Notes onQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES IN

PHILIPPINES PRE-HISTORY

by Dr. Felipe Landa Jocano

INTRODUCTION• Wave-Migration Theory – is the long standing

explanation regarding the peopling of the Philippines and the development of culture in the country

• According to this theory the Philippines was populated by various races of people from other countries who migrated here either by walking or by boats that comprised now the people of the archipelago and the culture that each group has became part of the culture prevailing right now in the country

• Three early proponents of this theory as applied in the Philippines were: J. Montano, Ferdinand Blumentritt, and R.P. Bean

• J. Montano in 1884 – 85 did the earliest known attempt at classifying Filipinos into specific racial groupings based upon anthropomorphic measurements and ocular inspection of skeletal remains and physical appearances of living population.

• He concluded that inhabitants of the country can be divided into: (1) NEGRITOS – the small, dark-skinned group which included the Negrito of Bataan, the Ata of Luzon, and the Mamanwa of Mindanao; (2) MALAYS – the brown-skinned group which included the inhabitants of Bicol, the Visayas, and southern Luzon and suspected to have Chinese, Indonesian, and Arabic blood); and (3) Indonesia group – a group similar to the Malays in complexion, which included the Samal, the Bagobo, the Guianga, the Ata, the Tagakaolo, the Tagbanua, the Manubo, the Mandaya, and the Bilaan.

• Groups 2 & 3 were said to have reached the Philippines in two waves of migration. The Indonesians were the first to come, followed by the Malays

• Ferdinand Blumentritt accepted Montano’s classification and advanced the idea, based upon the studies of Rudolf Virchow and A. Meyer that the Negritos were the first inhabitants of the archipelago and therefore declared as the aboriginal population following what Spanish chroniclers stated earlier as this group were small, black, and warlike.

• He also popularized the “inland push theory” wherein the Negritos being the first and least civilized were pushed into the interiors of the archipelago as the two or more advanced groups entered the country successively later.

• American and European scholars at the turn of the century such as D.P Barrows, D.C. Worcester, R.B. Bean, Paul Schabesta, and Morice Vanoverbergh confirmed the assumption that the Negritos were the aboriginal group and were pushed into the interior hills with the arrival of the Indonesians and the Malays.

• Most notable of them was R.P. Bean using mostly inmates in the Old Bilibid prison with a number of ethnic groups and using their anthropomorphic measurements and comparing his Philippine materials with the ones from Europe and the Asian mainland classified the entire population of the country into six racial groups: PRIMITIVE, AUSTRALOID, IBERIAN, ALPHINE, B.B.B, and the CRO-MAGNON.

• Further postulations of R.P Bean:

• (1) An early group which migrated directly from Europe intermarried with the indigenous people in the country and brought forth the inhabitants of northern Luzon and central Mindanao;

• (2) those who came from Europe by way of India and the Malay Peninsula were the Malays and presumed the dominant group in the Philippines;

• (3) and those who came from West Asia and Africa represented by Muslims in the southern part of the country.

PROFESSOR HENRY OTLEY BEYER’S VERSION

• The most elaborate and popular version and major proponent of the Wave-Migration Theory was the American paleontologist H.O Beyer.

• Once Chair of the Department of Anthropology of U.P. and the mentor of many of the first generation of Filipino anthropologists such as Felipe Landa Jocano, Alfredo Evangelista among others.

• Major additions to the theory: 7 groups of migrants, the first wave arrived through land bridges, and half of contemporary Negritos descended from the first wave of migrants.

OUTLINE OF THE DISCUSSION• Divided between the topics (I) Peopling of the

archipelago and (II) Development of Culture in the Philippines.

