Talk:Mapuche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] References

Is there any way there can be a non Ward Churchill reference for this? As he has been shown to have quite a bit of misconduct in his research and writing it might be better to have a more reliable source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.72.180 (talk • contribs)

[edit] map

Can somebody replace the map that has been deleted? Jclerman 14:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

I don't think the main picture is appropiate. It is a good picture, and the traditional clothing is a plus, but the girl is probably a mestiza. At the risk of seeming racist, as this is the article for the mapuche people, i think the picture should be more representative of their race. I've been looking for a new one, but most i've found are copyrighted. Any help/opinions would be much appretiated. Gerardo199 04:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like the picture myself: it's better than an historical picture in that it shows the Mapuche as a living people. With respect, I don't think the concept of mestizo/a is particularly relevant to Chile, although any Chilean would instantly identify her as 'indígena'. The article should have several more pictures of course. There are various images on the Spanish and German pages which could be useful. GdlR 19:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who said that Mapuche are related with Diaguitas?

I have never heard that before, in fact the mapudungun us cosidered a language isolate. Dentren | Talk 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That idea is unverifiable, as we don't know what language the Diaguitas spoke. One thing is certain: they didn't call themselves "diaguitas", and didn't spoke "Kakán". Ricardo Latcham introduces the term "chilean diaguitas" and has become widspread to describe the people(s) that once inhabited the semiarid north. As he supposed that these chilean diaguitas were related to the argentinean diaguitas, suypposed that they spoke the same language, called "kakan". Nowadays, nobody supports this view, but the name has remained, as there's nothing better.DaniloVilicic 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DaniloVilicic

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

This paragraph doesn't make much sense: They can be divided into the Picunche who lived in the central valleys of Chile — these integrated with the Inca Empire and later with the Spaniards. The Mapuche inhabited the valleys between the Itata and Toltén Rivers, as well as the Huilliche, the Lafkenche, and the Pehuenche. The northern Aonikenk, called Patagons by Ferdinand Magellan, were an ethnic group of the pampa regions that made contact with some Mapuche groups, adopting their language and some culture (in what came to called the Araucanization); they are the Tehuelche.

Apparently somebody edited and mixed up everything. I can't fix it, as I don't know the geographical distribution. 128.138.107.168 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now tried to correct the confusion. As I see it there are 2 confusing thing: 1) The Central Valley of Chile is an ambigous term because it can be used to refer to the long Valley formed by the Andes and the Chilean coast range or it can also refer to the heartland of Chile including al Chile beetwen Aconcagua River and Bio-Bio river. The picunches lived rougtly in the second area I described. 2) The term mapuche can eityher refer to All indigenous groups speaking Mapudungun including huilliches and Picunches (sometimes the groups living in Patagonia are excluded from this definitiuon) or it can refer the just the mapuches living rougtly in what is now Araucanía Region of Chile. Dentren | Talk 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to explain with my unskills on English :P:
As it was said by Dentren, "Mapuche" are all indigenous people that spoke Mapudungun. They can be divided in 4 or more subdivisions:
  • Picunche (<pikumche = people of north) were the people living between Aconcagua Valley and Biobio River, dominated by Incas. They dissapeared by aculturation, diseases and mestization with Conquistadores.
  • Mapuche (<mapuche = people of the land) in a narrow sense are the historic "Araucanians", inhabitants of a zone between Itata and Toltén River. They made war to Spaniards and remainded free across all Colonial Period and only were conquered in 1882 after an invassion of Chilean Army.
  • Huilliche (<williche = people of south) dwelled between Toltén River and northern zone of Chiloe Island. Furthermore, they moved to south and actually live even in the southern part of Chiloé.
  • Tehuelche (<chewelche = fierce people) are the "Mapuchized" Aonikenk since 17th and 18th centuries.
  • Lafkenche (lafkenche = people of sea) are the inhabitants of coastal zone (Mapuche or Huilliche, but in relationship with sea activities).
  • Pehuenche (<pewenche = people of piñon [seed of monkeypuzzle tree]) inhabits mountain valleys of Araucania and Biobio regions. In ancient times, they weren't Mapuches, and only in 17th century began the mix-process.
  • Nagche and wenteche are the Mapuche (narrow sense) that live in low and highland respectively.
All this names are given from Mapuche (n.s) point of view. All the groups call themselves "Mapu[n]che" or "Mapuche-Huilliche", "Mapuche-Pehuenche", etc. There are many sources (in Spanish) for a review of this words. Bye. Lin linao 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation is good, I would only like to add that lafkenches may refer to any mapuche group living close to the sea or lake (Calafquén Lake), but is usualy aplyed to "Mapuches-Araucanians". Another group that can be considered in the Mapuche family are the Cuncos that inhabited parts of Chiloe island. The huilliches also inhabited Chiloe island and as far as I know the relation between these two groups are not clear. There are also other Mapuche related groups or tribes in the Andes and east of it such as the Voliches. Dentren | Talk 15:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Cunco" is an curious name. It had been used for people of Mapuche culture around Chacao Channel, for Huilliches of the Llanos (Osorno), as known in Spanish as "Junco" (a approach to English: Khunkoh). Sources disagree about the use of this term and I don't understand well the arguments in support or against their use. In Argentinian Pampas arise another peoples of mixed origins: Ranqueles (<rankülche = people from reeds) and Pampas, both of them with Het? ancestry. Calfucurá commanded a federation of them in 1840's. Puelches (<pwelche = people of East) seem Mapuche related too, but is needed more references. Bye. Lin linao 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually Het is a "ghost" language group, proposed by R. Lehman-Nitsche from a few proper names. Actually nobody accepts het a valid language or people. Ranqueles and pampas are better considered "Gününa Küne" or Northern Tehuelche groups, araucanized.DaniloVilicic 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DaniloVilicic
Yeah, I'm working about in es:Lenguas chon. Can you add some info in Chon languages. Bye. Lin linao 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it, as soon as I get rid of my "obligations" at the university. Maybe next week.DaniloVilicic 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DaniloVilicic

