A - GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION

*In the countries bordering the Andean mountain chain, it is difficult to differentiate between specifically Amazonian populations and those who have only recently emigrated from the highlands. We have excluded the latter from this report because, along with other individuals, nationals, they belong to a pioneer frontier gradually encroaching on the area we are looking at here. But on the other hand, we have decided to include various Quichua speaking populations (a predominant indigenous language in the Andes), originally native American populations, who have been part of the acculturation process for the last hundred years.

*Many ethnic groups live on the boundaries of several countries, which means that they are occasionally not included in the available data or accounted for more than once.

*Within each of these countries, there are native American Indian populations that are completely "detribalized" and therefore no longer linked to the ethnic group they originally came from. Censuses were never more than approximate, and often a gross approximation at that. Whenever the case occurred, we chose to include only those populations that have recently asserted an indigenous identity and for whom reasonable estimates have been put forward.

*Finally, there is the delicate problem of how to define an 'ethnic group'. The main criteria referred to in this particular context has been the concept of a common culture and, more often than not, of a common language. In the case of populations living in a demarcated geographical area, the choice was easy since territory, language and culture overlap perfectly (as for the Arawete or the Piaroa). In the case of populations spread out over wide areas, various problems arise : those living on the fringes of the area may already be firmly integrated in neighbouring groups (as for the Kokama), or even have a high proportion of mestizos (as for the Arawak-Lokono) ; or the idea of their belonging to a wider cultural unit may not exist (e.g. the Yanomami), in which case linguistic and cultural, rather than territorial unity were chosen as criteria. In other cases, populations speaking different languages but belonging to a single territorial, political, cultural and ritual entity were considered as one single group (e.g. the Xinguano, which include 9 small ethnic groups). Other groups were identified on the basis of their compulsory exogamy (e.g. the Tukano which include 18 sub-groups (JACKSON, 1983)). Ethnic groups that were autonomous until recently, and that are at present merging together, are presented as a single entity, though the various names are preserved (e.g. the Wayana/Apalai). Lastly, using linguistic and cultural unity as a basis, a variety of complex territorial and ecological facts have been brought together, as for the Guahibo for example : they are spread out over a wide area, have adapted to different ecological habitats (savannah, rain forest, riparian forest) and their territory includes pockets of other indigenous or mestizos populations.

The different patterns envisaged above are based on the available literature, and it is more than probable that many ethnic boundaries need amending (as for example for ethnic groups speaking a Pano language on the border between Brazil and Peru, such as the Amawaka, Yaminawa and other groups whose name ends with the suffix -nawa (ERIKSON, 1991) ; another case is that of the upper Rio Negro and upper Orinoco Arawak groups such as the Kuripako, Baniwa, Warekena (HILL, 1983)).

Of course, the figures published in this report cannot give any idea of the impact of intertribal marriages, no less important today than they used to be, and which affect ethnic groups in different ways depending on how open they are to each other. Also, if no precise census was available, and unless extra data allowed for accurate estimates one way or the other, we have provided an average figue calculated with the lowest and highes figures available. Allowing for these reservations and criticisms, the following main general sources were used for the identification and demography of ethnic groups living in Greater Amazonia :

- 1971 :Situación del Indigena en America del Sur

- 1982 : Ans, M. d', L'Amazonie péruvienne indigène.

- 1987 :Povos indígénas no Brasil, 1985/86.

- 1987 :ZOLEZZI, G. & RIESTER, J., Lenguas indigenas del Oriente boliviano : classificacion preliminar.

- 1988 : GRIMES B.F. ed., Ethnologue, languages of the world.

- 1988 : Características etnográficas de la población indígena venezolana.

- 1989 : HEREDIA MARTINEZ, W. PERU : Estado das comunidades indigenas amazonicas.

- 1990 : GRENAND, P. & GRENAND, F., Les Amérindiens, des peuples pour la Guyane de demain.

