I. Introduction

History is an important aspect of human life, your past is your anchor, ignorance

about ones past means lack of identity, the same goes for our country, Philippines and

every other country in the world. Can you imagine Philippines without a past? Or try to

imagine yourself without knowing who your parents are, which state you come from, no

family, identity, not even an idea to who and what makes you. An amnesia victim is an

example of what lack of historical knowledge will do to a person. Psychologist use the

ingredient of history for treatments example is psychoanalysis. A mental treatment that is

conducted base on a person past experiences. Now that the essence of history has been

captured next will be to move on to the next objective and it is the relevance of

archaeology and the possible reasons why study Archaeology and why archaeology and

archaeologists ever existed in our planet.

Here in this study, we will learn about the life and the advancements of the human

race, often giving us an insight into the way we live in the present time. Much of the

practice involves being in the dirt. They call many archeological sights digs, because that

is essentially all that is going on. People are using shovels to tear up the dirt to search for

any remains of a civilization such as bones or cooking utensils. In view of this, through

archaeological practice and research we can see how it greatly affects our living and thus

completely change the way we look at the world.

Artifacts as already defined is an object that was dispose sometimes in the past

and for the purpose of discoveries or invention is unearthed or excavated. Let’s say, if an

object is dropped say in Country “A” today and maybe in the passage of time say 100

years from today Country A was extinct, and say in 500 years later the object that was

dropped 600 years ago was discovered it will be a prove to the people at that time that a

country called “A” existed, that would become a historic site, where other useful

information will be discovered. That is an example of how archaeology works. This

activity is done by professional called the archaeologist. An archaeologists is a scientist

who studies ancient people, societies and the nature of its culture that simply makes us of

what we are today and how does it affect our lives and our living, simply put, a

sentimental inheritance of our great ancestors for us and to our native land. The work of

archaeologists is important because, by studying earlier civilizations, it is hoped that

1

modern society can learn how to improve in various aspect of modern culture and

education. That way, we can perhaps hope to avoid some of the problems of earlier times,

and solutions to modern difficulties. We can determine our own levels or progress, or

even "regress", and work forwards towards improvement and betterment. Various types

of archaeologist work together to understand how these past societies may have been. It

should also be noted that work performed by archaeologist is also dependent on other

disciplines talk about the interrelation of profession. for instance still using the object as

an example, when it is excavated in 600 years later, the archaeologist will require the

assistance of biologist, physicist, or relevant professionals to identify the object thus

bringing about information that could lead to great change mostly advancement and as

we already know, every inventions that brings abut advancement always comes with it

disadvantages.

The main concept of this study is not only to define “Archaeology” alone, but

rather to provide a slight exploration and journey to the past about our ancestors as well

as the history of our neighboring country, that through archaeology the mysteries of the

past is being uncovered and discovered. For so long, this treasures are being buried six

feet under or more and buried in our memories as well, and this all due to massive

climate disturbances and other events like war in the past.

a. What is ARCHAEOLOGY?

2

ARCHAEOLOGY. The scientific study of the material remains of mankind’s past. Its

discoveries are the principal source of knowledge about prehistoric cultures.

The field of study called archaeology combines the excitement of treasure hunting

with the investigate labor of detective work.

The materials of archaeological study are both the things made by people and the

things used by them. All the things fashioned by people – including the

settlements, buildings, tools, weapons, objects of ornaments, and pure art – are

called artifacts. Nonartifical Material – things that were used but not made or

fashioned – include the unworked bones of the animals that were eaten, the traces

of the plants that were either grown or collected for food, and the charcoal from

the ancient hearths.

An archaeological excavation reveals many levels that

contain records of the nearly 11,000 years of human

occupation of Jericho, one of the earliest continuous

settlements in the world

What is Archaeology Today?

Archaeology is the science devoted to the study of people and society before the

dawn of history.

Archaeologists are interested in different systems of social organization in the

ancient past as well as in the world view of prehistoric peoples who struggled against

3

what must have seemed frightening and awesome forces in their everyday environment.

Archaeological techniques are essential in these reconstructions because most of mans

existence on the earth has bent spent in that period we call prehistory. Sometimes

archaeologists are called prehistorians because they study man as he was during that vast

span of time before the emergence of writing systems. Traditionally, the study of man

and his society in the brief time after writing developed has been the bailiwick of

historians, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and other similarly oriented

investigators. However, archaeology is also concerned with reconstruction of all ancient

societies including those that developed written records. There is a rapidly growing field

called historic archaeology which as the same implies involves the study of historic sites.

In particular, archaeologists attempt to determine the following in the course of their

research:

1. The sequence of occupations by prehistoric people in a locality or area.

2. The history of particular group of prehistoric group of prehistoric people.

3. The lifestyles of prehistoric people during a specific period in time. By life-styles

we mean such things as the way people can earn their living, their sexual and

marital customs, the ideas they hold to.

4. The laws, principles, and axioms which describe the causes and processes at work

in prehistoric socio cultural evolution.

b. Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of this study are the following:

1. To understand the nature of Archaeology together with its branches.

2. To identify the truth about the history of our ancestors through this topic.

3. To be able to know relevance of Archaeology in every human lives

4. To be able to learn the levels of mans creation in the past and its value today.

5. To comprehend the importance of antiques and other materials that is owned and

created in the past and why should we have to preserve it.

4

II. History of Archaeology

Flavio Biondo, an Italian

Renaissance humanist historian, created

a systematic and documented guide to

the ruins and topography of ancient

Rome in the early 15th century for

which he has been called an early

founder of archaeology. Ciriaco de'

Pizzicolli or Cyriacus of Ancona (31

July 1391 — 1453/55) was a restlessly

itinerant Italian humanist who came

from a prominent family of merchants

in Ancona. Ciriaco traveled all around

the Eastern Mediterranean, noting down his archaeological discoveries in his day-book,

Commentaria, that eventually filled six volumes. He has been called father of

archaeology.

