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: 10-09-2016 04:41 UTC
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, Department of History, National University of Singapore
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. XVIII, No. 2 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
Philippine archaeology to assess what has been accomplished to date, to ponder strength
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 if we want to understand its present form and assess its future potential
and development. Thus, it will be necessary to include in the following thoughts historical
perspectives which will help to explain how and why certain concepts, methods and
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
ceived impersonally, rationally and dispassionately, and should not reflect personal and
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.
The Pioneers
Sullivan relates that when he was asked in the 1920s to write an article on the Philippine
Stone Age for an encyclopedia, he was informed by the American Museum of Natural
*W. G. Solheim II, "Potsherds and Postholes: Philippine Archaeology in 1974", in Philippine Studies:
Geography, Archaeology, Psychology and Literature (Dekalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies,
Northern Illinois University, 1974), Special report No. 10, pp. 15-33; A. E. Evangelista, "The Philippines:
Archaeology in the Philippines to 1950", Asian Perspectives 12 (1969): 97-104; M. Sullivan, "Archaeology
in the Philippines", Antiquity 30 (1956): 68-79.
235
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236
Karl L. Hutterer
History that, to their knowledge, the Philippines did not have a Stone Age.2 Much has
happened in Philippine archaeology since then. Indeed, the beginning of systematic and
consciously pursued archaeological research in the archipelago can be fixed around 1922,
although various findings had been made earlier and reported in both scientific and
popular accounts.
The French naturalist and explorer Alfred Marche is usually credited with having been
the first to conduct archaeological explorations in the Philippines. In 1881, during the first
of two prolonged visits to the islands, he explored and excavated in a number of caves and
open sites in Marinduque and Catanduanes, collecting human skeletal materials, Chinese
pottery, ornaments of shell, glass, bronze, and gold, wooden coffins and burial urns.3 His
approach was characterized by an almost indiscriminate interest in exotic phenomena, be
they geological, ethnological, biological or archaeological, typical of many naturalists of
the time. By today's standards, his collecting of archaeological materials can hardly
qualify as archaeological research. Yet, his findings constituted the first deliberately
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.
There are a few other instances of visiting European scholars before the turn of the
century who, if not engaging in systematic archaeological research, at least collected
some archaeological information in connection with their other investigations. The
German ethnologist and Asia specialist Fedor Jagor came to the Philippines in 1859-60
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
Schadenberg investigated in 1881-82 burial caves on Samal Island and reported log
coffins, earthenware jars, Chinese porcelain, ornaments of various kind and skeletal
remains.5
These early findings and reports had little influence on concepts of Philippine culture
history before European contact. Indeed, early culture historical notions were based on
a judgement concerning the relative primitiveness of various populations of the islands,
with the assumption that the islands may have experienced several events of settlement
by successive groups of immigrants and that contemporary more primitive groups were
descendants of respectively earlier inhabitants. This idea can be traced back at least as far
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
upland populations, and the negritos of the interior forests.6 When more systematic
archaeology began in the mid-1920s, the notion that the Philippines were settled at least
in three different stages by progressively more advanced populations appears to have
been basically accepted, and archaeological finds were interpreted on this basis.
The Philippine revolt against Spain and the subsequent American take-over of the
islands had a profound impact on scientific and scholastic activities in the Philippines.
2M. Sullivan, "Archaeology in the Philippines", Antiquity 30 (1956): 68-79.
3A. Marche, Luzon and Palawan (Manila: The Filipiniana Book Guild, 1970), pp. 165-98.
4F. Jagor, Travels in the Philippines (London: Chapman and Hall, 1875).
5A. Schadenberg, "Die Bewohner von Sued-Mindanao und der Insel Samal", Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie
17 (1885): 8-37, 45-57.
6F. Colin, Labor Evang?lica, Ministerios Apoostylicos de los Obreros de la Compa??a de Jesus, Funda
cian, Progressos De su Provincia en las Islas Filipinas, 2nd edition (Madrid: Pablo Pastella, 1663).
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
Among other things, the new colonial administrators were desperate for precise and
detailed information about the islands and populations in their charge and, for this
purpose, created a variety of institutions to collect the desired data. Among these
institutions was the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes, later renamed the Bureau of
Ethnological Survey, which, at least for a few years, maintained a vigorous program of
ethnographic research and publications. Oddly enough, however, no archaeological
investigations were conducted or promoted in that context. The main reason for this was
perhaps that, unlike the situation in Europe where archaeology was already fairly
developed at the turn of the century, it was still very rudimentary in the United States.
Americans were still wrestling with the question of how the prehistoric remains that had
turned up on their continent related to the living Indians. In the Philippines, a country
that many of the Americans at that time saw as an extension of the Western frontier, the
primary worry was to learn the location, distribution, and subdivisions of living societies
and cultures rather than to understand their ancient histories.
Yet, the first major systematic archaeological project in the Philippines, under
taken in 1922-25 by Carl E. Guthe of the University of Michigan, came about on the
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
time this project got underway, however, Worcester had been removed from power,
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
Michigan expedition was, therefore, to investigate the nature and archaeological context
of "intrusive ceramics".
