User:Decussate/History of Archaeology in the Philippines

The history of archaeology in the Philippines, or officially known as the Republic of the Philippines is a broad outline of the significant figures in Philippine archaeology and the multiple chronologies associated with the type of artifacts and research conducted over the years.

The Philippines has had a long legacy of Spanish colonization of over 300 years. To begin to understand the archaeology of the Philippines colonization by the Spanish must be factored in and understood. The rough beginnings can be described as:

• 1521 AD: Ferdinand Magellan “rediscovers” the Philippines.
• 1542 AD: Ruy López de Villalobos claims the Philippines as a part of Spain.
• 1565 AD: Miguel López de Legazpi established the first Spanish settlement in the Philippines.
• 1572 AD: Initial Spanish push to the Northern Philippines.
• 1576 AD: First official Spanish Expedition to the Cordillera (the highlands of Philippines).

As Carl Guthe puts, as he excavated the Philippines during the 1920s, “The Filipinos have been under Christian influence for such a long period that all recollection of pre-Spanish inhumations has passed .” Thus, linking the past and present through Philippine archaeology can present itself to be an issue when it comes to understanding artifacts pre-Spanish colonization.

In addition to Spanish Colonization, the Philippines have also suffered in more recent history American colonization that still persists to this day. On December 10th, 1898, Spain surrendered the Philippines to the United States through the Treaty of Paris. This began a long period of American colonization, which played a huge role in the History of Philippine Archaeology as it enabled American anthropologists to stumble across vast archaeological sites with profound evidence of human occupation and evolution. Later, archeologists like H. Otley Beyer were able to put the Philippines in the archaeological record through events such as the 1904 St. Louis World Fair, which initiated the development of archaeology in the Philippines.

Significant Figures in Philippine Archaeology

H. Otley Beyer

H. Otley Beyer was a cultural anthropologist and archaeologist who founded Philippine archaeology and became head of anthropology at the University of the Philippines. His infamous Waves of Migration Theory relied on phenotypic and linguistic variability. He explained how he believed that people migrated into the Philippines in “waves” and with each wave getting lighter in skin color and more culturally sophisticated. Beyer’s theory showed the first wave as the negritos (25,000-30,000 YBP), the second wave as the Indonesians (5,000-6,000 YBP), and the third wave as the Malayas (2,500 YBP).

Beyer also conducted archaeological surveys in Luzon, Palawan, as well as the Visayan Islands and was responsible for suggesting that terraces were constructed as early as 2000 years ago.

Robert Fox

Robert Fox was an anthropologist and leading historian in the pre-Hispanic Philippines. He led excavations in 1958 at Calatagan, Batangas, where he found 505 graves in two sites. Fox also became the head of the Anthropology division at the National Museum of the Philippines, where he led a six year research project in Palawan from 1962 to 1966. Fox later delivered the only Pleistocene human fossils found in the Philippines through his excavations at the Tabon Cave complex.

Wilhelm G. Solheim II

Wilhelm G. Solheim conducted the first archaeological excavations in the Philippines after World War II. His fieldwork was mostly conducted in mainland and island Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific Islands. Solheim was also a professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawaii from 1967 to 1991.

Stephen Acabado

Stephen Acabado is an anthropology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Acabado focuses his research on the relationships amongst Southeast Asian agricultural complexes, landscape, and society. He has also vast investigations and research projects focusing on Ifugao, such as his Ifugao Archaeological Project.

Response to Colonialism: Filipino Identity

Recent archaeological research has provided ways of understanding Philippine identity that has been crafted in response to Spanish colonization. Depending on the landscape Philippine people were situated on, they have responded in unique ways to the Spanish during a time were unequal power dynamics were at play. The Ifugao people in Northern Luzon, and the Tagalog people of Pinagbayanan in Southern Luzon show differing examples of how their landscape and interaction with Spanish colonization crafted identity.