After that, modern archaeology has its origins in the antiquarianism of Europe in

the mid-19th century, where it developed soon after the scientific advancement of

geology, which had shown that the Earth was billions rather than thousands of years old,

as was then commonly believed. Soon after this, in 1859, Charles Darwin's On the Origin

of Species was published, outlining his theory of evolution, eventually leading scientists

to believe that humanity was in fact millions of years old, thereby providing a time limit

within which the burgeoning archaeological movement could study. Meanwhile, in 1836

the Danish historian Christian Jürgensen Thomsen published A Ledetraad til Nordisk

Oldkyndighed (Guideline to Scandinavian Antiquity) translated into English in 1848, in

which he proposed the idea that collections of European artifacts from prehistory could

be divided up into a three age system: the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age.Thomsen

was not the first scholar to propose the three age system (that idea dated back to Greek

and Roman thinkers), but he was the first to apply these categories to material culture,

5

and with that innovation came significant advances in the concept of seriation, or stylistic

changes through time.

It was these three concepts of human antiquity, evolution and the Three-Age

system that are often thought of as the building blocks for modern archaeology.

Soon the early archaeologists began to investigate various areas around the world,

with the study of ancient Aegean civilization being stimulated by the excavations of

Heinrich Schliemann at Troy, and of Arthur Evans at Crete, whilst John Lloyd Stephens

was a pivotal figure in the rediscovery of Maya civilization throughout Central America.

However, the methodologies employed by these archaeologists were highly flawed by

today's standards, often having a eurocentric bias, and many early European

archaeologists often relied on anthropological and ethnographic accounts provided by the

likes of Edward Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan, thereby comparing contemporary

"savage" peoples like the Native Americans with the historical peoples of Europe who

lived in similar societies. Soon the new discipline of archaeology spread to North

America, where it was taken up by figures like Samuel Haven and William Henry

Holmes, who excavated ancient Native American monuments.

Further advancements in archaeological field methodology arose in the late 19th

century. One of the pioneering figures in this was Augustus Pitt Rivers, who meticulously

excavated on Cranborne Chase in southern England, emphasising that it was not only

items of beauty or value that should be recorded but mundane items as well; he therefore

helped to differentiate archaeology from antiquarianism. Other important archaeologists

who further refined the discipline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Flinders

Petrie (who excavated in Egypt and Palestine), Sir Mortimer Wheeler (India), Dorothy

Garrod (the Middle East), Max Uhle (Peru) and Alfred Kidder (Mexico). Further

adaptation and innovation in archaeology continued throughout the 20th century, in

particular in the 1960s, when maritime archaeology was popularized by George Bass,

urban archaeology became more prevalent with redevelopment in many European cities,

and rescue archaeology was developed as a result of increasing commercial development.

6

Branches and Training

In Archaeology there are two main branches of the study which amplify the main

purpose and reason why one should study the vestiges of our ancestors. These branches

are the classical archaeology and the anthropological or prehistoric archaeology, below

are their meanings and can be bases that distinguish the real form of archaeology:

a. Classical Archaeology

This branch explores the records and artifacts of ancient civilizations. The field of

classical archaeology has become prominent in many countries interested in preserving

their national heritage. Naturally, the curriculum for classical archaeology includes the

basic principles and methods if archaeology. However, it also emphasizes historical

studies – including art history and the study of classical civilizations – as well as

philology (the study of literature and linguistic), ceramics, architectures, mineralogy, and

other subjects.

Heinrich Schliemann was the one who was drawn

to study the societies they had read about in Latin and

Greek texts during the nineteenth century. He was said

to be a businessman and an amateur archaeologist, also

an advocate of the historical reality of places

mentioned in the works of Homer. More of it, he was

also the archaeological excavator of Troy, along with

the Mycenaean sites Mycenae and Tiryns.

On the other hand, classical archaeologists are

interested in Roman civilization discuss the influence

of the Etruscans and other early cultures present on the

Italic Peninsula. They also discuss the subcultures present within the Roman Republic

and Empire based on regional differences, and any discussion of the later empire requires

at least a partial segue into the Byzantine Empire.

7

b. Anthropological or Prehistoric Archaeology

It focuses on prehistory – the time before written records were kept. The

curriculum emphasizes such studies as physical and cultural anthropology and linguistic

as well as archaeology itself.

Archaeology is a branch of anthropology.

Archaeologists spend most of their time studying

people and cultures from prehistoric times. They try

to make sense of the artifacts and methods of

communication that were left behind by ancient

people.

Anthropologists use archaeology and prehistoric art to shed light on humanity.

8

Archaeologists often work in the field, excavating potential artifacts.

How does Archaeology Work?

The great majority of archaeological work involves collecting, analyzing, and

synthesizing data. The process of collecting data is divided into two parts:

reconnaissance – locating and recording a site and studying the geography of the area –

and excavating or actually digging at the site. Once materials are collected, they are

analyzed to determine the time period and the civilization from which they came and to

reconstruct the people’s way of life. Then the information obtained from this analysis is

synthesized, or collected on reports that provide histories, sometimes called cultural-

historical integrations.

Most archaeological research ends here. Some archaeologists, however, may go

on to analyze the histories themselves in order to produce hypotheses or educated

guesses, about why particular cultural changes took place. Then they test those

hypotheses against archaeological data to see whether that data supports their hypotheses.

If it does, the archaeology believe they have arrived at a law or generalization that

explains the development of the human race and why certain changes took place

thousands or even years ago.

a. Reconnaissance

In areas with a rich history and an abundance of archaeological sites, cultural resource

compliance can be a time-consuming and expensive process. It is therefore often prudent

for a client to request a Reconnaissance study to determine the likely archaeological and

historic preservation compliance issues associated with a tract. Reconnaissance studies

may also include limited field investigation to characterize the soils of various tracts and

to document disturbance factors.

Reconnaissance investigations for developers result in a “red flag” report that

identifies key archaeological and historic preservation issues and outlines the compliance

process for the particular tract. For alternatives analysis, the Reconnaissance phase

generates a report that summarizes and reviews the known and potential cultural

resources of various project options and that highlights critical resources that require

consideration.