• Under each of this major heading the ff. will be discussed:– A. H.O. Beyer’s Version of the theory– B. Questions & Challenges of Beyer’s version of the WMT

by F.L. Jocano• 1. Methodology• 2. Implications to Philippine History

– C. Alternative explanation of F.L. Jocano

• After Parts I & II, a Part III is created to present an overall critique of the WMT as an explanation to the peopling of the Philippines & emergence of culture in the archipelago

PEOPLING OF THE PHILIPPINESH.O. BEYER’S VERSION

• 1. The primitive human type, which is similar to the Java Man of 250,000 year ago;

• 2. The Australoid-Sakai type, which represented the earliest pygmoid group together with the latter arrivals, the proto-Malays, who came between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago;

• 3. The seafaring, stone-tool using Indonesian “A” who came about 5,000 to 6,000 years ago;

• 4. The bark-cloth-wearing Indonesian “B” from Indo-China, who came about 1,500;

• 5. The terrace-building people, who came from central Asia and arrived here between 800 and 500 BC;

• 6. The civilized Malays, who came by dugouts via Borneo, Palawan, and Mindoro, between 300 and 200 BC; and

• 7. The modern Asians, who came within the Christian era.

PEOPLING OF THE PHILIPPINESQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES BY F.L. JOCANO

A. METHODOLOGY

• 1. Genotypes vs Phenotypes• 2. Non-scientific selection and limited

number of samples• 3. Use of contemporary samples to argue

for prehistoric peopling and movement of people in the country

• 4. European-centric & bias view

PEOPLING OF THE PHILIPPINESQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES BY F.L. JOCANO

B. IMPLICATIONS UPON PHILIPPINE HISTORY

• 1. Negritos is the aboriginal group of the Philippines. A. Evidence of earliest people in the country does not show its racial background B. No archeological site to demonstrate their antiquity over the others.

• 2. The Philippines was peopled by waves of migrants coming from the mainland.

A. No biological evidence & sound mathematical formula behind the calculations & percentages attributed to some groups to contemporary make-up of Filipinos

B. Lack of basis & exact definition of categories and descriptions used in delineating the waves of migrants

C. No way for the contemporaneous arrival of Arabs and Europeans contribute to the physical characteristics of prehistoric peoples of the country.

THE PEOPLING OF THE PHILIPPINESQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES BY F.L. JOCANO

B. IMPLICATIONS UPON PHILIPPINE HISTORY

• 3. Filipino race is derived from, a part of, or an example of the Malay race. A. Evidence of pre-historic men in the Philippines is older than in Malaysia

B. Historical experiences & social organization between the Philippines & Malaysia are different from each other

C. The term Malay is a linguistic term not a racial one and was the name of the tribe in the Penang area, the part of the Malay Peninsula that was colonized first by the British from where the British Malaya colony expanded and became the territory of present-day Malaysia after the WWII.

D. It is therefore also a product of contemporary times.

PEOPLING OF THE PHILIPPINESC. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF F.L. JOCANO

• TWO PREMISES:– 1. Look at pre-historic people throughout Southeast

Asia as the “core” population from whom modern people evolved from.

– 2. Look at Southeast Asia as a “blank slate” and peopled by modern people from other regions.

• ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: Combination of the two premises– Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, was peopled

by prehistoric people that evolved in the region into modern ones while some intermarried modern people from other regions that migrated to Southeast Asia

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTUREH.O , BEYER’S VERSION

• PREMISES:

– Each wave had its own cultural characteristics– Treated race and culture as one– The cultural traits of each wave or group of

migrants were still encountered by Beyer when he did his study and by extension up to the present

• Here are culture of the 7 Waves of Migrants:

• 1. The Primitive type of people similar to the Jave Man – They led a simple life. They subsisted primarily on raw food that they were able to gather from their surrounding by means of primitive stone tools.

• 2. The Negritos & other primitive Australoid-Sakai type – They lived in crudely built shelters of tree branches and leaves and probably wore primitive clothing and ornaments made of barks and leaves.

• 3. The sea-travelling & stone-using Indonesia “A” who came via rafts & plank-built boats – They lived in grass-covered houses with wooden frames and rounded roofs, built over a pit dug a meter or more below the surface. They built rough stone walls around their houses. Their clothing was probably still undecorated skins and barks.

• 4. The seafaring group from Indo-China & South China coast to Luzon & Formosa via good-sized dugouts – They constructed houses with pyramidal roofs & raised above the ground on four posts. They also had advanced small wood-working tools made of very hard stones, such as nephrite or ancient jade which were rectangular or trapezoidal in cross-section. Their clothing was beater bark-cloth, often intricately decorated with fine designs, imprinted on the bark with the use of stone or wooden blocks.

