Changing perspectives on the meanings of objects and the history of archaeological

research in the Philippines

Abstract:

This paper attempts to investigate meanings of artefacts through time. Artefacts gain different

meanings during production, acquisition, deposition in archaeological contexts, recovery, and

analysis. Artefacts could be possessed by individuals or institutions, displayed in museums or

privately appreciated. They could also be left in storage rooms. How people relate and

interpret artefacts is influenced by the nature of archaeological research. Applying the

concept of the biography of objects, artefacts recovered from Calatagan, Philippines is

collectively examined to understand the layers and dynamic meanings acquired by the objects

as commodities, mortuary goods, archaeological data, museum objects, and private

collection. It is demonstrated in this paper how the history of archaeology in the Philippines

influences the interpretation of the Calatagan sites and artefacts. Through understanding how

meanings are produced, the paper provides different contexts the artefacts are utilized and

creates multiple experiences for people.

Key words: meanings of objects, Philippines, history, interpretation, biography

Introduction

This paper will look at how the history of archaeological research in the Philippines has

changed in the last five decades by examining the different meanings acquired by an

assemblage of artefacts through time since its recovery. It will focus on how the development

of archaeological practice has affected or influenced the interpretation and perspectives of

scholars and the public towards sites and artefacts. Artefacts excavated from Calatagan in the

1
province of Batangas, Philippines in 1958 will be used as a case study (Figure 1). The

Calatagan excavations were the single most important excavated sites in the middle of the

twentieth century in the Philippines. The large number of burials recorded and the range of

artefacts recovered present interesting aspects of ancient Philippine societies. The famous

Calatagan Pot with inscriptions on its shoulder was recovered in this region. Most of the

artefacts are stored at the National Museum of the Philippines. Others are part of private

collections including the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. The biography of these

objects will be mapped: from their acquisition in the past as commodities, as grave goods,

their functions in the graves, as archaeological evidence, to their function as museum

collection and source of data. It will be demonstrated in this paper that there exists multiple

contexts of artefacts, as single objects and as part of the whole collection. Questions on

understanding material culture, the choice in what should be recovered from the site, which

are acquired by collectors and stored and displayed in the museums, will be considered in this

paper in the context of archaeology as practised in the Philippines. Using the Calatagan

artefacts as case study, are means to an end and in the process they amass multiple meanings

for different people. How and why they acquire their meanings will be the central theme of

this discussion. In the process of examining the biography of the Calatagan materials, The

paper will outline the development of archaeological research in the Philippines and how

research trends influence the way the Calatagan sites and artefacts were and are interpreted.

2
Figure 1: Map of the Philippines showing the location of Calatagan

The archaeological excavations in Calatagan

Calatagan is located in Batangas Province south of Manila. The sites are found along the

western coast of the peninsula. It was in 1934 that the presence of middens and

archaeological materials were observed during the preparation of a polo-field in the Zobel

Estate (Beyer 1947). Mr Enrique Zobel reported the site to the National Museum of the

Philippines (NM) and Ricardo Galang visited the area and collected stone adzes and chisels

(Beyer 1947). Olov RT Janse (1941, 1944-45, 1947) conducted the first Calatagan

excavations in the 1940s. The materials recovered from these excavations were shipped to the

Harvard-Yenching Institute and are now in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

3
Ethnology at Harvard University (Kanji 2005). Some skeletal materials and local vessels

from Janse’s (1944-45) excavation were deposited at the University of Santo Tomas in

Manila. The results of these excavations encouraged large-scale excavations from 1958 to the

early 1960s by the NM. The 1958 excavations were published by Robert B. Fox in 1959. The

1960-1961 excavations remained unpublished until recently (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Main

and Fox published in 1982 a descriptive analyses and classification of the earthenware

vessels recovered from the excavations. More than 1000 burials from open-pits have been

recorded since the 1940s, including infant jar burials. Majority of the adult skeletons are

buried in supine positions while some in flexed positions. The sites date to the 15th century

AD based on the decorations of the Southeast Asian ceramics used as mortuary goods.

The most common finds from the burials were earthenware vessels and foreign ceramics. The

undecorated earthenware vessels were composed of cooking pots, spouted vessels called

kendi, lobed pots locally known as kinalabasa (squash-like), bowls, and pots resembling

cooking vessels but have flat-and-depressed bases instead of round bases. The decorated pots

have incised lines and punctuations. Decorations include solar motifs. The bowls and kendis

are local copies of foreign forms. The foreign ceramics were from China, Vietnam, and

Thailand. Forms include jarlets, saucers, bowls, and plates. Most of the foreign ceramics are

monochromes while some of the plates and bowls have floral patterns that have been

interpreted as sun-burst patterns (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). The non-ceramic objects include

human skulls, shells, animal bones, giant clams, glass bracelets and glass beads, stone statues,

metal implements, Chinese coins, a gold sheet, a gold ring, and spindle whorls. The

Calatagan Pot was recovered by a labourer during a weekend break in the 1960-61

excavations that its exact provenience is unknown.

4
Since earlier excavations mainly were on the western coast, the NM spearheaded a project

that surveyed and eventually excavated in the eastern coast of the Calatagan peninsula

(Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They recorded and recovered burial jars belonging to an earlier

period, 1695+ 20 BP and 2820+40 BP (Dela Torre 2003). The sites and artefacts discussed

here are from excavations prior to the 1990s.

History of archaeological research in the Philippines

This section discusses the history of archaeological research in the Philippines based on how

Filipino scholars view its development. It will explore what they supposed were key advances

in Philippine archaeology and take note of their suggestions to help propagate the discipline.

