Investigaciones arqueológicas recientes, han llegado a establecer también que estos territorios hoy pertenecientes a la provincia de Islay, fueron dominio de la Cultura Chiribaya que se extendió desde este lugar hasta Iquique, en el norte de Chile.
How do you understand "dominio" in this context? I know it can mean "possession" in a geopolitical sense, but I wonder if that's really appropriate here? I wonder if it's simply saying that the these areas/territories were inhabited by / "belonged to" the Chiribaya, but without any political implications. According to Wikipedia, the Chiribaya culture flourished in this area from the year 700 until Spanish settlement in the late 16th century. I don't know the historical details, but it seems more plausible to me that the Chiribaya would have spread organically throughout these territories, without the territories having any sort of official status as their "possessions." If I'm right, I would want to translate it as something like "were inhabited by the Chiribaya" or "belonged to the Chiribaya."
Thoughts?
How do you understand "dominio" in this context? I know it can mean "possession" in a geopolitical sense, but I wonder if that's really appropriate here? I wonder if it's simply saying that the these areas/territories were inhabited by / "belonged to" the Chiribaya, but without any political implications. According to Wikipedia, the Chiribaya culture flourished in this area from the year 700 until Spanish settlement in the late 16th century. I don't know the historical details, but it seems more plausible to me that the Chiribaya would have spread organically throughout these territories, without the territories having any sort of official status as their "possessions." If I'm right, I would want to translate it as something like "were inhabited by the Chiribaya" or "belonged to the Chiribaya."
Thoughts?