The Ifugao People Identity

The Ifugao identity has been constructed through the historical context of them being uncolonized and the centrality of rice being apart of their culture, including the famous rice terraces. Prior to Spanish arrival into the highlands of Northern Luzon, Ifugao people mainly cultivated taro, and after the arrival of the Spanish many were forced to migrate into the uplands.

The landscape shift to wet-rice cultivation became the venue wherein it served political and economic consolidation and enabled successful resistance against the Spanish. In addition, the landscape shift to wet-rice cultivation transformed Ifugao culture and identity around rice. Ifugao identity has been constructed around landscape practices in the face of Spanish colonization, and to this day the landscape practices persist. Ifugao social status and practices to this day is measured in relation to a person’s rice holdings and their or their family’s ability to sponsor feasts. Archaeological research and analysis through Stephen Acabado supports Northern Luzon undergoing rapid subsistence changes from taro to rice, and social change in the region after the arrival of the Spanish in 1573.

The Tagalog People of Pinagbayanan Identity

The Tagalog identity in Pinagbayanan, San Juan, Batangas material goods were utilized to form social hierarchy in the landscape of a reduccion town. The Spanish Law of the Indies policy forced and stimulated the development of towns also known as reduccion. In the archaeological findings of the stone based houses in Pinagbayanan it can be seen that new identities emerged such as the ilustrado class, whom were educated and the elite through owning imported prestige goods. Owning a prestige good enabled one to be marked as the other, and not a local in the town and further, the display of imported objects enabled connection to the Spanish town as an immigrant, and also validated and reinforced prestige as part of wielding social power. Identity was crafted based on the ability to mirror colonial state of affairs for the ilustrado, as seen through the studies of Pinagbayanan.

Traditional Comparative Chronologies

The Three-Age System

The Three Age System is a common periodization system that divides history into the following three periods: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. These periods have been used throughout European archaeology to label artifacts into recognizable chronology. 

The Stone Age

The Stone was composed of three periods, known as the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic. The Upper Pleistocene/Paleolithic Period was from 40,000 to 10,000 years before present. The Mesolithic Period was from 10,000 to 5,000 years before present. Lastly, the Neolithic Period was from 5,000 to 3,500 years before present.

The Bronze Age

The Bronze Age was from 3,500 to 2,500 years before present.

The Iron Age

The Iron Age  was from 2,500 to 1,500 years before present.

Despite this periodization being common in archaeology elsewhere, the Philippines has adopted various comparative chronologies that more accurately and efficiently categorize artifacts throughout history.

Comparative Chronologies According to Victor Paz

Pre-archaeology: 19th century

The Pre-Archaeology period is characterized as being the longest period among the five identified periods by Paz. As the name suggests, it is a time before archaeology as a discipline evolved. It is before there was known evidence of when people placed value on antique material culture. It can be argued however for what the limit of Pre-Archaeology is, due to burial sites where humans were buried with an associated object that demonstrate value.

Accidental Archaeology: 19th century to early 1920s

The Accidental Archaeology period is characterized by the beginnings of antiquarian appreciation of the past regarding material goods. In this period, archaeology is still not quite a science, but rather served a purpose for other research pursuits that belonged in ethnographic and natural sciences. Alfred Marche, a Frenchman and Naturalist is the most prominent figure during this time, and usually credited with being the first to conduct archaeological explorations and collect Philippine cultural goods. Marche can be identified as being a figure who collected not just for an antiquarian appreciation, but for a vested interest in exoticism. In 1881, he excavated Negrito human remains in the open sites in Marinduque and Catanduanes. He also found a number of other artifacts such as Chinese pottery, gold, wooden coffins and burial urns. These various archaeological artefacts were collected for museums in France. ^[6]

Other examples belonging to this period are the few educated elite Filipinos such as Pardo de Tavera and the Calderon family who started private collections in Manila.

