Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2021
The article analyses two delegated governance projects carried out in Ecuador's Amazonian south-east in the twentieth century. In collaboration with the military and public institutions, two Catholic missions, the Salesian and the Franciscan, were central actors in the colonising of an area inhabited by the Shuar. Considering the wider historical and ethnographic regional context and focusing on practices of cultural translation and territorial politics, I discuss the two missions’ divergent governance sensitivities vis-à-vis the Shuar. ‘Governance sensitivities’ refers in this context to the colonial actors’ capability to recognise colonised subjects as culturally distinct. I combine new empirical material from the historical archive of the Franciscans in Zamora with secondary sources in order to analyse how differences between the two missions’ sensitivity and insensitivity to Shuar otherness became especially prevalent in the 1960s and 70s. The divergent ways the Salesians and Franciscans perceived the Shuar colonial subject had consequences for how they engaged in the protection of Shuar land and for how they contributed to facilitating or holding back indigenous political organisation.
Este artículo analiza dos proyectos delegados de gobernanza llevados a cabo en el sudeste ecuatoriano amazónico en el siglo XX. Dos misiones católicas, la salesiana y la franciscana, en colaboración con militares e instituciones públicas, fueron centrales en la colonización de un área habitada por los shuar. Considerando un contexto histórico y etnográfico regional más amplio y centrándome en las prácticas de traducción cultural y las políticas territoriales, discuto las divergentes sensibilidades de gobernanza de las dos misiones respecto a los shuar. En este contexto, la expresión ‘sensibilidades de gobernanza’ se refiere a la capacidad de los actores coloniales de reconocer a los sujetos colonizados como culturalmente distintos. Combino material empírico nuevo del archivo histórico franciscano en Zamora con fuentes secundarias para analizar cómo las diferencias entre las sensibilidades e insensibilidades de las dos misiones hacia la otredad de los shuar fueron especialmente prevalentes en los años 1960 y 1970. Las formas divergentes en que los salesianos y los franciscanos percibieron al sujeto colonial shuar tuvo consecuencias en cómo se involucraron en la protección de la tierra de éstos y cómo contribuyeron a facilitar o restringir la organización política indígena.
O artigo analisa dois projetos delegados de governança realizados no sudeste equatoriano amazónico no século XX. Em colaboração com instituições militares e públicas, duas missões católicas, a Salesiana e a Franciscana, foram atores centrais na colonização de uma área habitada pelos Shuar. Considerando um contexto regional histórico e etnográfico mais amplo e com foco nas práticas de tradução cultural e política territorial, discuto as divergentes sensibilidades de governança das duas missões vis-à-vis os Shuar. Neste contexto, a expressão ‘sensibilidades de governança’ se refere à capacidade dos atores coloniais de reconhecer como culturalmente distintos os sujeitos colonizados. Combino novo material empírico do arquivo histórico dos franciscanos em Zamora com fontes secundárias para analisar como as diferenças entre sensibilidade e insensibilidade das duas missões à alteridade Shuar tornaram-se especialmente prevalentes nas décadas de 1960 e 1970. As maneiras divergentes com que salesianos e franciscanos perceberam a questão colonial dos Shuar tiveram consequências sobre como eles se engajaram na proteção da terra Shuar e como contribuíram para facilitar ou restringir a organização política indígena.
1 Kim Clark and Marc Becker (eds.), Highland Indians and the State in Modern Ecuador (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007), p. 11.
2 Silvio Broseghini, ‘Cuatro siglos de misiones’, in Juan Bottasso (ed.), Los salesianos y la Amazonía, 3 vols. (Quito: Abya Yala, 1993), vol. 3: Actividades y presencia, pp. 6–82.
3 All the primary historical sources referred to in this article are from the Archivo Histórico de la Misión Franciscana, Zamora (Historical Archive of the Franciscan Mission, hereafter AHMF/Z), and from this archive's Libros de Correspondencia (correspondence books, LdC: more information is provided on the content of the LdC later in this section). The sources referred to here are: Bishop Mosquera to the President of the Consilium Superius de Pontificalium Operum Missionalium, Rome, 1981, AHMF/Z: LdC 1182; Vincenzo Farano, the Papal Nuncio in Quito, to Bishop Mosquera, 1980, AHMF/Z: LdC 1194–5. All translations from Spanish are by the author.