9

Reconnaissance Technique

The exact methods of finding archaeological sites vary, primarily because there

are so many different types of sites. Some sites - such as mounds, temples, forts,

roads, and ancient cities – may be easily visible on the surface at the ground. Such

sites may be located by simple exploration: by an individual or group going over the

ground on foot, in a jeep or a car, or on a horse, mule, or camel. This kind of survey

can be comprehensive – that is, the entire area may be covered – or it can involve the

technique of sampling. In sampling, a limited number of strategic spots in the region

are checked for signs of an underlying archaeological nature. Sampling was not

widely used in the United States until passage of the Archaeological Resources

Protection Act of 1979. this act, designed to protect the archaeological heritage of an

area, has encouraged archaeological sampling of areas in which archaeological

remains might exist that are in danger of being destroyed by construction or by the

growth of cities.

To find sites that have no surface traces, archaeologists may use aerial

photographs taken from balloons, airplanes, or satellites by cameras with remote

sensors, infrared film, or other devices. The archaeologists checks these photographs

for clues such as variations in soil color, ground contour, or crop density that may

indicate the existence of a site

Archaeologists may simply probe the ground with sound to check for variations in

reflection of sound that would indicate the presence of structures or hollows in the

ground. A probe, or periscope, may be inserted into the ground to locate walls and

ditches. The archaeologist Carlo Lerici used such a probe, called a Nistri periscope, to

locate and photograph Etruscan tombs in Italy in 1957.

Other modern devices use electricity and magnetism to locate buried structures.

Electron or proton magnetometers or even mine detectors may be used to force

currents through the earth and record any unusual features, such as a large, solid

object, that lie beneath the soil. Similar magnenometers are dragged through the water

to locate the sunken shis or structures. The 20 th-century archaeologist George Bass

and the explorer Jacques Cousteau both had considerable success using this

technique.

10

Reconnaissance Records

All survey programs must be properly recorded and the sites designated – that is,

given some sort of name or number. The simplest ways of designating a site are to

name it after its discoverer, after the owner of the property on which it was found, or

after its location. More complex systems of identification may involve grid

coordinates such as latitude and longitude, township and range, or geographic range.

Although there is no universally accepted system for recording the discovery of a

site, most survey records include the site’s designation, its exact location, the date it

was found the discoverer, the size of the site, and some sort of description of the site

itself and what was found there. Of particular interest are structures such as mounds,

temples, and houses and artifacts such as pieces of pottery and stones tools.

b. Excavating

The term archaeological excavation has a double meaning.

1. Excavation is best known and most commonly used within the science of

archaeology. In this sense it is the exposure, processing and recording of

archaeological remains.

2. The term is also used for an example of the application of the technique to the

study of a given site. In this sense, an excavation may sometimes be referred to as

a "dig" by those who participate, this being a concise, if oversimplified

description of the process. Such a site excavation concerns itself with a specific

archaeological site or a connected series of sites, and may be conducted over as

little as several weeks to over a number of years.

Site formation

Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish

when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of

soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and

11

back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty

into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on. Each event, which

may have taken a short or long time to accomplish, leaves a context. This layer cake of

events is often referred to as the archaeological sequence or record. It is by analysis of

this sequence or record that excavation is intended to permit interpretation, which should

lead to discussion and understanding.

The prominent processual archaeologist Lewis Binford highlighted the fact that the

archaeological evidence left at a site may not be entirely indicative of the historical

events that actually took place there. Using an ethnoarchaeological comparison, he

looked at how hunters amongst the Nunamiut Eskimo of north central Alaska spent a

great deal of time in a certain area simply waiting for prey to arrive there, and that during

this period, they undertook other tasks to pass the time, such as the carving of various

objects, including a wooden mold for a mask, a horn spoon and an ivory needle, as well

as repairing a skin pouch and a pair of caribou skin socks. Binford notes that all of these

activities would have left evidence in the archaeological record, but that none of them

would provide evidence for the primary reason that the hunters were in the area; to wait

for prey. As he remarked, waiting for animals to hunt "represented 24% of the total man

hours of activity recorded; yet there is no recognizable archaeological consequences of

this behaviour. No tools left on the site were used, and there were no immediate material

"byproducts" of the "primary" activity. All of the other activities conducted at the site

were essentially boredom reducers."

Excavation types

Basic types

There are two basic types of modern archaeological excavation:

1. Research excavation - when time and resources are available to excavate the site fully

and at a leisurely pace. These are now almost exclusively the preserve of academics

or private societies who can muster enough volunteer labour and funds. The size of

the excavation can also be decided by the director as it goes on.

12

2. Development-led excavation - undertaken by professional archaeologists when the

site is threatened by building development. Normally funded by the developer

meaning that time is more of a factor as well as its being focused only on areas to be

affected by building. The workforce is generally more skilled however and pre-

development excavations also provide a comprehensive record of the areas

investigated. Rescue archaeology is sometimes thought of as a separate type of

excavation but in practice tends to be a similar form of development-led practice.

Various new forms of excavation terminology have appeared in recent years such as

Strip map and sample some of which have been criticized within the profession as

jargon created to cover up for falling standards of practice.

Horse burial in Roman ditch on a

development funded site in London. Note "out

of phase" pipe intrusion left in for practical

reasons

Physical methodology of excavation

The process of excavation is achieved in many ways depending on the nature of the

deposits to be removed and time constraints. In the main, deposits are lifted by Trowel

and Mattock and shovelled or carried from the site by wheel barrow and bucket. The use

of many other tools including fine trowels such as the plaster's leaf trowel and brushes of

various grades are used on delicate items such as human bone and decayed timber. When

13

removing material from the archaeological record some basic guidelines are often

observed.

1. Work from the known to the unknown. This means that, if one is unsure of the

stratigraphic boundaries of the material in question, the removal of material should start

from an area where the sequence is better understood rather than less.

