Department of History, National University of Singapore

Philippine Archaeology: Status and Prospects Author(s): Karl L. Hutterer Source: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Sep., 1987), pp. 235-249 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Department of History, National University of Singapore Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070969 Accessed: 03/02/2010 15:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Department of History, National University of Singapore are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Southeast Asian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Vol. XVIII,

No.

Journal of Southeast Asian

Studies

September

1987

Philippine Archaeology:

Status and Prospects

KARLL.HUTTERER
Introduction The purpose of the present essay is not to present a history of Philippine archaeology; several preliminary attempts have been made in this regard which may be consulted.1 Rather, the aim of this paper is to pause for a moment and look across the landscape of to date, to ponder strength Philippine archaeology to assess what has been accomplished and weaknesses of the field at this time, and to consider future directions. Nevertheless, the shape of any landscape is the result of historical events and processes that need to be taken into account ifwe want to understand its present form and assess its future potential and development. Thus, itwill be necessary to include in the following thoughts historical and perspectives which will help to explain how and why certain concepts, methods research practices arose in the context of Philippine archaeology and came to determine our picture of Philippine prehistory. Clearly, perceptions about the nature and goals of archaeology have changed over the years, as have the methods by which archaeologists have tried to achieve these goals. An assessment will have to take these changes into account. We cannot blame our predeces sors for not achieving goals we have set ourselves. On the other hand, it is not unfair to bring the changing goals themselves into closer view and examine them for substance. This, however, can only be done on the basis of our contemporary understanding of the discipline. It must be said at the outset that such judgements should be made and per and should not reflect personal and impersonally, rationally and dispassionately, subjective matters such as the abilities and intentions of the various scholars whose works are being discussed. After all, the boundaries of the intellectual frameworks that guide our work are largely determined by our training, the writing and research of our contem porary colleagues, and the expectations of the audience to whom we address the results of our work. The following pages contain, therefore, neither praise nor attack; they intend to be no more than a stock taking. ceived The Pioneers Sullivan relates that when he was asked in the 1920s to write an article on the Philippine he was informed by the American Museum of Natural Stone Age for an encyclopedia,
in 1974", in Philippine Studies: Archaeology Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Archaeology, (Dekalb, Geography, Psychology Northern Illinois University, "The Philippines: 10, pp. 15-33; A. E. Evangelista, 1974), Special report No. to 1950", Asian Perspectives in the Philippines 12 (1969): 97-104; M. Sullivan, Archaeology "Archaeology in the Philippines", 30 (1956): 68-79. Antiquity Solheim II, "Potsherds Philippine and Literature *W. G. and Postholes:

235

236
History

Karl L. Hutterer

the Philippines did not have a Stone Age.2 Much has that, to their knowledge, in Philippine archaeology since then. Indeed, the beginning of systematic and happened research in the archipelago can be fixed around 1922, consciously pursued archaeological various findings had been made earlier and reported in both scientific and although
accounts.

popular

The French naturalist and explorer Alfred Marche is usually credited with having been in the Philippines. In 1881, during the first the first to conduct archaeological explorations of two prolonged visits to the islands, he explored and excavated in a number of caves and and Catanduanes, open sites in collecting human skeletal materials, Chinese Marinduque ornaments of shell, glass, bronze, and gold, wooden coffins and burial urns.3 His pottery, approach was characterized by an almost indiscriminate interest in exotic phenomena, be typical of many naturalists of they geological, ethnological, biological or archaeological, can hardly of archaeological materials the time. By today's standards, his collecting as archaeological the first deliberately research. Yet, his findings constituted qualify collected evidence of Philippine culture before Spanish conquest and presaged two major themes that were to dominate Philippine archaeology well past the middle of the 20th century: Chinese trade and jar burials. scholars before the turn of the There are a few other instances of visiting European if not engaging in systematic archaeological research, at least collected century who, some archaeological The in connection with their other investigations. information in 1859-60 Fedor Jagor came to the Philippines German ethnologist and Asia specialist as part of an extensive trip through Asia. He collected information on prehistoric burial remains that had been found in various parts of the islands and investigated himself some burial caves containing log coffins in Samar.4 Finally, the German chemist Alexander in 1881-82 burial caves on Samal Island and reported log investigated Schadenberg coffins, earthenware jars, Chinese porcelain, ornaments of various kind and skeletal
remains.5

early findings and reports had little influence on concepts of Philippine culture before European contact. Indeed, early culture historical notions were based on history a judgement concerning the relative primitiveness of various populations of the islands, several events of settlement with the assumption that the islands may have experienced successive groups of immigrants and that contemporary more primitive groups were by descendants of respectively earlier inhabitants. This idea can be traced back at least as far These as the 17th century to the Jesuit writer Francisco Colin who distinguished between three groups, representing three different historical settlement events: the lowland Malays, the and the negritos of the interior forests.6 When more systematic upland populations, the notion that the Philippines were settled at least in the mid-1920s, archaeology began in three different stages by progressively more advanced populations appears to have finds were interpreted on this basis. been basically accepted, and archaeological take-over of the The Philippine revolt against Spain and the subsequent American islands had a profound
2M. Sullivan, 3A. Marche,

impact on scientific

and scholastic

activities

in the Philippines.

4F. Jagor, 5A. Schadenberg,

30 (1956): 68-79. in the Philippines", Antiquity "Archaeology Book Guild, Luzon and Palawan 1970), pp. (Manila: The Filipiniana and Hall, Travels in the Philippines 1875). (London: Chapman "Die Bewohner von Sued-Mindanao und der Insel Samal", Zeitschrift

165-98.

fuer Ethnologie Funda

17 (1885): 8-37, 45-57. 6F. Colin, Labor Evang?lica, De su Provincia cian, Progressos

Ministerios

de la Compa??a de Jesus, de los Obreros Apoostylicos en las Islas Filipinas, 2nd edition (Madrid: Pablo Pastella, 1663).

