44 139 (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy’y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples in the area; (ii) it has been proven that the indigenous communities of the area continue to live in accordance with their cultural tradition, as hunter-gatherer and fishing nomads, in a territory which is geographically and environmentally apt for the development of their way of life; and (iii) it has been documented that over one thousand places in the area have been named in the native languages of these peoples. 140 158. The Provincial Government of Salta, in three of the documents that it submitted in the present process, contested the ancestral presence of the Wichi (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy’y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples in the area, referring to the historical th accounts from the beginning of the 20 century which only refer to the presence of the “mataguayo” peoples in this region. On the last occasion the Provincial Government adopted this stance, it asserted that “a reliable survey made in 1902, which has not been contested, indicates that as of that time, there were no ‘Wichís’ in the area of Lots 55 and 14. The very sparce inhabitants that existed at that time were creole settlers and mataguayo Indians. (sic) It is believed that the ‘Wichís’ emigrated from the 141 neighbouring countries and began to settle in the area in the 1920s decade.” In response to these statements, the National Government, through note received on September 7, 2006, expressly refuted and corrected the Provincial Government’s stance, explaining to the IACHR that the term “matacomataguayo” corresponds to the designation of a linguistic family, of which the indigenous peoples who currently inhabit the place form part - their ancestral presence in the area being uncontestable. In the National Government’s words, “the area of Lot 55 in its entirety and part of Lot 14, has been inhabited by communities of the Wichí, Chorote, Toba, Chulupi, Tapiete indigenous peoples, inter alia, who were cornered in these lands as a consequence of the private appropriation of the best agricultural lands of Salta during the period of incorporation of the Northern Frontier of the country. This fact permitted the entry of creole population into the area, and its cattle-raising colonization.” 159. The serious ethnological error of the Provincial Government of Salta was thus clarified and corrected by the National Government. The IACHR, taking into account the evidence which confirm the explanations given by the National Government, gives credit to the latter’s statements, as also consistently asserted by the petitioner indigenous communities, and takes as a starting point that these 139 Specifically, they cite the written testimony of a colonizer arrived in the area in 1902, Domingo Astrada, who came with a group of cattle-raising families from Salta in search of good grazing fields, and provided precise details on the indigenous population of the area that today corresponds to Fiscal Lots 14 and 55: “In this campaign (to the Pilcomayo) I have established relations with 5000 indigenous… I spoke with 106 chiefs and their respective entourages from the tribes of the mataguayos, chorotes, tobas, mimocaes, chinupies and pilayas…” [Astrada, D.: “Expedición al Pilcomayo”. Document provided by the petitioners together with their observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007.] The petitioners also refer to the early anthropological reports of researcher Erland Nordenskiold, dated 1902 and 1908, and confirmed by other specialized studies; including: LOZANO, P. (1874): “Descripción Corográfica del Gran Chaco Gualamba”; San Miguel de Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, 1941. KARSTEN, R. (1923): “The Toba Indians of the Bolivian Gran Chaco”. Acta Academiae Aboensis IV, 1925. METRAUX, A. (1937): “Estudio de Etnografía Toba-Pilagá (Gran Chaco). Anthropos – Revue International d’Ethnologie et Linguistique, T. 32, 1937. KERSTEN, L. (1968): “Las tribus indígenas del Gran Chaco hasta fines del siglo XVIII”. Resistencia: Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Facultad de Humanidades, 1968. FOCK, N. (1982): “History of Mataco Folk Literature and Research”. En: WILBERT, J. y SIMONEAU, K. (eds.): “Folk Literature of the Mataco Indians”, Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1982. Referencias etnológicas e históricas citadas en: CARRASCO, Morita y BRIONES, Claudia: “La Tierra que nos quitaron”. Documento IWGIA No. 18, Buenos Aires, 1996, p. 195. Document provided as an annex of the petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 140 As recounted by the petitioners, “in 1991 the communities of Fiscal Lots 55 and 14 resorted to their memory –zealously guarded by the elders- in order to identify the dimensions of the physical space they traditionally occupy. The –then- 27 communities that participated in the elaboration of an ethnic map to justify their claim to a single title, indicated over one thousand locations with names in their corresponding languages (…) and, on the grounds of this information, it was possible to indicate the areas traveled by each communities, and the usage superimpositions between communities (…). This form of ‘naming the land’ is, as explained by a chief of the Toba people, the manner in which ‘the grandparents’ explain to the youth what these must know in order to become full members of the group. In giving significant names to the environment in which they live, the men and women of the communities transform the geographical space where they live into a ‘culturally organized territory’.” Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 141 Report of the Provincial Government of Salta, received on August 23, 2005, and transmitted by the IACHR to the petitioners on September 15, 2005.