TEST PIT - Archaeological Studies Program

After 12 days of excavation work through hard volcanic layers, three field school students finally uncovered part of the obscured southern wall of the old Budiao Church

Cover photo by Jose Alain AustriaASP Field School 2018

Volume 22 | January - August 2018 | ISSN-1665-8200

Bulletin of the Univesity of the Philippines Archaeological Studies Program

EDITOR IN CHIEFAnna Pineda

ASSOCIATE EDITORKate A. Lim

LAYOUTKate A. Lim

TEST PIT BANNERAntonio PeñalosaVeronica Peralejo

CONTRIBUTORSCarl Bordeos Iori EspirituCatherine May KingKate A. LimRhayan G. MelendresMaria Sagragio R. SimbulanMarie Louise Antoniette SiocoNico Ray F. Unay

Citation Test Pit (2018). Philippines: Archaeological Studies Pro-gram, Vol. 22, 36 pp

CONTACTArchaeological Studies ProgramAlbert Hall, Lakandula St. University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City Philippines, 1101+632 981 85 00 loc. 4226http://[email protected]

©2018 Test PitArchaeological Studies Program All rights Reserved

FOREWORD This issue for Test Pit was a straight-up challenge. I have worked with the publication since 2005 under the guidance of the previous editors: Andrea Malaya Ragragio, Noel Amano, and Ma. Kathryn Manalo. They have then gone on to do greater research, and continue to contribute to the expansion of archaeological studies in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia. In this sense, working with them gave me the confidence that I have Test Pit down to a pat—an assumption that was very wrong. In fact, it may have been one of my humblest defeat: comparing myself to the previous editors in trying to take the publication into a new direction.

For one thing, there is the question of what a graduate students’ bulletin ought to be. I’ve had long debates with colleagues in the Archaeological Studies Program, and I am forever grateful for their guidance. Another challenge is bringing Test Pit into the digital age. While Issue 18-19 was the first to be released directly online, our new aim is to provide immediate information which is easily accessible for readers in the digital age. This means changing our perception on how articles are edited, curated, and presented. Moreover, with the UP-ASP growing each year (22 new enrollees this 2017-2018 schoolyear!), the archaeological academe is busier than ever. Despite this, I am humbled to say that even with all these plans, the previous editors’ philosophy continue to ring true: Test Pit is the reflection of the expansion of the program’s goals, wherein the students are the agents rising to meet these challenges. I hope that their vision will reflect in this issue.

The Editor

1-2 First UP-ASP Archaeobotany WorkshopCatherine May King

4-7 Results from a Pottery Workshop, a Collaboration Between ASP and CFAKate A. Lim

8-15Making Traditional PotteryIori Espiritu

15-17Cantius J. Kobak, OFM: Founder of Christ the King Samar Archaeological MuseumCarl Jamie Simple S. Bordeos

18-19 The Budiao Archaeological Project: Reflections from the FieldJose Alain Austria

20-25Warfare in Metal Age Philippines: A Discussion, Documentation, and Review Nico Ray F. Unay

26-29 Vampire Burials in Archaeology: New Perspectives, New InsightsMarie Louise Antoinette Sioco

30-34“Palayuk, Pasu, Kalan ampong Tunawan”: Ceramic Technological Choices in Gatbuca, Calupit, BulacanRhayan G. Melendres

35

Piluden-Omengan, Dinah Elma. 2004. Death and Beyond: Death & Burial Rituals & Other Practices & Beliefs of the Igorots of Sagada, Mountain Province, PhilippinesJana Andrea Santos

IN T

HIS

ISS

UE

EVENT

ESSAYS

POTTERY-MAKING WORKSHOP, THOUGHTS FROM AN ARCHAEOLOGIST AND POTTERY: EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

ARTICLES

BOOK REVIEW

MUNI-MUNI

1

3

15

20

35

36 ASP CALENDAR FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019

First UP-ASP Archaeobotany Workshop

Quezon City — The University of the Philippines - Archaeological Studies Program (UP-ASP) conducted a 2-day Archaeobotany Workshop held on August 16 to August 17 at UP-ASP.

New ASP students, National Museum employees and interested individuals attended the workshop. They were: Fai Bangahan, Gerard Palaya, Alain Austria, Jade Villamiel, Gretchen Velarde, Justin Bernardo, Gennieve Villanueva, Justine Jay Marfil, Patricia Cabrera, Marinella Mina, Erna Lousie Elias, Trish Palconit, John Jhussein Zaldivar, Raisa Perez, Karryl Ngina, Cathy Villamor, Nikki Vesagas, Jonnah Marie Dagaas, Charity Rollorata and Reynaldo Legayada.

The workshop kicked off with Dr. Victor Paz, UP-ASP professor giving a lecture on approaches to the study of the relationships of past societies and their envi-ronments with emphasis on archaeobotanical meth-ods. He also discussed the central researches and the state of Archaeobotany in the Southeast Asian re-gion. The introduction to archaeology was followed with a series of presentations on Archaeobotanical sub-disciplines viz. — macrobotanical, microbotani-cal remains and biomolecular plant remains respec-tively and highlighted each field’s concepts, methods and applications.

Ms. Jane Carlos, PhD candidate in UP-ASP dis-cussed about macrobotanical remains such as seeds, fruits, grains, woods, among others that are observable with the naked eye. Then, Ms. Cather-ine King, MSc graduate from UP-ASP and Ms. Ce-line Kerfant, PhD candidate from Universitat Ro-vira i Virgili, and a visiting scholar in UP-ASP gave lectures on microbotanical remains and biomo-lecular plant remains respectively and highlight-ed each field’s concepts, methods and applications.

Ms. Jane Carlos, PhD candidate in UP-ASP discussed about macrobotanical remains such as seeds, fruits, grains, woods, among others that are observable with the naked eye. Then, Ms. Catherine King, MSc graduate from UP-ASP and Ms. Celine Kerfant, PhD candidate from Universitat Rovira i Virgili, and a vis-iting scholar in UP-ASP gave lectures on microbotan-ical remains specifically palynology and phytolith studies. Lastly, Dr. Michelle Eusebio of the Universi-ty of Florida discussed biomolecular plants residues in archaeology which include lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and DNA.

