Itawit Architecture: An Emic Approach

Michael T. Tabao1 and Junar P. Tablan2

1Instructor, Architecture Department, School of Engineering, Archirtecture, and Information technology Education,
University of Saint Louis, Tuguegarao City Philippines. Corresponding author: [email protected]

2Associate Professor, Architecture, Industrial Design, and Built Environment, Mapua University, Intramuros, Manila,
Philippinres.

Abstract. This study presents and defines Itawit Architecture as a distinct architectural practice still
existing in various areas of Cagayan in the Northern Philippines. The data culled are from two distinct
architectural practices in the province of Cagayan: the Middle Cagayan style and the Southern Cagayan
style. This research includes elicited data from the respondents (building owners, carpenters, shamans,
and elders) from the Middle Cagayan area being those of Piat, Tuao, Santo Niño, and Amulung, and
the Southern Cagayan includes the towns of Iguig, Tuguegarao City, Solana, Enrile and Peñablanca.
Coding, memoing (a.k.a. “theory building”), and other similar approach is undertaken to develop a good
interpretation of the data being taken from the Itawit (individual or community); this combination of
approaches, known as bricolage, was done by the Researcher as the “bricoleur.” The bricoleur is an
Itawit and an architect, hence being emic and authoritative in nature. Central with this documentation
is the idea of sustainability as practiced by the locals, and the transferring of knowledge via oral
tradition, apprenticeship, and others. This resulted in a comprehensive collection of terminology,
visualizations, photographs, and other media showing their enduring building traditions an example of
Sustainable Architecture of the ethnic group in the archipelago.

Keywords: Itawit, sustainable architecture, ethno-sustainability, indigenous-knowledge, grounded

theory, comparative analysis.

Introduction

The Itawit is one of the cultural and ethnic communities of the Cagayan Valley. Anthropologically, they
are the descendants of the Austronesians that populated the region as early as 3,500 BCE. Linguistically,
Itawit is among the Ibanagic language family of Northern Luzon. (Bellwood, 2017; see also Keesing,
1962) To date, the Itawit settlements are identified south of Cagayan Province, specifically along the
towns of Amulung, Enrile, Iguig, Peñablanca, Piat, Solana, Santo Niño, Tuao, and the city of
Tuguegarao (Salgado, 2002) including the ones 130 kilometers away south from Tuguegarao City to

1
Echague, Isabela, which still practices their animistic beliefs. (Malumbres, 1918, p. 378; Manzolim &
Quilang, 2016) In this paper, the endonym “Itawit” will be used.

Historically, Aduarte (Malumbres, 1918) generally described Cagayan Valley divided as Siguiran
(North), Itaves (Western Cagayan/Eastern Cordillera), and the South. Malumbres (1918) also notes that
the Itawit area is composed of the towns “Piat, Tuao, Malaueg, and Sta. Cruz de Gumpat” being Itawit-
speaking including the great plain or valley of Pangul (Amulung). Salgado (2002:262) says they are
originally seen living in the lands along the Chico River, in the towns of Tuao, Piat, and Tabang (now
Santo Niño). Furthermore, the gradual settling of the Itawit can be observed southwards the Cagayan
Province up to the town of Echague, Isabela in the late 19th-century. Early ethnographic studies and
surveys have shown the peopling of these mentioned territories by either by tribute, actual population,
or the language they actually speak. (Keesing, 1962; Malumbres, 1918) The earliest encounter of the
Spaniards with this region was during the documentation believed to be by Morga in the Boxer Codex
of 1590s and of the listing of encomiendas in 1591 (Blair & Robertson, 1903), where the place Lobo
(which is along the estuary of now town of Sto. Niño) had a “hostile” population of 4,000 tributes or
16,000 people. Statistical data on the Itawit population can also be seen on the works of Malumbres
(1918) and Keesing (1962). In another National Statistics Office (now the Philippine Statistics
Authority) count, the total number of Itawit in the Philippines was 119,522 (where Tuguegarao had
23,916, Enrile 20,378, Peñablanca 17,087, Amulung 4,336, and Tuao 19,066, with the others being
distributed in other Provinces of the nation). (National Commission for Culture and the Arts, 2022) The
latest published ethnicity count is in the year 2010 where the Itawit totals 211,291 (108,189 for Male
and 103,302 for Female). (National Statistics Office, 2010)

