The last peoples with no contact with the outside world — and who decides whether to leave them alone

When John Allen Chau was killed on North Sentinel Island in November 2018, the editorial verdict arrived before his body could be recovered from the beach. Within days the consensus was settled: Chau was reckless, theologically deluded, and had endangered the very people he claimed to love. All of that is probably true. But almost every piece published in those weeks treated something else as equally obvious — that India’s legal prohibition on approaching the island was legitimate, rational, and not worth examining. The law was the natural backdrop to a story about individual folly. Nobody asked about the law itself.

What the law does is this. A state has decided, on behalf of a group of people it has never spoken to, that those people want no contact with the outside world. It enforces this through Navy patrols and criminal prosecution. The people being “protected” have expressed no view on the policy — though they have expressed, repeatedly and with arrows, a view on visitors. Whether those arrows mean “go away forever” or “go away today” or something else, nobody can say, because asking would require the kind of approach the policy is designed to prevent. The Sentinelese cannot consent to the arrangement. They cannot reject it. They exist, legally, as wards of a state whose language they do not speak, administered under a regulation drafted sixty years before the internet existed.

That is the thing everyone took for granted. It is, on examination, a remarkable arrangement.

The legal architecture of isolation

The primary legal instrument is the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956, which designated North Sentinel Island as a tribal reserve and created an exclusion zone of approximately five kilometres — three miles — around the island’s coastline. After Chau’s death in November 2018, the Ministry of Home Affairs reaffirmed the prohibition. Enforcement in practice has operated a substantially larger buffer — five nautical miles, roughly nine kilometres — though the statutory basis for the larger zone is not cleanly resolved in the regulation’s text.

The regulation is Indian law, applied to a people who predate India as a state by an unknown quantity of centuries.

Brazil’s equivalent is older and more elaborate. FUNAI — the Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas — has operated a formal non-contact policy since 1987. As of March 2025, FUNAI officially recognises 119 isolated indigenous groups in Brazil; Survival International’s October 2025 global report identified 124 confirmed groups in the country alone. FUNAI implements the policy through Ethno-environmental Protection Fronts — monitoring and buffer teams whose job is to observe, document, and intercept intruders. Article 231 of Brazil’s 1988 Constitution recognises indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands, customs, and social organisation. ILO Convention 169 (1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007, Articles 3 and 10) affirm the right to self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent — FPIC — before any decisions affecting indigenous peoples are made.

And here the architecture collapses into its own foundation.

FPIC was designed precisely to prevent states and corporations from making decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples without asking. But obtaining FPIC from a group that cannot be approached without triggering a disease epidemic is logically impossible. Consent requires contact. Contact kills. The legal framework that exists to protect indigenous autonomy has no mechanism for the one case where it matters most. The protection rests on an assumption — that the peoples being protected would consent if asked — and that assumption is unfalsifiable by design.

Who are the Sentinelese?

North Sentinel Island sits in the Bay of Bengal, roughly 50 kilometres west of South Andaman Island. The Indian government estimates the Sentinelese population at between 50 and 400 people; reliable figures do not exist, and aerial counting is imprecise. What is known comes almost entirely from observation at a distance. They hunt, fish, and gather. Their material culture includes metal tools — almost certainly salvaged from shipwrecks — suggesting some historical, indirect awareness of the outside world.

In the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, a coast guard helicopter flew over the island and photographed a Sentinelese man running across the beach, bow drawn, arrow levelled at the aircraft. The photograph circulated worldwide. Its meaning was unambiguous. The Sentinelese had survived the tsunami and were in no mood for visitors.

In 1991, the Indian government attempted a different approach. Triloknath Pandit, director of the Anthropological Survey of India, led a series of contact expeditions to the island, offering coconuts and other gifts. The Sentinelese accepted some of the gifts and approached the boats. The series of expeditions continued until 1994, after which India abandoned contact efforts and reverted to the exclusion policy. The brief window of tentative exchange is the closest thing to mutual communication the Sentinelese have had with the outside world in recorded history. Then it stopped. The Sentinelese did not ask for it to stop.

