Rock Art in the Philippines and South East Asia

a research paper made as a requirement for

Archaeology 2
under

Mark Anthony Mabanag

Authored by:
Barizo
Magtira
Natividad

Abstract
The aim of the paper is to foster a discourse regarding the handful of "rock art" sites located in
the Philippines and their perceived significance to early Filipino culture as a whole. Rock art is
defined to be markings that are found in natural stone surfaces, that are either painted
(pictographs) or engraved (petroglyphs). (Tan 2014:3) The significance of this study is to create a
picture of the cultures were present during the creation of the said works, and to be able to
discern the purpose and relation of such relics to the development of those who were responsible.
The studies focused on rock art are mostly seen through a subjective lens as it is a relatively new
undertaking in archaeology in the areas concerning Asia, as most of these countries are still
undergoing development in terms of archaeological advancement. Another factor one brought up
during a meeting between pre-historians in Bangkok at SEAMEO-SPAFA is the scarcity and
difficulty in being able to actually form solid interpretations regarding these images. This led to
the question of whether rock art is profitable for future research. (Tan 2014:2) The primary scope
and setting of the research would be in the Philippines, since we as people who hail from this
country, can learn beneficial information and concepts that were prevalent in our past as a
collective. The petroglyphs discovered in the rock shelters found between Binangonan and
Angono by National Artist "Botong Francisco" is one of the more prominent examples of rock
art found within the Philippines. (Vitales 2015:60) We intend to learn if the visuals presented in
the sites have a relation with one another in terms of aesthetics and purpose, making note of any
similarities and differences these sites possess in comparison. The other aspect of this paper is to
examine if these images have aesthetic influence over other artefacts found in the Philippines a
number of artefacts were uncovered beside the petroglyphs at Angono which may or may not
have a direct relation. (Peralta and Evangelista 1965: cited in Vitales 2015:60) The point of this
is to determine if any of the visual qualities and representations of the earth bound works were
passed on to other forms of Philippine archaeological findings.

Introduction
The study of archaeology is to make a connection with history through the examination of
material remnants from the past as conduit. When one talks about the material nature of this
study, archaeology is commonly attributed to artefacts and relics that once belonged to a specific
culture of the past; so that we may come to create a comprehensible image of the past events and
systems that were once prevalent.
Rock art is one of the several facets of archaeology, which has been the subject of intrigue by
several practitioners due to a number of reasons; the most apparent and prominent being that it
offers a valuable insight on the mind that created the works present on the sites. The "art" aspect
of rock art carries a unique perspective on the cultural processes that were donned by the cultures
of the past which are not otherwise revealed by the examination of tools and artefacts. The study
of rock art is an undertaking to comprehend ourselves at a more in-depth level, to understand
why art is a part of who we are and what its significance to us, while being anchored in the
context of the past. (Rainey 2011:78)

Definition
Rock art is defined as two-dimensional anthropogenic depictions situated upon parietal natural
rock surfaces that are commonly classified into two forms; pictograms and petroglyphs.
Pictograms (see fig.1) are painted on cave walls, while petroglyphs (see fig.2) are engraved.
(Jones 1981, cited in Rainey 2011:79)
The other key differences between pictograms and petroglyphs is in the way these images are
analyzed. The creation of pictograms is an additive process that requires having pigments applied
to the surface of the rock, these pigments are made of a variety of substances that have a plethora
of information within them regarding the cave painting. Petroglyphs, on the other hand, are
created from a deductive process involving removing parts of the rock surface through methods
of pecking, abrading or etching. Pictograms are unique in comparison to petroglyphs in a sense
that the application of pigment to the cave wall opens an opportunity for dating the actual rock

painting. The production of the pigment to the rock surface is correlated to the archaeological
time in which the painting was created; this aspect is not present in petroglyphs. (Bednarik
1992 : cited in Rainey 2011:79)

Analysis
Rock art is a tricky subject for study given the difficulty of forming comprehensible and sensible
interpretations. Yet pursuing the opportunity to be able to peer into the minds of our ancestors
has always piqued the interest of archaeologists, as these images correlate to the perception of
the visual brain. These claims are supported by studies conducted in neuroscience, as these
works provide in-depth understanding of strategies the early artists used in the depiction of the
world they lived in. (Hodgson 2013:1)
The creation of rock art is the way early humans recorded, meditated and recounted significant
experiences that have occurred in collective history. It is through these works that we are able to
witness the capacity of our ancestors to recount the profound changes that were constantly
occurring within themselves. Human beings have been marking the landscape in symbolic ways,
this is true even in the modern world. Rock art is a direct communication of thought from ancient

translated into imagery; it is a record that is easier to see but more difficult to make sense of.
(Chippindale and Tacon 1998:1)
The most common reaction of audiences when presented samples of rock art regardless factors
such as age, ethnicity or mental conditioning is to attempt to understand what it depicts and what
it stands for. It can be inferred that the process reflects more of the visual perception, values and
mental constructs of the observer rather than the one who created it. However this is a form of
circular reasoning; as an observer is able to comprehend aspects of the work that are
interpretable, it must have been incorporated into it for that reason. The idea being that the
interpreter is able to form a line of communication with the maker. (Bednarik 2014:62)

