La existencia o no de ancestros en la Amazonía indígena ha sidoobjeto de importantes debates. Sin embargo, los líderes de la región no dudan en llamar ‘ancestrales’ sus saberes, normas o territorios,en un sentido que, desde un punto de vista académico, puede parecer enigmático. «Ancestrales, pero… ¿con o sin ancestros?», preguntaría entonces, confuso, el antropólogo. En este artículo propongo aportar elementos de respuesta a estapregunta a través del caso peruano. Primero analizo cómo los líderes indígenas amazónicos, conectándose al circuito del derecho internacional, adoptan la noción jurídica de ‘posesión ancestral’ del territorio para adaptarla al ámbito político. Este planteamiento rinde cuenta de la generalización y uniformización reciente del vocablo ‘ancestral’ pero deja pendiente el problema de su eventual articulación con las cosmologías indígenas que pretende reflejar. Por eso, en la segunda parte, intento sondear sobre la pertinenciade la categoría de ‘ancestro’ en la Amazonía indígena, recordando brevemente el debate académico para ir definiendo en qué medida esta categoría puede cobrar sentido. A partir del testimonio de un experimentado líder awajún, la tercera parte permite, entonces, volver más explícitos los diferentes sentidos y planos referenciales que despliega la referencia a lo ancestral, mostrando cómo los indígenas amazónicos no solo adoptan elementos conceptuales y discursivos externos, sino que al mismo tiempo los transforman a partir de sus propias singularidades cosmológicas y perspectivas políticas. / The existence —or not— of the concept of ancestors in the indigenous Amazon has been the subject of much debate. However, regional leaders do not hesitate to call upon ‘ancestral’ knowledge, customs, or territories in the sense that, from an academic point of view, could appear enigmatic. «Ancestral, but… with or without ancestors?» is the question a confused anthropologist might ask. In this article, I propose to offer elements of a response to this question,based on a case study in Peru. First I analyze how Amazonian indigenous leaders, following international law, have adopted the legal notion of ‘ancestral possession’ of their territory to adapt it to the political sphere. This approach accounts for the recent generalization and uniformization of the term ‘ancestral’, but poses the problem of how it articulates with the indigenous cosmologies that it supposes to reflect. For this reason, I explore in the second section the pertinence of the category of ‘ancestor’ in the indigenous Amazon, briefly drawing upon the academic debate in order to define inwhat way this category takes on meaning. Based on testimony from an experienced Awajún leader, we thus return in the third section more explicitly to the different meanings and planes of reference that unfold when one uses the term ‘ancestral’, showing how Amazonian indigenous people not only adopt external conceptual elements and arguments, but also transform them based on their own cosmological singularities and political perspectives.

U.S. Arctic foreign policy and the U.S. influence on Greenland has been studied predominantly regarding U.S. military and defence concerns. However, during the Trump Administration, the U.S. Arctic foreign policy agenda significantly shifted, placing Greenland as an integral component of the 2017-2021 Republican administration’s Arctic geopolitical aspirations, and not only for defence purposes. I argue that U.S-Greenland relations were significantly impacted when President Trump offered to purchase Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark in the summer of 2019. Following the offer, Greenland emerged as a focal point of the Trump Administration’s geopolitical and economic security interests in the Arctic. Consequently, Greenland finds itself at the centre of a complex Arctic arena, with vastly larger and more powerful states taking an interest in Greenland’s economic potential due to its natural resources. Nevertheless, Trump’s offer was highly problematic as Greenland is an Inuit nation with the political goal to become independent from their colonial ties with Denmark. Despite the offer causing initial outrage, U.S.-Greenland collaborative relations have only developed since. I analyze why this has occurred, conveying that the similar approaches of Trump and Greenland towards climate change created the possibility for the strengthening of U.S.-Greenland bilateral relations. Climate change threatens the Arctic, yet the melting ice also provides more accessibility to rich natural resources. Climate change therefore presents not only threats, but opportunities. Greenland has a right and desire to pursue economic development for a financially viable independence through utilizing carboniferous, extractive industries. The U.S. has also sought to utilize the economic opportunity that Arctic climate change presents but with different motives. The U.S. and Greenland have subsequently become interlinked in a complex Arctic constellation of foreign policy and economic opportunity. Regardless of changing approaches to climate change, the Trump Administration has significantly impacted the future of U.S.-Greenland relations and Greenland’s political future. / Graduate