New Bodies, Ancient Blood: â•œPurityâ•š and the

Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of LowlandSouth AmericaISSN: 2572-3626 (online)

Volume 3Issue 2 Including Special Section: The Body inAmazonia

Article 5

December 2005

New Bodies, Ancient Blood: “Purity” and theConstruction of Zápara Identity in the EcuadorianAmazonMaximilian ViatoriIowa State University, [email protected]

Cover Page Footnote:Acknowledgements. Research funding for this project was provided by a Dissertation ResearchGrant from the Wenner-Gren Foundation, as well as grants from the University of California, Davis,and the Northern California Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa. I would like to thank Bartolo Ushigua,Gloria Ushigua, and Oscar Montahuano for their help in making this research possible in Ecuador.

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti

Part of the Anthropology Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tipití: Journal of the Societyfor the Anthropology of Lowland South America by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended CitationViatori, Maximilian (2005). "New Bodies, Ancient Blood: “Purity” and the Construction of Zápara Identity in the EcuadorianAmazon," Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America: Vol. 3: Iss. 2, Article 5.Available at: http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2/5

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/318?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.trinity.edu%2Ftipiti%2Fvol3%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Tipití (2005) 3(2):175–195 © 2005 SALSA 175ISSN 1545-4703 Printed in USA

New Bodies, Ancient Blood: “Purity” and the Construction of Zápara Identity in the

Ecuadorian Amazon

MAXIMILIAN VIATORIIowa State [email protected]

AnthropologistsworkinginAmazoniahavebeenparticularlyattunedtochangesinthewaythatindigenousbodiesaremadetomatterwithinthe context of indigenous politics and representation. Almost withoutexception, however, Amazonian anthropologists with an interest in thebodyandindigenousrepresentationhavetendedtofocusonthesemioticquality of the body’s surface—skin, clothes, and adornment—and theroleitplaysinconveyingidentity(Turner1980:112–114).Forexample,anthropologists have shown that as a result of contact and colonialism,manyindigenousAmazoniansadopted“Western”meansofdress—shoes,t-shirtsandpants—inlocalinterethnicencountersinordertodown-playtheirculturaldistinctnessandavoidnon-Indians’scrutiny,disrespectandrejection (Turner1992:289;Conklin1997:716). Theyhavealso shownthat indigenous representatives are often reclaiming or adopting“local”indigenousdress—headdresses,bodypaint,andfeathers—whenaddressinginterethnicaudiences(Turner1992;ConklinandGraham1995:697,701–703;andConklin1997).BethConklinandLauraGraham(1995)explainthisshiftinindigenousadornmentasaresultofthecapitalthat“Western”environmentalgroupsplaceonimagesof“exotic”IndiansassymbolsoftheuntouchedcharacteroftheAmazonianrainforest(1997).Consequently,indigenous representatives have found that such dress and adornmentprovide an important tool before international and national audiencestoindexandprovetheir“authenticity”asIndians.1TheliteratureonthevisualaspectsofindigenousbodiesinAmazoniahasbeenimportantfordemonstratingthewaysinwhichindigenousbodiesareproducedassitesofdifference,andhighlightingthepowerindigenouspoliticalstruggleshavetoaltermeaningsignificantly.However,withitsfocusontheadornmentof the body’s surface, this literature tends to assume a continuity andsoliditytothebodiesunderneaththefeathers,headdressesandpaint,thusimplying that although indigenousbodieshave changedon theoutsideto adapt to political and social situations, the bodies underneath haveremainedthesame.

1Published by Digital Commons @ Trinity, 2005

176 Maximilian Viatori

Map

1.

App

roxi

mat

e lo

cati

on o

f the

Záp

ara

com

mun

ties

stud

ied

2

Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol3/iss2/5

New Bodies, Ancient Blood 177

I begin with an examination of how Zápara identity has changedduringthepastdecadeasaresultoftheZáparas’engagementinEcuadorianindigenousidentitypolitics.IthendiscusshowbloodrelationshipshavebecomeanimportantmarkerforindividualZáparaidentity,andexplorethe difficulties this has produced for Zápara individuals from “mixed”bloodfamilies.Finally,IdemonstratehowtheZáparahaveusednotionsofbloodpuritytodefinethemselvesinoppositiontoanothergroup,theComunaZáparo,whichalsoclaimsZáparaidentity.

LANGUAGE, HISTORY AND IDENTITY

ThecommunitieswhereIconductedthisresearch2arelocatedalongtheupperreachesoftheConamboRiverintheprimarytropicalrainforestof eastern Pastaza province, near Ecuador’s border with Peru. Thesecommunitiesbandedtogetherin1998,alongwithCuyacocha(locatedonthePindoyacuRiver),toorganizeastheZáparaNationalityofEcuador.Theyformedanorganization,whichisbasedinPastaza’sprovincialcapitalofPuyo,toactastheirpoliticalrepresentativetothe“outside”worldaswellastorevivetheZaparaidentityandlanguageinEcuador. WhenIfirstbeganmyresearchinEcuador,thenameoftheZápara’sorganizationwastheAsociacióndelaNacionalidadZáparadelaProvinciadePastaza(theAssociationoftheZáparaNationalityofPastazaProvince,ANAZPPA)whichchangedin2002totheOrganizacióndelaNacionalidadZáparadelEcuador(OrganizationoftheZáparaNationalityofEcuador,ONZAE),and in2003became theNacionalidadZáparadelEcuador (theZáparanationality of Ecuador, NAZAE). In addition to its four foundingcommunities(Bilhaut2005:11),theZáparaorganizationnowrepresentsthecommunitiesofShiona,Pindoyacu,BalsauraandSanJosédelCuraray.Eachcommunityhasbetweentwenty-fivetosixtyresidentswhoengageprimarilyinsubsistencehuntingandfarminginEcuador’sprimarytropicalrainforest,butwhoalsomakefrequenttripsoutsidetheircommunitiestoselltheirhandicrafts,work,attendschool,orserveinthemilitary. The Zápara are one of the smallest indigenous nationalities inEcuador.TheZáparapopulationisestimatedconservativelytobearoundtwo hundred individuals living in eastern Ecuador (Andrade 2001:12).Over the past decade, the Zápara language has become the primarysymboloftheseindividuals’identityaspartoftheZáparanationality.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofZápara,however,donotspeakthislanguage;infact,Záparaisspokenbyfewerthantenelders.TheZáparalanguageisamemberoftheZaparoanlanguagefamily—agroupoflanguagesspokenin

