![]() | This![]() It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views for this article over the last 30 days | ||
---|---|---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
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?—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.127.72.180 (talk •contribs)
Can somebody replace the map that has been deleted?Jclerman14:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.Gerardo19904:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.GdlR19:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that before, in fact themapudungun us cosidered alanguage isolate.Dentren |Talk20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all{{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on theEthnic groups talk page.Ling.Nut20:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.128.138.107.16803:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They quickly adoptedmetal-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—Precedingunsigned comment added byDaniloVilicic (talk •contribs)01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 (possiblyMamuil 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 theoccupation of the Araucanía. They were actualy expanding their influnece and culture to the Pampas and dealing with horse trade!Dentren |Talk10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,I personally find it very hard thattheMapuche 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 ofSimon 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)[reply]
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 Manaro12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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".—Precedingunsigned comment added byCalarca (talk •contribs)22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The striking similarities between the Mapuche andPolynesians of the South Pacific are somewhat uncanny, but evident in the nature of the peoples' physiology, culture, religion and myths of a land across the ocean. For example, theRapa Nui ofEaster Island which is also a Chilean territory 2000 miles off the mainland of South America, described a landHiva or "Land of the Birds/Gulls" in the Rapa Nui language, was located to the east and by scientific analysis, the Rapa Nui were able to use wooden canoes to travel by usage of ocean currents all the way to South America.
Back in the 1940's, Norwegian anthropologistThor Heyerdahl speculated that the Polynesians were ethnolinguistic cousins of theInca of Peru and racially American Indian. He even tested a grass reed boatKon-tiki that sailed across the South Pacific all the way toTahiti 3400 miles away. Despite the adventurous success of theKon-tiki, mainstream anthropology debunked Heyderahl's theory of a Polynesian-Amerindian race. Also the routes of ocean currents in the South Pacific was inable to take pre-modern South American Indians' grass reed boats to any Polynesian islands.
And the Mapuche have some possible connection with theAmerican Aborigine race that lived from 50000-15000 BCE, the Mapuche in physiology would resemble, but do not have close genetic relations with thePatagonian giants of the nearby regions of Patagonia andTierra del Fuego. TheYaghan peoples, also known as theOna andSelknam were forced into extinction in the late 19th/early 20th century. For the Patagonians to migrated all the way west from Australia and New Guinea through the South Pacific, not the scientifically accepted path north through Siberia and North America or Panama, the Mapuche cannot possibly be anAustraloid-Polynesian race. +71.102.12.55 (talk)04:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some good-looking info ates:Mapuches#El_conflicto_forestal_y_el_papel_del_Estado_de_Chile. ¦Reisio (talk)02:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Formerly, Pehuenche people weren't Mapuche. They wereAraucanizated during 17th-18th Centuries. 'Old Pehuenches' were related to [Old] Puelches and another mountain people; they didn't speak Mapudungun and were fully nomads. A reference-in Spanish- may foundedhere, you can read the paragraph that start withLa distancia etnológica.... Inthis article there is a sentence about aculturation by Mapuches. Bye.Lin linao (talk)07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes. Congratulatioons for your good work. Just some comments. First, the pronunction of the word Mapuche or Mapuce (according to Raguileo alphabet now in use) is close to Mah-poo-tcheh in English. Second, rag-ko is translated as "clayed water" or "water with mud" from mapudungu(n) (I don't know what "clayey water" means). Third, if you're using the Spanish words for "lonko" and "toqui", then you should write "lonco" and add that it comes from the mapudungu(n) term "longko". Fourth, the fourth paragraph of this article is confusing and not well written, I think. Note that "Patagons" were called by this name by Antonio Pigafetta and not by Magellan, and that today they're not called Tehuelches anymore, but Aonikenk or Günuna-küna (formerly "southern" and "northern" Tehuelches).The theories of the "Penutian link" of mapudungu(n) are really old and not considered as likely anymore. Right now, most linguists consider it an isolated language. Even if I see as a good thing to include all the opinions, all of them should be included, and also the year they were formulated (I think the "Penutian" one is really old).More soon...