Return to the ancestral land: The semiotic map of the Mapuche people

Abstract

Indigenous territorial claims are a long-standing concern in the history of Latin America. Land and nature have profound meaning in indigenous thinking, which is neither totally understood nor legitimized by the rest of society. This article is aimed at shedding light on this matter by examining the meanings at stake in the territorial claims of the Mapuche people. The Mapuche are an indigenous group in Chile, who are striving to recover their ancestral land. This analysis will be based on the concept of Umwelt, coined by von Uexküll to refer to the way in which species interpret their world in connection with the meaning-making process. Considering the applications of Umwelt to the human being, the significance assigned to land and nature by the Mapuche people emerges as a system of meaning that persists over time and promotes interdependence between people and the environment. On the other hand, the territorial claim of the Mapuche movement challenges the fragmentation between individuals and their space, echoing proposals from human geography that emphasize the role of people in the constitution of places.

Keywords

Indigenous people Umwelt semiotic meaning-making process ecology

The Mapuche are native people from Latin America whose ancestral lands lie in southern Chile. The cornerstone of Mapuche culture is the relationship between people and nature in their territory. This relationship is regulated by a system of rules that recognizes all species as equally important, assigning humans the role of protecting their surroundings. On a first level of interpretation, the word “Mapuche” can be translated as “people belonging to the land” (Ñanculef, 2003).

The Mapuche system of living was seriously threatened for the first time in the 16th century after the imposition of the Spanish colonial system. After a war and subsequent negotiations (Marimán et al., 2006; Melin et al., 2019), the Spanish took ownership of more than two-thirds of the ancestral lands and recognized Mapuche sovereignty over the remaining area. After obtaining independence from Spain, the new Chilean state started an aggressive process of internal colonialism, assuming control of 95% of the ancestral lands (Bengoa, 2000). In the 1990s, during the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the arrival of colonizers in the Americas, there was a resurgence of the Mapuche political movement. Since then, the main demands of the Mapuche people have been related to protecting and recovering the territory recognized by the Spanish (Bengoa & Caniguan, 2011), located between the Biobío river and the island of Chiloé (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Natural borders of the Mapuche territory.

Although territorial claims have been present throughout the history of Latin America, discussion about the significance of nature in indigenous thinking is recent (Martínez, 2012). Understanding what is at stake behind the demands to recover lands requires an examination of the meanings given by the Mapuche people to the diverse forms of life with which they coexist. Considering the central role of nature within their system of meaning, the Mapuche people are an interesting case for study according to the concept of Umwelt, proposed by Jakob von Uexküll (1864–1944). The notion of Umwelt has had great influence on contemporary biosemiotics, as well as on the study of human activity and cultural processes.

Building a bridge between biology and epistemology, von Uexküll addresses the way in which a natural environment is interpreted differently by each species. According to Von Uexküll’s observations (1940), each species constructs a world on the basis of its perceptive and motor properties and he coined the concept of Umwelt to refer to that world.

The Umwelt of a species is comprised by those parts of the environment that are perceptible to the organism (Von Uexküll, 1909). In this respect, each species creates a specific map of its environment as an adaptative process that makes it possible to orientate itself within a complex environment (Magnus & Kull, 2012). Therefore, describing a specific Umwelt implies an approach to the way in which an organism has mapped out its surroundings (Magnus, 2008). Rebuilding that map requires not only identifying what elements are meaningful to one species but also understanding the relationship between that species and those elements that are meaningful (Von Uexküll, 1973).

Without doubt, understanding the human way of creating the Umwelt is associated with the meaning-making process, which is the path through which human beings symbolize and shape their world (Cornejo et al., 2018). Those meanings are organized in form of narratives such as histories, myths, or ideologies that allow us to make sense of the world. According to Bruner (1986, 1990, 1991, 2002), narrative is a conventional resource for the constitution and transmission of the human world.

Insofar as we account for our own actions and for the human events that occur around us, principally in terms of narrative, story, drama, it is conceivable that our sensitivity to narrative provides the major link between our own sense of self and our sense of others in the social world around us. The common coin may be provided by the forms of narrative that the culture offers us (Bruner, 1986, p. 69).

