Changing perspectives on the meanings of objects and the history of archaeological research in the Philippines
Abstract:
This paper attempts to investigate meanings of artefacts through time.Artefacts gain different meanings during production, acquisition, deposition in archaeological contexts, recovery, and analysis. Artefacts could be possessed by individuals or institutions, displayed in museums or privately appreciated. They could also be left in storage rooms. How people relate and interpret artefacts is influenced by the nature of archaeological research. Applying the concept of the biography of objects, artefacts recovered from Calatagan, Philippines is collectively examined to understand the layers and dynamic meanings acquired by the objects as commodities, mortuary goods, archaeological data, museum objects, and private collection. It is demonstrated in this paper how the history of archaeology in the Philippines influences the interpretation of the Calatagan sites and artefacts. Through understanding how meanings are produced, the paper provides different contexts the artefacts are utilized and creates multiple experiences for people.
Key words: meanings of objects, Philippines, history, interpretation, biography
Introduction
This paper will look at how the history of archaeological research in the Philippines has changed in the last five decades by examining the different meanings acquired by an assemblage of artefacts through time since its recovery. It will focus on how the development of archaeological practice has affected or influenced the interpretation and perspectives of scholars and the public towards sites and artefacts. Artefacts excavated from Calatagan in the province of Batangas, Philippines in 1958will be used as a case study (Figure 1). The Calatagan excavations were the single most important excavated sites in the middle of the twentieth century in the Philippines. The large number of burials recorded and the range of artefacts recovered present interesting aspects of ancient Philippine societies. The famous Calatagan Pot with inscriptions on its shoulder was recovered in this region. Most of the artefacts are stored at the National Museum of the Philippines. Others are part of private collections including the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. The biography of these objects will be mapped: from their acquisition in the past as commodities, as grave goods, their functions in the graves, as archaeological evidence, to their function as museum collection and source of data. It will be demonstrated in this paper that there exists multiple contexts of artefacts, as single objects and as part of the whole collection.Questions on understanding material culture, the choice in what should be recovered from the site, which are acquired by collectors and stored and displayed in the museums, will be considered in this paper in the context of archaeology aspractised in the Philippines. Using the Calatagan artefacts as case study, are means to an end and in the process they amass multiple meanings for different people. How and why they acquire their meanings will be the central theme of this discussion. In the process of examining the biography of the Calatagan materials, The paper will outline the development of archaeological research in the Philippines and how research trends influence the way the Calatagan sites and artefacts were and are interpreted.
Figure 1: Map of the Philippines showing the location of Calatagan
The archaeological excavations in Calatagan
Calatagan is located in Batangas Province south of Manila. The sites are found along the western coast of the peninsula. It was in 1934 that the presence of middens and archaeological materials were observed during the preparation of a polo-field in the Zobel Estate (Beyer 1947). Mr Enrique Zobel reported the site to the National Museum of the Philippines (NM) and Ricardo Galang visited the area and collected stone adzes and chisels (Beyer 1947). Olov RT Janse (1941, 1944-45, 1947) conducted the first Calatagan excavations in the 1940s. The materials recovered from these excavations were shipped to the Harvard-Yenching Institute and are now in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University (Kanji 2005). Some skeletal materials and local vessels from Janse’s (1944-45) excavation were deposited at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. The results of these excavations encouraged large-scale excavations from 1958 to the early 1960s by the NM. The 1958 excavations were published by Robert B. Fox in 1959. The 1960-1961 excavations remained unpublished until recently (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Main and Fox published in 1982 a descriptive analyses and classification of the earthenware vessels recovered from the excavations. More than 1000 burials from open-pits have been recorded since the 1940s, including infant jar burials. Majority of the adult skeletons are buried in supine positions while some in flexed positions. The sites date to the 15th century AD based on the decorations of the Southeast Asian ceramics used as mortuary goods.
