Puede buscar una traducción online al castellano de este ensayo en la web. Tiene que elegir la opción traducción inglés al castellano de: /13/13.3.htm:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/
http://www.google.cl/language_tools?hl=es

Empires developed in many parts of the world and all of these extended to incorporate diverse societies with systems of social organization very different to that of the imperial centre. These empires radically changed the lives of the indigenous populations that they enveloped. With the expansion of Western civilizations during last five centuries European explorers, colonizers, bureaucrats and academics developed concepts and categories to classify the peoples and socio-political organizations that they encountered (e.g. tribes, ethnic groups, chiefdoms, states and empires). This historic process contributed to the development of anthropological disciplines and increased knowledge about the “other” and “ourselves”. Similarly the expansion of the Inca Empire during XV and XVI centuries A.D. must have necessitated a conceptualization, categorization and administrative organization of the people’s that they incorporated; in this essay I review some theoretical approaches and methodological problems.

The first pre-capitalist empires appeared in Mesopotamia; however the European concept of Empire was largely in the extensive European and North African territories governed by the Roman Empire. Subjugated countries and indigenous peoples under imperial rule were named “provinces”, and it was this concept that the Spanish took with them to South America and used both to describe the administrative organizations that they encountered and to delimit the regions that they took over and reorganized within the viceroyalty.

The recognition of ethnic groups as distinctive social units may be born out of the conflict and resistance that accompanies territorial expansions such as state formation and the growth of empires. An important anthropological proposal of ethnicity and ethnic group formation was elaborated by Barth (1969), who introduced a subjective approach to ethnic groups which stressed the actor’s own perceptions and active creation of identities; Barth emphasized that:

Barth argued that emphasis on ascription solved two conceptual problems related to ethnic groups: first, their continuity depends on maintenance of a boundary not the cultural stuff enclosed; second, the membership to a group (op. cit. p. 14-15). Barth’s definition of “ethnic group” gradually undermined the use of anachronistic and pejorative anthropological terms such “culture areas”, “tribe” and “race”, and traditional “…view of culture as fixed and monolithic entities...” (Ucko [1989] 1994: xvi). Also the use of term “tribe” was ambiguous because it is used both to refer to a political system and also to a bounded cultural group (Service 1972).

Ethnic groups may largely come into being by highlighting differences between them and us, and their interaction with larger socio-political entities or expansive States builds upon and increases their separate identities. Ethnicity, referring both to ethnic groups and their individual members (op. cit. p. 302), probably only appears as a response to the conflict of State expansion and the uncritical assumption that ‘ethnicity’ should be present when studying pre-modern societies has been questioned because ethnic groups may largely emerge through colonial expansion and sometimes as ethnographic or ethnohistorical re-creations to divide and conquer populations and administer territories (Shennan [1989] 1994: 14, 27; Maceachern 1998: 107, 111-113, 128-129; Sillar and Dean 2002: 208). For colonial convenience, early documents frequently presented to “tribes” as static, bounded, homogeneous (or heterogeneous) and integrated groups (Maceachern 1998: 111; Jones 1998: 50-52; Emberling 1997: 297). We should not define ethnic groups based upon their distinct language, culture, territory or religion because this assumes a direct correlation between bounded and homogeneous culture and ethnic group or tribe based on a normative conception of culture rather than the active maintenance of ethnic differences (Barth 1969: 11; Jones 1998: 24, 60, 52, 84-85).

The ethnic groups; an archaeological overview
Barth’s paradigm has been widely used by archaeologists since 1980’s, however, problems for archaeologist were not solved completely, in particular, in researches conducted in prehistoric groups because “...inferring ethnic difference from archaeological difference was difficult..” (Ucko [1989] 1994: xvi-xvii). Synchrony and diachrony are important aspects researched by archaeologist from material evidence. In respect the diachronic overview of an ethnic group, Barth (1969: 20) argued that “...history of a ethnic group through time, one is not simultaneously, in the same sense, tracing the history of a ‘culture’...”.

