Click here to load reader

Research Paper

  • View
    36

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Text of Research Paper

Republic of the Philippines University of the Philippines Diliman Archaeological Studies Program A.Y. 2011- 2012

Peopling of the Philippine Islands: A Brief Study on Different Archaeological Theories and Models Concerning Philippine Population HistoryF. Chua, J. Taveso

In partial fulfilment of the requirements in Archaeo2, Under the mentorship of Prof. Mark Mabanag, Submitted this 8th day of March 2012

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|1

Abstract This research aims to understand the presently existing theories and models concerning peopling of the Philippine islands. Having said this, this study will look at the different perspectives of archaeologists and other proponents of this subject. Furthermore, the researchers aspire to critically examine data and scientific foundations that gave rise to different ideas with regards to the history of Philippine population, excavations and other significant researches conducted to support these ideas; and the consilience and contradiction existing between these models and theses.

Having the said research questions in mind, the researchers will critically compare and contrast different migration models by theoriesdata and analyses.

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|2

Introduction The explanation of origins has always been considered as a subject of great interest. In Southeast Asia in particular, hypotheses attempting to explain the observed similarities in certain aspects of different cultures have been the focus of discussions for decades. (Flessen 2006) Population background of the Filipino race is aptly necessarynot only on sentimental reasons, but also for further growth of studies which concern the said stimulus. Like other systematic investigations, having different theories and models on a certain topic is inevitable; but observable on these theses, flaws and contradictions amongst them are ubiquitous. On the other hand, consilience is observed between others. Therefore, the researchers felt the immediate need to critically examine presently occurring theories and models, specifically on Philippine population history. Hitherto, the theories that would be examined to emanate such ideas are enumerated, which would further serve as the scope and limitation of the study: Beyers Migration Theory Jocanos Evolution Theory Bellwoods Out-Of-Taiwan Model (Austronesian Diffusion Theory) Solheims Island Origin or Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network(NMTCN) Theory

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|3

Furthermore, an overview of such theories are expounded below:

Beyers Migration TheoryBasically, Otley Beyers Migration Theory infers that there were three waves of migration involved after the arrival of what he calls the Dawn Man some 250 kya, this certain species is comparable to other Asian Homo Sapiens like the Java Man and Peking Man. The first wave was the arrival of aborigines whom the Negritos or Aetas, Austaloid Sakai, proto- Malays and Java Man belonged. It was estimated 22,000 years ago via land bridges. From South Asia, the second wave of migrants, the Indonesian came by canoes and boats after the Great Ice Age about 3000 BCE. They introduced bronze and rice terraces. The third were navigators, potters, weavers and blacksmiths. They are the Malays who came before 1 BCE in Mindanao and Sulu. (Beyer 1948)

Jocanos Evolution Theory (Core Population Theory)Jocanos theory opposes Beyers claim that people in the Philippines descended from people of the Malay Peninsula. Citing the work of Dr. Robert Fox in Palawan and the discovery of the Tabon man (dating 47 000 years old), he expounds that man came earlier to the Philippines than in the Malay Peninsula. (Jocano 1998) Just like other theories, Beyers claims were questioned by Jocano in the part wherein he considered that we descended from the Malays and Aetas. He said that he couldnt conclude things that fast since the only known evidence is pointing out that early people also went to New Guinea, Java, Borneo, and Australia.

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|4

According to Jocano's findings, the people of the prehistoric islands of Southeast Asia were of the same population as the combination of human evolution that occurred in the islands of Southeast Asia about 1.9 million years ago (Jocano 1963). The claimed evidence for this is fossil material found in different parts of the region and the movements of other people from the Asian mainland during historic times. He states that these ancient men cannot be categorized under any of the historically identified ethnic groups of today. As a solution to Beyers misleading claims, Jocano proposed the Evolution Theory (or Core Population Theory) which better explains our origin. Enclosed in this theory is Jocanos belief that early people located near the Philippines such as New Guinea, Java and Borneo arent much different from the first inhabitants of the Philippines which makes their culture and way of living closely similar. As a proof, Jocano said, fossils can be found in the discovered in different parts of Southeast Asia, as well as the recorded migrations of other peoples from the mainland Asia when history began to unfold.