What Chau was doing, and what it actually means

On November 15, 2018, Chau paid two fishermen ₹25,000 — roughly $350 — to take him near North Sentinel Island. He approached in a kayak. A Sentinelese boy fired a metal-tipped arrow that pierced the waterproof Bible Chau was holding against his chest. He retreated. On November 17, he returned, told the fishermen to leave without him, and paddled toward shore. The fishermen later reported watching, from a distance, as Sentinelese figures dragged his body along the beach. The following day it was buried there. Chau’s diary, recovered through his friend in Port Blair, described his mission in terms that were earnest to the point of being impossible to read without discomfort.

Chau was affiliated with All Nations, an evangelical organisation that had trained him extensively, including mock scenarios with staff playing hostile tribespeople. His theological framework was specific. The “unreached peoples” movement — prominent within evangelical circles through Ethnos360 (formerly New Tribes Mission) and the Youth With A Mission network — holds that the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 requires that the gospel reach every people group on earth before Christ’s return. The Joshua Project, an evangelical research database, catalogues every ethnolinguistic group by evangelisation status. The Sentinelese appear in it. They are listed as unreached.

The universal response was to treat this as self-evidently absurd, the theology of a man who had gone off the edge. But the framework is not fringe. Ethnos360 operates in dozens of countries with decades of institutional history and significant financial backing. What Chau did was illegal, epidemiologically dangerous, and resulted in his death. It was also the logical outcome of a coherent worldview held by millions of people. Dismissing it as individual eccentricity is easier than engaging with what it actually represents: an organised, well-funded position on exactly the same question that states and NGOs have a position on — what should happen to the people on that island?

Chau’s position was wrong. But it wasn’t random. It was a claim — that those people have a right to hear the gospel — colliding with another claim: that those people have a right to be left alone. The collision killed him. Who gets to make that call?

The unreached peoples movement

The Joshua Project is an evangelical research initiative that catalogues the world's approximately 17,000 ethnolinguistic groups by their exposure to Christianity. Groups classified as "unreached" — with less than 2% evangelical Christians and no indigenous church capable of independent growth — number in the thousands. The project maps them geographically and tracks missionary progress.

Ethnos360, formerly New Tribes Mission, was founded in the United States in 1942 with the explicit purpose of reaching the world's most isolated tribal populations. It operates across dozens of countries through a global partner network. Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is a decentralised evangelical network with presence in virtually every country on earth. All Nations, Chau's organisation, runs a training programme that includes preparation for contact with hostile communities.

The theological logic is internally consistent: if salvation is real and eternal, and if some people groups will die without ever hearing the gospel, then the calculus of contact looks different from inside the framework than outside it. That doesn't make it right. It makes it comprehensible, which is more useful.

The epidemiological floor

Contact kills indigenous people in enormous numbers. This is not disputed, and any philosophical argument about isolation must operate above it.

A 2015 study by Robert Walker, Lisa Sattenspiel, and Kim Hill, published in Scientific Reports, analysed 117 epidemics affecting 59 indigenous societies in Greater Amazonia between 1875 and 2008, causing more than 11,000 documented deaths, 75% from measles, influenza, and malaria. The mean mortality rate across epidemics was approximately 25% per year. Rates have declined over time — contacts modelled at the study’s 2015 publication date predicted roughly 10% annual mortality — but 10% annual mortality is still catastrophic for any small population. It means contact is less lethal than it was fifty years ago. It does not mean contact is safe.

The cases make the abstraction concrete. After FUNAI made first contact with the Matis in the late 1970s, the population collapsed: estimated at several hundred at first contact, the Matis numbered no more than 87 by 1983. Between 35 and 50 percent had died from disease. Of the Panará — contacted in 1973 when a military highway was built through their territory — more than 250 of approximately 350 members died within the first twelve months; their population eventually fell to 74. In 1987, New Tribes Mission secretly contacted the Zo’é in northern Brazil; by 1991, 45 Zo’é had died from malaria, influenza, and respiratory disease. The Nahua of Peru faced a similar trajectory in the early 1980s when oil exploration opened their territory: within a few years, around 50 to 60 percent of the population had died.

These are not historical anomalies. They are the pattern.