3

New Bodies, Ancient Blood: “Purity” and the Construction of Zápar

Published by Digital Commons @ Trinity, 2005


easternEcuadorandPeru(Peeke1962,1991;Stark1981:12–13;Whitten1981:138; Wise 1999:312). Zápara speakers were likely numerous ineasternEcuadorandnortheasternPerupriortoEuropeancontact(Rivet1930:5;StewardandMétraux1948:629).EvenafterEuropeancontact,theZáparaconstitutedalargeethnolinguisticgroupwellintothenineteenthcentury.Forexample,theItaliantravelerGaetanoOsculati (2001:139)estimatedtheZáparastillnumbered20,000inEcuadorin1846.Bytheearly twentieth century, however, the Zápara had almost disappeared,despitehavingbeena“largeandprosperoustribe”(Loch1938:52). ThedrasticdeclineofZáparainAmazonianEcuadorwastheresultofdeathfromdisease,forcedmigrationsandenslavement(Sweet1969:103;Reeve1988b:22–23; Muratorio1991:72–93;Descola 1994:17). ManyZápara alsowere absorbed and acculturated byneighboring indigenousgroups. They often adopt the languages of their neighbors, leading tothealmost completedeathofZápara languageand identity inEcuador(Whitten 1976:16). The best example of this process of acculturationwastheemergenceoftheCanelosKichwaorPastazaRunaoutofQuijos,ZáparaandAchuarintermarriage(Obrerem1974:347;Whitten1976:7–8;Hudelson1985:69;Reeve1988a:87–88;Descola1994:22).Althoughthisprocessofethnogenesisbeganduring thecolonialperiod, itwasgreatlyaccelerated by the ethnocide of the Amazonian rubber boom between1880–1920,which led to thedeathofmanyZápara andother Indians.Themediatinglanguageofthesebi-ethnicunionswastheregionallinguafranca, Kichwa (also spelled “Quichua”) (Steward 1948:512; Orr andWrisley1965;Whitten1981:125–128).BythebeginningofthetwentiethcenturytheZáparalanguagehadvirtuallyvanishedfromeasternEcuador,havingbeen largely replacedbyKichwa ( Jouanen1941:442–448;Peeke1962:125;Whitten1981:139;Rival2002:35).Forthisreason,KichwaisthefirstlanguageofalmostalltheindividualsintheZáparacommunitieswhereIstudied. Spanish also became a significant part of Zápara linguistic practiceinthetwentiethcentury.Beginninginthe1940s,Záparamenlefttheircommunities towork for theShellOilCompany,aswellasplantationsin the area around Puyo, the capital city of the province of Pastaza inwhich theZápara are located. Currently,mostZáparamen leave theircommunities(forperiodsoftimerangingfromseveralmonthstoseveralyears)toearncashworkingforconstructioncompaniesontheEcuadoriancoastortoenlistinthemilitary.TheresultofthispatternofmigrationisthatmostZáparamenhavesomecompetenceinSpanish. Increasingly,young men and women are also leaving the Zápara communities toattendhighschoolinPuyo,wherethelanguageofinstructionisSpanish.

4




AlthoughKichwaremainsthefirstlanguageofalmostallZápara(withaminutenumberwholearnedZáparaorAchuarastheirmothertongues),SpanishisanimportantsecondlanguageformanyZápara.Furthermore,SpanishisalsoanimportantaspectofZáparaself-representation.Záparaleadersworkingintheirorganization’sofficeinPuyohavetointeractdailywith government officials, reporters, volunteers and other indigenousleaders.ThecommonlanguageoftheseinteractionsisSpanish,withfewopportunitiesfortheuseofKichwa.Spanish,forexample,isthecommonlanguageforindigenousrepresentativesintheEcuadorianAmazonwhodonotallshareacommonindigenouslanguage. The reality that most Zápara speak Kichwa and Spanish presentedaproblemfortheZáparacommunitieswhentheydecidedtopoliticallyorganizeasanationalityinthe1990s.Overthelastthreedecades,Ecuador’sAmazonianIndianshaveincreasinglyorganizedandidentifiedthemselvesandotherethnicgroupsinEcuadoras“nationalities,”andhavehadsomesuccessinstitutionalizingtheconceptintheEcuadorianstate(Lucero2003).TheconceptofnationalitydividesAmazonianIndiansalonglinguisticlinesintoautonomousethnicgroups.Althoughaportionofeachnationalityisbilingual(whichisencouragedbyindigenous-administered,government-funded multilingual indigenous/Spanish language education programs),eachnationalityhasitsownuniquelanguageofidentity.Forexample,thelanguageoftheKichwanationalityisKichwa,fortheWaoraniitisWaoteredo,andsoon.IndigenousnationalitiesinAmazonianEcuadorhaveasserted that their languages provide the most tangible evidence of thecontinuityofindigenousculturesintheAmazonfromprecontactsocietiestothepresent.Thiscontinuityprovidesthebasisforspecialindigenousrights and the foundation for indigenous cultural distinctness from theSpanish-speakingHispanicnationalitythathistoricallyhashadanunequalcontrolofresourcesinEcuador. TheproblemtheZáparafacedwasthataftergenerationsofassimilationandintermarriagewithotherethnolinguisticgroups,mostZáparaspokelanguages—KichwaandSpanish—thatwerenotspecificoruniquetothem,butweresharedwithothernationalities.TheuseofKichwafirmlysituatestheZáparaas“authentically”indigenouswithinthecontextofindigenousidentityandpoliticsintheEcuadorianAmazon.However,KichwadoesnotfunctionasaneffectivesymbolforZáparaidentity,becauseitisnotparticulartotheZápara.KichwaisthemostspokenindigenouslanguageinEcuador,andthelanguageofidentityfortheKichwanationalityintheEcuadorianAmazon. Indians in the Ecuadorian Amazon, as well as throughout LatinAmerica,havebuilttheirclaimstoofficialrecognitionandrightsasIndians

5




onsomekindofpersistenceintheiridentity—despiteencroachmentontheir territories, reduction in their populations, and cultural prostrationbefore the state—through time (Lazzari 2003:60). The problem thattheZáparahavefacedintheir“return”isthattheywere“too”affectedbycolonialism,withtheresultthattheydidnotfittheemergentstandardsofgroupidentityintheEcuadorianAmazongiventhe“absence”oftheirownnationallanguage.TheZáparawerecaughtbetweenwhatAxelLazzarirefers to as a “thick” past and a “thin” present (2003:60). EcuadoriananthropologistshaddeclaredtheZápara“extinct”bythe1990’sgiventheirapparentlackofethnographicuniquenessanddespitetheirrichpastasadistinct“tribal”entity. In order to assert their existence as a culturally unique group, theZápara organized as a nationality in 1998. Since its organization, theZáparanationalityhasbeenconcernedprimarilywiththedocumentationand preservation of the Zápara language as an emblem of the Zápara’sculturaldistinctness.ZáparaleadersclaimedthattheyhadorganizedinafinalattempttosavethedisappearingZáparaculture—thefoundationofwhichistheZáparalanguage.TheyclaimedthatthecommunitiesintheConamboRiverareahadalwaysbeenZápara,butovertime,asaresultofdiseaseanddisplacement,hadbeguntobeculturallyandlinguisticallyassimilatedasKichwa.Indoingso,Záparaexplainedtooutsiders(aswellastothemselves)whytheyappearedtobeKichwabasedontheirlinguisticandculturalpractice,eventhoughtheydefinethemselvesfirstandforemostasdistinctlyZápara. Shortly after organizing, the Zápara were officially recognized byEcuador’smostprominentAmazonianfederation,theConfederacióndeNacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (Confederationof Indigenous Nationalities of Amazonian Ecuador, CONFENAIE),andbythelargestnationalindigenousfederation,theConfederacióndelasNacionalidadesIndígenasdelEcuador(ConfederationofIndigenousNationalities of Ecuador, CONAIE). In 2001, the United NationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization (UNESCO)declaredthe Zápara language an “Intangible Masterpiece of Humankind” andpromised financial support for the documentation and revitalization oftheZáparalanguage.Additionally,theZáparaweregivenaseatontheexecutive board of the Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades yPueblosdelEcuador(DevelopmentCouncilofNationalitiesandPeoplesof Ecuador, CODENPE), a national ministry that oversees indigenousdevelopment in Ecuador. Such recognition was both implicitly andexplicitlybasedonlanguagebeingaprimesymbolofZáparaidentity.