4 Bishop Mosquera to Cardinal Rossi, 1973, AHMF/Z: LdC 1008.
5 Manuel Criallo at the Regional Office of Education in Zamora to Bishop Mosquera, 1976, AHMF/Z: LdC 802; Bishop Mosquera to the Franciscan development organisation Adveniat in Essen, Germany, 1980, AHMF/Z: LdC 999–1000.
6 Colono refers in this article to the ethnically and socially heterogeneous population that settled in the Ecuadorean Amazon in the twentieth century, such as peasants, merchants, traders and goldminers from the Andean highlands. Colono is a concept used today by the settlers as a self-ascribed identity, and it is also used as an analytical category in academic texts.
7 In this study I view delegated governance projects as examples of what Christopher Krupa and David Nugent term ‘off-centered states’; cf. their chapter ‘Off-Centered States: Rethinking State Theory through an Andean Lens’, in Krupa and Nugent (eds.), State Theory and Andean Politics: New Approaches to the Study of Rule (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), pp. 3–31. See also Cecilia Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares: La formación del estado en el sur-oriente ecuatoriano 1893–1960’, PhD dissertation, FLACSO-Ecuador, 2019, available at https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/handle/10469/15538 (last accessed 13 May 2021).
8 In the historical sources consulted, the Catholic missionaries consistently used ‘reducir’ (‘to reduce’) to refer to the practice of concentrating the Shuar population, and ‘reducciones’ (‘reductions’) to denote concentrations of populations in Indian reserves and Shuar centres.
9 Rubenstein, Steven L., ‘Colonialism, the Shuar Federation, and the Ecuadorian State’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19: 3 (2001), pp. 263–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the historical material as well as in early ethnographic studies and in linguistic research this population was considered to belong to the Jíbaro (or Jívaro) linguistic group. Following recommendations by the Yápankam Conference (Sevilla Don Bosco, Macas, Ecuador, 19–21 April 2018) to abolish the use of what the Shuar consider to be a pejorative concept, I restrict my use of ‘Jívaro/Jíbaro’ in this text to historical colonial uses and perceptions. (At this conference, a collective of Shuar and Achuar intellectuals, political leaders and scholars declared that the word ‘Jívaro/Jíbaro’, when defining the linguistic and cultural group constituted by speakers of the Achuar, Awajun, Shiwiar, Shuar and Wampis languages, should be replaced by ‘Aénts Chicham’. It stated that ‘Jívaro is a pejorative exonym born from the colonial confrontations’, and that it is never used by the Amazon people themselves to name their languages and collectives.)
10 The Shuar refer to foreigners as ‘Apachi’.
11 Stoler, Ann Laura, ‘Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance’, Archival Science, 2 (2002), pp. 87–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Antoinette Burton, ‘Introduction: Archive Fever, Archive Stories’, in Burton (ed.), Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), pp. 1–23; Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010).
13 Krupa and Nugent (eds.), State Theory, p. 4.
14 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’; Andrés Guerrero, Administración de poblaciones, ventriloquía y transescritura: Análisis históricos, estudios teóricos (Quito and Lima: FLACSO and IEP, 2010).
15 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, p. 21.
16 Krupa and Nugent (eds.), State Theory, p. 4.
17 Wolfe, Patrick, ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native’, Journal of Genocide Research, 8: 4 (2006), pp. 387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Patrick Wolfe, Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race (New York: Verso, 2016).
18 Talal Asad, ‘The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology’, in James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 141–64.
19 Speed, Shannon T., ‘Structures of Settler Capitalism in Abya Yala’, American Quarterly, 69: 4 (2017), pp. 783–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The concept ‘coloniality of power’ originates from the work of Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano and refers to ways colonial structures of dominance were and still are reconstituted in Latin America after the era of Spanish rule: Quijano, Aníbal, ‘Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America’, International Sociology, 15: 2 (2000), pp. 215–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Morgensen, Scott Lauria, ‘The Biopolitics of Settler Colonialism: Right Here, Right Now’, Settler Colonial Studies, 1: 1 (2011), pp. 52–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elizabeth A. Povinelli, ‘Radical Worlds: The Anthropology of Incommensurability and Inconceivability’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 30 (2001), pp. 319–34.
