Introduction
Latin America is home to extraordinary ethnic and cultural diversity. This diversity is commonly referenced with regard to indigenous, black, white, and mestizo identities and a substantial amount of scholarly effort has gone into examining the various ethnic identities that comprise the categories of indigenous and Afro-American, particularly as they relate to the organizing framework and ideology of mestizaje. However, relatively few studies have attempted to examine the specific ethnic identities that fit within the broader category of mestizo. This article explores two identities from differing contexts in the lowlands of South America, the ribereño identity of lowland Amazonian Peru, and the montubio identity of lowland coastal Ecuador.3 Building on the work of Chibnik (1991) and his analysis of “quasi-ethnic” identities, the research presented here examines the parallels that exist between two regional identities from distinct locations in lowland South America. In doing so, this article posits that much like indigenous and Afro-American identities, montubio and ribereño identities exist at the periphery of the dominant Latin American ideology of mestizaje and while they are distinct from one another, they share common features that separate them from the prevailing mestizo identity. I begin with a brief review of mestizaje, followed by a detailed discussion of the montubio and ribereño identities that references the historical emergence of each identity, the contemporary cultural manifestations of each identity, and an analysis of boundary making with regard to each identity. I conclude with a presentation of the recent politicization of each identity in what marks a transition from the periphery to the center.

The following discussion of identity, ethnicity, hybridity, and mestizaje recognizes the problematic nature of such terms while acknowledging that each is ideologically constructed and historically situated. Following the work of Hall (1994), this work approaches identity, whether ethnic or otherwise, not as a fact, but as a process of continuous production in which said identities are intimately intertwined with questions of power and often represent spaces of contestation. Similarly, hybridity is not here regarded as an objective fact, but as an ideological construct that is best understood by referencing, or minimally by recognizing, the ways in which the complex realities of power relations give shape to cultural realities (Radcliffe 2000). Thus, “hybrid cultures” are to be understood with regard to the historical conditions from which they develop. In the case of Latin America, the dominant force of contact and colonization must be referenced in order to understand the form and content of resulting hybrid identities.

A Brief Note on Methodology and Settings
Ethnographic research for this project was carried out in two distinct lowland South American settings, the Pacific lowlands of coastal Ecuador and the lowland Amazonian region of northeast Peru. Research in coastal Ecuador took place from 2002 to 2013 while research in Amazonian Peru occurred from 2012 to 2014. In both cases, research focused on the contemporary manifestations of identity and the rural life-ways of residents in these traditionally marginalized settings. Research included participant observation and both semi-structured and unstructured interviews and portions of the data reflected here were gathered as part of an extensive survey addressing questions of identity in rural coastal Ecuador.

The settings for this research include rural Manabí Province, coastal Ecuador and the rural Amazonian interior of the Tahuayo region of Loreto District, Peru (See Figure One and Figure Two). Both regions are decidedly rural with similar histories of resource extraction and integration. These features will be outlined in more depth in the forthcoming pages. In each location, research was conducted in multiple villages. The coastal Ecuadorian communities where research was conducted are situated a little more than three hours by bus from the closest regional urban center. In Amazonian Peru, the communities of study are located approximately three and half hours by high speed motor boat from the urban center of Iquitos. Travel on a local boat, known as a colectivo, takes approximately twelve hours. Both environments are humid, tropical environments, situated in close proximity to the equator. In both contexts, local residents are the descendants of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples with the term montubio being used as an ethno-racial classifier for the residents of the coastal Ecuadorian context and the term ribereño being used in the case of Amazonian Peru. This article is about those identities and their meanings as they relate to the politics of mestizaje in Latin America.

Figure One: Map of Ecuador

Figure Two: Map of Peru

Mestizaje and Foundations of Hybridity
In the ethno-racial structure of Latin America, the mestizo identity is positioned prominently at the center, both at the level of ideology and praxis with “whites” or criollos firmly positioned at the top of the ethno-racial hierarchy. A conspicuous characteristic of mestizaje is its homogenizing simplicity. The net effect of which, is that “peripheral identities”, those that do not correspond to the essentialized cultural features associated with the broadly conceived categories of indigenous, black, white, or mestizo, are hidden from view. The complexity of identity is intentionally masked by a committed focus on the normalizing discourse of mestizaje and the omission of identities that do not fit neatly into this model.

Mestizaje is necessarily about boundary making or creating distance between those who are viewed as belonging, and those who are not. However, the pervasive focus on the creation and maintenance of boundaries between mestizos and non-mestizos and the homogenization of mestizo identities, both ideologically and practically, overshadow the existence of identities that do not fit into the neatly constructed package of mestizaje.

Contributions to the discourse of mestizaje date back to the early colonial period in Latin America with particular attention paid to the coming together of indigenous and Spanish identities as a consequence of contact and conquest. Casta paintings from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries point to mestizaje as a natural process which seamlessly combines European, indigenous and African physical and cultural features into a newly emergent mestizo type. However, mestizaje and its counterpart hybridity, do not refer to specific types, but are complex conceptual frameworks that must be understood with regard to histories of exploitation, subjugation, and inequality.