6




LANGUAGE AND BLOOD

Asanationality,theZáparahaveconsistentlyinsistedthatitistheirlanguagethatdefinesthemasadistinctculturalgroup.Yetthefactthatfewer than ten individuals speak the Zápara language raises questionsabouthowitisthatapproximatelytwohundredpeoplewhospeakKichwaastheirfirstlanguageidentifyasZápara.TheZáparaareintheprocessofcreatingandinstitutingaZáparalanguagecurriculumintotheirchildand adult education and literacy programs. However, this curriculumisfarfrombeingcompleteandwhatworktheZáparahavedoneinthisareahasyettoproducenewspeakers. ExcludingtheremainingZáparaelders,knowledgeanduseoftheZáparalanguagedoesnotfunctionasaneffectivemarkerofidentityforindividualZápara.AlthoughonlyaveryfewoftheindividualsintheaforementionedcommunitiesspeakZápara,alloftheindividualsinthesecommunitiesthatself-identifyasZáparaaredescendantsofZáparaspeakersand/orrelatedtooneofthelivingspeakersofthelanguage.Consequently,asamarkeroftheiridentity,individualswhocurrentlyself-identifyasZáparahaveemphasizedthe“blood”theysharewiththeremainingZáparaspeakers. WhenZáparaspeakabout“blood,”theyusetheKichwatermraway.3In conversations I had with Zápara individuals and in conversations IobservedamongZápararegardingbloodkinship,wheneverpeoplesaidthewordraway,theyalmostalwayspassedtheirhandovertheirbodyandthenpointedtotheveinsintheirforearm.Rawayisacorporealsubstancethatchildreninheritfromtheirparentsduringconceptionandpregnancy,along with a spiritual substance, aya or “soul” (see Whitten 1976:56).4Individualswhoself-identifyasZáparaassertthatpartofthebiologicalmakeup of their bodies contains patently “Zápara” characteristics thathavebeenpassedontothemfromtheirparents.Záparausethephrasenuka raway(“myblood”)torefertothecorporealsubstanceoftheirbodieswhichisraway sápara(“Záparablood”). AlmostalltheindividualsinthethreeZáparacommunitieswhereIconducted research for this article belong to the same extended family.Llanchamacocha,Jandiayacu,andMazaramuwerefoundedbysiblingsofthesamenuclearfamilyandtheirspouses.Thesesiblings(fourintotal)arerecognizedwithintheircommunitiesaspuro Zápara(“pureZápara”).5PuroZáparaisaspecialidentitythatisreservedprimarilyforindividualswho learned theZápara language as their first language, retained somefluencyinZápara,andwereusuallyborntotwoZápara-speakingparents(Bowser2002:29). Eachof these four siblings learned someZápara aschildren, can still speakorat least sing inZápara,andhad twoZápara

7




parents.Theeldestofthesesiblings,Anna,6livesinMazaramuandsingsandspeaks inZápara. HerbrotherCarlos, thepatriarchof Jandiayacu,isperhapsthemostfluentZáparaspeakerontheupperConamboRiver.Anna’sandCarlos’sister,Luisa,livesinLlanchamacocha,andsodidtheirsister Jacintabeforedying in2002. Luisawasyoungwhenhermotherdied,soshedidnotlearnasmuchZáparaastheothers.Shecan,however,sing in the languageand isnonethelessconsideredapuroZápara. Hersister,Jacinta,wasperhapsthemostfluentofthefoursiblingsinZápara. SeveralofthesepuroZáparasiblingsalsomarriedotherpuroZápara.Luisa, for example, married Braulio who was also recognized as a puroZápara(hediedseveralyearsago).ManyoftheZáparaindividualswithwhomIspokeinLlanchamacochaconsideredBraulioapowerfulshamanand commented on his fluency in Zápara. Jacinta married Juan, whospeakslittleZápara,butisrecognizedasapuroZáparabasedonthefactthathewasdescendedfromtwoZáparaspeakerswholivedinPeru.WhileLuisaandJacintamarriedpuroZápara,thiswasnotthecaseforCarlosandAnna.CarlosmarriedaKichwawoman,whileAnnamarriedanAchuarman. LuisaandBrauliomadeuponeofthemainfamiliesinLlanchamacocha,while Jacintaand Juanwereat theheadof the second. Carloswas thehead of the main household in Jandiayacu, while his sister Jacinta andherhusbandwereattheheadofthemainhouseholdinMazaramu.Alloftheindividualsinthesethreecommunitiesthatcurrentlyself-identifyasZáparaaredescendents(children,grandchildren,great-grandchildren,nieces,etc.)ofoneofthesepuroZápara.Forexample,Mario,aresidentofLlanchamacocha,isthesonofLuisaandBraulio.Assuch,MarioconsidershimselftobeZáparaalongwithhistenothersiblings,eventhoughnoneofthemspeakZápara.Mario’ssister,Ermalinda,marriedamanfromthecommunityofCuyacochaonthePindoyacuRiver. Ermalinda,andherchildrenaswell,identifyasZáparabecausetheyarerelatedtoLuisaandBrauliobyblood. Brenda Bowser (2002:29) notes that in the early 1990s individualsin theConamboRiverbasinwhohad twoZáparaparents,butdidnotspeakZápara,sometimesidentifiedthemselvesasZápara(althoughjustasoftentheyidentifiedasKichwa,becausethatwastheirfirstlanguage).Astheaboveexamplesdemonstrate,thiswascertainlythecaseintheZáparacommunitieswhereIworked.Infact,childrenoftwopuroZáparaparentswerealsostartingtorefertothemselvesaspuroduringmyfieldwork.Forexample,whenIaskedMaria,adaughterofLuisaandBraulio,howsheidentifiedherselfshetoldmethatshewaspuroZápara.Ipointedouttoher,however,thatshedidnotspeakZápara.Sheexplainedtomethatthis

8




didnotmatter.Whatmadeherpuro,shetoldme,wasthatherbloodwas“pure”Zápara—ithadnotbeenmixedwithotherindigenousormestizoblood. ForMariaandhersiblingswhoaredescendedfromtwopuroZáparaparents,thismodificationofwhatitmeanstobepuroZápararepresentsan adaptation of previous understandings of Zápara identity. Theseprevious understandings, as I have already stated, were based primarilyon an individual’s ability to speak the Zápara language in addition topossessingZáparablood.Thisdefinition,however,excludedthemajorityofindividualswhonowidentifyasZápara.ByreversingtheemphasisofZáparaidentityfrompracticetoparentage,ZáparaidentitycannowincludemostindividualsinthecommunitiesofLlanchamacocha,JandiayacuandMazaramu.