In other words, narratives have to do with how “we make worlds” and how “we make ourselves” (Bruner, 2001). Like other species, humans do not live in a neutral environment because they give meaning to that environment; at the same time, individuals are affected by certain elements, dealing with them on the basis of meanings that are constructed previously (Chang, 2009). Umwelt is, therefore, the subjectivized and meaningful world of a species. It is a set of sign relations that a species has built in its ecosystem. Magnus and Kull (2012) emphasize the relational nature of the Umwelt, where sign and meaning are of prime importance in all aspects of human life. The link between the Umwelt and the meaning-making process is that of human agency and its highly sophisticated process of semiotizing the surroundings (Cobley, 2016).

This article is intended to describe the way in which the Mapuche people have mapped out their environment, with special attention to the relationship between the Mapuche people and the meaningful elements existing in that environment from a semiotic perspective based on the concept of Umwelt. Furthermore, we propose some considerations about the role of the meaning-making process in order to understand the persistence of the territorial claims and the bond between the Mapuche people and their ancestral lands despite the diaspora.

Ancestral territory from the ecological perspective

The Mapuche ancestral lands are an area with rich biological diversity (Santibáñez et al., 2018). From the ecological perspective, it is possible to appreciate the contribution of each element to the biodiversity within this territory. Furthermore, that perspective allows the interdependence between one element and another within the ecosystem to be addressed as a whole. This is the starting point to understand the Umwelt of the Mapuche people.

The Pacific Ocean plays a central role in the biodiversity of this territory. This ocean is influenced by the Humboldt Current, which brings deep waters to the surface, maintaining particularly low temperatures. This characteristic fosters the presence of plankton and minerals, which are essential to the lives of numerous marine species (Santibáñez et al., 2018). The coastal landscape is characterized by rich vegetation. The low temperatures encourage the condensation of water from the sea that flows toward the coastal mountain range, giving rise to banks of fog. This fog acts as an important source of moisture that nourishes the evergreen forest on both sides of the coastal mountains (Montecinos et al., 2018; Pliscoff & Luebert, 2008).

In the valley to the east of the coastal mountain range, there are abundant wetlands and swamps, which are dependent on groundwaters driven by the Humboldt Current. This area is also irrigated by Andean rivers, which flow toward the ocean due to the natural inclination of the land. In terms of water regime, the regions forming the Mapuche territory are classified as wet and super-wet areas (Santibáñez et al., 2018).

From a macroecological point of view, the Pacific Ocean and the Andes mountain range act as large natural barriers, forming a geographically isolated region. This isolation contributes to the existence of a high level of endemic flora and fauna, which are the core of the biodiversity in this territory (Santibáñez et al., 2018). Human communities also have to be considered when describing the biodiversity of an area. An ecosystem can be defined as a complex web, composed by a physical environment and the organisms living within it, including human beings (Turner et al., 2001). In this case, the aim is to describe the way of life of the Mapuche people and their relationship with the territory.

The way of being in the land

The relationship between the Mapuche people and their natural and social surroundings is regulated by a system of rules named Ad Mapu, which means “the way of being in the land.” A central principle of the Ad Mapu is that all elements of the environment have a spirit and an equal level of importance (Marimán & Aylwin, 2008). Examining the Mapuche culture and its wisdom, the key elements for the biodiversity of the territory are endowed with sacred characteristics. In fact, the original Mapuche language has a specific word to refer to all forms of life, including their spiritual dimension, which is the term ixofilmogen (Melin et al., 2019).

In this sense, the sea occupies a central position within Mapuche spiritual life. In the coastal area, people perform religious ceremonies and prayers while looking toward the ocean, paying tribute to the water and the ecosystems that exist there. There is a reciprocal relationship with the sea, with the community protecting the coastal space and the sea providing food and the conditions to maintain life (Nahuelpan, 2016). Likewise, wetlands and swamps are considered to possess a protective spirit that propitiates the existence of all species living around them. At the same time, this spirit gives the place a supernatural energy; medicinal herbs grow there, and these are areas where Mapuche shamans often receive the divine call to assume their healing powers (Ceballos et al., 2012).

