The Runa in Ecuador 23 Loreto Chonta Cocha Amazonas Runa l<strong>and</strong> (titled or demarcated) Colonist l<strong>and</strong> (titled or demarcated) Protected Areas (national park/ecological reserve) River Napo Sumaco Volcano 77°30' 77°30' Map 3.1 L<strong>and</strong> Tenure around Sumaco Volcano in 1997: <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>and</strong> Colonist L<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Protected Areas Cosanga Sumaco National Park (Sumaco) North Antisana Ecological Reserve Ecuador Quito Sumaco Volcano Cuenca Huahua Sumaco Loja Hollí n-Loreto Road Antisana Ecological Reserve Sumaco National Park (Galeras) Cotundo Tena 1°00' Map by D. Irvine/Inset map from Cartesia Software
24 The Runa in Ecuador in which the state appropriates a core zone ringed by local communities that form a buffer zone as a first line of defense. In contrast, the indigenous organizations saw themselves as defending ancestral territory of which they form an ongoing part. The distinction between these two approaches <strong>and</strong> their long-term implications were not recognized fully by local communities or by most donors. The confusion of long- <strong>and</strong> short-term conservation <strong>and</strong> development objectives <strong>and</strong> the difficulty in getting such a diverse group of interests to work together to implement a concrete plan of action would play a role in how the project evolved. The complexity of the undertaking might have been clearer to its framers had they better understood the project’s cultural, environmental, legal, <strong>and</strong> political contexts. II. Clarifying the Context 2.1 <strong>Indigenous</strong> Society <strong>and</strong> Culture Quichua-speaking peoples are the dominant indigenous group in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon. An estimated 60,000 live in the provinces of Napo, Sucumbios, Orellana, <strong>and</strong> Pastaza. 4 Sizable numbers also live across the border in the rain forests of neighboring Peru <strong>and</strong> Colombia. Although they now make up about 40 percent of the total Amazonian population, they claim about 75 percent of the l<strong>and</strong> area as their territory, enough to continue living at the same relatively low densities using traditional management practices described in Section 2.3. Calling themselves Runa, or the People, they are often referred to as Lowl<strong>and</strong> Quichua. Both names are somewhat misleading. Although the Quichua language is the native tongue of many Andean highl<strong>and</strong>ers in Ecuador, Peru, <strong>and</strong> Bolivia, strong evidence suggests that the Runa are unrelated to these groups. Moreover, beneath their shared language <strong>and</strong> economic system, significant internal cultural diversity also exists among lowl<strong>and</strong> communities that belies surface similarities. Both linguistic <strong>and</strong> historical data indicate that the Runa of the Amazon are an amalgam forged from a multitude of cultures that existed in the region prior to the sixteenth-century Spanish Conquest. The exact number of distinct peoples is unknown, but early Spanish expeditions chronicled those they encountered. Many groups were described, <strong>and</strong> they spoke a multiplicity of mutually unintelligible languages. Some were small <strong>and</strong> dispersed; others numerous <strong>and</strong> more densely populated. Some wore painted garments, others went naked, still others were adorned with large gold plates. The Spanish Crown divided the upper Amazon into encomiendas <strong>and</strong> awarded these royal concessions to Spaniards entitled to collect tribute that depended on the mix of local resources or skills. Some villages were comm<strong>and</strong>ed to pan for gold; some to weave cotton cloth; <strong>and</strong> some to extract fiber from pita, a forest plant related to pineapple (Aechmea magdalenae). Archives record that the “King’s men” were cruel in this region even by Spanish st<strong>and</strong>ards—suicide rates rose, <strong>and</strong> some women reportedly killed their newborns rather than raise them under such desperate conditions (Muratorio 1991, Irvine 1987). Organized resistance was recurrent, each attempt brutally repressed. Populations plummeted further as smallpox epidemics swept through the area. Between 1577 <strong>and</strong> 1608, the number of indigenous people was reduced by almost 80 percent (Irvine 1987). During these violent times survivors of different ethnic groups either decided—or were obliged— to live in mission villages where Quichua, an Andean language, was a lingua franca. Spanish visitors during the 1600s <strong>and</strong> 1700s reported that villagers still spoke their native languages within their ethnic circles, while communicating with other villagers in Quichua. By about 1800, most inhabitants had lost their original languages <strong>and</strong> had forged a new Runa identity. That amalgam, however, was far from uniform. Each mission village was a crucible for the ethnic groups in its area. Today, the Runa recognize three main zones that reflect discrete cultural <strong>and</strong> linguistic blends. The southern part of their territory, in what is now Pastaza Province, is home to the Canelos Runa, who are descended from Shuar, Achuar, <strong>and</strong> Zaparo speakers. 5 The northern part, containing the Napo watershed, has two zones, corresponding roughly to elevation. The native languages of the Quichua speakers there are not fully documented, <strong>and</strong> may be lost forever. The watershed above 600 meters came to be inhabited by the Napo Runa, clustered around the mission towns of Archidona <strong>and</strong> Tena.
Change language