Aside from the lectures, the participants also experi-enced actual archaeobotanical methods such as flo-tation and recovery of light and heavy fractions. The sediments that were floated were samples that came from Bubog II and Belat Cave which are two archae-ological sites under the Emerging Interdisciplinary Research (EIDR) Program “Palaeoenviromental and Biodiversity Study of Mindoro Island: An Archaeo-logical Science Initiative”.

The second day comprised of a foreword lecture on the Archaeology of Ilin Island and Belat Cave pro-vided by the Archaeology site Director, Dr. Alfred Pawlik, Associate Professor and UP Scientist II. He discussed the research framework of the project and the archaeological undertakings and researches pro-duced since it started in 2011. He also underscored the value of archaeobotanical remains from the sites. More information on the project and its find-ings can be read in Pawlik et al. 2014’s article entitled “Adaptation and foraging from the Terminal Pleisto-cene to the Early Holocene: Excavation at Bubog on Ilin Island, Philippines” downloaded thru this link — http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/0093469014Z.00000000090.

BY CATHERINE MAY [email protected]

1 | Test Pit Vol. 22

EVENT

After the lecture, the participants started sorting the different assem-blages from the heavy fraction i.e. mirco-liths and debitage, shells and bone fragments, and possible tools. Simultaneously, the other participants did a microscope exercise sorting the light materials like charcoals, small shells, and seeds. The workshop culminated with an awarding of certificates.

The workshop aimed at promoting and spearheading interests in ar-chaeobotany and its sub-dicplines. “The idea is to give an introducto-ry course on archaeobotany and its sub-disciplines because it hasn’t been offered as an elective in ASP for a long time. We targeted new ASP students so that they will already be familiarized on the fields and techniques in hopes that it (the workshop) may spark interest in their future researches.”, King said.

With the favorable outcome of the workshop, the UP-ASP together with the Plants and Sediment Laboratory plans to hold workshops regularly and perhaps introduce the archaeobotanical study to the general pub-lic along with other disciplines in archaeology.

The study of plant remains helps understand the past societies and their environmental contexts. Archaeobotany gives archaeologists in-sights on past peoples’ environment and their changes over time; how they exploited and modified their environment; the plants they used and how and what they used it for, for example for food, clothing, med-icine, tools rituals and others.

“The idea is to give an introductory course on archaeobotany and its sub-disciplines because it hasn’t been offered as an elective in ASP for a long time.”


Photos from T-B, L-R: 1) Dr. Vic Paz giving a lecture on recovery of starches from plants in archaeological sites. 2) Workshop head Jane Carlos discussing methods on sediment floatation. 3) Participants Gennieve Villanueva and Justine Marfil sorting heavy materials using 1mm-mesh. 4) Organizer Catherine King assisting participant Justin Villanueva in recovery on light materials using the bucket method. 5) Dr. Alfred Pawlik providing archaeological context to the processed sediment samples. 6) Participants observing and sorting light fraction under the microscope. 7) Participants classifying heavy fraction assemblage. 8) Participant Jay Zaldivar categorizing different plant remains recovered.

1 2

3

4

5

678


POTTERY-MAKING WORKSHOP, THOUGHTS FROM

EDITORS INTRODUCTION

T wo articles here are results of a team-teaching class designed by Dr Grace Barretto-TesoroArchaeological Studies Program) and Ms Rita Badilla-Gudino (College of Fine Arts, Ceramic Studio). The aim of this course includes basic understanding of pottery, emphasiz-ing the possible perspective of the ancient potters in

the Philippines. It also aims to answer archaeological questions through experience and experiment. One of the requirements of this class includes testing, making, and firing your own pot, following the design of a Philippine archaeological pot.

The two articles written by Lim and Espiritu are the results of two different classes. Perspectives (and therefore, context) is also important: Lim writes with the perspective of an archaeologist who is initially learning to form pottery without any background, while Espiritu writes with the perspective of a potter who is relearning techniques and merging them with her understanding of the practice.

AN ARCHAEOLOGIST AND POTTERY

MUNI-

MUNI

Results from a Pottery Workshop, a Collaboration Between ASP and CFA

Introduction

Material analysis in Archaeological Studies Program has been structured in classes to the introduction of scientific techniques often used to further historical, anthropological or methodological interpretations with the analysis of archaeological materials. In some cases, professors invite guest lecturers in different fields to talk about related topics to archaeology with a different perspective and/or require field and individual research works to be more exposed on the subject matter. In our material analysis class, basic identification and characterization techniques are part of laboratory methods. With this, a formal, in-depth physical interaction with the artifact(s) is established to produce general descriptions about the material in the hopes that substantial research questions will arise from the student.

The special topics on pottery for the 2015 semester was a first of its kind in the program. Being enticed with its non-traditional approach in material analysis, its format was more on the experimental side with the artifact not necessarily discussed on its final state, rather the different phases it had to undergo before reaching its supposed form. In this collaborative lesson plan initiated by two professors from the UP College of Fine Arts (CFA) and Archaeological Studies Program (ASP), basic pottery analysis on form, function, technology and style was taught in classroom lectures and a lot of hands-on exercises (Figure 1).

Ms. Rita Gudiño, a professor and artist from the CFA, explained the pottery workshop us. She discussed the clay preparation to the different methods of contemporary pottery making and firing. In this class however, we were to use (as much as possible) traditional materials which was relatively challenging given the availability and convenience of using modern-day materials (i.e. wheel, cutters, wires, plastic moulds, steel decorating/carving tools, potter’s knife). The actual output of this class is to be able to produce 6 earthenware pots; 2 of which are cooking pots while the other 4 are ritual pots of our choice (actually, 2 designs only but we have to do it twice (Table 1). After the pots are done, we are to fire them without using modern kiln structures, instead an above ground, open fire furnace

Equipment

For my pots, I wanted to make miniature ones because I am more interested in “feeling” the clay as a raw material without necessarily using too much tools/materials to manipulate it. I wanted to experiment on the potter’s (me) interaction with the clay using my hands only, and how my creativity and resourcefulness will show given limited supplies and time. I only used 2 kilos of clay for the 6 pots. In as much I wanted to be purist with my experience with the clay, I still had to use a few tools such as toothpick, abaca string and a small wooden flat palette which were mostly used to decorate the pot and make better forms/shapes.