While mestizaje is frequently associated with a perceived inclination toward hybridity and homogenization, there are inherent contradictions associated with mestizaje as both ideology and practice. One of the contradictions is the assumption of equal blending or mixing. Wade notes that in its original form, mestizaje emphasized biological mixing. However, the term was quickly expanded in colonial Latin America to encompass “the spatial mixture of peoples and the interchange of cultural elements, resulting in mixed and new cultural forms” (Wade 1997:28). A second inconsistency is the emergence of mestizaje as a discourse of unity that sought to bring together disparate cultural groups and unify them under the umbrella of a national mestizo identity. Published in 1925, Vasconcelos’ La Raza Cósmica is arguably the most prominent example of the use of mestizaje in a nation-building project. However, as numerous scholars have suggested, mestizaje is not nearly as inclusive a project as envisioned by Vasconcelos.4 Miller for example notes that Vasconcelos was comparable to many of his contemporaries in that “his inclusion of the Indian in projects of regional and national citizenship focused on pre-Columbian contributions” (2004:31) while Doremus (2001) suggests that Mexican national identity, as proposed by Vasconcelos, was predicated on a notion of racial mixture that would ultimately lead to the “Indian’s extinction through racial mixing” (380). In mid-twentieth century Mexico, the focus turned from biological mixing to cultural mixing with the intention of creating a modern nation-state through the elimination of indigenous cultural markers. This is what might be considered the fatal flaw of mestizaje. As a conceptual framework for understanding the post-contact Americas, it elevates European cultural contributions over indigenous cultural contributes thus fostering a social space of inequality and exclusion while espousing inclusion and equality. This is reflected in Stutzman’s analysis of mestizaje as an “All-inclusive ideology of exclusion” (1981:45) and Hale’s argument that mestizaje is founded upon a “unifying myth” (1996:2) For Stutzman, inclusion into mestizo (e.g. dominant) society comes at the cost of abandoning indigenous cultural markers, as maintenance of such markers would lead to exclusion. Stutzman’s point is directed specifically at nation-building projects and the adoption of a mestizo national identity that creates unity in order to overcome diversity for the perceived betterment of the nation in a manner that corresponds to Anderson’s (2000) noteworthy discussion of nationalism in which the nation is “imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality an exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (7). Thus, mestizaje espouses an imaginary comradery through the creation of an identity that is supposedly accessible by all. However, the following diagram, adapted from Stutzman (1981), illustrates the simplistic homogenizing nature of mestizaje while also providing a visual representation of the marginalizing character of mestizaje.

Figure Three: Mestizaje (Modified from Stutzman 1981)

Related to the work of Stutzman, Hale (1996) suggests that attempts at creating a unified mestizo national identity are often divisive as certain identities, white and mestizo, are privileged over identities that exhibit indigenous or African influences. This is what Whitten (2003) reflects upon as the top-down nature of mestizaje. It is an elitist imagery that is created and maintained by those in power just as it was in the early colonial period. del Valle Escalante’s (2009) work on nationalism in Guatemala points to the pervasive nature of mestizaje as an ideology that privileges “whiteness” in the form of criollo and ladino identities over all other ethno-racial identities. In reflecting on indigenous Guatemalan students and their positions within society, de Valle Escalante notes that mestizaje and the mestizo or ladino identity is supposed to be representative of the modern nation, but such an achievement “tramples on the very dignity of Indian subjectivity, as well as any relationship he or she may have with the indigenous world, to the point of denial and even hatred…colonialism secures its power, creating conditions in which the colonized can be made into one more colonizer, becoming the oppressor of his own people” (2009:134-136). del Valle Escalante’s use of the phrasing colonized and colonizer refers less to the historical act of colonization and instead to cultural colonization, read as domination, of indigenous people by whites and mestizos through the implementation of a system that focuses on cultural differences and privileges a certain set of cultural characteristics including education, literacy, and Christianization. The end result is the diminished cultural value of Indianness in favor of cultural markers deemed representative of the modern nation-state.

Building on these theoretical insights, the question that drives the present research, is what then becomes of those that are left on the margins of such a project; on the periphery of mestizaje and the mestizo identity. Montubio and ribereño identities are two such identities. This does not however mean that they are outside the spectrum of the mestizo identity. Montubios and ribereños are particular types of mestizos and an argument can be made that they are hybrid identities. Certainly the term “hybrid” has garnered much attention and criticism as applied to questions of culture. However, in recognizing the various connotations of the term, it is used here forward not in a biological sense, and it is not here intended to imply equal mixing, but instead following the presentation of García-Canclini (2005) hybridity is used here to refer to complex identities that consist of a variety of indigenous and non-indigenous features that combined result in unique identity markers associated with both montubio and ribereño identities. However, it is important to note that montubio and ribereño are not synonyms for mestizo. They are qualitatively different identities that are overshadowed by the dominant mestizo identity and reflect the homogenizing process of mestizaje. In the pages that follow, I trace the historical emergence of these identities and emphasize the existent similarities in diverse geographic contexts.

The Historical Foundations of Difference
The montubio designation refers to being a coastal peasant native to south-central coastal Ecuador. However, the meaning of montubio is much more complex than this simple one line definition. The term ribereño is used throughout the Peruvian Amazon and translates to mean river-dweller. It is often used in conjunction with the term bosquesino or forest-dweller. However, the bosquesino is more commonly used to refer to inhabitants of interriverine environments. Both terms reflect an association with the tropical Amazonian environment. As with the term montubio, the meaning of ribereño is more nuanced than the meager definition given here. The detailed meanings associated with ribereño will be elaborated upon in the forthcoming pages.