—Precedingunsigned comment added by83.43.208.101 (talk)18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments. For current Mapuche situation you can check Indymedia, specially the Spanish version, in order to get fresh news. There are a real lot.And a disturbing point is to see a new as the included in the "Myth and religion" section, concerning human sacrifice. I've worked for years with Mapuche people, I've read a lot of books and documents and never found any mention to such sacrifices. You should include this kind of things as a new (a link, maybe?) if you want, and include in this section more cultural traits, as the huge Mapuche mythology or the Ngillatun-Machitun-Kamarikun ceremonies. Yopu can aslo review, in other sections, the Mapuche musical instruments and rhythms, their current literature and poetry in mapudungu(n) (Elicura Chihuailaf, for example), the different alphabets used by Mapudungu(n), the influence of mapudungu(n) in the Argentiean and Chilean Spanish language, their traditional sports (like pali or chueca), their folkdances (like choike-purrun) and songs, and so on... Any person with no idea about the Mapuche people can have, after reading the above mentioned section, the old belief that Mapuche are "savages".You can also add links to the fabulous pdf-documents about Mapuche art, crafts and oral tradition of the digital library of the Chilean Museum of Precolumbian Art. They're really great. And you can find a lot of modern images of Mapuche people free in the web, in order to provide a "modern" look to this page. If help is needed, I'd be more than glad...My best wishes. More soon...—Precedingunsigned comment added by83.43.208.101 (talk)18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the occupation of the "Araucanian" lands by modern states in South America, the Argentinean "War of the Desert" has not been included. No mention either to the horse-trade across the Andean range, and the "malones" in the Argentinean pampa, and all the literature that these "malones" ("indian attacks") originated, as famous "Martin Fierro" poem. And the map included as a graphic for current Mapuche territories is totally inaccurate: in Argentina, they occupy a larger (really larger) extension of land.—Precedingunsigned comment added by83.43.208.101 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Ahh anmother non-Mapuche who knows nothing about Mapuche culture. Can you tell me what the name Namuncura means? What about Tehuelche? The same people theorizing that each territorial identity are "a different group" Its like saying the Dene and Navaho are 2 different nations. They are the same people. — Marimanque—— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarimanque (talk •contribs)17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of keeping poor form, the initial commenter makes a valid point. The photo of Ceferino Namuncurá should be removed as he was a Tehuelche, see following from the file of the Argentine Senate:http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/proyectos/verExpe.php?origen=S&tipo=PD&numexp=2490/05&nro_comision=&tConsulta=3Jose Fernandez-Calvo (talk)19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I contribute in this article as such: " Lonko Kilapán (b.1903), a traditional Mapuche historian who has been taught the secret history of his tribe by 17Fichas (tribal sacred story-tellers), suggests that a group ofGreeks fromSparta at 600 B.C., viaIndonesia and Polynesia, reachedAraucanía, then probably a cradle for Mapuches, settled there and got mixed with local Amerindians constituting the ancestors of his population. Kilapán, who is characterized as a sacred narrator of his tribe (epeutuve-επεοτύπης) presented this theory, as a holy apocryphal tradition of his people, in his book “the Greek Origin of the Araucans” (Lonko Kilapán, "El origin Griego de los Araucanos", Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile, 1974), in 1974. His theory (linguistic, sociological and archaeological) appears impressive but does not follow explicit scientific methods and lacks any scientific support! His book was published in greek (Lonko Kilapán, "Η Ελληνική Καταγωγή των Αραουκάνων της Χιλής", μετάφραση Γιάννης Λαθύρης, Ηλιοδρόμιο, Αθήνα, 1997) and constituted a success amongst Greek grecophiles, nationalists and mysticists." But Heironymous Rowe deleted it pointing out: "fringe BS that doesnt belong in this article-take it to the talk page to discuss with other editors before attempting to re insert this nonsense". In my contribution I did point out that this theory lacks any scientific support and I didn't put it in the chapter "origin" byt in a different chapter below the chapter "Mapuches in popular culture". But the fact is that this theory appears in many blogs and seminars in Greece as a real fact! (Look on google search for "Αραουκανοί" or "Lonko Kilapan"). It's something like a popular civil legend in Greece. It's a matter of objectivity to write about this theory even if it is in fact ridiculous...Georalex1 (talk)01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear contributors I don't have to scientifically notify an eccentric curiosity or rather a fiction theory. This is the way the most scientists in Greece deal with it! I speak about a Chilean book that has created an urban legent in Greece! I think that the informative strategy of an article must be towards any real & excisting urban legend reffering to the subject. The Spanish edition of WIKIPEDIA does it! This book has been published in Chile, I ve seen it!!!! The Greek version is still in any bookstore and any Greek public library (ISBN : 960-85577-1-2). For a better understanding look on google search : "Η Ελληνική καταγωγή των Αραουκάνων". Dear Dougweller the sites you 'll find in Greek language who deal about the theory are many. Some of these sites have been created even by scientists but not as formal scientific sites. For any details ask me!