The first mentions on the Itawit settlement called “Lobo” (among others) was included in the listing of
sites being considered to be encomiendas in Cagayan by Don Luis Dasmariñas. (Blair and Roberston,
1903) Later, the Itawit settlements afterwards became reduccion areas in 1604 forming three major
“town centers”: Piat, Tuao, and Tabang. As shown in the earliest contacts with the Itawit, particularly
during the Spanish colonial period, the people have distinct characteristics among the ethnic groups in
Cagayan Valley. The architecture of the Itawit shows signs in narrative and graphic form, which
appeared in the 1600s and 1700s, this study asserts that their construction methods in domestic, animal,
and agricultural structures are one of the long-standing building traditions in Cagayan and in the
Philippines. The earliest accounts included the towns of Piat and Tuao as the richest indications of Itawit
architecture making the Spanish colonial era one of the most important period not only in “civilizing”
the area but also on the realm of documenting native cultures. The attempts in “civilizing” the Itawit is
evident with the reduccion (resettlement) of the people and eventually into new towns or pueblos. Based
on Spanish historical accounts, Keesing produced a map estimating the territorial boundaries of ethnic

2
groups in Northern Luzon and highlighted the reduccion towns and mission centers. Perhaps one of the
most compelling citations Kessing (1962) included is the early Itawit dictionary and grammar book of
Fr. Iniguez of the 17th century, that when discovered, will be one of the most important scholarly works
to be looked upon in the future. Aside from accounts of local hamlets, the architecture of the locals
(even of the Itawit) is not fully discussed in his work.

Building traditions in the Philippines have been documented by architects and other researches (Perez,
Dacanay, & Encarnacion, 1989; Macalintal, 1994; Ignacio & Alejandrino, 2005; Klassen, 2010;
Morales, 2013; Lico, 2021; Valera-Turalba, 2005) and it is not new that the Itawit architecture is
documented but is rarely done by an Itawit architect (Nozaleda, 2020; Andal, 2018; Tabao, 2021).
However, limitations on studies for the Itawit due to the absence or the inactivity of state-recognized
“Mandatory Representatives” (IPMRs) and their ancestral domain as defined by Republic Act 8371 of
the Philippines. In this case, Itawit architecture can be defined as the artistic expression and construction
prowess as shown in their religious, residential, and agricultural structures based on their indigenous
knowledge in their (1) rituals, (2) building materials, and (3) methodology in the construction of their
structures. This study even presents Itawit architecture as a distinct architectural practice still existing
in various areas of Cagayan in the Northern Philippines. The data culled are from two distinct
architectural practices in the province of Cagayan: the Middle Cagayan style and the Southern Cagayan
style.

While this documentation is solely on architectural practices, the results of this study can be a reference
in the development and creation of policies to further protect the Itawit cultural expression in building
traditions and of the language attached in it (See also United Nations, 2002; Hoffman, M., 2009; Soini,
& Birkeland, 2014; Dessein, Soini, Fairclough, & Horlings, (eds) 2015; Leza, 2020). For example, the
linguistic documentation further introduces “ethno-sustainability in architecture” as the ethnic or
collective interpretation and manifestation of sustainable architecture by an ethnic group and can be a
framework in vibrant and self-sustaining communities.

Materials and Methods

Elicitation has been made in this paper along two general regions as identified by Keesing (1962), that
is the Middle Cagayan (MC) and Southern Cagayan (SC). Respondents (building owners, carpenters,
shamans, and elders) from MC are from the towns Piat, Tuao, Santo Niño, and Amulung and SC along
Iguig, Tuguegarao City, Solana, Enrile and Peñablanca. Coding, memoing (a.k.a. “theory building”),
and other similar approach is undertaken to develop a good interpretation of the data being taken from
the Itawit (individual or community); this combination of approaches, known as bricolage, was done
3
by the Researcher as the “bricoleur.” The bricoleur is an Itawit and an architect, hence being emic and
authoritative in nature.

Data taken was from archival documents and actual fieldwork. For the archival documents, they were
culled from manuscripts and books available online: (1) Portal de Archvos Españoles, (2) Miguel de
Benavides Library and Archives, (3) Biblioteca Nacional de España, (4) Google Digital Books and (5)
Biblioteca Virtual de Defensa and on locally catalogued manuscripts at the Cagayan Museum and
Historical Research Center (CMHRC). In the actual fieldwork, a modified Swadesh list (see also UP
Department of Linguistics, 2021) was used for the collection of terminology, questionnaires on the
architectural practice, sketching and photography used for the actual structures. In the interpretation of
data, tabulations were made to organize them and visualized using SketchUp software. The narration
of the results is descriptive and was made after the data was collected and analyzed. The mapping of
the sites were done using QGIS as shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 1
The emic approach in documenting sustainable architecture of the Itawit.

Note. Figure 1 shows the bricolage process in documenting and organizing the sustainable architectural
practices of the Itawit.