Guthe concentrated his work in the Visayan islands and northern Mindanao. He
investigated 542 sites, 99 of them caves.8 He made surface collections from all of them
and undertook a number of small excavations or, more commonly, commissioned
excavations to be undertaken by local agents. It has occasionally been remarked that
Guthe's archaeological field methods left much to be desired. This is certainly true by
today's standards. However, it has to be kept in mind that in 1922 archaeological research
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,
by necessity, Guthe's approach had to be exploratory in nature. The most serious
shortcoming is that stratigraphie information is missing in virtually all cases. However,
the concept of stratigraphy and stratigraphie association was just then beginning to
emerge in the United States under the influence of Neis C. Nelson and A. V. Kidder.9 It
goes to Guthe's credit that he kept scrupulous records on the sites he investigated and the
artifacts he collected from them, which is far more than can be said about several projects
in Philippine archaeology carried out as recently as the 1970s.
7F. C. Cole and B. Laufer, Chinese Pottery in the Philippines, Anthropological Series, Vol. 12, No. 1
(Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1912); B. Laufer, "Relations of the Chinese to the Philippine
Islands", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 1725 (1907): 248-57.
8C. E. Guthe, "The University of Michigan Philippine Expedition", American Anthropologist 29 (1927):
69-76; "Distribution of Sites Visited by the University of Michigan Expedition 1922-25", Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 10 (1928): 76-89.
9G. R. Willey and J. A. Sabloff, A History of American Archaeology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman,
1973).
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
237
238
Karl L. Hutterer
Guthe's work had 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
less, the size and systematic nature of the collection he deposited at the Museum of
Anthropology of the University of Michigan enabled several other scholars to make
pioneering contributions to the field. Aga-Oglu conducted studies, and published a series
of papers, about the glazed Oriental ceramics in the collection, clarifying for the first time
many important questions concerning the origin and dating of certain types of trade
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
This work played an important role in his development of a broader framework of
relationships of Southeast Asian prehistoric pottery in general.13
Without doubt, the dominant figure in Philippine archaeology in the first half of this
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
industrial excavations at the Novaliches dam north of Manila turned up prehistoric
artifacts. Beyer conducted investigations at Novaliches and from that time on became
10C. E. Guthe, "The University of Michigan Philippine Expedition", American Anthropologist 29 (1927):
69-76; "Distribution of Sites Visited by the University of Michigan Expedition 1922-25", Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 10 (1928):76-89; "Gold-decorated Teeth from the Philip
pine Islands", Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 20 (1934): 7-22; "A Burial Site
on the Island of Samar, Philippine Islands", Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters
23 (1937): 29-35.
nK. Aga-Oglu, "Ying Ch'ing Porcelain Found in the Philippines", Art Quarterly 9 (1946): 314-27; "Ming
Export Blue and White Jars in the University of Michigan Collection", Art Quarterly 11 (1948): 201-217;
"The Relationship between the Ying Ch'ing Shu-Fu and Early Blue and White", Far Eastern Ceramic
Bulletin 8 (1949): 27-33; "Early Blue and White Wine Pot Excavated in the Philippines", Far Eastern
Ceramic Bulletin 2, 10 (1950): 65-71; "Five Examples of Annamese Pottery", University of Michigan,
Museum of Art Bulletin 5 (1954): 6-11; "The So-called 'Swatow' Wares: Types and Problems of Prove
nance", Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 7,2 (1955): 1-34; "Ming Porcelain from Sites in the Philippines", Asian
Perspectives 5 (1961): 243-52; "Ming Porcelain from Sites in the Philippines", Archives of the Chinese Art
Society of America 17 (1963): 7-19; Major Types of Chinese and Siamese Ceramics in the Philippine Collec
tion of the University of Michigan, Paper presented at the Manila Trade Pottery Seminar, 18-24 March 1968,
Manila, Philippines; "Ming Blue and White Bowls of Lien-Tzu Type", Ars Orientalis 9 (1973): 15-20.
12W. G. Solheim II, The Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its
Relationships (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1964).
13W. G. Solheim II, "Two Pottery Traditions of Late Prehistoric Times in Southeast Asia", in
Historical, Archaeological, and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South East Asia and the Hong Kong
Region, ed. F.S. Drake (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1967), pp. 15-22; "The Sa-Huynh
Kalanay Pottery Tradition: Past and Future Research", in Studies in Philippine Anthropology, ed. M.D.
Zamora (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, 1967), pp. 151-74; "The Batungan Cave Sites, Masbate, Philip
pines", in Anthropology at the Eighth Pacific Science Congress, ed. W. G. Solheim II (Honolulu: Social
Science Research Institute, 1968), Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 2, pp. 20-62; "The Kalanay
Pottery Complex", Artibus Asiae 20 (1957): 279-88; "Introduction to Sa-huynh", Asian Perspectives 3
(1959): 97-108; "Sa-huynh Related Pottery in Southeast Asia", Asian Perspectives 3 (1959): 177-88; The
Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Manila: Bureau
of Printing, 1964); "Further Relationships of the Sa-Huynh Kalanay Pottery Tradition", Asian Perspectives
8 (1964): 196-210; "Prehistoric Pottery of Southeast Asia", in Early Chinese Art and its Possible Influence
in the Pacific Basin, ed. N. Barnard, Vol. 2, pp. 507-532 (New York: Intercultural Arts Press, 1972).