Native trees also have an important spiritual role. Mapuche families in the south build altars under the trees, installing small house-shaped structures called descansos, or places of rest. Beside the descanso, families converse with deceased relatives and serve them the meals they used to eat, in order to console these souls that pine for their home. Such is the relevance of the trees that the family often dispenses with the altar and the descanso is represented by the tree itself (Skewes et al., 2011).

Meanwhile, the Andes mountain range symbolizes a source of spiritual energy because this is where the sunrise is seen by the inhabitants of the area. Most of the active volcanoes in the Andes are located in this region, generating seismic activity and periodic eruptions with severe consequences for communities. Given this scenario, volcanoes are considered to be great spirits, able to protect or punish people who violate the Ad Mapu (Melin et al., 2019; Porto-Gonçalves, 2019).

The territory of their origin is, as a whole, considered the basis of the Mapuche identity. People have the desire to maintain a bond with their family and territory because this connection allows them to access their history and the spiritual energy of their community. People who have emigrated or who were born outside the Mapuche territory are also advised to return to, or at least visit, the lands of their ancestors (Course, 2017; Curivil, 2007).

Devastation of the territory and the Mapuche diaspora

One of the main reasons for the state taking control of the Mapuche territory was its vast natural resources and the specific interest in exploiting the native forest. Through violent and fraudulent procedures, lands were acquired by the state, Chilean citizens, and European immigrants as part of a process of appropriation that paved the way for numerous extractive companies (Correa & Mella, 2010). Chilean economic planning has been developed with scant interest in the conservation of ecosystems, which has facilitated the aggressive exploitation of natural resources (Arroyo et al., 2018). The devastation of the environment has led to various species being threatened with extinction, as well as the risk of natural disasters, and, in terms of the sociocultural impacts, has disrupted the way of life, the economy, and the heritage of the Mapuche people (Silva & Saavedra, 2018).

A large part of the destruction of the natural environment has been caused by the forestry industry, which is the commercial owner of large tracts of lands that, combined, are four times bigger than the areas still owned by Mapuche communities (Antileo, 2006). In addition, forestry and agricultural plantations have replaced native vegetation and depleted water resources needed for family farming and daily consumption (Pliscoff & Luebert, 2008). Forestry activity also has significantly damaged the marine ecosystem because industrial waste is emitted through pipelines that flow into the ocean. Mapuche communities have referred these situations to the courts, in order to protect the sea and preserve their traditional rights to use the coastal area as a ceremonial space (Nahuelpan, 2016).

The Mapuche landscape has been also affected by companies acquiring rights to Andean water sources with the purpose of building large-scale hydroelectric projects. The displacement of water has led to flooding of sacred places and has forced Mapuche families to leave the lands where their ancestors lived (Huiliñir & Macadoo, 2014). Since the state-sponsored land appropriation began, the destruction of the natural environment has been accompanied by dynamics of exclusion, making life difficult in the Mapuche territory. During this phase, lands have been divided arbitrarily and families who previously worked together have been forced to separate. The adverse living conditions and the need to seek opportunities triggered an extensive process of diaspora, to the point that, nowadays, almost 80% of the Mapuche population lives in cities (Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, 2015).

Mapuche territorial claims

Despite the appropriation of lands being recognized by the Chilean state, measures aimed at reparation have been limited to the restitution of individual rights (Figueroa, 2018), and demands for territorial and collective rights have been severely criminalized (Bengoa & Caniguan, 2011). In fact, Chile is one of the most backward countries in Latin America in terms of constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples, intensifying unrest and protests in the Mapuche movement (Fuentes & de Cea, 2017).

The Mapuche people itself has called for its struggle to be understood in geopolitical terms, where the relevant point is that a human group was forced into a process of diaspora and is still living outside its territory. From this point of view, the motivation goes beyond merely recovering areas of land and also includes the nostalgic notion of returning to a “Mapuche nation,” which has a history and a cultural landscape (Antileo, 2014). The Mapuche people in the city have preserved their identity and maintained the bonds with their territory of origin. In the urban space, they have created Mapuche social groups, which promote territorial demands and preserve the hope of returning to their communities (Aravena, 2001).

The Mapuche territorial claims express sadness for a lost place, where returning is extremely difficult or even impossible. This experience has been observed in numerous communities under the concept of solastalgia (Albrecht, 2005). Solastalgia refers to the fracture of the unity between a person and their beloved places and is applicable to both migratory processes and cases where areas have been devastated as a consequence of extractive activities (Askland & Bunn, 2018).