Identity formation in the cases of both ribereño and montubio identities can be traced historically to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the emergence of these identities is linked to the process acculturation and change. Each identity is also related either directly or indirectly to a history of economic expansion and resource extraction. A brief historical overview of the formation on montubio and ribereño identities is provided in the pages that follow.

--Montubio History
The most important scholarly contributions to understanding the montubio include the works of Crespo (1959), de la Cuadra (1996), Estrada (1996), and Roitman (2008, 2009). Each work attempts to present an analysis of montubio cultural identity while simultaneously referencing important historical trends in the development of a contemporary montubio identity. The contributions of Crespo, de la Cuadra, and Estrada are predominantly descriptive whereas Roitman engages in critical analyses of montubio cultural identity with reference to the politics of race and ethnicity in Ecuador.

De la Cuadra (1996) suggests that the term montubio had little cultural meaning prior to the late nineteenth century, and rural coastal dwelling peasants were instead more often referenced as being campesinos (peasants). Thus, the underlying meaning associated with the montubio was one of social class or economic status, a meaning that still forms one component of montubio identity in its contemporary manifestations. However, the meaning of montubio has always extended beyond class designations to encompass the idea of mestizaje. In ethno-racial terms, the montubio is generally characterized as having mixed indigenous and European heritage. However, some scholars including Murra (1963) also make reference to African contributions to the montubio identity, particularly as they relate to northern Manabí province; an area with a relatively large Afro-Ecuadorian population. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the term montubio began to take on more profound cultural meanings. Economic growth and agricultural expansion in coastal Ecuador were central to this shift.

The beginning decades of the twentieth century ushered in increased agricultural production in coastal Ecuador with a growing emphasis on the production of cacao and coffee and the extractive exploitation of tagua.5 In the early 1920s Ecuador was exporting an average of six-thousand and eight hundred metric tons of tagua per year (Larrea 1924). The development of the region increased relations between wealthy investors from the urban centers including Guayaquil and Manta and peasant residents of the rural coastal zone. Acosta-Solis (1948) references the relationship in the following way, “For the “montuvio” of the coast tagua always means money, a roof and food; for the farmer, money and shelter; and for the merchant and the State, profit and revenue” (46). Acosta-Solis continues by painting a picture of the montubio as reckless in his resource use, as “it does not matter…whether the forests are destroyed or not; the only thing that interests him is to collect the tagua and get money for his expenses and vices” (57). Acosta-Solis’ characterization of montubios is reflective of the tense relationship present between montubio peasants and the non-montubio population.6  The agitations were not however one-sided. In many instances, montubios attempted to protect their land and resources from outsider exploitation. McEwan et al. (2006) note that various communities in southern Manabí organized in order to protect their resources and territories and Southon (1985) provides a detailed account of the growth of a coastal hacienda and the subsequent death of its foreman at the hands of the local laborers. One can only imagine that while this event might have been extraordinary in its outcome, the underlying strains were most likely quite common throughout this period of economic expansion along the rural coast.

I suggest that it was the historical conditions of unequal labor relations based in an extractive resource industry driven by the western consumption of tagua, and to a lesser extent cacao and coffee that resulted in the emergence of pejorative connotations of “ferocious” and “wild” being associated with the montubio. Crespo for example makes reference to the montubio as a “wild man who lives in our tropical jungles” (1959:9) and de la Cuadra (1996) cites the montubio as being perceived of as ferocious while Whitten (1965) references the montubio as characterized as uncivilized and dangerous. Citing de la Cuadra, Becker refers to the montubio as “semi-acculturated” (1999:537). In all cases, the implication is that the montubio is not tamed or domesticated and as such the meaning of montubio extends beyond the domain of economics by referencing something more than mere class or peasantry. While I posit that these deleterious characterizations of coastal dwelling peasants grew out of tensions motivated by economic expansion and inequality, characterized by the patron-client relations of wealthy landowners and laborers, de la Cuadra (1996) suggests that the origin of the montubio identity can be traced to Ecuador’s Liberal Revolution and the role of montubios as revolutionary fighters. I do not find the two to be mutually exclusive and I do believe that there is room for both perspectives in understanding the emergence of the montubio as both label and identity. In either case, the meanings attributed to montubio identity have a direct correlation to cultural contact and the resultant tensions.

--Ribereño History
Similar to the development of the montubio in the Pacific lowlands of coastal Ecuador, the ribereño is a product of cultural contact related to economic interactions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The rubber boom of the late nineteenth century is one of the most distinguishing features of northwest Amazonia and the industrial revolution in the United States and Europe created a demand for Amazonian rubber that was satisfied by massive exploitation of the region from approximately 1850 to 1920.

The commercial growth of the northwest Amazon and the Loreto district of northeast Peru more specifically, resulted in significant cultural changes and the emergence of the ribereño as a cultural identity. Stanfield (1998) provides one of the most detailed historical accounts of the Amazonian rubber boom in northeast Peru and as such, I draw heavily on his contributions here. Three things are of note when discussing the rubber boom in Amazonia. The first is that the rubber boom is characterized by major demographic shifts in the form of white colonization of the Amazonian interior and the development of Amazon cities such as the city of Iquitos. Iquitos, founded along the banks of the Nanay River as a Jesuit settlement in 1757, had a population of only two hundred residents nearly one hundred years later in 1850. The population grew to two thousand by 1880 and to over fourteen thousand by 1900. The rapid growth is directly related to the expansion of the rubber industry and movement to the city by whites and mestizos from within and outside of Peru as well as indigenous individuals being drawn into the city for access to material goods. During this same period, Peruvian rubber exports increased dramatically, with the most notable increase taking place from 1880 to 1888. Eighty-four metric tons of rubber were exported in 1880. This number increased to over two-thousand metric tons by 1888 (Thorp and Bertram 1978).