CP1 CP2 RP1: kalabasa

RP2:kalabasa

RP3: yawning

RP4: yawning

RP5: looted

Temper grog dayami grog ipa grog shell grog

Primary forming Pinch Pinch Pinch Pinch Pinch Pinch Pinch

Secondary forming Pinch Pinch Coil, slab Coil, slab Coil Coil Coil

Sculptural forms N/A N/A

Design motifs and manner of appli-cation

N/A N/A Incised

Surface treatment N/A

Firing Above-ground

BY KATE A. [email protected]


Table 1: Summary of completed pots and methos used [CP: Cooking Pots, RP: Ritual Pots)

Figure 1: Me (author) during the first session of the workshop with some assorted wood implements to aid me in scuplting the clay

Clay preparation As I was told, we used a mix of Antipolo and Iloilo clay which was sourced and made ready by the people from Fine Arts. I was not able to witness how this was done but when we went to Pampanga and talked to the potters there, we were told how much patience and careful one has to be in order to get that homogenous, fine mix of clay. The method required was manually crushing the dry clay, mixing and kneading the prepared mixture using his feet (Figures 2, 3). Kneading is an action which intends to put pressure on the clay; it is like a combination of massaging, molding, squeezing and pressing the clay as the mixture is combined all together (Figure 4). He would know when its ready when it has reached consistency and until large solid mass are sieved, broken and soften.As mentioned, we had to deal with the pre-mixed clay and was tasked to put different tempers for each pot. The temper is an additive substance (e.g., sand, grog, sawdust, etc.) which improves the clay’s plasticity. In broken pot sherds, this is easily recognizable in its cross-section. Of the 6 pots, I was able to work on 3 pots using grog, and one each with ipa (rice husk), dayami (rice straw) and crushed shells (Table 1). The temper has to be proportionately mixed with the amount of clay to be formed. For the grog, the ratio is 1 kilogram of clay is to 100 grams. For the other tempers, we had to estimate it while mixing with the clay. In order to blend the temper and the clay appropriate-ly, one must be able to knead the mix thoroughly to be sure that no air bubbles are left of the clay. Air bubbles in the pot would expand during firing, causing it to crack or break. This can be tricky because one has to “feel” when the mix is ready. To describe that feeling, it is when the temper and water have been fully absorbed by the clay to the point that it is not sticky anymore and easy to manip-ulate (easy for me is like playing with ‘Play Doh’© clay).

Vessel ConstructionIn choosing the ritual pots for this class, I was first enticed with the shape and design. However, as a novice potter, I wanted to do a piece that has a replica already; something I can look on all of its sides to be able to study the form more carefully and be able to copy it. I chose the kalaba-sa pot, yawning jar and a looted pot from Pampanga. Giv-en that I wanted to make miniature versions of all these, pinching (Figure 5) was the primary forming method I em-ployed in constructing them. This involves literally pinch-ing a small mass of clay into shape. I took a palm-size of clay, roll it into a ball, then pressed the middle of the ball using my thumb causing a basin-like depression. While turning the ball in my hands at the same time pinching the middle part of it, this causes the pot to expand or get larger. I also notice that the pot should be moisten contin-uously because it tends to crack when it gets dry. I tried to manipulate this part by squeezing the clay until I reach a similar form to that of the actual pot. After the body, I worked on the rim part.

I coiled in a slice of clay (Figure 6), girdled it on the top of the body. I sprinkled water and rubbed the interior and exterior of the body and rim parts for them to attach. For those pots that have a support on its base (yawning jar and kalabasa pot), I took on a small slab of clay, rolled it then pressed it against the bottom of the body, making a short pedestal.The cover of the cooking pots were made by slab method. This was done by rolling out a small rolling pin-like wood against a piece a clay until desired thickness and circu-lar slab is formed. For the final touch, I took a very small piece of clay, rolled it in my fingers, placed it on top of the cover to attach it as a handle (Figure 7).

Figures 2-3, L-R: 2) A Kapampangan potter kneading and mixing the clay, water, and river sand using his feet. 3) A mill that aids the potter to blend and knead the mixture with clay until it reaches its proper consistency.

Figure 4. A mill that aids the potter to blend and knead the mixture with clay until it reaches its proper consistency.


MUNI-

MUNI

Designing the StructureFor the looted pot, I used a toothpick to incise the concentric, arrow and wave prints it has (Figure 8). The kalabasa pot was easier to de-sign because I just slightly hit parts of its body with the edge of a wood causing vertical side dents, similar to a squash. The hardest to replicate was the yawning jar. It was difficult to form the neck of the jar since it has a thin neck but a wide mouth opening. If not done carefully and properly, the mouth will cause the neck to collapse because more clay is needed for the mouth. Now that I’m writing this, I realized that if I had allowed the body and neck part to dry up a bit then I wouldn’t have repeated constructing the neck and mouth it would be a hardened clay, thus a stronger support base for the mouth.

Firing While forming the pots was challenging, firing the pots was probing. We constructed the above-ground open fire furnace with layers of ipa, wood, dayami, and grog (Figure 9). After placing the grog, we lined up the pots accordingly on top of another layer of wood then covered it with ipa, dayami and grog. We also put wood on the sides to safeguard the pile. This type and mix of furnace was not yet tried in the Fine Arts before, although one can see the practice with some traditional otters in the Philippines. We also had to cover the pile with galvanized sheet because it might rain and firing will be done overnight as part of the firing festival organized by the College of Fine Arts (Figure 10).It took around 10 hours to fire this type of furnace. We expected red earthenware pots but they were all black after the firing (Figure 11). In Pampanga, the potters said they have to re-fire the black pots because for them it is not yet cooked (Figure 12). It is interesting for me to look into the different firing methods and be able to translate that in archae-ological experiments.I had an impression that the firing festival would “just” be a show-case of art works and our outputs, much like exhibit openings (when you look at the pieces, probably ask a few questions to the artists and exchange thoughts to the audience). But this is so much better such that time and interaction to the materials (clay, kilns, tools for form-ing and design) and peers were facilitated by the experts themselves. The atmosphere was encouraging and inspiring as it enabled learning and curiosity - the discussion and discourse revolved on the process-es, techniques and its effect on the output. This attempt to retrace and recreate the possibilities of pottery development with a collabora-tive and hands-on agenda is something each student in ASP should experience.