Human geography has highlighted the union between people and place, indicating that spaces are not only inhabited by people but also conceived and symbolized by them. In this sense, human beings emerge as an agent in the constitution of spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). This perspective has shed light on the bonds connecting the abstract concept of the space, capitalism, and the tendency toward the urbanization of society, facilitating dynamics of land appropriation and environmental destruction (Whaley, 2018).

The greatest obstacle in this struggle is the interests of companies and the logic that means the value of nature is subordinate to the generation of economic profits. In this regard, the Mapuche people constantly clarify that their claims are not focused on the land as property, but on the cultural right to protect the environment, and coexist with nature according to the rules of the Ad Mapu (Marimán & Aylwin, 2008).

The Mapuche Ad Mapu as a semiotic map

Although von Uexküll neither provides guides to apply the concept of Umwelt to human beings nor identifies himself as a semiotician, his ideas have contributed to subsequent thinkers’ interest in the ways in which humans relate to their environment. One of his most notable contributions was probably to draw attention to the emerging link between natural and cultural phenomena through semiotic processes (Magnus & Kull, 2012). Following Lotman’s (1990) proposal, just as the biosphere is essential for life, it is possible to speak of the semiosphere as a necessary semiotic space for the development of culture.

Scholars that promote the application of the concept of Umwelt to the human sphere suggest that culture can be considered an adaptive effort by people to deal with the complexity of their world (Magnus & Kull, 2012). The meanings contained in the Ad Mapu thus promote the adaptation of human life to the environmental demands of interdependence. By acknowledging the spiritual power of each element in the biosphere, humans cannot perceive themselves as isolated, but rather as being connected with nature. In this sense, the semiotic map of the Mapuche people is consistent with the understanding reached by the science of ecology, in accordance with which human activity and biodiversity have a reciprocal relationship (Silva & Saavedra, 2018).

The latest discussions of the concept of Umwelt have emphasized not only its phenomenological dimension but also its ecological aspect. In this regard, an Umwelt is the world constructed by the organisms forming a species, as well as the interweaving of meaningful relationships established by that species with its environment (Kull, 2010). In the case of the Mapuche people, both the significance conferred upon the forms of life living in the environment and the relationships maintained with them are contained in the Ad Mapu. This ancestral system of rules, still in effect, emerges as a semiotic cartography that is essential to describe the Mapuche Umwelt and understand the way in which the Mapuche people have mapped out their world.

The crucial epistemological question here is how it can be possible that, although the Mapuche people were forced to leave their lands decades ago, they still maintain a meaningful relationship with their territories of origin. This Umwelt kind of relationship with their ancestral environment should not be interpreted as merely a bond with imagined places that solely exist in the memory. Since “semiosis is the process which both creates the realities and connects them” (Kull, 2007, p. 174), this connection operates over time, linking past, present, and future.

The ancestral land is meaningfully constructed and continues to be so for both the Mapuche people who still live in those territories and those who were displaced and their subsequent generations. Those who still live on the ancestral land have the role of maintaining the semiotic map via reenactments of complex systems of myths and rituals by implementing day-to-day activities in accordance with the Ad Mapu set of rules. On the other hand, people that do not live on ancestral lands know where they are located and maintain meaningful relations by participating in festivities in the original territory or by reproducing them (as well as other cultural aspects of Mapuche traditions) in the urban context (Aravena, 2001). The map of meanings of the Mapuche people gives rise to a narrative that is updated through daily actions and oral tradition. Narratives that refer to collective experiences or long periods that go beyond an individual’s lifetime, such as the Ad Mapu, for example, express both that person’s perspective about things and events and her place within the cultural plot.

A lively debate has recently been conducted on narrative and remembering in cultural psychology. Narratives are considered to be the tools that serve the historicity of human beings (Bruner, 1990; Obeyesekere, 1990) and the collective memory (Brockmeier, 2010; Carretero, 2011; Wertsch, 2002). We narrate events and continuously reconstruct the past in light of the experiences we have. Remembering is an essential element of human reflexivity and of identity formation at the collective and individual level. Remembering is, therefore, an interactional and sociocultural activity that is always oriented toward the future. Memory is about development. Processes of remembering, constructive recognition, and forgetting are all processes that take place in the boundary area between the past and the future. A task of remembering something is oriented toward the future, and a task of recalling something (here and now) is in relation to some function of that for the immediate future (Marsico & Valsiner, 2017).

