Chipayas and Travel to Chile
Carlos Muñoz Monsalve
social anthropologist
(+56)82459629
.
.
.
.
Who are the Chipayas?:
The Chipaya are the only semi-autonomous social group that survives of the Urus, and are characterized by a profound awareness of identity, characteristics of the clothing and lifestyle, in addition to language pukina, remain so to this day, despite talk Castilian and Aymara (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 16). However, in the eyes of a non-expert it is difficult to differentiate a one Chipaya Aymara, as the differences that set for example in the locker room, only perceptible by those who live or combine, on scenarios of ethnic relations . But now, this type of identity letterhead is losing more and more important, and particularly young people are moving away from these types of differentiators, except puquina language, which is sometimes used to communicate between Chipayas in order to keep secret talks .
They are the last representatives of the Indians Urus, usually hunters, gatherers and fishermen, after composing a quarter of the population of the highlands in the sixteenth century, now are reduced to about 5 small isolated groups of population (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 15).
Chipayas inhabit the vicinity of salt Coipasa, about 220 km southeast of Oruro, in a semi-desert territory, with plenty of salt, and whipped by winds, where only the miracle of the river Lauca allows some living conditions (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 18). Belong to the department of Oruro, specifically the province of Atahualpa, in the Bolivian altiplano from the 4,000 meters above sea level. Its territory measures 425 square kilometers. Winter is often hit by floods in the many rivers that traverse its territory for download from the lake Coipasa. According to the census enumerated population in 2001 is 5,790 Chipaya inhabitants (INE Bolivia, 2001). The people of Santa Ana de Chipaya (center of public life Chipaya) arises from the reduction of Urus-Chipayas in 1572.
Chipaya Source:
Most research refers to the age of what is sometimes referred to as "people", "culture" or "ethnicity" Chipaya. They were often attributed to be "the oldest", "presolar" most ancient culture is preserved until now, "a cultural time capsule" classifications that help keep all the stereotypical "savages" has been built by Aymara neighbors, and has been reactualized by external researchers. Anthropological and ethnohistorical information realizes that Chipayas considered presolar culture has been maintained over time, despite the adversities of nature.
The Chipayas are part of the First Nation "Uru" which also includes Muratus, Iruhitus, who try to vindicate his other brothers, choirs, Capillus, Uros, the Isluga, etc. (Acosta, 2001). Uru status largely explains the type of interethnic relations established with neighboring Aymara;
"From this comes the contempt in which they Aymara neighbors, who refer to them as chullpa-Puchu, ie" waste "of presolar and was excluded from humanity today" (Wachtel, 1997, pp. 12).
Andean mythology states that are known as Chullpa Chipayas-puchus (leftover chullpas) which is the name used to insult the Aymara and refer to the Chipaya. According to Andean myth, the chullpas are direct descendants of a pre-humanity, of an earlier age than that of males (Wachtel, pp. 15);
"These people chullpas beings who, according to the original myth, inhabited the earth before the appearance of the sun. When this came up, everyone chullpas were burned by the fire from heaven, but some of them taking refuge in lakes. Of these survivors of the first trial Chipayas descend and the other Urus, last witnesses in this world of primordial humanity "(Wachtel, 1997, pp. 12).
There is no certainty the origin of the Chipayas. In this regard there are only a few hypotheses to explain its arrival in their current place of origin. There are hypotheses that suggest that they could arrive from the jungle, or come from the Peruvian and Chilean coast, and even after arriving from Polynesia. The truth is that some of these assumptions may seem quite risky, while others need further scientific inquiry (Barrientos, 1990, pp 115).
One of the main characteristics of the Chipaya, which have attracted the interest of researchers has been the architecture of their houses, dress, and language. The Chipaya puquina claim to speak the language. This is a central feature of the identification Chipaya, and is an element that is constantly used by linguists to keep track of this group. The Bolivian government also uses language as a hub classifier in its characteristics to identify and classify the indigenous and nonindigenous (CEPAL, 2001, pp. 22-37). Language is constantly argued as an essential and primordial identity Chipaya since time immemorial.
However, researchers have discovered that this ethnic group speaks a language inherited from different historical situations in which they have been submitted by other groups, the result of that submission is the replacement of the original language by the imposed language. Puquina (Arnold et all, 2002) is precisely the language of the puquinas, an ethnic group disappeared, which had an amplitude in use, judging from distant places where their use has been discovered (Galdos, 1982; pp 18).