The identification of an “ethnic group” has socio-political implications in the present day, in particular where human group with a shared past, real or fictitious, are faced with injustices as they link together, in this context the chronological problem of synchrony of members of a ethnic groups is considered minor, and also the common past, but more important is the present common interest (Ucko [1989] 1994: xix; Shennan [1989] 1994: 5-6, 15). Identifying ethnic group from material evidence can have political and unpredictable consequences in present day indigenous populations (Emberling 1997: 296).

Archaeological cultures have been considered an indicator of Ethnicity, and also as equivalent to levels of socio-political organization, e.g. “tribes” and “ethnic groups” (Shennan [1989] 1994: 5-6; Jones 1998: 16), but identification of artefacts with this groups is refuted, in particular the ethnographic models used for archaeologist to reconstruct ancient groups (Maceachern 1998: 107, 111). The problem with using anthropological concepts of Ethnicity for interpreting archaeological remains is that the predominant view of Barth, assess that Ethnicity is strongly linked to self-conscious identification with a human group, and this a problem for archaeological research or data of early colonial times because is not possible test this indigenous identification. Also the use of concept Ethnicity for pre-modern societies had been discussed because probably they were colonial and ethnographical creations. Ethnicity as a self-conscious group affiliation may only appear in response to the challenge to expansive neighbour socio-political entities, in particular empires.

Some problems related to ethnic groups such as Ethnogenesis (creation or development of ethnicity) have been explored, and the possibility of material expression of this process, and the continuity of past ethnicity in present day population had been discussed (Ucko [1989] 1994: xvi-xvii; Shennan [1989] 1994: 16, 26; Emberling 1997: 308-309; Sillar and Dean 2002: 208-209). Also problems related to boundaries and memberships have been explored from archaeological perspective (Maceachern 1998: 128-129; Emberling 1997: 296-7, 299). Barth’s paradigm emphasized “...the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses…” (Barth 1969: 15), but in this case, Emberling preferred the term “difference” and not “boundary” to reduce confusions, also he considered that Barth’s approach to ethnic boundaries was static and related to maintenance of them (Emberling 1997: 324). Also archaeological studies of boundaries focused in centre-periphery relation but not in the social differences in ethnic groups or social boundaries (op. cit. p. 317-318).

Further definitions, approaches and methods for identifying ethnic groups have appeared in the last decade, and further archaeological studies of ethnicity have been conducted. Emberling (op. cit. p. 302) use the term Ethnicity “..widely because it refers both to ethnic groups and their individual members…”. Also, a new proposal from Post Processual Archaeology was elaborated by Jones, her concept of ethnic group that follow Bart’s paradigm, says: “any group of people who set themselves apart and /or are set apart by others with whom they interact or co-exist on the basis of their perceptions of cultural differentiation and/or common descent”. Also Jones considered that ethnic groups:

Emberling (1997: 303-304) agree with this definition but stresses that members of an ethnic group “...see themselves as related by kinships or tend to construct such relations”, “...usually -but not always- speak a mutually intelligible language...” and “...exist in relation to some larger socio-political entity, usually a state”. Finally each ethnic group has a political project because they are “...unified by constructions of their past, by perceptions of injustice in the past or in the present, and often by hopes of a future reunification...” (Emberling 1997: 304).

Emberling has reviewed some methodological problems for the ethnicity and ethnic groups from archaeological research, he argued that some “…cultural feature can distinguish one ethnic group from other..”, but the problem is “… to identify which characteristics would have been socially meaningful in a particular social situation...” and “...which nonmaterial characteristics might have been important to ethnic identity...” (op. cit. 310), and also resolve the problem of synchrony of the sample analyzed. He disagreed that a pottery style or same language can indicate the existence of an ethnic group (ibidem). For identify material markers of ethnicity he proposed a method and tested it for Third Millenniunm B.C in Mesopotamia, but most studies of ethnic groups have been ethno archaeological or using historical texts, both these types of studies both have their limits, in particular to project their results back in to the pre-historic past (op. cit. p. 312-313). In his method, he argued the importance of studies of contexts of production, distribution and use for understanding ethnicity from material evidence; also that some aspects of material culture mark ethnic differences better than other, such as household, ritual practice and cuisine than language or pottery (Emberling 1997: 310-311, 325; Meskell 2001: 190).