Figures 5-7, T-B5) Prof. Rita pinching a clay.6) Prof. Rita attaching a coiled clay on top of the body.7) Miniature version at the front, looted original pot at the back.

5

6

7


Figure 8. My unfired formed pots left to dry (the dog figure is a friend’s work) Figure 9. Tatang Ibabaw, the title given for the above-ground furnace pre-sented at the firing festival with potter experts

Figure 10. (T, L-R): First layer of ipa, wooden sticks, dayami. (B, L-R): Grog, stack wood again to place the pots, cover with ipa. Pots made by students laid properly on top of the layers of organic materials as furnace. (photos by Dr. Grace Barretto-Tesoro)

Figure 11. Our black pots being cooled down after firing Figure 12. Several uncooked black pottery in Pampanga

MUNI-

MUNI


Making Traditional PotteryBY IORI ESPIRITU

[email protected]

Clay Test

ProcessThe clay used for this project is terracotta clay from Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. There were three types of temper used:a) Sand from Bicolb) Seashells ground using a grinding machine in the De-partment of Fine Artsc) Grog (courtesy of the Department of Fine Arts)d) mixture of rice hull and shellse) mixture of cogon and GrogEach were tested in different percentages ranging from 0% to 50%. Balls of clay were first formed in similar sizes and temper is added to the mixture (Plate 1).

A. Terracotta and SandSand used was industrial grade from the hardware store. Particles are uneven with some fine and some larger in size. Workable up to 20% and with difficulty on higher per-centages. Tends to crumble and dry easily. Sand tends to dry up the clay and water is added into the mixture for workability. Firing is satisfactory with almost no cracking visible except on the 40% line but this may be due to the forming of the test piece. Ideal Workable Percentage: 10% to 20%

B. Terracotta and SeashellsShells used are clam-type sea shells that are very hard. These are pounded into powder using a grinding machine. Additional shells used were of a more brittle type and was pounded by hand using mortar and pestle. This yielded only to a few amount enough for the test. The seashell was workable even on higher percentages but tends to dry fast on the 30% mark. Water needs to be add-ed into the mixture for workability. The shells are smooth to the feel and easy to work with. None of the pieces sur-vived after firing. This may be due to the composition of the shells or its high salt content. Additional tests need to be conducted on a different type of shell. Ideal Workable Percentage: None

C. Terracotta and GrogGrog was sourced from the UP ceramic studio. These are made from bisque pieces that was processed in the grind-ing machine. Workability is ok up to 20% with some ef-fort on higher percentages. Grog tends to dry the clay fast and water needs to be constantly added into the mixture. Crumbling occurs at higher temperature. Firing is satis-factory on all the tests.Ideal Working Percentage: 10% to 20%.

D. Terracotta with Rice hull and SeashellsRice hull is mixed with the seashells on a 50/50 ratio. It is very hard to mix with the clay because of the particle size. Very rough on skin but may be easier if mixing in large quantities. Workable up to 20% and harder on higher per-centages, also it doesn’t adhere well to the clay body. Wa-ter needs to be added to keep the clay from getting dry. None of the pieces survived after firing which may also be due to the presence of seashells in the clay body. A new test needs to be conducted with regards to the viability of rice hull as an effective temper material. Ideal Working Percentage: None

E. Terracotta with Cogon and GrogCogon is cut into smaller pieces and is added with grog on a 50/ 50 ratio. Similar to the ricehull, cogon is hard to mix with clay because of the particle size. It is very coarse and rough on the skin. The temper also tends to slip off from the clay body. Same insight with the ricehull, it may be more efficient if mixing in larger quantities. Firing is ok on all stages, but with some cracking on the sides which is a pre-firing fault. Traces of the cogon is also visible after the firing, leaving marks on the clay. Ideal Working Percentage: 10%

Overall ObservationsOn all clay bodies, the optimal percentage is around 10% to 20%. Test B and C has a higher overall workability which may be due to its finer particle sizes. Test D and E are the hardest to work with. Test A worked satisfactory in most levels.Particle size is important in determining the workability of the clay body. Bigger particle sizes yields to more diffi-culty especially on the mixing. Also note that some of the tempers are mechanically altered using modern equip-ment (use of grinder) in order to create a finer temper. There may be a different result if the sand temper was sieved for easier workability.

Water content should be considered a variable in the test as the workability of clay is affected by the dryness or wet-ness of the clay body.

There was no data recorded for the drying stage.

Firing test shows that the use of sea shells as a temper is not efficient but further test on differently sourced materi-al (i.e., shells found on riverbanks) may yield to a different result. See test B and D. Firing result shows the tests to be broken down in smaller pieces in an almost uniform size.

I did not record shrink percentages of test clay.


For the firing test, clay bodies with 10 to 20% temper are the most satisfactory, with minimal traces of the temper, resulting to smoother textures. My preference would be tests C and E at 10%.

Overall, I find that 10% grog is the most efficient temper for the test followed by 10% sand which yielded satisfacto-ry in all the results but was only deemed lacking because: 1) it was not sieved to a finer mesh and, 2) minimal water was added as it was the first test.

Ideal Clay Temper for Forming: Seashells and Grog Worst Clay Temper for Forming: Rice hull and Cogon Ideal Clay Temper for Firing: Grog and Cogon Worst Clay Temper for Firing: Seashells

Overall Ideal Clay Temper: Grog and Sand at 10% Making the PotFor the project, we were asked to recreate archeological pots (two ritual jars and one cooking pot). I was able to make the following pots:1) 2 cooking pots (palayok)2) presentation dish (Plate 2)3) Maitum anthropomorphic burial jar # 21 (Plate 3)4) Maitum non-anthropomorphic burial jar (Plate 4)

I chose these pots for the following reasons: one, its func-tion as a votive and second, is to study and analyze the difference of the forms and how they are created. The ob-servation for the project is focused on the process on how the shapes are formed using traditional methods as well as the different decorative techniques utilized during the early periods.

ProcessPreparing the ClayAll clay was sourced from Pampanga and has already been processed. The clay is smooth to touch with minimal ag-gregates present. A 10% sand was added to the mixture as well as water to retain its moisture.

Plate 1. Making balls of clay to prepare for testing. Samples of temper found at the side. (Photo by Anna Pineda)

Different batches of clay where used for the different pots and goes to this process:

1) Clay is sliced into multiple sections using a string.2) Sand and water is put in between the clay.3) The clay is wedged using ox head method two to three times.4) Repeat until all of the sand has been used.