This is especially evident in the case of the displaced Mapuche people, whose semiotic map continues to live via narratives even when the actual environment does not. Carrying out daily activities in the urban context by following the Ad Mapu system is not a mere act of remembering; it is instead an active process of identity construction and, ultimately, a reconfiguration of the ancestral semiotic map in the current Umwelt.

Concluding remarks

Although territorial conflicts are a critical issue in the history of Latin America, they have mostly been addressed as a political matter, with little attention to the way in which territory is interpreted by indigenous peoples (Martínez, 2012). In this vein, this article has been aimed at describing the way in which the Mapuche people interpret and relate to different life forms within their environment through a semiotic approach based on the concept of Umwelt.

Like other native groups, the key element of the Mapuche culture is the profound bond with ancestral lands and the sacralization of nature. Considering the sociopolitical situation, the case of the Mapuche enables us to explore the persistence of Umwelt-type relationships under conditions of migration and severe environmental devastation. In this vein, we also discussed the role of the meaning-making process in updating those relationships.

In accordance with the applications of the Umwelt concept to the human being, the Ad Mapu emerges as a semiotic map where all living entities are respected equally, which is consistent with the relevance of biodiversity for the sustainability of human settlements (Silva & Saavedra, 2018). From this perspective, it is possible to observe the fundamental role of the semiotic space (Lotman, 1990), where the set of meanings and relations is established for the development of the Mapuche culture, as well as the adaptative purpose involved in the building of culture (Magnus & Kull, 2012).

On the other hand, the mandatory call to return to ancestral lands expressed in the Ad Mapu echoes the role of human beings in the construction of their world, an element upon which semiotics (Kull, 2010), cultural psychology (Bruner, 1990), and human geography (Lefebvre, 1991) converge. This is the motivation of people who constantly visit their communities of origin and keep the territorial claims alive.

The ancestral lands do not merely exist in the past of the Mapuche people. The territory and its meaning are remembered and also reconstructed by the displaced generations. The semiotic map is an orienting element within Mapuche culture, which is continuously created through narratives that connect the past, present, and future, and which encourages the enduring struggle for the recovery of lost territory.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Diego Gutiérrez (research assistant at the Department of Geophysics, Universidad de Concepción, Chile) for creating the map of natural borders of the Mapuche territory.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received support from Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo ANID Chile, grant code 21170272.

ORCID iDs

Camila Perez

Giuseppina Marsico

Author Biographies

Camila Pérez Huenteo is an indigenous researcher belonging to the Mapuche people of southern Chile. She is currently a PhD candidate in Psychology at Universidad de Concepción (Chile) and a PhD candidate in Language, Society, Politics, and Education Sciences at Università degli Studi di Salerno (Italy). She is studying the meaning of being a mother and father among indigenous people living in the city, with special attention to the transmission of ethnic identity amid conditions of globalization, discrimination, and expropriation of ancestral lands. Her interests are ethnic identity and the role of people in the production of cultures through the meaning-making process.

Giuseppina Marsico is Associate Professor of Development and Educational Psychology at the University of Salerno (Italy). Her academic career includes two complementary lines of research: (1) Cultural Psychology of Education; (2) a culturally oriented interdisciplinary perspective based on both theoretical and empirical research, focusing on borders as a new ontogenetic perspective in psychology and other social sciences.

References

Albrecht

(2005). Solastalgia. A new concept in health and identity. PAN: Philosophy Activism Nature, 3, 41–55.

Antileo

(2006). La lucha de los mapuches urbanos en Chile. In Gutiérrez

Escárzaga

(Eds.), Movimiento indígena en América Latina: resistencia y proyecto alternativo (pp. 324–328). Jornadas Latinoamericanas.

Antileo

(2014). Lecturas en torno a la migración mapuche. Apuntes para la discusión sobre la diáspora, la nación y el colonialismo. In Fielbaum

Hamel

López

(Eds.), El poder de la cultura. Espacios y discursos en América Latina (pp. 261–287). Ediciones Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades.