So, searching ethnicities in the past is very problematic, some questions have been presented: “What do we archaeologists actually mean when we talk about ethnic groups in the past? Do we search for tribes-prehistoric equivalents of The Nuer...?” (Maceachern 1998: 111-113). Also archaeological researches show “...that ethnicity is not always synonymous with a single language, race, location, or material culture...” (Meskell 2001: 190).

In researching Ethnicity, we may achieve a greater understanding of the political dynamics of early empires, such as the Inca, by studying how imperial structures of control and administration were constructed by delimiting ethnic groups as one category of state organization (Emberling 1997: 325). This is the case of the Inca Provinces.

The inca provinces and ethnic groups
Given the foregoing comments on the active construction of Ethnicity and provincial organisation it is necessary to undertake a critical review of previous studies of Inca Provinces in relationships to ethnic groups. In the Andes, the North American cultural-historical Archaeology was, and is, the main paradigm in archaeological research, and this approach was accepted and elaborated within the indigenous and nationalist Archaeology developed by Julio C. Tello (1880-1947). A conspicuous exponent of culture-history in Archaeology was John Rowe (1918-2004), he proposed that Inca provinces were “…based on the old tribal and linguistic units, but with small tribes combined or added to neighbouring large ones.” (Rowe [1944] 1963: 185). Rowe also elaborated the fist map showing the Inca provinces, entitled “Map 3: Tribes and provinces of the Inca Empire (Peru-Bolivia), circa 1530 (Drawn from data compiled on the Quechua by John H. Rowe and on the Aymara by Harry Tschopik, Jr.)”. This map is accompanied by a list of “tribes”, sometimes called “provinces” by Rowe (See Map 1).

Other important research was conducted in Huánuco in 1964, after a new methodological proposal developed under John V. Murra. The archaeological part of this interdisciplinary project was conducted by Thompson between 1964 and 1967, the main objectives were: “…to compare the architecture, settlements patterns and ceramics of different known ethnic groups and to measure the degree to which Inca rule was felt at the local level” (Thompson 1968: 179), and “…analyze both the system of [Inca] state centers …and at the same time to focus on the local settlements…” (Morris and Thompson 1985: 12-14). They explored the local ethnic groups, mainly Chupaychu, from ethnohistorical sources and archaeological data (op. cit. pp. 119-151).

Julien (1983: 35, 52, 57) has proposed that local nations (Collas) were the basis of the Inca provinces within the Lake Titicaca Region. Using Spanish administrative records from the 16th Century, she argued that the major indicators of Colla ethnicity were language, dress, wealth, occupation, status. Matos (1994: 106) has combined ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence to propose that the Yaru and Chinchaycocha were ethnic groups that shared the same cultural tradition, expressed in pottery (style Late San Blas) and settlement patterns, subsistence patterns, language, and ideology and they were both included in a single Inca province (Chinchaycocha).

On the basis of his investigations around the region of Quito, Salomon ([1988] 1998: 62-63) disagreed that a unique "ethnic group" living in the drainage basin of a river always constituted an "Inca Province", as originally argued by Rowe ([1944] 1963: 185) for the Peruvian coast. Salomon considers that this traditional vision of political-administrative units geographically closed and ethnically homogenous is simplistic and anachronistic.

Recently, in an international congress, (Kaulicke et al 2002) the subject of the identity and transformation during Inca and colonial times was discussed. The cases of Chachapoyas, Cuismancu, Canas, Collagua and Cabana ethnic groups were presented. Sillar and Dean (2002) have reviewed some problems related to Archaeology of Ethnicity and the identification of Ethnicity in the Andes, and elaborated research questions about Canas ethnic group, emphasizing the importance of developing clear research questions and explicit methodologies to address these topics. Sillar and Dean argued that archaeological studies about ethnic groups have frequently taken ethnicity for granted and failed to discuss or define Ethnicity and social transformations (op. cit. p. 209-212). In the case of the Canas, the material evidence that marked their ethnicity was not clear with the distribution of artefact and settlement patterns not fully respecting the boundaries of the ethnic groups suggested by colonial written sources.