--Georalex1 (talk)15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davlos was just a ... panhellenophanatic magazine (one and not the first that presented the theory) which mixes real science and pseudo-science that in fact immediatelly supported this theory. Then everybody of the kind followed. It's not accidental that google results on the item gives 7,180 results (a number quiet not modest for the greek national standards). A lot of researchers (real scientists or volunteers) followed the climax of the strange theory in the Greek society not everytime reffering to it's presenter. Here[3] we see a symposium made in Greece. The published synopsis of this presentation in this site has been made by two scientists (not of the field of linguistics though but quite excepted as autonomus researchers) Dr. Hadjiyannakis and Dr. Dorikos who support the theory of Kilapan presenting new linguistic claims. Here[4] we have two newspapers (not national though) presenting the theory. Here[5] we have a quite reliable news agency that presents the theory as it is published in the most popular news blog in Greece [tromaktiko] and here[6] we have one of the most reliable and popular daily newspapers in Cyprus ("η σημερινή" 06/01/2011) and one of the most popular TV Channels there (Sigma TV) who present the theory not refferring to Kilapan but as it is enriched by the evidents presented by Dr. Hadjiyannakis and Dr. Dorikos (Their new book "Οι Σπαρτιάτες της Χιλής-Γλωσσολογική μελέτη" (The Spartans of Chile-linguistic research)is here[7]). These are just some results I had from a quick search on google. In Fact a lot of Greek and Cypriot reliable newspapers presented the theory and few scientists even accepted it but not everything is on the net. I think that there are few (if any) Mapuches who know that if they go to Greece or Cyprus they are going to be received as far-away-brothers and as descendants of Ancient Sparta by a lot of Greeks. They have the right to be informed about it through WIKIPEDIA even if the theory is just not valid scientifically. And even if this theory is nonsense (looks like), this feeling in Greece is not. There is just a small problem... the media (and through them the public) -excluding Indymedia/Athens- in Greece "don't know" Mapuche but Araucani... (lol) --Georalex1 (talk)22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I think that even the Greeks shoud have to be informed that for Lonko Killapán has been pointed out that is César Navarrete, a Eurochilean who used the pseudonym of a Lonko as I was informed by ·Maunus·ƛ· inthis discussion (I didn't Know it). If this information is reliable! But mainly the Greek readers of WIKIPEDIA must also be informed that this theory has not gained the acceptance of the world, or even the local Chilean or Mapuche one! Or that this theory is considered a curiosity as it is written in the Spanish edition of WIKIPEDIA. They must also be informed that this theory has been first presented by Lonko Killapán and not by Dr. Hadjiyannakis and Dr. Dorikos (as it is a confusion about it in the Greek Media!). Actually Lonko Killapán presents analytically an "Araucanian precolumbian script" in his book(!!!!) Have you ever heard about it?? Is there any excisting Mapuche precolumbian script or his presentation is a pure writer's fiction????--Georalex1 (talk)13:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article salvageable or can it be merged here? ...orMachi (shaman)? I am not an expert in this area.--NortyNort(Holla)11:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is Way off. Sounds like it was written researched by a non-Mapuche. I will try and correct some of these concepts.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarimanque (talk •contribs) 07:27, 15 July 2011
This is why western academic knowledge production is profoundly flawed. Again the concept of "sources" implies that because it is written in western academic fashion within a methodology certified by other western academics, that it is now "knowledge" and reliable and that before that it was not knowledge. The arrogance is profound. Trying to direct me to another website demonstrates your inability to debate the subject. Native American editors schooled in the western academic tradition like little apples? I am challenging your assumptions Mr Dougweller— Precedingunsigned comment added by209.207.64.226 (talk)16:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know its peculiar to mention him but according to previous Wikipedia pages on him, maradona's father is of native ancestry, could it be Mapuche?