In the subject of rock art interpretation, an archaeologist can make use of different strategies as
an angle of attack. These approaches are classified into three different categories: which are the
(1) informed methods, (2) formal methods and (3) methods that deal with analogy. (Chippindale
and Tacon 1998:6-8)
(1) Informed methods are only applied when there is general insight directly or indirectly passed
on from the original creator or user of the work to the interpreter through the delineation
provided through ethnography, ethno history, the historical record or through modern
understanding. It is through the preliminary context established through observation of these
factors a clearer image is presented to the interpreter. (Chippindale and Tacon 1998:6-7)
(2) Formal methods on the other hand are used when there is absolutely no context provided
along with the work; methods that deal without inside knowledge similar to approaches used by
those who study prehistory. Any information is restricted along with what is presented on the
image itself, an archaeologist can make use of any relation to the environment around the site in
place of absent archaeological context. (Chippindale and Tacon 1998:7-8)
(3) Methods that deal with analogy is in close relation to formal methods but does not completely
mirror it. It relies on establishing connections between works through similarities from the both
of them, with one (a) already having an established line of information as a basis for the

interpretation of the other (b). It is using the similar characteristics of the more known work as a
template for discernment for the lesser known counterpart. (Chippindale and Tacon 1998:8)

Documentation
Before an archaeologist is given the chance to form meaningful interpretations regarding these
sites, there must be a manner of accuracy for the recording of the data at hand. There are several
analytical techniques and steps that a practitioner employs to give a scientific perspective on the
approach to study. (Rainey 2011:79)
The first step for analysis is the discovery of a site, although this term is not entirely correct as it
implies that the sites are lost; not known to human knowledge. Many sites are already considered
as significant spiritual ground to the indigenous descendant of the original artists that created the
works. Many discoveries are attributed to heeding the historic accounts of various early explorers
as clairvoyance to find sites. Another common method is to approach and discuss sites with
reliable sources who are familiar with the region and employ them as guides as documentation of
the study. Ethnographic information can also be an effective conduit to find sites around a
specific atmosphere where there are established cultures, as these people may be able to pinpoint
significant sites that are associated with their spirituality and among other things. Using
ethnography is a proven method to be able to ascertain cultural patterns that are can aid the
location of sites in an area. (Conway and Conway 1990; Jones 1981: cited in Rainey 2011:79)
Once a site is discovered, recording the various traits and specifications that it holds is
paramount to be able to establish a repository of information for actual analysis. There are
several viable methods one can use; given new technological advancements, recording
pictograms and petroglyphs had been the subject for ease. The most common of these methods to
record rock art are in the form of tracings, rubbings and photography. Though there had been
recordings that took the form of literature, the effectiveness of such a method as conduit for
transfer of a visual medium has been largely debated. A common frustration in regards to rock art
literature is the misrepresentation of the images, as a verbal description of a visual subject is

prone to be culturally loaded that leads to implied typologies rather than an actual description of
the image that may present difficulties to future researchers. (Rainey 2011:80)
As such the utilization of tracings, castings, rubbings and photography is considered to be more
appropriate in most cases to prevent chances for mistranslation. Tracings are the most common
and economical means of recording for rock paintings, the other aspect of this method is its
potential to yield more accurate results in comparison to free hand sketches and the control of
taking specific traits of a pictogram for study. (Rosenfield 1978 : cited in Rainey 2011:80)
Tracings are supplemented by field notes taken during recording, these notes take into account
various traits in the surrounding area. The same method of tracings can also be used for
petrogylphs, but doing so yields inadequate results due to the three-dimensional aspect of an
engraved rock surface. As such, rubbings are the preferred method for capturing the visual details
of the artwork. This method is achieved through putting paper over the engraving and a marker,
usually charcoal, is rubbed over the paper thus producing an impression of the image on the rock.
(see fig.3&4) Rubbing is the most optimal method for recording carvings; they provide an
accurate representation of the overall scale of the work. (Walker 1979: cited in Rainey 2011:8182)