Committed Archaeology: 1920s to mid 1960s

During the Committed Archaeology period, the National Museum of the Philippines made more serious attempts at directed archaeological research, uncovering information about settlement patterns, burial practices, and artifact assemblage. The Three-Age System was adopted during this period as the primary way to categorize archaeological findings, following an evolutionary approach that linked artifacts to the progression of human culture from ‘savagery’ to ‘civilization’.

Directed Archaeology: mid 1960s to late 1990s 

The Directed Archaeology period saw the development of contemporary worldwide archaeological ethics standards, which disengaged archaeological research from its antiquarian origins, especially in regards to looting. There was also an increase in state support of archaeology practices and research projects, enabled by the strengthening of the National Museum of the Philippines via protective laws and an increase in resources. Research projects were led by private individuals and academic institutions in collaboration with the museum, and resulted in global interest of the Philippines.

Reflective Archaeology: late 1990s to present

The current period of archaeology is the Reflective Period, which articulates the ethics of archaeology, emphasizing respect for ‘private property’, and an increase in state and private institutional support of archaeological research. Reflective Archaeology uses a multidisciplinary approach to answer research questions regarding origin, migration, trade patterns, and domestication practices of the Philippines. Archaeology today focuses on rewriting the colonial narratives that dominate the discipline, encouraging community involvement and the preservation of Filipino heritage.

Comparative Chronologies According to F. Landa Jocano

According to F. Landa Jocano, the comparative chronologies of history of archaeology of the Philippines consisted of the Mythic Phase, Formative Phase, Incipient Phase, Emergent Phase, and Baranganic Phase (Jocano, 2001).

Mythic Phase

The Mythic Phase is from the beginning of time and focuses on the emphasis of myths as a source of creative information from previous generations including symbols that corresponds to religious beliefs, social practices, and political power. In the Philippines, this emphasis focused on two creation myths. Myth number 1 focuses on the Yliguynes and their two gods, Captan and Maguayen. On the other hand, myth number 2 focuses on the Tinguines, who believed in the beginning that there was only the sea and the sky. Jocano emphasizes how these myths reflects prehistoric Filipino culture as well as imagination and ancient thinking regarding human origin. Jocano shows the importance of acknowledging myths to further understand the “emergence and development of our prehistory culture’ (Jocano, 2001, p. 102).

Formative Phase

The Formative Phase symbolizes cultural development from ca. 50,000 to 500 BC. Within this phase, the emergence of new archaeological artifacts such as the first human fossils in the Tabon Cave emphasize human migration to the Philippines. In addition, artifacts found during this phase support the idea that there was developing culture in the region, in which were capable of adapting to their environment. These types of artifacts showed that there was a stone-tool, ceramic, and other economic industries that enabled tasks such as foraging, gathering, hunting, fishing, and horticulture. Jocano shows the true importance of this phase as it exemplified the unfolding of life and culture through the development of the stone tool and ceramic industries.

Incipient Phase

The Incipient Phase further emphasizes cultural development after the Formative Phase  from ca. 500 BC to AD 1 Millennium. Throughout this phase, radical advancements within Filipino culture began to develop, with the emergence of effective agriculture and manufacturing to develop large societies. The appearance of metals allowed for better tools and nicer cultural objects such as beads, which allowed for stratification of class within society. Jocano further emphasizes the advancements made in the ceramic industry, which led to progress in trade and the eventual use of jar burials in the Philippines. The Incipient Phase embarked a new era filled with the development of technology that allowed for ancient Filipinos to adapt to their environment effectively, which further enhanced their culture and survival.

Emergent Phase

The Emergent Phase also emphasizes cultural development from ca. AD 1st century to the 14th century. In this phase, the commencement of social and economic improvement with the appearance of domestication of plants and animals, which allowed for expanded trade, communities, and population growth. Jocano explains how community growth, writing, political  decentralization, and foreign trade allowed for social organization and better developed culture during the prehistoric Philippines.