The decline in mortality rates is real, and it reflects genuine improvements in epidemiological response. But that response requires immediate, well-resourced medical deployment at the moment of contact — in remote Amazonian territories, often days or weeks from the nearest hospital. The better outcome is a model. The Panará and the Zo’é are the record.

Any argument about the rights of isolated peoples must operate above this floor. The freedom to choose contact is not meaningful when exercising it has historically killed a third to half of the community making the choice.

The paternalism charge

And yet someone is making this decision. That is what the mortality data, for all its clarity, cannot dissolve.

The paternalism critique runs as follows. States, NGOs, and international bodies have decided — without consulting the people concerned — that isolated peoples should remain isolated. They have built legal frameworks, deployed enforcement agencies, and developed institutional positions around this conclusion. None of this involved asking. It couldn’t: asking them is the thing the policy prohibits. The result is a structure that looks, from the outside, like protection, but functions as permanent administered isolation — built and maintained by people who never asked those it was built for.

The critique has serious advocates. In a 2015 editorial in Science, Robert Walker of the University of Missouri and Kim Hill of Arizona State University argued that governments violate their responsibility to isolated peoples by adopting a permanent non-contact policy. Isolated populations are not viable in the long term, they argued — they face accidental contact, extractive encroachment, and demographic attrition — and well-organised, medically prepared contact is today both humane and achievable. To refuse contact is not neutrality; it is a choice to withhold medical care and options available to every other human population.

A 2019 essay on the Oxford Uehiro Centre’s Practical Ethics blog applied a Samaritan rescue principle to argue that contact could be morally obligatory under conditions of extreme need — allowing people to die from treatable disease might constitute an ethical failure regardless of autonomy considerations.

These are real objections, not rhetorical exercises. They are what liberal political philosophy looks like when it runs into a case it was never designed for — people who cannot speak for themselves, and cannot be asked. The FPIC principle was designed to prevent states from overriding indigenous agency. Applied to uncontacted groups, it produces the opposite: states make a permanent decision on behalf of people without any input from those people, and call this protection.

The honest version of the paternalism charge: we have decided what is good for them without asking, constructed a moral framework that makes it impossible to ask, and called this respect.

Why that argument fails here — but not how you’d think

The strongest response to the paternalism critique is not philosophical. It is epidemiological.

The freedom to choose contact becomes meaningful only when exercising it doesn’t kill a third of your community. When it does, the choice isn’t between contact and isolation — it’s between dying from a decision you made and being prevented from making a lethal decision by someone who can’t ask you about it first. Neither option is clean. But one produces immediate mass death and the other does not.

Survival International’s position — that isolated peoples “know we exist and have chosen not to talk to us” — is the most defensible practical stance available, and has anthropological support. The Sentinelese case makes this stark. They’ve demonstrated, over decades of observation and several direct contact attempts, both awareness of outsiders and consistent rejection of them. The 2004 tsunami provided the most striking evidence: in the immediate aftermath, before any survey team could reach the island, the Sentinelese had already moved to higher ground and were visible, alive, defending their territory from helicopters. They read the environment. They are not waiting to be discovered.

But the protection-as-consent argument can’t answer the harder question: we don’t know what isolated peoples would want if they could make an informed choice — with access to information about what contact actually means, what medicine can do, what the outside world contains. The Sentinelese who fired an arrow at Chau’s Bible were not making a consent decision. They were defending their territory against an intruder. Those are not the same thing.

Survival International says they have chosen. The Panará were not asked before the highway went through. The Zo’é were not consulted before the missionaries arrived. In every historical case, contact happened because of extractive pressure, missionary ambition, or state policy — not because someone figured out how to ask the question and get a meaningful answer.

Are "uncontacted" peoples really uncontacted?

The word is imprecise. Many groups described as "uncontacted" have had sporadic historical contact — with rubber tappers, missionaries, or disease vectors — and have retreated into isolation afterwards. Others have traded with intermediary groups, and have material culture, including metal tools, that demonstrates indirect contact with the outside world. The Sentinelese almost certainly salvaged metal from the 1981 wreck of the MV Primrose, which ran aground on their reef and was abandoned.

