CHAPTER 1

TAWID CORDILLERA
Joefrence Yangyang, Serafin L. Ngohayon, Demetrio P. Anduyan Jr.

It is inherent to point that amongst the characteristic of tawid, it emphasizes a decree of identity. In the
Cordillera, there are various cultural communities that are marked by considerable features and identities.
Towns and cities are also becoming avenues of multi- culturalism. Yet, in the level of Cordillera identity, is
there something that we can really call Cordillera Heritage?
Cordillera Heritage, as a collective whole, may still be debatable in academic parlance. The same may
be the case of IPs/ICCs around the world. This is especially that aggrupation of peoples has been historically
clustered by generalization of early historians, and essentially, by outsiders of a certain culture.
In the attempt to the delineate cultural heritage and identity, Mark Peterson (2018) observed that
“in recent times, the tendency to perceive people as possessing identities are culturally determined rather
than the outcome of individual accomplishment.” Nilson and Thorell (2018) construed that “our cultural
heritage” contributes to the shaping of national stereotypes and regional identity and it is a modern or post-
modern reflection of the past.
It is also recently that peoples of the region self-ascribed themselves as Cordillerans. Peoples in the
region, while sharing the same history to have not been subjugated, have not since cooperatively identified
themselves under one tribe or identity. It is imperative to be grounded of the fact that peoples in the
Cordillera Mountain range have been construed with labels. It is a myth to portray Cordillera society as
belonging to homogenous culture (Castro, 2015).
It was through outsiders’ labeling that they were generally named Igorots. In fact, there was no
widespread acceptability of such a label, especially in municipalities and provinces outside the Kankana-ey
and Ibaloi domains. Identification of as Igorots is not always accepted (Crisologo-Mendoza, L. & Van de gaer,
D., 2001). Add to that the misnomers, prejudice and negative connotations that have been attributed to the
general term Igorot, that accounts to non- acceptability of various ethno-linguistic groups of such identity.
People in the Cordillera identify themselves with their settlements and/or with the institutions
within such settlements. When presenting themselves to a more diverse audience, they would instead use
their ethnolinguistic affinity or the province where their settlements are located.
In realizing that they share a common history, vulnerability, and aspiration for inclusivity and self-
governance, the idea of a Cordilleran identity progressed. The quest for an Autonomous Region of the
Cordillera strengthens the assertion of the peoples and the acceptability of the outsiders of having a people
called Cordilleran also adds firmly to such identity. In the same manner, this collective assertion also leads
to an imprint and existence of Cordillera Heritage.
Cordillerans generally share common beliefs and ritual, but they have clear regional variations in
terms of cultural traits and social structures (Doctolero, 2021). The concrete realities of the Igorot society
indicate that its common culture is a distinct social system from the majority people’s system. Their struggle
to defend and preserve it have enhanced their awareness of a common Cordillera [national] identity
(Buendia, 1987).
There are also historical evidences that admits a common identity within and outside the region. The
writings and translations of William Henry Scott (1976, 1994) describes to us that in actuality, the cultural
manifestations of people as far as Laguna, Panay, the groups in Visayas and Mindanao have some similarities
to what are being practiced in the Cordilleras.
Scholars dedicated in Cordillera studies have also narrated in their work that there may be a
Cordillera nation as gleaned in inter-tribal affairs. This is more so defined by the autonomy of each group,
that while they are enjoying self-governance, they subdue themselves to intertribal relations. It marks a
nation where no group is dominant over each other but are interacting and promoting co-existence. The
bodong/ pechen is an example of this.
The mutual respect for existence is also evident in inter-tribal connections as strengthened by deeds
of kinship. Intervillage solidarity are marked by intervillage pacts. Intermarriages are promoted and when
this happens, the marriage dictates the expansion of intervillage associations.
 Hence, it may really be possible that in the absence of colonial disruptions and selective historical
narratives, ethnolinguistic groups within and outside the region would have created a nation strengthened
by cultural manifestations that govern them.