Aravena

(2001, November 19–23). La identidad mapuche-warriache: Procesos migratorios contemporáneos e identidad mapuche urbana. IV Congreso Chileno de Antropología. Colegio de Antropólogos de Chile. https://www.aacademica.org/iv.congreso.chileno.de.antropologia/42.pdf

Arroyo

Marquet

Marticorena

Simonetti

Cavieres

Squeo

Rozzi

Massardo

(2018). El hotspot chileno, prioridad mundial para la conservación. In Figueroa

Rovira

Flores

, et al. (Eds.), Biodiversidad de Chile. Patrimonio y desafíos (pp. 40–43). Ministerio del Medioambiente.

Askland

Bunn

(2018). Lived experiences of environmental change: Solastalgia, power and place. Emotion, Space and Society, 27, 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.emospa.2018.02.003

Bengoa

(2000). Historia del pueblo mapuche, siglos XIX y XX. Lom Ediciones.

Bengoa

Caniguan

(2011). Chile: los mapuches y el bicentenario. Cuadernos de Antropología Social, 34, 7–28. doi:10.34096/cas.i34.1377

Brockmeier

(2010). After the archive: Remapping memory. Culture & Psychology, 16(1), 5–35. doi:10.1177/1354067X09353212

10.

Bruner

(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard UP.

11.

Bruner

(1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge University Press.

12.

Bruner

(1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21.

13.

Bruner

(2001). Self-making and world making. In Brockmeier

Carbaugh

(Eds.), Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self and culture (pp. 25–37). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

14.

Bruner

(2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. Harvard University Press.

15.

Carretero

(2011). Constructing patriotism. Teaching history and memories in global worlds. Information Age Publishing.

16.

Ceballos

Alarcón

Jelves

Ovalle

Conejeros

Verdugo

(2012). Espacios ecológico-culturales en un territorio mapuche de la región de la Araucanía en Chile. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena, 44(2), 313–323. doi:10.4067/S0717-73562012000200008

17.

Chang

(2009). A new look at Umwelt. Information Age.

18.

Cobley

(2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics (Vol. 15). Springer.

19.

Cornejo

Marsico

Valsiner

(2018). I activate you to affect me. Information Age Publishing.

20.

Correa

Mella

(2010). Las razones del ilkun/enojo: Memoria, despojo y criminalización en el territorio mapuche de Malleco. Lom Ediciones.

21.

Course

(2017). Mapuche ñi mongen. Persona y Sociedad en la vida rural mapuche. Pehuén Editores S. A.

22.

Curivil

(2007). La fuerza de la religión de la tierra: una herencia de nuestros antepasados. UCSH.

23.

Figueroa

(2018). Tierras y territorios indígenas: Dimensiones complejas para las políticas públicas. El caso de la política “Acuerdo nacional por el desarrollo y la pAd en la Araucanía-plan impulso Araucanía” en Chile (Serie Policy Papers N°2). Centro de Estudios Interculturales e Indígenas, Unidad de Políticas Públicas. https://www.ciir.cl/ciir_2019/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/policy-paper-UPP-n%C2%BA2-2018.pdf

24.

Fuentes

de Cea

(2017). Reconocimiento débil: derechos de pueblos indígenas en Chile. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 25(49), 55–75. doi:10.18504/PL2549-003-2017

25.

Huiliñir

Macadoo

(2014). Las disputas del espacio y los senderos pehuenche en Alto Biobío. Revista Geográfica del Sur, 5(7), 95–112.

26.

Kull

, (2007). Biosemiotic and biophysics-the fundamental approaches to the study of life. In Barberi

(Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotic. The new biological synthesis (pp. 167–177). Springer.

27.

Kull

(2010). Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: Consortia, umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics, 3(3). 347–357. doi:10.1007/s12304-010-9081-1

28.

Lefebvre

(1991). The production of space. Blackwell.

29.

Lotman

(1990). Universe of the mind. A semiotic theory of culture. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.

30.

Magnus

(2008). Biosemiotics within and without biological holism: A semiohistorical analysis. Biosemiotics, 1(3), 379–396. doi:10.1007/s12304-008-9021-5

31.