It will also include current developments that were in response to early assessments of

archaeological practice. These information shall provide the background for the discussion. It

shall start with the 1950s as the major Calatagan excavations took place in 1958. (For

archaeological research before 1950 please see Evangelista 1961; Mijares 1998; Paz 2009;

Santiago 2001)

Similar to other Southeast Asian states’ experience, archaeological practice was initiated

mostly by foreign scholars and enthusiasts. However by 1951 in the Philippines, Filipino

scholars became more active in archaeological research (Ronquillo 1985). The NM

continued its collaboration with foreign archaeologists. Radiocarbon dating was started to be

utilized in the early 1950s. Earlier interpretations on how specific cultures reached the

Philippines started to be challenged. New sites were discovered which also added new

dimensions to learning ancient lifeways. Excavation techniques and recording methods were

also becoming more systematic. Few Filipino graduate students were interested in

archaeology and have conducted their own excavations as part of their program. One such

5
excavation was in Lemery, Batangas conducted by three female graduate students from 1968-

70. The result of this intensive research was published in 2008 (Locsin et al. 2008). Foreign

graduate students invited by their professors to conduct research also made use of Philippine

materials for their dissertations, which eventually were published. Ethnoarchaeological

research were conducted on Agta Negritos and pottery-making in the 1970s. The aim of the

research on the Agta Negritos was to understand hunter lifestyles living in tropical

environments. Longacre’s research on Kalinga pottery had produced several publications and

encouraged several American graduate students from the middle of the 1970s to the 1980s to

conduct their own research on various facets of Kalinga pottery (Longacre 1981, 1999;

Longacre et al. 1988, 2000; Longacre and Skibo1994). It was also during the 1970s until the

1980s that American archaeologists utilized Philippine data to test hypotheses regarding

social development of societies, political economy, and trade in the context of an island

environment (Hutterer 1974, 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1985, 1991). Also in the 1970s the NM

began actively searching for evidence of early Homo sapiens specifically in the Peñablanca

Caves, Cagayan Valley and Tabon Caves, Palawan. These sites have been recently re-

excavated and artefacts re-analysed to obtain more data about the earliest humans in the

Philippines and Southeast Asia (Dizon 2003a; Jago-on 2007, 2008; Lewis et al. 2007-2008;

Mijares 2007-2008; Mijares et al. 2010; Schmidt 2009).

Though descriptive in its treatment, Ronquillo’s (1985) article illustrated how archaeology in

the Philippines benefitted very much from collaborations with foreign scholars. Despite of its

numerous excavations during the said period, most of the interpretations regarding

archaeological sites remained to be framed from a foreign perspective and mostly offered by

non-Filipino scholars. As Ronquillo (1985:84) stated, much of the excavations were salvage

archaeology due to ‘construction work, natural calamities, and by looting’. Nevertheless, the

6
number of sites and large quantity of artefacts recovered during this period provide present

students and scholars many opportunities for research, including this paper. This period

produced a Field Manual In Archaeology written by Peralta (1978) which provided standard

techniques followed in every local excavation. However, in the early part of the 21st century,

British excavation techniques were incorporated in local field excavations introduced by a

British-trained Filipino archaeologist (Paz 2003).

Research before the 1980s focused on ‘culture history, cultural chronology, typology of

prehistoric material cultures, using the unilineal development stages of cultural evolutionary

theory’ (Dizon 1994: 199). Dizon (1994:200) underscored the ‘professionalisation in the field

of archaeology’. Prior to the 1980s, most of the archaeology practitioners were trained by

cultural anthropologists. In the 1980s, four Filipino scholars, including Ronquillo and Dizon,

were fortunate enough to have attended American universities where they received their

masters’ and doctoral degrees. In 1988, the Archaeology Division at the NM formally

separated from the Anthropology Division. This created more opportunities for the NM to

concentrate on archaeological work in the country. It was during the 1980s that underwater

archaeology was initiated and the number of excavations increased. Similar to Ronquillo’s

article, Dizon then proceeded to describe major research from 1982 to 1992. Another chief

development was the involvement of archaeologists in environmental and impact

assessments. To date, several non-government organisations conduct assessment studies.

Dizon also described how the Archaeology Division managed their photographic collection

and data. Data digitisation was started in the 1991 and continues until the present.

Dizon concluded that the major problem at that time was the lack of institutions that offer

formal courses and degrees in archaeology. Dizon added that the research trend during the

7
1980s was a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. However, such research

utilising the deductive method were very few, mainly spearheaded by foreign archaeologists

or Filipino archaeologists who had formal training. Despite the presence of Hutterer and

Longacre in the 1970s and 1980s, processual studies did not influence local scholarship at

that time. Dizon’s (1994) attempt to provide the theoretical direction of research in the

country was not as explicit as Santiago’s views discussed below.

The papers discussed above were more of status reports than a commentary on the state of

archaeology in the Philippines. Mijares’(1998) paper on the development of Philippine

archaeology differs from the articles discussed above which were inclined to be personality-

based. Mijares focused on archaeological method and paradigm as his framework in

addressing the growth of the discipline. He traced the earliest methods used in excavation and

explanation. He started with Beyer’s surface collections, salvage archaeology, and the use of

diffusion-migration theories. He discussed the lack of field reports prior to Fox’s excavations

in the 1950s. For Mijares, it was only Guthe who conducted systematic collection in the

1920s until Fox’s introduction of standard excavation techniques in the 1950s. Despite of

Fox and Peralta’s efforts to introduce field procedures, Mijares still considered their

interpretations as speculative. He acknowledges the presence of foreign archaeologists in the

Philippines such as Longacre and Hutterer for establishing processual studies in the country.

He also highlighted the contribution of Filipino archaeologists who received formal training

in American universities and the researchers who trained under Fox and Peralta. From 1993

to 1996, the shell midden sites of Cagayan Valley discovered in the 1970s were extensively

investigated with collaborations with Japanese archaeologists. Ronquillo and Ogawa (1996)

initiated the Batangas Archaeological Project to continue Fox’s work in Calatagan. New sites

producing unique artefacts such as anthropomorphic jars (Dizon 1993) and stone boat-shaped

8
burial markers and traces of ancient settlements were also discovered in the 1990s (Dizon and

Mijares 1999; Mijares 2003). Under the Problems, Issues, and Concerns section of Mijares’

article (1998:12-14), he noted the domination of foreign archaeologists in the reconstruction

of Philippine prehistory and the lack of formal training of Filipino scholars. Despite the

continuous interaction of Filipino scholars with foreign archaeologists, Mijares argues that a

historical-cultural persists among the former. Mijares (1998:13) also added that the

Philippines ‘remained in the periphery of the debate’. He also underscored the lack of

publication of site and final reports and technology required to practice archaeology. For the

discipline to prosper, he proposed that archaeology should be problem-orientated research

based in an academic institution rather than a reactive approach wherein sites are excavated

after reported.

