The original meaning and the language of origin of the place name
Chan Chan remain unresolved issues among specialists. Among others, scholars such as
Ernst Middendorf, Jorge Zevallos Quiñones, Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Matthias Urban have dealt with the question. The puzzle is made difficult by the erratic nature of its written record in colonial documents and by the linguistic situation of the pre-Hispanic North Peruvian coast. As is known, the
Trujillo region presented the
Mochica,
Quingnam,
Culli and
Quechua languages, among others, of which only Mochica and Quechua are sufficiently documented. Currently, there are two linguists (Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Matthias Urban) who have done an etymological analysis, one more than the other, but both rule out a
Mochica origin.
Etymological analysis by Matthias Urban Regarding the variation in its written record, the toponym appears for the first time in documentation written as 'Cauchan' in the foundation act of the Trujillo town council of 1536. It has also been proposed that the name 'Canda' offered by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo to refer to Trujillo is another written variant of the modern
Chan Chan. The form 'Chanchan' only appears in documentation in a stable manner from the mid-17th century onwards. According to the review of antecedents offered by Urban, there have been three previous etymological proposals for the toponym, two of which can be considered completely fanciful and unmotivated. The etymologies of H. Bauman as 'city of snakes', who unmotivatedly appeals to Mesoamerican languages, and that of J. Kimmich as 'city of the moon', who unmotivatedly appeals to a
Cariban word for 'moon', deserve the latter qualification. The third etymological hypothesis was postulated by German scholar Ernst Middendorf, who offers the
Mochica noun
xllang 'sun' as etym and finds in the toponym a reduplication of that root. Without being convinced by any of these previous proposals, Urban is inclined to the tentative attribution of the toponym to the extinct
Quingnam language already proposed by Zevallos Quiñones in the XXth century. According to these authors, although it is not possible to offer an etym nor a primary meaning for the place name, the quingnam attribution is justified by the fact that this was the language of the
kingdom of Chimor and by the similarity in its apparent structure with other regional toponyms and anthroponyms also apparently constituted by the reduplication of two monosyllabic roots. Urban concludes that
Etymological analysis by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino More recently, linguist
PhD Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino a
Quechumaran etymology for the toponym. According to his hypothesis, both the form 'Chanchan' and the variants 'Cauchan' and 'Canda' may well be explained by a Quechua etym
*kanĉa 'corral, fence, fenced place' and the
Quechumaran toponymic morpheme
*-n (of probable
Aymara etymology). Thus, the current pronunciation would be the product of an "orthographic trap", since originally the would have been used to represent the sound of a
voiceless velar stop [k] at the beginning of the word. Originally, the toponym would have been *
kanĉa-n(i) '
(place) where fences/ corrals abound', whose Quechualization results in phonetic /
kantʃáŋ/ in . According to this proposal, the toponym would be neither Mochica nor Quingnam, nor would it be so ancient in time. However, Urban has rejected Cerrón-Palomino's hypothesis as implausible and ratified his previous conclusions. In response to this,
Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino dismisses Urban's observations and reaffirms his proposed etymology, which he finds sufficiently explicit and rigorous, concluding that it is definitely
Quechumaran. File:Chanchan-reconstruccion-fonetica.jpg|Reconstruction of the phonetics of
Chanchán in /
kantʃáŋ/, based on the etymology of
Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino. File:Comparativa-chanchan.jpg|The toponym
Chanchán is shown related to other toponyms with the same
Quechumaran root. == History ==