Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
In the past century especially since the mid-20th century, much ethnographic information have
been gathered on the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera region and the adjacent Ilocos and
Cagayan Valley regions of Northern Luzon. Such information included the identification of IP’s
with their respective ascribed names as distinct peoples or ethnolinguistic groups. Naming them
was important, if only to organize demographic, geographic and linguistic data for census
reports and ethnolinguistic mapping.
One problem is that IP group names have a notorious trait of fluidity and overlapping. For
example, in popular literature, census instruments and even recent ethnographic studies,
“Tinguian” is used as a definite identifier for IP communities living in Abra province. But the
reality on the ground is that the “Tinguians” are actually a more complex patchwork of IP groups
who carry distinctive names, territorial boundaries, oral histories, and often different languages
or major dialect differences, which change over time.
The result is that most census reports and ethnographic maps until now remain hobbled by
significant inaccuracies, over-generalizations, and outdated facts. There have been efforts
among social-science research and IP advocacy groups to correct the inaccuracies and make
ethnographic updates, but these have not been significantly used by statistical agencies and
mainstream maps up to now.
The result is that the said inaccuracies impair policy research and planning especially at the
regional and local levels, which should always be sensitive to changing ethnographic-
demographic factors. The inaccuracies seep down to the general public through error-prone
textbooks, maps, and media reports, reinforcing wrong notions and worsening controversies
even among the IP groups themselves.
It was the uneven imposition and differential experience of Spanish colonial and feudal rule that
drew stark lines between those peoples who were assimilated, and those who for various
reasons were not. It is mainly those who belong to this latter category that are now considered
as indigenous peoples. This mapping project is focused on the IP’s found in Northern Luzon.
As the Spanish and later American colonizers explored and established their presence
throughout the Northern Luzon highlands and established garrisons in strategic settlements,
they adopted the highly localized names of these settlements, or convenient terms used by
outsiders, to cover wider spans of town-sized and province-sized territories. Meanwhile, local
communities continued to use their traditional identities and placenames.
Immediately, therefore, we encounter a confusing tangle of IP identities and the names of actual
communities and places associated with them. Volumes of ethnographic and historical studies
as well as popular articles have been written to explore and explain these identities and names.
Below, we present only a highly simplified summary of the most common and encompassing
identities and names:
Igorot
Igolot or Igorot (“people of the mountains”) is derived from a Northern Philippine cognate of the
Tagalog golod (mountain ridge). Early Spanish records used ‘Ygolotes,’ ‘Ygorotes,’ and later
‘Igorrotes,’ which carried over into the American-period Igorrote. Historically, the Spanish
colonialists who reached the Pangasinan lowlands and southern Ilocos coastal strip adopted the
term to refer to the peoples living in the southern section of the Cordillera ranges – namely,
what are now Benguet and western Mountain Province. The IP’s of these areas ultimately
accepted the term to refer to themselves.
By tradition, IP’s in other parts of the Cordillera like the Tinguian, Kalinga and Ifugao did not
usually call themselves by this same term. But in more recent times, there has been a trend of
loose acceptance of the term Igorot to refer to all Cordillera peoples. The Cordillera Peoples
Alliance has been a consistent popularizer of the term Kaigorotan (“the entire Igorot people”) as
the equivalent of Cordillera peoples.
Tinguian
Tinguian is derived from tinggi (Malay ‘mountain’). Early Spanish colonizers used the term more
generically to refer to all mountain peoples. Later, the term became a more specific name for
the various upland peoples found in Abra province and its Ilocos peripheries. Like Igorot,
Tinguian does not denote a homogenous language and culture. Tinguian peoples share many
historical continuities with Kalinga, Kankanay and Bontoc cultures and languages.
Kalinga
Kalinga (pronounced with soft ng as in English singer) means ‘enemy’ in some Northern
Philippine languages. As the Spanish colonizers reached the Cagayan River valley, they must
have adopted the term used by lowland Cagayan peoples in referring to inland and upriver
peoples to their west, south and east. Ultimately, it evolved into the more specific name (now
pronounced with hard ng, as in English finger) for the peoples found along the middle Chico
River and its tributaries.
Again, like Igorot and Tinguian, Kalinga does not denote a homogeneous language and culture
because it covers a wide range of linguistic and cultural variation. The Banao and Mabaka
peoples straddling both sides of the northern Cordillera divide, for example, can be equally
classified as Kalinga and as Tinguian.