- 1991 : Povos indígenas no Brasil, 1987/88/89/90.

- 1992 : RIBERa, C. N., Reconocimiento, demarcación y control de territorios indigenas : situación y experiencias en Bolivia.

- undated : SáNCHEZ, E., ROLDáN, E. & SáNCHEz, M. F., Bases para la conformación de las Entidades territoriales indigenas (Columbia).

Country	indigenous population	number of ethnic groups	average population per group	density of indigenous population (km2)
Bolivia	113 174	26	4 353	0,16
Brazil	145 132	92	1 580	0,02
Columbia	80 431	24	3 350	0,12
Ecuador	47 500	7	6 780	0,36
Guyana	35 360	7	5 050	0,16
French Guiana	4 194	6	700	0,04
Peru	178 471	45	3 970	0,24
Suriname	9 303	4	2 320	0,05
Venezuela	84 677	19	4 460	0,14
TOTAL	698 252	182[11]	3 618	0,14 h/km2

We thus have a total of 698 252 native American Indians for the whole of Greater Amazonia (see table 2). This figure may appear to be very low ; it expresses rather brutally the drastic decrease of indigenous populations since the 16th century, period during which an estimated 6 800 000 people were living in Greater Amazonia (DENEVAN, 1977). But this same figure also shows (ibid.) a sharp increase since the 1950s. For example, the indigenous populations of the whole of Brazil (including areas that have not been taken into account in this report) was estimated by D. RIBEIRO (1979) at 99 700 people in 1957, whereas the present figure is of 228 000 (ACONTECEU, 1986). Even if one does take into account the fact that at the time there were few accurate censuses, in particular for uncontacted groups, there is nevertheless a definite population increase.

What comes accross when comparing tables 1 and 2 is a very uneven distribution of indigenous Amazonian populations and that this distribution varies depending on the availability of lowland areas in each country. These figures imply regional concentrations which appear on map 2 ("The major areas of Indian population settlement in the Amazonia"). This map defines 9 major population areas. 64 % of the total indigenous population thus lives concentrated on one quarter of the total area of Greater Amazonia. The map also shows that these 9 areas are on the periphery and often cut accross the borders of two or even three countries (see table 4). They are real havens where populations can seek refuge.

The following table presents a survey of all the different ethnic groups involved in this study.

The number given to each group refers to its location on map no. 1, Indigenous ethnic groups of Greater Amazonia, Atlas, vol. II.

*Countries are presented in the order of the importance of the given population within each country.

