The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 8 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Frontera Arqueológica vs. Frontera Etnohistórica: Pastos y Quillacingas en la Arqueología del Sur de Colombia
Open accessAbstract
De tantos temas que le competen a la disciplina arqueológica, uno de los más polémicos es el de las fronteras. Desde sus inicios, en Colombia la arqueología se ha interesado por la delimitación de territorios étnicos y de "áreas culturales", términos que casi siempre vinieron a confundirse entre sí. Tal definición de las "áreas culturales" solía implicar un espacio geográfico amplio, casi siempre con diversas características ecológicas que pueden incluir, por ejemplo, el valle cálido de un r...
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Cárdenas-Arroyo argues that the traditional equation of Nariño ceramic complexes (Capulí, Piartal, Tuza) with ethnic groups (pastos, quillacingas, "protopastos") is methodologically flawed, because the complexes overlap spatially and chronologically across the ethnohistoric territorial map. He proposes instead that only non-shared material traits (metallurgy, lithic statuary, cemetery layout) can serve as territorial markers, and that ethnohistoric data should generate hypotheses to be tested archaeologically rather than explain material remains after the fact.
Key findings
- Ceramic complexes cross the ethnohistoric frontier: Tuza appears in considerable proportions in quillacinga territory, and in the Atriz valley quillacinga tombs contained Piartal, Tuza and tropical-forest pottery together; Piartal also appears in the central quillacinga altiplano and at the eastern quillacinga limit (Tajumbina) around the 10th century AD.
- Radiocarbon dates contradict the Piartal→Tuza evolutionary sequence: Fernández obtained 825±125 BP (1125 AD) for Tuza at Bombona, a century earlier than two known Miraflores Piartal dates and 300 years earlier than the traditionally known Tuza date; Groot's date of 1450±100 BP (500 AD) came with both Tuza and Piartal materials.
- Sociopolitical hierarchy is archaeologically clear in both territories, but expressed differently: pasto cemeteries in the Pupiales region show concentric spatial ordering with tombs up to 40 m deep and rich gold grave goods, whereas Maridíaz (Atriz valley) shows no clear spatial pattern between elaborate and simple tombs.
- Non-shared traits are the better territorial markers: abundant and technically elaborate pasto metallurgy versus its near absence among the quillacingas, and small lithic statuary present in some quillacinga sectors (Valle de Atriz, Buesaco, Chimayoy, Berruecos, El Tambo, Las Mesas, Tajumbina, Valle de Sibundoy) but absent in pasto territory.
Methods
- Interpretive/comparative essay confronting the ethnohistoric territorial model (built from Cieza de León c. 1540 and the visitas of Tomás López 1558–1559 and García de Valverde 1570–1571) against the archaeological record of ceramic complexes and their spatial and chronological distribution.
- Synthesizes published archaeological and radiocarbon evidence for Nariño and northern Ecuador (Uribe Alarcón, Francisco, Cadavid and Ordóñez, Fernández, Groot, Bray), including a radiocarbon table for highland Nariño sites reproduced from Cárdenas 1992 with new dates added.
- Proposes a methodological inversion: ethnohistoric documents should serve as the basis for hypotheses about past societies to be tested against the archaeological record, rather than material remains being explained through documents.
Limitations
- The author states that the ethnohistoric territorial delimitations correspond to spaces defined from the 16th century and that there is no certainty they were the same in preceding centuries; he also states that the true origins of Tuza remain far from known.
- The paper is a synthesis and argument rather than new fieldwork: it relies on secondary published data and on a radiocarbon table explicitly reproduced from an earlier publication (Cárdenas 1992) with two dates added, so its chronological claims depend on the reliability of those prior sources.
- Evident from the text: the key claim that Piartal may be a variety of Tuza associated with certain hierarchical levels is presented as a possibility ("me atrevo a plantear", "puede ser"), not as a demonstrated result.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 8 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.
This dating moves Tuza back 300 years relative to the traditionally known date.
“Pero también es significativo el hecho de que esta datación retrocede a Tuza 300 años con respecto a la fecha tradicionalmente conocida.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.
Radiocarbon dates do not support Uribe's proposal of a Piartal-to-Tuza evolution and protopasto model.