2. Work from the top to the bottom. As well as working from the known to the

unknown, also as far as possible, remove material at the physically highest level in the

context and work towards the lowest. This is best practice because loose spoil will not

then fall onto and contaminates the surface being worked on. In this way blurring detail

that might have been instructive to the excavator is avoided.

3. In archaeology, we use our eyes. Excavation of contexts correctly often relies on

detailed observations of minute differences.

4. If in doubt, bash it out. This rather cavalier-sounding maxim is a concise way of

expressing the need to progress. There is always more to be done on a site, than there is

time in which to do it. At times the next feature or context to be removed in the sequence

is not clear even to an experienced archaeologist. When it is not possible to proceed in an

ideal manner, the excavation must be continued in a more arbitrary way, with temporary

sections, until discernible stratigraphy is again encountered. An area of the site is reduced

leaving arbitrary, temporary sections as a form of stratigraphic control to provide early

warning of "digging out of phase". If the arbitrary area for excavation is wisely chosen,

the sequence should be revealed and excavation can return to a truly stratigraphic

method. It is important to realize that "bash it out" is not a totally random act but a best

guess based on logical deductions, observation and experience.

14

Common errors in excavation

Common errors during excavation fall into two basic categories and one or the other is

almost inevitable because excavation is a destructive process that removes the

information it seeks to record in real time and mistakes cannot be rectified easily.

1. Under-cutting. Under cutting occurs where contexts are not excavated fully and

some remainder of the context is left in situ masking the nature of the underlying

contexts. This is especially common among inexperienced archaeologists who have a

tendency to be timid. The consequences of undercutting are quite serious as the nature of

the archaeological sequence is obscured and subsequent recording and excavation is

based on a flawed reading of the deposits on site. Unchecked, what follows from under-

cutting is the production of false data often from the failure to spot intrusive finds and in

turn, serious ramifications for the ability to interpret the sequence post-excavation. Entire

sites can be "thrown out of phase" where relationships recorded in the Harris matrix bear

no genuine association with any understandable phase of occupation. If a regime of

under-cutting is allowed to progress its effects multiply as the site is reduced.

2. Over-cutting. Over-cutting occurs when contexts are unintentionally removed

along with material from other deposits and contexts. Heavy over-cutting represents

reckless removal of the sequence. However some degree of over-cutting is almost

impossible to avoid and is certainly preferable to unchecked under-cutting even though

over-cutting represents a loss of information.

Over-cutting represents the loss of information whereas undercutting represents false

information. One role of an archaeologist is to avoid false information and minimize the

loss of information.

15

Preparation

The first step in excavation is to make record of the site before it is dug or

changed in any way. This preliminary record often involves in making a contour

map and taking photographs of the site. To make such maps and photographs

meaningful, some mechanism must be set up to measure locations on the site.

Vertical measurements – depths and heights – are often taken with respect to an

agreed-upon base point, called the datum point, and are recorded as so many

centimeters below or above the datum. The site may also be divided into

horizontal units so that the provenience, or original location, of artifacts may

staked out into squares. Then a system is devised for designating the location of

each unit or square.

Before major digging actually begins, some sort of test is generally

performed to determine the best part of the site in which to carry out the main part

of the excavation. One way to do this is to dig test holes called sondages. These

may be spaced throughout the site at random, or they may be dug in certain

strategic locations or in checkboard pattern. Crosswise, parallel, or crisscross

trenches may be dug through the site instead.

Record Keeping

Archaeologists use various methods for recording data from a dig.

Traditionally, they have made field notes kept diaries describing what was being

done and what was found. These records were generally accompanied by maps

and drawings to show both the horizontal units dug from the site, called floor

plots, and the vertical units, called cross sections, and indicating the artifacts and

other materials found in them. Photographs or films might also accompany these

records. Other methods for recording specific data include square-description

forms, diary forms, soil forms, pollen forms, and similar kinds of recording aids.

In the mid- to late 20 century, archaeological recording has increasingly been

done using computers, digitizing cameras, and various other advanced devices.

16

Preservation

As with most other steps in the excavation process, the methods used for

preserving archaeological specimens depend on the nature of the site. A less

delicate specimen may be placed in a bag with a label and number. In some cases

artifacts are coated with preservative chemicals. The advance in technology and

chemistry made since the 1950’s have enabled archaeologists to perform

remarkable feats of preservation that would probably have been impossible a few

decades ago.

An archaeological excavation at Eldon Pueblo in Coconino National Forest in Arizona.

These ruins at the Montezuma Castle National Monument in Arizona are remnants of a culture that flourished about A.D. 1200.

17

III. Milestone in Archaeology

18

IV. HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY: Insights on Philippine History

Since archaeology is everywhere, it is no doubt that our own motherland has its own archaeological history for it is merely seen and proved that our great grandfather or ancestors are artistic and very innovative in their times in the past. Philippines is rich in history, some of the historical sites during the American and Spanish settlement is still seen at most everywhere here in our dear land. Others are the old-styled church during the Spanish period and some are the remains of the Americans that are determined as artifacts and a lot more. Below is an article of Wilfredo Ronquillo – National Scientist of the Philippines – he was being awarded for this article for it refer to the development of the archaeology here in the Philippines. The article is very instructive in locating the major theoretical trends and important personages in the growth of Philippine archaeology. It also state almost all about the Philippines’ archaeological information andcommon artifacts.

The Philippines, lying at the eastern margin of mainland Asia, has been a crossroad for the movements of peoples and ideas from the mainland to the Pacific islands since prehistoric times. Manila likewise has been the key entrepôt of maritime trade and commerce, notably during the almost 250 years (from 1564 to 1815) when the Manila galleons sailed the Pacific Ocean between Manila and Mexico.

Philippine archaeological resources, both on land and under water, are abundant and phenomenal. Archaeological sites range from the earliest indirect evidence for the presence of man in Cagayan Valley, northern Luzon, during the Middle Pleistocene to sixteenth-century dugout wooden coffin burials in northeastern Mindanao. Recent archaeological finds in the country also indicate the existence of complex societies in the northern, central, and southern Philippines, the latter dating as early as the ninth century A.D.