Making Cooking Pot 1

Materials Used: 1.5 kilos terracotta clay Paddle ( Wide Flat) Paddle (Narrow) Cloth String Water

1) Clay is placed on top of a bat. A hole is made in the middle, pushing inward by using the thumb. 2) Using a pinching method, I worked my way around the walls, rotating the clay as I go along. This is a simultane-ous pushing the clay downwards and thinning of the wall until I get the desired thickness.3) When the basic cylinder has been formed, I used the paddle and anvil method to shape the pot.4) Water is added to the stone and paddle but the clay keeps sticking to the tools. 5) This was done in a sitting position with the clay and cloth on my lap. The clay is secured between the legs but because it was still very wet, cracks tend to appear from time to time6) It is remedied by dipping my finger in water and com-pressing the clay until the cracks disappear.7) I used mostly the narrow paddle to shape the form, us-ing it for the bottom and the sides8) The mouth is flared by pulling the clay outwards. This also yielded to more crackings and the same step was used to remedy the piece.9) The pot is finished within four hours and is left to dry.

Making Cooking Pot 21) Clay is placed on top of the bat and a banding wheel. A hole is made in the middle, pushing inward with the thumb. I used a pinching method, to create a basic cyl-inder.2) I turned the banding wheel and placed the clay between my thumb and four fingers. This is done with the clay am-ply wet.3) The clay is left to dry overnight, covered with a damp cloth.4) Paddle and anvil method was used to shape the pot. I first worked on the bottom of the pot working my way up on a rotating pattern. 5) The first few passes, I was more concerned with thin-ning the walls especially the bottom part. 6) The wider paddle was more frequently used at the bot-tom part while the narrower one was used to define the sides and the angle of the pot. These are used simultane-ously.7) The stone inside was mostly used as a support and to retain shape but I would occasionally push the clay to the outside to get a wider shape.


Plate 2-4, L-R. 2) Presentation dish from Islas de Gigantes Island, Iloilo, from the Edwin Bautista Collection (Valdes 2003:98). 3) Maitum anthropomorphic burial jar #21. (Dizon and Santiago 1996:37, Plate 10). 4) Maitum non-anthropomorphic burial jar. (Dizon and Santiago 1996:49, Plate 33).

8) Cracks will occur from time to time but is remedied by smudging the clay with water.9) The mouth is flared by pulling the clay outwards. 10) The pot is left to dry for a few hours.11) The pot is smoothen by rubbing the surface with a wet cloth.12) The pot is left to dry.

ObservationsBoth of the works have very thick walls at maybe around 1 cm. The walls had uneven thicknesses. It was harder to work without a bat and banding wheel for the initial stages but I find it effective to work on the shape in a sitting po-sition than working on the table. The pot is supported by the legs as you turn the pot while paddling. It was difficult for me to coordinate the rhythm between the paddle and anvil may be primarily due to the weight of the anvil.

It is also important to be mindful of the different stages of the clay especially the drying time. When you paddle the clay while it is still on the wet stage, it tends to form more cracks. The best time to paddle is during the leather hard stage (non-glossy surface). Clay is likely to be resistant to shaping on the dry stage.

It takes a maximum of two working days to make the cook-ing pots. First day can be dedicated to making several pots with the basic shape and the second day can be used for refining the shape of the pot.

Red slip and burnishing was not used for this project.

Making the Maitum Anthropomorphic Jar #21Bottom Part 1) The jar is made of two parts the main vessel and the cov-er/ head. The bottom part of the main vessel is made by making a pinched bowl (similar to steps 1 and 2 of Cook-ing Pot II). The clay is left for a few hours before proceed-ing to the next step.2) Paddle and anvil to define the shape of the bottom pot.

4) Every few rows, the clay is paddled with the wide flat paddle to even out the surface.5) I repeat this process until I get the desired height and width.6) The piece is left to dry.

Cover 7) The cover is made by first making the “shoulder part” or where the lid attaches to the vessel (Part A). This is done with almost the same procedure as the bottom part. The process starts with a wide shallow pinch pot and coil is added until I get the desired diameter. 8) It is left to dry overnight. It took longer to dry because it was raining that day.9) While waiting for the piece to dry, the head part (Part B) is made by making another pinch pot with the same procedure as above but with a narrower rim. 10) The process for making the head is similar to making a cooking pot but is later inverted and have a neck. The neck is also made with coil. 11) The head is allowed to dry overnight.12) The parts are then paddled to get the desired shape. To get the lid to fit, Part A is placed on top of the bottom ves-sel and is paddled to compress the clay inward. It is then sundried as is while working on the other pieces. 13) For the head, additional paddling is done to create the shape. There is a slight angle at the top and at the neck.14) A coil is attached on the chin part to create a contour. Another coil is added to create the eyebrows. A triangular piece of clay is attached as a nose, the part is scored and slipped first before putting in place. 15) An ovaloid piece of clay is attached on the side and is pinched to create the ear. The ear is slightly pointed. An-other coil is attached to create a hole for the earring.16) The eyes and mouth are incised using a bamboo stick.17) Part B is attached to Part A by blending the pieces to-gether. A hole is cut on Part B with the same size as the inner diameter of Part A.18) The piece is allowed to dry.

MUNI-

MUNI


ObservationsThere is uneven thickness on the walls. There is also vary-ing drying time for the piece due to its size. The piece is made with different segments but all of the parts start with the basic shapes. The construction of the pieces are similar to making the functional vessels only that it is a composite of its different forms. For example, the head construction is similar to making a jar or a cooking pot with a variation on the neck.

The project is disproportionate especially in comparison with the original burial jar. These are the following visible errors of the researcher:

• The proportion of the bottom part with the head. • The bottom part needs to be bigger.• The proportion of the head with the shoulder.• The shoulder also needs to be bigger in diameter while the neck needs to be shorter.

• Failure to include the hands due to the shoulder being too small.

• The base of the jar needs to be wider with a more bulbous form.

• No perforations on the head.

These discrepancies in form may also be due to the lack of knowledge about the ritual jar or the lack of references available to create an exacting replica. Also it may also be on the researcher’s insufficiency in skill.