14W.G. Solheim II, "H. Otley Beyer", Asian Perspectives 12 (1969): 1-18.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
captivated by Philippine archaeology. There is considerable uncertainty about the
methods of field investigations he employed. Although he himself referred to a num
ber of excavations he conducted in the archipelago, it is doubtful that any of them met
even the most rudimentary requirements of stratigraphie and provenience control
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 in Manila, the rest was dispersed after Beyer's death in 1967.
Because of his position as head of the Department of Anthropology at the University
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
30 years, the unchallenged authority in the field. Unfortunately, he never published
a site report, although he did publish a number of general and interpretive papers and
monographs, the most important of them being a general list of archaeological 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
interested strictly in typological and distributional studies.18 The interpretation of the
patterns he saw was based entirely on culture-historical notions linked with the study of
Philippine and Southeast Asian ethnography. In this, he followed a venerable tradition
mentioned above and was particularly indebted to writings and communications by the
Indonesian archaeologist van Stein Callenfels and the Austrian culture historian Heine
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
frameworks, entailing a highly elaborated series of migratory movements of racially and
ethnically distinct populations into the Philippines, has stood the test of time very poorly.
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 II must 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
1980s.
Before closing this section, it might perhaps be mentioned that, with regard to the
quality of archaeological research and interpretation before 1950, the Philippines was
hardly worse off than other countries of Southeast Asia. As Heine-Geldern19 states, most
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.
15H.O. Beyer, "Outline Review of Philippines Archaeology by Islands and Provinces", Philippine Journal
of Science 11 (1947): 205-374.
16H.O. Beyer, Philippine and East Asian Archaeology and its Relation to the Origin of the Pacific Islands
Population, Bulletin No. 29 (Quezon City: National Research Council of the Philippines, 1948).
17H.O. Beyer and J.C. de Vera, Philippine Saga (Manila: The Evening Post, 1947).
18W.G. Solheim II, "H. Otley Beyer", Asian Perspectives 12 (1969): 4.
19R. Heine-Geldern, "Research on Southeast Asia: Problems and Suggestions", American Anthropologist
48 (1946): 149-75.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
239
240
Karl L. Hutterer
The Last Thirty Years
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 (e.g., A.E. Evangelista, R.B. Fox, F. Landa
Jocano, W.G. Solheim II). The revitalized National Museum was to become the major
base of operations, although some work was sponsored by the University of the Philip
pines and, eventually, also several universities outside Manila. Although none of them
ever came to control the field as thoroughly as Beyer had once done, two of them
emerged as the leaders in the field: Fox, as head of the Anthropology Division of the
National Museum, came to direct very large and highly visible fielrJ projects; and Solheim
had a major impact through his work of defining ceramic complexes and traditions as well
as his extensive comparative work throughout the Southeast Asian region.
Activities 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,
contrary to Beyer's assumptions, pottery predated the appearance of iron and at least
some jar burials had an antiquity of more than 2,000 years.21 With this, the stage was set
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
Philippine archaeology, the younger generation of scholars was anxious to adjust and
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. Fox and A.E. Evangelista, "The Bato Caves, Sorsogon Province, Philippines: A Preliminary
Report of a Jar Burial-stone Tool Assemblage", University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies 6
(1957): 49-55; "The Cave Archaeology of Cagraray Island, Albay Province, Philippines", University of
Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies 6 (1957b): 57-68; W. G. Solheim II, "Preliminary Report on
Fieldwork in San Narciso, Tayabas", University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies 1 (1951): 70-76;
"Ibanag Pottery Manufacture in Isabela, Philippines", University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies
3 (1954): 305-308; "The Makabog Burial-jar Sites", Philippine Journal of Science 83 (1954): 57-68; "Jar
Burial in the Babuyan and Batanes Islands and Central Philippines and Its Relationships to Jar Burial
Elsewhere in the Far East", Philippine Journal of Science 89 (1960): 115-48; "The Batungan Cave Sites,
Masbate, Philippines", in Anthropology at the Eight Pacific Science Congress, ed. W. G. Solheim II (Hon
olulu: Social Science Research Institute, 1968), Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 2, pp. 20-62.
21R.B. Fox, "Philippine Prehistory and Carbon-14 Dating", Science Review (Manila) 4(10): 4-8.