Important archaeological discoveries also include a flotilla of plank-built and edge-pegged wooden boats found in a waterlogged environment that range in date from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries a.d. Throughout Southeast Asia and, indeed, the world at this time, only in the Philippines are such prehistoric boats known to exist.

The history of archaeology in the Philippines elucidates the rich and varied archaeological wealth of the country, as well as the pivotal roles that pioneering individuals played in the evolution, history, and growth of archaeology in the country.

For convenience, this updated history is presented in periods that parallel the political administrations of the archipelago from the sixteenth century to the present: the Spanish Period (1521-1898); the American Period (1898-1946); the post-World War II era and the 1950s; the l960s; the 1970s; the 1980s; and the 1990s to the present. Space

19

SOURCE: Ronquillo, Wilfredo. 2001. Philippines in Encyclopedia of Archaeology: History and Discoveries. (ed.) Murray, Tim. Tim Murray: Santa Barbara, California.

limitations allow the inclusion of only the most important archaeological discoveries since the 1960s.

The Spanish Period (1521-1898)

Although Ferdinand Magellan reached the Philippines on March 16, 1521, Spanish colonization of the archipelago did not begin in earnest until 1565. The Spanish explorers and colonizers noted the variety of Philippine cultures and languages. The early Spanish chroniclers of Philippine society and culture were generally members of religious orders; they primarily wrote ethnographic reports intended for Spain’s ruling monarch or their own religious superiors.

The early Spanish writings were mostly descriptive in character, depicting, in varying details, the physical appearances and lifeways of the Filipinos as observed by the writers. At a later time a great deal of linguistic studies were conducted and subsequently published together with the ethnographic reports.

Several chroniclers reported on archaeological discoveries, including Antonio de Morga, the vice-governor general of the Philippines in the seventeenth century who, in his Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, noted ancient artifacts found by farmers in Luzon.

The only recorded important archaeological reconnaisance undertaken in the archipelago during the Spanish period was conducted in 1881 by Alfred Marche, a French archaeologist who systematically explored the central Philippines and discovered numerous sites. He collected varied archaeological specimens, mainly porcelains and stonewares recovered primarily from burial caves. The majority of his collections are now kept at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. Marche’s exploration activities at Marinduque Island became “the most successful Philippine archaeological expedition recorded from Spanish times” (Beyer 1947, 260).

An Austrian, Professor Ferdinand Blumentritt, also published a series of articles about the Philippines and its people around this time. Cursory exploration of caves and open archaeological sites were undertaken in several areas in the Philippines between 1860 and 1881, including those by the German traveler Feodor Jagor in 1860 and J. Montano and Paul Rey between 1879 and 1881.

The American Period (1898-1946)

The Philippines were occupied by the United States in 1898, and the U.S. administration of the archipelago began a year later. President William McKinley created the Taft Commission in 1900 in an attempt to craft proper legislation for the Philippines. The commission, in turn, established the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes. This bureau, which changed names through the years, was placed under different institutions and was eventually abolished.

20

In 1901 the first government museum was created, designated as the Insular Museum of Ethnology, Natural History, and Commerce, and was placed under the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes. In the course of its existence the museum went through various changes, but it was never abolished. Today, it isa government bureau within the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports and is now officially called the National Museum.

Considered the founder of Philippine archaeology, Henry Otley Beyer (1883-1966), an American from Iowa, arrived in Manila in 1905 to join the civil service. His pioneering works resulted in much of what was known about Philippine prehistory. Three years with the Philippine Bureau of Education found him among the Ifugao of northern Luzon, serving as a schoolteacher and documenting their lifeways. In 1914 he founded the Department of Anthropology at the University of the Philippines, and his first writing on Philippine archaeology came out in 1921. As head of the anthropology department, Beyer studied the racial and cultural history of the country.

From 1922 to 1925 Carl Guthe from the University of Michigan led an archaeological expedition to the central Philippines. Guthe was the first trained archaeologist to work in the archipelago, and his exploration activities focused on the collection of ceramics in the hope that these materials would shed light on the early maritime trade between the Philippines and mainland Southeast Asia. He identified 542 archaeological sites and collected more than 30 cubic tons of archaeological specimens, which are now are kept at the University Museum of the University of Michigan.

Early 1926 saw Beyer’s first involvement in field archaeology, via the accidental discovery of major prehistoric sites at Novaliches during the construction of a dam for the water supply of Manila. Beyer’s ensuing investigation was to be the start of the Rizal-Bulacan Archaeological Survey. By the middle of 1930 excavation activities had also reached Bulacan Province, and in five years of work a total of 120 sites had been identified, with the collection of almost half a million specimens.

Personnel of the National Museum conducted surveys and excavations during the 1930s. In 1934 Ricardo E. Galang, the first Filipino-trained archaeologist, spent two months excavating fourteenth- to fifteenth-century sites at Calatagan, Batangas. In 1938 he investigated a jar burial at San Narciso, Quezon. He recorded a total of six jar burial and midden sites in the area and recovered associated materials of shell bracelets, beads, and ceramics.

In 1938 Generoso Maceda, another staff member of the National Museum, identified a jar burial site in Pilar, Sorsogon Province, in southern Luzon. Twenty-four jars containing artifacts were excavated in three sites (Evangelista 1962, 21). In 1940 Olov Janse, a Swedish-American archaeologist with support from Harvard University, conducted archaeological excavations in the Calatagan sites. Working in three sites, he

21

excavated a total of sixty-six graves, the results of which were published in the annual report of the Smithsonian Institution (Janse 1946).

There was a complete cessation of archaeological activities during the Japanese occupation of the archipelago (1941-1945). Beyer, who was under conditional internment, was assisted by Tadao Kano, a Japanese civilian assigned to protect museums in the Philippines. The Japanese allowed Beyer to continue working at the museum of the University of the Philippines and at the Institute of Ethnology and Archaeology, which enabled him to pursue his research writing and complete the final sections of his major postwar publications (Evangelista 1962; Jocano 1975; Solheim 1981).