4
 Figure 2
Map of the identified sites

Note. Map of the communities being preselected. Map plotted using QGIS software.

Results and Discussion

Based on the bricolage process in compiling and making sense of the data taken on archives and on-
site, it seems that the emic approach shows a more comprehensive grouping of indigenous terminology
and narration in (1) rituals, (2) building materials, and (3) their architecture. It is assumed that the
practitioners of Itawit architecture are mainly the (1) shamans, (2) carpenters, and (3) elders or adults.
This made it more possible in developing an understanding in their sustainable practices in architecture,
herein referred to as “ethno-sustainable architecture” (Fig. 3). This practice that involves careful
thought, planning, and execution is an amalgam of the sophistication and influences of (1) building
rituals (and taboos), building materials chosen, and their (3) architecture. As noted, the data was
generally grouped as identified by Keesing (1962), that is, the Middle Cagayan (MC) and Southern
Cagayan (SC) (Fig. 2).

5
 Figure 3
Ethno-sustainability in Itawit architecture

Note. Figure 3 shows “ethno-sustainability” as an underlying concept in the documentation process on

studying the sustainable architecture of the Itawit.

With “ethno-sustainability in architecture” as a base concept in taking and analyzing data, it has been
instrumental also in this study the understanding of the Itawit language. Emic approach have this
insider’s understanding of the Itawit culture from MC and SC and discusses the three subheadings
below: (1) Building Rituals, (2) Building Materials, and visualizing their (3) Architecture.

Building Rituals

Historically, rituals (including taboos) are perhaps the most influencing factor in the construction
process of early people of Cagayan as mentioned by Fr. Diego Aduarte (1640; Blair and Roberston,
1903), albeit not specifically referring to the Itawit. As observed, building rituals have a special place
in this study with the reason of the Itawit’s attachment with the unseen elements. This perspective is
generally shared to the people that highlights their relationship with the environment, particularly the
sun and of the things unseen, shows that they have their own concept of sustainability in connection
with their immediate environment.

The Building Rituals presented can be in a total of five key steps, i.e. (1) Arte, (2) Makergo, (3) Patunak,
(4) Mattaliguni, and (5) Aggunet. These were elicited based from what shamans, elders, and carpenters
narrated during this study. In MC, the shaman from Amulung stated that all five of these “subrituals”
are still practiced, while in SC, in Tuguegarao City, elders mentioned the first four but can still be
6
considered to complete until five because of the existing tradition of “celebrating” or preparing special
food during the transfer of the building owners to their newly-constructed house.

Figure 4
The five steps in the Itawit Building Ritual

Note. Illustrated above in Figure 4 shows the steps in the Itawit Building Ritual: (1) Arte, (2) Makergo,
(3) Patunak, (4) Mattaliguni, and (5) Aggunet. (a) Arte book, (b.1) glass of water placed at the center
of a bamboo mat (AM) and (b.2.) three glasses of water in a triangular formation with a lump of salt at
the center covered with a balulang (SL), (c) Patunak reference, (c.1) prayer to the ancestors/departed
ones, (c.2.) two unorphaned children (boy and girl) traditionally begins the work, (c.3.) offerings are
given, (c.4.) offerings placed in a niche of soil at the foundation, (c.6.) constituents of the ritual, (c.7.)
offering at the niche at the foundation.

What makes MC’s data on these ritual stages is the existence of terminologies especially referring to
them: Arte, Makergo, Patunak, Mattaliguni, and Aggunet. But on SC, these terminologies are known
only when they are narrated completely (like Arte and Patunak) or depending on what the people
remember (like Makergo); Manzolim and Quilang’s (2016) Sisiwa may be the Itawit-Echague version
of the Aggunet in MC due to their similarity in process. Shamans have given detailed oral accounts
which includes the elements needed, omens, and the processes involved. This study makes it more
important to check on the local’s availability and information on shamans, in this case there were two
shamans encountered and elicited as much oral account as possible.

7
The most complex and well-known of the rituals being listed is the third ritual known as Patunak which
is literally the cornerstone of any Itawit structure located at the Southeast portion of the building and
should not be in conjunction with the bad days listed in the Arte book. The placement of the cornerstone
in the Southeast, in this sense, evades the death-related North and therefore keeping away the building
occupant from ill-fate and answers why construction begins by two children who are not orphaned is
for the occupants’ family to be kept away from death. Ecological elements were identified such as (a)
bannay (Dwarf cardamom), (b) nammurangngan (goose grass), (c) asin (salt), (d) baggat (rice), (e)
kikkid (kabibe shell), (f) daha-manuk (chicken blood), and (g) clam shells which were used as in rituals.
Patunak requires a long list of constituents as prescribed by the local shaman, celestial and natural
considerations, and omens which is a glimpse of how they respect their local elders and the signs shown
in their immediate environment. It is ultimately a constant reminder of the importance of the
environment to the Itawit worldview.