Santiago’s (2001) view on the development of Philippine archaeology centred on the lack of

theoretical discussion among Filipino practitioners. Her proposed periodization was based on

the theoretical paradigms developed in North America and Europe: a. Before 1900s:

Antiquarianism, b. 1900-1950: Early Cultural-Historical Period, c. 1950-1980: Late Cultural-

Historical Period, and d. 1980-Present: Emerging Processualism. The difference between the

Early Cultural-Historical Period and the Late Cultural-Historical Period was the introduction

of ‘scientific data collection methods primarily the use of stratigraphic principles’ (Santiago

2001:7). Despite of this, in Santiago’s view, data interpretation remained to be from a

cultural-historical perspective. The period from 1950 to 1980 described by Santiago (2001: 9-

12) was essentially an account of foreign scholars’ experience in the Philippines. This is

similar to Mijares’ (1998) statement on the lack of Filipino scholars actively contributing to

the reconstruction of Philippine prehistory. Regardless, excavation methods greatly improved

from the 1950s onwards. Santiago and Dizon have the same view that the 1980s was the start

9
of a significant period in archaeological research in the Philippines. The Filipino scholars

who studied abroad brought with them new methods and theories including statistical, spatial,

metallurgical analyses, and the use of GPS and GIS techniques. However, Santiago noted that

despite of the introduction of scientific methods and analyses, interpretation is still largely

from a cultural-historical approach.

Paz (2009) had a different take on the history of archaeological practice. Paz’s analysis is

more of a reflective process and practice-based rather than emphasizing the theory-based

archaeological research which aforementioned scholars engaged in. What is interesting about

Paz’s article is that it described the social milieu of the people involved in the practice of

archaeology in the Philippines rather than the details of their archaeological activities. It

traced the development of the consciousness of collecting for whom and for what reasons.

The article is mainly Paz’s reflection of the transformation of the practice of archaeology

from personal and imperial entitlement to the notion that archaeology is state-owned.

However, the essential piece of the paper was the acknowledgement of the presence of

private collectors without being critical of them. Paz recognized the disparate ethics and

practice of collectors and professional archaeologists and highlighted instances of

collaborations between them. Such collaborations are eventually beneficial to both parties.

In 1995, the Archaeological Studies Program was established at the University of the

Philippines (UP-ASP) where research-orientated projects are conducted. Each faculty is

actively pursuing their own research interests. Hukay, the UP-ASP’s peer-reviewed journal

launched in 1998, where Mijares’ and Santiago’s articles came out, is now an international

publication with foreign contributors and referees. Collaborations with foreign institutions are

healthy. In the academic aspect of collaborations, local and foreign students receive free

10
training and present opportunities for them to interact with foreign academics. Graduate

students participate in exchange programs that help broaden their prospects in archaeology.

Currently, the UP-ASP has links with Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Australian National

University, University of Washington, and University College Dublin. Collaborations also

have a practical aspect. Foreign scholars bring with them financial assistance and technology

in field and laboratory work. To date, due to budgetary constraints, local archaeologists, most

of the time but not always, can obtain scientific dates for their research if they have foreign

collaborators. Philippine sites are still mainly dated based on foreign ceramics which are also

reliable and can be correlated with radiocarbon dates as Melendres (2008) has demonstrated.

Students are also given the chance to pursue their own research usually offshoots of these

collaborations.

Calatagan through the years

Materials are passive, however, some people would argue that they are active (Barretto-

Tesoro 2008b; Bray 2008; Hodder 1982). The people who possess and use these objects give

their meanings to them. Meanings of objects can be multiple and are dependent on their

contexts and how people from various sectors view these objects (De La Paz 2008). The aim

of this paper is to demonstrate the many meanings of the Calatagan artefacts in the context of

the history of archaeology in the Philippines. It will be drawing from the cultural biography

concept (Kopytoff 1986) which states that meanings of objects can change throughout an

artefact’s lifetime. The Calatagan objects have their own histories prior to their function as

mortuary goods. They were artefacts during the systematic excavations in Calatagan in the

1940s (Janse 1941, 1944-45, 1947), late 1950s (Fox 1959), early 1960s (Fox 1961), and in

the early 1990s (Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They were also given as tokens to sponsors of

the excavations. At the same time, some of the Calatagan objects came from unsystematic

11
excavations that are now part of several private collections. Few Calatagan artefacts are

exhibited in the NM and its provincial branches, and in the Lopez Memorial Museum and

Library. Some are stored in the Ceramic Storage Room of the NM. To date, people have

utilized Calatagan data in their dissertations (Barretto-Tesoro 2007; Bautista 2007; Chang

2004; Dela Torre 2008). Despite its collective term as ‘Calatagan artefacts’, It is propose that

these objects have different meanings for different people. This research will elucidate how

meanings and interpretations of objects are multiple, changing, and context dependent.

Interpretations of Calatagan artefacts according to various scholars

Calatagan sites and artefacts were interpreted based on the research agenda of the excavator.

Janse (1941, 1944-1945, 1947) was interested in the influence of the Dong-son in Indo-China

and the Philippines. He excavated 60 graves in three cemeteries in Calatagan, which

contained Ming pieces. Fox’s (1959) interpretation did not go beyond the usual explanation

that all objects in the burials were ritual objects and grave goods. There was no sufficient

explanations for the distribution of the grave goods, the demand for specific pottery types and

the apparent chosen locations for particular items. In 1982, Main and Fox wrote a

comprehensive description of the earthenware vessels from twelve Calatagan sites. The

description centred on forms, clay, temper, temper size, paste, slip, firing, and designs, which

were the bases for the classification of the vessels into three pottery complexes. Main and

Fox assessed the chronology of pottery forms and designs by comparing manufacturing

techniques of the Calatagan vessels with pottery from other sites. The aim was to identify

‘ancestors’ of the Calatagan types to investigate the spread of pottery types from the origin.

However, meanings of designs were not examined. The analyses of the porcelains, mostly

coming from Annam, Siam, and China also focused on manufacturing and painting

techniques (Fox 1959). Fox noted the low quality of the porcelains but maintained that they

12
were good sources of the development of ceramic studies in Mainland Asia including kiln

activity, production periods, and trade. Although the porcelains were for daily use, it has been

suggested that the designs were potent symbols of the local cosmology.