The need to harness labor and exploit rubber brought colonizers, white, mestizo, and Asian, into contact with indigenous populations of the Amazon basin and its tributaries. Intermediaries, or traders, set up posts at locations along major waterways and minor tributaries and purchased locally extracted materials in exchange for consumer goods. In many cases, marriage relations were established along with permanent settlements. Padoch (1988) makes direct reference to the ribereño identity as emerging from the cultural interactions of various groups.

The new community…was composed of people of diverse backgrounds. There were ex-Ashaninkas, ex-Cocamas, mestizos descended from Cocama-European unions…ex-Quichuas…several ex-Yagua women. All consider themselves ribereños. Their village composition as well as their ethnic identity is very clearly the result of a strange history of forest-production exploitation in the Peruvian Amazon (132).

Padoch’s use of the prefix ex to describe individuals of various indigenous backgrounds relates to Chibnik’s (1991) use of the phrase “de-tribalized Indians” in referencing ribereños and Newing and Bodmer (2003) provide a similar insight by defining ribereños as “detribalized riverside dwellers” (110). This corresponds well to the definition of montubios as “semi-acculturated peasants” (Becker 1999:537) and points to the need to recognize a component of identity that extends beyond social class and peasant status in both the case of the ribereño and the montubio.

Figure Four: Scarred Rubber Tree, Hevea brasiliensis, located near the Río Blanco, Loreto, Peru. Photo taken by the author, 2013

In my own research in the Tahuayo region of the Peruvian Amazon, there are clear signs of the impact of the rubber boom on the area. The most notable indicator is the existence of scarred rubber trees that were tapped nearly a century ago. In addition to this, inquiries into the histories of local villages illuminate connections to rubber exploitation and other extractive resource industries that have brought together wealthy investors and peasant labor populations and in some cases villages carry names associated with the early traders who set up trading posts in order to take advantage of the economic windfalls of unregulated resource extraction. For example, in the case of one village, local residents recite the history of the village with reference to an Asian trader who moved into the area in the early 1900s. The development of trade relations resulted in permanent settlement and formation of a community made up of individuals with a variety of indigenous ethnic backgrounds including Quechua, Cocama, Shuar, and Yagua. The work of Newing and Bodmer (2003) supports this by acknowledging the movement of peoples (ribereños) as influenced by demand for resources from national and international markets. Thus, the history of resource exploitation and the corresponding movement of native peoples resulted in the development of contemporary ribereño communities and the formation of a ribereño identity.

Contemporary Manifestations and Embedded Social Meanings
The histories of natural resource extraction that underpin the emergence of montubio and ribereño identities provide a background for the comparison of contemporary manifestations of these respective identities. Such a comparison of these two identities points to marked similarities as they relate to mestizaje. The first similarity is that neither identity is understood within in its own cultural context to be of equal cultural value to the dominant mestizo identity. A second similarity is an emphasis on economic practice as a defining feature of both identities. A final parallel comes in the form of the regionalization of each identity.

--Montubio
The meanings of montubio are complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, we can approach the montubio from the perspective of the cultural characteristics associated with the identity. On the other hand, there is also a need to examine the significant cultural meanings attributed to the montubio identity, both by those who claim the identity and those who reference the montubio with regard to difference.

I began conducting research in rural coastal Ecuador in 2002. At the time I was unfamiliar with the cultural significance of the term montubio and it was only after an extensive amount of time in the field and significant reflection on my past field experiences that I am able to articulate the meanings of this complex term. With this in mind, it is fair to say that to be montubio is to embody a certain lifestyle or culture. De la Cuadra (1996) suggests that the term montubio references monte (hill or mountain) and bio or vida (life). Montubios are therefore “hill people” who make a living as horticulturalists and in some cases peasant fishermen along the Ecuadorian littoral where the ocean meets the land and low-lying hills rise abruptly from the coastline.

Figure Five: Montubio home, Manabí, Ecuador. Photo taken by the author, 2006

In my experience, self-proclaimed montubios take pride in their ability to live off of the land growing subsistence crops such as plantains, manioc, citrus, bananas, papaya, and a variety of other vegetables in swidden plots that provide for family consumption. Plots are most commonly situated a short distance from one’s home and are attended to daily or almost daily. Many self-identifying montubios also produce cash crops such as coffee and sugar cane or raise cattle in order to generate income. Other livestock that are important to the montubio way of life include pigs, chickens, and ducks along with horses or donkeys. Small-scale subsistence fishing is also practiced, although this is rare as the term montubio is more closely associated with horticultural activities than with fishing. In addition to these characteristic features of montubio life, most montubios take advantage of opportunities to work for a daily wage when the opportunity presents itself. The most common forms of employment include construction or some other form of manual labor.