Since the idea of having a Cordillera regional identity or Cordillera nation did not mature in the past,
individual identity was ascribed by people to their territories, not even to the ethnolinguistic groups that
was labeled to them. For instance, the people of Besao have once not ascribed themselves as i-Aplai, or i-
Besao for that matter, but as i-Payeo, i-Ambagiw, i- Padangaan. More accurately, they ascribe themselves
belonging to the description of their place, or the dap-ay that governs such place.
During the colonization periods, there was an unconscious movement that by defending their
territories, values and beliefs, a village or a group was also defending the whole of that described as
Cordillera nation. Not allowing themselves to be governed by the Spanish colonizers and not consenting to
the assimilation of Western philosophies whilst fostering enculturation along the way, has made them
unique from the rest of the archipelago.
More notably, the unrest around the region during the 1970s- 1980s has created a form of response
amongst villages and ethnolinguistic groups to form an identity. Labrador (1997) calls this as Igorot ethnicity.
It asserts that it is a product of forged alliance due to threats of development aggression and perceived
external challenges. Labrador emphasized that from this process emerged "higher-order ethnic collectivities.”
In these cases, and in many instances of disruptions, peoples of the Cordillera guarded their
worldviews, conserved their tawid and protected their identities. For instance, the people around the
Cordillera have shown a pride of regional heritage that when a textbook depicted Igorots and other
Indigenous Peoples with prejudice, there was a wide expression of uproar. Even those who have resisted to
be called Igorots at one point, i.e. the Kalingas and the Ifugaos have stood in defense of Igorot integrity whilst
ascribing themselves as one.
There is then a growing acceptability of the labels ascribed to them, owing to the expanded
understanding of the administrative and geo-political delineation of the government, and of course, the
labels that were being ascribed to them. This was further strengthened by common aspirations and quest
for self-governance as reflected for the common cause for Cordillera Regional Autonomy. It provides them
an option for a more neutral label but retains the integrity of their identity as a people.
To this end, we realize that there is truly an astonishing Cordillera identity as noticeable in the
concepts discussed. It tells us that even the acceptability of a regional identity (see Chapter II for a more
detailed discussion), was of recent memory, the ascription was actually a cognizance of the peoples’ joint
assertion. Thus, the new label becomes more reputable, and truly acceptable amongst the people:
“Cordillerans”.
As it is already an adequate ascription amongst the people and by the people, it is
inevitably the regional identity.
Henceforth, the knowledge, systems, practices, settlements, and institutions, that have been
developed since time immemorial, that may be advanced presently, and that are safeguarded for the future,
by the people who ascribed themselves as Cordillerans, are what form what we collectively term as
Cordillera Heritage. These are both a product and a process [that] affirms and reproduces [cultural] identity
of Cordillerans, considered an important part of their character, [and is] rooted from the past, put together
in the present and conferred for the benefit of future generations. It is noteworthy that such heritage
withstands the test of time, is empirical in the contemporary and the imminent world, and marks importance
in the history of our civilization.
Underscoring their commonalities, shared values and the unconscious victory of defending their
ways of life together, we can now conclude that indeed, there is something we call tawid Cordill
I. Settlements and Territories
Settlements/ domains of the peoples of the Cordillera are the foremost factor of the heritage that was
developed and/or continued to be developed through time. The peoples founded cultures with the
interaction with the environment they live in. Reciprocally, they have connected themselves to these
environments, protected and continue to develop it, as they have identified themselves to be the settlers of
the [spatial] domain[s].
Settlements are out of movement of people generally in search for well-being. They looked for areas
that they believe would be advantageous to them. In looking for settlements, the early populations of the
Cordillera have generally settled in areas near the headwaters or its tributaries. Arable land, availability and
accessibility of [forest] resources and the protective features of the vicinity have also been the necessities of
choosing an area.
As you would have observed, many communities are located at areas that may have needed
development we know of today. There was no concept of rurality before and one of the reasons they settled
in hardly- accessed areas were due to necessity of survival. The terrain they live-in were seen as
advantageous to them as the mountains and the slopes would protect them from raiders/colonizers. When
they decide that an area would fit their needs and necessities, it would also mean that it nourish them with
good health. One reason for searching new settlements are the diseases or plague that would have emanated
in their former settlements.