The most common finds from the burials were earthenware vessels and foreign ceramics. The undecorated earthenware vessels were composed of cooking pots, spouted vessels called kendi, lobed pots locally known as kinalabasa(squash-like), bowls, and pots resembling cooking vessels but have flat-and-depressed bases instead of round bases. The decorated pots have incised lines and punctuations. Decorations include solar motifs. The bowls and kendis are local copies of foreign forms. The foreign ceramics were from China, Vietnam, and Thailand. Forms include jarlets, saucers, bowls, and plates. Most of the foreign ceramics are monochromes while some of the plates and bowls have floral patterns that have been interpreted as sun-burst patterns (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). The non-ceramic objects include human skulls, shells, animal bones, giant clams, glass bracelets and glass beads, stone statues, metal implements, Chinese coins, a gold sheet, a gold ring, and spindle whorls. The Calatagan Pot was recovered by a labourer during a weekend break in the 1960-61 excavations that its exact provenience is unknown.
Since earlier excavations mainly were on the western coast, the NM spearheaded a project that surveyed and eventually excavated in the eastern coast of the Calatagan peninsula (Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They recorded and recovered burial jars belonging to an earlier period, 1695+ 20 BP and 2820+40 BP (Dela Torre 2003). The sites and artefacts discussed here are fromexcavations prior to the 1990s.
History of archaeological research in the Philippines
This section discusses the history of archaeological research in the Philippines based on how Filipino scholars view its development. It will explore what they supposed were key advances in Philippine archaeology and take note of their suggestions to help propagate the discipline. It will also include current developments that were in response to early assessments of archaeological practice. These information shall provide the background for the discussion. It shall start with the 1950s as the major Calatagan excavations took place in 1958. (For archaeological research before 1950 please see Evangelista 1961; Mijares 1998; Paz 2009; Santiago 2001)
Similar to other Southeast Asian states’ experience, archaeological practice was initiated mostly by foreign scholars and enthusiasts. However by 1951 in the Philippines, Filipino scholars became more active in archaeological research (Ronquillo 1985). The NM continued its collaboration with foreign archaeologists. Radiocarbon dating was started to be utilized in the early 1950s. Earlier interpretations on how specific cultures reached the Philippines started to be challenged. New sites were discovered which also added new dimensions to learning ancient lifeways. Excavation techniques and recording methods were also becoming more systematic. Few Filipino graduate students were interested in archaeology and have conducted their own excavations as part of their program. One such excavation was in Lemery, Batangas conducted by three female graduate students from 1968-70. The result of this intensive research waspublished in 2008 (Locsin et al. 2008). Foreign graduate students invited by their professors to conduct research also made use of Philippine materials for their dissertations, which eventually were published. Ethnoarchaeological research were conducted on Agta Negritos and pottery-making in the 1970s. The aim of the research on the Agta Negritos was to understand hunter lifestyles living in tropical environments. Longacre’s research on Kalinga pottery had produced several publications and encouraged several American graduate students from the middle of the 1970s to the 1980s to conduct their own research on various facets of Kalinga pottery (Longacre 1981, 1999; Longacre et al. 1988, 2000; Longacre and Skibo1994). It was also during the 1970s until the 1980s that American archaeologists utilized Philippine data to test hypotheses regarding social development of societies, political economy, and trade in the context of an island environment (Hutterer 1974, 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1985, 1991). Also in the 1970s the NM began actively searching for evidence of early Homo sapiens specifically in the Peñablanca Caves, Cagayan Valley and Tabon Caves, Palawan. These sites have been recently re-excavated and artefacts re-analysed to obtain more data about the earliest humans in the Philippines and Southeast Asia (Dizon 2003a; Jago-on 2007, 2008; Lewis et al. 2007-2008; Mijares 2007-2008; Mijares et al. 2010; Schmidt 2009).
Though descriptive in its treatment, Ronquillo’s (1985) article illustrated how archaeology in the Philippines benefitted very much from collaborations with foreign scholars. Despite of its numerous excavations during the said period, most of the interpretations regarding archaeological sites remained to be framed from a foreign perspective and mostly offered by non-Filipino scholars. As Ronquillo (1985:84) stated, much of the excavations were salvage archaeology due to ‘construction work, natural calamities, and by looting’. Nevertheless, the number of sites and large quantity of artefacts recovered during this period provide present students and scholars many opportunities for research, including this paper. This period produced a Field Manual In Archaeology written by Peralta (1978) which provided standard techniques followed in every local excavation. However, in the early part of the 21st century, British excavation techniques were incorporated in local field excavations introduced by a British-trained Filipino archaeologist (Paz 2003).