Being montubio is generally associated with a particular economic status, the status of a peasant or campesino (Figure Five). In a 2009 interview with Don Reymundo, a self-proclaimed montubio, he relayed the message that to be montubio is to work the land. “Soy montubio…soy Manaba. Trabajando en el campo como campesino es parte de nuestra vida” (I am montubio…I am Manaba [from Manabí]. Working in the country as a peasant is part of our life.) Don Reymundo references two of the most important features associated with the montubio identity, the economic component, and the regional component. This compares favorably to Murra’s (1963) discussion of montubios in which he states:

The population of the Coastal areas became known as montuvios. Racially, they are a blend of White, Negro, and Indian genes in various proportions, with the Negro dominant in the north and the Indian in the south. Culturally, the montuvio has been historically an Ecuadorian, meaning a non-Indian farmer cultivating rice, maize, beans, and pineapples, and working on large cacao, indigo, and rubber plantations (817).

Murra’s brief discussion of montubio identity provides multiple points for comment. The first is that Murra is correct in his assertion that montubios are of mixed ancestry. However, there seems to be very little consensus on the phenotypic features of a montubio and the definition is constantly shifting. For example, Murra points to African contributions to the montubio identity while in a study conducted at about the same time, Whitten refers to the montubio as a “light-skinned Costeño with no striking Negro features, especially one from Manabí or Guayas province” (1965:92). However, Whitten does also make note of the montubio term being used, albeit with lesser frequency in the northern coastal province of Esmeraldas where African features are more prominent. These early references to the montubio reflect the challenges in conceiving of the montubio in ethno-racial terms while at the same time indicating rather clearly, if indirectly, that the montubio is a type of mestizo.

Roitman (2008) suggests that this mixed heritage includes African contributions both phenotypically and culturally. De la Cuadra (1996) makes a similar claim by suggesting that the montubio is an elaboration of “three races and their respective varieties” including indigenous, black, and white (27). In addressing this issue, de la Cuadra goes so far as to provide a summary of the composition of the montubio as sixty percent indigenous, thirty percent black, and ten percent white. Of note is that Whitten’s (1965) discussion of montubios contrasts markedly with that provided by de la Cuadra. In his text on Afro-Ecuadorians of Esmeraldas, Whitten provides concise definitions of ethno-racial terms utilized in Ecuador and not surprisingly, the term in need of the most definition is montubio. What is clear in Whitten’s presentation is that the term montubio is not associated with Afro-Ecuadorian or black phenotypic or cultural features and instead is used to refer to “A monolingual Spanish-speaking Indian native to the coast” or “Any lower- or middle-class, light skinned person from Manabí or Guayas province”7 (1965: 91). Ultimately, there is little consensus other than the suggestion that the montubio is of mixed biological and cultural heritage.

Perhaps more importantly, the montubio identity is a place-based identity that is associated most strongly with rural Manabí, Santa Elena, and Guayas provinces and to a lesser extent the northern coastal province of Esmeraldas. The notion of montubio as a rural identity is juxtaposed with the urban identity of major coastal population centers including Manta and Guayaquil (Ecuador’s largest city with a population of nearly two million residents). The positioning of the montubio identity as a rural identity serves as a mechanism for differentiating the montubios from the dominant mestizo identity that preferences urbanness over ruralness. Thus, the montubio identity exists both literally and symbolically on the periphery of Ecuadorian consciousness.

--Ribereño
Like the montubio identity, the ribereño identity is place-based in as much as it refers to, and is used as a self-referential term by residents of the eastern Peruvian Amazon. Beyond having regional connotations that are place-centered in the Amazon, ribereño identity is linked to a particular way of life.

Culturally, ribereños tend to live in close proximity to navigable waterways. Contemporary ribereños practice swidden horticulture in small plots cut from the forest. Common crops include bananas, plantains, manioc, melons, and occasionally maize. In some areas, rice is produced as a cash crop. Most ribereños of Loreto also hunt and fish in order to provide sustenance for their families and to offer an occasional surplus of goods for sale in markets in the urban center of Iquitos. Ribereños also occasionally raise animals for household consumption including chickens, ducks, geese, and the occasional pig. Much like montubios, ribereños tend to be peasants or campesinos who make a living off the land and who engage predominantly in the informal economy.

Chibnik (1991:173) notes that the “principle meaning of ribereño is non-Indian and rural” and while many ribereños are monolingual in Spanish my research indicates that the local dialect of the region is heavily influenced by numerous indigenous words and elders in many communities also speak one or more indigenous languages with Yagua, Cocama, and Quechua being the most common. Moreover, indigenous surnames are quite common among ribereños of the Tahuayo and some communities are considered more indigenous than others. For example, the village of Ayacucho is considered by many in the region to be an Achuar community and the village of San Jacinto has a strong Yagua influence both linguistically and culturally.

I first met Don Celestino over a decade ago when I visited the region as an aspiring anthropologist and adventure tourist. At the time his family resided outside of the village of San Jacinto and their family residence was built in traditional Yagua fashion with a round house and thatched roof. Don Celestino has since moved into the village and his family lives in a ribereño style home, elevated off of the ground along the river’s edge (Figure Six). I visited Don Celestino and his family on warm morning in July, 2013. I was accompanied by my local consultant and guide Xavier. Don Celestino and his wife Doña Isabela, were at the river’s edge preparing to visit their chacra (horticultural plot). With a small plastic dish they scooped the water out of their canoe with quick movements and rapid precision. Upon recognizing our arrival both Don Celestino and Doña Isabela walked through the tall grass and up the muddy embankment to greet us.  Don Celestino’s son José, a young man in his early thirties, stood near the family home and cautiously invited us to enter. José was noticeably shy and uncomfortable, he spoke softly and deliberately with a clear sense of self-consciousness that reflected his lack of comfort in speaking Spanish. He commented on Xavier’s machete, a new one that Xavier had just recently purchased while we were in Iquitos the week prior. José mentioned that his machete had recently broken and asked to see Xavier’s machete. Xavier obliged. José ran the blade of the machete across the wooden bench that he was sitting on and admired the bright orange plastic handle and the precision with which the machete would cut. He spoke only briefly and the interaction was cut short by Doña Isabela as she offered a bowl of masato (manioc beer) in a customary fashion of welcoming us to her home. With a look of anxiety in his eyes, José made his way out of the main room of the home and into the kitchen area. Xavier would later tell me that his own interactions with José are normally limited due to what he perceived to be embarrassment at not having a complete competency in the Spanish language.