“MIXED” MARRIAGES AND ZÁPARA IDENTITY

ChildrendescendedfromtwopuroZáparaparentsarenottheonlyoneswhocurrentlyclaimZáparaidentity.AsIhadmentionedbefore,onlytwoofthefourpuroZáparasiblingsinthecommunitiesofLlanchamacocha,JandiayacuandMazaramuaremarriedtootherpuroZápara.Carlos’andAnna’s offspring self-identify as Zápara, even though only one of theirparentsispuroZápara.Thefactthatchildrenof“mixed”Zápara-KichwaorZápara-AchuarmarriagesidentifyaspuroZápararepresentsadramaticshift from prior formulations of Zápara identity. Well into the 1990s,individualsof“mixed”KichwaandZáparadescentintheConamboRivervalleydidnotidentifyaspuroZápara,butgenerallyidentifiedasKichwaor Runa,7 although many acknowledged their Zápara ancestry (Bowser2002:29). Whitten(1976:135)notes thatamongthePastazaRuna, forexample, there are different segments of the population who still tracetheirheritagetoAchuaran,Zaparoan,orQuijosdescent,andperpetuatecertainaspectsofthesegroups’culturalpractices.8 Theformationofruna identityintheEcuadorianAmazonisaresultofwhatBlancaMuratoriodescribesas“ethnocidalsimplification(1991:42).”This process began during colonialism, when Jesuit missionaries forceddifferent ethnolinguistic groups to live together and speak Kichwa as alingua franca (Obrerem 1974:347; Whitten 1976:7). Initially, manyZápara had refused to intermarry with other ethnolinguistic groupswell into the nineteenth century (Rival 2002:37). However, with thedecimationoftheZápara-speakingpopulationduringthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,Záparawereforcedtomarryintootherethnolinguistic

9




groupsintheregion.9 Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,mostremainingZáparainEcuadorhadbegunmarryingKichwaand/orAchuar,speakingKichwa,andoftenidentifyingasRuna(Whitten1976:210–121;Muratorio1991:102–114;Rival2002:33–37). This practice of interethnic marriage has persisted in the Záparacommunities where I conducted my research. In fact, the majority ofZápara in these communities are married to Kichwa (with a few alsomarriedtoAchuar)fromneighboringcommunities.Forexample,oneofthetwopuroZáparacouples(LuisaandBraulio)inLlanchamacochahaseightmarriedchildren,fiveofwhomhaveKichwaspousesfromthenearbycommunitiesofSarayaku,Moretecocha,andCuyacocha.Theremainingthreemarriedchildrenweddedtheircross-cousins,whowerealsochildrenofpuroZápara.10 The preponderance of “mixed” ethnic marriages in the Záparacommunities has proved problematic within emergent understandingsofZáparaidentity.TheoffspringofthesemarriagescannotclaimtobeZáparabasedontheirdescentfromtwoZáparaparents,nordoanyofthemspeakZápara.Inordertosolvethisissue,manyoftheZáparawithwhomIspokeclaimedthatanindividualdidnotneedtohavetwoZáparaparentstobeZápara.Rather,manyindividualstoldmethatthefatherpassedhisidentityontohischildren.Forexample,JoséisthesonoftwoofthepuroZáparainLlanchamacocha,LuisaandBraulio.JoséattendedmissionaryschoolinthenearbycommunityofMoretecochawherehemetaKichwawomanwhomhemarried,andthenreturnedtoLlanchamacochatolivenearhisparents.JoséidentifieshischildrenasZápara,notKichwa,asdoestherestofthecommunity.Ononeoccasion,IaskedMaria,José’ssister,ifJosé’schildrenwereZáparaorKichwa.Mariarespondedthat,ofcourse,José’schildrenwereZápara.ShereasonedthatthiswasbecauseJoséwasherbrother, and theirparentswereboth puroZápara and, therefore, soweresheandJosé.Shealsosaidthatthiswasbecausethefatherpassedhisbloodontohischildren,notthemother. Theproblemwith this explanationof blood inheritance in“mixed”marriagesisthatitseemstocontradictotherexplanationsthatpositthemotherastheproviderofidentity.Forexample,oneofthepuroZáparaelders,Anna,isawomanwhoismarriedtoanAchuarman.AnnaisreveredaspuroZáparainhercommunityofMazaramuandintheotherUpperConambo Zápara communities. Likewise, her children self-identify asZápara,notAchuar,andarerecognizedassuchintheZáparacommunities.This is predominantly the case throughout the Zápara communities inwhichwomenwhoself-identifyasZáparaandhavemarriedaKichwaorAchuarmanhavechildrenwhoareconsideredtobeZápara.Forexample,

10




Fernanda is thedaughterof thepuroZáparasBraulio andLuisa and ismarriedtoaKichwamanfromthecommunityofSantanaandnowlivesin Puyo. Fernanda and her husband, Octavio, however, consider theirchildrentobeZápara.IaskedOctavioifhischildrenwereKichwa,becausepeopleinLlanchamacochahadtoldmethatidentitywaspassedthroughthefather’sblood.OctavioreasonedthathischildrenwerenotKichwa,butZápara,becausetheirmotherwasdescendedfrompuroZápara.11

To a degree, these examples reflect the reality that, like otherindigenousgroupsintheEcuadorianAmazon(Whitten1976:127–128;Reeve1988a:160–167;MacDonald1999:20),theZáparadonotsubscribetostrictparametersofmatrilinealorpatrilinealinheritanceorresidence,which they could apply toblood inheritance. Rather, thesediscussionsabout which gender is responsible for passing on Zápara blood (and,therefore,ethnicidentity)in“mixed”marriagesrevealtheunconsolidated,contradictory,andtransitionalstateofcurrentunderstandingsofZáparabodies as the grounds for identity. This confusion reflects attempts byZápara individuals to understand and rationalize their position within,and connection to, Zápara identity vis-à-vis blood kinship. As Idemonstrateinthenextsection,animportantaspectofthisprocesshasbeentherepackagingofculturaldifferencesbetweentheZáparaandotherindigenousgroupsaccordingtonotionsofblood“purity.”

