Contextualising the Calatagan artefacts in the Lopez
Collection
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 1958 will 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 as practised 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 from excavations 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 was published 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 excavations increased. 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 which aforementioned 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.
Interpretations of Calatagan artefacts according to various
scholars
Calatagan sites and artefacts were interpreted based on the
research agenda of the excavator. Janse (1941, 1944-1945, 1947) was
interested in the influence of the Dong-son in Indo-China and the
Philippines. He excavated 60 graves in three cemeteries in
Calatagan, which contained Ming pieces. Fox’s (1959) interpretation
did not go beyond the usual explanation that all objects in the
burials were ritual objects and grave goods. There was no
sufficient explanations for the distribution of the grave goods,
the demand for specific pottery types and the apparent chosen
locations for particular items. In 1982, Main and Fox wrote a
comprehensive description of the earthenware vessels from twelve
Calatagan sites. The description centred on forms, clay, temper,
temper size, paste, slip, firing, and designs, which were the bases
for the classification of the vessels into three pottery complexes.
Main and Fox assessed the chronology of pottery forms and designs
by comparing manufacturing techniques of the Calatagan vessels with
pottery from other sites. The aim was to identify ‘ancestors’ of
the Calatagan types to investigate the spread of pottery types from
the origin. However, meanings of designs were not examined. The
analyses of the porcelains, mostly coming from Annam, Siam, and
China also focused on manufacturing and painting techniques (Fox
1959). Fox noted the low quality of the porcelains but maintained
that they were good sources of the development of ceramic studies
in Mainland Asia including kiln activity, production periods, and
trade. Although the porcelains were for daily use, it has been
suggested that the designs were potent symbols of the local
cosmology.
My work focused on social identities that can be inferred from
the ceramics and non-ceramic objects found as grave furniture.
Barretto-Tesoro (2008a) has emphasized that we can infer the
various identities manifested in the burials, depending on the
qualitative attributes of the ceramics and their locations in the
graves, in relation to the body. She posited that cultural
affiliations were symbolized by the inclusion of undecorated local
vessels placed near the head and feet areas of the deceased, the
general place of burials, and the manner of burial (Barretto-Tesoro
2008b). Gender was marked more than sex through the inclusion of
gender-specific objects such as metal implements and spindle
whorls. Some infants, perhaps due to their age, were placed in
jars. Status in Calatagan was determined through ceramics decorated
with solar and bird motifs placed on top or near the pelves
(Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). In earlier studies in the Philippines,
status was viewed from a political-economy framework (Bacus 1996;
Junker 1999) and determined by the density of foreign items present
in habitation and burial zones. The most recent work in Calatagan
(Barretto-Tesoro 2008c) demonstrated that indigenous symbols marked
status even though such graves contained only one porcelain plate.
Imitation occurs when monochrome ceramics were found on the pelvis.
Earlier markers could have been the earthenware vessels with solar
designs.
How objects were acquired in the past?
Foreign objects were acquired through trades with Southeast
Asian merchants. They were perhaps initially seen as commodities,
which were later transformed into ritual/burial goods. However, the
decorations on the porcelains found in the graves suggest that the
Calatagan locals were active in the selection of foreign ceramics.
It seems that the indigenous belief system influenced the active
selection of foreign ceramics with sun and bird symbols which were
considered potent (Salazar 2004, 2005). Women most probably
manufactured the local vessels for domestic use and on a need-basis
(Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Some of the cooking pots recovered from
the graves have evidence of carbon deposits in the interior and
soot on the exterior. Heavy usewear suggests that the cooking pots
were used in domestic contexts prior to their burial. Those with
light usewear suggest that the pots were specifically manufactured
for burials and used to cook food offerings. Other non-utilitarian
pots, particularly decorated ones, appear to have been newly made,
based on the brightness of their colours, for the sole purpose of
burial.
As Records of the National Museum of the Philippines
The Archaeology Records Section of the Archaeology Division of
the NM has recently started to digitize their records. During the
data gathering for her master’s thesis (Barretto 2002) and doctoral
dissertation (Barretto-Tesoro 2007), she encountered the original
burial sketches, preliminary analyses forms, and the burial and
specimen inventory records of the Calatagan sites from the 1958 and
1960-1961 excavations. Documents also included letters to sponsors
and short reports on the status of the excavations. On one hand,
she was delighted to hold the actual records and documents of the
excavations. These pages held the handwritten notes of Robert B.