Figure 5
Location of the Patunak

Note. Figure 5 illustrates the descriptions of the respondents in locating the Patunak (cornerstone) and
the ritual itself of the same name.

In all Itawit towns being interviewed, particularly the elders, carpenters, and shamans, they consistently
describe the location of the Patunak ritual to be started on the Hiraya (or the linguistic variant “Ziraya”)
ya Silawan (“Hiraya” means South and “Silawan” means “East”), literally in the Southeast. It is
8
believed that the underlying purpose or origin of the practice of placing the Patunak in the Southeast
principal column of the house due to the enduring oral accounts. It is said that this placement in the
Southeast portion of the building is based on the Itawit belief that avoids the spirit realm at the North
and the bad omen facing the West, and destructive winds from the Southwest. The rising of the sun
and moon from the East is regarded as a source of grace. Death is directly related to the North, as such,
every deceased Itawit should be laid down with his head oriented at the North. One idiomatic expression
about someone who died is uttered as: “Nappatazzilog (nappa-hilod) igginan.” which literally translates
as: “He went North.” The placement of the cornerstone in the Southeast, in this sense, evades the death-
related North and therefore keeping away the building occupant from ill-fate. With this in mind, it
answers why construction begins by two children who are not orphaned is for the occupants’ family to
be kept away from death.

Building Materials

For the sake of discussion, this subsection includes what were available information that has relevancy
in building materials such as dealing with people in choosing, taking, processing, and storing of natural
materials herein can be grouped as (1) wood, (2) bamboo, (3) grass, and (4) palm. It can be also
considered that this subsection can include “social sustainability” since it is inevitable that people are
involved in this matter. The entirety of this study also based the building materials’ name of its
respective species primarily on the work of Rocero (1981) on the Itawit ethnobotany.

Elders recall that the building materials should all be prepared even before the construction, that
carpenters are so meticulous even in the timing of the construction. An idea during the entirety of the
construction is the word ivvet which literally means “unified voluntary work.” Ivvet is a condition were
the community or the building owner’s relatives voluntarily build. This also makes an unwritten
“community contract” that a family should have a representative in an ivvet so that when the same
family will be in need of constructing their house, people will also volunteer. Ivvet also means a
financial responsibility of the owner, that they are also obliged to support the builders by preparing their
meals and snacks.

When planning or having the intent to construct structures, the owner asks or invites his kins or
neighbors in gathering the materials, typically one year in advance to give time for the timber to be
seasoned. When someone goes to the forests of Sierra Madre, the Itawit asks the help of Attas in the
area to find the best kinds of timbers in the forests. The Atta of the Sierra Madre have been interacting
with the Itawit (of Amulung) due to their valuable knowledge in assessing the quality of timbers and
rattans (uwway). For instance, when taking rattans (uwway) from the mountains, the Itawit negotiates
9
(oral contract) with the Atta of Sierra Madre mountains by providing them sacks of rice, tobacco, and
other goods, place them to carabaos and be received; in turn, the Attas give the rattans required to be
used for ropes, strings, furniture, and so on. The general term for taking rattan is megalut. This narrative
shows that the Itawit recognizes the skill of the Atta (as foresters) in finding good or high-quality
materials, which makes them the legitimate masters (or more appropriately, owners of the territory) of
the forests. They aptly described the Atta as “napenam da kan kabakuludan” (they are used to the
mountains) and “kukwa da ballalaman ya kakaywan” (they own the forests). The process of
coordinating the gathering of materials, dealing with people, and recognizing the experience and local
knowledge of other ethnic groups is one of the key aspects of the economic and environmental (and
even social) ethno-sustainability of the Itawit. This process is not an afterthought, and have been passed
down to generations, especially among the Itawit of Amulung and Peñablanca.

Figure 6
Building Materials and their application

Note. Building materials used by the Itawit of Middle and Southern Cagayan presented above as
network based on their application in construction (partial).

10
Itawit Architecture Visualized

Archival materials show that the Itawit have their own expressions in their architecture and was visually
presented in Acosta’s 1719 drawing (Fig. 7a) showing the earliest example of graphic interpretation of
houses in a known Itawit area and an aerial photograph of Tuao (Fig. 7b) showing one of the best
examples of early 20th-century assemblage of Itawit indigenous houses.