Philippine Archaeology

237

Among other things, the new colonial administrators were desperate for precise and in their charge and, for this information about the islands and populations detailed these created a variety of institutions to collect the desired data. Among purpose, institutions was the Bureau of Non-Christian later renamed the Bureau of Tribes, a vigorous program of Ethnological Survey, which, at least for a few years, maintained research and publications. Oddly enough, however, no archaeological ethnographic were conducted or promoted in that context. The main reason for this was investigations perhaps that, unlike the situation in Europe where archaeology was already fairly developed at the turn of the century, itwas still very rudimentary in the United States. Americans were still wrestling with the question of how the prehistoric remains that had a country turned up on their continent related to the living Indians. In the Philippines, at that time saw as an extension of theWestern that many of the Americans frontier, the was to learn the location, distribution, and subdivisions of living societies primary worry and cultures rather than to understand their ancient histories. the first major systematic archaeological under Yet, project in the Philippines, came about on the taken in 1922-25 by Carl E. Guthe of the University of Michigan, invitation of Dean C. Worcester. The latter had, until 1914, been a powerful member of the insular government and was the founder of the Bureau of Ethnological Survey. By the had been removed from power, time this project got underway, however, Worcester American influence was waning and, indeed, America had at least in principle agreed to relinquish colonial control. The impetus for the research project was the continuous and extensive discovery of Chinese ceramics in Philippine soil, usually in connection with burial remains. The question arose as to the nature of prehistoric contacts between the Philippines and China and of Chinese influence on Philippine culture.7 The University of context Michigan expedition was, therefore, to investigate the nature and archaeological
of "intrusive ceramics".

his work in the Visayan concentrated islands and northern Mindanao. He 542 sites, 99 of them caves.8 He made surface collections from all of them investigated a number of small excavations and undertook commissioned or, more commonly, to be undertaken by local agents. It has occasionally been remarked that excavations Guthe's archaeological field methods left much to be desired. This is certainly true by standards. However, it has to be kept inmind that in 1922 archaeological research today's was just developing in the United States and that Guthe himself was a pioneer in that respect. Essentially nothing was known about Philippine prehistory at that time so that, Guthe in nature. The most serious by necessity, Guthe's approach had to be exploratory is that stratigraphie information ismissing in virtually all cases. However, shortcoming to the concept of stratigraphy and stratigraphie association was just then beginning in the United States under the influence of Neis C. Nelson and A. V. Kidder.9 It emerge goes to Guthe's credit that he kept scrupulous records on the sites he investigated and the artifacts he collected from them, which is farmore than can be said about several projects in Philippine archaeology carried out as recently as the 1970s.
in the Philippines, and B. Laufer, Chinese Pottery 1 12, No. Series, Vol. Anthropological to the Philippine of Natural History, of the Chinese "Relations (Chicago: 1912); B. Laufer, 1725 (1907): 248-57. Collection Islands", Smithsonian Miscellaneous "The University of Michigan 8C. E. Guthe, American 29 (1927): Expedition", Philippine Anthropologist 7F. C. Cole Field Museum "Distribution of Sites Visited of Michigan 69-76; 1922-25", by the University Expedition Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 10 (1928): 76-89. and J. A. Sabloff, A History 9G. R. Willey of American Archaeology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman,

1973).

238
Guthe's work had

Karl L. Hutterer

little immediate and directly measurable influence on Philippine archaeology, primarily because he published only four very brief papers about limited aspects of his field research, three of them in a relatively unknown journal.10 Neverthe of less, the size and systematic nature of the collection he deposited at the Museum of the University of Michigan enabled several other scholars to make Anthropology conducted studies, and published a series pioneering contributions to the field. Aga-Oglu of papers, about the glazed Oriental ceramics in the collection, clarifying for the first time the origin and dating of certain types of trade many important questions concerning wares.11 Solheim studied the earthenware pottery and incorporated a detailed report of the results of his investigation into his seminal study on Philippine prehistoric pottery.12 of a broader framework of This work played an important role in his development relationships of Southeast Asian prehistoric pottery in general.13 in the first half of this Without doubt, the dominant figure in Philippine archaeology century was H. Otley Beyer, a man without formal training in archaeology but with one year of graduate education in anthropology at Harvard.14 Although he had developed a general interest in Philippine anthropology and culture history by the time he arrived in the islands in 1905, he did not become deeply involved in archaeology until 1926 when at the Novaliches dam north of Manila turned up prehistoric industrial excavations and from that time on became artifacts. Beyer conducted investigations at Novaliches
29 (1927): American of Michigan "The University 10C.E. Guthe, Anthropologist Expedition", Philippine of Michigan of Sites Visited "Distribution 1922-25", by the University Expedition Papers of the from the Philip 10 (1928):76-89; "Gold-decorated Teeth Academy Michigan of Science, Arts, and Letters Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 20 (1934): 7-22; "A Burial Site pine Islands", Papers of theMichigan 69-76; on the Island of Samar, 23 (1937): 29-35. Philippine Islands", Papers of theMichigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters

Art Quarterly 9 (1946): 314-27; in the Philippines", Found nK. Aga-Oglu, "Ming "Ying Ch'ing Porcelain Art Quarterly 11 (1948): 201-217; Jars in the University of Michigan Collection", Export Blue and White Far Eastern Ceramic and Early Blue and White", the Ying Ch'ing Shu-Fu "The Relationship between in the Philippines", Far Eastern Pot Excavated 8 (1949): 27-33; Bulletin "Early Blue and White Wine of Annamese "Five Examples Bulletin Ceramic 2, 10 (1950): 65-71; of Michigan, Pottery", University Museum and Problems of Prove 'Swatow' Wares: 5 (1954): 6-11; "The So-called Types of Art Bulletin from Sites in the Philippines", Asian Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 7,2 (1955): 1-34; "Ming Porcelain Archives from Sites in the Philippines", 5 (1961): 243-52; of the Chinese Art Perspectives "Ming Porcelain nance",

in the Philippine 17 (1963): 7-19; Major Types of Chinese and Siamese Ceramics Collec Society of America at the Manila Trade Pottery Seminar, 18-24 March tion of the University 1968, of Michigan, Paper presented 9 (1973): 15-20. Bowls of Lien-Tzu Manila, Type", Ars Orientalis "Ming Blue and White Philippines; 12W. G. Relationships 13W. G. Historical, Region, Kalanay Zamora pines", Science Pottery Solheim II, The Archaeology of Central Bureau of Printing, 1964). (Manila: Traditions Solheim II, "Two Pottery and Linguistic Studies Philippines: of Late A Study Chiefly Times of the Iron Age and Its

Prehistoric China,

in Southeast and

Press, 1967), pp. 15-22; (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University ed. M.D. in Studies in Philippine Past and Future Research", Anthropology, Cave Sites, Masbate, Philip 1967), pp. 151-74; "The Batungan (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, II (Honolulu: Social ed. W. G. Solheim Science Congress, at the Eighth Pacific in Anthropology "The Kalanay Series No. 2, pp. 20-62; and Pacific Archaeology Research Institute, 1968), Asian Pottery Tradition: Complex", 97-108;

Archaeological, ed. F.S. Drake

on Southern

South East Asia

in Asia", the Hong Kong "The Sa-Huynh

Asian to Sa-huynh", 3 "Introduction 20 (1957): 279-88; Artibus Asiae Perspectives 3 (1959): 177-88; The in Southeast Asia", Asian Perspectives Pottery "Sa-huynh Related (1959): A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Manila: Bureau Archaeology of Central Philippines: Asian Perspectives of the Sa-Huynh Kalanay of Printing, Pottery Tradition", 1964); "Further Relationships in Early Chinese Art and its Possible "Prehistoric 8 (1964): 196-210; Influence Pottery of Southeast Asia", Intercultural Arts Press, 1972). in the Pacific Basin, ed. N. Barnard, Vol. 2, pp. 507-532 (New York: 12 (1969): 1-18. 14W.G. Solheim II, "H. Otley Beyer", Asian Perspectives