[edit] Metal working

They quickly adopted metal-working and horseback-riding from the Europeans, along with the cultivation of wheat and sheep.

This passage is not archaeologically accurate. There is the widespread idea that metal working is not present in the area before the spanish conquest, but there is a somehow longstanding tradition of copper-working in the zone according to archaeological data. Specially for ornamental artifacts, and this is the origin of the later silver working (the ear rings mantain their shape but become to be worked on silver instead of copper)- DaniloVilicic —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniloVilicic (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of new evidence that suggest that the mapuches had a far more "advanced" culture than thought, for example the discovery of some proto pyramids near Purén. But this article needs sources for such statements like proto-pyramids and early copper working. Dentren | Talk 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have sources for copper working, I will add them soon, but the problem I have is that I need to refer to archaeological cultures that are not named "mapuche" that it's an ethnological term. These AC do not correspond to the modern mapuche territory or culture necesarily, but they are indeed their ancestors. There are very different archaeological sequences for Central Chile and for Southern Chile, even if they spoke the same language when the spaniards arrived. Some have proposed that mapudungun was a kind of pidgin used for all these people from Aconcagua river to Chiloé (about 1.000 km). Copper working is attested for "El Vergel cultural complex" (1.000 to 1.500 A.D. aproximately).DaniloVilicic 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)DaniloVilicic
Thom Dillehay has suggested that "cuels" (mound) were some kind of protopyramids, but this interpretation remains controversial. The kuel is certainly a kind of funerary mound, with territorial and symbolic importance for these groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniloVilicic (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Is kwel a Mapuche word?. Lin linao 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is, at least it appears in Thom Dillehay's articles as a mapuche word. I'm not sure if it is [ku.el] or [kwel]. You can see this: http://www.ifeanet.org/biblioteca/fiche.php?codigo=REV00006027 if available at your library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniloVilicic (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse trade across the Andes

Í have readed a history book (Barridos por el viento) about Patagonia were it it said that there was an extensive horse traffic from the Pampas were horses were stolen during raids and then later moved to the lands naer Nuehuel Huapi lake were they went throug a mountain pass (possibly Mamuil Malal Pass) into Chile. Who knows about this? I would be interesting to have it included in the article. People may think that the Mapuches were "sleeping" or doing nothing between the last big upprising in 1650 (Arauco War) and the occupation of the Araucanía. They were actualy expanding their influnece and culture to the Pampas and dealing with horse trade! Dentren | Talk 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a personal opinion...

Hey, I personally find it very hard that the Mapuche were the only indigenous group(outside of isolated groups in Brazilian rainforest etc.) to not have been dominated by colonial empires...and then the Chileans had to go and invade..?why? Chile was created in the proud years of Simon Bolivar's indepence struggle, the Mapuche epitomised it... hmm, I guess history is history, what happened happened...I hope though that the Mapuche can restore at least some of that strongly indepedent heritage.... DomDomsta333 (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are surely other groups indigenous group(outside of isolated groups in Brazilian rainforest etc.) in south america that were not dominated by colonial empires, but the prolongued Arauco War makes the Mapuches probably the most expensive "indian war" in the Americas. See es:Real Situado. Dentren | Talk 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Incas" and mapuches

The caption to the Huaman Poma de Ayala illustration refers to fighting betwen "incas" and mapuches. But mapuche is the name of a nation, while inca is the name of a ruler extended to a ruling caste. It can be taken for certain that there were no "inca" men fighting the mapuche men, but troops at the service of that empire. Suggestion: change "inca" for something like "troops of the Inca empire". --Lupo Manaro 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Inca" were "citizens of Inca Empire" too. Lin linao (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just like Romans iof the Roman Empire were not only those from the city of Rome. Dentren | Talk 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mapuches VS Incas, wrong side

To me its obvious that the Mapuches are to the left, and the Incas to the right, i will change it now. You can check the Spanish version if you want, they have the same picture, and "izquierda" means "right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calarca (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I bet US$1.000.000 that izquierza is left. Dentren | Talk 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I bet US$2,000,000 for "izquierda"="left" :). However, you're right: Incas are in right side of the picture. Lin linao (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks and other Wild Theories

Far out, highly speculative theories and references in Greek to someone no one ever heard of don't belong. Maybe....maybe, if the source can be found in English translation, a separate section for wild theories might be added, but this is an encyclopedia, so the main body of the text ought to reflect reasonable, substantiated, and more or less authoritative sources. Tmangray (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)