Fox and team members’ some of whom became well-known Filipino
archaeologists later on. Ecstatic with the burial sketches she
found, she copied information on the forms and scanned them. On the
other hand, she was worried that these yellowing and brittle sheets
were in danger of deterioration. It would be better if future
researchers would handle printouts of digital copies of the
documents and forms rather than the original ones. The move to
digitize all the records of the Archaeology Division is an
important step in the proper management of written archaeological
information. The 1958 excavations were published by Fox in 1959 but
the results of the 1960-1961 excavations remained largely
unanalysed and unpublished until very much later on
(Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Chang 2004). Only the earthenware vessels
were given much attention (Main and Fox 1982). There are many more
artefacts and records in the Archaeology Division that require
analysis. If records are not stored properly, needless to say,
valuable information about the Philippines’ past will be lost. In
addition, due to the large quantities of artefacts shared with
sponsors of the excavations, the only available Calatagan artefacts
that can be accessed are those in the NM, Ayala Museum, and the
Lopez Museum. Only the burial forms, inventory records, and other
excavation records remain as sources of information on other
items.
As museum objects: what were displayed and stored?
Due to space and funding limitations, the NM does not display
many Calatagan artefacts. Most of the earthenware vessels are in
the Ceramic Storage Room. The pots are stacked on rows of shelves.
Labels written on the pots can be cross-referenced with the
excavation records. Some do not have accession codes but their
forms indicate that they were also from Batangas. Some of the
foreign ceramics were relatively protected inside cabinets. One
item was memorable. It was a small jar that still contains the
remains of an infant (Figure 2). For some archaeologists, skeletons
are data, but for some, there is recognition that the data were
once individuals thus, must be treated with respect. This very
concept has led to the repatriation of human remains in other
countries. Museums are now more cautious in exhibiting and storing
human remains. It is highly suggested to assess the current
condition of the infant’s bones and to transfer them to suitable
storage space.
Figure 2: A jar containing infant bones located in the Ceramic
Storage Room of the National Museum of the Philippines (Photo by
Grace Barretto-Tesoro)
If one is familiar with the Calatagan excavations, a quick look
around the exhibit galleries of the NM shows that there are minimal
to none displayed from these sites. In 2005, Barretto-Tesoro
visited the NM Branch in Bolinao, Pangasinan and there was one
glass bracelet from Calatagan displayed there. An inspection of the
NM records show that some Calatagan artefacts are exhibited in
provincial NM branches across the country. The current exhibit at
the NM and its branches present the archaeological history of the
Philippines in a conventional manner. It starts with the geological
formation of the Philippine islands then moves to the Pleistocene
and Palaeolithic periods, followed by the Neolithic Period and
Metal Age, then by the Protohistoric Period. The Calatagan sites
are 15th century sites belonging to the Protohistoric Period. Due
to the volume of foreign ceramics and other imported items in
Calatagan, the artefacts were perhaps distributed to NM local
branches to be included in the exhibit highlighting the cultural
treasures of the country. Foreign items are usually presented as
part of the developing long-distance trade from the 10th century to
the 15th century. The significance of the ceramics, shells, glass
bracelets and other mortuary items in Calatagan in the context of
burial practices were overlooked; instead, the role of trade was
highlighted.
Two points should be highlighted. First is that, there is no
mention in the current NM exhibits of the significance of the
Calatagan finds. The linear storytelling of the Philippine’s past
prohibits the audience to have a deeper understanding of the
significance of the Calatagan sites. In 2007, the Museum of
Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, to encourage young
people to visit the museum, the museum staff would often think of
ways to present a concept or topic relevant to a specific
demographic age using their collection. In anticipation of the new
Harry Potter movie in 2007, the curators decided to have an exhibit
on magic and potions by choosing specimens from the existing
collection. Museums may need to veer away from conventional
presentations, and the NM may be able to maximize the ways the
results of excavations are shared. Exhibits can become more
meaningful when the audience can truly relate with the artefacts.
Perhaps the NM can develop novel ways to present their collection
to wider audience, or even to specific demography apart from
students and the local elites. Using the Calatagan finds, samples
of exhibit may include Tagalog archaeology, burial practices,
pottery designs, and relationships with other artefacts from other
Batangas or southern Luzon sites.