The ethnic name Kankanay is probably derived from kana (‘say, tell’ in most southern Cordillera
languages), as local peoples tried to differentiate themselves from their immediate neighbors
through the most obvious language differences. Perhaps assisted by American colonial scholars
who found sufficient commonalities in their local languages and cultures, the practice ultimately
evolved into a term encompassing the various communities along the headwaters of the Abra,
Agno, and Amburayan Rivers, and western tributaries of the upper Chico River.
Bontoc originally referred to the densely settled region along the middle Chico river. In time, and
again with the help of American scholars and administrators, the term expanded to include the
surrounding areas and their peoples—what became Bontoc sub-province and later Mountain
Province. Thus, nowadays, we must carefully use modifiers to qualify which of the several
“Bontocs” we are referring to: Bontoc ili as the traditional grouping of 17 ator (native wards or
village centers); Bontoc municipality, which covers many other farflung villages; the Bontoc
language-culture area which roughly corresponds to the towns of Bontoc, Barlig and Natonin;
and former Bontoc sub-province which is now Mountain Province.
Ifugao
The word ipugaw means ‘man, person’ in most Central Cordilleran languages. According to
W.H. Scott, ipugaw means ‘the people of Pugaw, the earth world,’ and ifugao is a lowland
mispronunciation of the term. Ultimately, the term evolved into a self-ascription for the people
who mainly inhabit the rivers draining the southeastern slopes of the Cordillera Central into the
Magat River—which is roughly the scope of modern-day Ifugao province.
Gaddang
According to Cordillera scholar Patricia Afable: “Gaddang comes from gadang (“coming up from
the river”) in Northern Cordilleran languages. It first appeared as a distinct group label in early
17th century records of the eastern lowlands; today it applies to highland as well as lowland
interior populations along the middle Cagayan River and west of it along the Mallig and Siffu
Rivers.”
Bago
The core meaning of the term Bago refers to those peoples on the western foothills of the
Cordillera who are the historical product of several centuries of in-place admixture (inter-
marriage and other modes of local coexistence) between highland (Isnag, Tinguian, Kankanaey,
Ibaloy) and lowland (Ilocano, Pangasinan) peoples. This customary process was already
existent in pre-Spanish times, and was accelarated by the Spanish policy of reduccion and
pacification, local trading and road-building.
More specifically, Bago has evolved into one accepted generic term of communities along the
middle and lower reaches of the Amburayan and Naguilian Rivers and middle sections of the
Abra River (portions of of the old Lepanto, Tiagan and Amburayan political-military
commandancies) in referring to themselves.
The term could also refer to more recently-relocated communities from lowland to upland or vice
versa all throughout the western and southwestern foothills of the Cordillera—the result of
migrations triggered by war and colonial occupation especially from the 19th century onwards.
Thus, Bago does not refer to a specific tribe, language, or ancestral territory, but to local
hybridized IP populations in the said areas.
The Cordillera region, as currently defined by the national government’s administrative system,
is composed of six provinces, namely, Abra, Apayao, Kalinga, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and
Benguet. Baguio City is a chartered, highly-urbanized city geographically located within Benguet
but historically a separate administrative entity created early during the US colonial period. If we
exclude the densely populated areas of multi-ethnic southern Benguet and mostly-Ilocano
lowland Abra, the region’s composition would be predominantly IP.
ABRA
In addition, at least eight municipalities have some barangays or villages that are predominantly
IP, or have an extensive admixture of IP and non-IP households, with IP cultural influences and
traditions still considerable. These include Manabo, Bucay, Danglas, Lagangilang, San Juan, La
Paz, Tayum, and Penarrubia. More research is required to establish the extent of IP presence in
other towns of Abra, which historically have been populated by what are now covered by the
generic term “Tinguian” or Itneg.
Of the various Abra IP groups, eight are confirmed to be bodong-practicing tribes. These are:
Mabaka, Bangilo-Gubang, Banao (Malibcong), Sallapadan, Bucloc, Dao-angan (Boliney),
Balatoc (Boliney), and Maeng. (For a description of bodong-practicing tribes, read further below
under Kalinga.)
APAYAO
Isnag (aka Isneg or Apayao) peoples were formerly the majority IP group in what is now Apayao
province. But because of the massive in-migration of Ilocano settlers during the American period
and especially after World War II, the Isnag are now in the minority. Estimated population:
30,000. A minimum of 26,791 is based on the mostly Isnag municipalities of Calanasan and
Kabugao, although the actual figure is certainly higher.