It can be said that there are three (3) general classification of structures in Itawit architecture based on
their respective uses: (1) dwellings/residential buildings which includes the balay (main house),
darafuwan/ kusina (kitchen), and the banyu or outhouse (which sometimes separate with the bathroom),
and occasionally the sarong (collapsible tent or shed during marriage, important occasions, or funerals);
(2) agricultural buildings which includes the abayaw/gitad (granary), garung (storage for rice husk),
and amingan (field shed); and (3) animal housing which includes galineru/kasaw (poultry housing),
palayag (for cows, horse, and carabaos), and the gutug (for pigs). To add with the classification of
structures, a “fourth” group can be recognized as part of the extinct architectural tradition of the Itawit,
that is, their military structures which includes the kota (fort) and the amata (watchtower or lookout).
These military structures were mentioned by Lobato (1766), Bugarin (1854), Scott (1994), and Coballes
and dela Cruz (2021) that showed their similarity with the Ibanag. Albeit being extinct in practice, these
terminologies are sparsely used by the Itawit of Tuao and Amulung (Middle Cagayan) to this day.

The set of buildings of the Iringan family (Fig. 8b) was built in the 1950s and is located in San Vicente,
where these structures are in one site and is owned by only one family. This may be the most authentic
and only known surviving sample of a structure joined by a bridge and having a storage building
adjacent to it. This type of site setting is known for the Itawit due to their lifeways in agriculture and
raising livestock. The balay (main house) can be accessed by a stair through the covered terrace, and it
has a living and dining area and two bedrooms. The kitchen is found in the rear of the main house and
is a relatively large structure separated by a balag (bridge). The balag is also a space used for washing
dishes. The third building in this site is an abayaw (storage building) that has an elevated floor used to
store corn, and below this is where another storage is placed and adjacent to it is two gutug or pig pens.
According to the relative of the owner (since the owner of this house died), these structures were roofed
originally with gahut or cogon grass until 2016 due to the devastation of Typhoon Lawin. Traces of
cogon grass can be still be seen underneath the roofing sheets of the kitchen. See also Fig. 9 on the floor
plan and master plan of the Iringan house.

11
 Figure 7
Itawit structures in Tuao

Note. (a) The pueblo of Tuao according to Juan Luis Acosta (1719). Source: Archivo General de Indias.
MP-FILIPINAS,22BIS. (b) A cropped aerial photograph of Tuao Town Center. Source: National
Archives and Records Administration. Title: Tuao, Cagayan Province, Luzon Island, P. I. Rec’d from
Nichols Field, P. I. – 5/18/35. [Handwritten note: “Copied – 9/17/43”].

Figure 8
The “bridged” house

Note. (a) Professor Jose’s sketch as shown above shows two structures: one on the left perhaps as the
main house and the right the storage house. The left side shows that it can be accessed by an addan
(stair) to the balag (which can interchangeably refer to the “landing” or “bridge”); (b) the Iringan house
in San Vicente (Uwwad), Iguig, Cagayan where the main house (leftmost) is connected with the kitchen
(middle) by a bridge. The storage structure (rightmost) have a pig pen below it. Photo sources: (a)
Regalado Trota Jose, 1974 (2022, via email); (b) Michael T. Tabao, 2022.
12
 Figure 9
Master plan of the “bridged” house in San Vicente, Iguig

Note. An estimated sketch of the master plan of a “bridged house” in San Vicente, Iguig (SC) showing
the (a) patunak located at the Southeast principal column, (b) patagwag (extension), (c) kamonayan
(living area), (d) pangnganan (dining area), (e) duba (bedroom), (f) balag (platform/bridge), (g)
darafuwan (kitchen), (h) abayaw (storehouse; in this case included is a gutug or pigpen underneath it),
and (i) kasilyat/pazzihutan (toilet/bathroom).

Perhaps, the most authentic and extant specimen of an Itawit house is the Pamittan house in Brgy.
Malabbac, Iguig, Cagayan. There are important points to be considered in the case of the Pamittan
house, which is asserted here as the only extant house that is unique in all the buildings surveyed in this
study. The owner claims that the building was built between 1890 and 1900 since the house was
inherited from his grandfather. Mr. Pamittan is already seventy years old and was the youngest of the
siblings. The Pamittan house includes one key aspect – the usage of uwway (rattan strings) instead of
metal nails as the main fastening and lashing materials along the structural components of the house,
i.e. (a) wanan to wanan (roof beam to roof beam) connection, (b) tarawag to tarawag (rafter to rafter)
connection, (c) tarawag to basibat (rafter to roof backing) connection, (d) tarawag to wanan (rafter to
roof beam) connection, and (e) arihi to wanan (column to roof beam) connection as shown in Fig. 11
below. Since metals, particularly iron, are very valuable to the Itawit of Cagayan for their use in bladed
weapons or agricultural tools, they are rarely used for the building’s fastening mechanisms.