21 Wolfe, ‘Settler Colonialism’, p. 402.
22 Coulthard, ‘Subjects of Empire’, pp. 444 and 449.
23 Asad, ‘Cultural Translation’; Kyle Conway, ‘Cultural Translation’, in Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012), pp. 21–5.
24 Walter Benjamin, ‘The Translator's Task’ (translated by Steven Rendall), in TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 10: 2 (1997), pp. 151–65.
25 See for example Rubenstein, Steven L., ‘On the Importance of Visions among the Amazonian Shuar’, Current Anthropology, 53: 1 (2012), pp. 39–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anne-Christine Taylor, ‘Individualism in the Wild: Oneness in Jivaroan culture’, Marett Memorial Lecture 2018, http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/marett-memorial-lecture-2018-individualism-wild-oneness-jivaroan-culture (last accessed 13 May 2021); Elke Mader, Metamorfosis del poder: Persona, mito y visión en la sociedad Shuar y Achuar (Ecuador, Perú) (Quito: Abya Yala, 1999).
26 Asad, ‘Cultural Translation’, p. 156.
27 de Castro, Eduardo Viveiros, ‘Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation’, Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, 2: 1 (2004)Google Scholar, article 1, p. 5.
28 Anne-Christine Taylor, ‘Una categoría irreductible en el conjunto de las Naciones Indígenas: Los Jívaro en las representaciones occidentales’, in Blanca Muratorio (ed.), Imágenes e imagineros: Representaciones de los indígenas ecuatorianos, siglos XIX y XX (Quito: FLACSO, 1994), pp. 75–107.
29 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, p. 3. This political construct of the ‘Oriente’ should not be confused with the essentialising imagery of Middle Eastern Asian and North African cultures and societies within Western art and intellectual and political discourse, referred to as ‘Orientalism’.
30 Tomás Conde, Los Yaguarzongos: Historia de los Shuar de Zamora (Quito: Abya Yala, 1988), p. 35. See also Teodoro Bustamante, Larga lucha del Kakaram contra el Sucre (Quito: Abya Yala, 1998).
31 In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Jesuits established mission stations in Shuar territory, but were unable to retain them in the long term.
32 Stephen L. Nugent, The Rise and Fall of the Amazon Rubber Industry: An Historical Anthropology (London: Routledge, 2018).
33 See footnote 9 for an explanation of the use of the term ‘Aénts Chicham’ rather than ‘Jíbaro’.
34 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, p. 52.
35 Anne Christine Taylor, ‘El Oriente ecuatoriano en el siglo XIX: “El otro litoral”’, in Juan Maiguashca (ed.), Historia y región en el Ecuador: 1830–1930 (Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional, 1994), p. 39; Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’.
36 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, p. 3.
37 Taylor, ‘Una categoría irreductible’.
38 Conde, Los Yaguarzongos; Fray José Vidal, ‘Misión de Zamora: Descripción y narración epistolar’, in Bernardo Izaguirre (ed.), Los Shuar de Zamora y la misión franciscana (Quito: Mundo Shuar/Abya Yala, 1978), pp. 67–148.
39 Violence is also discussed in the early ethnography of the Shuar and problematised in more recent studies of Shuar cultural practice in the context of violent colonial transformation. See Rafael Karsten, The Head-Hunters of Western Amazonas: The Life and Culture of the Jíbaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador and Peru (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarium Fennica, 1935); Matthew Williams Stirling, Historical and Ethnographical Material on the Jívaro Indians, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin no. 117 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1938); Steven L. Rubenstein, Alejandro Tsakimp: A Shuar Healer in the Margins of History (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2002).