Baranganic Phase

The Baranganic Phase highlights the last period of cultural development from ca. AD 14th century to the 16th century. The Barangay consisted of “the smallest sociopolitical unit of pre-colonial Philippine society,” that exemplified the development of social stratification and complex economy (Jocano, 2001, p. 154). Within this period, accounts from Spanish Friars provided vast information of written records that allow people like Jocano to argue that this ancient Filipino society was incredibly complex, despite foreign powers, and greatly influenced how civilization is maintained today in the Philippines.

Comparative Chronologies According to Laure Lee Junker

Another comparative chronology of archaeology in the Philippines is the Bais/Tanjay Regional Chronology by L.L. Junker. Junker dissects her chronology into the following seven phases: the Edjek Phase, the Solamillo Phase, the Aguilar Phase, the Santiago Phase, the Osmena Phase, the Spanish Phase, and the Historic Phase.

The Edjek Phase

The Edjek Phase was from ca. 2000-1500 B.C. This period in traditional chronology would be represented as the Neolithic Age.  

The Solamillo Phase

The Solamillo Phase was from ca. A.D. 0-500. This period in traditional chronology would be represented as the Iron age, or Metal Age according to the long history model.  

The Aguilar Phase

The Aguilar Phase was from ca. A.D. 500-1000.

The Santiago Phase

The Santiago Phase was from ca. A.D. 1100-1400.

The Osmena Phase

The Osmena Phase was from ca. A.D. 1400-1600.

The Spanish Phase

The Spanish Phase was from ca. A.D. 1600-1900.

The Historic Phase

The Historic Phase was from post to ca. A.D. 1600.

Current Archaeology

Much more research is needed to understand the latest period of Philippine archaeology. Current research focuses on rewriting colonial narratives and conserving Filipino heritage.

The National Museum of the Philippines

The mission of the National Museum of the Philippines is “to acquire, document, preserve, exhibit, and foster scholarly study and appreciation of works of art, specimens, and cultural and historical artifacts”. The museum is multi-faceted, including divisions of Anthropology, Archaeology, Cultural Properties, Museum Education, and more. The Archaeology division functions to conduct research to learn about the prehistory of the Philippines. The museum encourages community involvement by hosting events (music, art, science, workshops), teaching Filipino history by showcasing exhibits, and increasing awareness via newsletters and social media. The calendar of events and more information can be found on the official website: https://www.nationalmuseum.gov.ph/#page=page-1

The Ifugao Archaeological Project

Another way to get involved in Archaeology of the Philippines today is by participating in Community Archaeology projects. One example is Dr. Stephen Acabado’s Ifugao Archaeological Project, which works with Ifugao communities to address archaeological issues regarding landscape and community formation. This project encourages community involvement to actively conserve heritage, working to date the Ifugao Rice Terraces and resolve colonial discourses regarding antiquity. Acabado uses archaeology to reveal factual evidence of origin and colonial resistance to rewrite dominant narratives regarding Filipino origin, which are still currently based on Beyer’s Waves of Migration theory. For more information, visit: https://www.stephen-acabado.com/

See Also

This Wikipedia page for the History of Archaeology in the Philippines differs from related Wikipedia pages on this topic as we focus on the different comparative chronologies that stem away from the Three Age System and focus more on dating and categorizing significant artifacts from the Philippines in a more efficient, accurate way.  Through using comparative categories from Victor Paz, F. Landa Jocano, and Laura Lee Junker, it enables to categorize findings and artifacts in the different branches produced by such Philippine archaeologist. It also takes into account that the Three Age System does not serve as the most accurate method for categorization of Philippine artifacts as it is an European archaeological method of dating that does take into account with the development of technologies and people in the Philippines, nor the nuances. With the Philippine’s history being filled with colonization and exploitation by the Spanish and Americans, it is essential to recognize the biases and inaccuracy in using a European archaeological method as opposed to creating a new one to satisfy the categorization requirements. While one must recognize the importance of many European and/or American anthropologists and how they put the Philippine archipelago in the archaeological record, it is also important to highlight the importance of using Philippine comparative chronologies when explaining and examining the History of Archaeology in the Philippines.