13
 Figure 10
Northwestern view of the Pamittan house

Note. Northwestern view of the Pamittan house. Photo source: Michael T. Tabao, 2022.

Figure 11
The extant lashing techniques shown in Malabbac, Iguig.

Note. Samples (and only known example) of extant lashing on an Itawit house in Malabbac, Iguig (SC)
showing (a) wanan to wanan connection, including the horizontal brace of two tarawags, (b) tarawag
to tarawag connection, showing also the holes at the end of each tarawag, (c) tarawag to basibat
14
connection, (d) tarawag to wanan connection, and (e) arihi to wanan connection. Photo source: Michael
T. Tabao, 2022.

Figure 12
Anatomy of an Itawit house

Note. Figure 12 is a longitudinal section showing the anatomy of an Itawit house. For the terminology,
refer to Table 1. Photo source: Michael T. Tabao using Trimble SketchUp software and Microsoft
Powerpoint, 2022.

15
 Table 1.
List of Itawit terminology and their respective English equivalents.

Note. Table 1 above shows Itawit architectural terminology and their English equivalents in alphabetical
arrangement taken from MC and SC.

The Itawit also refer to their structures based on roof form. There are four types of Itawit roofs (Fig.
13): (1) binangan or hipped roof, (2) inangkamalig or the gabled roof, (3) sinampalayag is also gabled
but have unequal length of roof, and (4) palayag or a single-sloped roof. It appears that the name of
buildings are based on the types of their roofs. For example, the Itawit frequently call a house with a
hipped roof (somewhat pyramid like form due to the four slopes meeting at one apex or ridge) as
“binangan nga balay” probably based on their term on one side as “bangan” (when looking at two sides
of a hipped roof they appear to be the same). The inangkamalig type of roof is a gabled roof where two
slopes are equal, resembling an A-shape. Since inangkamalig is often used in storage structures, it seems
too bold to argue also that the archaic word “kamalig” with cognates in other languages (eg. Iloko)
referring to storehouses can also be considered a reference in the term “inangKAMALIG.” Another
gabled house with two unequal length of roofs is called sinampalayag nga balay, where “palayag” is
referred to roofs with only one slope. Palayag is also a term for structures for domestic animals (such
as for pigs and horses) with one-sloped roof.

16
Additionally, there are two significant types of wall styles (Fig. 14): the sinissig/sinilsig and kinama.
The sinilsig is a type of wall where the cut and flattened and weaved in a herringbone pattern (appears
both in MC and SC) which occurs more frequent in SC. Kinama is a type of wall made of bamboo poles
cut in half and its vuku (interior node of the bamboo) is removed to make it work to overlap each other,
on both sides.

Finally, there are generally four types of indigenous flooring (Fig. 15): (1) earth, (2) bamboo slats, (3)
solid bamboos and (4) wooden planks. Earth floors are generally along areas where the Itawit chooses
to build extensions of their houses for additional kitchens or terraces, i.e. the patagwab. Bamboo slats
where also used typically for houses, but the solid bamboo floors (which were just arranged alongside
each to form floors) appears only on the abayaw. Wooden planks also appears both in MC and SC in
their floors, particularly the families that can afford it.

Figure 13
Types of Itawit Roofs

Note. Perspective view of the types of roofs with the field samples above: (a) binangan, (b)
inangkamalig, (c) sinampalayag, and (d) palayag. Image source: Michael T. Tabao using Trimble
SketchUp, 2022.

17
 Figure 14
Kinama in MC and Sinilsig in SC

Note. In the Figure 14 above, it presents the identified use of kinama in different areas of MC in (a)
Tuao, (b) Santo Niño, (c) Piat, and (d) Amulung and the wall type sinilsig in different areas of Southern
Cagayan in (e) Iguig, (f) Tuguegarao City, (g) Solana, (h) Peñablanca, and (i) Enrile. Photo source: (a),
(b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) by Michael T. Tabao, 2022 and (d) by Harold S. dela Cruz, 2020.