BLOOD AND DIFFERENCE

In the summer of 2004, I traveled with Maria (a woman fromLlanchamacochawhoconsidersherselfpuroZápara)totheCurarayRiverto visit a Zápara-speaking elder named Donasco. He was at one timemarriedtoaWaoraniwoman,but isnowmarriedtoaKichwawoman.HealsolivesoutsidealargeKichwacommunity,Pitacocha.MariaregardshimasapuroZápara.“HowdoyouknowifheispuroZápara,sincehelivesoutherewithalltheseKichwa?”Iaskedher.Shereplied:“He’spuroZáparanotjustbecausehespeakssomeofthelanguage,butheisalsothecousinofmyuncle,Carlos,whoispuro.”Iaskedherabouttheapparentcontradictionsregardinggender,parentageandpuroZáparaidentitythatIhadobservedintheZáparacommunities.Mariareflectedonmyquestionandsaid:“Look,weknowwhoisZápara.WearetherealZáparaandweareallrelatedthroughblood.ItdoesnotmattersomuchwhereitcomesfrombecauseZáparabloodisstrongerandwillprevailoverotherblood.”Duringmyfieldworkitbecameapparent,however,thatitwasnotalwaysthecasethattheZáparaalwaysknowwhoisarealZápara.

11




The issueofbloodpurityandZápara identity also cameupduringmyfirsttriptoLlanchamacochain2001,whereIvisitedoneofthepuroZáparaeldersandherfamily.Beforethistrip,someonehadtoldmethatAntonioVargas, aprominent indigenouspolitician inEcuador, claimedthathewaspartZápara. Iaskedoneof theZáparaelders if sheknewwhoAntonioVargaswas,andifitwastruethathewasZápara.TheelderlaughedandsaidthatVargaswasmore“African”thanhewasZápara.SheexplainedthatshehadheardthatVargashadaZáparagrandmother,butthatVargas’grandmotherhadbeenmarriedtoa“Black”—thusnegatingVargas’claimtoZáparaidentityintheeyesoftheelder.TheelderwaslikelyusingVargas’“Black”bloodasawaytodistanceVargas’politicsfromherandtheZápara.However,thewaythattheeldercreatedthisdistancewasinterestinginthatsheusedbloodpurity—thefactthatVargas’Záparabloodhadbeencontaminatedbyoutside“Black”blood—asthegroundsfordisprovingVargas’connectiontotheZápara. As this example shows, emergent Zápara identity has beenpartiallyconstitutedthroughanidiomofbloodpuritythatexcludesthecontaminations of the blood of an “Other.” Historically an importantaspectofmostindigenousidentitiesintheEcuadorianAmazonhasbeenthe definition of Others along cultural, mythological, and geographicaldivisions (see Whitten 1976:12–14; Reeve 1988a:24–26). The Záparaalsohavereconstructedlocalculturaldifferencesalongbloodlines.ThemostsalientexampleofthisisthewayinwhichZáparahaveemployeddiscoursesofbloodpuritytodefinethemselvesinoppositiontoanothergroup—theComunaZáparo—thatclaimsZáparaidentity. The Zápara communities I studied were not the first to reclaimZápara identity in Ecuador. Another group—which I will refer to asthe Comuna Záparo to avoid confusion with the Zápara I have beendiscussing—also claimed Zápara identity in eastern Ecuador duringthe1990s. TheComunaZáparocommunitiesare locatedonthe lowerportion of the Conambo River, close to Ecuador’s border with Peru inwhat is referred to as theBloqueZáparo (“theZápara block”)—oneofthenineteenlandblockscreatedbytheEcuadoriangovernmentin1993following the Marcha Indígena por La Vida (“Indigenous March forLife”)in1992(Sawyer1997:72–73,2004:50–51).Thegovernmentgaveeachbloqueorcomunaanindigenousnamethathadlittleornothingtodowiththeareatowhichtheyreferred,creating“theillusionthateachofthenineteenlandblockscorrespondedtolocallyrecognizedsocialdivisions”(Sawyer2004:51,1997:72).Bilhaut(2005:8)pointsoutthatthenamingand creation of the Comuna Záparo (Land Block No.6), which runsapproximatelyfromthemiddleoftheConamboandPindoyacuRiversto

12




apointfortykilometersfromthePeruvianborder,wasanadministrativecreationthatisZáparainnameonly.Accordingtoher,althoughseveralZápara speakers live in the Bloque Záparo, the overwhelming majorityoftheroughlyfivehundredinhabitantsoftheBloqueZáparoidentifyasKichwaorAchuar(Bilhaut2005:8–9). Individuals from these communities formed the Union de CentrosdelTerritorioZáparodelEcuador(UnionoftheCentersoftheZáparoTerritoryofEcuador,UCTZE)withtheaidoftheAsociacóndeIndígenasEvangélicos de Pastaza Región Amazónica (Association of EvangelicalIndiansofPastazaintheAmazonianRegion,AIEPRA)in1996(Bilhaut2005:8). In 1997, UCTZE became the Organization of the ZáparoNationality of Ecuador (Organización de la Nacionalidad Záparo delEcuador,ONAZE).Througharchivalinformation,aswellasinterviews,BilhautassertsthattheindividualsandcommunitiesthatformedUCTZEappropriated the name “Záparo” as a reference to their location withinthe Comuna Záparo. They were not interested in forming a Záparanationalitybecausetheydidnotidentifyassuch(2005:9).Overthepastdecade,however,ithasbeenincreasinglyexpedientforcommunitiesintheComunaZáparotoidentifyasZáparaasameansofgainingrecognitionbydifferentiatingthemselvesfromsurroundingindigenousgroups. SincethecreationoftheZáparanationalitybycommunitiesontheupper portion of the Conambo River in 1998, there has been tensionbetweentheZáparaandtheComunaZáparooverwhocanlegitimatelyclaimZáparaidentity.OutsidetheZáparacommunities,Záparaleadersportrayed theComunaZáparo representatives asChristianizedmestizos whoweretryingtoclaimZáparaidentityforpersonalgain.WithintheZáparacommunities,individualsdistinguishedthemselvesfromthoseintheComunaZáparoby insisting thatmembersof theComunaZáparopossessedinsufficientZáparablood. Forexample,inthespringof2003,IhadaconversationwithMariainthecommunityofLlanchamacochaabouttheZápara’sstruggletoorganizeandobtainofficialrecognition.DuringthisconversationMariacriticizedthepresidentoftheComunaZáparo,whohadtauntedMariabysayingthathehadaZáparaterritory,whileshedidnot.Sherepliedtohimsaying:“Doyouknowwhat,compañero?[That]territory[theBloqueZáparo]isnot just yours. WeareZáparas. Wehave the right to this territory.YouarenotZápara.”WhentheComunaZáparopresidentaskedMariahowshewassurethathewasnotZápara,sherespondedbysaying,“Yourgrandfatherismestizo—yourgreat-grandfatherwasZápara—butyouaremestizo.”MariatoldmethatafterthisexchangeshehadtraveledtoPerutovisitwithZáparaelderswholivedontheTigreRiver,northwestofthe