The researcher would like to suggest to test a different method for production:

1. Test if it is more practical to create the head first before the body.2. The head be constructed as one piece and not as sep-arate parts (coiled) to avoid having to cut the bottom part.3. In case one still opt for the first method, the parts need to be scored properly. It should also be attached on the leather hard stage. 4. One should always be mindful of the different drying times. Check the weather and the pots regularly. 5. Also be conscious where you place the pots during drying. I placed the pots directly on the ground and it printed the marks on the floor.Making the Maitum Non-Anthropomorphic Burial JarThe process of forming the second burial jar is almost similar to the anthropomorphic vessel with the exception of the cover, which was non-anthropomorphic.1) The bottom part of the vessel is made by making a pinched bowl (similar to steps 1 and 2 of Cooking Pot II). The clay is left for a few hours before proceeding to the next step.2) Paddle and anvil to define the shape of the bottom pot.3) Several coils were made and attached to the pinch pot, slowly working my way upwards. The clay is blended af-ter every row by using my finger and some water. Some-times the clay for a few minutes to allow the clay to dry a bit before adding another row.

4) Every few rows, the clay is paddled with the wide flat paddle to shape and even out the surface. Compared to the anthropomorphic jar, these vessels have more angu-lar corners.5) The process is repeated until the desired height and width is achieved.6) The piece is left to dry.7) The lid is made by repeating steps 1 to 4. It is created slightly bigger than the bottom. The lid is paddled on the side while it is secured to the other part to create a fit. 8) The piece is left to dry9) The top applique is made by making four coils and bended to create a curve. It is then attached to the top of the cover.10) Several coils are made to create the appliques on the corners. They are blended into the vessel by finger and water.11) Handles are also made using coils and is attached to all the corners of the pot.12) The piece is left to dry overnight.13) Brushwork, composed of swirls and lines, is applied to the cover using red hematite.

ObservationsThis jar is relatively easier to make than the anthropomor-phic jar. The process is similar to making functional ware. There was an error in making the top applique/ knob. The angle is off and should have been aligned with the corners of the pot. The design is repetitive on all sides from the applique to the knob as well as the brush work.

Amount of clay used: Around 4 kilos

Making the Presentation DishThere were two attempts in creating the presentation dish and the researcher would discuss the process for both for record purposes. The first one is a failed attempt.1) The presentation dish is made from two parts, the bowl and the pedestal. The bowl is made by making a pinch pot similar to making the cooking pot but with a wider rim and a shallower surface area.2) A hole is made at the middle of the clay. The clay is ro-tated and pinched until the desired thickness is achieved. 3) The bottom of the pot is worked out first gradually mov-ing higher.4) Paddle and anvil is used to get the desired shape. This pot doesn’t have a lot of angles.5) The piece is left to dry.6) The pedestal is made by coil method. Coils of clay is made by rolling the clay between the palm and a flat sur-face.7) The piece is made inverted, starting at the top and work-ing its way to the foot. 8) The coil is blended after every row.9) It is paddled after 4 – 5 rows are made.10) The foot is made by putting the coil slightly outward. 11) The piece is paddled until a flat even surface is achieved.12) The piece is left to dry.


13) The work was left for too long and was too dry to be attached together. There was also a crack at the foot so this piece was abandoned.14) The second presentation dish was made in a similar way except that the pedestal was made first before the bowl.15) Incisions were made by first creating a guide/ line us-ing a bamboo stick16) Using an angled stick, triangular shapes are carved to create the design at the pedestal17) Holes are punched at the bottom of the triangles.

ObservationsThe presentation dish was referenced from the one seen at the National Museum. A few photos were taken of the artifact but most of the construction was made from photographic memory. Additional information was over-looked in terms of design.

The researcher finds that it is more practical to make the bowl first before the pedestal. There are errors in making the piece and these are as follows:

• The bowl lacks definition. It needs further shaping.• The flare of the foot is also lacking and additional carv-ing needs to be done. • This piece is also bigger than the actual reference piece.

The piece was made without the banding wheel. In ret-rospect, a wheel or something similar may have already been present during the Metal Age period and it may have been more efficient to use this in creating a symmetrical pot.

Firing the Pottery

The following materials were used for firing: • 1 bundle bamboo (courtesy of the Department of Fine Arts)

• 2 sacks ricehull (courtesy of the Department of Fine Arts)

• 3 sacks dayami (hay) (which I brought from Quezon Province)

• wood (courtesy of the Department of Fine Arts)

1) Bamboo is layered on a flat surface with at least 3 inches spacing. It is made by placing the slits of bamboo perpen-dicularly on top of each other (Plate 6). 2) Dayami is placed on top of the bamboo.3) The works are placed on top of the dayami. There are around 10 pieces (3 cooking pots, 2 maitum jar covers, 2 maitum jar bodies, 1 presentation dish, 2 unfinished pre-sentation dish pieces. They are positioned relatively close to each other.4) More dayami is placed on top (about 1 meter height). Bamboo is placed around the dayami in a vertical position.5) Fire is lit at the bottom. 6) Occasionally, dayami and ricehull is added to the fire.7) Wood was also used to retain the fire8) The fire is left for 2 hours or until it dies down.

Plate 5. Making a cooking pot. (Left) Shows me using a wheel, although rotating and making the form was used using my lap (not shown). (Right) Shows me using a banding wheel, although this is to make a plate and not a cooking pot. (Photos by Anna Pineda)

Plate 6. Preparing the pots for firing (Photo by Anna Pineda)

Plate 7. Immediately after firing the pottery (Photo by Anna Pineda)

MUNI-

MUNI

Firing ResultsThe firing achieved an oxidized atmosphere. The works are reddish brown in color. Most of the pieces got damaged during the firing (Plate 7). These are the status of the pieces as follows:

Material Condition Comment on Firing Outcome

Cooking Pot I OK Red color

Cooking Pot II OK Red color

Maitum Anthropomorphic Jar Head Damage Damage on the top part as well as the face. Part of the clay chipped

off, creating a hole

Maitum Anthopomorphic Jar Body Damage Damage on the bottom of the pot

Maitum Jar Lid Damage Chip off at the bottom of the lid, brushwork intact, other parts intact.