Figure 15
Types of floors

Note. (a) Earth floor at Dodan (PB), (b) bamboo slats at Malabbac (IG), (c) solid bamboo at San Vicente
(IG), and wood planks at Cattaran (SL). Photo source: (a), (b), (c), and (d) by Michael T. Tabao, 2022.
18
Conclusion and Recommendations

This study sustained a good relationship with the people involved during the communication process,
elicitation of information, and the fieldwork made. The key factor in the success of this study is the
emic approach – that the researcher himself is part of the community and has a deep connection with
his culture. The study’s elicitation process - the interview, visiting extant examples of their architecture,
as well as hearing stories have been largely in the Itawit language, hence needing translation to English.
This makes the documentation process authentic and original in which the language has shown vestiges
of old terminology, particularly in their rituals, architecture, and ethnobotany that has been sustained
by transferring the knowledge into the later generation of the Itawit. This makes it necessary to translate
the Itawit terminology as well as expressions into English (academically), albeit some have no direct
equivalent in the said foreign language as shown in Table 1.

Surprising finds particularly in the Middle Cagayan offer other points of view that can be regarded from
unique to different in their language as well as their architectural practices. It also answers the persisting
question that if culture is fixed, then it could not change but in the case of this study, the lifeways of
Itawit have evolved through time and have shown this phenomenon based on the morphology of their
structures at present. In total, this study offers a glimpse of the rich literature of the Itawit in their
sustainable architecture for the very reason that the researcher is an Itawit architect and has been fondly
attached to his culture and language. Kinship has also played a role in the continuation of the practices
as observed, for example transferring the building or animistic traditions to the next and childbearing
generations.

This comprehensive and rigorous documentation further preserves the intangible aspect of the Itawit –
their indigenous knowledge of their architecture unique in the Cagayan Valley. It can be said that while
there are stylistic as well as preferential differences in the architecture of MC and SC Itawit, they can
be considered as a “shared culture” instead of being completely isolated from each other since the
geography and proximity of the groups are not too far.

Each of the subjects in this study can be discussed and elaborated on even further, since the richness of
information included here has been extensive enough to show a general picture of “ethno-sustainable”
practices of people in Cagayan, specifically herein pointed out in architecture and construction
traditions. Future research can be done and needed to be done in situ, to identify extant structures and
assemblages as shown in communities, ethnobotany, and so on. This further makes scientific studies in
indigenous architecture more crucial and essential in understanding their culture and what can be done
at present to be applied in future sustainable projects armed with an understanding on the dynamics of
culture attached with language.

19
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

The authors of this paper has no conflict of interest whatsoever including any relevant financial or non-
financial competing interests to report.

Bibliography

Aduarte, D. (1640) Historia de la provincia del Sancto Rosario de la Orden de Predicadores en

Philippinas, Iapon, y China.Con licencia en Manila. En el Colegio de Sancto Thomas, por Luis
Beltran impressor de libros. Digital copy from Biblioteca Digital Hispanica, Madrid, Spain.
Retrieved, October 13, 2021, from http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000188484&page=1

Andal, G. (2018) Cataggaman Viejo: Cradle of Dynamic Culture. ISBN 978-621-8091-03-0. Northern
Forum. Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

Bangi, J. (2014) Popular Religiosity of the Itawit on Their Concept of Salvation. Bannag: Journal of
Local Knowledge, Volume 1, Number 1, p.54-63.

Blair, H. & Robertson J. (1903) The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898: Volume XXXI, 1640. The Arthur
H. Clark Company, Cleveland, Ohio. The Project Gutenberg EBook. Retrieved, October 13, 2021,
from https://gutenberg.org/files/42399/42399-8.txt

Bellwood, P. (2017) The Early History of the Austronesian Language Family in Island Southeast Asia.
DOI:10.1002/9781119251583.ch6. First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island
Southeast Asia

Bugarin, J. (1854) Diccionario Ibanag-Español. Manila. Imprenta de los Amigos del Pais, a cargo de
Miguel Sanchez. Digital copy from Biblioteca Digital Hispanica, Madrid, Spain. Retrieved, October
13, 2021, from http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000085433&page=1

Coballes, J. & de la Cruz, H. (2021) An Ethnography of Ibanag Warfare and Weaponry Based on
Spanish Colonial Records. Tala Kasaysayan: An Online Journal of History

Dessein, J., Soini, K., Fairclough, G. and Horlings, L. (eds) 2015. Culture in, for and as Sustainable
Development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability.
University of Jyväskylä, Finland. ISBN: 978-951-39-6177-0.

20
Ezura, T. & Yaoita, K. (2022) Online colloquium on cultural heritage protection and utilization
through live broadcasting of a field survey. The 5th event of MU + OUS SAKURA Online Program
(11 Mar 2022). Retrieved, July 19, 2022, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ7IRCGHPQc&list=PL-
BFxvghPlu0hdFSRsjUuvl_hDxfJlxJe&index=5

Fernandez, R. (2015) Diksyonaryong Biswal ng Arkitekturang Filipino – A Visual Dictionary of

Philippine Architecture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House.