My work focused on social identities that can be inferred from the ceramics and non-ceramic

objects found as grave furniture. Barretto-Tesoro (2008a) has emphasized that we can infer

the various identities manifested in the burials, depending on the qualitative attributes of the

ceramics and their locations in the graves, in relation to the body. She posited that cultural

affiliations were symbolized by the inclusion of undecorated local vessels placed near the

head and feet areas of the deceased, the general place of burials, and the manner of burial

(Barretto-Tesoro 2008b). Gender was marked more than sex through the inclusion of gender-

specific objects such as metal implements and spindle whorls. Some infants, perhaps due to

their age, were placed in jars. Status in Calatagan was determined through ceramics decorated

with solar and bird motifs placed on top or near the pelves (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). In earlier

studies in the Philippines, status was viewed from a political-economy framework (Bacus

1996; Junker 1999) and determined by the density of foreign items present in habitation and

burial zones. The most recent work in Calatagan (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c) demonstrated that

indigenous symbols marked status even though such graves contained only one porcelain

plate. Imitation occurs when monochrome ceramics were found on the pelvis. Earlier markers

could have been the earthenware vessels with solar designs.

How objects were acquired in the past?

Foreign objects were acquired through trades with Southeast Asian merchants. They were

perhaps initially seen as commodities, which were later transformed into ritual/burial goods.

However, the decorations on the porcelains found in the graves suggest that the Calatagan

13
locals were active in the selection of foreign ceramics. It seems that the indigenous belief

system influenced the active selection of foreign ceramics with sun and bird symbols which

were considered potent (Salazar 2004, 2005). Women most probably manufactured the local

vessels for domestic use and on a need-basis (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Some of the cooking

pots recovered from the graves have evidence of carbon deposits in the interior and soot on

the exterior. Heavy usewear suggests that the cooking pots were used in domestic contexts

prior to their burial. Those with light usewear suggest that the pots were specifically

manufactured for burials and used to cook food offerings. Other non-utilitarian pots,

particularly decorated ones, appear to have been newly made, based on the brightness of their

colours, for the sole purpose of burial.

As Records of the National Museum of the Philippines

The Archaeology Records Section of the Archaeology Division of the NM has recently

started to digitize their records. During the data gathering for her master’s thesis (Barretto

2002) and doctoral dissertation (Barretto-Tesoro 2007), she encountered the original burial

sketches, preliminary analyses forms, and the burial and specimen inventory records of the

Calatagan sites from the 1958 and 1960-1961 excavations. Documents also included letters to

sponsors and short reports on the status of the excavations. On one hand, she was delighted to

hold the actual records and documents of the excavations. These pages held the handwritten

notes of Robert B. Fox and team members’ some of whom became well-known Filipino

archaeologists later on. Ecstatic with the burial sketches she found, she copied information

on the forms and scanned them. On the other hand, she was worried that these yellowing and

brittle sheets were in danger of deterioration. It would be better if future researchers would

handle printouts of digital copies of the documents and forms rather than the original ones.

The move to digitize all the records of the Archaeology Division is an important step in the

14
proper management of written archaeological information. The 1958 excavations were

published by Fox in 1959 but the results of the 1960-1961 excavations remained largely

unanalysed and unpublished until very much later on (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Chang 2004).

Only the earthenware vessels were given much attention (Main and Fox 1982). There are

many more artefacts and records in the Archaeology Division that require analysis. If records

are not stored properly, needless to say, valuable information about the Philippines’ past will

be lost. In addition, due to the large quantities of artefacts shared with sponsors of the

excavations, the only available Calatagan artefacts that can be accessed are those in the NM,

Ayala Museum, and the Lopez Museum. Only the burial forms, inventory records, and other

excavation records remain as sources of information on other items.

As museum objects: what were displayed and stored?

Due to space and funding limitations, the NM does not display many Calatagan artefacts.

Most of the earthenware vessels are in the Ceramic Storage Room. The pots are stacked on

rows of shelves. Labels written on the pots can be cross-referenced with the excavation

records. Some do not have accession codes but their forms indicate that they were also from

Batangas. Some of the foreign ceramics were relatively protected inside cabinets. One item

was memorable. It was a small jar that still contains the remains of an infant (Figure 2). For

some archaeologists, skeletons are data, but for some, there is recognition that the data were

once individuals thus, must be treated with respect. This very concept has led to the

repatriation of human remains in other countries. Museums are now more cautious in

exhibiting and storing human remains. It is highly suggested to assess the current condition of

the infant’s bones and to transfer them to suitable storage space.

15
Figure 2: A jar containing infant bones located in the Ceramic Storage Room of the

National Museum of the Philippines (Photo by Grace Barretto-Tesoro)

If one is familiar with the Calatagan excavations, a quick look around the exhibit galleries of

the NM shows that there are minimal to none displayed from these sites. In 2005, Barretto-

Tesoro visited the NM Branch in Bolinao, Pangasinan and there was one glass bracelet from

Calatagan displayed there. An inspection of the NM records show that some Calatagan

artefacts are exhibited in provincial NM branches across the country. The current exhibit at

the NM and its branches present the archaeological history of the Philippines in a

conventional manner. It starts with the geological formation of the Philippine islands then

moves to the Pleistocene and Palaeolithic periods, followed by the Neolithic Period and

Metal Age, then by the Protohistoric Period. The Calatagan sites are 15th century sites

belonging to the Protohistoric Period. Due to the volume of foreign ceramics and other

imported items in Calatagan, the artefacts were perhaps distributed to NM local branches to

be included in the exhibit highlighting the cultural treasures of the country. Foreign items are

usually presented as part of the developing long-distance trade from the 10th century to the

15th century. The significance of the ceramics, shells, glass bracelets and other mortuary items

16
in Calatagan in the context of burial practices were overlooked; instead, the role of trade was

highlighted.

Two points should be highlighted. First is that, there is no mention in the current NM exhibits

of the significance of the Calatagan finds. The linear storytelling of the Philippine’s past

prohibits the audience to have a deeper understanding of the significance of the Calatagan

sites. In 2007, the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, to encourage

young people to visit the museum, the museum staff would often think of ways to present a

concept or topic relevant to a specific demographic age using their collection. In anticipation

of the new Harry Potter movie in 2007, the curators decided to have an exhibit on magic and

potions by choosing specimens from the existing collection. Museums may need to veer away

from conventional presentations, and the NM may be able to maximize the ways the results

of excavations are shared. Exhibits can become more meaningful when the audience can truly

relate with the artefacts. Perhaps the NM can develop novel ways to present their collection

to wider audience, or even to specific demography apart from students and the local elites.

