World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections Forum / Connections /  

Patagonia and Siberia

Author Assif
#1 | Posted: 20 Jan 2015 04:04 
I can now see that Chiloe is sometimes included in Patagonia and sometimes is not.
Same is true of Wrangel and Kamchatka for Siberia.
The question is how to regard these regions: tectonically, biologically or ethnically.
Kamchatka, for example, is still inhabited by the palaeo-siberian tribes Itelmen and Koryak related to the chukchi of Anadyr on the Russian side of the Bering Strate. Ethnically it belongs to Siberia. The biomes on Kamchatka are too similar to the ones on mainland Siberia, so biologically it is Siberia. Tectonically it is not, but neither is the Altai...
Chiloe used to be inhabited by the Huilliche and cunco, related to the Mapuche, as well as by the Chono, probably related to the Kawesqar. The Mapuche, Huilliche and Kavesqar inhabit mainland Patagonia. Biologically Chiloe belongs to the Valdivian temperate forest, same as mainland Patagonia of that area. Tectonically it does not belong to Patagonia.
How should we proceed?

Author elsslots
#2 | Posted: 2 Feb 2015 12:21 

Connections Forum / Connections /
 Patagonia and Siberia

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®