Continues conduct of activities in such area makes the settlements associated with the people and
would lead to the institution of a permanent settlement. To ensure the rightful association of such settlement
to the people using and guarding it, Prill- Brett (2008) resolves that these are through:
(1) Initial efforts to tap (mountain) springs for irrigation;
(2) The extent to which rice fields, swidden gardens, and permanent hunting traps had
been constructed;
(3) The frequency of hunting and gathering activity in a forest area;
(4) The establishment of fishing rights along a river’s course;
(5) The extent to which pasture lands had been continuously used;
(6) The defense of the above-mentioned resources against encroachment by members of
neighboring communities.
With the growth of population within the settlements, the ili is established. In defining the ili, some
scholars translated ili to mean literally as ‘village’. It has to be clarified, however, that it shall include the
whole of the areas utilized by the settlers. Hence, the ili pertains to the whole of the [ancestral] domain of
the settlers. Again, the term ili is far from the Iloko concept as merely town, or center. The spatial domain
of the settlers, thus, mean their territory.
Prill- Brett notes that territories, or the concept of which, appears to be a result of high population
concentration in permanent settlements, and of intensive land cultivation. The experienced scarcity off
resources arable land and water, appear to have been responsible to the strong concept of territory or
domain and the consequent establishment of boundaries with neighboring communities (Prill- Brett, 2010).
We can affirm that the establishment and the concept of ili, being a settlement and domain makes
Cordillera distinct from the rest of the areas in Luzon. Through the establishment of ili, its settlers have
protected it, developed culture and heritage that is of worth significance today and the future.
Land, settlements and domains have now become the core of discourses and issues that affects them.
Land is a central issue to indigenous peoples because it defines their very existence. With their innate
relationship with their land, that defined how they live and hence, their way of life, their domain was then
considered the true essence of their being. Their domain encompasses their whole of tawid.
The growth of territoriality was even forced when national and global agendas interceded with the
self- determination of the people within their domain. Developments posted dangers
to the well-being of the ili—that their resources may be depleted and that lives will suffer. The assertion of
territoriality was then advanced, as this would protect their ili from indirect subjugation, and that it is their
mechanism to cope up to the concepts and language that the government may understand. To this end, the
people of Cordilleras have settled in administrative territories defined by the government and puts forward
the rights to these lands through the declaration of Ancestral Land and Ancestral Domains.
Henceforth:
(1) The concept of territoriality amongst the people have changed from what could have been
shared spaces to local spaces to imposition of boundaries
(2) Domains are the root of beings—the very essence of their heritage
(3) The domains, the institution within the domains and the life within and outside the territories
are also part of the foundations in the assertion of self-governance through regional autonomy.
(4) The growth of the concept of territoriality cannot be separated with growing identity as
Igorots/Cordillerans and the assertion of self-governance. With the intrusions in their territories
that regionalism was advanced and growth of Cordilleran identity spurred (see discussion of in
Chapter II and the Culminating Chapter).
(5) The concept of territoriality, as it is used today can then be the IP’s/ ICCs response to the
expansion of the world they live-in, hounded by the developments and introductions of outsiders.
The inter-group feuds we hear today in consideration of lands may have been a recent
phenomenon due to the growth of the assertion of territories.
(6) With the layers of events that lead to regionalism, it shall also be underscored that there was
acceptance, in view of their adaptability to theses layers, of the groupings that was ascribed to
them, whether due to administrative boundaries or ethno- linguistic groupings.
(7) We glean on this the inter-municipality and inter-province territories of these groups, that the
extend of bounds of settlements could have been the rightful borders in their original socio-
political and administrative arena.
(8) This case is reflective to the peopling, territory and boundaries of the whole region. But then
again, in the intricate ability of the people to adapt, in the context of protecting their heritage,
they resort to maximize the existing laws and policies to their advantage—in the moral turpitude
of the sanctity of land, the innate response for survival, and the irreversible propriety to exact
its utilization and (hopefully) protection.
