Polity Alternative Name List
A viewset for viewing and editing Polity Alternative Names.
GET /api/general/polity-alternative-names/?format=api&page=3
{ "count": 1331, "next": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-alternative-names/?format=api&page=4", "previous": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-alternative-names/?format=api&page=2", "results": [ { "id": 102, "polity": { "id": 260, "name": "cn_sui_dyn", "long_name": "Sui Dynasty", "start_year": 581, "end_year": 618 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Sui Empire", "comment": null, "description": "§REF§(Xiong 2006, 54)§REF§" }, { "id": 103, "polity": { "id": 261, "name": "cn_tang_dyn_1", "long_name": "Tang Dynasty I", "start_year": 617, "end_year": 763 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Li Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": " \"Li family\" §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 122)§REF§ T'ang Empire. §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 125)§REF§" }, { "id": 104, "polity": { "id": 261, "name": "cn_tang_dyn_1", "long_name": "Tang Dynasty I", "start_year": 617, "end_year": 763 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "T'ang Empire", "comment": null, "description": " \"Li family\" §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 122)§REF§ T'ang Empire. §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 125)§REF§" }, { "id": 105, "polity": { "id": 264, "name": "cn_tang_dyn_2", "long_name": "Tang Dynasty II", "start_year": 763, "end_year": 907 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Li Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": " \"Li family\" §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 122)§REF§ T'ang Empire. §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 125)§REF§" }, { "id": 106, "polity": { "id": 264, "name": "cn_tang_dyn_2", "long_name": "Tang Dynasty II", "start_year": 763, "end_year": 907 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "T'ang Empire", "comment": null, "description": " \"Li family\" §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 122)§REF§ T'ang Empire. §REF§(Rodzinski 1979, 125)§REF§" }, { "id": 107, "polity": { "id": 424, "name": "cn_wei_dyn_warring_states", "long_name": "Early Wei Dynasty", "start_year": -445, "end_year": -225 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Zhanguo", "comment": null, "description": "Zhanguo translates as ‘Warring States’; attested in Guanzi (Writings of Master Guan), compiled list of political-philosophical theories associated with Guanzi, Minister of Qi from the 7th c bce, probably compiled sometime in the first c bce<br>multi-polar system where territory of MYRV, and all of China, was split between numerous quasi-polities, though each of which with similar internal structure. MYRV was split between the Chu, Qi, and Wei, with Zhao and Han being right outside the Wei and Yellow Rivers confluence." }, { "id": 108, "polity": { "id": 251, "name": "cn_western_han_dyn", "long_name": "Western Han Empire", "start_year": -202, "end_year": 9 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Han Empire", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 109, "polity": { "id": 251, "name": "cn_western_han_dyn", "long_name": "Western Han Empire", "start_year": -202, "end_year": 9 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Former Han", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 110, "polity": { "id": 251, "name": "cn_western_han_dyn", "long_name": "Western Han Empire", "start_year": -202, "end_year": 9 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Han Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 111, "polity": { "id": 244, "name": "cn_western_zhou_dyn", "long_name": "Western Zhou", "start_year": -1122, "end_year": -771 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Zhou Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 112, "polity": { "id": 244, "name": "cn_western_zhou_dyn", "long_name": "Western Zhou", "start_year": -1122, "end_year": -771 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Chou Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 113, "polity": { "id": 244, "name": "cn_western_zhou_dyn", "long_name": "Western Zhou", "start_year": -1122, "end_year": -771 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Zhou", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 114, "polity": { "id": 244, "name": "cn_western_zhou_dyn", "long_name": "Western Zhou", "start_year": -1122, "end_year": -771 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Chou", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 115, "polity": { "id": 419, "name": "cn_yangshao", "long_name": "Yangshao", "start_year": -5000, "end_year": -3000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Miaodigou", "comment": null, "description": " \"The monograph on the excavations published in 1959 - the first archaeological report of the People’s Republic of China (IA,CASS 1959) - gives the middle Yangshao remains a new name - “the Miaodigou Type.” Some nostalgic archaeologists like to use the name “Xiyincun culture” to refer to the same remains (Zhang Zhongpei 1996), but Miaodigou Type or Miaodigou culture is still the most common name.\" §REF§(Li 2013, 213)§REF§ Miaodigou is an umbrella term for many other archaeological subcultures though: \"However, although sharing Miaodigou-style painted designs and some typical vessels, local archaeological cultures in these areas also show their own characteristics. While Yan’s classic definition of the Big Yangshao model is still influential, more and more archaeologists are inclined to name the local archaeological remains as independent cultures, each having its own local cultural tradition and developmental sequence (Zhang Zhongpei and Qiao 1992; Henan Sheng 1994; Wang 2010). Some scholars suggest a core-periphery model for the relationship of the local cultures with the heartland area of the Miaodigou Type (Wang 2010).\" §REF§(Li 2013, 215)§REF§" }, { "id": 116, "polity": { "id": 419, "name": "cn_yangshao", "long_name": "Yangshao", "start_year": -5000, "end_year": -3000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Xiyincun", "comment": null, "description": " \"The monograph on the excavations published in 1959 - the first archaeological report of the People’s Republic of China (IA,CASS 1959) - gives the middle Yangshao remains a new name - “the Miaodigou Type.” Some nostalgic archaeologists like to use the name “Xiyincun culture” to refer to the same remains (Zhang Zhongpei 1996), but Miaodigou Type or Miaodigou culture is still the most common name.\" §REF§(Li 2013, 213)§REF§ Miaodigou is an umbrella term for many other archaeological subcultures though: \"However, although sharing Miaodigou-style painted designs and some typical vessels, local archaeological cultures in these areas also show their own characteristics. While Yan’s classic definition of the Big Yangshao model is still influential, more and more archaeologists are inclined to name the local archaeological remains as independent cultures, each having its own local cultural tradition and developmental sequence (Zhang Zhongpei and Qiao 1992; Henan Sheng 1994; Wang 2010). Some scholars suggest a core-periphery model for the relationship of the local cultures with the heartland area of the Miaodigou Type (Wang 2010).