13




cityofIquitos.AccordingtoMaria,theseelderstoldherthat“thepersonthat iscriticizingyou isnotZápara. He ismestizo. Hisgrandfather isfromIquitos. HecamefromBrazil,hewasbornthere,buthemarrieda Zápara [when he arrived in Peru].” In this example, Maria uses anapparent interethnicmixingofblood to invalidate theComunaZáparoleader’sclaimstoZápara identitybasedontheperceivedcontaminationofhisZáparaheritage,whileinsistingthatthe“purity”ofherparentagemakesheranauthenticZápara. This sentiment was echoed throughout the Zápara communitiesduring my fieldwork. Repeatedly, Zápara individuals would talk abouthow the Comuna Záparo were not “real” Zápara, because they weredescendedsolelyfromAchuarandKichwaparents,orhad“mixed”Záparablood.Moreover,manyZáparaclaimedthattheuseofthetitle“ComunaZáparo” was just one more way for Achuar and Kichwa to take moreZápara territory. During ameetingon ahumid evening inSeptember2002,communitymembersinJandiayacutalkedamongthemselvesabouttheComunaZáparoasbeingmadeupofAchuarwhoweretryingtogetmorelandbycallingthemselvesZápara.Earlierinthesamemonth,IwasprivytoaconversationinLlanchamacocha,inwhichcommunitymembersdecriedtheComunaZáparoasbeing leadbyhispanos coruptos (“corruptHispanics”). In contrast, the same community members talked abouthowthey,as“true”Zápara,hadneverhadcontactwithoutsidegroupsliketheAchuar,theWaorani(andonepersonclaimed,eventheKichwa).Byemphasizingtheirapparentlackof“mixing”withotherindigenous(andnonindigenous) groups, Zápara were able to position themselves as theauthenticZáparaincontrasttothe“inauthentic”ComunaZáparowhosebloodhadbeentaintedbyyearsofintermarriage.

CONCLUSION

In this article, Ihavedemonstrated that theway indigenousbodiesmarkidentityinAmazoniahaschangedovertimeasaresultofchangesinindigenousidentitypolitics.Assuch,myresearchconcurswithexistingliterature on indigenous self-representation in lowland South Americathathasshownhowindigenouspeopleshaveusedtheirbodiestoindextheirauthenticity.However,incontrastwiththisliterature,Idonotfocuson how indigenous peoples have adapted the exterior surfaces of theirbodies—suchasclothesandjewelry—toconveyparticularaspectsoftheiridentitiesas“traditional.”Ihavearguedthatcontemporarydiscoursesofculturalessentialismconstruct indigenousbodiesas“racial” (biologically

14




distinctanddifferent)inadditiontobeing“ethnic”(culturallydistinctinlanguage, dress, and so forth). Consequently, the somatic substance ofbodieshasalsobeenthesubjectofchangesinindigenousidentitypoliticsinAmazonia. Specifically, Ihave shownhow theZápara ineasternEcuadorhavecalled on their individual bodies as objective “proof ” of the legitimacyandenduringqualityoftheiridentity.WithintheZáparacommunities,bloodhasbecomeavital component indefiningand imaginingZáparaidentity.RedefiningculturalidentityaccordingtotheperceivedbiologicalattributesofbloodhasallowedaconfidentreshapingofZáparaidentitytofitemergingparametersofindigenousidentityandorganizationintheEcuadorianAmazon.Thetropeof“pure”bloodhascomenotonlytostandinmetonymicallyforZáparaculturaldifference,butalsotosymbolizetheidealizedahistoricalnatureofZáparaidentitybystressingthecontinuityof Zápara blood through history. Individuals who now self-identify asZáparaassertthattheirZáparabloodlinkstheminaperceivedcontinuumwithauthenticprecontactZáparapopulations.Whiletheirculturalandlinguisticpracticeshavechangedandshiftedovertime,byfocusingontheapparentlyimmutablebiologyofblood,theZáparahaveassertedthattheessenceoftheiridentityremainsunchanged. Whilethisemphasisonbloodandits“purity”hasprovidedaneffectivebasisforconstructingacoherentZáparaidentity,itiscomplicatedbythefactthatmostindividualsintheZáparacommunities,eventheZápara-speaking elders, aredescended from“mixed”marriagesbetweenZáparaand Kichwa, or sometimes Achuar. As a result, while Zápara rely ontheirbloodas“proof ”oftheessenceoftheirculturalidentity,thisbloodalsoembodiesthehistoricallyhybridandtenuousnatureofidentitythatundermines any attempts atfixing identity in thematerial attributes ofthebody. AsDianeNelsonremindsus,bodiesthataremeanttomeanonething,alwaysendupsignifyingtoomuch(1999:209).Theproblem,Nelsonexplains,isthatbodiesbreakundertheweightofmeaningsthatthey aremade to carry, andas a result theyoverflowandobliterate themessages inscribedon them,“messingup” any clean,unified categories.TheZáparahaveattemptedtocreateasinglemeaningoutoftheirbodiesbyfixingtheiridentityinsomethingasmaterialandseeminglyobjectiveasblood. However, in theprocessofdoing so thehybridityofZáparamarriagepracticehasbecomereadilyapparentandthreatensto“messup”thecontinuityandobjectivitythatZáparainitiallysawintheirblood. TheZáparahavedealtwith thishybridity in twoways. First, theyhavesoughttominimizethesignificanceof“mixed”marriageswithintheirown communities by arguing that in such marriages Zápara blood will

15




alwaysprevail.Second,theyhavestressedthe“mixed”natureofmarriageanddescent in theComuna Záparo communities, arguing that if theseindividualspossessedanyZáparablood,ithasnowbeendilutedbeyondrecognitionbyAchuar,Kichwaandmestizoparentage.Inthismanner,theZáparahaveusedbloodtoredefineandreasserttheboundariesbetweenthemselvesandneighboringindigenousgroups.

NOTES

Acknowledgements.ResearchfundingforthisprojectwasprovidedbyaDissertationResearchGrantfromtheWenner-GrenFoundation,aswellasgrantsfromtheUniversity of California, Davis, and the Northern California Chapter of PhiBetaKappa.IwouldliketothankBartoloUshigua,GloriaUshigua,andOscarMontahuanofortheirhelpinmakingthisresearchpossibleinEcuador.

