Department of History, National University of Singapore

Philippine Archaeology: Status and ProspectsAuthor(s): Karl L. HuttererSource: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Sep., 1987), pp. 235-249Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Department of History, NationalUniversity of SingaporeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070969Accessed: 03/02/2010 15:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

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).

Philippine Archaeology 237

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).

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.

Philippine Archaeology 239

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.

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.

Philippine Archaeology 241

exceptions, however, they remained essentially culture historians in a diffusionist mold

and took over from Beyer an artifact-oriented practice of archaeology. The latter implies an assumption of close, and more or less universal correspondence between the presence of certain formal characteristics in artifacts and the existence of certain cultural and social

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.

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).

Philippine Archaeology 243

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.

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

Philippine Archaeology 245

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.

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

Philippine Archaeology 247

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).

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.

Philippine Archaeology 249

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.