Philippine Archaeology

239

There is considerable about the captivated by Philippine archaeology. uncertainty he himself referred to a num methods of field investigations he employed. Although it is doubtful that any of them met ber of excavations he conducted in the archipelago, even the most rudimentary of stratigraphie and provenience control requirements and record keeping. He assembled a vast collection of artifacts, most of them through "collaborators" and from collectors who sent the materials to him from the provinces for small payments. Much of this collection was destroyed in fighting during the final days of the Second World War inManila, the rest was dispersed after Beyer's death in 1967. at the University of Anthropology Because of his position as head of the Department of the Philippines, and because of his success in collecting and controlling virtually all artifactual and written sources pertaining to Philippine prehistory, Beyer was, for at least he never published 30 years, the unchallenged authority in the field. Unfortunately, a site report, although he did publish a number of general and interpretive papers and the most important of them being a general list of archaeological monographs, findings by province,15 a reconstruction of the Philippine Neolithic with reference to East Asia and the Pacific,16 and a popular prehistory of the islands.17 As an archaeologist, Beyer was studies.18 The interpretation of the strictly in typological and distributional he saw was based entirely on culture-historical notions linked with the study of patterns In this, he followed a venerable tradition and Southeast Asian ethnography. Philippine mentioned above and was particularly indebted to writings and communications by the Indonesian archaeologist van Stein Callenfels and the Austrian culture historian Heine interested Geldern. Because of the way in which he collected artifacts and kept records, his failure to publish detailed site reports, and the loss of virtually all his collection, Beyer's field researches are of no further value today. It can also be stated that his interpretive of racially and frameworks, entailing a highly elaborated series of migratory movements into the Philippines, has stood the test of time very poorly. ethnically distinct populations His work is today primarily of historical interest. Due to his controlling position, Philip pine archaeology and prehistory consisted, for several decades, of his work and word. Because of this, much of Philippine archaeology in the decades immediately following World War IImust be understood primarily as a reaction to Beyer and his reconstruction of Philippine prehistory. If nothing else, he determined the agenda of the field for many years beyond his own active involvement. Indeed, in this sense his shadow reaches in the that, with regard to the closing this section, it might perhaps be mentioned of archaeological research and interpretation before 1950, the Philippines was quality states, most hardly worse off than other countries of Southeast Asia. As Heine-Geldern19 of the archaeological evidence for the region at that time consisted of materials collected from the surface without sufficient provenience control, or improperly excavated by untrained workers. 1980s. Before

15H.O. Beyer,

"Outline

Review

of Philippines

Archaeology

by Islands

and Provinces",

Philippine

Journal Islands

of Science 11 (1947): 205-374.

and East Asian Archaeology 16H.O. Beyer, Philippine to the Origin of the Pacific and its Relation Bulletin No. 29 (Quezon City: National Research of the Philippines, Council Population, 1948). 17H.O. Beyer and J.C. de Vera, Philippine Post, 1947). Saga (Manila: The Evening 18W.G. Solheim 12 (1969): 4. II, "H. Otley Beyer", Asian Perspectives 19R.Heine-Geldern, "Research on Southeast Asia: Problems and Suggestions", American

Anthropologist

48 (1946): 149-75.

240
The Last Thirty Years

Karl L. Hutterer

With Beyer's declining health and influence in the 1950s, archaeological work passed into the hands of a group of younger people most of whom had still worked with him, or received training from him, but who had done postgraduate work in either ethnology or archaeology at American universities R.B. Fox, F. Landa (e.g., A.E. Evangelista, Jocano, W.G. Solheim II). The revitalized National Museum was to become the major base of operations, of the Philip although some work was sponsored by the University none of them and, eventually, also several universities outside Manila. Although pines ever came to control the field as thoroughly as Beyer had once done, two of them Division of the emerged as the leaders in the field: Fox, as head of the Anthropology came to direct very large and highly visible fielrJ projects; and Solheim National Museum, had amajor impact through his work of defining ceramic complexes and traditions as well as his extensive comparative work throughout the Southeast Asian region. concentrated at first on a series of small excavations of caves and open sites involving "Neolithic", "Iron Age", and "jar burial" remains.20 These excavations, and the first Philippine radiocarbon dates obtained in connection with them, indicated that, to Beyer's assumptions, pottery predated the appearance of iron and at least contrary some jar burials had an antiquity of more than 2,000 years.21 With this, the stage was set Activities for a revision of the inherited framework, and such a revision became in fact a major concern for some of the leading Philippine archaeologists. It is one of the ironies of revisionist movements that, even though they are intent on change, they are essentially defined in terms of the subject under debate. Thus, in the younger generation of scholars was anxious to adjust and Philippine archaeology, refine dating of prehistoric events and phenomena Beyer had dealt with, and they were set on rejecting the more extreme forms of his migratory diffusionism.22 With few
20R.B. Report (1957): Manila Fieldwork "The Bato Caves, A Preliminary Fox and A.E. Province, Evangelista, Sorsogon Philippines: of a Jar Burial-stone Tool Assemblage", Journal of East Asiatic Studies 6 University of Manila of Cagraray "The Cave Archaeology Island, Albay Province, 49-55; University of Philippines", Journal on Studies 6 (1957b): 57-68; W. G. Solheim II, "Preliminary Report of East Asiatic Journal of East Asiatic Studies 1 (1951): 70-76; in San Narciso, University Tayabas", of Manila in Isabela, Philippines", Journal of East Asiatic Studies University of Manila Pottery Manufacture

"Ibanag Journal of Science 83 (1954): 57-68; "Jar 3 (1954): 305-308; "The Makabog Sites", Philippine Burial-jar to Jar Burial in the Babuyan and Its Relationships and Batanes Islands and Central Burial Philippines "The Batungan Cave Sites, Elsewhere in the Far East", Philippine Journal of Science 89 (1960): 115-48; at the Eight Pacific Science Congress, II (Hon in Anthropology ed. W. G. Solheim Masbate, Philippines", olulu: Social Science Research 21R.B. Fox, historic "Philippine and Pacific Archaeology Institute, 1968), Asian and Carbon-14 Science Review Dating", Some Intrusive Archaeological Materials "Identifying Prehistory 3 (1965): 86-102; "H. Otley pp. 63-87; Series No. 2, pp. 20-62. (Manila) 4(10): 4-8. in Philippine Found Proto