1.Theconceptof“authenticity”essentializesindigenouspeoplesasahistoricalanduncontaminatedorunalteredbytheprocessesandpressuresofimperialismand modern capitalist society (Clifford 1988). “Local” dress, consequently,symbolizes the social stability and cultural timelessness of indigenous identity,while “Western” dress, conversely, has come to represent a corruption of local“purity”(LutzandCollins1993:92). 2. As one component of my dissertation research (which stretched fromMarch2001,toSeptember2004)ontherecentre-emergenceofZáparaidentity,IconductedananalysisofkinshipintheZáparacommunitiesofLlanchamacocha,Jandiayacu,andMazaramuineasternEcuador.Throughoutmyresearch,Ialsoconducted formal and informal interviews with Zápara individuals in thesecommunities on why they identified as Zápara, as well as the role that bloodrelationshipsplayedintheformationofZáparaidentity. 3.TheZáparatermfor“blood,”nánaka,israrelyusedexceptbytheZápara-speakingelders. 4.InhisdiscussionofNapoKichwanotionsofthesoulandbody,Uzendoskinotesthatrawayandaya(inPastazaKichwa;yawarandsamaiinNapoKichwa)correspondroughlytoanotionofbodyandsoul,butnotintheWesternsense(2005:36–37).AccordingtoUzendoski,theNapoRunadonotseparatethetwo,butviewthesoulas“simplytheinnerperspectiveofthebody”(2005:36).Thecouvadedemonstratestheimportanceofthisbondofsharedsubstancesbetweenparentsandtheirchild(Rival1998).Betweenonetofourmonthsafterthechild’sbirth,Záparaparentsavoideatinganyfoodsthatcouldharmthechild,suchassaltoraji(“hotpepper”).Moreover,foronemonthafterthebirththefathermustbecarefulusingsharpobjects,suchasaxes.Thereasonfortheserestrictionsisthattheparentsarethoughttostillbeintheprocessoftransferringtheirspiritual,orsoul,substancetothechild. 5.InAmazonianEcuador,thisnotionof“purity”hashistoricallybeenusedtoexcludeindigenouspeoplesfromnationaldiscoursesofmestizaje(“racialmixing”)

16




(Whitten1981:15–16;Uzendoski2003:137).Indigenouspeoplewereconsideredtoberacially“pure”becausetheyhadnot“mixed”withEuro-Americangroups.Thisabsenceofmixingwasusedasamechanismformarginalizingindigenouspeoplesbecausetheywerenotpartofthenationalmestizoculture.Withincurrentidentitypolitics,however,indigenouspeoplesinEcuadorhavearguedthatbecausetheydevelopedoutsideofEcuadoriannationalculturetheythusrepresentuniquesocialgroupsthatmeritspecialrights. 6.Ihavechosentousepseudonymsorpartialnamesinordertopreservemycollaborators’anonymity. 7. Runa is the term that Kichwa speakers use to refer to themselves. Itliterallymeans“humanbeing”andKichwaiscalledruna shimibyitsspeakers,or“humanspeech.”Runapura inKichwadenotes“thosepeopleamongwhomwespeakKichwa”(Reeve1988a:22). 8.Interestingly,WhittennotesthatamongtheCanelosKichwatherewasageneralreluctancetoadmitZáparaparentagebecauseofageneralstigmaplacedonit(1976:202).HehypothesizesthatthisisbecauseofastrongAchuarhostilitytowardstheZáparaintheCanelosarea. 9.There is some discrepancy in the ethnographic and historical literatureon the subject of interethnic marriages and the formation of Kichwa or Runaidentity in the central Ecuadorian Amazon in regards to which ethnic groupsmarriedwhich.InherdiscussionoftheprocessoftransculturationintheCurarayRiver area,Reevenotes that theZáparas,Achuar,KichwaandQuijosmarriedamong themselves during the nineteenth century (1988a:87). However, inexaminingabaptismregistrycreatedinCurarayAltoin1910,shenoticedthatwhiletherearerecordsofNapoKichwatoZáparaandCanelosKichwatoAchuarmarriages, there are no Achuar to Zápara unions recorded (Reeve 1988a:87).Reevestatesthat,inthisarea,itappearsthatAchuarandZáparadidnotmarrydirectly (althoughmarriagesoccurred inwhichthechildrenofanAchuarwhospokeKichwawouldmarryaZáparaorviceversa). Furthermore,ReevenotesthatcontemporaryAchuarinthePastaza,Copotaza,andCapahuariRiverareasnevermarrywithpeopleofZáparaorigin, althoughshedoesnote thateastofthisareaAchuardomarryZáparadescendents (1988a:88). Whitten,however,argues that the Canelos Kichwa or Pastaza Runa were likely to have formedfrom Zápara/Achuar mergers (1976:7). He bases this assertion on two piecesof evidence. First, travelers, explorers, and missionaries “repeatedly encounterCanelosQuichuaformingoutofZaparoanandJivaroanmarriagesandalliances,withamediatingQuichualanguage”(1976:8).Second,marriagerecordskeptbyDominicanfriarsoverthepasttwocenturiesintheBobonazoRiverareaindicatethat “Záparo” to “Jívaro” (usually Achuara) marriages were common (1976:16,1981:128–129). InthecommunitiesalongtheupperConamboRiver,whereIconductedmostofmyfieldresearch,therewereAchuarindividualswhomarriedintoZáparafamilies—infact,oneoftheremainingZáparaspeakersismarriedtoanAchuarindividual—however,itwasmuchmorecommonforZáparatomarryKichwa.WhatthesedataappeartodemonstrateisthatwhileAchuarinsouthernandnorthernPastazaprovincemaynothavemarried,orcurrentlydonotmarry,ZáparaorZáparadescendents,incentralPastazaprovinceintheBobonazaand

17




ConamboRiverareasAchuar/Záparamarriagesdid(andcontinueto)occur. 10. I found the number of cross-cousin marriages and marriages betweenchildrenofpuroZáparatorepresentonlyasmallproportionofthetotalnumberofmarriagesinZáparacommunities,whichisnotsurprisinggivenZáparaandRunaextensiveincesttaboos.Theinstancesofcross-cousinmarriagethatIobservedinthefieldfollowedthepatternnotedbyWhitten(1976:128)forthePastazaRuna,orDescola(1996)fortheAchuar. 11.Záparaidentitydoesseemtobeconnectedatleastpartiallytoresidence,with children who grow up in the Zápara communities identifying as Záparadespitehavingonenon-Záparaparent.Exceptionstothisgeneralization,however,exist.Forexample,thechildrenofaZáparawomanmarriedtoanAchuarmanin Jandiayacuare identifiedby theirparents andby the restof thecommunityas Achuar. Similarly, the children of a Zápara woman and a Kichwa man inthecommunityofCuyacocha(whichispredominantlyKichwa)areidentifiedbytheirparentsandtheircommunityasZápara.Thisisclearlyanareathatrequiresfurtherethnographicstudy.

REFERENCES CITED

ANAZPPA(AsociacióndelaNacionalidadZáparadelaProvinciadePastaza) 2001 Candidatura para la Proclamación de Obras Maestras del Patrimonio

Oral y Herencia Intangible de la Humanidad. Quito, Ecuador:ANAZPPA.

AndradePallares,Carlos 2001 Kwatupama Sapara, Palabra Zápara. Quito:PRODEPINE. 2002 “Zaparo’sLostSecrets.”The Courier. April:19–22.Bilhaut,Anne-Gaël 2005 “SituacióndelaNacionalidadZáparaysusOrganizaciones:Ecuador

yPerú.”Unpublishedmanuscript.Bowser,BrendaJ. 2002 The Perceptive Potter: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery, Ethnicity,

and Political Action in Amazonia. Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara.AnnArbor:UniversityMicrofilms.