Maitum Jar Body Damage Applique detached from the body

Presentation Dish Ok Red color

Cooking Pot III Ok Red Color

Damage may be the result of the following:

1) The pieces were not completely dry yet. The gap between firing and drying time is four days.2) The walls are uneven and too thick. 3) Excess heat at the bottom during the firing.4) Bamboo and dayami were not completely dry.

Craft Production and Ritual Vessels

Cooking Pot I Cooking Pot II Maitum Anthropomorphic Jar

Maitum Non-Anthropomorphic Jar Presentation Dish

Temper 10% Sand 10% Sand 10% Sand

Primary Forming Pinching PinchingPinching with banding wheel, Coiling, Paddle anvil

Pinching with banding wheel, coiling,

Secondary Forming

Paddle and anvil

Pinching and coiling

Sculptural Form Paddle and Anvil

Paddle and Anvil

Composite, connecting multiple pieces (shoul-der, head, body)

Creating corners, multiple sections (body and lid)

Paddle and anvil, composite con-necting multiple sections (bowl and pedestal)

Design motif and application N/A N/A Figurative, human

figure Non-anthrophomorhic Raised bowl

Surface Treatment N/A N/A Attaching coils,

Firing IncisingCoil applique on corners, coil knob

Triangular design, Dotted lines


Working on recreating archaeological pots poses a challenge for me even though I already have an experience in making pottery. One is due to the limits of the tools used and the way these pieces are constructed. These are some of my insights with regards to craft production. I will be discussing this subject in several parts:

1) tool use and their efficiency2) duration or production time in relation to creating vessels for ritual purposes

Tool Used and Their EfficiencyBanding Wheel – a banding wheel is a simple construct of a platform with a bearing and pedestal. It can turn clock-wise or counterclockwise and is manually operated by hand.

For the cooking pots, I have used two different methods of production. One is with the use of the banding wheel and second one without (Plate 5). I have found that the use of the banding wheel greatly influence productivity in several ways:1) It creates a more uniform shape, there is greater con-trol in achieving a symmetrical work2) The speed to which the pots are made is higher by almost 50% making production of multiple pieces more efficient.3) Less stress on the body as less effort needs to be exert-ed. This eases the hand and wrist.4)It also helps in viewing the piece in all angles

Paddle and Anvil – the paddle is made from cut piece of wood that is used to pat the clay to shape the pot. The anvil (for this project) is a smooth rock that is used inside the pot together with the paddle.

Paddle and anvil was used in all of the projects. Personal-ly, I find the use of the rock to be bothersome because of the weight but its effectivity lies in the control of the inner space. The anvil serves as a support for the paddle so that it doesn’t push the clay inwards. It also helps maintain the roundedness of the inside of the pot.

The efficiency of the paddle is affected by its shape. There are different types of paddle used for this project but I will only categorize them in two: the flat and wide paddle and a narrow thick paddle. The wide paddle is mostly used to form the base of the pot and also to create the curves while the narrower one is used to create the angles of the pot. A wider surfaced paddle is also efficient in creating even surfaces for the walls especially for bigger pieces. Mostly, paddles refine the pots. In comparison to a pot solely made by hand, human imprints are less noticeable. This is useful most especially when creating pots for mass production where one wants to attain uniformity of both thickness and shape.

Wooden Sticks – wooden sticks are used to create incisions for decorative purposes as well as for scoring the pots for attachment.

There is difficulty in using the wooden stick for creating defined patterns but this is probably due to the thickness of the stick that I used during the project. This is relative in comparison with the metal tools like the knife and the pin tool I use in my practice. The stick creates a thicker line which is ok for bigger pieces but is not that efficient when working on more detailed works. It is also difficult to carve with as evident in the presentation dish. Maybe a well-made wooden tool can be made on the next project.

Duration or Production Time in Relation to Creating Vessels for Ritual PurposesI believe it is important to take note of the time element within the boundaries of craft production in order to un-derstand the archaeological pots and the ritual practices involving these pots. For this project, I would theoretically assume that not just one pot is created at a given period. There are also several processes involved in constructing a vessel and each consume a specific time. Works can also be made simultaneously, moving from one piece to the next, overlapping one process from another. The time-frame for the activities are as follows:

Process Duration

Sourcing the clay 1 to 2 days (depending on location)

Preparing the clay 1 day (depending on the quantity)

Forming the pot 1 to 3 days (depending on the size)

Decorating the pot 1 to 2 days (depending on the quantity)

Drying 4 days to 2 weeks (depending on the weather)

Sourcing materials for Firing 1 day

Firing 1 day

Total 10 days to 24 days

There are different factors that can affect the time of pro-duction from start to finish. These are the factors as follows:

Location of the clay source – Based on the studies, clay is usually sourced within 10 kilometer radius from the site but several factors like the terrain, mode of transportation and the quantity of clay needs to be considered.

Quantity of Works to be Produced – To maximize the firing and available resources it is most economical to produce larger amounts of work on a specific time than making pieces in separate events. The quantity determines the amount of clay that is needed to be prepared and number of days needed to form and decorate the pots

Size of the Work – This determines the amount of time spent on several processes, from the amount of clay need-ed to be sourced, to preparation, forming and decorating. Bigger pots also require longer drying time.

Weather – weather affects the drying time of the clay and also affects the forming of the work. During the wet sea-son, it takes a longer time for the clay to dry. There is also a possibility of postponing work if the weather is not per-mitting, prolonging the time of production

Design/ Form – The more intricate and complex the design is, the more time is consumed on a given work. As with the case of the Maitum jars, it takes more time to make the human figures than the ones with just the brushwork.

Number of People Involved – obviously, it would take lesser amount of time if there are more peo-ple working on the pots compared to one per-son working on the vessels from sourcing to firing.


MUNI-

MUNI

MUNI-

MUNI

Theoretically, I believe that pottery is a social activity and requires the participation of the community. I would like to believe that the process of making ritual vessels is a ritual in itself that requires mindfulness and careful consideration of the dead.

Skill of the Worker – a person with a lesser skill will take a longer time in making a pot than an experienced worker.In theory, craft production is influenced by numerous variables and not just on the skill of the worker. It is also an important realization that the social aspect is a big factor in making the ritual vessels and votive pots. From the clay sourcing to the firing, it is difficult to imagine the amount of effort exerted if it is done by one person alone. Pottery also follows stages in its production and is very much bound by time. Pro-duction for ritual vessels, depending on quantity, number of workers, source of materials etc. will range from 10–24 days.