The second point is in relation to the above. The separation of
some Calatagan artefacts and their distribution in many provincial
NM museums remove them from their contexts. The implications of the
grave goods in relation to various aspects of the deceased and
community’s life can be lost or even disregarded by audiences and
researchers alike. One of the possible solutions is to revise
exhibits depending on contemporary research trends. At present,
there is a tendency to present a macroscopic and broad view of
pre-colonial polities rather than stressing the diversities of
these polities.
Many of the ceramics at the NM Ceramic Storage were restored and
reconstructed, which perhaps excluded them from the display
collection or maybe they do not fit in the existing exhibit
framework. An inventory of the pots cross-referenced with the
records indicates that many are ‘missing’. This is Fox donated some
of the specimens to sponsors of the excavations.
Objects as private collections
As mentioned above, Fox sought the financial assistance of
various wealthy families when he commenced the 1960s excavations in
Calatagan. One of these is the Lopez Family. In return, sponsors
received their share of the recovered artefacts, mostly the finer
and whole pieces. The Lopez Calatagan collection consists of
foreign ceramics, local earthenware vessels, glass bracelets, glass
beads, spindle whorls, net weights, and metal spears. They are now
housed in the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library in Manila in
relatively good condition. The labels indicate that the artefacts
came from Calatagan graves dating to the 15th century AD. The Zóbel
y Ayala and McMicking families provided financial support for the
field expenses during the 1958 excavations (Fox 1959). Sixty-five
percent of the 1958 collection is now in the Zóbels’ possession
(Cruz 1958). The sites were previously part of what was known as
the Hacienda de Calatagan owned by the Zobels. Six small sacks of
ceramic sherds from Calatagan were also reported to have been
observed at the Ayala Museum, Philippines (Bautista 2007). Other
private collections, unfortunately, came from unsystematic diggings
around Batangas. The forms of these pots are similar to those
coming from Calatagan that their origins cannot be denied (Valdes
2003).
The 1958 excavations in Calatagan spawned widespread treasure
hunting in the Philippines. Fox employed many locals during the
excavations. He taught them the rudiments of excavation and
identification. These Batangueños were the first generation of
treasure hunters who methodically made their way across Batangas,
parts of southern Luzon, Palawan and islands south of Luzon. During
our 2008 survey in southeastern Batangas, we encountered the name
of Macario Putol who, according to the locals hailed from
Calatagan. He excavated several burials in Lobo during the 1970s
(Barretto-Tesoro et al. 2009). The effects of this mad activity can
be felt until the present day.
Private collections became in vogue (Gotuaco et al. 1997;
Peralta 1982; Valdes 2003) and validated the status of the owners
(Poulter 2007). Perhaps due to greater access to funds, coffee
table books on private collections containing high-quality images
are widely published.
Meanings for the locals
Prior to the 1958 excavations, the locals were using Ming
ceramics for their tableware, which they unintentionally recovered
from ploughing (Fox 1959). One local used the sherds to ‘pave his
salt beds’ because the stoneware sherds ‘are superior to red tile
for evaporating the salt’ (Fox 1959:338). It had neither historical
nor symbolical value to them but a functional and practical value.
When archaeologists arrived, the excavations became more important
than the objects. As labourers, they were paid a daily wage to
assist Fox and his team. According to the locals interviewed in
2005, the excavations gave them social prestige. They accommodated
the visitors from Manila including the American Fox. This attitude
is common among Filipinos who prioritize visitors by giving them
the best even if they themselves do not possess much.
The locals referred to above were migrants (Fox 1959). They
could not have considered any associations with the human bones
they were encountering in their fields. The most obvious use they
thought of for the plates and bowls were for kitchen use. To date,
the locals who owned the properties where the sites are located
have sold their lands. For archaeologists, the Calatagan sites were
sources of precolonial lifeways but for the locals they were
properties for sale.