Figure Six: Typical Ribereño Home, Loreto, Peru Photo taken by the author, 2012

Don Celestino and his family are representative ribereños in as much as they reflect multiple cultural influences including strong indigenous components to their identity. Chibnik (1991) and Campanera Reig (2012) note similar patterns based on their research conducted along the Amazon River and the Marañon River respectively. Citing Hernández (1970), Santos-Granero and Barclay (2000) reference the ribereño as distinct from indigenous populations of the Peruvian Amazon and suggest that in its earliest anthropological usage the term ribereño made little reference to ethnicity, but instead was a reference to geographic location and economic status. It was not until the 1970s, and the work of San Román (1974) that the meaning of ribereño began to take on an ethnic component that included white, mestizo, African, Asian, and indigenous contributions. While specific definitions of ribereño vary dependent upon perspective and the time of elaboration, ribereño communities represent an amalgamation of cultural features that coalesce to form the ribereño identity in the ongoing process of mestizaje.

--Meanings and Boundaries
The meanings of ribereño and montubio extend well beyond a discussion of culture traits and representative cultural forms. Representations of montubio and ribereño identities reflect the role of embedded social meanings in boundary making. Building on the work of Barth (1969), a more refined understanding of these identities requires an examination of the relations of power and the boundaries that are demarcated in order to assert difference. It is imperative to recognize that while such boundaries may be arbitrarily drawn and differences are frequently essentialized for instrumental purposes, ethnic boundaries are linked to embedded social meanings that highlight differences in the process of boundary making.

Both terms reflect boundaries that distinguish them from the broader mestizo category and mark the montubio and the ribereño as particular types of mestizos. Historically, the term montubio has carried numerous negative connotations that move beyond associations with economy and regionalism. In popular contexts to be montubio is to be ignorant, uneducated, and/or backwards. A montubio is a mestizo who lacks refinement and who exhibits more “indigenous” qualities than Spanish or “white” qualities. Thus, the montubio designation is a cultural marker that signifies difference between rural coastal populations in Ecuador and urban, “modern” populations and in both urban and rural contexts, the term montubio is used pejoratively to refer to people who are less refined than the speaker. I have encountered this on numerous occasions while spending time with urban elites in the city of Guayaquil and during my time in the villages and hamlets of rural Manabí province. I heard frequent references to ill-mannered children as behaving like montubios. The term montubio is also used to refer to one who possesses characteristics such as drunkenness and thievery. These characteristics are however not independent of the regional and economic components that I have defined previously.

The term ribereño, while similar to montubio with regard to economic and regional dimensions, reflects a less stigmatized embedded social meaning. Isla (2009) for example, paints an idealized picture of the ribereño as living in harmony with nature and being fully dependent upon the bounty of the Amazon for survival and the maintenance of “the good life”. Newing and Bodmer (2003) present a similar assessment by suggesting that ribereños “have often been portrayed as natural allies of conservation because of low-intensity use of resources” (2003:111). However, at the same time that ribereños receive such positive portrayals, there is also a tendency to contrast these with mainstream notions of the ribereño as underdeveloped, backward, poor, and needy (Isla 2009). Illustrating this is former Peruvian President Alan García’s characterization of Peru’s Amazonian inhabitants, classified generally as bosquesinos, as “orchard dogs” that do not take advantage of the bountiful resources of the Amazon while simultaneously attempting to prevent others from gaining access (Garcia 2007). This reference was made as part of a broader dialogue pertaining to conservation and natural resource exploitation in the Peruvian Amazon. As has been common throughout Latin America, García’s characterization of rural residents of the Amazon as backward, ignorant, and underdeveloped, serves the agendas of the dominant white and mestizo upper class while perpetuating the marginalization of ribereños.

For their part, ribereños generally do not conceive of the term as carrying a derogatory meaning although in interviews conducted in 2012 and 2013, it was clear that self-identifying ribereños do conceive of their identity as it relates to economic practice, rurality, and regionality and local cultural history. Ribereño is in a very real sense, a way of being. As one consultant of, being ribereño refers to making a living by the river. However, often times the more derogatory term “chacarero” is used by people living in the urban center of Iquitos to refer to ribereños in a derogatory manner. The term comes from the root word chacra or horticultural field and denotes someone who makes a living by using a machete and working horticultural fields. However, it carries a strong negative connotation of being uneducated and backward. Juan Carlos, a young naturalist guide who grew up outside of Iquitos working on his family’s chacra and who has since earned a university education, shared with me how he was taunted with this term by city-dwelling children when he was growing up. This apparent contradiction between upper class understandings of ribereño identity and the meanings ascribed to it and locally ascribed meanings speaks to the peripheral nature of ribereño identity and the top down process of marginalization. 