1	Achagua	Columbia
2	Achuar	Peru, Ecuador
3	Aguano	Peru
4	Aguaruna	Peru
5	Akawayo/Ingariko (Kapon)	Guyana, Brazil, Venezuela
6	Amanayé/Anambé	Brazil
7	Amawaka	Peru, Brazil
8	Amuesha	Peru
9	Andoke	Columbia, Peru
10	Apinayé	Brazil
11	Apurinã	Brazil
12	Arabela	Peru
13	Araona	Bolivia
14	Arara (Itogapuk)	Brazil
15	Arara (Karib)	Brazil
16	Arawak-Lokono	Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana
17	Araweté	Brazil
18	Asurini (Akwa)	Brazil
19	Asurini (Xingu)	Brazil
20	Ava-Canoeiros	Brazil
21	Bakairi	Brazil
22	Baniwa	Brazil, Venezuela
23	Bare	Brazil, Venezuela
24	Bauré	Bolivia
25	Betoye	Columbia
26	Bora/Miraña	Peru, Columbia, Brazil
27	Bororo	Brazil
28	Chacobo	Bolivia
29	Chamikuro	Peru
30	Chayahuita	Peru
31	Chikito	Bolivia
32	Chimane	Bolivia
33	Cinta-Larga (a) (Digüt)	Brazil
34	Cujareño	Peru
35	Emerillon	French Guiana
36	Enauenê-Nauê	Brazil
37	Esse-Ejja	Bolivia, Peru
38	Gavião (Parkatejê)	Brazil
39	Guahibo (Sikwani)	Columbia, Venezuela
40	Guaja	Brazil
41	Guajajara	Brazil
42	Guarayo	Bolivia
43	Guayabero	Columbia
44	Harakmbet	Peru
45	Hoti	Venezuela
46	Huambisa	Peru
47	Ikito	Peru
48	Ingano	Columbia
49	Isconahua (Remo)	Peru
50	Itonama	Bolivia
51	Izoceño	Bolivia
52	Jebero	Peru
53	Juruna	Brazil
54	Kampa	Peru, Brazil
55	Kamsa	Columbia
56	Kanamari	Brazil
57	Kandoshi	Peru
58	Kanela	Brazil
59	Kanishana	Bolivia
60	Kapanahua	Peru
61	Karaja	Brazil
62	Karib (Galibi, Kaliña)	Guyana, Venezuela, Suriname, Fr. Guiana, Brazil
63	Karijona	Columbia
64	Karipuna (Pano)	Brazil
65	Karipuna/ Galibi-Uaça	Brazil
66	Karitiana	Brazil
67	Kashibo/Kakataibo	Peru
68	Katukina (Dyapa)	Brazil
69	Katukina (Waninawa)	Brazil
70	Kauixana	Brazil
71	Kavineño	Bolivia
72	Kaxarari	Brazil
73	Kaxinawa	Brazil, Peru
74	Kayabi/Apiaka	Brazil
75	Kayapo méridionaux	Brazil
76	Kayapo septentrionaux	Brazil
77	Kayuvava	Bolivia
78	Kofan	Columbia, Ecuador
79	Kokama/Kambeba	Peru, Brazil
80	Koreguaje	Columbia
81	Kraho	Brazil
82	Krikati	Brazil
83	Kulina	Brazil, Peru
84	Kuripako	Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil
85	Lamistas	Peru
86	Leko	Bolivia
87	Machiguenga	Peru
88	Maku	Brazil; Columbia
89	Makurap (b)	Brazil
90	Makushi	Brazil, Guyana
91	Mapoyo	Venezuela
92	Marubo	Brazil
93	Maxineri	Brazil
94	Mayoruna/Matis	Brazil, Peru
95	Moré	Bolivia
96	Morunahua/ Mastanahua	Peru
97	Moseten	Bolivia
98	Movima	Bolivia
99	Moxo	Bolivia
100	Munduruku	Brazil
101	Mura	Brazil
102	Mura-Pirahã	Brazil
103	Nambikwara	Brazil
104	Nomachiguenga	Peru
105	Nukini (Remo)	Brazil
106	Okaina	Peru
107	Orejone	Peru
108	Pakaa-Nova	Brazil
109	Pakaguara	Bolivia
110	Palikur	Brazil, Fr. Guiana
111	Panare	Venezuela
112	Parakanã	Brazil
113	Pareci/Irantxe/ Myky	Brazil
114	Parintintin	Brazil
115	Parkenawa	Peru
116	Patamona (Kapon)	Guyana
117	Paumari	Brazil
118	Paunaka	Bolivia
119	Pauserna	Bolivia
120	Pemon	Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana
121	Piapoko	Columbia, Venezuela
122	Piaroa	Venezuela, Columbia
123	Piro	Peru
124	Pisabo	Peru
125	Poturuyar	Brazil
126	Poyanawa	Brazil
127	Puinave	Columbia, Venezuela
128	Pukobyé	Brazil
129	Quechua (Canelo, Quixo)	Ecuador, Peru
130	Reyesanos	Bolivia
131	Rikbaktsa	Brazil
132	Saliba	Columbia
133	Sanema	Venezuela
134	Satere-Maue	Brazil
135	Shapra	Peru
136	Sharanawa/ Marinawa	Peru
137	Shavante	Brazil
138	Shawanawa	Brazil
139	Sherente	Brazil
140	Shipaia-Kuruaya	Brazil
141	Shipibo	Peru
142	Shuar	Ecuador
143	Siona/Sekoya	Ecuador, Peru, Columbia
144	Siriono	Bolivia
145	Surui	Brazil
146	Takana	Bolivia
147	Tanimuka	Columbia
148	Tapirape	Brazil
149	Tembe	Brazil
150	Tenharim	Brazil
151	Tikuna	Brazil, Columbia, Peru
152	Tiriyo/Akulio/ Kachuyana	Suriname, Brazil
153	Tukano (c)	Columbia, Brazil
154	Tunebo	Columbia
155	Txikão	Brazil
156	Umutina	Brazil
157	Urarina	Peru
158	Urubu-Ka'apor	Brazil
159	Urueuwauwau	Brazil
160	Waimiri-Atroari	Brazil
161	Waiwai	Brazil, Guyana
162	Waorani	Ecuador
163	Wapishana	Brazil, Guyana
164	Warao	Venezuela
165	Warekena	Venezuela
166	Wayana/Apalai	Suriname, Brazil, Fr. Guiana
167	Wayãpi	Fr. Guiana, Brazil
168	Witoto	Columbia, Peru
169	Xinguanos (d)	Brazil
170	Yabarana	Venezuela
171	Yagua	Peru
172	Yamamadi	Brazil
173	Yaminawa	Peru, Brazil, Bolivia
174	Yanomami	Brazil, Venezuela
175	Yaruro	Venezuela
176	Yawanawa/ Kamanawa	Brazil
177	Yekwana	Venezuela, Brazil
178	Yukuna	Columbia
179	Yuqui	Bolivia
180	Yurakaré	Bolivia
181	Zaparo	Ecuador
182	Zuruaha	Brazil