Recent developments in Calatagan
Golden Sunset Village Resort and Spa is a first-class resort
built on top of what was previously known as Kay Tomas and Pulong
Bakaw, the two sites excavated by Fox in 1958. The owner, Ricky
Reyes, a television personality, did not know that the land he
bought was an archaeological site. Even though an Archaeological
Impact Assessment was not conducted in his property prior to resort
construction as required by law, Reyes was still granted an
Environmental Compliance Certificate in September 2005. When we
visited Calatagan in April 2005, structures were already standing
in his property. During construction, the labourers observed many
broken ceramics in the ground. Bautista (2007), an UP-ASP student
who was working for the NM informed Reyes about the significance of
his property. In order to promote the business, Reyes thought of
establishing an Outdoor Gallery Museum to ‘add prestige, value, and
feature’ (Bautista 2007:117) to the resort. A Memorandum of
Agreement was signed between the NM and Reyes, the former providing
information about the archaeology of Calatagan, replicas and
photographs of artefacts recovered from the sites. The gallery was
inaugurated in March 2007. This outdoor museum is now a popular
feature of the resort that makes visitors’ stay more significant
because of the history attached to the place.
Other points
Initial excavations in Calatagan from 1934 to 1958, except
Janse’s, were not research-driven. Workers constructing an airfield
discovered fragments of Chinese porcelains which was a common
occurrence among the locals (Cruz 1958; Fox 1959). The owner of the
property, Don Enrique Zobel, recognizes the sherds’ importance and
contacted the NM. The NM sent Ricardo Galang. Unfortunately, the
artefacts recovered by Galang were destroyed during World War II
(Fox 1959). In early 1958, amateur diggings initiated by members of
the Zobel and McMicking families with the help of locals resulted
in widespread looting. They soon realized the cultural and
historical potential of the area which originally was part of the
Hacienda de Calatagan and owned by the Zobels. It was only in 1957
that sections of the Hacienda were sold to tenants. The 1958
excavations were largely sponsored by the Zobels and McMickings.
What started as salvage archaeology and private individuals’
interest in the precolonial past became full scale excavations in
1958 and 1960-61 with the objective to recover human remains and
artefacts.
Fox’s interpreted the artefacts as evidence of prehispanic
burial traditions but he started without identifying his research
questions. It can likewise be seen as salvage archaeology. Fuelled
by what were recovered in the 1958 excavations, the 1960-61
excavations were conducted to rescue more archaeological materials.
More private individuals donated funds to the excavation which
entitled them to a portion of the finds. The Calatagan excavations
were generally motivated to save artefacts. It also legalize the
acquisition of antiquities by private collectors. Artefacts
recovered from systematic excavations by the NM were obviously
credible than those dug by pothunters since the former employed
scientific recovery techniques. The private collectors perhaps
delight in the fact that their collection did not just have
aesthetic value but cultural, historical, and archaeological
significance. This kind of working relationship which may seemed
unacceptable for some has helped in protecting archaeological sites
and can also be seen as a form of archaeological resource
management (see Paz 2009).
The NM-private individual partnerships generated financial
support from wealthy families. These collaborations assisted the
growth of private collections. Of different persuasions, both the
NM and private collectors were interested in the protection of
archaeological resources. As Paz (2009) noted, collectors aspired
to know more about the context of their finds that catalogues on
collections were published. In 2005, the Lopez Memorial Museum
highlighted the historical and cultural significance of the
Calatagan artefacts in their collection through an exhibit
(Legaspi-Ramirez 2005).
Fox’s team was mainly composed of Filipinos, one of them was the
late Alfredo Evangelista who later lead excavations in other parts
of the Philippines (Evangelista 2001). The burial sketches were
drawn by Filipinos too (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Despite the
Filipinos’ participation in the excavation, only Fox (1959; Main
and Fox 1982) published on the Calatagan finds. It took almost 40
years for Filipino students to be interested in the Calatagan
artefacts (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Bautista 2007). The general lack
of publications on Calatagan by Filipinos can be attributed to the
fact that there were no formally trained Filipinos at the time of
the excavations. The small number of archaeology practitioners from
the 1950s-80s were engaged in salvage archaeology or
state-sponsored projects on human antiquity. The 15th century
burial sites of Calatagan had to wait. Filipino scholars who
studied the Calatagan artefacts were among the first batch of
graduate students of the UP-ASP (Barretto 2002; Barretto-Tesoro
2008a; Bautista 2007). The Calatagan sites produced high quantities
of artefacts that were not completely analysed except for the
earthenwares (Main and Fox 1982). Calatagan’s appeal was the fact
that they are readily accessible for scholars to study. Revisiting
and re-excavating sites and reanalysing artefacts became a trend
due to new theoretical frameworks that influenced the
re-investigation of Calatagan.
