Download pdf - 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 History

F. 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

P e o p l i n g o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s — C h u a , T a v e s o | 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 theories—data and analyses.


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 necessary—not 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:

Beyer’s Migration Theory

Jocano’s Evolution Theory

Bellwood’s Out-Of-Taiwan Model (Austronesian Diffusion Theory)

Solheim’s Island Origin or Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network

(NMTCN) Theory


Furthermore, an overview of such theories are expounded below:

Beyer’s Migration Theory

Basically, Otley Beyer’s 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)

Jocano’s Evolution Theory (Core Population Theory)

Jocano’s theory opposes Beyer’s 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, Beyer’s claims were questioned by Jocano in the part

wherein he considered that we descended from the Malays and Aetas. He said that he

couldn’t conclude things that fast since the only known evidence is pointing out that

early people also went to New Guinea, Java, Borneo, and Australia.


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 Beyer’s misleading claims, Jocano proposed the Evolution Theory

(or Core Population Theory) which better explains our origin. Enclosed in this theory is

Jocano’s belief that early people located near the Philippines such as New Guinea, Java

and Borneo aren’t 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.

Bellwood’s Out-Of-Taiwan Theory

According to Bellwood’s 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

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




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)


In a shorter explanation-- the first Malays and Indonesians came from the

Philippine islands and not the other way around.

Solheim’s NMTCN Theory

Wilhelm Solheim's concept of the Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication

Network (NMTCN), suggest that the patterns of cultural diffusion throughout the Asia-

Pacific 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.


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, from the point of view of the

Philippine people, the NMTCN is also referred to as the Island Origin Theory.

This "late central lobe" included southern China and Taiwan, which became "the

area where Austronesian became the original language family and Malayo-Polynesian

developed." In about 4 000 to 3 000 BCE, these people continued spreading east

through Northern Luzon to Micronesia to form the Early Eastern Lobe, carrying the

Malayo-Polynesian languages with them. These languages would become part of the


culture spread by the NMTCN in its expansions Malaysia and western towards Malaysia

before 2000 BCE, continuing along coastal India and Sri Lanka up to the western coast

of Africa and Madagascar; and over time, further eastward towards its easternmost

borders at Easter Island. Thus, as in the case of Bellwood's theory, the Austronesian

languages spread eastward and westward from the area around the Philippines. Aside

from the matter of the origination of peoples, the difference between the two theories

is that Bellwood's theory suggests a linear expansion, while Solheim's suggests

something more akin to concentric circles, all overlapping in the geographical area of

the late central lobe which includes the Philippines.


Method

The following contradicting ideas are present throughout the expounded

theories. Having said this, the researchers present existing evidences that could prove

or disprove one and the other:

1. Beyer says Dawn Man, Jocano says Tabon Man.

Undoubtedly, Jocano’s claim is more credible in nature—since up to this date,

what Beyer calls the “Dawn Man” (250 000 ya) has, as of now, no proof of its

existence.

2. According to Beyer, people of the South migrated to the Philippines; for Bellwood,

people came from the North. For Bellwood, these Austronesians migrated in a unilineal

manner. According to Solheim, it’s more complicated than that.

Beyer’s claim has not yet been proven archaeologically. Furthermore, remains of

people that in Beyer’s theory “settled” in the Philippines can also be found in nearby

locations—New Guinea, Java, and Borneo, creating a notion that a conclusion is

inconceivable. (Jocano 1963).

In the archaeological and linguistic context however, Bellwood’s claim that

people came from the North (Taiwan) would be more favourable than Beyer’s notion.

Since the alleged dispersion of the Austronesian languages could be traced in Taiwan

through Lingustics.


Hitherto, a research in Genetics conducted by the Human Genome Organisation's

(HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium support the hypothesis that Asia was populated

primarily through a single migration event from the south. However, the study found

that, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language

also had a great deal in common genetically. In the other hand, proponents of the

north to south dispersion (in Linguistics and Archaeology) still maintain the former

stand.

It (the research) also answered the question about the origin of Asia's

population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single

migration event from the south—a unilineal migration that partially supports Bellwood’s

theory.


Conclusion

Although this study is entirely paperbound and the sources have been limited to

secondary references, the researchers have come to a conclusion that based on the

facts laid, and the evidences that support and overturn these theories—Jocano’s and

Bellwood’s sentiments would be, as of the present, most credible. Although Solheim’s

idea is somewhat logical, further archaeological evidences should be at least presented

for a materialist proof. Beyer’s idea however could be revised through the inclusion of

the discovery of prehistoric human species in the Philippines and genetic records.


Epilouge

There are fundamental differences between the models put forward by the said

theories. These differences may be attributed, in whole or in part, to their respective

orientations, as well as their individual experiences. For example, Bellwood, on the one

hand, is presumably a linguist by background, judging from the amount of linguistic

discussions that he incorporates into his publications. This probably explains the linear

and somewhat unidirectional tendency of his Out-of-Taiwan model, as these

characteristics are also often observed in linguistics especially in the reconstruction of

language histories. Solheim, on the other hand, is basically an anthropologist, what with

archaeology being considered as an anthropology sub-discipline in the U.S. where he

had his training. Thus, he makes use not only of data gathered from excavated material

culture, but also incorporates his actual experiences and observations of human

behaviour in his explanations of how things are or were—his concept of the Nusantao,

for example, is based on his observation of present-day maritime cultures such as the

Badjao and the Semang living in the seas surrounding the Indonesian and Philippine

islands.

Having said these, the researchers have a formidable affirmation towards the

formation of middle-ground and formal theories that could be supported by material

evidence and other sciences. Therefore, a new research towards the peopling of the

Philippines and population history is highly recommended.


Cited References

Flessen, Catherine.

2006 "Bellwood and Solheim: Models of Neolithic movements of people in Southeast Asia and the Pacific". Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Bellwood, Peter.

1979 Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: the Prehistory of Southeast Asia

and Oceana. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005 First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. U.K.: Blackwell Publishing.

Beyer, Henry Otley.

1948 Philippine and East Asian Archaeology, and Its Relation to the

Origin of The Pacific Islands Population.

Jocano, F. Landa.

1963 Our Living Past: the Philippines from 250 000 BC to 1521 AD.

Quezon City: Phenix Pub.

1998 Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. Diliman,

QC: Punlad Research House, Inc. 1998.

Solheim, William. 2006 Archaeology and Culture in Southeast Asia: Unraveling the

Nusantao. Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press.

“Origins of the Filipinos and their Languages” (January 2006).

<independent paper>

________________.

2009 “Genetic map of Asia’s Diversity” (11 December 2009). BBC

New: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8406506.stm.

Retrieved 01 March 2012

https://www.itslearning.com/data/ntnu/44801/bellwood-solheim.pdf

https://www.itslearning.com/data/ntnu/44801/bellwood-solheim.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8406506.stm