“El problema, sin embargo, no es tan sencillo como parece, pues evidentemente las fechas de radiocarbono no apoyan esta propuesta.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.
Funerary contexts clearly indicate sociopolitical hierarchy in both Pasto and Quillacinga territories.
“Lo que sí se infiere, sin duda, de los contextos funerarios, es una jerarquización sociopolítica, tanto en territorio pasto como en territorio quillacinga.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.
The basic ceramic forms are identical in Pasto and/or protopasto territory and in Quillacinga territory.
“Sin embargo, dicha posibilidad presenta dificultades porque, definitivamente, las formas básicas son idénticas tanto en territorio pasto y/o protopasto, como en territorio quillacinga.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.
When comparing spaces with objects, non-shared traits have value as territorial markers, not the reverse.
“Al cotejar los espacios con los objetos, son los rasgos no compartidos los que tienen valor como marcadores territoriales y no a la inversa.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Interpretationreasoning§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.
The distribution of Nariño ceramic complexes complicates their use as territorial or ethnic markers.
“Precisamente, la distribución de los complejos cerámicos de Nariño complica el panorama cuando se les considera como marcadores territoriales o como marcadores étnicos.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.
The Quillacinga have never been associated with ceramic complexes.
“Curiosamente, los quillacinga nunca han sido asociados con complejos cerámicos.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.
Archaeology, through the material record, can approximate the delimitation of political frontiers in prehispanic societies.
“En este sentido es importante notar que la arqueología, mediante el registro material, sí puede hacer una aproximación a la delimitación de fronteras políticas en sociedades prehispánicas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.
Recent archaeological work suggests that the spatiality of Nariño ceramic complexes represents shared traits by different cultures in different political territories, coexisting over time.
“De acuerdo con los trabajos arqueológicos que se han realizado últimamente, la espacialidad de tales complejos nos invita a proponer que se trata de rasgos compartidos por culturas diferentes, en territorios políticos diferentes, coexistiendo a lo largo del tiempo.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ 11 Hester "Introduction ro Archaeology":82
The particular manifestations of the Panzaleo-Píllaro phase referred to in the paper show an evident similarity with the ceramics and statuary of the eastern territory of Nariño and the Putumayo in Colombia.
“Las manifestaciones particulares a que hacemos referencia están en las provincias mencionadas, y su similitud con la cerámica y la estatuaria del territorio oriental de Nariño y el Putumayo en Colombia es evidente.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Panzaleo-Píllaro phase covers a very extensive area in the centre and east of Ecuador.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.Tuza, once thought definitely later than Piartal, appears in Bombona in the 12th century AD, before many Piartal sites.
“Cuando suponíamos que Tuza era definitivamente más tardío que Piartal, aparece en Bombona en el siglo xii d.C, antes que muchos sitios Piartal.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.The Tuza complex is present in Quillacinga territories in considerable proportions, and in the Atriz valley Quillacinga tombs contained Piartal, Tuza, and other ceramics whose origins are from the tropical forest.
“¿Cómo explicar la presencia del complejo Tuza en territorios de los quillacinga, en proporciones considerables? Más aún, en el valle de Atriz se encontró en tumbas quillacinga cerámica Piartal, Tuza y otra cuyos orígenes son de selva tropical13.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.In recent work at Bombona, Conscacá, Fernández obtained a radiocarbon date for Tuza of the 12th century AD, one century earlier than two known dates for Miraflores with Piartal ceramics.
“En un trabajo reciente realizado en el municipio de Conscacá, sitio Bombona, Fernández obtuvo una fecha de radiocarbono para Tuza del siglo xii d.C, es decir un siglo más temprana que dos de las fechas conocidas para Miraflores con cerámica Piartal (ver tabla cronológica).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingreasoning§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.In Quillacinga territory, the spatial map includes intermediate, low, and eastern piedmont areas; this broad adaptive system for populations with important demographic density, inferred from wide dispersion of archaeological material evidence, indicates some degree of complexification.