22A.E. Evangelista, "Identifying Some Intrusive Archaeological Materials Found in Philippine Proto
historic Sites", Asian Studies 3 (1965): 86-102; "H. Otley Beyer's Neolithic in the Context of Post-war
Discoveries in Local Archaeology", pp. 63-87; "Type-sites from the Philippine Islands and their Signifi
cance", in Studies in Oceanic Culture History, ed. R. L. Green and M. Kelly, Vol. 2, pp. 28-35 (Honolulu:
P.B. Bishop Museum, Pacific Anthropological Records No. 12, 1971); R.B. Fox, The Philippines in
Prehistoric Times: A Handbook for the First Exhibition of Filipino Prehistory and Culture (Manila:
UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines, 1959); "The Archaeological Record of Chinese
Influences in the Philippines", Philippine Studies 15 (1967): 41-62; "Excavation in the Tabon Caves and
Some Problems in Philippine Chronology", in Studies in Philippine Anthropology, pp. 88-116; W.G. Sol
heim II, The Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Ma
nila: Bureau of Printing, 1964); "The Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition: Past and Future Research", in
Studies in Philippine Anthropology, ed. M.D. Zamora (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, 1967), pp. 151-74;
The Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Manila:
Bureau of Printing, 1964); "Further Relationships of the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition", Asian
Perspectives 8 (1964): 196-210.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
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
characteristics (e.g., polished stone axes ? agriculture; flaked stone tools?hunting and
collecting, etc.). Culture history is then defined in terms of the appearance and disappear
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 in Mesoamerica.23 Solheim has recently taken up
Jocano's suggestion and proposed a somewhat modified developmental terminology.24
It should be noted, however, that the content behind the latter terminology, that is,
the proposed archaeological reconstructions and explanations, remain essentially
culture-historical and diffusionist.
Two major themes dominated the work of the three decades under discussion: the
relationship of the Philippines to other Asian regions during late prehistoric times, as
indicated by the presence of glazed ceramics from the Asian mainland in sites of that
period; and the Philippine "Palaeolithic". In both cases, the discussion was propelled by
a series of large-scale excavations (plus several smaller ones) and some rather spectacular
findings. As mentioned above, a sizeable body of glazed import ceramics had been
collected by Guthe, and Beyer had accumulated a collection many times larger. How
ever, the first systematic excavations of large sites containing these ceramics were carried
out in 1958 under the supervision of Fox.25 Not only archaeologists were interested in
imported ceramics, however. Many wealthy Filipinos as well as foreign residents began
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
Manila;26 a series of sites on the shores of Lake Laguna;27 a large site underlying the
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
23F. L. Jocano, "Rethinking Filipino Cultural Heritage", Lipunan 1 (1965): 53-72; "Beyer's Theory on
Filipino Prehistory and Culture: An Alternative Approach to the Problem", in Studies in Philippine
Anthropology, Philippines Prehistory (Diliman, Quezon City: Philippine Center for Advanced Studies,
1975).
24W.G. Solheim II, "Philippine Prehistory", in The People and Art of the Philippines, ed. G. Casai, R. T.
Jose, Jr., E.S. Casino; G.R. Ellis and W. G. Solheim II (Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History,
University of California, 1981), pp. 17-83.
25R. B. Fox, "The Calatagan Excavations: Two 15th Century Burial Sites in Batangas, Philippines",
Philippine Studies 1 (1959): 321-90.
^R.B. Fox and A.M. Legaspi, Excavations at Santa Ana (Manila: National Museum, n.d.).
27R.C.P. Tenazas, A Report on the Archaeology of the Locsin-University of San Carlos Excavations in Pila,
Laguna (Manila: Privately Printed, n.d.).
28K. L. Hutterer, An Archaeological Picture of a Pre-Spanish Cebuano Community (Cebu City: University
of San Carlos, 1973).
29L.M. Burton, "Settlement and Burial Sites at Suatun, Butuan City: A Preliminary Report", Philippine
Studies 25 (1977): 95-112.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
241
242
KarlL. Hutterer
chronological studies of the intrusive ceramics30 and on assessing the influence of China
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
showed resemblances to lithic artifacts from Java where they were thought to represent
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
archaeological excavations and explorations were undertaken under the direction
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.32 Other caves and rockshelters
contained assemblages ranging from terminal Pleistocene times to the contact period.
Although Fox reported summarily on all the major sites, it was the Pleistocene deposits
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 investigations in cave sites with deep deposits,35 about 20 km to the
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 and C.Y. Locsin, Oriental Ceramics Discovered in the Philippines (Tokyo: Tuttle, 1967).
31G.H.R. von Koenigswald, "Preliminary Report on a Newly-discovered Stone Age Culture from
Northern Luzon, Philippines Islands", Asian Perspectives 2 (1958): 69-70.
32R.B. Fox, The Tabon Caves: Archaeological Explorations and Excavations on Palawan Island,
Philippines (Manila: National Museum, 1970).
33T. Harrison, "The Pre-history of Borneo", Asian Perspectives 13 (1970): 17-45.
^R.B. Fox, "The Philippine Paleolithic", in Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia, ed. F. Ikawa-Smith
(The Hague: Mouton, 1978), pp. 59-S5.