22A.E. Evangelista, Sites", Asian in Local

Studies

Discoveries

Archaeology", in Studies in Oceanic Culture History, cance", Pacific Anthropological P.B. Bishop Museum, Times: A Handbook Prehistoric for the First National Commission of

in the Context of Post-war Beyer's Neolithic from the Philippine Islands and their Signifi "Type-sites ed. R. L. Green and M. Kelly, Vol. 2, pp. 28-35 (Honolulu: No. in Records 12, 1971); R.B. Fox, The Philippines

UNESCO

and Culture Exhibition of Filipino Prehistory (Manila: of Chinese the Philippines, Record 1959); "The Archaeological Studies 15 (1967): 41-62; in the Tabon Caves and "Excavation Influences in the Philippines", Philippine in Philippine Sol in Studies in Philippine Some Problems pp. 88-116; W.G. Anthropology, Chronology", A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships heim II, The Archaeology (Ma of Central Philippines: in Past and Future Research", nila: Bureau of Printing, Pottery Tradition: 1964); "The Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Studies

Zamora in Philippine ed. M.D. 1967), pp. 151-74; (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, Anthropology, A Study Chiefly The Archaeology of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Manila: of Central Philippines: of the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Asian Bureau of Printing, Pottery Tradition", 1964); "Further Relationships 8 (1964): 196-210. Perspectives

Philippine Archaeology

241

exceptions, however, they remained essentially culture historians in a diffusionist mold and took over from Beyer an artifact-oriented practice of archaeology. The latter implies an assumption of close, and more or less universal correspondence between the presence of certain formal characteristics in artifacts and the existence of certain cultural and social ? and characteristics (e.g., polished stone axes agriculture; flaked stone tools?hunting Culture history is then defined in terms of the appearance and disappear collecting, etc.). ance of such formal characteristics and, hence, the introduction or demise of certain cultural practices. Only Jocano, a cultural anthropologist with strong interests in archaeology, attempted to free himself from this outlook by introducing a developmental framework derived from one in use inMesoamerica.23 Solheim has recently taken up Jocano's suggestion and proposed a somewhat modified developmental terminology.24 that the content behind the latter terminology, It should be noted, however, that is, reconstructions the proposed remain essentially and explanations, archaeological and diffusionist. culture-historical Two major themes dominated the work of the three decades under discussion: the to other Asian regions during late prehistoric times, as of the Philippines relationship indicated by the presence of glazed ceramics from the Asian mainland in sites of that and the Philippine "Palaeolithic". In both cases, the discussion was propelled by period; a series of large-scale excavations (plus several smaller ones) and some rather spectacular of glazed import ceramics had been a collection many times larger. How containing these ceramics were carried only archaeologists were interested in however. Many wealthy Filipinos as well as foreign residents began imported ceramics, to collect these artifacts, first as curious witnesses of the country's past, and soon as an expression of leisured dilettantism and elevated social and economic status. With this, a race ensued between archaeologists and looters, the latter supplying an increasingly voracious ? and lucrative ? antiquities market. Nevertheless, smaller or larger portions of several other major "porcelain sites" were excavated, among them Sta. Ana in a series of sites on the shores of Lake Laguna;27 a large site underlying the Manila;26 present City of Cebu;28 and a site on the mouth of the Agusan River.29 Much of this work concentrated on the rescue of important and valuable artifacts, and the archaeological analysis and interpretation of the resulting data focused chiefly on typological and above, a sizeable body findings. As mentioned collected by Guthe, and Beyer had accumulated ever, the first systematic excavations of large sites out in 1958 under the supervision of Fox.25 Not

23F. L. Jocano, Filipino

Prehistory

Anthropology,

on 1 (1965): 53-72; "Beyer's Theory Filipino Cultural Heritage", Lipunan "Rethinking and Culture: An Alternative to the Problem", in Studies in Philippine Approach for Advanced Center Quezon Studies, Philippines City: Philippine Prehistory (Diliman, in The People and Art of the Philippines, II (Los Angeles: Solheim Museum Two 15th Century Burial Sites ed. G. Casai, R. T. of Cultural History, Philippines",

1975).
II, "Philippine Prehistory", G.R. Ellis and W. Jr., E.S. Casino; of California, University 1981), pp. 17-83. Jose, 25R. B. ^R.B. Fox, Fox "The Calatagan and A.M. Excavations: 24W.G. Solheim G.

in Batangas,

Philippine Studies 1 (1959): 321-90.

27R.C.P. Tenazas, at Santa Ana (Manila: National Museum, n.d.). Legaspi, Excavations A Report on theArchaeology of San Carlos Excavations of the Locsin-University n.d.). Picture Sites of a Pre-Spanish at Suatun, Cebuano Community in Pila,

Laguna (Manila: Privately Printed, An Archaeological 28K. L. Hutterer, of San Carlos, 1973). Studies 29L.M. Burton, 25 (1977): "Settlement 95-112.

(Cebu City: University Report", Philippine

and Burial

Butuan

City: A Preliminary

242

KarlL.

Hutterer

studies of the intrusive ceramics30 and on assessing the influence of China chronological on late prehistoric Philippine culture. The second major theme of Philippine archaeology of the period between 1950 and 1980 focused on the "Palaeolithic". Already Beyer had predicted great antiquity of human settlement in the islands, possibly equalling that of Java. This possibility seemed to receive support when in 1957 no less an authority than von Koenigswald thought that stone tools found in northern Luzon near exposures of mid-Pleistocene vertebrate fossils to lithic artifacts from Java where they were thought to represent showed resemblances artifacts of Homo erectus.31 When in 1962, in the course of ethnographic fieldwork, several rich clusters of caves were discovered in remote areas of western Palawan, they seemed to hold a potential for confirming this possibility. Long-range and intensive were undertaken excavations and explorations under the direction archaeological of R.B. Fox. In the largest cave, Tabon Cave, a sequence of archaeological deposits was found dating from ca. 9,000 to before 30,000 b.p.32Other caves and rockshelters times to the contact period. assemblages ranging from terminal Pleistocene Fox reported summarily on all the major sites, itwas the Pleistocene deposits Although that were generally considered most exciting and significant. While the findings were not of the Homo erectus level, they seemed to point in the right direction and did rival the findings of Niah Cave in Sarawak in terms of antiquity.33 On the basis of the findings in Palawan, it seemed more than worthwhile to subject the open sites in northern Luzon to more intensive investigations. Thus, a long-range field project was begun there in 1971 and is still underway at this writing (1983).34 The work has involved extensive geological research on the putatively mid-Pleistocene open sites as well as archaeological in cave sites with deep deposits,35 about 20 km to the investigations east of the open sites. While the vertebrate fossils found at the open sites have still not been subjected to detailed expert analysis, there is little doubt that they are of roughly mid-Pleistocene age. However, during the twelve years of intensive research, it has not been possible to ascertain a single case of indubitable association between fossils and lithic artifacts, and it remains questionable if the stone tools are of Pleistocene antiquity at all.36 Indeed, lithic assemblages of similar character have been excavated in the cave sites but are there invariably associated with radiocarbon dates in the Holocene range.37
30L. Locsin 31G.H.R. Northern 32R.B. and C.Y. Locsin, von Koenigswald, Philippines The Tabon Oriental Ceramics Discovered on "Preliminary Islands", Asian Report Perspectives in the Philippines a Newly-discovered 2 (1958): 69-70. 1967). (Tokyo: Tuttle, Stone Age Culture from