Photography is one of the more technologically advanced tools that archaeologists use for the
recording of rock art sites. When using photography to document rock art sites, it is beneficial to
note the technical aspect of the surroundings as it may be an intended effect made by the creator
of the work. Photographs taken should encompass general site view, the surrounding area within
the site, the depictions of groups and individual figures, details within the figures and some
specific areas of interest around the site. Photographs are excellent preliminary survey tools of
sites that are being prepared for examination and field evaluation. (Rainey 2011:83)

Sites in Southeast Asia

The study of rock art in South East Asia has received significantly less attention in comparison to
other aspects of study from the archaeological community until very recently. The record of rock
art in the region is scarce with only a handful of archaeological studies conducted in the area.
Late into the 1980's, only a small number sites had been recognized including "Liang Lumba" in
Kalimantan; "Khao Khian", "Pha Mue Daeng" and Tham Rob in Thailand; some sites in
Indonesia mentioned by van Heekeren; "Gua Tambun" in Peninsular Malaysia; the Painted Cave
also known as "Gua Kain Hitam" in Malaysian Borneo and the Padahlin Caves in Myanmar.
(Tan 2014:73)
Moreover, the question of rock art being a profitable subject for study has been raised in the eyes
of archaeological community in the past. In the year of 1987 during a prestigious gathering
between renowned pre-historians in Bangkok, Thailand at South East Asian Ministers of
Education Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SEAMO-SPAFA); a discussion held
at the end of the seminar alluded to the preposition that rock art was not a viable field for
research. Given their perceived scarcity and the difficulty of creating sensible interpretations
about the works in the site, it is understandable that scepticism arose regarding the value of rock
art as research. (Tan 2014:73-74) However given the invaluable insight that rock art offers
regarding the minds of the culture that created the works of art; it should be noted that SEAMOSPAFA has since recognized the value of study behind rock art in South East Asia albeit very
recently. (Tan 2014:74; Rainey 2011:78)

SEAMO-SPAFA has been consistently holding interdisciplinary training workshops about rock
art interpretation which started in the years of 2010 and 2011. (see fig.5) These workshops have
delegates from all across South East Asia which includes countries like Brunei, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. These workshops mostly focus on the
influence of inspiration rock art to contemporary artists and how they perceive these works
aesthetically, and the capacity of archaeologists to make a contribution of knowledge to other
fields in the academe and to the general public. (Tan and Tippayaprapai 2015:2-5)

However, despite the growing traction of rock art research in South East Asia, there is still the
fact of the distribution of content regarding the depth of research and awareness in every country
is not spread out evenly; the disparity between the nations in the region in regards to the
advancement of rock art research is readily apparent. It is presumed that each country stands on
different ground in terms of study of the rock art sites that are found in their countries, as this is

inversely related to how much priority these nations invest to archaeological research. (Tan 2014:
73)
As an example, the kingdom of Thailand is considered to be one of the most developed and wellversed countries in archaeological research. The Fine Arts department that is given sustained and
viable funding from the Thai government. Thailand's advancement in comparison to its
neighbours had been the reason that the archaeological community took notice, thus it had been
subject to numerous foreign archaeological projects. This is the primary cause of the bulk of all
knowledge related to rock art comes from Thailand. In total there are over two-hundred (200)
documented sites in Thailand, with most of them belonging to the category of pictograms;
images that are painted in rock surfaces. In comparison, rock art research in Laos is severely
underdeveloped as there no actual published reports about sites in the country that are currently
circulating in the academe. Currently, there are only five (5) rock art sites known and recorded.
(Tan 2014:75-80)

Sites in the Philippines

Philippine rock art emerges to forms of art that are inscribed, drawn, printed or stencilled on rock
surfaces. Rock art reportedly exists from various places in the country, but cannot be ordered
chronologically because dating is difficult. One of the main issues of rock art is that it emanates
from some aspect of social action related to a system or belief associated with a particular
society. These images are symbolic and it has religious, economic, physiological, or some
aspects defined by their culture. (Peralta 2000: 57-58)
The Philippines is scarce at best if one were to describe its concentration of rock art sites, as
there is not many that are currently known to archaeologists. Despite the fact that the number of
rock art sites themselves is severely lacking, the rock shelter between the place of Angono and
Binangonan (see fig.6) situated in the island of Luzon is considered to be one of the most wellknown rock art sites in the entirety of Southeast Asia. It houses approximately one-hundred
twenty-seven anthropomorphic figures, all engraved as petroglyphs within its walls. Dating the
petroglyphs themselves proved difficult, instead of the engravings themselves, dating was

conducted on the artefacts that were found in the vicinity. It was concluded based on the data
gathered from dating these relics that the engravings were over three-thousand (3,000) years old;
overlapping with the late-Neolithic period. (Tan 2014:91; Vitales 2015:60; Rainey 2011:79)