35C.F. Vondra; M.E. Mathisen; D.R. Burggraf, Jr. and E.P. Kvale, "Plio-Pleistocene Geology of
Northern Luzon, Philippines", in Hominid Sites: Their Geologic Settings, ed. G. Rapp. Jr. and C.F. Vondra
(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981), pp. 255-310; R.J. Wasson and R.M. Cochran, "Geological and
Geomorphological Perspectives on Archaeological Sites in the Cagayan Valley, Northern Luzon, the Philip
pines", Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 5 (1979): 1-26; N.H. Bondoc, A Re-investigation of
the Espinosa Archaeological Sites, Cagayan and Kalinga-Apayao, Anthropological Papers No. 6 (Manila:
National Museum, 1979).
^K.L. Hutterer, "Reinterpreting the Southeast Asian Palaeolithic", in Sunda and Sahul, ed. J. Allen, J.
Golson and R. Jones (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 31-71.
37F. G. Henson, The Flake Tool Industry of Laurente Cave, Master's thesis, Anthropology, University of the
Philippines, 1978; W. P. Ronquillo, The Technological and Functional Analyses of Lithic Flake Tools From
Rabel Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines (Manila: National Museum, Anthropological Papers No. 13,1981).
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
By and large, palaeolithic archaeology in the Philippines has so far concentrated mainly
on issues of typology, assemblage composition, dating, and the question of hominid
migration(s) into the islands in connection with Pleistocene landbridges. Little has been
done with regard to palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, or to investigate the human
ecology and social organization of ancient hunter-gatherers. Similarly, there has been
very little effort to understand why apparently "palaeolithic" tool technologies survive
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.
Dates for the rest of the islands so far go back no further than ca. 11,500 b.p.39 Beyond
this statement, most other aspects of the existence of "palaeolithic" societies as well as of
later prehistoric hunter-gatherers in the Philippines remain murky.
I have stressed that two major themes tended to dominate archaeological research
in the Philippines during the past thirty years: prehistoric trade in Asiatic glazed ceramics
and the Palaeolithic. Naturally, there were a number of other topics that surfaced
recurrently during that period. Prominent among them was the topic of jar burials. The
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
brought forth against Beyer, that the range of variation evident among jar burial
assemblages made it unlikely that they represented a single culture that diffused through
the migration of a single people. Solheim thought it more likely that the practice diffused
without a population movement. No significant new interpretations concerning the
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
38P.J.F. Coutts and J.P. Wesson, "Models in Philippine Prehistory: A Review of the Flaked Stone
Industries", Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 8 (1980): 203-259; R.B. Fox, The Tabon Caves,
"The Philippines During the First Millennium B.C.", in Early South East Asia, ed. R.B. Smith and W.
Watson (New York: Oxford University Press 1979), pp. 227-41; W. Peterson, Anomalous Archaeological
Sites of Northern Luzon and Models of Southeast Asian Prehistory, Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology,
University of Hawaii, 1974; W.G. Solheim II, A.M. Legaspi and J.S. Neri, Archaeological Survey in
Southeastern Mindanao (Manila: National Museum, Monograph No. 8,1979); A. Spoehr, Zamboanga and
Sulu: An Archaeological Approach to Ethnic Diversity, Ethnology Monograph No. 1 (Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh, 1973); H.D. Tuggle and K. L. Hutterer, Archaeology of the Sohoton Area, Southwestern
Samar, Philippines, Leyte-Samar Studies 6 (2), 1972.
39R.J. Wassim and R.M. Cochran, "Geological and Geomorphological Perspectives on Archaeological
Sites in the Cagayan Valley", pp. 1-26.
^R.B. Fox, The Tabon Caves; Kurjack, E.B. and C.T. Sheldon, "The Archaeology of Seminoho Cave in
Lebak, Cotabato", Silliman Journal 17 (1970): 5-18; M.N. Maceda, "Preliminary Report on Ethnographic
and Archaeological Fieldwork in the Kulaman Plateau, Islands of Mindanao, Philippines", Anthropos 59
(1964): 75-82; "Second Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Excavation in the Kulaman Plateau
(Cotabato), Islands of Mindanao, Philippines", Anthropos 6 (1965): 237-40; "A Preliminary Report on the
Fenefe Cave Excavation, Kulaman Plateau, Mindanao", Studies in Philippine Anthropology, pp. 265-72.
41W.G. Solheim II, Jar Burial in the Babuyan and Batanes Islands.
42R.C.P. Tenazas, "The Boat-coffin Burial Complex of the Philippines and Its Relation to Similar
Practices in Southeast Asia", Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 1(1973): 19-25.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
243
244
Karl L. Hutterer
gabled roofs found in southern Negros.43 Again, the approach to these phenomena
has been essentially culture-historical. In studying the occurrence of boat-shaped coffins
in many 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 a more processual and developmental anthropological framework.44 These
need, however, further empirical support.