Butler,Judith 1993 Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” London:

Routledge.Conklin,BethA. 1997 ”BodyPaint,Feathers, andVCRs:AestheticsandAuthenticity in

AmazonianActivism.”American Ethnologist24(4):711–737.Conklin,BethA.,andLauraR.Graham 1995 “The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-

Politics.”American Anthropologist97(4):695–710.Clifford,James 1988 The Predicament of Culture.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

18




Descola,Phillipe 1994 In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia,translatedby

NoraScott.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. 1996 The Spears of Twilight.NewYork:TheNewPress.Hudelson,JohnE. 1985 “The Lowland Quichua as ‘Tribe’.” In Political Anthropology of

Ecuador. JeffreyEhrenreich,editor,pp.59–79. Society forLatinAmerican Anthropology and the Center for the Caribbean andLatinAmerica,StateUniversityofNewYork,Albany.

Jouanen,José 1941 Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Antigua Provincia de Quito.

Quito,Ecuador:EditorialEcuatoriana.Lazzari,Axel 2003 “AboriginalRecognition,Freedom,andPhantoms:TheVanishing

of the Ranquel and the Return of the Rankulche in La Pampa.”Journal of Latin Amerian Anthropology 8(3):59–83.

Loch,ErskineE. 1938 Fever, Famine and Gold: The Dramatic Story of the Adventures and

Discoveries of the Andes-Amazon Expedition in the Uncharted Vastness of a Lost World in the Llanganatis Mountains. New York: G.P.Putnam’sSons.

Lutz,CatherineA.andJaneL.Collins 1993 Reading National Geographic.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicago

Press.Macdonald,Theodore,Jr. 1999 Ethnicity and Culture Amidst New “Neighbors.” Boston:Allynand

Bacon. 2002 “Ecuador’s Indian Movement: Pawn in a Short Game or Agent

in State Reconfiguration?” In The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin American States.DavidMaybury-Lewis,editor,pp.169–198.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Muratorio,Blanca 1991 The Life and Times of Grandfather Alonso, Culture and History in the

Upper Amazon.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.Nelson,DianeM. 1999 A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in Quincentennial Guatemala.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Obrerem,Udo 1974 “TradeandTradeGoodsintheEcuadorianMontaña.”InNative

South America: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent. PatriciaJ.Lyon,editor,pp.347–357.Boston:LittleBrown.

Orr,CarolynandBetsyWrisley 1965 Vocabulario Quichua del Oriente.SériedeVocabulariosIndígenas11.

Quito,Ecuador:InstitutoLingüísticodeVerano.Osculati,Gaetano 2001 [1848]Exploración de las Regiones Ecuatoriales a través del Napo y del

los Ríos de las Amazonas. Quito:AbyaYala.

19




Peeke,Catherine 1962 “StructuralSummaryofZáparo.” InStudies in Ecuadorian Indian

Languages 1.BenjaminElson,editor,pp.125–216.LinguisticSeries,7. Norman:SummerInstituteofLinguisticsof theUniversityofOklahoma.

1991 “BosquejoGrammaticaldelZáparo.”RevisedbyMaryRuthWiseandStephenH.Levinson.Cuadernos Ethnolingüísticos 14.Quito,Ecuador:InstitutoLingüísticodeVerano.

Reeve,Mary-Elizabeth 1988a Los Quichuas del Curaray, el Proceso de Formación de la Identidad.

Quito,Ecuador:EdicionesAbya-Yala. 1988b “CauchuUras:LowlandQuichuaHistoriesoftheAmazonRubber

Boom.”InRethinking History and Myth, Indigenous South American Perspectives on the Past.JonathanD.Hill,editor,pp.19–34.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Rival,Laura, 1998 “AndrogenousParentsandGuestChildren:TheHuaoraniCouvade.”

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,n.s.,4:619–42. 2002 Trekking Through History: The Huaorani of Amazonian Ecuador. New

York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Rivet,Paul 1930 “Contribucional’etudedesTribusIndiennesdel’OrientEquatorien.”

Bulletin de la Sociéte des Americanistes de Belgique Mars:7–8.Sawyer,Suzana 1997 “Marching to Nation Across Ethnic Terrain: The 1992 Indian

MobilizationinLowlandEcuador.”Latin American Perspectives24(3):65–82.

2004. Crude Chronicles.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.Simson,Alfred 1886 Travels in the Wilds of Ecuador and the Exploration of the Putumayo

River.London:Simpson,Low,Marston,SearleandRivington.Stark,LouisaR. 1981 “La Lengua Zapara del Ecuador.” Miscelánea Antropológica

Ecuatornia1:12–91.Steward,Julian 1948 “Tribesof theMontaña:AnIntroduction.” In Handbook of South

American Indians.Volume 3: Tropical Forest Tribes.JulianH.Steward,editor, pp. 507–533. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution,BureauofAmericanEthnologyBulletin143.

Steward,JulianandAlfredMétraux 1948 “Tribesof thePeruvianandEcuadorianMontana.” InHandbook

of South American Indians. Volume 3: Tropical Forest Tribes. JulianH.Steward, editor,pp.628–651. Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitution,BureauofAmericanEthnologyBulletin143.

20




Sweet,DavidG. 1969 The Population of the Upper Amazon Valley, 17th and 18th Century.

Master’s thesis, Department of History, University ofWisconsin,Madison.

Turner,Terence 1980 “TheSocialSkin.”InNot Work Alone.JeremyCherfasandRoger

Lewin,editors,pp.113–140.BeverlyHills,CA:SagePublications. 1992 “DefiantImages:TheKayapoAppropriationofVideo.”Anthropology

Today8(6):5–15.Urban,Greg,andJoelSherzer 1988 “TheLinguisticAnthropologyofNativeSouthAmerica.”Annual

Review of Anthropology17:283–307.Uzendoski,Michael 2003 “Purgatory, Protestantism, and Peonage: Napo Runa Evangelicals

and the Domestication of MasculineWill.” In Millenial Ecuador: Critical Essays on Cultural Transformations and Social Dynamics.NormanE.Whitten,editor,pp.129–153. Urbana: UniversityofIllinoispress.

2005 The Napo Runa of Amazonian Ecuador.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Viatori,Maximilian 2005 The Language of “Authenticity”: Shifting Constructions of Zápara

Identity, the Politics of Indigenous Representation, and the State in Ecuador. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.

Warren,KayB.,andJeanE.Jackson(editors) 2002 Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation and the State in Latin

America. Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.Whitten,NormanE. 1976 Sacha Runa: Ethnicity and Adaptation of Ecuadorian Jungle Quichua.

Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress. 1981 “Introduction.”InCultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern

Ecuador.NormanWhitten,editor,pp.1–41.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoispress.

2003 “SymbolicInversion,theTopologyofElMestizaje,andtheSpacesofLasRazasinEcuador.” Journal of Latin American Anthropology8(1):52–85.

Wise,MaryRuth 1999 “SmallLanguageFamiliesandIsolatesinPeru.”InThe Amazonian

Languages. R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, editors,pp.307–340.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

21



22



Documents

New Bodies, Ancient Blood: â•œPurityâ•š and the