Magnus

Kull

(2012). Roots of culture in umwelt. In Valsiner

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 649–661). Oxford University Press.

32.

Marimán

Aylwin

(2008). Las identidades territoriales mapuche y el Estado chileno: conflicto interétnico en un contexto de globalización. In Leiva

Burguete

Speed

(Eds.), Gobernar (en) la diversidad: experiencias indígenas desde América Latina. Hacia la investigación de co-labor (pp. 111–150). Publicaciones de la Casa Chata.

33.

Marimán

Caniuqueo

Millalén

Levil

(2006). Escucha, winka. Cuatro ensayos de historia nacional mapuche y un epílogo sobre el futuro. Lom Ediciones.

34.

Marsico

Valsiner

(2017). Making history: Apprehending future while reconstructing the past. In Säljö

Linell

Mäkitalo

Å.

(Eds.), Memory practices and learning: Experiential, institutional, and sociocultural perspectives (pp. 355–372). Information Age Publishing.

35.

Martínez

(2012). Tierra, territorio y territorialidad mapuche: producción de espacio y formación de subjetividades. Revista Geográfica del Sur, 3(1), 37–62.

36.

Melin

Mansilla

Royo

(2019). Cartografía cultural del Wallmapu. Elementos para decolonizar el mapa en territorio Mapuche. Lom Ediciones.

37.

Ministerio de Desarrollo Social . (2015). Encuesta de caracterización socioeconómica nacional. http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen_2015.php

38.

Montecinos

Cereceda

Rivera

(2018). Fog collection and its relationship with local meteorological variables in a semiarid zone in Chile. Atmósfera, 31(2), 143–153. doi:10.20937/atm.2018.31.02.03

39.

Nahuelpan

(2016). Micropolíticas mapuche en el Chile neoliberal. La disputa por el lafkenmapu (territorio costero) en Mehuin. Izquierdas, 30, 89–123. doi:10.4067/S0718-50492016000500004

40.

Ñanculef

(2003). La cosmovisión y la filosofía mapuche: un enfoque del Ad Mapu y del derecho consuetudinario en la cultura mapuche. Revista de Estudios Criminológicos y Penitenciarios, 6, 37–58.

41.

Obeyesekere

(1990). The work of culture: Symbolic transformation in psychoanalysis and anthropology (Vol. 1982). University of Chicago Press.

42.

Pliscoff

Luebert

(2008). Diversidad de ecosistemas. In Biodiversidad de Chile. Patrimonio y Desafíos (pp. 74–87). Ocho Libro Editores.

43.

Porto-Gonçalves

. (2019). Mapuche: gente del lugar, lugar de la gente. In Melin

Mansilla

Royo

(Eds.), Cartografía cultural del Wallmapu. Elementos para decolonizar el mapa en territorio Mapuche (pp. 5–6). Lom Ediciones.

44.

Santibáñez

Roa

Santibáñez

(2018). Influencia del medio físico en la biodiversidad. In Figueroa

Rovira

Flores

, et al. (Eds.), Biodiversidad de Chile. Patrimonio y desafíos (pp. 21–47). Ministerio del Medioambiente.

45.

Silva

Saavedra

(2018). El hombre y la biodiversidad. In Figueroa

Rovira

Flores

, et al. (Eds.), Biodiversidad de Chile. Patrimonio y desafíos (pp. 122–145). Ministerio del Medioambiente.

46.

Skewes

Guerra

Rojas

Mellado

(2011). La memoria de los paisajes o los paisajes de la memoria? Los enigmas de la sustentabilidad socioambiental en las geografías en disputa. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 23, 39–57. doi:10.5380/dma.v23i0.20774

47.

Turner

Gardner

O’Neill

(2001). Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer.

48.

Von Uexküll

(1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere [Umwelt and the inner world of animals]. Springer.

49.

Von Uexküll

(1940). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

50.

Von Uexküll

(1973). Theoretische biologie. Suhrkamp.

51.

Wertsch

J. V.

(2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge University Press.

52.

Whaley

(2018). Geographies of the self: Space, place, and scale revisited. Human Arenas, 1(1), 21–36. doi:10.1007/s42087-018-0006-x