The burials from Negros belong to a larger group of a wide variety of archaeological
phenomena from the Philippines that have, on the basis of previous knowledge and
traditional interpretations, been labelled as "anomalous".45 In this group may be
counted, for instance, certain habitation sites found in northeastern Luzon,46 and sites
yielding small blade tool assemblages in the eastern Central Philippines.47 Although
Peterson has argued that the anomaly of such sites is more apparent than real, result
ing from the use of inappropriate conceptual frameworks and research methodolo
gies,48 little has been done so far to explicate the place of these sites in the context of
Philippine prehistory and in terms of cultural and social evolution within the Philippine
islands.
Certainly the most detailed and specific picture of Philippine culture history before
Spanish contact has been assembled by Solheim.49 His reconstructions rely heavily on the
study of prehistoric pottery that he has been carrying on over a period of more than thirty
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
Masbate and the materials Guthe had collected in the central Philippines. On the basis
of these investigations, he defined four prehistoric pottery complexes in the Philippines
(Kalanay, Novaliches, Bau, Loboc), tracing the first two to specific areas of derivation
outside the islands and associating their introduction with some sort of population
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
(Sa-Huynh-Kalanay, Bau-Malay).51 Within the Philippines, Solheim now recognizes at
43R.C.P. Tenazas, "A Progress Report on the Magsuhot Excavation in Bacong, Negros Oriental, Summer
1974", Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 2 (1974): 133-55.
^R.C.P. Tenazas, A Comparative Study of Settlement Patterns and Socio-religious Structure in Three Pre
historic Iron Age Communities in the Philippines, Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology, University of San
Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines, 1977.
45W. Peterson, Anomalous Archaeological Sites.
46W. Peterson, "Summary Report of Two Archaeological Sites from North-eastern Luzon", Archaeology
and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 9 (1974): 26-35.
47D.J. Scheans, K.L. Hutterer and R.L. Cherry, "A Newly Discovered Blade Tool Industry from the
Central Philippines", Asian Perspectives 13 (1970): 179-81.
48K. L. Hutterer, "An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast Asian Cultural Sequence", Current
Anthropology 17 (1976): 221-42.
49W.G. Solheim II, The Archaeology of Central Philippines and "Philippine Prehistory".
50W.G. Solheim II, The Archaeology of Central Philippines , pp. 192-213.
51W. G. Solheim II, "Introduction to Sa-huynh", Asian Perspectives 3 (1959): 97-108; "Sa-huynh Related
Pottery in Southeast Asia", Asian Perspectives 3(1959): 177-88; "Further Relationship of the Sa-Huynh
Kalanay Pottery Tradition", Asian Perspectives 8(1964): 196-210; "Two Pottery Traditions of Late Prehis
toric Times in Southeast Asia", in Historical, Archaeological, and Linguistic Studies on Southern China,
South East Asia and the Hong Kong Region, ed. F.S. Drake (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,
1967), pp. 15-22; "The Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition: Past and Future Research", Studies in
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
least four pottery complexes related to the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay Tradition: Tabon,
Kalanay, Bagupantao, and Asin.52
While, in many cases, the similarities in decorative motifs and styles as well as in
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.
However, in recent publications, Solheim has suggested that the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay
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
encompassing the southern Philippines, eastern Borneo, and western New Guinea.54 The
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.
Meanwhile, no matter how one feels about Solheim's proposals, it needs to be stressed
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 the West, 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.
Philippine Anthropology, ed. M.D. Zamora (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, 1967), pp. 151-74; "Pre
historic Pottery of Southeast Asia", in Early Chinese Art and Its Possible Influence in the Pacific Basin, ed.
N. Barnard, Vol. 1 (1972): 507-532 (New York: Intercultural Arts Press, 1972).
52W.G. Solheim II, "Philippine Prehistory", p. 150.
53W.G. Solheim II, "Reflections on the New Data of Southeast Asian Prehistory: Austronesian Origin
and Consequence", Asian Perspectives 18 (1975): 146-60.
54W. G. Solheim II, "Coastal Irian Jaya and the Origin of the Nusantao" ("Austronesian Speaking
People" in Le Peuplement d'Archipel Nippon Et Des Isles Du Pacifie: Chronologie, Paleogeographie, Indus
tries), ed. C. Serizawa, Coloque XVIII, IXe Congres, Union Internationale des Sciences Pr?historiques et
Protohistoriques (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1976), pp. 32-42; W.G. Solheim II,
"Prehistory of Southeast Asia with Reference to Oceania", in La Prehistoric Oc?anienne, ed. J. Caranger,
Coloque XXII, IXe Congress, Union Internationale des Sciences Pr?historiques at Protohistoriques (Paris:
Centre National de la Recherche of Scientifique, 1976), pp. 135-51; W. G. Solheim II, "Philippine Prehistory".
55K.L. Hutterer, "Some Comments on 'Models of Philippine Prehistory' by P.J.F. Coutts and J.P.
Wesson", Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 9 (1981): 333-41.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
245
246
Karl L. Hutterer
Perhaps the most immediately pressing, and most generally agreed upon, need in
future research is the establishment of detailed and comprehensive local archaeological
sequences. The availability of such sequences is of crucial importance both for the
construction and interpretation of essentially historical frameworks (i.e., focused on
historical relationships reconstructed on the basis of similarities and changes in artifact
forms) and the pursuit of more anthropologically (processually) oriented issues in
archaeology (i.e., focused on the elucidation of processes and causal variables involved in
the development of certain social forms).