What makes Calatagan exceptional is the extent of the cemeteries
along the western coast, the scale of excavations unheard of in the
1950s in the Philippines where Fox introduced standard methods of
retrieving and recording, the enormity of the project in terms of
sites, artefacts, and burials. The Calatagan excavations defined an
era in the history of Philippine archaeology. It was a clear break
from the antiquarian approach of the late 1800s until the early
1900s where Philippine archaeological and ethnological materials
helped augment the collection of foreign museums i.e. Peabody
Museum, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Musée de
l’Homme, and National Ethnographic Museum in Leiden. Although Guthe
conducted relatively standardized methods the most important was
recording the provenience of the artefacts, describing sites,
maintaining a field journal, and illustrating artefacts, all
collected artefacts were shipped to the University of Michigan.
Early foreign practitioners of archaeology saw Philippine materials
as objects of curiosities or evidence of external cultures either
interacting with local populations or migrating to the Philippines.
This was evident in Janse’s interpretation of the Calatagan finds.
Fox attempted to understand the Calatagan materials in the context
of Philippine prehistory, except the porcelains. Fox’s main
interest in the porcelains was their production and distribution in
the sites. In terms of the application of technology, the
fragmentary conditions of the human skeletal remains recorded by
Fox preclude radiocarbon dating. The burials excavated in east
coast of Calatagan in the 1990s were radiocarbon dated (Dela Torre
2003).
There are several foreigners who worked on and in Calatagan.
Janse was the first foreigner who excavated in Calatagan. Even
Solheim excavated for a week in Calatagan (Fox 1959). Although Fox
was an American, his institutional affiliation at the time of the
excavations from 1958 to 1961 was the NM and his team was primarily
composed of Filipinos. Fox later collaborated with Dorothy Main
(Main and Fox 1982) to investigate the earthenware vessels. The
analysis and dating of the Calatagan Pot was through the assistance
of foreign scholars (Dizon 2003b). The 1990s surveys and
excavations on the east coast of the peninsula was a joint project
between the NM and Japanese archaeologists. The research in
Calatagan parallels the history of archaeological research in the
Philippines. Previous research was mainly foreign-dominated
investigations that transitioned to research supervised and
directed by Filipinos.
Early scholars were interpreting the Calatagan finds using
diffusion-migration models. They were also interested in the
production of the porcelains and earthenware vessels. There was a
preoccupation on the classification of porcelains and earthenware
pots which was in vogue at that time. Classification is essential
in analysing artefacts that may be used as a basis to investigate
other aspects of the population who used the artefacts.
Considerable attention was given to the manufacturing technology of
the ceramics (Main and Fox 1982). Again, these studies are
important but questions on identity, ethnicity, status, symbolisms,
cosmology, heritage management investigated 40 years after Fox’s
excavations were brought about by theoretical developments in
archaeology in the west during the early part of the 21st
century.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrated the many meanings of the Calatagan
materials and excavations because of how agents at various times
perceived these objects (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986). Some of
the artefacts started as commodities, imported items brought by
foreign merchants. Some were household supplies and implements that
were locally manufactured. They could also have economic values
wherein trade items were tokens shared with trading parties that
later became symbolic of status and potency (Barretto-Tesoro
2008c). They were later transformed as mortuary items. The foreign
objects were evidence for the long-distance trade with the
Philippines. The burials were evidence for the elaborate ancient
belief system the Filipinos practised before Spanish
colonialisation. The earthenware pots were evidence for the level
of craft production. The skeletons might be evidence for past
pathology.
The entire Calatagan region is good reason for heritage
protection and site management. The Calatagan artefacts became one
of the cornerstones for establishing the Lopez Memorial Museum and
Library. Don Eugenio Lopez wanted to provide a venue where
Filipiniana scholars and researchers have access to his private
collection. As the national institution responsible for the custody
of the nation’s cultural treasures, the NM has a commitment to the
public. Even if the public is not sympathetic to the ideals of the
NM, artefacts should be stored in better conditions where
archaeological materials will not suffer further deterioration.
