelligibility reported to me by speakers of all the Mayoruna groups and of Shipibo-Konibo, Kapanawa, Marubo, and Kashibo, as well as published reports of mutual intelligibility for many of the other Panoan languages.

[5]In addition to these differently named dialects, all listed in table 1, there are at least three linguistically distinct dialects, spoken by geographically separated communities, all three of which are called “Yaminawa” (Townsley, 1994: 249; Déléage, personal commun.).

[6]Wistrand (1991: 245) mentions two unpublished studies on this topic: Loos (1964) and Loriot (1965), which I have not been able to obtain.

[7]My translation from the Spanish original: El idioma hablado por los indios de la misión de Cavinas es una mezcla de Pacaguara y Tacana; debido sin duda á la mezcla de Araonas y Pacaguaras que han compuesto ó formado la población de dicha misión.

[8]The level of lexical similarity between Arazaire and Atsawaka/Yamiaka (70%–75%) and the larger gap between these and the rest of the Nawa subgroups (<57%) suggests that speakers of languages in the Madre de Dios subgroup broke away from the main body of Panoans well before the Spanish conquest of Peru, though I have found no information that would help in estimating the timing of their evident southwest migration to the proximity of Takanan lands.

[9]Hervás (1800: 271) cites a letter by Mr. Abate Velasco of Quito who mentions vocabularies and catechisms of Piro, Kampa, Konibo, and Komabo (it is not known whether the latter was Panoan or Arawakan) prepared by Father Henrich Richter, who began work in the upper Ucayali missions in 1685. But there is no indication in Hervás’ work or elsewhere that the manuscript still existed at the time or that it was ever in Quito. Tessmann (1929, 1930), in reference to Hervas’ citation, which he evidently misread, listed this document in his bibliographies as located in Quito and dated 1685.

[10]My translation from the Spanish original: La lengua es la mesma que la del Chipeo, Cheteo y Capanagua, que están en el rio de Ucayali.

[11]My translation from the Spanish original: La Pana, común á otras y matriz de la Chepea y Mayoruna.

[12]My translation from the German original: Panos nennt man in der Mission überhaupt die Nachkömmlinge verschiedener Sprossen der Chepæos, (Tschepäos) oder wie andere sagen, Chipæos, Zipivos, Xitipos, ja wohl auch Mananaguas, welches letztere bey [bei] ihnen so viel heisset, als Gebürgleute. Alle diese haben die nämliche Sprache, mit etwas verschiedener Mundart.

[13]Veigl’s suggestion that the Chamikuros were related to the Shipibos is the only major error in his treatment of Panoan languages. Consequently, Chamikuro (a nearly extinct Arawakan language of the Huallaga River valley) was considered Panoan (e.g., Brinton, 1891, Steinen, 1904), and even well into the 20th century (e.g., Steward and Métraux, 1948: 555), until Tessmann (1930) published a Chamikuro word list.

[14]The first Panoans to be contacted (in 1657) and reduced by the Franciscans were the Shetebos and Callisecas (the latter probably Shipibos, in this context) along the lower course of the Pachitea River (Amich, 1988: 102).

[15]According to C.A.R., in the introduction to Marqués (1931: 113), the Franciscan missionaries Frezneda and Francisco de San José in 1861 produced a Shetebo grammar and vocabulary that was not published. Hestermann (1913) also draws attention to a supposed Shetebo vocabulary cited in Ludewig (1858: 162) “Vocabulario de la Lengua Passa ó Setaba. MS. On paper, 1795, 8vo. Oblong (Catal. P. 51, No. 582)”; though Ludewig’s index (p. 254) says “Setaba, or Passa (Quichua),” suggesting this was may not have been a Panoan language after all. See appendix 2 for Shetebo sources.

[16]My translation from the Spanish original: Esta lengua es muy distinta de las demás del Ucayali, y aun entre los mismos cunibos hay su distinto modo de hablar, con distintos términos y vocablos, como sucede en la lengua Inga, y se debe considerar como lengua general entre las naciones Séteba, Xípiba, Hámue-huáca, Sénsi, y Cápanáua, y otras, pues tienen muchos términos y vocablos comunes, y con facilidad dichas naciones se entienden unas con otras.

[17]My translation from the Spanish original: La lengua pana es la que hablan los indios panos, que se extienden por el río Ucayali, en el Perú. Aunque en Bolivia no se habla dicha lengua, pongo la muestra de ella por ser como la madre de los dialectos que hablan los chacobos, sinabos, caripunas, pacaguaras y otros.

[18]My translation from the Spanish original: El Pacaguara, [es hablado] por las tribus de Chacobos, Pacaguaras, Caripunas, y aún por las tribus del Ucayali, donde es conocido con el nombre de lengua Pana, que se subdivide en vários dialectos.

[19]My translation from the Spanish original: Por medio de este idioma, se puede entenderse, no solo con los Shipibos, si no también con los Cunibos, Setebos, Amahuacas, Remos y Panos.... Las lenguas que hablan todas estas tribus son congéneres, todas de aglutinamiento, tienen idéntica estructura, igual fonismo, se fundan en un léxicon que presenta un origen común con variantes de letras y sílabas, sus sufijos son similares...