At some point it is established that puquina now spoken by the latter groups Urus was the original language (of the Urus), and somehow puquina Uru and were the same (idem). However, it is clear that the other ethnic group puquina was cohabiting with the Urus, in an area of great geographical extent, and that somehow we do not know the Urus allowed to speak their original language (the uriquilla) and began to speak Puquina (Cerron-Palomino, 1998, pp. 85-120)
The issue of adoption of the language puquina by Urus has left a pall of confusion. It is possible, "and know the scope that the Urus-despite being a fairly spread through the highlands, have not been strong enough to withstand the onslaught initially puquina, and then the onslaught Aymara. It is also likely that the Urus strategically adopted the languages of the groups became more powerful in front of them as a way to negotiate an ethnic survival. What we know so far is that the Urus pukina adopted, and kept him as their own language until a new adoption of the Aymara language, with few exceptions (Arnold et all, 2002).
The only thing we can be clear, is that most groups Urus, who once spoke uriquilla, replaced his tongue Puquina, then by the Aymara (idem). Some groups still retained Puquina, with local variations, are in the process of replacement of puquina by the Aymara. Chipaya are precisely one of those groups, and are the last center of resistance of puquina language, as they have refused to adopt the Aymara ethnic identity and language, and we skip many questions regarding the reasons why which brought about this phenomenon.
That stubbornness Chipaya by the time he has doubled his hand to the target, as the conscience of indigenous assemblies has begun to stop the process of language aymarización puquina-Uru-Chipaya now called, -having it be declared the official language- thus introduced into school curricula for Chipayas.
The Chipaya are the only semi-autonomous social group that survives of the Urus, and are characterized by a profound awareness of identity, characteristics of the clothing and lifestyle, in addition to language pukina, remain so to this day, despite talk Castilian and Aymara (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 16). However, in the eyes of a non-expert it is difficult to differentiate a one Chipaya Aymara, as the differences that set for example in the locker room, only perceptible by those who live or combine, on scenarios of ethnic relations . But now, this type of identity letterhead is losing more and more important, and particularly young people are moving away from these types of differentiators, except puquina language, which is sometimes used to communicate between Chipayas in order to keep secret talks .
They are the last representatives of the Indians Urus, usually hunters, gatherers and fishermen, after composing a quarter of the population of the highlands in the sixteenth century, now are reduced to about 5 small isolated groups of population (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 15).
Chipayas inhabit the vicinity of salt Coipasa, about 220 km southeast of Oruro, in a semi-desert territory, with plenty of salt, and whipped by winds, where only the miracle of the river Lauca allows some living conditions (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 18). Belong to the department of Oruro, specifically the province of Atahualpa, in the Bolivian altiplano from the 4,000 meters above sea level. Its territory measures 425 square kilometers. Winter is often hit by floods in the many rivers that traverse its territory for download from the lake Coipasa. According to the census enumerated population in 2001 is 5,790 Chipaya inhabitants (INE Bolivia, 2001). The people of Santa Ana de Chipaya (center of public life Chipaya) arises from the reduction of Urus-Chipayas in 1572.
Chipaya Source:
Most research refers to the age of what is sometimes referred to as "people", "culture" or "ethnicity" Chipaya. They were often attributed to be "the oldest", "presolar" most ancient culture is preserved until now, "a cultural time capsule" classifications that help keep all the stereotypical "savages" has been built by Aymara neighbors, and has been reactualized by external researchers. Anthropological and ethnohistorical information realizes that Chipayas considered presolar culture has been maintained over time, despite the adversities of nature.
The Chipayas are part of the First Nation "Uru" which also includes Muratus, Iruhitus, who try to vindicate his other brothers, choirs, Capillus, Uros, the Isluga, etc. (Acosta, 2001). Uru status largely explains the type of interethnic relations established with neighboring Aymara;
"From this comes the contempt in which they Aymara neighbors, who refer to them as chullpa-Puchu, ie" waste "of presolar and was excluded from humanity today" (Wachtel, 1997, pp. 12).