40 Taylor, ‘Una categoría irreductible’, p. 82.
41 Steel, Daniel, ‘Trade Goods and Jívaro Warfare: The Shuar 1850–1957, and the Achuar, 1940–1978’, Ethnohistory, 46: 4 (1999), p. 755Google Scholar.
42 Vidal, ‘Misión de Zamora’, p. 77.
43 Ibid., p. 109; Fray Luis Torra, ‘Abandono de la misión de Zamora por causas que expone el padre superior (1896–1897)’, in Izaguirre (ed.), Los Shuar de Zamora, pp. 245–55.
44 Vidal, ‘Misión de Zamora’, p. 103.
45 The Franciscan missionaries regarded the Shuar as ‘caracteres de la felonía’ (‘felonious characters’) and attributed to them ‘el espíritu de venganza’ (‘the spirit of vengeance’), noting that fathers taught their sons through ‘lecciones feroces’ (‘ferocious lessons’) to commit murder: ibid., pp. 104–5.
46 Torra, ‘Abandono de la misión’, pp. 246–9.
47 Taylor, ‘El Oriente ecuatoriano’, p. 38.
48 Natàlia Esvertit Cobes, ‘Los salesianos en el Vicariato de Méndez y Gualaquiza’, in Lola Vázquez et al. (eds.), La presencia salesiana en Ecuador: Perspectivas históricas y sociales (Quito: Salesianos Don Bosco and Abya Yala, 2014), pp. 471–512, here pp. 491–2. See also Thomas K. Rudel, Tropical Deforestation: Small Farmers and Land Clearing in the Ecuadorian Amazon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
49 Maurizio Gnerre, ‘Los salesianos y los Shuar: Construyendo la identidad cultural’, in Vázquez et al. (eds.), La presencia salesiana, p. 609.
50 Central to his extensive work is his three-volume compilation Los salesianos y la Amazonía (see footnote 2 above).
51 Juan Bottasso, Los salesianos y la lengua de los shuar. Discurso de incorporación de Juan Bottasso Boetti, SDB [Salesian of Don Bosco], a la Academia Nacional de Historia del Ecuador, jueves 27 de marzo del 2003 (Quito: Abya Yala, 2003).
52 Gnerre, ‘Los salesianos y los Shuar’, p. 609.
53 Interview with Juan Bottasso in Quito, 11 April 2019. The interview was carried out in collaboration with María Eugenia Tamariz.
54 Cf. Conde, Los Yaguarzongos. These latter sites had a relative geographic proximity to the highland area of Saraguro. As early as the 1920s, the Franciscans established the Saraguro–Yacuambi link as a route for missionary expeditions, and members of Kichwa communities in Saraguro assisted them in these efforts. This route and the new settlements opened up the area to a considerable influx of indigenous settlers. Cf. James Dalby Belote, Los Saraguros del sur del Ecuador (Quito: Abya Yala, 1997). The role of the Saraguro Kichwas in the colonisation of Zamora is a complex story which requires a proper analysis beyond the scope of this article.
55 Ernesto Salazar, Pioneros de la selva (Quito: Ediciones Banco Central del Ecuador, 1989); Esvertit Cobes, ‘Los salesianos’.
56 In the two most recent national censuses the Shuar population of Zamora Chinchipe constituted 7–8% of the total Shuar population of the two provinces (in 2010 5475 people vs. 62,630 in Morona Santiago): Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), Censo de población y vivienda (Quito: INEC, 2010). Statistics from earlier censuses lack information about indigenous people or are inaccurate due to the methodology used (in the case of the first 1950 census), but there is little reason to believe that the ratio between the Shuar population in the two provinces has changed considerably since the 1950s.
57 Conde, Los Yaguarzongos, p. 133.
58 Ibid.
59 Torra, ‘Abandono de la misión’, pp. 251–2.
60 Conde, Los Yaguarzongos, p. 164.
61 Ibid., p. 151.
62 Ibid., p. 7.
63 Bottasso (ed.), Los salesianos y la Amazonía, vol. 3: Actividades y presencia, pp. 93–153.
64 Regional Education Office, Zamora, lists of primary and secondary schools, 1984, AHMF/Z: LdC 554–5.
65 Bishop Moncayo to the Minister of Education, 1950, AHMF/Z: LdC 71–2.
66 Eduardo Suárez Palacio, Governor of the Zamora Chinchipe, to the Sub-Secretary of the Ministry of Government, 1954, AHMF/Z: LdC 318–19.