FUNAI, for this reason, prefers the term "isolated" over "uncontacted." The distinction matters. These are not pristine populations untouched by history; they are peoples who, having had some exposure to the outside world, have chosen — or been forced by disease — to maintain distance from it. That choice, or that trajectory, is the thing the policy is attempting to protect. It is not less legitimate for being imperfect.

No clean resolution exists. The debate continues among anthropologists, ethicists, and legal scholars — careful, principled, unresolved. Meanwhile something that does not care about the debate at all has been answering the question by other means.

The policy is failing anyway

The real question, being answered daily in the Amazon, is not whether the policy is philosophically defensible. It is what happens when the institutions enforcing it run out of money, staff, and political protection.

Brazil is where the answer is most visible. Ninety-one percent of Brazil’s artisanal gold mining — garimpo — occurs within the Amazon biome. Between 1985 and 2022, the total area of garimpo extraction expanded by approximately 1,200%, from roughly 218 square kilometres to around 2,627 square kilometres. A 2024 study in Nature Communications found that at least 77% of 2022 extraction sites showed explicit signs of illegality. Indigenous territories, where mining of any kind is prohibited, lost 13,000 hectares of forest to illegal gold mining in 2023 alone.

The Sararé Indigenous Territory — home to the Nambikwara people in Mato Grosso — became the most impacted indigenous area by illegal mining in 2025. From January 2024 to August 2025, illegal gold mining destroyed more than 3,000 hectares of forest within the territory — more than 4% of its total 67,000 hectares. Government agents estimated approximately 2,000 miners operating on the land at the peak of the incursion. The miners arrive in response to gold prices set in London and Shanghai. They are not making an ethical argument.

Missionary pressure has also operated through institutional channels. In February 2020, the Bolsonaro government appointed Ricardo Lopes Dias — a long-serving missionary with Ethnos360/New Tribes Mission — to head FUNAI’s isolated and recently contacted tribes department, giving him access to location data for more than 100 registered isolated groups. Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office sought suspension, warning of potential “genocide” and “ethnocide”; an appellate judge ultimately overturned the appointment. But Lopes Dias was reinstated — and removed again — in a sequence that illustrated how thin the institutional protections are when the political winds shift.

Missionaries have also worked around the institutional layer entirely. The Pulitzer Center documented the use of drones, shortwave radios, and solar-powered audio devices loaded with Bible content in indigenous languages near isolated peoples’ territories in the Javari Valley. The technology is cheaper and more deniable than a contact mission. The epidemiological risk is identical. Survival International’s 2025 global report estimates that one in six uncontacted peoples worldwide faces active missionary threat — not hypothetical pressure, but documented, organised efforts to make contact.

FUNAI’s capacity to respond has been systematically eroded. Under the Bolsonaro government (2019–2022), experienced personnel were replaced with staff without relevant knowledge; for every ten roles within the agency, only four were filled; protection posts were closed. Illegal logging and deforestation in indigenous territories increased 138% in the first three years of the Bolsonaro government compared to the preceding three years, according to Human Rights Watch. The Lula government has partially reversed these trends — most visibly in the 2023 operations to evict miners from Yanomami territory — but structural recovery of FUNAI’s capacity is incomplete.

The Yanomami collapse

The Yanomami are not an uncontacted people — they have had sustained contact with the outside world for decades. They are what happens after the policy fails.

In 2024, Fiocruz researchers tested 287 Yanomami individuals across nine villages in Roraima and found mercury in all of them. Eighty-four percent had levels above 2.0 micrograms per gram of hair — the threshold for mandatory health reporting in Brazil; 10.8% were above 6.0 micrograms per gram, indicating high exposure requiring specialist investigation. The contamination came from illegal gold mining in their territory, which uses mercury in the gold amalgamation process. Yanomami children face the most severe malnutrition of any indigenous population in the Americas. An estimated 570 people died from hunger and disease during the peak years of the mining crisis.

The Yanomami had constitutional protections. They had FUNAI. They had international attention. What they did not have was a political environment in which those protections were enforced. Their experience is the closest available analogue for what the failure of isolation policy looks like in practice.

Globally, the picture is the same. Survival International’s October 2025 report — the first comprehensive global survey — identified 196 uncontacted peoples in 10 countries. Nine out of ten face threats from extractive industries. Half could vanish within a decade without stronger protections.