As the article is now it has a coverage that includes both the Mapuchu-Mapuche of Araucanía and the wider "Mapuche family" that does also includesHuilliches,Picunches and other peoples. I think that is confusing for the reader, by analogy it would be like having a Latvian people article covering also the concept of Baltic peoples. Any thoughs?Chiton (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012(UTC)
That statue is widely known in Chile to not be of a Mapuche given that it is using feathers in its headgearwhich the Mapuche have never used. It is probably an Apache or something like that.The statue of Caupolican should be removed from the article...— Precedingunsigned comment added by190.162.197.107 (talk)18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image is much better:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Lautaro_Ca%C3%B1ete.jpg— Precedingunsigned comment added by190.162.197.107 (talk)18:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the last sentence of the Arauco War section, I changed "for conquest," which didn't make sense, to "to conquer." Is that what you meant? If not, please correct me. Thanks. KC 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byBoydstra (talk •contribs)
What does this term mean? Since there is no Wiki article to link to, this article must define the term. KC 18:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byBoydstra (talk •contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links onMapuche. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)12:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links onMapuche. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}}
tag tohttp://www.cooperativa.cl/p4_noticias/antialone.html?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cooperativa.cl%2Fp4_noticias%2Fsite%2Fartic%2F20051111%2Fpags%2F20051111124708.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)23:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why - when you tolerate on this talk page long paragraphs of complete nonsense about Greeks getting to Chile - my perfectly reasonable surmise about Mapuche contact with Polynesians (based on language, kumara/chicken swaps, funerary monuments, known use of jewellery, known legends of 'long-ears') should be thrown out. My point is that there is SOME evidence for everything I said, whereas there is zero evidence for Spartans getting to Chile. I rest my case.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:8003:3597:3400:39BC:D519:370D:BD93 (talk)08:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An edit filter forced me to remove an external link inthis edit. It wasn't publicly accessible (that's why it tripped the filter - it contains the word "login"), but if someone wants to rescue it, perhaps this history link will help them do so.Hairy Dude (talk)14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)05:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk)03:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following was added in good faith by @AnaHdgs:
Originally from the forests of the southern Andes, Mapuche people lived in the woods as "horticulturalists”<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Molares |first=Soledad |last2=Ladio |first2=Ana |date=2009-03-18 |title=Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: Use patterns on a regional scale |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874109000269 |journal=Journal of Ethnopharmacology |language=en |volume=122 |issue=2 |pages=251–260 |doi=10.1016/j.jep.2009.01.003 |issn=0378-8741}}</ref>. Mapuche populations shifted towards Argentina and Chile in the sixteenth century<ref name=":0" />
A few days later, also in good faith, @Sietecolores added several cite/dubious tags.
I am removing the info added by AnaHdgs for a few reasons:
Thank you both for helping build Wikipedia! Cheers,Last1in (talk)00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spread of Mapuche individuals and culture eastward is a complex topic that is often misunderstood and used politically by some people. This topic needs to be addressed with quality sources. To my knowledge there is an early presence east of the Andes (Neuquén Province) and then, in colonial times, an intensification of the presence and a spread further east.Sietecolores (talk)12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argentina is Mapuche but they do not identify as Mapuche, due to the racism that exists in that country. In Chile there is a trend of indigenism, where people indicate that they feel “identified” as Mapuche for fashion and state benefits, but they really are not, finally there are more real Mapuches in Argentina but racism does not allow them to accept it.2600:1700:3D65:2810:D5B3:C2BC:838F:9B5E (talk)22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]