The Isnag may be divided into three branches based on speech dialect and preferred
environment: the Imandaya, the Imallod, and the Iyapayao. The Imandaya prefer the
mountainous and forested interior (“Imandaya” means “people upstream”), while the Imallod
prefer living along the big rivers or on the narrow coastal plains. The Iyapayao are those who,
because of historical circumstances, are now found on the Ilocos side of the Cordillera divide.
They are found as solid communities in the towns of Dumalneg and Adams in Ilocos Norte.
KALINGA
Earlier surveys reported non-binodngan but still tribal groupings in Pinukpuk: Sukbot (or
Socbot), Pinocpoc proper, and Camalog.
Currently, the following Pinukpuk barangays are reported as having heavily mixed IP and non-IP
(mostly Ilocano-speaking) peoples: Camalog, Katabbogan, Cawagayan, Magaogao, Mapaco,
Socbot, and Taggay.
Tabuk, the capital town of Kalinga, exhibits the classic patchwork pattern of many layers of
migrations on top of a previously homogenous community indigenous to the area. Villages of
upper Tabuk remain tightly organized into bodong-practicing tribes, as listed above. On the flat
and rolling terrain of lower Tabuk, however, most settlements are a mix of migrant
neighborhoods.
Some lowland barangays, such as Nambaran, Bado Dangwa, Lacnog, have been
predominantly settled by tribes from upper Kalinga. There are even a few barangays that
practically replicate their village of origin, and become remote tribal satellites, such as New
Tanglag (mostly migrants from Tanglag), Bulo (mostly migrants from Sumadel), and Makin-awa
(mostly migrants from Tinglayan and Butbut).
Other barangays exhibit a still more complex mix of migrants from Kalinga, Mt. Province, and
other Cordillera and Cagayan Valley provinces. Examples of these include Magsaysay, Malalao,
Masablang, Bulanao and Calanan.
Table 10. Tinglayan (Kalinga) IP groups, by tribe, barangay, and actual communities
Tribal group Barangays covered Actual communities
1. Bangad Bangad centro, lower Bangad centro, lower Bangad, upper Bangad
Bangad, upper Bangad
2. Basao Basao Upper Basao, lower Basao
3. Butbut Butbut, Bugnay, Buscalan, Butbut proper, Bugnay, Buscalan, Loccong, Ngibat,
Loccong, Ngibat Mar-o, Sablutan
4. Dananao Dananao Dananao
5. Mallango Mallango Mallango centro, Char-ig
6. Tinglayan Ambato-Legleg, Luplupa, Ambato, Legleg, Luplupa, Poblacion, old Tinglayan,
Poblacion, old Tinglayan Bunog, Changlis
7. Tulgao Tulgao east, Tulgao west Tulgao east, Tulgao west, Balay, Buaya, Ngangato,
Umbali, Galomlom, Sawati, Aammak, Potao, Gatudtud,
Malisod
8. Sumadel Sumadel 1, Sumadel 2, Sumadel 1, Sumadel 2, Belong, Manubal
Belong-Manubal
MOUNTAIN PROVINCE
Nine out of the 10 municipalities of Mountain Province are almost solidly IP. The people belong
to the Kankanay-Bontoc and related ethnolinguistic groups, although there are pockets of
Ga’dang (more related to Ibanag) at the eastern side. The lone exception, Paracelis at the
eastern end adjacent to lowland Isabela, has a significant mixture of IP and non-IP (mostly
Ilokano) communities.
Like in the case of Kalinga, the large ethno-linguistic groups in Mountain Province can be further
disaggregated into an intricate patchwork of smaller village-based IP communities that have
retained indigenous socio-political institutions covering definite home territories. Many such
home territories are no longer as well-defined as in the case of Kalinga, and there is a high and
accelerating rate of inter-marriage among and outside the tribe, which further blur the formerly
sharp tribal distinctions. Despite this trend, many tribal communities (mostly in Sadanga,
Bontoc, Sagada and Barlig) are still known to be bodong-practicing or engage in bodong-like
practices.
Table 11. Mountain Province IP groups, by municipality, tribe, barangay, and actual
communities
IFUGAO
Ten out of the 11 municipalities of Ifugao are predominantly IP. The Ifugao peoples belong to a
continuum of closely-related ethno-linguistic historical communities, which are commonly
grouped into three: the Tuwali, the Ayangan, and the Kalanguya or Kallahan.