Post-World War II and the 1950s

An increased interest in the beginnings of Philippine society and culture developed in the years after World War II, and archaeology as a course was included in the curriculum at the University of the Philippines. Beyer’s research writings during the war years resulted in two important publications, his “Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islands and Provinces” and his Philippine and East Asian

Archaeology, and Its Relation to the Origin of the Pacific Islands Population (Beyer 1947, 1948). These major works are invaluable as references for archaeologists working in the Philippines to this date.

Archaeological exploration and excavation activities resumed in the l950s, led by two Americans, Wilhelm G. Solheim II and Robert B. Fox. Both were pivotal in arousing the interest of a number of Filipinos to pursue careers in archaeology. With an M.A. in anthropology from the University of California, Solheim published his first work on Philippine prehistory and archaeology in 1951. He conducted archaeological excavations from 1951 to 1953 in Masbate Island with two Filipino students, Alfredo E. Evangelista and E. Arsenio Manuel. Archaeological data generated from the excavations there were collated with the archaeological materials from the Guthe collection recovered in the 1920s from the central Philippines, resulting in The Archaeology of the Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships (Solheim 1964).

Fox (1918-1985) wrote avidly and extensively about Philippine ethnology, archaeology, and natural history from the late 1940s until 1973. He stayed in the Philippines after his service with the U.S. Navy during the war. With B.A. and M.A.

22

degrees in anthropology, Fox was active in Philippine ethnography before focusing his attention on the archipelago’s prehistory.

Major fieldwork in the 1950s was undertaken through the National Museum under the direction of Fox, working with Evangelista and several other members of the museum staff. In 1956 Fox and Evangelista excavated the Sorsogon Province of southern Luzon. A jar burial/stone-tool assemblage was encountered; the sites range in date from 2900 to 2000 b.p.

The most extensive archaeological project in the middle of the 1950s was the Calatagan, Batangas, Archaeological Project south of Manila led by Fox. Over 500 pre-Spanish graves were excavated in a number of burial sites, resulting in the recovery of thousands of trade ceramics-Chinese and Siamese porcelains and stonewares of the late-fourteenth to early-sixteenth centuries a.d. Extended primary burials were revealed as well as secondary burials in jars, with some graves exhibiting evidence of teeth filing and ornamentations. It is unfortunate that the 1950s excavations at Calatagan would witness the start of widespread pothunting activities, which continue to this day.

The 1960s

Fox led major archaeological activities for the National Museum from 1962 to 1966 in a number of caves along the west coast of Palawan, known collectively as the Tabon Caves. Work in this area resulted in the discovery of late-Pleistocene human fossil remains and associated stone implements.

Going back to over 30,000 years ago, six successive periods of prehistoric occupation were found. The C-14 dates available for the Tabon Caves range from 30,500±1100 b.p. and 9250±250 b.p. At nearby Manunggul Cave an earthenware burial jar was found with incised and hematite-painted designs about the shoulder and cover (the latter having a ship-of-the-dead motif dating from 890 to 710

b.c.); it is now one of the country’s National Cultural Treasures.The preliminary results of the archaeological work at the Tabon Caves were

published by Fox in 1970. This work included information on human bone fragments that, although recovered from a disturbed area of the caves, have been dated from 22,000 to 24,000 years ago-still the earliest evidence for Homo sapiens in the Philippines.

23

In 1966 significant archaeological sites were discovered right in the city of Manila. Known as the Santa Ana Sites, they exhibited both habitations and burials that “date more than 400 years before the arrival of the Spaniards in Manila” (Fox and Legaspi 1977, 1). The main burial site excavated was originally an archaeological mound on which the present Santa Ana Church was built, and the associated tradeware ceramics recovered from the burials date from the late eleventh to the fourteenth centuries a.d.

In 1967 cursory underwater archaeological activities were undertaken by the National Museum and the Times-Mirror-Taliba, a now-defunct newspaper outfit, in Albay, 500 kilometers south of Manila. Believed to be a Spanish galleon, the ship was found 40 to 65 meters below the surface. In addition to two large designs. C-14 dating of shells recovered from this site resulted in dates ranging from 8000 to 6500 b.p.

Shell adzes were also noted from Duyong Cave, Palawan, in the Ryukus Islands, and on other Pacific islands.

The 1970s

The 1970s saw a profusion of archaeological research undertaken by both Filipino and foreign archaeologists. The elephant fossil sites in Cagayan Valley, northern Luzon, which had previously been reported, were explored and excavated in the 1970s by the National Museum. Led by Fox, the research uncovered hundreds of fossilized remains of mammals such as elephants, stegodon, rhinoceros, crocodile, giant tortoise, pig, and deer, as well as flaked and cobblestone tools (Fox and Peralta 1972).

The first three large mammals in this group are now extinct in the Philippines. Encumbered by geological problems in the open sites of Cagayan Valley, Richard Shutler Jr., then with the University of Iowa, was crucial in sending to the country a succession of geologists and geomorphologists from Iowa State University. Led by Carl Vondra in 1977, these researchers defined the Plio-Pleistocene terrestrial sequence in the Cagayan Valley basin, demonstrating the in situ association of artifacts and Pleistocene fauna, the age of artifacts, and the Plio-Pleistocene environments in the valley. Geological research has since solved the majority of the problems of the Pleistocene geology of the area, but the debate over the age of the artifacts still continues.

In 1972 Solheim and A. M. Legaspi led an archaeological survey of coastal southeastern Mindanao, a joint project of the National Museum and the University of Hawaii (Solheim, Legaspi, and Neri 1979). The Talikod rock-shelter sites, where flaked shell and stone tools were recovered, are the earliest sites recorded from the survey, with dates ranging from 7620 ±120 b.p. and 3950±90 b.p.

Two ethno-archaeology studies were undertaken in the 1970s. The first was conducted by Bion and Agnes Griffin among the Agta Negritos in the Sierra Madre range of northeastern Luzon from 1974 to 1976. With the goal of providing models for adjustments to hunting and gathering in wet and seasonal environments, the researchers

24

hoped that the results of the study might be utilized for an archaeological understanding of hunters in tropical settings.