The petroglyphs were discovered by National Artist Carlos "Botong" Francisco; the carvings
were situated in his hometown of Angono, Rizal situated in the vicinity of Binangonan. Coming
to the realization of the potential cultural significance these images hold over the country, he
immediately notified the National Museum of the Philippines. An interdisciplinary survey team
was assembled with the task of undertaking a research expedition to examine the site. (Peralta
and Evangelista 1965: cited in Vitales 2015:59-60)
The Angono petroglyphs mostly depict lizard-like, frog-like and human like carvings in the
tuffaceous wall of the shelter. Upon the initial examination conducted by the first survey team on
the engravings of the stone surface, it was inferred that the markings were made through the use
of a blunt instrument. The markings were not as clean cut as would be if it was made by a

metallic tool, thus further cementing the notion that the engravings were ancient. (Peralta and
Evangelista 1965: cited in Vitales 2015:60)
Out of the one hundred twenty-seven (127) figures, fifty one (51) are distinctly different
compared to the rest. All the engravings, whether drawn anthropomorphic or zoomorphic, were
drawn as linear outlines. Since the process of creation include engraving of anthropomorphic
figure on a rock wall, the motivation for such an act belongs to the same generic order. The
twenty-five (25) meters of the cave wall is filled up with engravings, it gives the impression of a
institutionalized practice; replicated from time to time for individual reasons. The petroglyphs
then reflect characteristic social practices. (Peralta 2000: 58-63)
The style of which the works were depicted was examined by Jesus Peralta; he had previously
remarked the similarities of the rock art found in Angono to those made by Tau't Batu, an
indigenous cave-dwelling tribe found in Palawan. The images themselves are difficult to see but
these are consisted of anthropomorphic drawings with different sizes. These pictograms present
in Ugpay Cave has had a long standing tradition through ethnographic study to the Tau't Batu
even today, although any cultural significance of the practice to these people have yet to be
concluded. (Peralta 2000; cited in Vitales 2015:60; Tan 2014:92)
To further establish understanding and comprehension of the site in question in a temporal
context, a second archaeological survey team was assembled by the Philippine National Museum
in the task of conducting a preliminary evaluation on the shelter floor and to conduct test castings
of the petroglyphs. The initial excavations however, did not yield favourable results, not counting
the recent post holes and fire places that were present in the area. The absence of significant
archaeological material was explained as a result of natural soil erosion which the floor of the
rock shelter was subjected. (Peralta and Evangelista 1965; cited in Vitales 2015:60)
Further examination of the surrounding area led to the discovery of the fact that the mouth of the
shelter had originally extended further into the outside. The large boulders present at the near
entrance of the site were most likely to part of the original shelter mouth that had fallen due to
natural erosion. This inference led to the further exploration of the immediate area of the rock
shelter mouth. The test excavations conducted eventually led to the recovery of archaeological
artefacts from varying depths in the area which included lithics (chert flakes; obsidian flakes;

siltstone core tools and a trapezoidal adze), and a few fragmented pieces of earthware ceramics.
These artefacts is not necessarily in direct connection to the petroglyphs themselves, however the
presence of these artefacts suggested that the Angono petroglyphs were around three-thousand
(3,000) years old attributed to the late-Neolithic period. (Peralta and Evangelista 1965; Baretto
Tessoro 2008; Bautista 1998: cited in Vitales 2015:60-61)
Another site in the Philippines is the eleven (11) charcoal pictograms located in Peablanca,
Cagayan Province. The pictograms were discovered on the rock walls assumed to belong to a era
and cultural span. Similarly to the Angono Petroglyphs, various artefacts were recovered in the
same vicinity of the charcoal markings. There is a high probability that the charcoal drawings are
not associated with the assemblages uncovered in the excavations. The drawings are curvilinear
and non-anthropomorphic while the predominant motif is a central spine with ribs poking out
from side to in an alternating pattern similar to the skeleton of a leaf. The drawings do not
resemble recognizable forms. (Peralta 2000: 67-68)