contained

Luzon, Fox,

on Palawan and Excavations Island, Explorations (Manila: National Museum, 1970). Philippines of Borneo", Asian Perspectives 13 (1970): 17-45. 33T. Harrison, "The Pre-history in Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia, ed. F. Ikawa-Smith ^R.B. Fox, "The Philippine Paleolithic", (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), pp. 59-S5. Caves: Archaeological 35C.F. Vondra; Northern (Boulder, M.E. Luzon, Philippines", Colorado: Westview D.R. Mathisen; inHominid Press, Jr. and E.P. Kvale, "Plio-Pleistocene of Burggraf, Geology Sites: Their Geologic Settings, ed. G. Rapp. Jr. and C.F. Vondra and R.M. Cochran, and 1981), pp. 255-310; R.J. Wasson "Geological in the Cagayan Valley, Northern the Philip Luzon, 5 (1979): 1-26; N.H. Bondoc, A Re-investigation of and Kalinga-Apayao, Anthropological Papers No. 6 (Manila: Sites Asia

Geomorphological pines", Modern

on Archaeological Perspectives in Southeast Research Quaternary

the Espinosa Sites, Cagayan Archaeological National Museum, 1979). the Southeast ^K.L. Hutterer, "Reinterpreting Golson and R. Jones

Asian Palaeolithic", in Sunda and Sahul, ed. J. Allen, J. Press, 1976), pp. 31-71. (New York: Academic of the 37F.G. Henson, The Flake Tool Industry of Laurente Cave, Master's thesis, Anthropology, University The Technological and Functional Analyses 1978; W. P. Ronquillo, of Lithic Flake Tools From Philippines, Rabel Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines (Manila: National Museum, Anthropological Papers No. 13,1981).

Philippine

Archaeology

243

By and large, palaeolithic archaeology in the Philippines has so far concentrated mainly issues of typology, assemblage composition, dating, and the question of hominid into the islands in connection with Pleistocene migration(s) landbridges. Little has been or to investigate the human done with regard to palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, Similarly, there has been ecology and social organization of ancient hunter-gatherers. little effort to understand why apparently "palaeolithic" tool technologies survive very until very late prehistoric times.38 At this time, we can be reasonably assured only of the fact that humans are present on the island of Palawan at some time before 30,000 b.p. on Dates for the rest of the islands so far go back no further than ca. 11,500 b.p.39Beyond this statement, most other aspects of the existence of "palaeolithic" societies as well as of in the Philippines remain murky. later prehistoric hunter-gatherers research I have stressed that two major themes tended to dominate archaeological in the Philippines during the past thirty years: prehistoric trade inAsiatic glazed ceramics and the Palaeolithic. there were a number of other topics that surfaced Naturally, that period. Prominent among them was the topic of jar burials. The recurrently during

most notable and important new findings of jar burials were made in several caves of the Tabon complex in Palawan, as well as in caves on the Kulaman Plateau of Cotabato, western Mindanao.40 The new findings added further evidence to the already known diversity of jar burial practices and seemed to support Solheim's earlier argument,41 that the range of variation evident among jar burial brought forth against Beyer, made it unlikely that they represented a single culture that diffused through assemblages the migration of a single people. Solheim thought itmore likely that the practice diffused a population movement. No significant new interpretations the without concerning nature of jar burials were attempted on the basis of the more recent findings. The question of jar burials occasionally became entangled with the question of other burial practices that either had some vague formal similarities to the former or were sometimes found in association with them. Burial in log coffins, often in the shape of boats ("boat-shaped coffins") must be mentioned here42 as well as interment in ceramic containers not necessarily resembling jars, for instance burials in pottery boxes with

A Review of the Flaked and J.P. Wesson, "Models in Philippine Stone 38P.J.F. Coutts Prehistory: Industries", Quarterly Philippine of Culture and Society 8 (1980): 203-259; R.B. Fox, The Tabon Caves, in Early South East Asia, ed. R.B. "The Philippines the First Millennium Smith and W. B.C.", During Press 1979), pp. 227-41; W. Peterson, Watson Anomalous (New York: Oxford University Archaeological Ph.D. and Models Sites of Northern Luzon dissertation, of Southeast Asian Prehistory, Anthropology, in and J.S. Neri, Archaeological of Hawaii, Solheim II, A.M. 1974; W.G. Survey University Legaspi No. 8,1979); A. Spoehr, Zamboanga and Southeastern Mindanao Monograph (Manila: National Museum, to Ethnic Diversity, No. 1 (Pittsburgh: University Sulu: An Archaeological Approach Ethnology Monograph of Pittsburgh, and K. L. Hutterer, 1973); H.D. Archaeology Tuggle Studies 6 (2), 1972. Samar, Philippines, Leyte-Samar and Geomorphological and R.M. Cochran, 39R.J. Wassim "Geological Sites in the Cagayan Valley", pp. 1-26. ^R.B. Fox, The Tabon Lebak, Cotabato", and Archaeological (1964): of the Sohoton Perspectives Area, Southwestern

on Archaeological

75-82; 6 (1965): 237-40; Islands of Mindanao, Anthropos (Cotabato), Philippines", Studies in Philippine Kulaman Fenefe Cave Excavation, Plateau, Mindanao", Islands. and Batanes 41W.G. Solheim II, Jar Burial in the Babuyan 42R.C.P. Practices Tenazas, in Southeast "The Boat-coffin Asia", Philippine Burial

of Seminoho Cave in "The Archaeology E.B. and C.T. Sheldon, Caves; Kurjack, 17 (1970): 5-18; M.N. Maceda, Silliman Journal "Preliminary Report on Ethnographic 59 Fieldwork in the Kulaman Islands of Mindanao, Plateau, Anthropos Philippines", on the Archaeological Plateau Excavation in the Kulaman "Second Preliminary Report "A Preliminary Anthropology, Report on the pp. 265-72. to Similar

of the Philippines and Its Relation Complex Culture and Society Quarterly 1(1973): 19-25. of