The work of both Chibnik (1991) and Isla (2009) as well as my own research, indicate that the term ribereño is used to demarcate boundaries between urban and rural in Amazonian Peru in much the same way that the term montubio is used in Ecuadorian boundary making. One example of this is the frequency with which residents of the Amazonian city of Iquitos referenced themselves as mestizo while referring to residents of outlying villages as ribereño. In conversations with consultants, it was common for them to make references about leaving the city and going into the Amazonian interior as going to pueblos ribereños.

In both the case of ribereño and montubio, the embedded social meanings serve to create distance and distinguish the identity from the dominant mestizo identity. The result of this is the peripheralization of these identities. As I have argued, this is due to the historical circumstances surrounding the emergence of these identities coupled with the ethno-racial hierarchy associated with the paradigm of mestizaje.

Bringing the Periphery to the Center
While the history of montubio and ribereño identities in Latin America is one of marginalization and peripheralization, the periphery has recently moved toward the center as montubios and ribereños challenge the structure of Latin American identity politics. Scholarly research is only starting to address the dynamic nature of these identities as they confront the structure of mestizaje and push for recognition.

The emergence of a montubio political discourse takes the form of the Consejo del Desarrollo del Pueblo Montubio de la Costa Ecuatoriana y Zonas Subtropicales de la Región Litoral (Council for the Development of the Montubio Community of the Ecuadorian Coast and Subtropical Zones of the Littoral Region) (CODEPMOC). CODEPMOC emphasizes ethnicity over class and the formal organization of CODEPMOC in 2001 has resulted in an increase in the value of montubio ethnic capital. While montubios are not claiming an indigenous identity, they are asserting an indigenous-like identity by adopting an ethnic discourse to promote political awareness. The result of this process of “coming to center” is a recent increase in state allocated resources to montubio communities and an increase in political leverage for CODEPMOC (Roitman 2008, 2009).

In Peru, ribereños have not adopted an official ethnic discourse. However, ribereños do take membership in the Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana (The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest) and many ribereño communities have also established partnerships with environmental coalitions. Both of the aforementioned avenues reflect a heightened political awareness and an increase in the politicized nature of ribereño identity in recent decades. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly common for ribereño communities to “exchange class for ethnicity” in an attempt to secure communal land rights and protect traditional territory from outsider exploitation. In doing so, ribereños undergo a legal shift from classification as campesino (peasant) to nativo (native). In accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, which recognizes cultural self-identification as sufficient for the legal recognition of indigenous status, ribereño communities have effectively gained indigenous rights.8 Santos-Granero and Barclay (2000) reflect on this process of indigenization as reversing the process of ribereñoization that began in the mid nineteenth century.

Conclusion
Ribereño and montubio identities exist on the periphery of the dominant mestizo identity that forms the cornerstone of identity politics in most Latin American countries. And while there is a tendency among scholars to understand mestizaje by referencing a model that emphasizes the ethno-racial categories of indigenous, mestizo, black, and white, my research points to the dynamic nature of identity and a need to reexamine these categories, particularly the category of mestizo. In this article I focus on the position of ribereño and montubio identities as related to the ideology of mestizaje and I ague that despite significantly different geographic contexts, both identities are products of economic expansion and the associated processes of marginalization.
For scholars concerned with identities, ethnic or otherwise, in Latin America, there is a pressing need to look beyond the dominant model of mestizaje and question the boundaries of identity by examining those identities that do not fit neatly into the ethno-racial categories that are traditionally examined within discussions of mestizaje. As my research indicates, not all mestizo identities are equal and while a significant body of literature exists pertaining to indigenous and Afro-American identities as related to mestizaje, little has been done to address mestizo identities that do not correspond to dominant notions of what it means to be mestizo. Just as montubio and ribereño groups are pushing for recognition, often by highlighting ethnicity over class, there is a need to bring peripheral mestizo identities to the center of scholarly discussions pertaining to ethnicity and identity in Latin America and to recognize the restricting of boundaries through political action that emphasizes ethnic components.


Notes:

1 An early version of this paper was presented at the 2013 Meetings of the Central States Anthropological Society. Return.
2 Pseudonyms are used for the names of individuals and locations in order to protect the identity of consultants. Return.
3 The alternate spelling montuvio is also frequently used. Return.
4 Bauer (2012), Cervone (2010), Hale (1996), Miller (2004), Roitman (2009), Stutzman (1981) and Whitten (2003) for example. Return.
5Tagua is a palm nut from the Ecuadorian Ivory Palm (Phytelephas aequatorialis). It was exploited in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for use in applications including buttons and other adornments. It is still harvested today throughout much of coastal Ecuador its primary use is in the craft production of carved figurines or as a source of food for livestock. Return.
6 It is worth noting that Acosta-Solis was the director of the Ecuadorian Institute of Natural Sciences. Return.
7 Author’s emphasis added. Return.
8 Convention 169 of the ILO recognizes self-identification as a fundamental component of indigenous identity. Peru ratified ILO Convention 169 in 1989. Return.

Acknowledgements:
I am grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments and feedback. I also thank the people of coastal Ecuador and Amazonian Peru, without whom this research would not have been possible. Portions of this research were generously supported by the University of Southern Indiana Foundation and by Southern Illinois University – Carbondale.

References Cited:

Acosta-Solis, M. Tagua or Vegetable Ivory: A Forest Product of Ecuador. Economic Botany. 2(1): 46-57. 1948.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. 2000.