(9) As the present administrative territorialities and identities were already established, Cordillera
settlers adopted with the ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain Sustainability and Protection Plan) and
other legal frameworks on land tenure.

II. Peopling and Ethno-Linguistic Groups

The Cordillera Mountain range is the home of many communities of Indigenous Peoples (Ngohayon,
2015), whom as described in previous sections are now accepting the general ascription as Cordillerans.
Cordillera is home to several indigenous peoples who have inhabited the region for thousands of
years. The major groups include the Applai, Balangao, Bontoc, Ayangan, Gadang, Ibaloi, Iowak, Kalanguya,
Isnag, Kalinga, Kankana-ey, Karao, Tuwali, Tingguian (NCIP- CAR, 2023). Generally, these groupings are
actually labels made through series of anthropological studies to describe the peoples of this region. As
discussed in Unit 1, early settlers of villages connote themselves to their settlements. In the succeeding
chapters, you will learn about the settlements of these peoples and their subgroups.
There is still no definite record that describes the peopling of the Cordilleras. This is owing to the
‘neglected phenomenon’ or in the words of Wolf (1997), ‘peoples without history’, pertaining to those
unsubjugated. If there are records of them, it would be of descriptions of infidel, savageness, barbarism,
ignorance, backward among other labels to justify the
(Spanish) colonizer’s intention. Unfortunately, these and other connotation were attached to
tribes, Igorot or Cordillera up to this time.
Anthropologists, however, have theorized how Cordillera region have been populated
with the following:
1. Waves of migration approach which assumes that the mountain groups were initially
lowland settlers who were pushed high into the mountains with the arrival of more
“powerful” groups. This had been the position of some of the earlier scholars like
Ferdinand Blumentritt, Otley Beyer and Fay Cooper-Cole.
2. Common backgrounds approach argues that there was an original group, part of
which stayed in the lowlands and another went up into the mountains. This splitting-
off opened both formerly identical groups to “ethnic reformulation.” Within the
mountain group, further splitting would have resulted in more diversity as the various
groups began to adapt different ecological niches. At the same time, there may have also
been an outmigration from mountain to lowland because movements of peoples can go
either way.

REFERENCES AND LINKS

Acabado, S. (2017). The Archaeology of Pericolonialism: Responses of the

“Unconquered” to Spanish Conquest and Colonialism in Ifugao, Philippines.
International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 21. 10.1007/s10761-016-0342-9.
Adonis, D.L. and Couch, J., 2018. Ili-based Community Organising: An Igorot Indigenous
Peoples’ Concept for Grassroots Collaboration. Journal of Social Inclusion, 9(1), pp.58–
70. DOI: [Link]
Baker, Kim. (2013). Information literacy and cultural heritage: a proposed generic
model for lifelong learning. 10.1016/B978-1-84334-720-0.50005-2.
Bayang,E., 1974. Bayang’s Demang Notes, 1955. Philippine Sociological Review (pp51-
90)
Brumann, C., 2015. Cultural Heritage. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-chief),
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 5.
Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 414–419. ISBN: 9780080970868
Buckova, M. (1940). The Phenomenon of the culture hero in Polynesian mythological
systems. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 49(43), 220-240.
Buendia, R.G (1987). The Case of the Cordillera: An Unresolved National Question.
Philippine Journal of Public Administration (31) (2) (pp 157- 187)
Buzney, C. & Marcoux, J. (2023). Cultural Materialism. In: Anthropological Theories.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama. Retrieved April 1, 2023.
Carino, J. (1998). Ancestral Land in the Cordillera, 2 Pantatavalan
Castro, N., 2015. A Peek of Cordilleran History, Culture, and Society: In Search of Self-
Determination. In M. Doyo (Ed.), Macli-ing Dulag: Kalinga Chief, Defender of the
Cordillera (pp. 57- 83). The University of the Philippines Press. ISBN: 9789715427222
Central European University (2023). The Concept and History of Cultural Heritage.