Using the Calatagan finds, samples of exhibit may include Tagalog archaeology, burial

practices, pottery designs, and relationships with other artefacts from other Batangas or

southern Luzon sites.

The second point is in relation to the above. The separation of some Calatagan artefacts and

their distribution in many provincial NM museums remove them from their contexts. The

implications of the grave goods in relation to various aspects of the deceased and

community’s life can be lost or even disregarded by audiences and researchers alike. One of

the possible solutions is to revise exhibits depending on contemporary research trends. At

17
present, there is a tendency to present a macroscopic and broad view of pre-colonial polities

rather than stressing the diversities of these polities.

Many of the ceramics at the NM Ceramic Storage were restored and reconstructed, which

perhaps excluded them from the display collection or maybe they do not fit in the existing

exhibit framework. An inventory of the pots cross-referenced with the records indicates that

many are ‘missing’. This is Fox donated some of the specimens to sponsors of the

excavations.

Objects as private collections

As mentioned above, Fox sought the financial assistance of various wealthy families when he

commenced the 1960s excavations in Calatagan. One of these is the Lopez Family. In return,

sponsors received their share of the recovered artefacts, mostly the finer and whole pieces.

The Lopez Calatagan collection consists of foreign ceramics, local earthenware vessels, glass

bracelets, glass beads, spindle whorls, net weights, and metal spears. They are now housed in

the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library in Manila in relatively good condition. The labels

indicate that the artefacts came from Calatagan graves dating to the 15th century AD. The

Zóbel y Ayala and McMicking families provided financial support for the field expenses

during the 1958 excavations (Fox 1959). Sixty-five percent of the 1958 collection is now in

the Zóbels’ possession (Cruz 1958). The sites were previously part of what was known as the

Hacienda de Calatagan owned by the Zobels. Six small sacks of ceramic sherds from

Calatagan were also reported to have been observed at the Ayala Museum, Philippines

(Bautista 2007). Other private collections, unfortunately, came from unsystematic diggings

around Batangas. The forms of these pots are similar to those coming from Calatagan that

their origins cannot be denied (Valdes 2003).

18
The 1958 excavations in Calatagan spawned widespread treasure hunting in the Philippines.

Fox employed many locals during the excavations. He taught them the rudiments of

excavation and identification. These Batangueños were the first generation of treasure hunters

who methodically made their way across Batangas, parts of southern Luzon, Palawan and

islands south of Luzon. During our 2008 survey in southeastern Batangas, we encountered

the name of Macario Putol who, according to the locals hailed from Calatagan. He excavated

several burials in Lobo during the 1970s (Barretto-Tesoro et al. 2009). The effects of this mad

activity can be felt until the present day.

Private collections became in vogue (Gotuaco et al. 1997; Peralta 1982; Valdes 2003) and

validated the status of the owners (Poulter 2007). Perhaps due to greater access to funds,

coffee table books on private collections containing high-quality images are widely

published.

Meanings for the locals

Prior to the 1958 excavations, the locals were using Ming ceramics for their tableware, which

they unintentionally recovered from ploughing (Fox 1959). One local used the sherds to

‘pave his salt beds’ because the stoneware sherds ‘are superior to red tile for evaporating the

salt’ (Fox 1959:338). It had neither historical nor symbolical value to them but a functional

and practical value. When archaeologists arrived, the excavations became more important

than the objects. As labourers, they were paid a daily wage to assist Fox and his team.

According to the locals interviewed in 2005, the excavations gave them social prestige. They

accommodated the visitors from Manila including the American Fox. This attitude is

common among Filipinos who prioritize visitors by giving them the best even if they

themselves do not possess much.

19
The locals referred to above were migrants (Fox 1959). They could not have considered any

associations with the human bones they were encountering in their fields. The most obvious

use they thought of for the plates and bowls were for kitchen use. To date, the locals who

owned the properties where the sites are located have sold their lands. For archaeologists, the

Calatagan sites were sources of precolonial lifeways but for the locals they were properties

for sale.

Recent developments in Calatagan

Golden Sunset Village Resort and Spa is a first-class resort built on top of what was

previously known as Kay Tomas and Pulong Bakaw, the two sites excavated by Fox in 1958.

The owner, Ricky Reyes, a television personality, did not know that the land he bought was

an archaeological site. Even though an Archaeological Impact Assessment was not conducted

in his property prior to resort construction as required by law, Reyes was still granted an

Environmental Compliance Certificate in September 2005. When we visited Calatagan in

April 2005, structures were already standing in his property. During construction, the

labourers observed many broken ceramics in the ground. Bautista (2007), an UP-ASP

student who was working for the NM informed Reyes about the significance of his property.

In order to promote the business, Reyes thought of establishing an Outdoor Gallery Museum

to ‘add prestige, value, and feature’ (Bautista 2007:117) to the resort. A Memorandum of

Agreement was signed between the NM and Reyes, the former providing information about

the archaeology of Calatagan, replicas and photographs of artefacts recovered from the sites.

The gallery was inaugurated in March 2007. This outdoor museum is now a popular feature

of the resort that makes visitors’ stay more significant because of the history attached to the

place.

20
Other points

Initial excavations in Calatagan from 1934 to 1958, except Janse’s, were not research-driven.

Workers constructing an airfield discovered fragments of Chinese porcelains which was a

common occurrence among the locals (Cruz 1958; Fox 1959). The owner of the property,

Don Enrique Zobel, recognizes the sherds’ importance and contacted the NM. The NM sent

Ricardo Galang. Unfortunately, the artefacts recovered by Galang were destroyed during

World War II (Fox 1959). In early 1958, amateur diggings initiated by members of the Zobel

and McMicking families with the help of locals resulted in widespread looting. They soon

realized the cultural and historical potential of the area which originally was part of the

Hacienda de Calatagan and owned by the Zobels. It was only in 1957 that sections of the

Hacienda were sold to tenants. The 1958 excavations were largely sponsored by the Zobels

and McMickings. What started as salvage archaeology and private individuals’ interest in the

precolonial past became full scale excavations in 1958 and 1960-61 with the objective to

recover human remains and artefacts.

Fox’s interpreted the artefacts as evidence of prehispanic burial traditions but he started

without identifying his research questions. It can likewise be seen as salvage archaeology.