• 5. The more advanced group from Central Asia – They were said to have introduced metal tools & improved agriculture, like wet-rice cultivation & terrace-building techniques

• 6. The civilized Malays from whom majority of the contemporary population descended – They filtered into the archipelago in fleets of dugouts, up from the west coast of Borneo into Luzon via Palawan & Mindoro, and in other ocean pathways through Celebes Straits to Mindanao and the Visayas. They also introduced four types of industries: (1) the smelting, forging, & manufacture of tools, weapons, utensils, & ornaments from iron & other metals; (2) the manufacture of a great variety of turned-&-decorated pottery; (3) the art of weaving cloth on a hand loom; & (4) the crafting of beads, bracelets, and other ornaments of green & blue glass.

• 7. The people who came during the Christian era – Of these groups, the Arab-Persian stock contributed 2%; the Europeans & Americans 3%; the Hindus 5%; the Chinese & other East Asians 10% of the present population respectively.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTUREQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES BY F.L. JOCANO

A. METHODOLOGY• 1. Archeological materials were correlated with

the material culture & physical traits of the living population, although this is not accepted in history, it is a standard methodology in anthropology, except that scientific dating of artifacts used is a must but absent in Beyer’s case.

• 2. Philippine materials that early scholars used in their attempt to establish a wider range of comparison & to indicate the origin of Philippine prehistoric cultures are poorly documented.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTUREQUESTIONS & CHALLENGES BY F.L. JOCANOB. IMPLICATIONS ON PHILIPPINE HISTORY

• 1. “Inland-Push” Theory– A. No evidence– B. Negritos are nomadic people & found in different parts of the

country– C. There are other groups of people in places where Negritos are

suppose to be the only people• 2. Philippine culture is derived from, a part of, or an example of

Malay civilization– A. Language is an integral part of culture but is one of many only. If

the term Malay originated from the language of a tribe inhabiting Penang in the Malay Peninsula from where the British built their Malay colony how could our culture be said to a part of Malay civilization.

– B. The term Malay and the people and its culture that it represent is one only of many that existed in the Malay Peninsula when the British colonized the area. Thus, how could our culture be called Malay when there were others prevailing then and now.

– C. The terms Filipino, Indonesian, & Malay and the people & culture that they represent are products of contemporary events and developed simultaneously. Thus, to give a higher or prior recognition to the Malay term or culture over Filipino or Indonesian is baseless & unscientific.

EMERGENCE OF CULTUREC. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF F.L. JOCANO

• TWO PREMISES:– 1. Culture of Southeast Asian peoples was based upon

their adaptation to their respective environment– 2. Influences from other regions reached Southeast

Asia • ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: Combination of the

two premises– The culture of Southeast Asia, including that of the

Philippines, developed out the combination of local’s adaptation to their respective environment and foreign influences .

CRITIQUE OF WMTAS AN EXPLANTION OF THE PEOPLING OF & EMERGENCE OF

CULTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

• First, it is too simplistic to be useful in explaining the complex problem of cultural development as WMT attributes cultural development to the ones immigrants brought with them to the country.

• Second, it is unrealistic to assume that the physical characteristics of prehistoric migrating peoples can be correlated with specific cultural development.

• Thrid, there is no evidence and doubtful whether the ancient peoples always arrived in periodic time sequences & with foreknowledge of their destination as implied by the term migration & that each really constituted a culturally & racially homogeneous group.

CRITIQUE OF WMTAS AN EXPLANTION OF THE PEOPLING OF & EMERGENCE OF

CULTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

• Fourth, it is quite difficult to accept that small boatloads of immigration or walked through overland routes, would be capable of maintaining large-scale community patterns in a new land under pioneer conditions and not suffer any population challenge to maintain their number identifiable even today.

• Fifth, the theory does not allow for variant social & cultural developments to take place in response to local ecological developments situations as if our culture & people came from other places ready-made.