The Tuwali are concentrated in the towns of Banaue, Hingyon, Hungduan, Lagawe and
Kiangan. The Ayangan are concentrated in Mayaoyao, Kiangan and Lista (Potia). The
Kalanguya are traditionally centered in Tinoc and a small part of Kiangan, although they now
tend to disperse towards the other areas. A distinct mix of Tuwali-Ayangan-Kalanguya in
Asipulo is sometimes separately called Hanglulo, Keley-i, or Iyatuka.
Today there are no known bodong-practicing tribes in Ifugao, although remnants of indigenous
socio-political institutions continue to offer some tribal identity to local communities.
Cordillera IP groups, principally the Kankanaey and Ibaloy but also migrant IP’s from other
provinces like Kalinga and Ifugao, are either the majority or a significant minority in all 13
municipalities of Benguet as well as in Baguio City.
The Ibaloy’s traditional areas include the towns of Kabayan, Bokod, Atok, Tublay, Sablan, Tuba,
Itogon, La Trinidad, and Baguio City. At present, they remain the clear majority in Kabayan,
Bokod, Atok, and Tublay, and retain a significant presence in the other towns.
The Kankanaey’s traditional areas include the towns of Mankayan, Buguias, Bakun, and
Kibungan. Kapangan remains about 2/3 Kankanaey and 1/3 Ibaloy. At present, they remain the
majority in all said towns, except in certain areas like around the Lepanto Mines, where a
melting-pot situation has developed communities of mixed IP and non-IP status.
Ilocos Norte
The NCIP/ONCC counted a total IP population of 11,906 in 11 towns out of the total provincial
population of 514,241, in 22 towns and one city. This amounts to a 2.32% IP population. The
towns of Adams, Dumalneg, Carasi, and Nueva Era remain predominantly IP. There are also
pockets of nearly solid IP barangays in Bangui, Marcos, Solsona, and Vintar.
Table 14. Ilocos Norte IP groups, by municipality, barangay, and actual communities
Ilocos Sur
The NCIP/ONCC counted a total IP population of 93,059 in 24 towns and one city, out of the
total provincial population of 594,206 in 32 towns and two cities. This amounts to a 15.66% IP
population – a significantly high proportion for this heavily-populated province. The towns,
mostly upland, that remain predominantly IP and contiguous with the adjacent Cordillera towns,
are Alilem, Banayoyo, Cervantes, Galimuyod, G. del Pilar, Lidlidda, Nagbukel, Quirino, Salcedo,
San Emilio, Sigay, Sugpon, and Suyo. Although mostly lowland, the towns of Sta. Cruz, Sta.
Lucia, Burgos, and Candon City itself still contain significant IP communities.
Table 15. Ilocos Sur IP groups, by municipality, barangay, and actual communities
La Union
The NCIP/ONCC counted a total IP population of 74,383 in all of the province’s 19 towns and
one city, out of the total provincial population of 657,945. This amounts to an 11.3% IP
population – also a significantly high proportion for the heavily-populated province like in the
case of Ilocos Sur. The towns, mostly upland, that remain predominantly IP and contiguous with
the adjacent Cordillera towns, are Bagulin, Burgos, Pugo, San Gabriel, Santol and Sudipen. All
other towns, including San Fernando City itself, contain either still-distinct IP communities
original to the area, or barangays with significant mixed-IP migrant populations.
Pangasinan
Pangasinan has a large population that is predominantly Ilocano and Pangasinense in ethnic
composition. The few IP communities that are truly rooted in Pangasinan who have survived
into the 20th century are the Ibaloy, Iwak, Kalanguya and the so-called Bago, on the borders with
Benguet and Nueva Vizcaya, and Aeta groups in the mountainous western towns. Native
speakers of Sambal Bolinao, more ethno-linguistically related with Zambales upland peoples,
are now fully assimilated into the Filipino majority. The presence of other Cordillera IP groups in
the province are the result of modern in-migration.
The NCIP/ONCC estimates a total IP population of 18,225 (in 24 towns and 1 city) out of the
total provincial population of 2,434,086 (45 towns and 3 cities). This amounts to 0.46% IP
population.