Research before the 1980s focused on ‘culture history, cultural chronology, typology of prehistoric material cultures, using the unilineal development stages of cultural evolutionary theory’ (Dizon 1994: 199). Dizon (1994:200) underscored the ‘professionalisation in the field of archaeology’. Prior to the 1980s, most of the archaeology practitioners were trained by cultural anthropologists. In the 1980s, four Filipino scholars, including Ronquillo and Dizon, were fortunate enough to have attended American universities where they received their masters’ and doctoral degrees. In 1988, the Archaeology Division at the NM formally separated from the Anthropology Division. This created more opportunities for the NM to concentrate on archaeological work in the country. It was during the 1980s that underwater archaeology was initiated and the number of excavationsincreased. Similar to Ronquillo’s article, Dizon then proceeded to describe major research from 1982 to 1992. Another chief development was the involvement of archaeologists in environmental and impact assessments. To date, several non-government organisations conduct assessment studies. Dizon also described how the Archaeology Division managed their photographic collection and data. Data digitisation was started in the 1991 and continues until the present.
Dizon concluded that the major problem at that time was the lack of institutions that offer formal courses and degrees in archaeology. Dizon added that the research trend during the 1980s was a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. However, such research utilising the deductive method were very few, mainly spearheaded by foreign archaeologists or Filipino archaeologists who had formal training. Despite the presence of Hutterer and Longacre in the 1970s and 1980s, processual studies did not influence local scholarship at that time. Dizon’s (1994) attempt to provide the theoretical direction of research in the country was not as explicit as Santiago’s views discussed below.
The papers discussed above were more of status reports than a commentary on the state of archaeology in the Philippines. Mijares’(1998) paper on the development of Philippine archaeology differs from the articles discussed above which were inclined to be personality-based. Mijares focused on archaeological method and paradigm as his framework in addressing the growth of the discipline. He traced the earliest methods used in excavation and explanation. He started with Beyer’s surface collections, salvage archaeology, and the use of diffusion-migration theories. He discussed the lack of field reports prior to Fox’s excavations in the 1950s. For Mijares, it was only Guthe who conducted systematic collection in the 1920s until Fox’s introduction of standard excavation techniques in the 1950s. Despite of Fox and Peralta’s efforts to introduce field procedures, Mijares still considered their interpretations as speculative. He acknowledges the presence of foreign archaeologists in the Philippines such as Longacre and Hutterer for establishing processual studies in the country. He also highlighted the contribution of Filipino archaeologists who received formal training in American universities and the researchers who trained under Fox and Peralta. From 1993 to 1996, the shell midden sites of Cagayan Valley discovered in the 1970s were extensively investigated with collaborations with Japanese archaeologists. Ronquillo and Ogawa (1996) initiated the Batangas Archaeological Project to continue Fox’s work in Calatagan. New sites producing unique artefacts such as anthropomorphic jars (Dizon 1993) and stone boat-shaped burial markers and traces of ancient settlements were also discovered in the 1990s (Dizon and Mijares 1999; Mijares 2003). Under the Problems, Issues, and Concerns section of Mijares’ article (1998:12-14), he noted the domination of foreign archaeologists in the reconstruction of Philippine prehistory and the lack of formal training of Filipino scholars. Despite the continuous interaction of Filipino scholars with foreign archaeologists, Mijares argues that a historical-cultural persists among the former. Mijares (1998:13) also added that the Philippines ‘remained in the periphery of the debate’. He also underscored the lack of publication of site and final reports and technology required to practice archaeology. For the discipline to prosper, he proposed that archaeology should be problem-orientated research based in an academic institution rather than a reactive approach wherein sites are excavated after reported.
