Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
|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.
|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
|3
|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 Ne w 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.
|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)
|6
In a shorter explanation-- the first Malays and Indonesians came from the Philippine islands and not the other way around.
|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, 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
|8
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.
|9
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:
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, its more complicated than that.
Beyers claim has not yet been proven archaeologically. Furthermore, remains of people that in Beyers theory settled in the Philippines can also be found in nearby locationsNew Guinea, Java, and Borneo, creating a notion that a conclusion is inconceivable. (Jocano 1963). In the archaeological and linguistic context however, Bellwoods claim that people came from the North (Taiwan) would be more favourable than Beyers notion. Since the alleged dispersion of the Austronesian languages could be traced in Taiwan through Lingustics.
| 10
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 southa unilineal migration that partially supports Bellwoods theory.
| 11
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 Jocanos and Bellwoods sentiments would be, as of the present, most credible. Although Solheims idea is somewhat logical, further archaeological evidences should be at least presented for a materialist proof. Beyers idea however could be revised through the inclusion of the discovery of prehistoric human species in the Philippines and genetic records.
| 12
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 werehis 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.
| 13
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. Mans 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 1998 Our Living Past: the Philippines from 250 000 BC to 1521 AD. Quezon City: Phenix Pub. 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. 1979
Origins of the Filipinos and their Languages (January 2006). <independent paper> ________________. 2009 Genetic map of Asias Diversity (11 December 2009). BBC New: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8406506.stm. Retrieved 01 March 2012