Barth, Fredrik. Introduction. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, ed. F. Barth, pp. 9–38. Boston: Little Brown and Company. 1969.

Bauer, Daniel. Emergent Identity, Cultural Heritage, and El Mestizaje: Notes from the
Ecuadorian Coast.” The Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies. 21(1): 103-121. 2012.

Becker, Marc. Comunas and Indigenous Protest in Cayambe, Ecuador. The Americas. 55(4): 531-559. 1999.

Campanera Reig, Mireia. “¿Campesina o Nativa? Derecho, política e identidad en los procesos de titulación de comunidades en la Amazonia Peruana.” QuAderns-e: Institut Catalá d’Antropologia. 17(1): 10-24, 2012.

Chibnik, Michael. Quasi-Ethnic Groups in Amazonia. Ethnology. 30(2): 167-182. 1991.

Cervone, Emma. Celebrating the Chagras: Mestizaje, Multiculturalism, and the Ecuadorian Nation. The Global South. 4(1): 94–118. 2010.

Crespo, Teodoro. El Montuvio: Centro de la Colonización.  Quito: Editorial Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana. 1959.

de la Cuadra, José and Humberto Robles E. El Montuvio Ecuatoriano (Ensayo de Presentación). Quito: Libresa; Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, (1937) 1996.

del Valle Escalante, Emilio. Maya Nationalisms and Postcolonial Challenges in Guatemala: Coloniality, Modernity, and Identity Politics. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research. 2009.

Doremus, Anne. 2001. Indigenism, Mestizaje, and National Identity in Mexico during the 1940s and the 1950s. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos. 17(1):375-402.

Estrada, Jenny.  1996. El Montubio – un forjador de identidad. Guayaquil: Banco del Progreso.

García, Alan. Receta para acabar con el perro del hortelano. El Comercio. 25, Nov. 2007.

Hale, Charles. Introduction. Journal of Latin American Anthropology. 2(1): 2-3. 1996.

Hall, Stuart.  Cultural Identity and Diaspora. Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. ed. Jonathan Rutherford. pp. 222-237. London: Lawrence and Wishart Limited. 1990.

Hernández, Arturo D. Selva Trágica. Lima: Atlántida, 1970.

Isla, Anna. The Eco-Class-Race Struggles in the Peruvian Amazon Basin: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Capitalism Nature Socialism. 20(23): 21-48. 2009

Larrea, Carlos M. Geographical Notes on Esmeraldas, Northwestern Ecuador. Geographical Review. 14(3): 373-387. 1924.

McEwan, Colin, M. I. Silva, and Chris Hudson. 2006. Using the Past to Forge the Future: The Genesis of the Community Site Museum at Agua Blanca, Ecuador. Archaeological Site Museums in Latin America, ed. H. Silverman, pp. 187–216.Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Miller, Marilyn Grace. Rise and Fall of the Cosmic Race: The Cult of Mestizaje in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2004.

Murra, John. The Historic Tribes of Ecuador. In Handbook of South American Indians. Volume 2. The Andean Civilizations. Julian H. Steward (ed.) New York: Cooper Square Publishers. pp.  785-821. 1963.

Newing, Helen and Richard Bodmer. Collaborative Wildlife Management and Adaptation to Change: The Tamshiyacu Tahuayo Communal Reserve, Peru. Nomadic Peoples. 7(1): 110-122. 2003.

Padoch, Christine. People of the Floodplain and Forest, People of the Tropical Rainforest. eds. Julie Sloan Denslow and Christine Padoch., pp. 127-140. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988.

Radcliffe, Sarah A. 2000. Entangling Resistance, Ethnicity, Gender, and Nation in Ecuador. Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance. ed. Joanne P. Sharp, Paul Routledge, Chris Philo, and Ronan Paddison. pp. 164-181. London: Routledge.

Roitman, Karem. “Hybridity, Mestizaje, and Montubios in Ecuador.” QEH Working Paper Series. Working Paper Number 165, 2008.

______________. Race, Ethnicity, and Power in Ecuador: The Manipulation of Mestizaje. Boulder: First Forum Press, 2009.

San Román, Jesús. Estudio Socio-Económico de los Ríos Amazonas y Napo. Iquitos: Investigación y Promoción de la Amazonía/Centro de Estudios Teológicos de la Amazonía. 1974.

Santos-Granero, Fernando and Frederica Barclay. Tamed Frontiers: Economy, Society, and Civil Rights in Upper Amazonia.  Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

Southon, Michael. Sea Tenure and Modernization on the Central Coast of Ecuador. B.A. Thesis. Canberra: Australian National University. 1985

Stutzman, Ronald. El Mestizaje: An All-Inclusive Ideology of Exclusion. In Cultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern Ecuador, Norman E. Whitten, Jr. (ed.), pp. 45-94. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1981.

Thorp, Rosemary and Geoffrey Bertram. Peru, 1890-1977: Growth and Policy in an Open Economy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.

Vasconcelos, José. La Raza Cósmica. 1925.

Wade, Peter. Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. London: Pluto Press. 1997.

Whitten Jr., Norman E. Class, Kinship, and Power in an Ecuadorian Town: The Negroes of San Lorenzo. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965.

______________. Symbolic Inversion, the Topology of El Mestizaje, the Spaces of Las Razas in Ecuador. The Journal of Latin American Anthropology. 8(1):52-85. 2003.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.