Throughout the region, the dominant ethnolinguistic group is the Ilocano. In earlier periods,
smaller but still substantial ethno-linguistic lowland-riverine-hill groups such as the Ibanag,
Itawis-Malaweg, Yogad, Gaddang and Isinay could have retained enough ancestral lifeways to
be considered as IP’s. But in the past 30 years or more, they have become fully integrated into
the Filipino majority and have lost much of their indigenous identities, except the still prominent
use of their own languages and a few persistent traditions and oral literature. (The Kalinga of
Isabela is a special issue, to be discussed further below.)
There are two types of IP’s in the region: first, peoples who are truly indigenous to the region by
inhabiting its localities since time immemorial; and second, IP groups from other regions,
especially from the adjacent Cordillera region, who have settled in the localities as migrant
communities replicating the lifeways of their homeland.
In the first category are the Agta or local Aeta (variously called Aggay, Arta, Alta, or Atta), the
Isnag or Isneg, the Bugkalot or Ilongot, and the Kalanguya or Kallahan. In the second category
are Kalinga, Ifugao, Bontoc-Kankanay, Ibaloy, Tinguian, Bago and other IP groups from the
Cordillera.
There is no hard-and-fast line between the two categories, however, since much of the colonial
administrative divisions during Spanish and American times have been drawn arbitrarily across
the land with little regard for real ethnographic distinctions on the ground. For example, Ifugao
and Ibaloy communities have inhabited, since time immemorial, what in modern times have
become part of Nueva Vizcaya. This is on top of the cumulative inter-mixing of ethnic groups
due to the Spanish colonial policy of pacification and reduction, which entailed massive and
forcible relocation if not dispersal of indigenous communities.
Cagayan Valley NGO’s estimate a total IP population of about 80,325, or 2.8 percent of the total
regional population of 2,853,000. Our research has been unable to acquire more detailed town-
by-town (if not barangay-by-barangay) and group-by-group counts.
Agta
Most Agta, easily distinguishable by their Australoid features (dark-brown skin, curly hair), have
retained their nomadic or semi-settled lifeways that revolve around hunting, gathering, and
limited slash-and-burn farming. They are distributed widely throughout the still-thickly forested
uplands of Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces (not to mention pockets of
Agta groups in Apayao and Aurora provinces). An NGO survey initially estimates their total
number at about 830 households or around 4,000 people, spread out in 21 towns of the region.
Table 18. Agta distribution, by province, municipality, and actual communities
Note that many Agta communities in Isabela and Quirino are not identified. This is partly
because of their semi-nomadic lifeways, and partly because of research limitations.
Bugkalot
The Bugkalot (aka Ilongot) are found in the mountainous areas of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, the
Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela boundary, northeast Nueva Ecija, and north of Baler, Aurora province.
Although the 1990 NSO census counted them at 50,786 individuals, many of them have
dispersed throughout the area, and non-government researches have estimated their core
communities today to have a population of less than 5,000.
QUIRINO PROVINCE
Municipality Actual communities No. of
individuals (est.)
Nagtipunan San Dionisio II or Scala, Landing, San Pugo, Wasid, Matmad 1,500
Total for Quirino 1,500
A small ethnolinguistic group, the Kalinga-Isabela (not to be mistaken with the better-known
Kalinga of Cordillera region) may continue to be considered as an indigenous people although it
is rapidly being assimilated into the Filipino majority population. The Kalinga-Isabela is found in
16 barangays of San Mariano, Isabela, with an estimated population of 554 families or 2,770
individuals. They continue to be distinguished by their native language and physical features
(dark skin and curly hair). Their language is seen as closely related to Yogad, although not
enough linguistic and ethnographic studies have been done among them.
Batanes IP’s
The Batan islands (Batan, Sabtang, Itbayat, and minor islands and islets) comprise Batanes, the
country’s northernmost and smallest province. The Babuyan islands (Babuyan, Camiguin,
Calayan, Fuga, Dalupiri, and minor islands and islets), which are nearer to mainland Luzon, are
administratively part of Cagayan province.
The local peoples indigenous to the Batan islands speak Ivatan and Itbayat and have retained
much of their indigenous cultures because of their inaccessibility to mainland Luzon. In recent
decades, Ilocano has increasingly become dominant in the Babuyan islands.
Migrants from Kalinga province are found in Cagayan province: in Sto. Nino town (Lagom brgy),
Rizal (some in Zinundungan Valley), Piat, and Enrile. They are also found in the Mallig region of
Isabela (the towns of Quezon, Mallig and Roxas), together with other migrants from Mt.