[Link]
Crisologo- Mendoza, L. & Prill- Brett, J. (2009). Communal Land Management in the
Cordillera Region of the Philippines. In J. Perera (ed), Land and Cultural Survival: The
Communal Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Asia, (pp 35- 62). ISBN 978-971-561-
801-4
Crisologo-Mendoza, L. & Van de gaer, D. (2001). Population Growth and Customary
Land Law: The Case of Cordillera Villages in the Philippines. Economic Development
and Cultural Change. 49. 631-58. 10.1086/452519.’
Doctolero, J., 2021. Indigenous Healing Ritual in the Context of Ecological Disaster . MST
Review, 23(1).
Keesing, F. M. (1962). The ethnohistory of northern Luzon. Stanford, Calif., Stanford
University Press.
Labrador, R. (1997). Subordination and Resistances: Ethnicity in the Highland
Communities of the Cordillera Administrative Region, Northern Luzon, Philippines. In:
Explorations in Southeast Asian Studies. Vol 1, No.1
McKay, D. (2006). Rethinking indigenous place: Igorot identity and locality in the
Philippines. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 17(3)
Molintas, J. (2004). The Philippine Indigenous Struggle for Land and Life: Challenging
Legal Texts. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 21, No. 1.
Retrieved April 21, 2023.
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (2004). NCIP Administrative Order No. 1.
S. 2004: Guidelines in the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development
and Protection Plan
Nilson, T. & Thorell, K., 2018. Introduction to Cultural Heritage. In T. Nilson & K. Thorell
(Eds.), Cultural Heritage Preservation: The Past, the Present and the Future (pp 107-
123). ISBN: 978-91-87045-95-0 (pdf)
Paing, J., G.J. van Bussel, L., Gomez, R., Hein, L. (2022). Ecosystem services through the
lens of indigenous people in the highlands of Cordillera Region, Northern Philippines.
Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 308,2022, 114597. ISSN 0301-4797.
DOI: [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2022.114597
Peterson, M., 2018. Cultural Heritage and Identity. In T. Nilson & K. Thorell (Eds.),
Cultural Heritage Preservation: The Past, the Present and the Future (pp 107- 123). ISBN:
978-91-87045-95-0 (pdf)
Prill- Brett, J. (1987). A Survey of Cordillera Indigenous Political Institutions. CSC
Working Paper Series No. 5
Prill- Brett, J. (2008). Indigenous Socio- Political Institutions, and Concepts of Territory,
Identity, and Land Resources in the Cordillera. In: Cisologo- Mendoza, L. (Ed), Cordillera
Regional Autonomy: A Resourcebook (pp 29-41).
Prill-Brett, J. (1978). The Development of Studies in Cordillera Ethnographic Research.
Aghamtao (1)(1): pp 45- 70
Prown, J.D. (1982). Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and
Method. Winterhur Portfolio, Vol. 17, No. 1. Pp. 1-19
Rabang, R.E.P., (2016) Takba: Culture, History and the Sacred in a Basket. Journal of
Philippine Culture and Society, 6(2)
Regional Development Council (2017). A Victory Postponed: Stories on the Quest for
Self- Determination in the Cordillera. ISBN 978-971-94784-1-6
Rood, S., & Casambre, A. L. C. (1994). State policy, indigenous community practice, and
sustainability in the Cordillera, Northern Philippines. Cordillera Studies Center,
University of the Philippines College Baguio.
SCOTT, W. H. (1970). Igorot Responses to Spanish Aims: 1576-1896. Philippine Studies,
18(4), 695–717.
SCOTT, W. H. (1972). The Igorot: An Integrated Cultural Minority. Philippine
Sociological Review, 20(4), 356–360. [Link]
Scott, W.H. (1976). The Discovery of the Igorots: Spanish Contacts with the Pagans of
Northern Luzon. The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , May 1976 , pp. 535
– 536. DOI: [Link]/10.2307/2053318
Scott, W.H. (1994). Barangay. Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society. Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1998 , pp. 454 – 455. DOI:
[Link]
UNESCO (2014). Culture for Development Indicators: Methodology Manual. ISBN 978-
92-3-001227-4.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics and
UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World `
Woodward, S. (2013). Material Culture. 10.1093/obo/97801997665