"Our Grandparents Used to Say That We Are Certainly Ancient People, We Come From the Chullpas": The Bolivian Chipayas' Mythistory

Introduction¹

In this paper I will study the story² that the Bolivian highland Chipayas tell about their origin and past. This oral tradition is closely related to the present. Not only does it explain and justify why they live where they do and how they do, but it also explains their often tense relationship with their immediate neighbors, the Aymaras. In the story, mythical and historical discourse are fused in order to construct their ethnic identity. Before examining the narrative in detail, it is necessary to discuss briefly the two theoretical concepts that underlie my analysis: ethnic identity and mythistory.

Ethnic Identity

The concept of ethnic identity is a construct that a sociocultural group creates to signal its self-definition, both for its own members as well as for outsiders. This understanding of identity, which is not static but undergoes changes, helps the group members shape and express perceptions of their own group and relationships with other groups. These perceptions can reflect the pride of belonging to a group and/or they can be a response to prejudice and discrimination, and in many cases both factors reinforce one another. The boundaries that result from this group-defining process can be physical (reflected, for example, in the competition over natural resources or access to markets) as well as conceptual (manifest, for example, in a certain interpretation of the past or a tradition, be it invented or not). Because social and ethnic groups always interact with other groups, this construct affects and changes a group's internal perceptions of identity and at the same time influences how a group shapes its image of other, especially neighboring, groups. This construct also contributes to the image that these neighboring groups form regarding the group in question.³

Mythistory

Both history⁴ and myth⁵ are normally verbal explanations of the past. They are used to construct socially and culturally relevant past events, are often related to public rituals, and are told by a narrator who tends to be a recognized representative of the group. Both history and myth claim to be authoritative and legitimate, and both highlight a continuing relevance of the past to the present and future. However, one of the most important tasks of myth is to interpret sociocultural values and give them meaning and importance in contemporary life. While history may be seen similarly, it is not typically used as a learning experience, although it may be intended as such.

The most distinctive differences, which have largely determined our basic conceptual separation of myth and history, are medium and author. Myth is usually transmitted orally (and can be supported by visual means, such as rock shapes or paintings and/or rituals that enact the myth). However, when we analyze it, it has almost always been transferred to and transformed into writing, most often by an outsider. History tends to be transmitted in writing, but it is frequently communicated through oral or visual means (such as exhibitions or television), and this was even more the case in the past, when paintings and oral discourse were the only means of conveying "history" to an illiterate audience. It is also often enacted in public ceremonies, for example in commemoration. In this sense there is no clear boundary between a "fixed" written transmission and a "fluid" oral transmission.

The other major difference is authorship. Myth has no identifiable authors; it is conceived of as a narrative that belongs to and is produced by the community, although, of course, it is practically impossible to study how myth develops over time in its own environment, without "outside" interference; therefore, little is known as to the function and role of the narrator and the audience in the shaping and reshaping of the text.⁶ History, on the contrary, normally has an individual as author, but once we start asking about the composition and editing process of a book, including the selection of sources as well as changes due to invited critique, the seemingly clearly defined authorship becomes elusive.

As I...