This paper has contributed to new perspectives about the
Calatagan artefacts. Utilising the biographical approach and
tracking the different trajectories of the artefacts enabled us to
comprehend how their meanings changed for the people who excavated,
examined, possessed, stored, and displayed them. Finally, this
paper also advocates for archaeologists in the Philippines to look
at innovative ways to navigate the layers of meanings behind the
artefacts and sites that otherwise will remain hidden.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the National Museum of the Philippines and the
Lopez Memorial Museum and Library for granting access to the
Calatagan records and materials during the research. This paper is
a revised version of the talk delivered at the Lopez Memorial
Museum and Library on 12 July 2008. Thank you to Janine Ochoa and
Anna Pineda for their suggestions. Lastly many thanks to the locals
of Calatagan who shared their views and opinions on the
excavations.
References
Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: commodities and the politics of
value.” In The social life of things. Commodities in cultural
perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986.
Bacus, Elisabeth. “Late prehistoric chiefly polities in the
Dumaguete-Bacong area and central Philippine Islands.” Philippine
Quarterly and Culture and Society 24 (1996): 5-58.
Barretto, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Evaluating status in Philippine
prehistory through grave goods.” Unpublished Masters Thesis,
University of the Philippines, 2002.
Barretto-Tesoro, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Social Identities and
Earthenware Functions in 15th century AD Philippines.” PhD
Dissertation, Cambridge University, 2007.
Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. Identity and Reciprocity in 15th Century
Philippines, BAR International Series 1813. Oxford: John and Erica
Hedges Ltd. British Archaeological Reports, 2008a.
Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Undecorated Calatagan Pots as Active
Symbols of Cultural Affiliation.” In Breaking the Mould:
Challenging the Past through Pottery, edited by Ina Berg, 35-46.
Oxford: Archaeopress (Publishers of British Archaeological
Reports), 2008b.
Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Where are the datu and catalonan in
early Philippine societies?: Investigating status in Calatagan.”
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 36, no. 3 (2008c):
74-102.
Barretto-Tesoro, Grace, Fredeliza Campos, and Anna Pineda. “New
Sites in Southeastern Batangas, Philippines. Report on the Survey
conducted by the UP-Archaeological Studies Program in 2008.”
Arquelogia Iberoamericana 4 (2009): 25-48.
Bautista, G. “The Archaeology of Calatagan, Batangas : An
Evaluation for the Enhancement of a Cultural Resource Management
Programme in the Locality.” Masters Thesis, University of the
Philippines, 2007.
Beyer, H. Otley. “Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by
Islands and Provinces.” Philippine Journal of Science 77, no. 3-4
(1947): 205-374.
Bray, Tamara L. “An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean
Concept of Camaquen:
Thinking Through the Objects of Late Precolumbian Ofrendas and
Huacas.” Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress,
University College Dublin 2008,
(22 January 2009)
Ceramics and Objects Excavated from Calatagan, Batangas. (8
December 2011)
Chang, Kuang-Jen. “Social use and value of trade ceramics in
mortuary context from seven late protohistoric Calatagan
cemeteries, SW Luzon, the Philippines.” . Paper presented at the
10th EURASEAA Conference at the British Museum, London, 2004.
Cruz, Neal H. “Graveyard by the Sea.” This Week, 4 May 1958
1958, 35-45.
De La Paz, Cecille. “Possibilities and Challenges of Community
Museums: The Case of Balay ni Tan Juan in Bago City, Negros
Occidental.” In Talk delivered in the Binalot Talks on 5 March
2008. Archaeological Studies Program University of the Philippines,
Diliman, 2008.
Dela Torre, Amalia. “Ulilang Bundok: Secondary Jar Burials at
Calatagan.” In Pang-alay: Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines,
edited by Cynthia Valdes, 29-33. Makati City: Ayala Foundation, Inc
in cooperation with the Oriental Ceramic Society of the
Philippines, Inc., 2003.
De La Torre, Amalia A. “The Secondary Burial in Pottery Vessels
at Ulilang Bundok Site in Calatagan, Batangas: A Case Study.”
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman,
2008.
Dizon, Eusebio Z. “Maguindanao prehistory: focus on the
archaeology of the anthropomorphic potteries at Pinol, Maitum of
South Cotabato, Mindanao, Philippines.” National Museum Papers 4,
no. 1 (1993): 1-21.
Dizon, Eusebio Z. “A decade of archaeological research in the
Philippines, 1982-1992.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and
Society 22 (1994): 197-222.
Dizon, Eusebio Z. “New Direct Dating of the Human Fossils from
Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Proceedings of the Society of
Philippine Archaeologists 1 (2003a): 63-67.