[20]Some references suggest that Mayoruna was related to the other Panoan languages (e.g., Pallarés in Izaguirre 1922–1929: IX: 202), whereas other references (e.g., Leceta in Izaguirre, 1922–1929: II: 40) describe it as completely different. I suspect some references to Mayoruna were to the Arawakan-like Moríke or Mayú (see Fleck, 2007d), or else Franciscan were not familiar enough with Mayoruna languages to recognize shared features between the two (quite divergent) branches of the Panoan family.

[21]Some modern etymologies would suggest that this ethnonym comes from the word pano (“giant armadillo”), which occurs in many Panoan languages (but not in the Pano language). Tessmann (1930: 105–106) suggests that the Chama (Shipibo/Konibo/Shetebo) denomination, and its folk etymology, pano-bo (“giant armadillo-Plural”), might be a recent innovation. Earlier etymologies identify pano as a Pano word meaning “brother” (Maroni, 1988 [1889–1892]: 222; Durand, 1915: 306) or as an interjection commonly used by the Panos when they first arrived at Santiago de la Laguna, a Jesuit mission on the Huallaga River where the Panos were first reduced (Veigl, 1785: 62).

[22]Though not published until early in the next century, a Peruvian naval officer who accompanied Castelnau during part of his trip on the Urubamba and Ucayali Rivers in 1846 collected a 167-item comparative Anti-Piro-Shipibo-Konibo vocabulary (Carrasco, 1901). See Raimondi (1880: 154ff.) for Carrasco’s report.

[23]My translation from the French original: D’après les renseignements que je pus recueillir, tous les peuples suivants parlent une langue dérivée de celle des Panos: les Conibos, les Cachibos, les Sepibos, les Amouacas, les Sensis, les Remos, les Tapanaouas, les Pitsobus et les Jawabus.

[24]My translation from the Spanish original: La lengua Pana considerada relativamente á las necesidades de los indios que la hablan, es bastante rica de voces, porque tiene muchas palabras que no se pueden traducir en otro idioma, sino por una frase. La pronunciacion es algo difícil porque hay muchas palabras muy aspiradas y otras guturales y, en fin, algunas que se pronuncian, aplicando la punta de la lengua á la raiz de los dientes. Tambien su construccion no deja de presentar algunas dificultades, existiendo algunos partículas que se interponen en las palabras que hacen cambiar enteramente el sentido de la oración.

[25]Tastevin’s original field notebooks are said to be at the Congrégation du Saint-Esprit at Chevilly-La-Rue outside Paris.

[26]Preliminary versions of some of these dictionaries were archived as microfiche; Shell’s 1959 (preliminary) Kashibo vocabulary was the only one published before the 1980s.

[27]From the 1950s until the 1980s, many highly inaccurate classifications have been produced mostly by academics who did not specialize in the Panoan family; these include Mason (1950), Rivet and Loukotka (1952), McQuown (1955), Tovar (1961), Loukotka (1968); Voegelin and Voegelin (1977), Tovar and Tovar (1984), and Ruhlen (1987). The accuracy of classifications improved somewhat in the 1990s: Erikson et al. (1994), Kaufmann (1994), Campbell (1997), Loos (1999), and Valenzuela (2003b).

[28]A comprehensive grammar should be based on at least nine months of field research, and a complete phonology on at least three months (and a combined phonology plus grammar on at least a year). There is a tendency for the first few months of field research on a previously undescribed language to include a very large number of errors, which are discovered and corrected during the later part of the field research with growing familiarity of the language. This is especially true for linguists taking on their first field study, and particularly so for certain linguistic topics (e.g., word order, distinguishing ʂ from ʃ, etc.). Thus, for the most part, information from studies based on minimal time in the field cannot be used confidently. In addition to time in the field, data-collection methodology and analysis are essential. Descriptions of suggested field linguistic methodology include Payne (1997), Dixon (2007), and Fleck (2008b). Dictionary definitions should circumscribe the precise semantic range of words, rather than simply providing a close match in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; sample sentences are helpful, but they cannot substitute for semantic circumscription (Corréard, 2006; Fleck, 2007c).

[29]In the Kapishtana dialect of Kulina, each moiety has a different term for “father,” but there are no other instances of moiety-specific everyday vocabulary.

[30]My translation from the Spanish original: Para practicar sus ceremonias religiosas, los infieles del Ucayali se reunen de vez en cuando en la choza de uno de sus jefes, al que los neófitos llaman brujo y los infieles Muraya.... y sentados todos con el más profundo silencio, el Muraya empieza a hablar en una lengua que los circunstantes no entienden, contestándole en el mismo idioma otra voz distinta que se deja oir.

[31]My translation from the French original: J’accourus à l’interjection Yau qu’il proféra dans l’idiome Pano et qui manifestait sa certitude que l’individu en vue était un homme et non pas une femme. Footnote to Yau: Oh! ah! eh! Footnote to end of sentence: Cette interjection varie suivant le sexe de l’individu qui l’emploie et le sexe de l’individu à qui elle est adressée. Exemple: d’homme à homme yau! — d’homme à femme papau! — de femme à homme tutuy! — de femme à femme ñauñau!