William Longacre of the University of Arizona directed an ethno-archaeological study in pottery-making villages in Kalinga Apayao, northern Luzon. Designed to provide data directly relevant to archaeological methods for inferring patterns of behavior and organization of peoples who lived in the past, the project, now in its third decade, has revealed significant insights into the manufacture, distribution, uses, breakages, and discarding of ceramics and how these and other material culture relate to human behavior.

From 1977 to 1978 archaeological surveys and limited excavations were undertaken in Iloilo Province, Panay, in the central Philippines. Australian archaeologists from the Victoria Archaeological Survey, led by Peter Coutts, focused their research on the establishment of a regional sequence, on the study of tradeware ceramics on Panay Island, on the recording of local pottery-making traditions and their trading networks, and on the collection of osteological materials for comparative studies.

While the geologists were working out the problems at the open sites at Cagayan Valley, the National Museum archaeologists concentrated their research activities in Penablanca, about 15 kilometers east of the Pleistocene open sites. Led by Wilfredo Ronquillo and R. A. Santiago, exploration activities in the limestone area resulted in the recording of over 100 caves and rock shelters, eight of which have since been excavated. Basically aimed at elucidating the structure and distribution of the stone-tool industries in the area, the technological and functional analyses of the lithic flaked tools and debitage recovered from the excavations of Rabel Cave (ranging from 4900 to 3000 b.p.) indicated the generalized functions of the flake tools, which made them ideal for use as maintenance tools; the manufacture of the stone flaked tools involved a percussion method without core preparation.

In 1977 Barbara Thiel, then a graduate student at the University of Illinois, excavated two caves at Penablanca, Cagayan Province-Arku by the recovery of cordage of palm fibers. Their presence indicates that an older ship-building method was used. The Butuan archaeological assemblage points to a complex society in this area, indicated by craft specialization (such as wood, bone, and shell working, pottery manufacture, bead reworking, and metallurgy-specifically gold working) and the capability to participate in long-distance trade.

In 1979 an archaeological program led by Karl Hutterer of the University of Michigan started an interdisciplinary project focused on the prehistoric social and cultural

25

development of a small geographical area in Negros Oriental. Known as the Bais Anthropological Project, the research, participated in by graduate students from Michigan, generated archaeological, ethnographic, biological, and geological data used to provide an overall understanding of prehistoric and present-day societies in Negros.

The 1980s

Archaeologists from the National Museum were busy during the 1980s. Although limited in manpower, the museum is the only institution that undertakes full-time archaeological research activities in the country. One of its priority activities is rescue archaeology, which involves the investigation of caves prior to the mining of bat droppings for use as fertilizer.

In 1981 archaeological exploration activities started at the limestone formation of Anda, in the island province of Bohol in the central Philippines. Designed to explicate the island adaptation of prehistoric man, this project, led by Santiago, resulted in the discovery of over 130 caves and rock shelters, the majority of which are archaeological sites. A number of caves exhibit wooden coffin burials as well as rich prehistoric habitation and burial sites.

Museum archaeologists were active in various areas in the country, such as Laurel, Batangas; Ma-ug, Prosperidad, Agusan del Norte; and Polillo Island, Quezon Province. Important archaeological data were generated from the continuation of the excavations at the Butuan sites in northeastern Mindanao, where primary extended burials indicate teeth filing and blackening.

Laura Junker, Hutterer’s former student and now a professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University, did research in Tanjay, Negros Oriental, in the central Philippines. Concentrating on the operation of control over the distribution of prestige goods, tradewares, and earthenware ceramics, Junker used archaeological and ethnohistoric data to test the hypothesis that early Philippine chiefdoms’ participation in Southeast Asian luxury goods trade during the tenth to the sixteenth centuries a.d. was strongly linked to centralized control of a complex intraregional system of production, exchange, and resource mobilization.

In the 1980s numerous underwater archaeological sites were worked by the National Museum. The various shipwrecks found in Philippine territorial waters include Spanish, English, American, and Asian craft, usually with portions of the cargo still intact. The tradeware ceramics help date the ships and cargo. The associated archaeological materials have added new insights into the history of the trade from the ninth to the eighteenth centuries, as well as the nature of the trade and the societies that produced, bartered, and used the goods.

In the majority of cases the sites explored and excavated were worked as joint ventures with private entities. The shipwrecks studied include: one believed to be a merchant boat, found in 1982 on the southeast coast of Marinduque Island, about 150 kilometers south of

26

Manila; a probable local watercraft found in 1983 at Puerto Galera, Mindoro Island; and a sixteenth-century wreck found in 1985 at the Royal Captain Shoal, a coral reef west of Palawan Island. The archaeological materials recovered from this site include porcelain plates, saucers, bowls, cups; boxes and box covers; blue-and-white, pear-shaped, terra-cotta bottles; jarlets; jars; over 200 beads; 33 identical gongs; and bronze, iron, and copper objects. The tradewares recovered from the wreck point to the Wan Li period (1573-1620).

It was also in 1985 when the Griffin, an East India Company vessel, was excavated northwest of Basilan Island in the southern Philippines. Along with numerous Chinese tradeware ceramics, the few metal objects found include iron ingots used as ballast, iron tools in the form of adzes, cannonballs, lead sheets used to line the wooden tea crates, lead musketballs, teapots, a Chinese coin of copper alloy, shoes and belt buckles of copper alloy and gilt bronze, and other objects used for daily life on board the ship.

In 1986 the exploration for the sunken galleon San José was started off the waters of Lubang Island, Mindoro Province. Only portions of the ship’s planks, numerous shards of blue-and-white chocolate cups, and fragments of bronze, iron, and copper materials were recovered.