Hoffman, M. (2009) Endangered Languages, Linguistics, and Culture: Researching and Reviving the
Unami Language of the Lenape. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of
Arts in Anthropology and Linguistics. Bryn Mawr College.

Ignacio and Alejandrino (2005) Ivatan Heritage Architecture: A Survey of Different House Types and
Their Evolution. MUHON: A Journal of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and the Designed
Environment, Issue no. 2, p. 102-107.

Iñiguez, J. (1680?a) Gramática española-itaves (MSS/1169). Archivo Provincial de Santo Tomás de

Ávila.

Iñiguez, J. (1680?b) Diccionario español-itaves (unfinished, MSS/1170). Archivo Provincial de

Santo Tomás de Ávila.

Keesing, F. (1962) The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Stanford University Press. Stanford,
California.

Klassen, W. (2010) Architecture in the Philippines: Filipino Building in a Cross-Cultural Context.

Revised Edition. University of San Carlos Press.

Leza, S. (2020). Innovations in Green Building: Why Sustainable Construction Should Include
Localized Knowledge. Retrieved from https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-
060820-161339/unrestricted/Innovations_in_Green_Building.pdf

Lobato, A. (1766) Vocabulario en lengua Ybannag [Manuscrito]. Biblioteca Nacional de España.

Lico, G. (2021).Arkitekturang Filipino: A History of Architecture and Urbanism in the Philippines.

Arch Lico.

21
Macalintal, E. (1994). Beliefs and Practices of Tagalogs When Constructing a House. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis, College of Architecture, School of Engineering, Architecture, and Information
Technology Education, University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao.

Malumbres, J. (1918). Historia de Cagayan. Typ. Linotype, Universidad de Santo Tomas, Manila.

Manzolim, H. & Quilang, L. (2016). Revisiting the Traditional Practices of the Itawis Families of
Isabela. The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees: Good Governance and
Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016, p. 868-882.

Morales, M.V., (2013). Balay Ukit: Tropical Architecture in the Pre-WWII Filipino Houses. Anvil
Publishing, Inc.

National Commission for Culture and the Arts (2022). Peoples of the Philippines: Itawit. Retrieved,
March 28, 2022, from https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/glimpses-peoples-of-
the-philippines/itawit/

National Statistics Office (2010) 2010 Census of Population and Housing Report No. 2A
Demographic and Housing Characteristics (Non-Sample Variables). ISSN 0117-1453. Retrieved,
March 28, 2022, from https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/CAGAYAN_FINAL%20PDF.pdf

Nozaleda, B. (2020) Vernacular Houses in Cagayan. Unpublished Manuscript. Cagayan State

University, Philippines.

Perez, R., Dacanay, J., & Encarnacion, R. (1989) Folk Architecture. GCF Books, First Printing.

Philippine Statistics Authority (2010) Philippines - Census of Population and Housing 2010, Ethnicity
(P11). Retrieved, January 8, 2022, from
https://psada.psa.gov.ph/index.php/catalog/64/datafile/F9/V139

Republic Act 8371. An Act To Recognize, Protect And Promote The Rights Of Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples, Creating A National Commission On Indigenous Peoples,
Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and For Other Purposes.
Republic of the Philippines, Congress of the Philippines, Metro Manila.

Rocero, M. (1981). Ethnobotany of the Itawes in Cagayan. Unpublished Dissertation. Graduate

School. University of Santo Tomas.

Salgado, P. (2002). Cagayan Valley and Eastern Cordillera 1581-1898. Rex Commercial.

22
Soini, K. and Birkeland, I. (2014) Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability.
Geoforum 51 (2014) 213–223.

Tabao, M. (2021). The Anatomy of Anything: The Design and Reintroduction of Itawit Terminology to
Students using Visual Grouping of Infographics. 2021 International Mother Language Conference and
Festival - Multilingual Education in the Pandemic and in Transition: Mapping the Course for
Language Development and Governance.

The Boxer Codex (the 1590s). Las Islas de los Ladrones aka “The Manila Manuscript”. The Lilly
Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

United Nations (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg,
South Africa, 26 August4 September 2002. United Nations, New York. Retrieved, August 2, 2022,
from https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/636/93/PDF/N0263693.pdf?OpenElement

UP Department of Linguistics, 2021. “This is a 948-word list.” University of the Philippines,

Department of Linguistics.

Valera-Turalba, M. C. (2005) Philippine heritage architecture before 1521 to the 1970s. Anvil
Publishing Inc.

23