244

Karl L. Hutterer

the approach to these phenomena gabled roofs found in southern Negros.43 Again, has been essentially culture-historical. In studying the occurrence of boat-shaped coffins inmany parts of Southeast Asian and Oceania, Tenazas came to the conclusion that the practices concerned are highly diverse and represent, therefore, cultural convergence rather than diffusion from a single source. An unusual assemblage of burials in ceramic boxes found in open sites on the island of Negros have received some tentative interpre tations within amore processual and developmental framework.44 These anthropological need, however, further empirical support. The burials from Negros belong to a larger group of a wide variety of archaeological that have, on the basis of previous knowledge from the Philippines and phenomena traditional been labelled as "anomalous".45 In this group may be interpretations, counted, for instance, certain habitation sites found in northeastern Luzon,46 and sites in the eastern Central Philippines.47 Although yielding small blade tool assemblages Peterson has argued that the anomaly of such sites is more apparent than real, result frameworks and research methodolo ing from the use of inappropriate conceptual little has been done so far to explicate the place of these sites in the context of gies,48 Philippine islands. prehistory and in terms of cultural and social evolution within the Philippine

Certainly the most detailed and specific picture of Philippine culture history before rely heavily on the Spanish contact has been assembled by Solheim.49 His reconstructions of prehistoric pottery that he has been carrying on over a period of more than thirty study years in the Philippines and throughout Southeast Asia. The groundwork for his concepts was laid with the analysis of materials he excavated in the disturbed Kalanay Cave site in and the materials Guthe had collected in the central Philippines. On the basis Masbate of these investigations, he defined four prehistoric pottery complexes in the Philippines Bau, Loboc), tracing the first two to specific areas of derivation (Kalanay, Novaliches, their introduction with some sort of population outside the islands and associating flux.50 On the basis of relationships he saw between pottery of these two complexes and prehistoric pottery from other Southeast Asian areas, he defined broader traditions the Philippines, Solheim now recognizes at Bau-Malay).51 Within (Sa-Huynh-Kalanay,
on the Magsuhot in Bacong, Negros Oriental, 43R.C.P. Tenazas, "A Progress Report Excavation Summer Culture and Society 2 (1974): 133-55. 1974", Philippine Quarterly of A Comparative Structure in Three Pre ^R.C.P. Tenazas, Study of Settlement Patterns and Socio-religious Ph.D. in the Philippines, of San historic Iron Age Communities dissertation, Anthropology, University 1977. Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines, Sites. Anomalous 45W. Peterson, Archaeological of Two Archaeological 46W. Peterson, "Summary Report in Oceania 9 (1974): 26-35. and Physical Anthropology 47D.J. Scheans, Central Philippines", 48K. L. Hutterer, K.L. Hutterer and R.L. Asian Perspectives Cherry, 13 (1970):

Sites

from North-eastern Blade

Luzon", Tool

Archaeology from the

"A Newly 179-81.

Discovered Asian

Industry Sequence",

"An Evolutionary 17 (1976): 221-42. Anthropology 49W.G. Solheim II, The Archaeology 50W.G. Solheim II, The Archaeology 51W. G. Pottery Solheim in Southeast II, "Introduction Asia", Asian

Approach of Central of Central

to the Southeast

Cultural

Current

Asian Kalanay Pottery Tradition", in Historical, in Southeast toric Times Asia", South East Asia and the Hong Kong Region, 1967), pp. 15-22; "The Sa-Huynh-Kalanay

and "Philippine Prehistory". Philippines , pp. 192-213. Philippines to Sa-huynh", Asian Perspectives 3 (1959): 97-108; "Sa-huynh Related of the Sa-Huynh "Further Relationship 177-88; Perspectives 3(1959): of Late Prehis "Two Pottery Traditions 196-210; Perspectives 8(1964): Archaeological, ed. F.S. Drake Pottery and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, Press, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Tradition: Past and Future Research", Studies in

Philippine

Archaeology

245

least four pottery complexes related to the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Tradition: Tabon, and Asin.52 Kalanay, Bagupantao, in many cases, the similarities in decorative motifs and styles as well as in While, vessel forms within pottery traditions are quite striking, and the suggestion of historical relationship is therefore strong, the nature of this relationship has been far from clear. in recent publications, Solheim has suggested that the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay However, Tradition is closely linked with the spread of the Austronesians through Southeast Asia and into Oceania.53 In order to avoid potential confusion by using a linguistic term, he has introduced the term "Nusantao" for early peoples speaking Austronesian languages and has proposed that they represent a maritime population that evolved in an area the southern Philippines, eastern Borneo, and western New Guinea.54 The encompassing Nusantao are envisioned as sailors and maritime traders, thus allowing for a transfer of formal elements of the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Tradition within a variety of social and cultural contexts. Solheim has been unabashedly frank in admitting the conjectural nature of his propo sals. Clearly, a vast amount-of more archaeological data will be needed before they can be considered empirically supported or tested. Indeed, some aspects of his vision are not directly amenable to empirical verification. The most important order of business is to construct a significant number of detailed and complete local archaeological sequences throughout Southeast Asia. Presently available fragmentary data from scattered isolated sites are simply not sufficient to support such an extensive interpretive structure. How ever, it is not simply the amount of data that is at stake here; we need data of a different kind than those that have traditionally been collected.551 will return to this point below. no matter how one feels about Solheim's proposals, it needs to be stressed Meanwhile, that his proposals have the virtue of viewing Philippine archaeology firmly within the broader context of Southeast Asia. Emerging Issues

Over the last ten years or so, a series of issues have emerged, at least in part in interac tion with developments in archaeological theory and method in theWest, that are likely to become major themes in archaeological research in the Philippines during the coming years. None of these issues are entirely new, but the explicitness with which they are being formulated and the methods and techniques through which they are being approached
generally are.

ed. M.D. Philippine Anthropology, historic Pottery of Southeast Asia", N. Barnard, Vol. 1 (1972): 507-532 52W.G. Solheim 53W.G. Solheim and Consequence", 54W. G. Solheim II, "Philippine II, "Reflections Asian

"Pre City: Alemar-Phoenix, (Quezon 1967), pp. 151-74; Chinese Art and Its Possible in the Pacific Basin, ed. Influence Intercultural Arts Press, 1972). (New York: p. 150. Prehistory", Zamora in Early on

the New Data of Southeast Asian Prehistory: Austronesian Origin 18 (1975): 146-60. Perspectives Irian Jaya and the Origin of the Nusantao" II, "Coastal ("Austronesian Speaking in Le Peuplement Indus d'Archipel Nippon Et Des Isles Du Pacifie: Chronologie, People" Paleogeographie, IXe Congres, Union Internationale et des Sciences Pr?historiques XVIII, tries), ed. C. Serizawa, Coloque de la Recherche Solheim II, 1976), pp. 32-42; W.G. Scientifique, Protohistoriques (Paris: Centre National to Oceania", of Southeast Asia with Reference in La Prehistoric ed. J. Caranger, Oc?anienne, "Prehistory at Protohistoriques IXe Congress, des Sciences Pr?historiques Union Internationale (Paris: de laRecherche of Scientifique, 1976), pp. 135-51; W. G. Solheim II, "Philippine Prehistory". on 'Models of Philippine 55K.L. Hutterer, "Some Comments and J.P. by P.J.F. Coutts Prehistory' Wesson", Quarterly of Culture and Society 9 (1981): 333-41. Philippine XXII, Coloque Centre National