Dizon, EZ. “A Second Glance at the Calatagan Pot.” In Pang-alay
Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines, edited by C. Valdes, 39-42.
Makati: Ayala Foundation, Inc and Oriental Ceramic Society of the
Philippines, Inc., 2003b.
Dizon, Eusebio Z., and Armand Salvador B. Mijares.
“Archaeological Evidence of a Baranganic Culture in Batanes.”
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 27, no. 1/2 (1999):
1-10.
Evangelista, Alfredo. “Philippines.” Asian Perspectives 5, no. 1
(1961): 67-70.
Evangelista, Alfredo E. Soul Boats: A Filipino Journey of
Self-Discovery. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the
Arts, 2001.
Faylona, Pamela G. “Situating Calatagan: A place in Philippine
(pre)history.” In Maria Taniguchi Grave Findings: A Reclamation
Project, edited by Eileen Legaspi-Ramirez, 1-10. Pasig City: Lopez
Memorial Museum and Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.
Fox, R.B. “The Calatagan Excavations: Two Fifteenth Century
Burial Sites in Batangas, Philippines.” Philippine Studies 7, no. 3
(1959): 325-390.
Fox, Robert B. “Final Report on the Summer Field School in
Philippine Archaeology (April 11-June 8, 1961).” Unpublished
manuscript. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines, 1961.
Gotuaco, Larry, Rita. Tan, and Allison Diem. Chinese and
Vietnamese Blue and White Wares Found in the Philippines. Makati
City: Bookmark, Inc., 1997.
Guthe, Carl E. “The University of Michigan Philippine
Expedition.” American Anthropologist 29 (1927): 69-76.
Hodder, Ian. Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of
material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Hutterer, Karl L. “The Evolution of Philippine Lowland
Societies.” Mankind 9, no. 4 (1974): 287-299.
Hutterer, Karl L. “An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast
Asian Cultural Sequence.” Current Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1976):
221-242.
Hutterer, Karl L. “Prehistoric Trade and the Evolution of
Philippine Societies: A Reconsideration.” In Economic Exchange and
Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives from Prehistory,
History and Ethnography, edited by KL Hutterer, 177-194. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The
University of Michigan, 1977a.
Hutterer, Karl L., ed. Economic Exchange and Social Interaction
in Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and
Southeast Asia, 1977b.
Hutterer, Karl L. “A Balance of Trade: The Social Nature of Late
Prehispanic Philippines.” In The Donn V. Hart Southeast Asian
Collection. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University,
1985.
Hutterer, Karl L. “Losing Track of the Tribes Evolutionary
Sequences in Southeast Asia.” In Profiles in Cultural Evolution,
edited by Terry Rambo, and Kathleen Gillogly, 219-245. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University of Michigan, 1991.
Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Analysis of the Lithic Materials
Recovered During the 2000-2001 Archaeological Excavations of Tabon
Cave, Palawan Island, Philippines.” KAPI 5 (2007): 24-34.
Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Technological Analyses of the Lithic
Materials from the 2007 Tabon Cave Excavations.” Proceedings of the
Society of Philippines Archaeologists 6 (2008): 1-13.
Janse, Olov R.T. “An Archaeological Expedition to Indo-China and
the Philippines: Preliminary Report.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 6 (1941): 247-267.
Janse, Olov R.T. “Notes on Chinese Influences in the Philippines
in Pre-Spanish Times.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8
(1944-1945): 34-62.
Janse, Olov R.T. “Archeology of the Philippine Islands.”
Smithsonian Report for 1946 3883 (1947): 345-360.
Junker, Laura Lee. Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political
Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
Press, 1999.
Kanji, Tawara. “The Olov Janse Collection.” Bulletin of the
Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 25 (2005): 139-140.
Kopytoff, Igor. “The cultural biography of things:
commoditization as process.” In The social life of things.
Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai,
64-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Lewis, Helen, Kathleen Johnson, and Wilfredo Ronquillo.
“Preliminary Results of Speleothem Dating from Tabon Cave, Palawan,
Philippines: Moisture Increase at the Last Glacial Maximum.” Hukay
12 (2007-2008): 35-50.
Locsin, Cecilia Y., Maria Isabel G. Ongpin, and Socorro Paz P.
Paterno. A Lemery Archaeological Sequence. Quezon City: Ateneo De
Manila University Press, 2008.