Andean mythology states that are known as Chullpa Chipayas-puchus (leftover chullpas) which is the name used to insult the Aymara and refer to the Chipaya. According to Andean myth, the chullpas are direct descendants of a pre-humanity, of an earlier age than that of males (Wachtel, pp. 15);
"These people chullpas beings who, according to the original myth, inhabited the earth before the appearance of the sun. When this came up, everyone chullpas were burned by the fire from heaven, but some of them taking refuge in lakes. Of these survivors of the first trial Chipayas descend and the other Urus, last witnesses in this world of primordial humanity "(Wachtel, 1997, pp. 12).
There is no certainty the origin of the Chipayas. In this regard there are only a few hypotheses to explain its arrival in their current place of origin. There are hypotheses that suggest that they could arrive from the jungle, or come from the Peruvian and Chilean coast, and even after arriving from Polynesia. The truth is that some of these assumptions may seem quite risky, while others need further scientific inquiry (Barrientos, 1990, pp 115).
One of the main characteristics of the Chipaya, which have attracted the interest of researchers has been the architecture of their houses, dress, and language. The Chipaya puquina claim to speak the language. This is a central feature of the identification Chipaya, and is an element that is constantly used by linguists to keep track of this group. The Bolivian government also uses language as a hub classifier in its characteristics to identify and classify the indigenous and nonindigenous (CEPAL, 2001, pp. 22-37). Language is constantly argued as an essential and primordial identity Chipaya since time immemorial.
However, researchers have discovered that this ethnic group speaks a language inherited from different historical situations in which they have been submitted by other groups, the result of that submission is the replacement of the original language by the imposed language. Puquina (Arnold et all, 2002) is precisely the language of the puquinas, an ethnic group disappeared, which had an amplitude in use, judging from distant places where their use has been discovered (Galdos, 1982; pp 18).
At some point it is established that puquina now spoken by the latter groups Urus was the original language (of the Urus), and somehow puquina Uru and were the same (idem). However, it is clear that the other ethnic group puquina was cohabiting with the Urus, in an area of great geographical extent, and that somehow we do not know the Urus allowed to speak their original language (the uriquilla) and began to speak Puquina (Cerron-Palomino, 1998, pp. 85-120)
The issue of adoption of the language puquina by Urus has left a pall of confusion. It is possible, "and know the scope that the Urus-despite being a fairly spread through the highlands, have not been strong enough to withstand the onslaught initially puquina, and then the onslaught Aymara. It is also likely that the Urus strategically adopted the languages of the groups became more powerful in front of them as a way to negotiate an ethnic survival. What we know so far is that the Urus pukina adopted, and kept him as their own language until a new adoption of the Aymara language, with few exceptions (Arnold et all, 2002).
The only thing we can be clear, is that most groups Urus, who once spoke uriquilla, replaced his tongue Puquina, then by the Aymara (idem). Some groups still retained Puquina, with local variations, are in the process of replacement of puquina by the Aymara. Chipaya are precisely one of those groups, and are the last center of resistance of puquina language, as they have refused to adopt the Aymara ethnic identity and language, and we skip many questions regarding the reasons why which brought about this phenomenon.
That stubbornness Chipaya by the time he has doubled his hand to the target, as the conscience of indigenous assemblies has begun to stop the process of language aymarización puquina-Uru-Chipaya now called, -having it be declared the official language- thus introduced into school curricula for Chipayas.
Primitivism Chipayas
Its age or ethnic characteristics that appear to be older than the rest of the other groups, are also a feature called attention to the Urus. We could say that primitivism is another feature that has drawn attention to all researchers, even from those early contacts (Wachtel, 1998, pp. 1128).
During the early settlement of Urus were recognized for being uncivilized and primitive group because they were engaged in fishing activities on the banks of rivers and lakes in which they lived, unlike other groups that practiced grazing or agriculture. Urus then by their socio-economic-taxed differently from other ethnic groups, and some researchers that this condition may help lower their language has been maintained (Arnold et all, 2002).
The old habits caught the attention of Alfred Metraux, who from an evolutionary perspective interprets the Uru-Chipayas as early exponents of the old pre-Hispanic;
"Live in Chipaya a primitive race of people that almost no contact with other peoples of the altiplano. Her dresses that can be traced to the fifteenth century, are as identical as those covering their chullpas " (Metraux, quoted in, Pauwels, 1998, pp. 60).
Particularly full of pagan ceremonies, in which the worship of idolatry exceeded Andean-Christian practices (Metraux, 1967, pp 252) and a number of strange customs, strongly called attention Metraux, who did not hesitate to call this group as a relic of the colonial past and even pre-Columbian (Matraux, quoted in, Pauwels, 1998, pp 73).