67 Estanislao Yépez, lawyer to the mission in Zamora, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1954, AHMF/Z: LdC 307–9.
68 Bishop Moncayo to the Minister of Education, 1952, AHMF/Z: LdC 123–5 and LdC 126; Teófilo Ponce Delgado, representing Combate (newspaper), to Bishop Moncayo, 1953, AHMF/Z: LdC 213.
69 Rubenstein, ‘Colonialism’; Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’ p. 52, fn 39.
70 Bishop Moncayo to the Minister of Education, 1953, AHMF/Z: LdC 208.
71 Bottasso, Los salesianos y la lengua de los Shuar, p. 24.
72 Bottasso (ed.), Los salesianos y la Amazonía; César Albisetti and Ângelo Jayme Venturelli, Enciclopédia Bororo (Campo Grande: Faculdade Dom Aquino de Filosofia/Universidade Católica Dom Bosco, 1962).
73 Gnerre, ‘Los salesianos y los Shuar’, p. 603.
74 Interview, Quito, 11 April 2019. Bottasso (1936–2019) was from Italy, as were Pellizzaro (1933–2019), Germani (1929–99) and Bolla (1932–2013); Shutka (1930–2014) was from Slovenia.
75 Alfredo Germani (Juank Aij’), Pueblo de fuertes: Rasgos de historia shuar (Quito: Abya Yala/Federación de Centros Shuar, 1984), cited in Bottasso, Los salesianos y la lengua de los shuar, p. 27.
76 Mundo Shuar was a project initiated in 1975 to publish and disseminate studies mainly on Shuar culture and history. In 1983 experiences from this project (and parallel documentation initiatives taken by the Salesians in the Andean region) led to the establishment of the publishing house Abya Yala. Today Abya Yala is a major publisher of social science literature on indigenous peoples in Latin America.
77 Broseghini, ‘Cuatro siglos de misiones’.
78 Juan Bottasso, ‘El largo camino de la educación Shuar’, in Bottasso (ed.), Los salesianos y la Amazonía, vol. 3: Actividades y presencia, pp. 84–53, here pp. 111–12.
79 Letter from Bishop Moncayo to the Minister of Education, 1950, AHMF/Z: LdC 71.
80 Bishop Moncayo to the Minister of Education, 1950, AHMF/Z: LdC 71–2; ibid., LdC 76.
81 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, p. 258.
82 Carlos Cuvi, Teniente de caballería Hugo Ortiz Garcés, héroe nacional (Quito: Comando General del Ejército, 1990), cited in Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, pp. 274–5.
83 Ortiz Batallas, ‘Shuar, salesianos y militares’, pp. 287–90.
84 Cecilia Ortiz Batallas, ‘Religión, nación, institucionalización e integración en el mundo Shuar. Una revisión retrospectiva de los mecanismos de inserción del sur oriente al territorio ecuatoriano’, in Felipe Burbano de Lara (ed.), Transiciones y rupturas: El Ecuador en la segunda mitad del siglo XX (Quito: FLACSO/Ministerio de Cultura, 2010), pp. 515–62.
85 Bustamante, Larga lucha, p. 145.
86 Ibid., pp. 131–2.
87 Guarderas, N., ‘Los salesianos de cara al subdesarrollo’, Boletín Salesiano, 1: 2 (1974), p. 15Google Scholar, cited in Ortiz Batallas, ‘Religión, nación’, p. 523.
88 Rubenstein, ‘Colonialism’; Rubenstein, Alejandro Tsakimp.
89 María Guzmán-Gallegos, ‘Conflicting Spatialities: Networks, Mediation and the Alterity in the Making of Indigenous Territories in Ecuadorian Amazonia’, PhD dissertation, University of Oslo, 2010); Janet W. Hendricks, ‘Poder y conocimiento: Discurso y transformación ideológica entre los Shuar’, in Fernando Santos Granero (ed.), Globalización y cambio en la Amazonía indígena, vol. 1 (Quito: Abya Yala/FLACSO, 1996), pp. 131–81.