Fuelled by what were recovered in the 1958 excavations, the 1960-61 excavations were

conducted to rescue more archaeological materials. More private individuals donated funds to

the excavation which entitled them to a portion of the finds. The Calatagan excavations were

generally motivated to save artefacts. It also legalize the acquisition of antiquities by private

collectors. Artefacts recovered from systematic excavations by the NM were obviously

credible than those dug by pothunters since the former employed scientific recovery

techniques. The private collectors perhaps delight in the fact that their collection did not just

have aesthetic value but cultural, historical, and archaeological significance. This kind of

21
working relationship which may seemed unacceptable for some has helped in protecting

archaeological sites and can also be seen as a form of archaeological resource management

(see Paz 2009).

The NM-private individual partnerships generated financial support from wealthy families.

These collaborations assisted the growth of private collections. Of different persuasions, both

the NM and private collectors were interested in the protection of archaeological resources.

As Paz (2009) noted, collectors aspired to know more about the context of their finds that

catalogues on collections were published. In 2005, the Lopez Memorial Museum highlighted

the historical and cultural significance of the Calatagan artefacts in their collection through an

exhibit (Legaspi-Ramirez 2005).

Fox’s team was mainly composed of Filipinos, one of them was the late Alfredo Evangelista

who later lead excavations in other parts of the Philippines (Evangelista 2001). The burial

sketches were drawn by Filipinos too (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Despite the Filipinos’

participation in the excavation, only Fox (1959; Main and Fox 1982) published on the

Calatagan finds. It took almost 40 years for Filipino students to be interested in the Calatagan

artefacts (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Bautista 2007). The general lack of publications on

Calatagan by Filipinos can be attributed to the fact that there were no formally trained

Filipinos at the time of the excavations. The small number of archaeology practitioners from

the 1950s-80s were engaged in salvage archaeology or state-sponsored projects on human

antiquity. The 15th century burial sites of Calatagan had to wait. Filipino scholars who studied

the Calatagan artefacts were among the first batch of graduate students of the UP-ASP

(Barretto 2002; Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Bautista 2007). The Calatagan sites produced high

quantities of artefacts that were not completely analysed except for the earthenwares (Main

22
and Fox 1982). Calatagan’s appeal was the fact that they are readily accessible for scholars to

study. Revisiting and re-excavating sites and reanalysing artefacts became a trend due to new

theoretical frameworks that influenced the re-investigation of Calatagan.

What makes Calatagan exceptional is the extent of the cemeteries along the western coast, the

scale of excavations unheard of in the 1950s in the Philippines where Fox introduced

standard methods of retrieving and recording, the enormity of the project in terms of sites,

artefacts, and burials. The Calatagan excavations defined an era in the history of Philippine

archaeology. It was a clear break from the antiquarian approach of the late 1800s until the

early 1900s where Philippine archaeological and ethnological materials helped augment the

collection of foreign museums i.e. Peabody Museum, University of Michigan Museum of

Anthropology, Musée de l’Homme, and National Ethnographic Museum in Leiden. Although

Guthe conducted relatively standardized methods the most important was recording the

provenience of the artefacts, describing sites, maintaining a field journal, and illustrating

artefacts, all collected artefacts were shipped to the University of Michigan. Early foreign

practitioners of archaeology saw Philippine materials as objects of curiosities or evidence of

external cultures either interacting with local populations or migrating to the Philippines. This

was evident in Janse’s interpretation of the Calatagan finds. Fox attempted to understand the

Calatagan materials in the context of Philippine prehistory, except the porcelains. Fox’s main

interest in the porcelains was their production and distribution in the sites. In terms of the

application of technology, the fragmentary conditions of the human skeletal remains recorded

by Fox preclude radiocarbon dating. The burials excavated in east coast of Calatagan in the

1990s were radiocarbon dated (Dela Torre 2003).

23
There are several foreigners who worked on and in Calatagan. Janse was the first foreigner

who excavated in Calatagan. Even Solheim excavated for a week in Calatagan (Fox 1959).

Although Fox was an American, his institutional affiliation at the time of the excavations

from 1958 to 1961 was the NM and his team was primarily composed of Filipinos. Fox later

collaborated with Dorothy Main (Main and Fox 1982) to investigate the earthenware vessels.

The analysis and dating of the Calatagan Pot was through the assistance of foreign scholars

(Dizon 2003b). The 1990s surveys and excavations on the east coast of the peninsula was a

joint project between the NM and Japanese archaeologists. The research in Calatagan

parallels the history of archaeological research in the Philippines. Previous research was

mainly foreign-dominated investigations that transitioned to research supervised and directed

by Filipinos.

Early scholars were interpreting the Calatagan finds using diffusion-migration models. They

were also interested in the production of the porcelains and earthenware vessels. There was a

preoccupation on the classification of porcelains and earthenware pots which was in vogue at

that time. Classification is essential in analysing artefacts that may be used as a basis to

investigate other aspects of the population who used the artefacts. Considerable attention was

given to the manufacturing technology of the ceramics (Main and Fox 1982). Again, these

studies are important but questions on identity, ethnicity, status, symbolisms, cosmology,

heritage management investigated 40 years after Fox’s excavations were brought about by

theoretical developments in archaeology in the west during the early part of the 21st century.

Conclusion

24
This paper demonstrated the many meanings of the Calatagan materials and excavations

because of how agents at various times perceived these objects (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff

1986). Some of the artefacts started as commodities, imported items brought by foreign

merchants. Some were household supplies and implements that were locally manufactured.

They could also have economic values wherein trade items were tokens shared with trading

parties that later became symbolic of status and potency (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). They were

later transformed as mortuary items. The foreign objects were evidence for the long-distance

trade with the Philippines. The burials were evidence for the elaborate ancient belief system

the Filipinos practised before Spanish colonialisation. The earthenware pots were evidence

for the level of craft production. The skeletons might be evidence for past pathology.

The entire Calatagan region is good reason for heritage protection and site management. The

Calatagan artefacts became one of the cornerstones for establishing the Lopez Memorial

Museum and Library. Don Eugenio Lopez wanted to provide a venue where Filipiniana

scholars and researchers have access to his private collection. As the national institution

responsible for the custody of the nation’s cultural treasures, the NM has a commitment to the

public. Even if the public is not sympathetic to the ideals of the NM, artefacts should be

stored in better conditions where archaeological materials will not suffer further deterioration.