Fiona Watson, Survival’s research and advocacy director, called these “silent genocides — there are no TV crews, no journalists. But they are happening, and they’re happening now.”

Who is actually deciding

The answer to the governing question has specific names attached to it. Not “the state” in the abstract — specific agencies, organisations, and individuals, with specific interests and vulnerabilities.

FUNAI is a chronically underfunded Brazilian federal agency whose political independence varies with the government in power. The Indian Navy enforces an exclusion zone around North Sentinel Island with no mechanism for communicating with the Sentinelese in any direction. Survival International is a London-based NGO whose authority to speak for people it cannot contact is not self-evident — it is an external organisation making claims about the preferences of groups it has never spoken to. Evangelical organisations have their own theological agenda. Illegal miners are responding to commodity prices. The Brazilian president, whoever holds the office, sets the political climate that determines whether FUNAI functions or decays.

None of these actors has the consent of the peoples they are acting on or against. Every one of them is making a real decision about people who have no idea this is happening.

FUNAI’s legitimacy is statutory — it derives from the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, a document the isolated peoples it covers played no part in drafting. The Indian Navy’s authority derives from a 1956 regulation, issued by a colonial successor state, applied to a people who have never interacted with that state in any direction. These are not delegitimising observations in themselves — laws have to come from somewhere. But they are the actual basis of the authority, and it is worth being clear about what that basis is.

The miners and missionaries have no authority at all. They are simply more powerful, financially and numerically, than the institutions theoretically constraining them.

The specific uncomfortable observation: the people who most reliably keep isolated peoples isolated are, right now, the state bureaucracies and NGOs who genuinely believe in the policy. Which means protection depends entirely on the institutional health of underfunded agencies operating in politically hostile environments, and on NGOs competing for attention in a news cycle full of more photogenic emergencies. The extractive economy does not need to win the philosophical argument. It just needs to wait.

The problem, returned

A choice is being made on behalf of people who cannot make it themselves. Nothing in this article dissolves that.

Two trajectories run from here. In the first, the policy holds: institutions survive, buffer zones are maintained, miners and missionaries are kept at a distance, and isolated peoples live out their lives in the territories they have occupied, uncontacted, for as long as the arrangement holds. This produces, if it succeeds, permanent administered isolation — peoples frozen in a condition outsiders have decided is their authentic state, protected from history by the political will of states whose relationship to them is entirely asymmetric. There is no endpoint. There is no moment at which the question of what they would want, given genuine options, gets answered.

In the second trajectory, the policy fails. The miners arrive. The missionaries plant audio devices on the forest floor. The buffer zones erode under commodity prices and bureaucratic decay. Disease follows contact, as it always has, and kills a third to half of the community. The survivors join the ranks of recently-contacted peoples navigating the wreckage — like the Yanomami, like the Zo’é, like the Panará before they rebuilt.

Neither is good. The first is better, contingently, given everything we know about the second. But it is not a resolution. It is a holding action by institutions that are already losing.

The people being decided about have no idea this debate is happening. The policy that governs their lives is written in languages they have never heard, enforced by states whose existence they are unaware of, defended by organisations whose funding cycles depend on things entirely outside their world. They wake, fish, hunt, repair their shelters, watch the horizon. Whether the institution that keeps the boats away this year will still be funded next year is not a question they can form.

That fact sits at the centre of whatever position you now hold.

Zastrzeżenie dotyczące Gen AI

Niektóre treści tej strony zostały wygenerowane i/lub edytowane przy pomocy generatywnej sztucznej inteligencji.