Bellwoods Out-Of-Taiwan TheoryAccording to Bellwoods theory, as early as 5 000 BCE, an especially potent and versatile culture combining fishing and gardening had developed on the south coast of China. As well as growing their food on land, these maritime gardeners were accomplished at fishing the waters in the Straits of Taiwan from boats with hooks and nets. Between 4 000 and 3 000 BCE, these fishermen-farmers crossed the 150 kilometers of the Straits and settled on Taiwan-- this is evidenced by the similarities

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|5

between the pottery assemblages of the local Tapenkeng culture (TPK), characterised by cord-marked globular pots with incised everted rims and occasional lug handles or perforated ring feet, and those from sites in Fujian and Guangdong, characterised by potsherds decorated with incised lines, rows of impressed semicircles, and stamped dentate patterns inside incisions. (Bellwood 2005)

On Taiwan, the Austronesian speaking fishermen-farmers honed their sea-faring skills. They soon embarked on one of the most astonishing and extensive colonisations in human history known as the Austronesian expansion. By about 2 500 BCE, one group, and just one group of Austronesian speakers from Taiwan had ventured to northern Luzon in the Philippines and settled there. The archaeological record from the Cagayan Valley in northern Luzon shows that they brought with them the same set of stone tools and pottery they had in Taiwan. The descendants of this group spread their language and culture through the Indo-Malayan archipelago as far west as Madagascar off the east coast of Africa and as far east as Hawaii and Easter Island in the central Pacific Ocean. Therefore, implying that the ancestors of all of Southeast Asia and the Pacific's people - Malaysians, Indonesians, Javanese, Balinese, Sundanese, Madurese, Sawu, Toraja, Acehnese, Tetun, Maori, Fijian, Hawaiian, Malagasy, Easter Island Rapanui and a host of others, passed through the Philippines in huge waves of migration that spanned thousands of years. (Bellwood 1979)

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|6

In a shorter explanation-- the first Malays and Indonesians came from the Philippine islands and not the other way around.

Solheims NMTCN TheoryWilhelm Solheim's concept of the Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network (NMTCN), suggest that the patterns of cultural diffusion throughout the AsiaPacific region are not what would be expected if such cultures were to be explained by simple migration. He suggests the existence of a trade and communication network that first spread in the Asia-Pacific region during its Neolithic age (c.8 000 to 500 BCE). According to Solheim's NMTCN theory, this trade network, consisting of both Austronesian and non-Austronesian seafaring peoples, was responsible for the spread of cultural patterns throughout the Asia-Pacific region, not the simple migration proposed by the Out-of-Taiwan hypothesis. (Solheim 2006) The NMTCN, as the term connotes, is a trade and communication network that has been in place in the Asia-Pacific region for the past 10000 years or so. It is this concept that Solheim puts forward as an alternative to simple migration theory in explaining why shared aspects of culture are found widespread in the Asia-Pacific region. He points out that if "elements of culture were spread by migrations, then the spread would have been primarily in one direction"; but since the observed shared elements of culture in the Asia-Pacific region were spread in all directions, the logical explanation is that they have been carried thus through some sort of trading network.

Peopling of the Philippine IslandsChua, Taveso

|7

Solheim came up with four geographical divisions delineating the spread of the NMTCN over time, calling these geographical divisions "lobes." Specifically, these were the central, northern, eastern and western lobes. (Flessen 2006) The central lobe was further divided into two smaller lobes reflecting phases of cultural spread: the Early Central Lobe and the Late Central Lobe. Instead of Austronesian peoples originating from Taiwan, Solheim placed the origins of the early NMTCN peoples in the "Early Central Lobe," which was in eastern coastal Vietnam, at around 9000BCE.

He then suggests the spread of people around 5 000 BCE towards the "Late central lobe", including the Philippines via island Southeast Asia, rather than from the north as the Out-of- Taiwan theory suggests. Thus, fro