The researcher raised quite seriously that Chipayas were a window into the past and specifically its current customs and traditions of the Aymara were the colonial. Chipayas Metraux sees the Aymara tribe as the situation of isolation has escaped the influence it has changed precisely the current Aymara, therefore, the Chipayas are as have been before the Aymara (Pauwels, 1998, pp. 48-73).
This vision still remains primitive, and many claim that Chipayas are so old that would be related directly to the culture Wankarani 4,000 BC. old. Currently, any text or press article referred to the Chipayas part by giving emphasis on the age of Chipaya culture, in ancient traditions, in short, the primitive it represents. We believe that seniority was a major exo-categories that circulate around the Chipayas.
Relations with its neighbors
We believe that in addition to the influence of outsiders, the factors that maintain this are also relationships they have established with their neighbors. Colonial reports indicate that the Urus occupied much of the highlands and other places as well, but were losing ground and disappearing, largely because of harassment from other groups such as the Aymara and Quechua, who took over their natural resources (Pauwels, 1998, pp. 55).
It is even possible that this harassment to the Urus is even before the arrival of the Spanish, and has appeared as a continuous process from the colony so far in Urus which have lost their land, their language, their customs, have been enslaved, and have been shelved until the last habitable places where even continue to suffer such harassment.
Chipayas consider themselves jas-Shoni "water men" as opposed to "dry men", the Aymara, strengthening their identity against the contempt of the other Indians, particularly the Aymara neighbors of those who Chipaya Huachacalla emancipated themselves from the bondage in which were kept from the colony (Wachtel, 2001, pp. 15-18). The Chipayas still keep the mistrust of the Aymara, the product of the way in which historically have been mistreated by them.
We believe it is quite likely that the relations of inferiority that the Aymara have imposed Chipayas, has generated has cornered that maintain their language and customs. Metraux think the secret behind the preservation intact of the Chipayas this geographic isolation, and the precariousness of the environment in which they live (Pauwels, 1998, pp. 55-65) .
It is possible that the territory in which they remain in the past has been more productive than it is now. However, the Chipayas have kept the territory, despite the precariousness, is still attracting the interest of the Aymara neighbors. However, most evidence suggests that: "The Chipayas remained as Urus, that those who had (already) not worth taking away" (Pauwels, 1998, pp. 55). The suspicion Chipayas still retain the Aymara and avoid marrying them, and send their children to study in schools of the Aymara (Barrientos, 1990, pp. 37).
Migration to Chile?
The Chipayas constantly have had to emigrate from their homeland. Either temporarily or permanently, the Chipayas must leave their land and move to other places, mainly in search of work (Barrientos, 1990, pp. 36). Their presence in Chile is quite old, and there is evidence to confirm their presence at the time of nitrate in the first region (Pauwels, 1998, pp. 56). There is little evidence that allow us to confirm whether Chipayas worked directly in the tasks nitrate, or rather if they worked in the network of external service provision, although Bernardo Guerrero tells me that there is descriptive information indicating that the Bolivian and Peruvian farmers reached work directly to the mine, on an equal footing with Chilean workers (personal communication).
With respect to migration Chipaya in times of nitrate, some researchers argue that there is a real possibility that the Chipayas had emigrated to Chile and completely abandoned his people, which would have generated its ultimate demise, as, "If the price of nitrate had not fallen as much market value, sold out almost on the Chilean coast the work of the nitrate, and had migrated Chipayas definitely be leaving Chipayas" (Poznansky, 1937, quoted in, Pauwels, 1998, pp. 56) . This is another of the visions that ventured the disappearance of the Chipayas, a fact that did not happen eventually.
Chipayas certainly have not remained confined to their homeland, and have been on the increasingly it has been necessary. For example we know that Chipayas well aware of the wetlands and lagoons Chilean - and Bolivia, to continue the hunt flamingos (Acosta, 1997, pp. 13). This shows that the traffic in Chile has been permanent, and possibly older than they seem. With respect to the previous point, the linguist Professor Elias Ticuna suggests that like any other group tour the highlands and streams, ignoring national boundaries whose efficacy is rather recent (personal communication) .