Significance of Rock Art to Philippine Culture

An established significance of the petroglyphs to early Philippine culture as a whole is attributed
to the beginnings of Mathematics. Traces of mathematical ideas can be found even in the earliest
incarnations of Philippine society which have been a subject to recording and preservation. Basic
geometric ideas, albeit in very rudimentary forms, are apparent in the Angono petroglyphs.
(Manapat 2011:295-296) This notion is further reinforced by Jesus Peralta (1998: cited in
Manapat 2011:295) in which he stated:
"As a general rule the drawings are of human figures, consisting of line incisions of circular or
domelike heads with or without necks set on a rectangular or Vshaped body. The arms,
sometimes with digits, and the legs are also lineally executed, and are usually flexed. An
inventory of the drawings produced a total of 127 figures clearly discernible as integral units.
This count excludes other incisions that comprise slashes, naturally occurring holes, scratches,
pits, pockmarks and other surface alterations on the rockwall."
The engravings on the wall bear a semblance of geometric figures such as triangles, rectangles
and circles. There is a likely possibility that the drawn triangles have sexual connotations
attached to them. These triangles are equilateral, situated on an angle with a line going through it.

There is also a pattern that is a composite of four (4) triangles that form the shape of a
parallelogram. It is from these descriptions that we can infer that whoever made these markings
on the cave walls has a grasp about the concept of geometry and symmetry. (Peralta 1998: cited
in Manapat 2011:295)
These pre-historical images is an adequate demonstration of the capability of these early
Philippine artists to work with concepts such as proportion and symmetry since the creations
manifest a form of respect and awareness to the aesthetical laws of the aforementioned
proportion and symmetry, as well more complex concepts such mathematical scaling; as
demonstrated in the proportional scaling of the stone carvings from the actual bigger figures of
the men and animals these images aim to represent. These images are even more significant in
sense that they are clear testaments of the early artists' capacity to make use of the concept of
abstraction in the creation of the works. As a concrete example, the Angono petroglyphs make
use of simplified lines in the depiction of its figures, which implies an abstract approach in the
creation of the likeness of whatever these images are supposed to be representations of. This is a
stark contrast to their counter parts in early European lithic art in a cave in Altamira, in which
animals are portrayed in a more realistic lens. (Manapat 2011:296)
This artistic tendency to make use of abstraction as a visual template for artistic depictions of
varying purpose is prevalent in the art early indigenous Philippine societies; different tribes that
inhabit the region of Northern Cordillera as an example, exhibit apparent affinity for abstraction
in their religious icons such as anitos and bululs which are carved in wood. (Manapat 2011:296)
This shared characteristic of both the petroglyphs and different relics of various early indigenous
Philippine cultures establishes a clear connection in visual aesthetic in relation to the style of
which these works are represented. This similarity can be an indicator of a unified culture across
far away regions, which in turn can be used as a point of reference in establishing a national
identity. (Manapat 2011:296)

Conclusion
The potential of rock art as a realm of viable study in the Philippines is unrealized in a sense that
there are very few sites that come to mind whenever the topic is brought to the table, as most
sites are without solid documentation. Pursuing more studies in the subject of rock art in the
Philippines is largely beneficial not just for the attainment of knowledge. One can say with
certainty that these images were the first conduits for man's interpretation to the world that was
present around him; as such we must be willing to go into deeper understanding of these relics of
the past.

References Cited
Rainey, Dori
2011 Analytical Techniques in The Analysis of Rock Art, Totem: The University of Western
Ontario Journal of Anthropology (9), Issue 1, The University of Western Ontario.
Hodgson, Derek
2013 The Visual Brain, Perception and Depiction of Animals in Rock Art, Review Article,
Journal of Archaeology, Volume 2013, Department of Archaeology, University of York, Kings
Manner
Chippindale, Christopher and Tacon, Paul S. C.
1998
The Archaeology of Rock Art, Cambridge University Press, Edinburgh Building,
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Bednarik, Robert G.
2014 Archaeology and Rock Art Science, Almogaren (44-45/2013-2014), Institutum Canarium
Tan, Noel Hidalgo
2014 Rock Art Research in Southeast Asia: A Synthesis, Arts (3), Archaeology and Natural
History, School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, The
Australian National University, Canberra Australia
Tan, Noel Hidalgo and Tippayaprapai, Patsri
2015 Report on the SEAMO SPAFA Rock Art Workshops 2011-2014, Department of
Archaeology and Fine Arts, Thailand
Peralta, Jesus
2000 The Tinge of Red: Prehistory of art in the Philippines. National Commission for Culture
and the Arts, Manila
Vitales, Timothy James
2015 Archaeological Research in The Laguna de Bay Area, Philippines, Archaeology Division,
National Museum of the Philippines
Manapat, Ricardo
2011 Mathematical Ideas in Early Philippine Society, Philippine Studies (59) no. 3, Ateneo de
Manila University, Philippines