\" §REF§(Li 2013, 215)§REF§" }, { "id": 117, "polity": { "id": 268, "name": "cn_yuan_dyn", "long_name": "Great Yuan", "start_year": 1271, "end_year": 1368 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Yuan Dynasty", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 118, "polity": { "id": 268, "name": "cn_yuan_dyn", "long_name": "Great Yuan", "start_year": 1271, "end_year": 1368 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Yuan", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 119, "polity": { "id": 268, "name": "cn_yuan_dyn", "long_name": "Great Yuan", "start_year": 1271, "end_year": 1368 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Great Yuan", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 120, "polity": { "id": 268, "name": "cn_yuan_dyn", "long_name": "Great Yuan", "start_year": 1271, "end_year": 1368 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Great Mongol State", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 121, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Nahuange", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 122, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Nehuange", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 123, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Early Cinto I", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 124, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Early Cinto II", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 125, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Early Period", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 126, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Integrationist Period", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 127, "polity": { "id": 435, "name": "co_neguanje", "long_name": "Neguanje", "start_year": 250, "end_year": 1050 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Buritaca", "comment": null, "description": " \"In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof's Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta's Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto's Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7).\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7-11)§REF§<br>\"Based on his own excavations, Wynn defined the Buritaca phase (equivalent Neguanje, in its latter part), a late occupation called Tairona and an intermediate phase between the two.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 7)§REF§<br>Depending on the author, the Buritaca phase can also be seen as a continuity of the previous Nehuange phase:\"In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase. Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork.\" §REF§(Bray 2003, 322)§REF§" }, { "id": 128, "polity": { "id": 436, "name": "co_tairona", "long_name": "Tairona", "start_year": 1050, "end_year": 1524 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Tayrona", "comment": null, "description": " \"In this project, the term Late Period is chosen over \"Tairona\", since this term makes reference to one of the many groups that occupied the Sierra Nevada during the 16th Century.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 57)§REF§" }, { "id": 129, "polity": { "id": 436, "name": "co_tairona", "long_name": "Tairona", "start_year": 1050, "end_year": 1524 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Late Period", "comment": null, "description": " \"In this project, the term Late Period is chosen over \"Tairona\", since this term makes reference to one of the many groups that occupied the Sierra Nevada during the 16th Century.\" §REF§(Langebaek 2005, 57)§REF§" }, { "id": 130, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Shuar", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 131, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Achuara", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 132, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Aguaruna", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 133, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Huambisa", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 134, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Mayna", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 135, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Chívari", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 136, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Chiwaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 137, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Gíbari", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 138, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Givari", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 139, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Gívaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 140, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Híbaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 141, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Jibaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 142, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Jívara", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 143, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Jívira", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 144, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Síwaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 145, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Xívari", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 146, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Xivaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 147, "polity": { "id": 196, "name": "ec_shuar_1", "long_name": "Shuar - Colonial", "start_year": 1534, "end_year": 1830 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Zíbaro", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 148, "polity": { "id": 197, "name": "ec_shuar_2", "long_name": "Shuar - Ecuadorian", "start_year": 1831, "end_year": 1931 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Shuar", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 149, "polity": { "id": 197, "name": "ec_shuar_2", "long_name": "Shuar - Ecuadorian", "start_year": 1831, "end_year": 1931 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Achuara", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 150, "polity": { "id": 197, "name": "ec_shuar_2", "long_name": "Shuar - Ecuadorian", "start_year": 1831, "end_year": 1931 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Aguaruna", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." }, { "id": 151, "polity": { "id": 197, "name": "ec_shuar_2", "long_name": "Shuar - Ecuadorian", "start_year": 1831, "end_year": 1931 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_alternative_name", "alternative_name": "Huambisa", "comment": null, "description": " The term \"Jivaro\" is frequently found in our sources to refer to a number of peoples in the Ecuador-Peru region, namely speakers of the Chicham and Shiwiar language groups including the Achuar, Awajun, and Wampis peoples. The term is, however, highly offensive to contemporary populations, as it was repurposed by many Spanish colonial writers to indicate a 'barbaric' or 'savage' nature. While much of the scholarship we rely on uses this term, out of respect, we use the word “Shuar” instead of \"Jivaro\", except for source titles and direct quotations." } ] }