Province and Ifugao.
Big family groups belonging to the Kalanguya or Kallahan-speaking peoples are found in
Kayapa and Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya – either as original communities or as migrant IP’s from the
more interior Cordillera towns of Tinoc (in Ifugao) and Ambaguio (in Nueva Vizcaya).
Ifugao migrants are found throughout the region, as shown in the table below.
Table 20. Cordillera IP’s in CV region, by province, municipality, and actual communities
(initial estimates show mostly Ifugao migrants)
Cordillera IP’s especially from Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Ilocos-Bago areas have also
migrated and resettled in significant numbers in Aurora province (especially in the Baler area)
and in Nueva Ecija (especially in the Carranglan-Lupao area).
We used current demographic data at the municipal and barangay levels, mainly from
government sources such as NSO and NCIP. We cross-referenced the said data with existing
ethnographic and linguistic identifications and related data, including recent data collated by
CPA organizers and other NGO field workers in areas with problematic ethnolinguistic
boundaries. We then constructed and populated a database to consolidate the miscellaneous
data according to key categories. Finally, we made combined use of manual cartography and
simple computer-aided mapping to construct a map representation of the said database.
The resulting tables and maps are intended to be of immediate use by people’s organizations,
NGO’s, academic and research institutions, and planning agencies.
Althought the most evident output of the NLIP mapping project are the resulting tables and
maps, it also brought into sharper focus some theoretical and practical issues on how a complex
set of ethnographic data can be boiled down to tables and maps without glossing over the many
fuzzy areas inherent in ethnographic studies. In particular, we need to continue addressing the
following issues:
a) How to integrate the often divergent lists of IP groups in Northern Luzon, on the basis of
group self-ascription and acknowledgment by others (especially by neighboring groups,
by the state), which are subjective but key factors, and equally important objective
factors such as differences in language, history, and local ecology. Often, this is not a
question of mutually-exclusive groups with sharp delineations, but of identifying and
representing hierarchies and gradations.
b) How to measure and represent the demographic distribution of the said IP groupings
across geographical divisions (i.e., provincial down to barangay level) in statistical and
cartographic form, in ways that emphasize macro distinctions but also reflect micro
differences wherever significant.
The mapping project was hobbled by spotty demographic data, non-standard placenames, and
conflicting geographic references, for many municipalities. On the other hand, tremendous
amounts of geo-referenced placenames at the barangay or barrio and sitio levels have not yet
been placed into the master map file, although they are already in the master database file.
Completion of the mapping process at the barangay and lower levels requires either a very
tedious manual inputting, or a more sophisticated but efficient use of GIS software, either of
which the project’s limitations did not allow us.
We hope that, by presenting these issues, the methods we devised to solve them, and the
resulting tables and maps themselves, will contribute to the wider effort to reflect all Philippine
ethnolonguistic groups more accurately in future statistical and mapping projects, which should
be of great help to government and non-government planners, and the social sciences research
community as a whole.
Principal sources
1. National Statistics Office (NSO), statistical reports for Census Year 2000
2. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), various unpublished surveys dated
2000 based on 1990 and 1996-67 surveys, with primary data provided by Region I Tribal
Council Organization
3. Pantatavalan (Data and Discourse on the Cordillera), Issues No. 1 (1997) and No. 2
(1998)
4. Papers and Proceedings of the Third Cordillera Land Congress, 2001
5. Various unpublished researches of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance Research
Commission
6. Primary data from focused group discussions in Ilocos Sur, Mt. Province, and Isabela,
Northern Media and Information Network, 2005.
7. RDC-Kaduami, research data on the Bago and Aggay peoples, 2005
8. National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) topographic maps for
various Northern Luzon provinces, at 1:250,000 scale and some at 1:50,000 scale.
9. ArcView vector data files for Northern Luzon municipal boundaries
10. Falling Rain Genomics http://www.fallingrain.com – main source of geo-referenced
placenames and online-generated contour maps.
Other references
(Map) Philippine Culture and Ecosystems, Environmental Science for Social Change, 1998.
(Map) Edmundo Abigan Jr., The Philippine Road Guide, 1996.
Terry Jordan and Lester Rowntree, The Human Mosaic: A Thematic Introduction to Cultural
Geography, 4th ed. 1986.
Arthur H. Robinson and Randall D. Sale, Elements of Cartography, 3rd ed., 1969.
Map files, database files, and document files included with this report
(with recent revisions added)