While there is no disagreement about the importance of good and complete local
sequences, there is so far not a single area in the Philippines that has a well-supported
sequence of clearly defined archaeological assemblages. There are a number of reasons
for the lack of progress in this regard. For a variety of reasons, Philippine archaeological
practice is still strongly oriented toward individual sites. However, rarely can a complete
and meaningful sequence be constructed on the basis of just one site. In cases where
several sites are investigated in the same area, they often tend to be of the same type and
time period (e.g., porcelain sites) and are, therefore, of relatively little help in construct
ing extensive sequences. The research carried out in the Tabon cave complex was a major
exception in this regard, but chronological control over the findings there is insufficient
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
between sites involves chronological or functional differences (i.e., differences in the
lithic ceramic assemblages of two sites might imply that the two sites represent different
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
in the deposition of different artifact types). Attention to his problem is particularly
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.
This leads to another important point: a distinction is often made between more
historically and more processually oriented approaches in archaeology. It must be
pointed out, however, that any sound archaeological analysis and interpretation should
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
historical variables. On the other hand, historical interpretations of archaeological
findings can really only be made on the basis of a whole series of explicit or implicit
assumptions about the meaning of variability between artifacts or in other aspects
of the archaeological record. In the final analysis, interpretations of archaeological
patterns as reflections of specific social and cultural conditions of the past are defen
sible only if they are founded on a sound sociological or anthropological understanding
of human organization. In effect, then, historical reconstructions have to rely on a proces
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.
Although few would quibble with the spirit of the above statement, very little
archaeological work in the Philippines has so far been designed and executed in this
manner. One attempt in this direction is the ongoing Bais Anthropological Project on
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
the island of Negros.56 This research program is designed as a subsistence-settlement
investigation and involves statistically designed surveys, excavations, and a variety of
environmental and ethno-archaeological investigations. Although still incomplete, the
project has so far yielded extremely valuable information on changing settlement
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
of the settlement system.
Once archaeological research has been put on such a broad footing, it will be possible
to pursue, in the context of Philippine archaeology, problems and questions the solution
of which may not only revolutionize our thinking about Philippine (and Southeast
Asian) prehistory in the narrow sense but will also contribute to our understanding of
human social and cultural development in general. A series of important issues beg to be
pursued. Tentative first steps have been taken in a number of specific areas, although
substantive results are still meagre. One of these issues concerns the large complex of
questions regarding the domestication of plants and animals and the evolution of agri
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
gical, evolutionary and anthropological concepts.57 A small handful of archaeological
investigations in the Philippines have so far been directed toward prehistoric agriculture
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
56K.L. Hutterer and W.K. Macdonald, "The Bais Anthropological Survey: A First Preliminary Report",
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 1 (1979): 115-40; Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Prehistory and
Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines (Cebu City: University of San Carlos, 1982).
57K.L. Hutterer, "The Natural and Cultural History of Southeast Asian Agriculture: Ecological and
Evolutionary Considerations", Anthropos 78 (1983): 169-212.
58J. Bay-Peterson, "Shifting Cultivation in Prehistory: Economic Change in Masbate, Central Philip
pines", in Adaptive Strategies and Change in Philippine Swidden-based Societies, ed. H. Olofson (College,
Laguna, Philippines: Forest Research Institute), pp. 117-30; J.H. Kress, "Contemporary and Prehistoric
Subsistence Patterns on Palawan, in Cultural-Ecological Perspectives on Southeast Asia, ed. W. Wood
(Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, Center for International Studies, 1977), pp. 29-47; R.F. Maher, "Ar
chaeological Investigations in Central Ifugao", Asian Perspectives 16 (1973): 39-70; W. Peterson, Anomal
ous Archaeological Sites; "The Evolution of Agriculture in Southeast Asia", in Cultural-Ecological Perspec
tives on Southeast Asia.
59K.L. Hutterer, "The Evolution of Philippine Lowland Societies", Mankind 9 (1974): 287-99; Hutterer,
"An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast Asian Cultural Sequence", Current Anthropology 17 (1976):
221-42; K.L. Hutterer and W.K. Macdonald, "The Bais Anthropological Survey: A First Preliminary
Report", Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 1 (1979): 115-40; Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Pre
history and Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines (Cebu City: University of San Carlos, 1982); A. Spoehr,
Zamboanga and Sulu: An Archaeological Approach to Ethnic Diversity, Ethnology Monograph No. 1
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1973).
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
247
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
studies have yet been undertaken to illuminate the degree of differentiation in late
prehistoric coastal societies, nor is there any significant information on this point regard
ing Philippine societies preceding the trade in Asiatic ceramics.61
Archaeologists in the Philippines, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, face numerous
problems. Of very direct archaeological significance are a general lack of understanding
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
Again, this kind of work is likely to increase in importance and its results will eventually
have an impact not only on archaeology in the Philippines but on archaeological work on
a world-wide scale.