The 1990s to the Present

Important archaeological discoveries were made in the 1990s. In 1991 earthenware potteries with covers exhibiting anthropomorphic motifs were excavated at Ayub Cave, Pinol, Maitum, Sarangani Province. Led by E. Z. Dizon, the analysis of the potteries, designed and formed like human figures with varied and distinct facial expressions, indicates that they were used as covers for multiple secondary burial jars. Typologically the jars and the associated materials found date to the Metal Age period in the Philippines, around 500 b.c. to 500 a.d.

The year 1991 also marked the start of an archaeological survey for the Spanish warship San Diego, which sank off Fortune Island on December 14, 1600. A joint project of the National Museum and World Wide First, Inc., the excavation found the wreck at a depth of about 50 meters below the sea’s surface. Two seasons of underwater archaeological excavation were undertaken, resulting in the recovery of over 34,000 archaeological items, including tradeware porcelains and stonewares, earthenware vessels, metal artifacts, and various organic materials.

The archaeological materials recovered from the San Diego site include more than 500 blue-and-white Chinese ceramics in the form of plates, dishes, bottles, kendis (spouted water containers), and boxes that may be ascribed to the Ming dynasty, specifically to the

27

Wan Li period; more than 750 Chinese, Thai, Burmese, and Spanish or Mexican stoneware jars; over seventy Philippine-made earthenware potteries influenced by European stylistic forms and types; parts of Japanese samurai swords; 14 bronze cannons of different types and sizes; parts of European muskets; stone and lead cannonballs; metal navigational instruments and implements; silver coins; 2 iron anchors; animal bones and the teeth of pigs and chickens; and seed and shell remains of prunes, chestnuts, and coconut.

Noteworthy among the metal finds are a navigational compass and a maritime astrolabe. Also retrieved from the site is a block of hardened resin that was noted in historical accounts to have been used for caulking and for making fire in stoves. A summary of the excavations and finds is presented in C. Valdes’s Saga of the San Diego, published in 1993.

In the northernmost islands of the Philippines, the Ijangs (megalithic structures situated in elevated hills, indicating evidence of fortification) were confirmed through archaeological explorations and limited excavations. Led by Dizon and Santiago, the cursory archaeological activities indicate that the structures closely resemble the castles reported from Okinawa and date to the twelfth century a.d. These recent finds may prove crucial in the understanding of the formation of sociopolitical complexities in the Philippines.

This concise history of archaeology in the Philippines records the fascinating story of the search for the prehistoric beginnings of the archipelago, which is inextricably linked with mainland Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. Although it may seem that archaeological activities in the country are adequate, there are still countless archaeological sites in the country that need proper assessment, excavation, and management. Unfortunately, these important and nonrenewable components of the country’s cultural resources are also subject to plunder, nearsighted exploitation, and vandalism. Properly managed and protected, these archaeological resources have educational, recreational, and tourism potential. Without doubt, they are worth protecting for the enrichment and enjoyment of succeeding generations.

28

Site Exploration (Philippines)

Excavation Activity

29

Mr. Rey Santiago of the National Museum observes a cross-section of lahar deposits.

Modern Pampangan house in an archaeological context.

Archaeological Excavation in Butuan Remains of Butuan Boat

Tagen Site rock carvings

Philippine Artifacts

30

Arbitrary layer of about 0-40 cm. is firstdug in each of the 3 squares.

Cluster of artifacts, S2E3, 60-80 cm below LDP.

Fragmented pot found in situ in cross-section B.

Different layers of soil are identified thru a method known as stratigraphy. The black layer of soil

contains the bulk of cultural remains.

Collectively known as “sandata,” the edged weapons of the Philippines. (Tausug weapons)

Preserved coins, paper notes, medals, artifacts and monetary items found in the Philippines during its different historical periods.

This is a photo of a limestone burial jar about 2 feet high from Cotabato, Mindanao. Approximately year 600.

V. Conclusion

31

Archaeology as a whole is simply a study of life in the past which greatly affect the

life of the modern people today. Though the study requires a distinct process and

strategies however the main goal of the subject is to draw out the truth of a certain object,

event and also the genuine beginning of man’s culture. The two branches of archaeology

and its training is merely giving us a clear picture on how they – the archaeologists –

done their part in digging the remains of ones ancestors, how they work for it, how one

benefits for it and also how they care for the artifacts. Through this training, the real work

and the hard work of an archaeologist are manifested through their discovery that is being

introduced around the world.

It has been discussed that archaeologists themselves are “prehistorians” and there is

only one reason to prove it. They are not a simple story-teller and a myth maker though

they are historians because in the field of their work it is strictly included in their research

the observation of their discoveries as well as the source or origin of that certain thing

that they discover, so it is obvious that what they have with in their research is such a

proof of their discoveries not just a mere fantasy or a child stories.

Mans social and cultural evolution has not been haphazard or random. Rather, it

has been governed by real causes and processes. History and prehistory can be studied

scientifically, just like any other known phenomena. By analyzing these processes and

causes it is possible for social scientist, including archaeologist, to generate laws,

principles, and axioms which control and describe the development of society and culture

– our own as well as the most primitive. It is precisely because human social and cultural

evolution follows certain laws that archaeologist can discern patterns in prehistory and

study these patterns using scientific methods. As these patterns become clearer and we

discern more laws and principles describing the course of social and cultural evolution, it

becomes increasingly likely that we will be able to control the forces shaping the world’s

societies today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

32

Compton’s Encyclopedia (page 530)

Jason W. Smith. Foundations of Archaeology pp. 32 & 35.Copyright 1976,

Glencoe Press, A Division of Benziger Bruce & Glencoe, Inc., 8071 Wilshire

Boulevard Beverly Hills California 90211, Collier Macmillan Canada, Ltd.

Lewis R. Binford. An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar R Press New York

San Francisco, London/Academic Press, New York San Francisco

Jane McIntosh. 1999. The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What we

Know About the Past. Checkmark Books (imprint of Facts on File), New York

City. 173 pp

Andrew Jones. 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge

University Press, London. 182 pages, a bibliography and an index.

http://www.kapi.com.ph/kapi_recent_articles.html (KAPI Society of Philippine

Archaeologists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/archaeology2.htm

33