(a) The name refers to 4 sub-groups : the Cinta Larga (the actual Digüt), the Surui (Paiter), the Zoro and the Arara (Karo).

(b) This actually includes a cluster of 13 residual ethnic groups.

(c) The Tukano form a homogeneous cultural unit made of 18 exogamous sub-groups, the main ones being the actual Tukano, the Kubeo, the Desana and the Barasana.

(d) A cultural group made up of 9 small ethnic groups : Aweti, Kamayura, Kalapalo, Kuikuru, Matipu-Nahukwa, Mehinaku, Waura, Yawalapiti and Trumaï.

Population densities in table 2 clearly show that native American Indians have survived better in countries that are actually on the fringe of the Amazon basin, particularly in Peru and Ecuador. Though these areas were hit by epidemics, as others were, it seems that the slavery of the colonial period did not have as much impact, particularly because of the extremely powerful presence of catholic missions. By contrast, Brazil definitely appears to be the country with the lowest figures for its indigenous peoples, relatively speaking. This is partly due to the violence of colonial expansion : the actual valley of the Amazon river is practically noid of its original inhabitants (see map ndeg.1, Indigenous ethnic groups of Greater Amazonia, Atlas, vol. II). Another factor is the bitter and uncontrolled expansion of the extractivist economy which started in the 19th century and continues today, extracting rubber or gold ; the latter will henceforth be referred to as gold-seeking, a translation of the Portuguese garimpagem.

Indigenous populations in these areas are generally large ethnic groups (see table 4), such as the 12 200 Pemon, 15 132 Makushi and 13 467 Wapishana in area ndeg.1 ; 19 727 Yanomami in area ndeg.2 ; 27 000 Tukano in area ndeg.3 ; 25 637 Tikuna in area ndeg.4 ; 25 000 Aguaruna and 30 000 Shuar in area ndeg.5 ; 20 000 Shipibo and 31 919 Kampa in area ndeg.6 ; 40 000 Chikito and 30 000 Moxo in area ndeg.7 ; 8 313 Guajajará in area ndeg.8 ; and 19 573 Warao which constitute the whole of area ndeg.9's population.

Diagram 1a : Size of ethnic groups in 1970

Diagram 1b : Size of ethnic groups in 1990

Nowadays, 182 different ethnic groups live in Greater Amazonia (uncontacted groups are not included), 37 % of which average less than 500 people.

Very different situations are reflected in these figures : groups that were isolated until recently (e.g. the Cujareño or the Poturuyar) ; or small segments originally belonging to bigger ethnic groups (e.g. the Mura-Pirahã who were originally part of the Mura group) ; or a small group which has undergone acculturation to some degree, an enclave within a mestizo area (e.g. the Kauixana or the Umutina). Such populations are more particularly threatened and require specific measures for their protection. Though obviously very fragile, some of these small populations present a picture of amazing vitality : the Andoke or the Tapirapé are such examples, their respective populations having increased from 100 to 210 individuals within 20 years. Such evolutions often reveal a fierce attachment to the group's cultural values and the preservation of a stable environment, but, unfortunately, it also relies on the personality of one or two leaders or on the constant presence of external aid (doctor, anthropologist, enlightened missionary,...).

Table 5, diagrams1,1A and 2 show the demographic evolution since 1970

1970 was chosen as a starting point because of the high quality of the data available during this period (KIETZMAN, 1967 ; Situación del Indigéna en America del Sur, 1971 ; RIBEIRO, 1979) but also because this was a turning point for many populations : the processes of population decrease or stagnant demography were reversed. There is little precise research on this particular topic for all the different groups, but what there is shows that this can now be said to be a general trend. A good socio-political context is definitely not a factor behind this new trend, nor can it be a good general status of these populations' natural environments ; even health care cannot be included as a factor since it is far from being provided on a regular or generalized basis. Along with several doctors (Drs E. BOIS and A. FRIBOURG-BLANC, pers. comm.), one may wonder if we are not faced with the acquisition of resistance to imported diseases. This theory is partly confirmed by the fact that the most spectacular increases are seen among populations that have intensive contacts with the outside world (e.g. the Apinayé with a 70 % increase ; the Munduruku, + 69 % ; or the Shavante, + 68 %). For some of the larger ethnic groups, the evolution is less spectacular : this could conceivably be explained by the fact that the data provided by censuses is difficult to appraise and population figures in 1970 were overestimations ; another factor is that these groups are often in contact with the outside world, to a greater or lesser extent, and have been so for a long time ; with each generation they loose a few individuals who join the anonymous crowd of mestizos (e.g. the Tikuna, + 14 %). On the other hand, some populations maintain a strong cultural cohesion in an environment in relative good state, and yet, population increase seems slower than elsewhere, which might suggest voluntary birth regulation (e.g. the Harakmbet, + 9,11 % ; the Siona/Sekoya, + 28,5 % ; or the Yekwarna, + 24,4 %).

There are very few populations that are gradually disappearing, (6 % of the total population). As far as the smaller groups are concerned, they are condemned, for all intent and purposes (e.g. the Pakaguara, - 82 % ; or the Karijona, - 33,3 %). Where the groups are somewhat larger, the present situation is probably only a transition period which a healthy policy in favour of indigenous peoples could no doubt reverse (e.g. the Koreguaje, - 20 %, who have just been granted their own territory ; or the Sharanawa/Marinawa, - 37,5 %).

[9] The extreme case being a comparison between Sponsel (1992), who provides the figure of 450 000 native American Indians for Columbian Amazonia, and our own data which only adds up to 80 431.

[10] Most uncontacted ethnic groups have not been included.

[11] Some ethnic groups live on the borders between several countries and therefore the total number of ethnic groups does not correspond to the sum of ethnic groups of each country.

[12] To enable comparisons with 1970 demographic data, 1990 figures in bold indicate a total of several populations.