Santiago’s (2001) view on the development of Philippine archaeology centred on the lack of theoretical discussion among Filipino practitioners. Her proposed periodization was based on the theoretical paradigms developed in North America and Europe: a. Before 1900s: Antiquarianism, b. 1900-1950: Early Cultural-Historical Period, c. 1950-1980: Late Cultural-Historical Period, and d. 1980-Present: Emerging Processualism. The difference between the Early Cultural-Historical Period and the Late Cultural-Historical Period was the introduction of ‘scientific data collection methods primarily the use of stratigraphic principles’ (Santiago 2001:7). Despite of this, in Santiago’s view, data interpretation remained to be from a cultural-historical perspective. The period from 1950 to 1980 described by Santiago (2001: 9-12) was essentially an account of foreign scholars’ experience in the Philippines. This is similar to Mijares’ (1998) statement on the lack of Filipino scholars actively contributing to the reconstruction of Philippine prehistory. Regardless, excavation methods greatly improved from the 1950s onwards. Santiago and Dizon have the same view that the 1980s was the start of a significant period in archaeological research in the Philippines. The Filipino scholars who studied abroad brought with them new methods and theories including statistical, spatial, metallurgical analyses, and the use of GPS and GIS techniques. However, Santiago noted that despite of the introduction of scientific methods and analyses, interpretation is still largely from a cultural-historical approach.
Paz (2009) had a different take on the history of archaeological practice. Paz’s analysis is more of a reflective process and practice-based rather than emphasizing the theory-based archaeological research whichaforementioned scholars engaged in. What is interesting about Paz’s article is that it described the social milieu of the people involved in the practice of archaeology in the Philippines rather than the details of their archaeological activities. It traced the development of the consciousness of collecting for whom and for what reasons. The article is mainly Paz’s reflection of the transformation of the practice of archaeology from personal and imperial entitlement to the notion that archaeology is state-owned. However, the essential piece of the paper was the acknowledgement of the presence of private collectors without being critical of them. Paz recognized the disparate ethics and practice of collectors and professional archaeologists and highlighted instances of collaborations between them. Such collaborations are eventually beneficial to both parties.
In 1995, the Archaeological Studies Program was established at the University of the Philippines (UP-ASP) where research-orientated projects are conducted. Each faculty is actively pursuing their own research interests. Hukay, the UP-ASP’s peer-reviewed journal launched in 1998, where Mijares’ and Santiago’s articles came out, is now an international publication with foreign contributors and referees. Collaborations with foreign institutions are healthy. In the academic aspect of collaborations, local and foreign students receive free training and present opportunities for them to interact with foreign academics. Graduate students participate in exchange programs that help broaden their prospects in archaeology. Currently, the UP-ASP has links with Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Australian National University, University of Washington, and University College Dublin. Collaborations also have a practical aspect. Foreign scholars bring with them financial assistance and technology in field and laboratory work. To date, due to budgetary constraints, local archaeologists, most of the time but not always, can obtain scientific dates for their research if they have foreign collaborators. Philippine sites are still mainly dated based on foreign ceramics which are also reliable and can be correlated with radiocarbon dates as Melendres (2008) has demonstrated. Students are also given the chance to pursue their own research usually offshoots of these collaborations.
Calatagan through the years
Materials are passive, however, some people would argue that they are active (Barretto-Tesoro 2008b; Bray 2008; Hodder 1982). The people who possess and use these objects give their meanings to them. Meanings of objects can be multiple and are dependent on their contexts and how people from various sectors view these objects (De La Paz 2008). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the many meanings of the Calatagan artefacts in the context of the history of archaeology in the Philippines. It will be drawing from the cultural biography concept (Kopytoff 1986) which states that meanings of objects can change throughout an artefact’s lifetime. The Calatagan objects have their own histories prior to their function as mortuary goods. They were artefacts during the systematic excavations in Calatagan in the 1940s (Janse 1941, 1944-45, 1947), late 1950s (Fox 1959), early 1960s (Fox 1961), and in the early 1990s (Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They were also given as tokens to sponsors of the excavations. At the same time, some of the Calatagan objects came from unsystematic excavations that are now part of several private collections. Few Calatagan artefacts are exhibited in the NM and its provincial branches, and in the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. Some are stored in the Ceramic Storage Room of the NM. To date, people have utilized Calatagan data in their dissertations (Barretto-Tesoro 2007; Bautista 2007; Chang 2004; Dela Torre 2008). Despite its collective term as ‘Calatagan artefacts’, It is propose that these objects have different meanings for different people. This research will elucidate how meanings and interpretations of objects are multiple, changing, and context dependent.