246

Karl L. Hutterer

Perhaps the most immediately pressing, and most generally agreed upon, need in local archaeological future research is the establishment of detailed and comprehensive is of crucial importance both for the The availability of such sequences sequences. and interpretation of essentially historical frameworks construction (i.e., focused on historical relationships reconstructed on the basis of similarities and changes in artifact oriented issues in (processually) forms) and the pursuit of more anthropologically focused on the elucidation of processes and causal variables involved in archaeology (i.e., of certain social forms). the development local about the importance of good and complete While there is no disagreement that has a well-supported there is so far not a single area in the Philippines sequences, assemblages. There are a number of reasons sequence of clearly defined archaeological for the lack of progress in this regard. For a variety of reasons, Philippine archaeological rarely can a complete practice is still strongly oriented toward individual sites. However, and meaningful sequence be constructed on the basis of just one site. In cases where are investigated in the same area, they often tend to be of the same type and several sites time period (e.g., porcelain sites) and are, therefore, of relatively little help in construct a ing extensive sequences. The research carried out in the Tabon cave complex was major over the findings there is insufficient exception in this regard, but chronological control to consider the resulting sequence as completely reliable. Perhaps more important than anything else is the fact that, in the case of the Tabon research and a few other similar instances, the function.of investigated sites within a settlement framework is often not clear, so that it cannot easily be assessed whether variability in the artifact assemblages or functional differences in the between sites involves chronological (i.e., differences two sites represent different lithic ceramic assemblages of two sites might imply that the time periods; that they were occupied by different segments of a complex social system; or that different activities were carried on at the sites by the same population, resulting to his problem is particularly in the deposition of different artifact types). Attention important in a world region that is well known for an extremely diverse ethnographic situation today, and where one must assume that this diversity has considerable pre historic depth. is often made between more This leads to another important point: a distinction It must be in archaeology. oriented approaches and more processually historically and interpretation should that any sound archaeological analysis pointed out, however, really include both aspects. On the one hand, it is not possible to investigate processes of culture change and social evolution without fundamental control over chronological and of archaeological historical variables. On the other hand, historical interpretations can really only be made on the basis of a whole series of explicit or implicit findings of variability between artifacts or in other aspects about the meaning assumptions of archaeological record. In the final analysis, of the archaeological interpretations as reflections of specific social and cultural conditions of the past are defen patterns sible only if they are founded on a sound sociological or anthropological understanding In effect, then, historical reconstructions have to rely on a proces of human organization. sual understanding, while processual investigations need to be anchored in an historical framework. Both approaches should, therefore, go hand in hand and interact with each
other.

few would quibble with work in the Philippines archaeological manner. One attempt in this direction Although

the spirit of the above statement, very little in this so far been designed and executed has is the ongoing Bais Anthropological Project on

Philippine

Archaeology

247

the island of Negros.56 This research program is designed as a subsistence-settlement and a variety of investigation and involves statistically designed surveys, excavations, the still incomplete, environmental and ethno-archaeological investigations. Although has so far yielded extremely valuable information on changing settlement project patterns (changes in site numbers, sizes, densities, placement, etc.) over a period of time as well as the first components of an archaeological sequence based on an understanding system. Once archaeological research has been put on such a broad footing, itwill be possible to pursue, in the context of Philippine archaeology, problems and questions the solution our thinking about Philippine of which may not only revolutionize (and Southeast of in the narrow sense but will also contribute to our understanding Asian) prehistory in general. A series of important issues beg to be social and cultural development Tentative first steps have been taken in a number of specific areas, although pursued. substantive results are still meagre. One of these issues concerns the large complex of human of plants and animals and the evolution of agri questions regarding the domestication cultural systems. Clearly, the problems involved in this issue cannot be solved by a purely historical approach but demand a research framework formulated on the basis of ecolo and anthropological gical, evolutionary concepts.57 A small handful of archaeological so far been directed toward prehistoric agriculture investigations in the Philippines have without yielding very definitive results.58 However, this topic will surely be pursued with greater vigour in the near future. Whether or not one expects the Philippines to be a seminal area for plant domestication and agricultural development, findings in the islands will inevitably have a bearing on our view of plant domestication and agriculture within the context of Southeast Asian prehistory as well as on pur general understanding of the human shift from foraging to food production and the social changes this entailed. Another important area for future archaeological work in the Philippines concerns the evolution of ethnic diversity, an issue already alluded to above. Again, some tentative first steps have been taken,59 but the problem demands a major systematic effort of fieldwork. The issue of ethnic diversity is linked with questions of changing and evolving subsistence economies (e.g., foraging vs. various forms of agriculture) as well as the evolution of more complex social systems. Very little work has been done with regard to
and W.K. Macdonald, "The Bais Anthropological Report", Survey: A First Preliminary and of Culture and Society 1 (1979): 115-40; Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Prehistory Quarterly inNegros Oriental, of San Carlos, Ecology (Cebu City: University Philippines 1982). 57K.L. Hutterer, "The Natural and Cultural History of Southeast Asian Agriculture: and Ecological 78 (1983): 169-212. Considerations", Evolutionary Anthropos Philippine in Prehistory: Economic in Masbate, Central "Shifting Cultivation Change Philip in Philippine Swidden-based ed. H. Olofson Societies, Strategies and Change (College, Forest Research and Prehistoric pp. 117-30; J.H. Kress, Laguna, Institute), Philippines: "Contemporary on Palawan, on Southeast Asia, Subsistence Patterns in Cultural-Ecological ed. W. Wood Perspectives pines", in Adaptive for International Center "Ar Studies, (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, 1977), pp. 29-47; R.F. Maher, in Central 16 (1973): 39-70; W. Peterson, Anomal chaeological Investigations Ifugao", Asian Perspectives ous Archaeological of Agriculture in Southeast Asia", in Cultural-Ecological Sites; "The Evolution Perspec tives on Southeast Asia. "The Evolution 59K.L. Hutterer, of Philippine Lowland 9 (1974): 287-99; Hutterer, Societies", Mankind "An Evolutionary to the Southeast Asian Cultural Sequence", 17 (1976): Current Anthropology Approach K.L. Hutterer and W.K. "The Bais Anthropological Macdonald, Survey: A First Preliminary Built on Scattered Poles: Pre Report", Quarterly Philippine of Culture and Society 1 (1979): 115-40; Houses 221-42; history Zamboanga inNegros Oriental, Philippines and Ecology (Cebu City: University to Ethnic Diversity, and Sulu: An Archaeological Approach University of Pittsburgh, 1973). of San Carlos, Ethnology 1982); A. Monograph Spoehr, 1 No. 58J. Bay-Peterson, 56K.L. Hutterer

of the settlement

(Pittsburgh:

248

Karl L. Hutterer

the last issue. Hutterer has suggested that Philippine lowland societies evolved in late prehistoric times as complex social systems in interaction with foreign trade signalled by the presence of intrusive glazed ceramics.60 However, virtually no archaeological to illuminate the degree of differentiation in late studies have yet been undertaken coastal societies, nor is there any significant information on this point regard prehistoric ing Philippine societies preceding the trade inAsiatic ceramics.61 in Southeast Asia, face numerous in the Philippines, and elsewhere Archaeologists are a general lack of understanding Of very direct archaeological problems. significance of site formation processes in tropical environments and a lack of understanding as to how certain behaviour patterns and social phenomena may be expressed in the patterning of material remains. The latter is, of course, crucial in the interpretation of archaeological data. Fortunately, the Philippines have become a popular place for ethno-archaeology.62 this kind of work is likely to increase in importance and its results will eventually Again, in the Philippines but on archaeological work on have an impact not only on archaeology
a world-wide scale.

Practical Problems Archaeological

of Contemporary research

Archaeology

in the Philippines

problems methodological Foremost among them is erosion and looting, with

patrimony of the country. Asiatic trade ceramics or otherwise elaborate pottery and ornaments, particularly those made of gold. In spite of stringent national legislation, looting of such sites is rampant and The seriousness of the problem is evident in the has so far proven to be uncontrollable. that every major known site containing Asiatic trade ceramics has either wholly or in fact of sites through erosion is far less very large part been destroyed by looters. Destruction serious but is becoming a significant problem particularly in sloping agricultural terrain that is often overexploited and, thus, subject to rapid sediment removal during periods of rain. tropical A problem of a very different order is the shortage of qualified archaeologists in the At present, the National Museum is the only institution in the country Philippines. with a small staff of professionally educated personnel. Unfortunately, because it has
Hutterer, 61K.L. Hutterer, Economic Exchange and Southeast Built ^K.L. "The Evolution "Prehistoric and Social of Philippine Lowland and the Evolution in Southeast 1977), pp. 9 (1974): 287-99. Societies", Mankind of Philippines Societies: A Reconsideration", in Asia, ed. K.L. Hutterer, Michigan Papers in South K. L. Hutterer and W. K. Macdonald, Houses

is faced with not only theoretical and by a series of very practical difficulties. the problem of site destruction. Two major causes are involved: the latter posing by far the most serious threat to the prehistoric Looting activities concentrate particularly on sites containing in the Philippines but also confronted

Trade

Interaction

Asia, No. on Scattered Poles.

13 (Ann Arbor,

177-96;

in Ethnoarchaeology", 62A. de fa Torre and K.M. Mudar, "The Becino Site: An Exercise inHouses Built on Scattered Poles, and W.K. Macdonald ed. K.L. Hutterer of San Carlos, (Cebu City, Phil.: University Ph.D. Ceramic Design, Jr., Ethnoarchaeology dissertation, of Kalinga 1982), pp. 117-46; M.J. Graves of Arizona, in 1981; P.B. Griffin and A.A. Estioko-Griffin, University "Ethnoarchaeology Anthropology, The the Philippines", 31, 6 (1978): 34?43; W.A. Longacre, Archaeology "Kalinga Pottery-making: in Frontiers inAnthropology, ed. M.J. Leaf (New York: Van Nostrand, Evolution of a Research Design", on the Arrow Technology of the Negritos of Northern 1974), pp. 51-67; W.J. Parry, "Observations Negros, in Houses Built on Scattered Poles, Scheans, Potteries, pp. 107-116; D.H. Philippines", Filipino Market in the No. 3 (Manila: National Solheim Museum, II, "Pottery Manufacturing 1977); W.G. Monograph Journal of East Asiatic Studies 1 (1952): and Batan, Philippines", Islands of Masbate University of Manila in Isabela, Philippines", Journal of East Asiatic 51-52; "Ibanag Pottery Manufacture University of Manila Studies! (1954): 305-308; "The Makabog Burial-jar Sites", Philippine Journal of Science &> (1954): 57-68.

PhilippineArchaeology
been entrusted with

249

important aspects of enforcing antiquities legislation and of ensuring site preservation and rescue, the planning of the vast bulk of the work carried out by are National Museum personnel is dictated by these obligations. That is, archaeologists with inspections of newly reported sites, investigations of almost constantly kept busy reported lootings, rescue excavations, and so forth. This leaves very little opportunity for from the point of view of research. Altogether, deliberately planned, problem-oriented a foreign researcher, it can be said that the National Museum is badly understaffed and the importance this insufficiently supported by the Philippine government. Considering institution has in terms of housing, preserving and interpreting the national heritage,.its treatment by the Philippine government must be considered a scandal. in the Philippines is aggravated The shortage of professionally trained archaeologists in the by the fact that there are, at this time, no adequate academic training programmes country. Several universities began in the 1960s to organize graduate degree programs in For a variety of reasons, the intended development of archaeology. anthropological occur to the extent envisioned, and several crucial scholars with instructional staff did not higher degrees left their degree programmes on award such degrees. In teaching and research several universities have retained teaching positions. Although paper, none of them has today sufficiently qualified faculty to the absence of a strong intellectual underpinning of academic programs, training activities are generally now directed at fieldwork and laboratory skills. Thus, there has been a proliferation of field schools in archaeology, most of them focusing on excavation methods and standards of recording.

Due to the lack of sufficient local expertise, foreign influence has remained very strong in Philippine archaeology. Most problem oriented research is presently being carried out and Australian by American scholarly publications by foreigners and, consequently, archaeologists working in the Philippines account for the bulk of site reports and interpre in my work for many tive analyses. Having been a beneficiary of Filipino hospitality years, the author is not disposed to argue that no foreigners should be allowed to conduct research in the Philippines. At the same time, it is clearly not desirable archaeological that foreign researchers should have such an overly strong influence. The argument, therefore, is not to exclude foreigners from conducting research in the islands, but to of archaeological in the Philippines. training and education strengthen programmes Every effort should be made to persuade national and international agencies to support such plans. little is known at this time about Philippine prehistory but much could Remarkably and technically competent research. be learned through more intensive, well-designed, of course, not only of interest and im research in the Philippines is, Archaeological portance from the parochial point of view of a reconstruction of the social and cultural is by no means an unimpor history of the Philippine nation. While such a reconstruction tant or minor undertaking, archaeological research is potentially of far greater import: an of prehistoric social and cultural developments in the islands holds the understanding of making a major contribution toward our understanding of human organiza promise in general. It is on this level that the true importance of tion, change and development rather than in the beauty or rarity of artifacts unearthed. Philippine archaeology lies,