Practical Problems of Contemporary Archaeology in the Philippines
Archaeological research in the Philippines is faced with not only theoretical and
methodological problems but also confronted by a series of very practical difficulties.
Foremost among them is the problem of site destruction. Two major causes are involved:
erosion and looting, with the latter posing by far the most serious threat to the prehistoric
patrimony of the country. Looting activities concentrate particularly on sites containing
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
has so far proven to be uncontrollable. The seriousness of the problem is evident in the
fact that every major known site containing Asiatic trade ceramics has either wholly or in
very large part been destroyed by looters. Destruction of sites through erosion is far less
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
tropical rain.
A problem of a very different order is the shortage of qualified archaeologists in the
Philippines. At present, the National Museum is the only institution in the country
with a small staff of professionally educated personnel. Unfortunately, because it has
^K.L. Hutterer, "The Evolution of Philippine Lowland Societies", Mankind 9 (1974): 287-99.
61K.L. Hutterer, "Prehistoric Trade and the Evolution of Philippines Societies: A Reconsideration", in
Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia, ed. K.L. Hutterer, Michigan Papers in South
and Southeast Asia, No. 13 (Ann Arbor, 1977), pp. 177-96; K. L. Hutterer and W. K. Macdonald, Houses
Built on Scattered Poles.
62A. de fa Torre and K.M. Mudar, "The Becino Site: An Exercise in Ethnoarchaeology", in Houses Built
on Scattered Poles, ed. K.L. Hutterer and W.K. Macdonald (Cebu City, Phil.: University of San Carlos,
1982), pp. 117-46; M.J. Graves Jr., Ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga Ceramic Design, Ph.D. dissertation,
Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1981; P.B. Griffin and A.A. Estioko-Griffin, "Ethnoarchaeology in
the Philippines", Archaeology 31, 6 (1978): 34?43; W.A. Longacre, "Kalinga Pottery-making: The
Evolution of a Research Design", in Frontiers in Anthropology, ed. M.J. Leaf (New York: Van Nostrand,
1974), pp. 51-67; W.J. Parry, "Observations on the Arrow Technology of the Negritos of Northern Negros,
Philippines", in Houses Built on Scattered Poles, pp. 107-116; D.H. Scheans, Filipino Market Potteries,
Monograph No. 3 (Manila: National Museum, 1977); W.G. Solheim II, "Pottery Manufacturing in the
Islands of Masbate and Batan, Philippines", University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies 1 (1952):
51-52; "Ibanag Pottery Manufacture in Isabela, Philippines", University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic
Studies! (1954): 305-308; "The Makabog Burial-jar Sites", Philippine Journal of Science &> (1954): 57-68.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Archaeology
been entrusted with 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
National Museum personnel is dictated by these obligations. That is, archaeologists are
almost constantly kept busy with inspections of newly reported sites, investigations of
reported lootings, rescue excavations, and so forth. This leaves very little opportunity for
deliberately planned, problem-oriented research. Altogether, from the point of view of
a foreign researcher, it can be said that the National Museum is badly understaffed and
insufficiently supported by the Philippine government. Considering the importance this
institution has in terms of housing, preserving and interpreting the national heritage,.its
treatment by the Philippine government must be considered a scandal.
The shortage of professionally trained archaeologists in the Philippines is aggravated
by the fact that there are, at this time, no adequate academic training programmes in the
country. Several universities began in the 1960s to organize graduate degree programs in
anthropological archaeology. For a variety of reasons, the intended development of
instructional staff did not occur to the extent envisioned, and several crucial scholars with
higher degrees left their teaching positions. Although several universities have retained
degree programmes on paper, none of them has today sufficiently qualified faculty to
award such degrees. In the absence of a strong intellectual underpinning of academic
teaching and research 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
by foreigners and, consequently, scholarly publications by American and Australian
archaeologists working in the Philippines account for the bulk of site reports and interpre
tive analyses. Having been a beneficiary of Filipino hospitality in my work for many
years, the author is not disposed to argue that no foreigners should be allowed to conduct
archaeological research in the Philippines. At the same time, it is clearly not desirable
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
strengthen programmes of archaeological training and education in the Philippines.
Every effort should be made to persuade national and international agencies to support
such plans.
Remarkably little is known at this time about Philippine prehistory but much could
be learned through more intensive, well-designed, and technically competent research.
Archaeological research in the Philippines is, of course, not only of interest and im
portance from the parochial point of view of a reconstruction of the social and cultural
history of the Philippine nation. While such a reconstruction is by no means an unimpor
tant or minor undertaking, archaeological research is potentially of far greater import: an
understanding of prehistoric social and cultural developments in the islands holds the
promise of making a major contribution toward our understanding of human organiza
tion, change and development in general. It is on this level that the true importance of
Philippine archaeology lies, rather than in the beauty or rarity of artifacts unearthed.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:41:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
249