Several authors, eg. Morris and Thompson (1985: 165), Patterson (1991), and Sillar and Dean (2002: 210-211, 255), have argued that the strategies of control used by the Inca Empire may have increased the cultural differences between local ethnic group, emphasizing identity differences and fixing the boundaries of the ethnic groups. This process of conquest could generate the basis for Andean Ethnogenesis (Emberling 1997: 308-309). However it is acknowledged that ancient pre-Inca states and religious cults could have produced this Ethnogenesis. Other factors, such as forced resettlement or mitimaes, the Spanish conquest and present day indigenous political movements, must have contributed further components that continued to affect Andean ethnicities during and after Inca expansion and these must also be considered when exploring Andean ethnic groups from an archaeological overview.

The identification of an “ethnic group” from material evidence can have socio-political and unpredictable consequences in present-day indigenous populations (See Photo 1), in particular where human groups with a shared past are faced with injustices conducted by a State with imperial practices.

Bibliografía
BARTH, Fredrik.- “Introduction”. En: Barth, Fredrik, ed..- Ethnic Groups and Boundaries; The Social Organization of Culture Difference.- Oslo-London, Universitets Forlaget, 1969.- pp. 9-38.
EMBERLING, Geoff.- “Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives”. En: Journal of Archaeological Research.- vol 5(4): dec. 1997.- pp. 295-344.
JONES, Siân.- The Archaeology of Ethnicity; Constructing identities in the past and present.- London and New York, Routledge, 1998, 180 p.
JULIEN, Catherine J. 1983. Hatunqolla; A View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Region. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles
KAULICKE, Peter; URTON, Gary; FARRINGTON, Ian, ed..- Identidad y Transformación en el Tawantinsuyu y en los Andes Coloniales. Perspectivas Arqueológicas y Etnohistóricas; Primera parte. Lima, PUCP, 2002, 440 (En: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, 6).
MACEACHERN, Scott.- “Scale, Style, and Cultural Variation: Technological Traditions in the Northern Mandara Mountains. En: Stark, Miriam T., ed..- The Archaeological of Social Boundaries.- Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998.- pp. 107-131.
MESKELL, Lynn.- “Archaeologies of Identity”. En: Hodder, Ian, ed..- Archaeological Theory Today.- Cambridge, Polity Press, 2001.- pp. 187-213
MORRIS, Craig; THOMPSON, Donald E..- Huánuco Pampa - An Inca City and Its Hinterland.- London, Thames and Hudson, 1985, 181 p..
MATOS MENDIETA, Ramiro.- Pumpu; Centro Administrativo Inka de la Puna de Junín.- Lima, Editorial Horizonte, 1994, 327 p. (Arqueología e Historia/10).
PATTERSON, Thomas C..-The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist State.- New York, Berg Publishers, 1997, 211 p.
ROWE, John Howland [1944].- "Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest". En: Steward, Julian H., ed..- Handbook of South American Indians; The Andean Civilizations.- New York, Cooper Square Publishers, 1963.- pp. 183-330 (Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 2).
SALOMON, Frank [1988].- “Frontera aborigen y dualismo Inca en el Ecuador Prehispánico: pistas onomásticas”. En: Dillehay, T.; Netherly, P., eds..- La Frontera del Estado Inca.- Quito, Abya-Yala - Fundación Alexander von Humboldt, 1998.- pp. 52-70.
SERVICE, Kent V..- “The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations”. In: Annual Revue. 1972.- pp. 309-426.
SHENNAN, Stephen.- “Introduction: archaeological approach to cultural identity”. En: Shennan, Stephen, ed..- Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.- London and New York, Routledge, [1989] 1994.- pp. 1-32.
SILLAR, Bill; DEAN, Emily.- “Identidad étnica bajo el dominio Inka: una evaluación arqueológica y etnohistórica de las repercusiones del Estado Inka en el grupo étnico Canas”. En: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP.- Lima (6): 2002.- pp. 205-264.
UCKO, Peter J..- “Foreword”. En: Shennan, Stephen, ed..- Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.- London and New York, Routledge, [1989] 1994.- pp. ix-xx.

---

:. Subir .: