Op Me sneny wins hla Srey Revolution, and the Evils of Modernization in Eastern Peru Fernando Santos-Granero Accusations of child sorcery, and the punishment and execution of child sorcerers, was common practice among four of the six Arawak speaking peaples living in the Selva Central region of eastern Peru, inchud- ing the Ashéninks, Ashéninka, Nomatsiguonga, and Yanesha (see map), Until very recently, however, the consensus opinion was that Peruvian Ara waks had abandoned these practices around the 1970s as aresult ofthe mass conversion to Evangelism, Adventism and Catholicism, the rapid expan- sion of formal education and health services, and greater integration into a ‘mazket economy. Confirming evidence of this opinion came from the fact that no actual oases of child witchcraft wore reported in the literatura a 1970. Itthus camo asa surprise when, in the mid-1g90s, several anthropolo- sists and other profassionals working with Peruvian Arawak comm involved in an armed struggle against the communist organization Shining ath and the Tipac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (vzza) began to report ‘that accusations of child witchcraft had resurfaced.* ‘Most of this information was passed on by word of mouth among spe- cialists working with these Arawak groups. It was (and still i) believed that if child witchcraft became public It would only reinforce existing preji- dicas about the “savagery” of Amazonian indigenous peoples. Similarly the first (and until now the only) written references on the reomergence of this phenomenon were succinct and very cautiously worded (sae Fabian ‘Arias 1994:297, 1995:165; Fabién Arias and Espinosa de Rivero 199762) von serious international organizations working directly with or assassing the situation of the Ashdninka in past yoars, such as uwicer-Peru, Méde- cins sans Frontiéres, and tho United Nations Commission on Human Right In Neil L, Whitehead and Robin M. Wright (eds.), Jn Darkness and Secrecy: Witchcraft and Sorcery in Native South America, pp. 272-305. Durham: Duke University Press (2004).(© Andean ies © Colonist towns Map 2, The Arawak-speaking peoples of waster Peru. (Map compiled by author) do not mention this practice in thei public documents, Given their close sknowlodge ofthe region, itis dificult to believe that they have boon un- aware of this phenomenon, Doubtless, this conspiracy of silence is well ntontioned. It aims at avert ing bad publicity that could prevent Peruvian Azawaks from securing theft civil rights in a context in which they have experienced th fll impact of terrorist and counterterrorit violence for more than a decade, I is thus vith great tepidation that Ihave decided to write this say, and I do so with the conviction that t would be worse if this topic wera tobe exploited by senantionalist journalists, tn an insightful ossay on tho croation of now cultural “traditions” by tho Tukano of the Vaupés River besin, Joan Jackson asked the sensitive and very pressing question: “Is there a way to talkebout ‘making culture without making oemies?™ (1969227). Te challenge form, 8 wol as for all ofthe conteibutors to this volume, i to find ways of talk- {ng about cultural practias that are odious to Wostarn sensitivity without ‘The Enemy Within 273either making enemies out of those who practice them or providing their cenomaios with arguments to deny them thelr rights. Ina previous essay inquired into the possible origins ofthe beliofinchild sorcery among Peruvian Arawaks (Santos-Granero 2002). [argued there that ‘the historical sources lacked all evidence suggesting that Poruvian Arawak believed in child witchcraft in contact times or during the colonial era. And 1 proposed that this beliof originated inthe attomapt by Peruvian Arawaks to appropriate mimotically the mystical powers that missionaries attributed to St. Christopher and the Christ child in proventing plagues and epidomice, In this essay, I explore the sociological rather than the ontological aspects of the practice of child sorcery. Native Beliefs and Rationale ‘Tho first reforonce to Peruvian Arawak child sorcery appecred in 1860 ina report by Franciscan missionery Bernardino Gonzalez on his sojourn among the Yanosha. In the report he asserts that natives believe that il noasos and deaths are the result of witcherat, and that they even attribute these aflictions to their own children and closest relatives (soe Izaguiare 1922-29: vol 10, 400)-A decade later in 1899, Father Gabriel Sal 19752498 39) expanded on thece boli, offering a detailed description of te plight of Yanesha child witches. Later, French diplomat and traveler Olivior Orai- naire in an account of his 1885 trip from Peru to France through the Ame 2on, stated that tho Ashéninka and Ashéninkabeliove that child sorcarers aretespon lofor many diseases. Franciscan missionary Tomés Hernéndez reported similar betisfs in 2096 among the Nomatsiguenga of the Pangoa Valley. Whereas early accounts provide a more or less detailed depiction of the external or visible aspects of the practices surrounding child sorcery, they say very litle about the rationale behind them. How do children be- come sorcerers? Why and how do they bewitch people? Why is it necessary to torture them? Why do accused children accept thir fate without resis- tance? Why, instead of defending them, do their relatives join in the ritual torture and execution? And why are child witches killed end their bodies disposed of in such cruel ways? To answer these questions {shall resort !o the scant and fragmentary literature onthe subject, complementing it with ‘my own field data on the Yanesha. ‘The Ash6ninka and Ashéninka belive that child sorcorors (mats, méci, ‘or machi) are initiated in the art of witchcraft during their sloep (Weiss 41975:298). In their droams, they ara visited by any of a number of de- monic teachers (kamdri méci) who are under tho orders of Korioshpii, the “father” or “ruler” of all demons. These demonic teachers, which inchude 274 Fernando Santos-Granero