90 Marc Becker, Indians and Leftists in the Making of Ecuador's Modern Indigenous Movements (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008).
91 Andrés Guerrero, ‘La desintegración de la administración étnica en el Ecuador’, in José Almeida et al. (eds.), Sismo étnico en el Ecuador: Varias perspectivas (Quito: CEDIME/Abya Yala, 1993), p. 106.
92 Ernesto Salazar, An Indian Federation in Lowland Ecuador (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 1977).
93 José M. Vivar Castro, IERAC delegate in Loja, to Executive Director of IERAC in Quito, 1968, AHMF/Z: LdC 747–9.
94 IERAC agreement awarding 2200 ha to the Pre-cooperativa San Francisco de El Pangui, 1967, AHMF/Z: LdC 763–6.
95 Vivar Castro, AHMF/Z: LdC 748; emphasis added.
96 IERAC agreement, 1967, AHMF/Z: LdC 763–6.
97 Bishop Mosquera to the Prefect of La Congregación de Propaganda Fide, Rome, 1979, AHMF/Z: LdC 1053–6.
98 Agreement between the military, civil and ecclesiastical authorities of Zamora province in support of the El Pangui project, 1974, AHMF/Z: LdC 760–1.
99 Bishop Mosquera to a religious representative in Rome, 1973, AHMF/Z: LdC 731.
100 Bishop Mosquera to the Ministry of Agriculture, 1974, AHMF/Z: LdC 753.
101 Raúl Cabrera Sevilla, Ministry of Agriculture, to Bishop Mosquera, 1975, AHMF/Z: LdC 725.
102 Bishop Mosquera to Cardinal Rossi, 1979, AHMF/Z: LdC 1053–6.
103 Bustamante, Larga lucha, pp. 133–73.
104 Edwin Wirth to Bishop Mosquera, 1982, AHMF/Z: LdC 858; letter from Bishop Mosquera to Cardinal Rossi, 1982, AHMF/Z: LdC 1100–1, 1982.
105 In the El Pangui area: Paquintza, Numpaim San Carlos, Churuwia and Machinatza; in the Nangaritza area: Congüime and Santa Helena.
106 The Shuar of Zamora Chinchipe continue to have differing allegiances to Shuar organisation, with some opposing and some supporting the Ecuadorean indigenous movement. In 2007 a part of the Shuar population affiliated with the Shuar Federation in Morona Santiago created another federation, the Federación Provincial de la Nacionalidad Shuar de Zamora Chinchipe (Provincial Federation of the Shuar People of Zamora Chinchipe, FEPNASH-ZCh). Cf. Consuelo Fernández-Salvador, ‘Los Shuar frente al proyecto estratégico de El Mirador: El manejo de identidades y prácticas políticas fragmentadas’, in Karolien van Teijlingen, Esben Leifsen, Consuelo Fernández-Salvador and Luis Sánchez-Vázquez (eds.), La Amazonia minada: Minería a gran escala y conflictos en el sur del Ecuador (Quito: Abya Yala/USFQ Press, 2017), pp. 141–71.
107 In 2003 the Pueblo Shuar Arutam (Shuar Arutam People, PSHA) established an autonomous self-governed area of 200,000 ha (494,000 acres). In 2007 this area was recognised by the Ecuadorean state as Shuar territory, and a year later as the first and only Circunscripción Territorial Indígena (Circumscribed Indigenous Territory, CTI) in Ecuador. Cf. Santiago Kingman, Áreas protegidas y pueblos indígenas: Un estudio de caso en Ecuador (Santiago de Chile: FAO/OPAN, 2007).
108 Leifsen, Esben, ‘The Socionature that Neo-Extractivism Can See: Practicing Redistribution and Compensation around Large-Scale Mining in the Southern Ecuadorian Amazon’, Political Geography, 82 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629820303127 (last accessed 14 May 2021).