This paper has contributed to new perspectives about the Calatagan artefacts. Utilising the

biographical approach and tracking the different trajectories of the artefacts enabled us to

comprehend how their meanings changed for the people who excavated, examined,

possessed, stored, and displayed them. Finally, this paper also advocates for archaeologists in

the Philippines to look at innovative ways to navigate the layers of meanings behind the

artefacts and sites that otherwise will remain hidden.

25
Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the National Museum of the Philippines and the Lopez Memorial Museum

and Library for granting access to the Calatagan records and materials during the research.

This paper is a revised version of the talk delivered at the Lopez Memorial Museum and

Library on 12 July 2008. Thank you to Janine Ochoa and Anna Pineda for their suggestions.

Lastly many thanks to the locals of Calatagan who shared their views and opinions on the

excavations.

References

Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value.” In The social life of

things. Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 3-63. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Bacus, Elisabeth. “Late prehistoric chiefly polities in the Dumaguete-Bacong area and central

Philippine Islands.” Philippine Quarterly and Culture and Society 24 (1996): 5-58.

Barretto, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Evaluating status in Philippine prehistory through grave

goods.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, 2002.

Barretto-Tesoro, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Social Identities and Earthenware Functions in 15th

century AD Philippines.” PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University, 2007.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. Identity and Reciprocity in 15th Century Philippines, BAR

International Series 1813. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges Ltd. British Archaeological

Reports, 2008a.

26
Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Undecorated Calatagan Pots as Active Symbols of Cultural

Affiliation.” In Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery, edited by Ina

Berg, 35-46. Oxford: Archaeopress (Publishers of British Archaeological Reports), 2008b.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Where are the datu and catalonan in early Philippine societies?:

Investigating status in Calatagan.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 36, no. 3

(2008c): 74-102.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace, Fredeliza Campos, and Anna Pineda. “New Sites in Southeastern

Batangas, Philippines. Report on the Survey conducted by the UP-Archaeological Studies

Program in 2008.” Arquelogia Iberoamericana 4 (2009): 25-48.

Bautista, G. “The Archaeology of Calatagan, Batangas : An Evaluation for the Enhancement

of a Cultural Resource Management Programme in the Locality.” Masters Thesis, University

of the Philippines, 2007.

Beyer, H. Otley. “Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islands and Provinces.”

Philippine Journal of Science 77, no. 3-4 (1947): 205-374.

Bray, Tamara L. “An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen:

Thinking Through the Objects of Late Precolumbian Ofrendas and Huacas.” Paper presented

at the World Archaeological Congress, University College Dublin 2008,

<http://www.wac6.org/livesite/precirculated/1425_precirculated.pdf> (22 January 2009)

27
Ceramics and Objects Excavated from Calatagan, Batangas. <http://lopez-

museum.org/collections/collections_calatagan.html> (8 December 2011)

Chang, Kuang-Jen. “Social use and value of trade ceramics in mortuary context from seven

late protohistoric Calatagan cemeteries, SW Luzon, the Philippines.” . Paper presented at the

10th EURASEAA Conference at the British Museum, London, 2004.

Cruz, Neal H. “Graveyard by the Sea.” This Week, 4 May 1958 1958, 35-45.

De La Paz, Cecille. “Possibilities and Challenges of Community Museums: The Case of

Balay ni Tan Juan in Bago City, Negros Occidental.” In Talk delivered in the Binalot Talks on

5 March 2008. Archaeological Studies Program University of the Philippines, Diliman, 2008.

Dela Torre, Amalia. “Ulilang Bundok: Secondary Jar Burials at Calatagan.” In Pang-alay:

Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines, edited by Cynthia Valdes, 29-33. Makati City: Ayala

Foundation, Inc in cooperation with the Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines, Inc.,

2003.

De La Torre, Amalia A. “The Secondary Burial in Pottery Vessels at Ulilang Bundok Site in

Calatagan, Batangas: A Case Study.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the

Philippines, Diliman, 2008.

Dizon, Eusebio Z. “Maguindanao prehistory: focus on the archaeology of the

anthropomorphic potteries at Pinol, Maitum of South Cotabato, Mindanao, Philippines.”

National Museum Papers 4, no. 1 (1993): 1-21.

28
Dizon, Eusebio Z. “A decade of archaeological research in the Philippines, 1982-1992.”

Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 22 (1994): 197-222.

Dizon, Eusebio Z. “New Direct Dating of the Human Fossils from Tabon Cave, Palawan,

Philippines.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 1 (2003a): 63-67.

Dizon, EZ. “A Second Glance at the Calatagan Pot.” In Pang-alay Ritual Pottery in Ancient

Philippines, edited by C. Valdes, 39-42. Makati: Ayala Foundation, Inc and Oriental Ceramic

Society of the Philippines, Inc., 2003b.

Dizon, Eusebio Z., and Armand Salvador B. Mijares. “Archaeological Evidence of a

Baranganic Culture in Batanes.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 27, no. 1/2

(1999): 1-10.

Evangelista, Alfredo. “Philippines.” Asian Perspectives 5, no. 1 (1961): 67-70.

Evangelista, Alfredo E. Soul Boats: A Filipino Journey of Self-Discovery. Manila: National

Commission for Culture and the Arts, 2001.

Faylona, Pamela G. “Situating Calatagan: A place in Philippine (pre)history.” In Maria

Taniguchi Grave Findings: A Reclamation Project, edited by Eileen Legaspi-Ramirez, 1-10.

Pasig City: Lopez Memorial Museum and Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.

Fox, R.B. “The Calatagan Excavations: Two Fifteenth Century Burial Sites in Batangas,

Philippines.” Philippine Studies 7, no. 3 (1959): 325-390.

29
Fox, Robert B. “Final Report on the Summer Field School in Philippine Archaeology (April

11-June 8, 1961).” Unpublished manuscript. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines,

1961.

Gotuaco, Larry, Rita. Tan, and Allison Diem. Chinese and Vietnamese Blue and White Wares

Found in the Philippines. Makati City: Bookmark, Inc., 1997.

Guthe, Carl E. “The University of Michigan Philippine Expedition.” American

Anthropologist 29 (1927): 69-76.

Hodder, Ian. Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Hutterer, Karl L. “The Evolution of Philippine Lowland Societies.” Mankind 9, no. 4 (1974):

287-299.

Hutterer, Karl L. “An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast Asian Cultural Sequence.”