“En territorio quillacinga, el mapa espacial incluye áreas de tierras intermedias, bajas y piedemonte oriental. Sin duda, un sistema adaptativo amplio como éste para poblaciones con una densidad demográfica importante, que se infiere por la amplia dispersión de evidencias materiales arqueológicas, indica cierto grado de complejización.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.Piartal, once thought exclusive to southern Nariño and northern Ecuador, appears in Quillacinga territory in the central highlands associated with Tuza and late dates, and recently at the limit of eastern Quillacinga territory, supposedly from the cloud forest, around the 10th century AD.
“Cuando se pensaba que Piartal era exclusivo del sur de Nariño y norte del Ecuador, aparece en territorio quillacinga en el altiplano central, asociado con Tuza y con fechas tardías, y recientemente, aparece en el límite del territorio oriental quillacinga41, supuestamente proveniente de la ceja de selva, hacia el siglo x d.C.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.Material culture is much more elaborate in Pasto territory-metallurgy, tomb engineering, body disposition in tombs-than in Quillacinga territory, but the same material culture, especially ceramics, cannot be grouped in space or time with the same ease.
“Es mucho más elaborada la cultura material en territorio pasto - metalurgia, ingeniería de las tumbas, disposición de los cuerpos en las tumbas, etc39 - que en territorio quillacinga40, pero la misma cultura material, especialmente la cerámica, no se deja agrupar en el espacio ni en el tiempo con la misma facilidad.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [40]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationcitation§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.The microverticality model defined by Udo Oberem for the northern Andes could also apply to southern Nariño and even to central and eastern Quillacinga territories.
“Para el caso de los pastos en territorio ecuatoriano, Landázuri14 retoma el claro modelo de microverticalidad que el arqueólogo y etnohistoriador Udo Oberem15 definió como especificidad de los Andes septentrionales, y que bien podría ser el mismo para el sur de Nariño e inclusive para los territorios quillacinga del centro y oriente16.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ 2: FRONTERAS Y COMPLEJOS CERÁMICOS: RASGOS COMPARTIDOS, TERRITORIOS DIVIDIDOS.The ethnohistorical territorial map is important and consistent with the reality of the 16th to 17th centuries, as corroborated by recent documentary and linguistic studies.
“Es indudable que el mapa territorial basado en los documentos etnohistóricos es importante y acorde con la realidad de los siglos xvi a xvii. Los estudios documentales y lingüísticos más recientes así lo corroboran18.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given§ 3: DISCUSIÓN.Differences between formal attributes of Piartal and Tuza are not significant enough to think of two different ethnic groups; in utilitarian ceramics, distinctive traits are nonexistent, though some differences in decorated ceramics should be accepted.
“Las diferencias entre los atributos formales de Piartal y Tuza no son tan significativas como para pensar en dos etnias diferentes. En lo que respecta a la cerámica utilitaria, me atrevo a plantear que tales rasgos distintivos son inexistentes; más bien habría que aceptar algunas diferencias en la cerámica decorada.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning§ 1: QUILLACINGAS Y PASTOS DEL SIGLO xvi.Ethnohistorical territorial delimitations correspond to spaces defined from the 16th century, and there is no certainty they were the same in preceding centuries.
“Sin embargo, conviene subrayar aquí que dichas delimitaciones territoriales corresponden a espacios definidos a partir del siglo xvi y aún no tenemos ninguna seguridad de que hubiesen sido iguales en los siglos precedentes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The Panzaleo-Píllaro phase covers a very extensive area in the centre and east of Ecuador.
“La Fase Panzaleo-Píllaro abarca un área muy extensa en el centro y oriente del Ecuador.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Cited page falls outside the listed article's page range
MinorFootnote 10 cites page 88 of Uribe's article, but the bibliography lists that article as spanning pages 89-95.
“MV. Uribe "La estratificación social entre los protopasto":88.”
“URIBE ALARCÓN, Maria Victoria "La estratificación social entre los protopasto". En: Etnohistoria e historia de las Américas. -Memorias 45° Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Ediciones Uniandes, pp.89-95, Bogotá, 1988.”