Longacre, William A. “Kalinga Pottery: an ethnoarchaeological
study.” In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke,
edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and N Hammond, 49-66. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Longacre, William A., Kenneth Kvamme, and Masashi Kobayashi.
“Southwestern pottery standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view
from the Philippines.” The Kiva 53, no. 2 (1988): 101-112.
Longacre, William A. “Standardization and Specialization: What's
the Link?” In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by
James M. Skibo, and Gary M. Feinman, 44-58. Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press, 1999.
Longacre, William A. and James M. Skibo, eds. Kalinga
Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1994.
Longacre, William A., Jingfeng Xia, and Tao Yang. “I Want to Buy
a Black Pot.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, no. 4
(2000): 273-293.
Main, Dorothy and Robert B. Fox. The Calatagan Earthenwares: A
Description of Pottery Complexes Excavated in Batangas Province,
Philippines, Monograph No. 5. Manila: National Museum, 1982.
Melendres, Rhayan. “Determination of Oriental Tradeware Ceramics
and its Application to the Archaeology of Porac, Pampanga.”
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines,
2008.
Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “Philippine Archaeology in
Retrospect.” HUKAY 1.1 (1998): 5-16.
Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Complexity of Pre-Hispanic
Ivatan Society.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Society
of Philippine Archaeologists 3rd Conference, Manila
2003:(68-76).
Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Penablanca Flake Tools: An
Unchanging Technology?” Hukay 12 (2007-2008): 13-34.
Mijares, Armand Salvador B., Florent Détroit, Philip Piper,
Peter Bellwood, Rainer Grün, Maxime Aubert, Nida Cuevas, Alexandra
De Leon, and Eusebio Dizon. “New evidence for a 67,000-year-old
human presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of
Human Evolution 59 (2010): 123-132.
Oropilla, Quintin Fortich. Deciphered secrets : the Calatagan
pot : a Philippine national treasure : ancient inscriptions. Quezon
City: The Author, 2008.
Paz, Victor. “Advancing Settlement Archaeology Study through
Archaeobotany: Preliminary Report.” . Quezon City: University of
the Philippines-Archaeological Studies Program, 2003.
Paz, Victor. “A Periodization for a History of Archaeology in
the Philippines.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine
Archaeologists 7 (2009): 1-16.
Peralta, Jesus T. Field Manual in Archaeology. Vol. National
Museum, Anthropological Papers No. 1. Manila, 1978.
Peralta, Jesus. Kayamanan: Pottery and Ceramics from the Arturo
de Santos Collection. Manila: Central Bank of the Philippines,
1982.
Poulter, Emma Katherine. “Connecting Histories: Gelede masks at
the Manchester Museum.” Museological Review, no. 12 (2007):
52-68.
Legaspi-Ramirez, Eileen, ed. Maria Taniguchi Grave Findings: A
Reclamation Project. Pasig City: Lopez Memorial Museum and
Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.
Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. “Archaeological Research in the
Philippines, 1951-1983.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association 6 (1985): 74-88.
Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. and Hidefumi Ogawa. “The Calatagan
Archaeological Project: A Summary Report.” Journal of Southeast
Asian Archaeology 15 (1996): 133-147.
Salazar, Zeus. Liktao at Epiko: Ang Takip ng Tapayang Libingan
ng Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Quezon City: Bagong Kasaysayan,
2004.
Salazar, Zeus. Ang Pilipinong 'Banua'/'Banwa' sa Mundong-Melano
Polynesiano. Quezon City: Bagong Kasaysayan, 2005.
Santiago, Alexandra. “Theoretical Development in Philippine
Archaeology.” HUKAY 3, no. 2 (2001): 1-26.
Schmidt, Patrick. “Characterisation and Geological Provenance of
Jasper that was used for Debitages in the Archaeological Site of
Tabon Cave, Philippines.” Hukay 14 (2009): 1-24.
Tiongson, Jaime F. “Translation of the Calatagan Pottery
Inscription using Old Tagalog as defined by Pedro de San
Buenaventura in 1613. Based on the experimental decipherment of Dr.
Ramon Guillermo.” , n.d.
Valdes, Cynthia, ed. Pang-alay Ritual Pottery in Ancient
Philippines. Makati: Ayala Foundation, Inc and Oriental Ceramic
Society of the Philippines, Inc., 2003.