Even before the opening of secondary education in the village Chipaya, many young people moved to Chile to secondary school (Barrientos, 1990, pp. 85-86). The potential scope for having the overlapping of different educational traditions (eg the historical interpretation of the Pacific War) in those students, it raises an interesting concern for issues of ethnic identity and citizenship.
Migration rates recorded by statistics of Bolivia (INE Bolivia, 2001) indicate that the rate of migration for the people Chipaya registered in 2001 is -4.7. This rate is similar to those of other localities of the department of Oruro, which we find that temporarily or permanently migrate more than other people. Chipaya belongs to the department of Oruro, which is the second (after Potosí) departments or expelling more negative migration of population (CEPAL, 2001, pp. 56).
The indigenous population of the department of Oruro migrate mainly to the departments of Cochabamba (more than 10%), to La Paz, to Santa Cruz and in that order of preference (ibid, pp 57-62). The important issue is that, unlike these other peoples, Chipayas Chile as his preferred destination, and not to those departments, which raises many doubts (Barrientos, 1990, pp. 36-37).
Data from a national census of population of the village Chipaya of 1988 clearly indicate the age at which migration is triggered. We can see from the graph below the age cohort 16 to 20 years represented 12.5%, is passed to the next age cohort 21 to 25 years which represents 6.8%. The decrease in the percentage of young people living in the village, indicates that half of the cohort of 16 to 20 years longer lives in the village, and most likely have migrated (at least for the census) .
There is general agreement that indicates that poverty is the main driver of migration of Chipaya settled out of town. Some census data from 2001 indicate that poverty is highly concentrated in indigenous households. Well as socio-economic characterization of the Bolivian population indicates that the rural indigenous and nonindigenous extractive devoted to productive activities, mainly primary activities.
Bibliography
1. Acosta Veizaga, Orlando. La Muerte en el Contexto Uru: El Caso Chipaya. Chungará (Arica). [online]. jul. 2001, vol.33, no.2 [citado 26 Diciembre 2006], p.259-270. Disponible en la World Wide Web:
2. Acosta Veizaga, Orlando. Los Urus, cazadores de Pariwanas. En; Eco Andino, ED CEPA, Oruro, Bolivia, Año 2, VOL 3, 1997, pp. 7-29.
3. Arnold, Denise / Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz Sabine / Yapita Juan de Dios con López G, Ricardo. Las lenguas Uru-Chipaya andinas (estado de la investigación 2002). (Online) disponible En; www.ilcanet.com/proyectoesp.htm
4. Barrientos, Felix. Chipaya, Reliquia Viviente. ED Quelco, Oruro, Bolivia, 1990.
5. CEPAL. Los Pueblos Indígenas de Bolivia: Diagnostico Sociodemográfico a Partir del Censo del 2001., CEPAL, Santiago, Chile, 2005.
6. Cerron-Palomino, Rodolfo. Examen de la teoría aimarista de Uhle. En: Max Uhle y el Perú antiguo, Peter Kaulicke (ed.), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, 1998, pp. 85-120.
7. Galdos Rodríguez, Guillermo. Uros, Camanchacas, Changos, Puquinas y Yungas pescadores en Sud-Perú y Norte de Chile. En: Diálogo Andino 1: Arica, Chile, 1982, pp. 15-29.
8. INE Bolivia. Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2001. Disponible En: http://www.ine.gov.bo/geoclip/infoscsv.php?theme=DEMO&maille=SEC
9. Metraux, Alfred. Religions Et magies Indiennes d`Amérique Du Sud. ED Gallimard, Paris, France, 1967, pp 259-290.
10. Pauwels, Gilberto. Los Últimos Chullpas, Alfred Metraux en Chipaya (Enero-Febrero de 1931). En; Eco Andino, ED CEPA, Oruro, Bolivia, Año 3, VOL 6, 1998, pp. 41-82.
11. Wachtel, Nathan. Hommes D`Eau: Le Problème Uru (XVI – XVII Siècle) En ; Annales École Des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales., Paris, France, Vol 5-6, 1998, pp 1127-1159.
12. Wachtel, Nathan. La Cuadratura de los Dioses, Ritos y Trabajos entre los Chipayas., En; RUNA, Archivo para las Ciencias de Hombre., Buenos Aires, VOL XV, 1985, pp. 11-41.
13. Wachtel, Nathan. Dioses y Vampiros. Regreso a Chipaya. México, ED. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997.