Citations
Cites
Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: The Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms
Salomon, F. (1986) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511558146 · Cited by 304
Revista Colombiana de Antropología
(2020) · Revista Colombiana de Antropología · doi:10.22380/issn.2539-472x · Cited by 58
The panzaleo puzzle: non-local pottery in northern highland ecuador
Bray, T. L. (1995) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1179/009346995791547813 · Cited by 25
Las tribus de la antigua jurisdiccion de pasto en el siglo xvi
Romoli, K. (1978) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.22380/2539472x.1890 · Cited by 10
Etnohistoria de las comunidades andinas prehispanicas del sur de Colombia
Uribe, M. V. (1986) · Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura · Cited by 10
Excavaciones en los cementerios protopasto de Miraflores-Nariño
Uribe, M. V., & Pérez, R. L. (1983) · Revista Colombiana de Antropología · doi:10.22380/2539472x.1521 · Cited by 6
Arqueología de salvamento en la vereda de Tajumbina, Municipio de la Cruz, Nariño
Camargo, G. C. (1989) · Boletín de Arqueología de la Fian · Cited by 5
Documentos del Siglo XVIII referentes a la provincia de los pastos: problemas de interpretación
Uribe, M. V. (1975) · Revista Colombiana de Antropología · doi:10.22380/2539472x.1725 · Cited by 5
Complejos cerámicos y territorios étnicos en áreas arqueológicas de Nariño
Arroyo, F. C. (1989) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 4
Relaciones prehispánicas entre la costa del Pacífico y el altiplano nariñense, Colombia
Uribe Alarcón, M. V. (1976) · Revista Colombiana de Antropología · doi:10.22380/2539472x.1752 · Cited by 3
La arqueología en Colombia: ¿inducimos, deducimos o imaginamos?
Cárdenas-Arroyo, F. (2018) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- CÁRDENAS-ARROYO, Felipe "Estatuaria lítica en el norte de Nariño. Nuevos datos" Revista Colombiana de Antropología.-Vol.XXVII , pp. 171-1990a, Instituto Colombiano de Antropología, Bogotá, 1990a
- CÁRDENAS-ARROYO, Felipe "Complejos cerámicos como marcadores territoriales: el caso crítico del Piartal-Tuza en la arqueología colombo-ecuatoriana". En Cristóbal Gnecco (Ed): Perspectivas regionales en la arqueología del suroccidente de Colombia y norte del Ecuador. Popayán: Universidad del Cauca , pp.49-1995, 1995.
- LANDAZURI, Cristóbal "Territorios y pueblos: la sociedad pasto en los siglos xvi y XVII", Memoria.- 1(1):57-1990, (Marka-Quito), 1990.
- PATIÑO, Diógenes "Arqueología del Bajo Patía, costa Pacífica de Nariño secuencia arqueológica en la costa. En: S.Mora, F.Cárdenas-Arroyo y MA.Roldán (Eds): Memorias V Congreso Nacional de Antropología.- Simposio de Arqueología y Antropología Física pp.79-1990, Universidad de los Andes-Ican-Icfes. Bogotá, 1990.
- UHLE, Max Las ruinas de Cuasmal. Anales de la Universidad Central- Vol.40 No.. 264. Quito, 1922.
- URIBE ALARCÓN, Maria Victoria "Asentamientos prehispánicos en el altiplano de Ipiales, Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Antropología.- Vol.XXI, pp.57-195, Instituto Colombiano de Antropología, Bogotá, 1977-78.
- URIBE ALARCÓN, Maria Victoria "La estratificación social entre los protopasto". En: Etnohistoria e historia de las Américas. -Memorias 45° Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Ediciones Uniandes, pp.89-1988, Bogotá, 1988.
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Cárdenas-Arroyo, F.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Los Andes (CO)
- Corresponding author
- Cárdenas-Arroyo, Felipe
- Venue
- Frontera y poblamiento: estudios de historia y antropología de Colombia y Ecuador
- Publisher
- Institut français d’études andines
- Published
- 1996
- Pages
- 41-56
- OpenAlex
- W1713578316
- Semantic Scholar
- 16c3d81953900c1c82b920709a4c47a8377f8057
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- es
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Institut français d’études andines eBooks (publishedVersion)
- OpenEdition (OpenEdition) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- cultural regions, ethnic territories, Pasto, southern Colombia, border demarcation, Andean archaeology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