Media

North Sentinel Island imaged by a Sentinel 2 satellite. – Wikipedia

Kluczowe źródła i odniesienia

Walker RS, Sattenspiel L, Hill KR. Mortality from contact-related epidemics among indigenous populations in Greater Amazonia. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:14032. doi:10.1038/srep14032. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14032

Walker RS, Hill K. Protecting isolated tribes. Science. 2015;348(6239):1061. doi:10.1126/science.aac6540. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac6540

Wong B. Should We Contact Uncontacted Peoples?: A Case for a Samaritan Rescue Principle. Practical Ethics (Oxford Uehiro Centre). March 2019. https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2019/03/oxford-uehiro-prize-in-practical-ethics-should-we-contact-uncontacted-peoples-a-case-for-a-samaritan-rescue-principle/

Perry A. The Last Days of John Allen Chau. Outside Online. July 2019. https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration-survival/john-allen-chau-life-death-north-sentinel/

Sohn T. Inside the Story of John Allen Chau’s Ill-Fated Trip to a Remote Island. Smithsonian Magazine. December 7, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-john-allen-chaus-ill-fated-trip-remote-island-180970971/

Moutinho S et al. Uncontrolled Illegal Mining and Garimpo in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature Communications. 2024;15:9847. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54220-2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54220-2

Survival International. Uncontacted Indigenous Peoples: at the Edge of Survival. October 2025. https://www.survivalinternational.org/documents/UIPR

Dialogo Chino / Mongabay. Report urges full protection of world’s 196 uncontacted Indigenous peoples. Mongabay. October 2025. https://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/report-urges-full-protection-of-worlds-196-uncontacted-indigenous-peoples/

PBS NewsHour. Without stronger protections, uncontacted Indigenous groups could vanish within a decade, experts say. October 27, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/without-stronger-protections-uncontacted-indigenous-groups-could-vanish-within-a-decade-experts-say

NBC News. Why the survival of uncontacted Indigenous peoples is under growing threat. October 27, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/latin-america/uncontacted-indigenous-peoples-tribes-growing-threat-new-report-rcna239988

Mongabay. Brazil judge blocks appointment of missionary to indigenous agency. May 2020. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/brazil-judge-blocks-appointment-of-missionary-to-indigenous-agency/

Mongabay. Politicized Indigenous affairs agency puts Brazil’s uncontacted groups at risk. February 2022. https://news.mongabay.com/2022/02/politicized-indigenous-affairs-agency-puts-brazils-uncontacted-groups-at-risk/

Survival International. An evangelical missionary has access to the locations of Brazil’s uncontacted tribes. 2020. https://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/evangelical-missionary-Brazil-uncontacted-tribes

Pulitzer Center. ‘A Computer, a Radio, a Drone and a Shotgun’: How Missionaries Are Reaching Out to Brazil’s Isolated Peoples. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/computer-radio-drone-and-shotgun-how-missionaries-are-reaching-out-brazils-isolated-peoples

Pulitzer Center. Missionaries Using Secret Audio Devices To Evangelise Brazil’s Isolated Peoples. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/missionaries-using-secret-audio-devices-evangelise-brazils-isolated-peoples

Brazil Reports. The Future of Funai (Part 1): Brazil’s indigenous protectors denounce the dismantling of their institution during Bolsonaro government. https://www.brazilreports.com/the-future-of-funai-part-1-brazils-indigenous-protectors-denounce-the-dismantling-of-their-institution-during-bolsonaro-government/3322/

Human Rights Watch. Brazil: Indigenous Rights Under Serious Threat. August 9, 2022. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/09/brazil-indigenous-rights-under-serious-threat

Mongabay. One small Indigenous territory emerges as illegal mining hotspot in Brazil’s Amazon. November 2025. https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2025/11/sarare-illegal-mining-hotspot-in-brazils-amazon/

Fiocruz. Yanomamis from nine villages harassed by illegal mining are contaminated by mercury. April 2024. https://fiocruz.br/en/noticia/2024/04/yanomamis-nine-villages-harassed-illegal-mining-are-contaminated-mercury

Agência Brasil. Tests detect mercury in Yanomami indigenous hair samples. April 2024. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/saude/noticia/2024-04/tests-detect-mercury-yanomami-indigenous-hair-samples

Agência Brasil. Brazil has 119 indigenous groups in isolation. March 2025. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/direitos-humanos/noticia/2025-03/brazil-has-119-indigenous-groups-isolation

Matis people. Indigenous Peoples in Brazil (ISA/Pib Socioambiental). https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Matis

Panará people. Indigenous Peoples in Brazil (ISA/Pib Socioambiental). https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Panar%C3%A1

Sentinelese. Survival International. https://www.survivalinternational.org/peoples/sentinelese

Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956. India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/19311