Current Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1976): 221-242.

Hutterer, Karl L. “Prehistoric Trade and the Evolution of Philippine Societies: A

Reconsideration.” In Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia:

Perspectives from Prehistory, History and Ethnography, edited by KL Hutterer, 177-194. Ann

Arbor, Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The University of Michigan,

1977a.

30
Hutterer, Karl L., ed. Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia. Ann

Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, 1977b.

Hutterer, Karl L. “A Balance of Trade: The Social Nature of Late Prehispanic Philippines.” In

The Donn V. Hart Southeast Asian Collection. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University,

1985.

Hutterer, Karl L. “Losing Track of the Tribes Evolutionary Sequences in Southeast Asia.” In

Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by Terry Rambo, and Kathleen Gillogly, 219-245. Ann

Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1991.

Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Analysis of the Lithic Materials Recovered During the 2000-

2001 Archaeological Excavations of Tabon Cave, Palawan Island, Philippines.” KAPI 5

(2007): 24-34.

Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Technological Analyses of the Lithic Materials from the 2007

Tabon Cave Excavations.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippines Archaeologists 6 (2008):

1-13.

Janse, Olov R.T. “An Archaeological Expedition to Indo-China and the Philippines:

Preliminary Report.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6 (1941): 247-267.

Janse, Olov R.T. “Notes on Chinese Influences in the Philippines in Pre-Spanish Times.”

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8 (1944-1945): 34-62.

31
Janse, Olov R.T. “Archeology of the Philippine Islands.” Smithsonian Report for 1946 3883

(1947): 345-360.

Junker, Laura Lee. Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine

Chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1999.

Kanji, Tawara. “The Olov Janse Collection.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory

Association 25 (2005): 139-140.

Kopytoff, Igor. “The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process.” In The social

life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64-91.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Lewis, Helen, Kathleen Johnson, and Wilfredo Ronquillo. “Preliminary Results of

Speleothem Dating from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines: Moisture Increase at the Last

Glacial Maximum.” Hukay 12 (2007-2008): 35-50.

Locsin, Cecilia Y., Maria Isabel G. Ongpin, and Socorro Paz P. Paterno. A Lemery

Archaeological Sequence. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 2008.

Longacre, William A. “Kalinga Pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study.” In Pattern of the

Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and N

Hammond, 49-66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

32
Longacre, William A., Kenneth Kvamme, and Masashi Kobayashi. “Southwestern pottery

standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines.” The Kiva 53, no. 2

(1988): 101-112.

Longacre, William A. “Standardization and Specialization: What's the Link?” In Pottery and

People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo, and Gary M. Feinman, 44-58. Salt

Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999.

Longacre, William A. and James M. Skibo, eds. Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding

Archaeological Method and Theory. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1994.

Longacre, William A., Jingfeng Xia, and Tao Yang. “I Want to Buy a Black Pot.” Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 7, no. 4 (2000): 273-293.

Main, Dorothy and Robert B. Fox. The Calatagan Earthenwares: A Description of Pottery

Complexes Excavated in Batangas Province, Philippines, Monograph No. 5. Manila:

National Museum, 1982.

Melendres, Rhayan. “Determination of Oriental Tradeware Ceramics and its Application to

the Archaeology of Porac, Pampanga.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the

Philippines, 2008.

Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “Philippine Archaeology in Retrospect.” HUKAY 1.1 (1998): 5-

16.

33
Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Complexity of Pre-Hispanic Ivatan Society.” Paper

presented at the Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 3rd Conference,

Manila 2003:(68-76).

Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Penablanca Flake Tools: An Unchanging Technology?”

Hukay 12 (2007-2008): 13-34.

Mijares, Armand Salvador B., Florent Détroit, Philip Piper, Peter Bellwood, Rainer Grün,

Maxime Aubert, Nida Cuevas, Alexandra De Leon, and Eusebio Dizon. “New evidence for a

67,000-year-old human presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of Human

Evolution 59 (2010): 123-132.

Oropilla, Quintin Fortich. Deciphered secrets : the Calatagan pot : a Philippine national

treasure : ancient inscriptions. Quezon City: The Author, 2008.

Paz, Victor. “Advancing Settlement Archaeology Study through Archaeobotany: Preliminary

Report.” . Quezon City: University of the Philippines-Archaeological Studies Program,

2003.

Paz, Victor. “A Periodization for a History of Archaeology in the Philippines.” Proceedings

of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 7 (2009): 1-16.

Peralta, Jesus T. Field Manual in Archaeology. Vol. National Museum, Anthropological

Papers No. 1. Manila, 1978.

34
Peralta, Jesus. Kayamanan: Pottery and Ceramics from the Arturo de Santos Collection.

Manila: Central Bank of the Philippines, 1982.

Poulter, Emma Katherine. “Connecting Histories: Gelede masks at the Manchester Museum.”

Museological Review, no. 12 (2007): 52-68.

Legaspi-Ramirez, Eileen, ed. Maria Taniguchi Grave Findings: A Reclamation Project. Pasig

City: Lopez Memorial Museum and Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.

Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. “Archaeological Research in the Philippines, 1951-1983.” Bulletin of

the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 6 (1985): 74-88.

Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. and Hidefumi Ogawa. “The Calatagan Archaeological Project: A

Summary Report.” Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 15 (1996): 133-147.

Salazar, Zeus. Liktao at Epiko: Ang Takip ng Tapayang Libingan ng Libmanan, Camarines

Sur. Quezon City: Bagong Kasaysayan, 2004.

Salazar, Zeus. Ang Pilipinong 'Banua'/'Banwa' sa Mundong-Melano Polynesiano. Quezon

City: Bagong Kasaysayan, 2005.

Santiago, Alexandra. “Theoretical Development in Philippine Archaeology.” HUKAY 3, no. 2

(2001): 1-26.

Schmidt, Patrick. “Characterisation and Geological Provenance of Jasper that was used for

Debitages in the Archaeological Site of Tabon Cave, Philippines.” Hukay 14 (2009): 1-24.

35
Tiongson, Jaime F. “Translation of the Calatagan Pottery Inscription using Old Tagalog as

defined by Pedro de San Buenaventura in 1613. Based on the experimental decipherment of

Dr. Ramon Guillermo.” , n.d.

Valdes, Cynthia, ed. Pang-alay Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines. Makati: Ayala

Foundation, Inc and Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines, Inc., 2003.

36