References

Dizon, Eusebio Z., and Rey A. Santiago. 1996. Faces from Maitum: The Archaeological Excavation of Ayub Cave. Manila: Capitol Publishing House, Inc.

Valdes, Cynthia Ongpin, ed. 2003. Pang-alay: Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines. Makati City, PH: Ayala Foundation Inc., and the Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippins inc.


Cantius J. Kobak, OFM: Founder of CKC Museum

BY CARL JAMIE SIMPLE S. [email protected]

Carl is the current Curator of the Samar Archaeological Museum, Christ the King College in Calbayog City, Samar.

He was recently elected as the President of the Eastern Visayas Association of Museums (EVAM).

With the reopening of the Samar Archaeological Museum at Christ the King College (CKC) in Calbayog City in 2010, and with the celebration of its 50th Founding Anniversa-ry last August 29, 2017 (Photos 2-7), Filipinos, particularly the people from Eastern Visayas (Region 8), are now in-troduced to the works and legacy of Fr. Cantius J. Kobak, OFM (Photo 1), who is now known as the Historian of Sa-mar and Founder of the CKC Museum.

He was born Zdislaw (Jesse) Kobak in Chelmoniec-Kow-alewo, Torun, Poland, on June 29, 1930, to Andrew and Louise (Mucha) Kobak. In 1937, his family migrated to the United States where he finished all his studies until he was

ordained a Priest on June 1, 1957. He arrived in Calbayog City on August 28, 1959, and was assigned to teach at CKC.

Interested in the history and culture of Samar Island, prompted by the virtual absence of published materials about the place around the time of his arrival, this led him to do an extensive research and even archaeological ex-peditions to various areas around the island. He collected and compiled histories of Samar and Leyte towns, Bisay-an songs, poetry, dramas, riddles, Bisaya-Spanish dictio-naries, and of the Colegio de San Vicente de Paul (now, the Christ the King College, the oldest Catholic school in Region 8).

ESSAYS


In 1967, public school teachers brought him stone-ware jars which were found near Gandara, Samar.This triggered and marked his interest in visiting ancient burial sites around Samar Island. He gathered a group of college students and began the first archaeological expe-dition in Oras, Eastern Samar. Caves that were searched yielded pottery shards and bones. Chinese porcelain, even broken stoneware and porcelain shards, human bones and teeth, and other artifacts were recovered from differ-ent places in Northern, Eastern and Western Samar

His greatest scholarly achievement was the translation from Spanish to English and publication of the manu-scripts written by Fr. Francisco Ignacio Alcina, SJ, who was a missionary in Samar, Leyte and the Bisayan Islands from 1637 to 1670.

Fr. Alcina, in his Historia de las islas e indios de Bisayas 1668 (History of the Bisayan People in the Philippine Is-lands), had related how and where the ancient Bisayan people buried their deceased. With this knowledge, plans were made to give it a try during semester breaks

He also researched and wrote about the Sumuroy Rebel-lion in 1649-1650, which started in Palapag, Northern Samar and spread across the southern part of the Philip-pines.

He was particularly helpful to fellow historians like Dr. Bruce Cruickshank and Dr. William Henry Scott. Dr. Cruickshank’s Samar 1768-1898 was the first extensive-ly documented research on the local history of Samar. Dr. Scott, meanwhile, was able to reconstruct the six-teenth-century Philippine culture and society with the help of sources solely provided by Fr. Kobak.

He returned to the United States and was appointed chap-lain of St. Anne’s Rest Home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1988. There he continued his research and writing on Sa-mar history and culture, which coverage he expanded to Leyte after he had completed the volumes on the Alcina manuscripts. He collaborated with Professor Rolando O. Borrinaga (History Department, University of the Philip-pines Diliman) in translating Manuel Artigas y Cuerva’s Reseña dela Provincia de Leyte to English. Their book, The Colonial Odyssey of Leyte (1521-1914), won the 2006 National Book Award for Translation from the Manila Crit-ics Circle.

He suffered from cancer for two years from 2002 to 2004. He succumbed to cancer of the lymph glands on August 15, 2004 at the age of 74. He was buried five days later at

Added Sources

1. The Chronicler Publication of the Blessed of the Virgin Mary Assumption Province, Wisconsin (1959).

2. “Cantius J. Kobak (1930-2004): Franciscan, Historian, Scholar, Researcher” by Carl S. Bordeos (2010).

3. Bordeos, Carl S. 2009. Letter to Mayor Mel Senen Sarmiento for the declaration of Fr. Cantius Kobak as “Adopted Son of Calbayog and Honorary Samarnon”.4. Bordeos, Carl S. 2016. “Historian priest’s 86th birth anniversary marked.” Catholic Bishops Conference Philippines News. URL: http://www.cbcpnews.com/cb-cpnews/?p=79976

5. Bordeos, Carl S. 2016. “Masses offered for Samar his-torian’s death anniversary”. Catholic Bishop Conference Philippines News. URL: http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=82513

6. Bordeos, Carl S. 2017. “Christe Regians open school year with ‘museum tour’.” Catholic Bishop Conference Philippines News. URL: http://cbcpnews.net/cbcpnews/christe-regians-open-school-year-with-museum-tour/

7. Borrinaga, Rolando O. 2004. “Historian of Samar pass-es away”. URL: http://www.oocities.org/rolborr/kobakobit.html

8. Artigas y Cuerva, Manuel. 2006. The Colonial Odyssey of Leyte, 1521-1914: A Translation of Reseña de la Provin-cia de Leyte. Edited by Borrinaga, Rolando O. and Kobak, Cantius J. [translated] New Day Publisher: Leyte, Philippines.

9. Acknowledgment. 2008. City of Calbayog. Calbayog, Philippines.

10. Esponilla, Jensie. 2012. “He’s married to Samar” The Scepter. Christ the King College.

11. Franciscan Friars. “Christ the King College, 1952-1962.” Unpublished manuscript.

12. “Franciscans reopen museum in central Philippines.” 2011, February 27. URL: https://www.ucanews.com/news/franciscans-reopen-museum-in-central-philippines/4517

13. Alcina, Fransisco Ignacio. History of the Bisayan People in the Philippine Islands. Translated, edited, and annotated by Kobak OFM, Fr. Cantius J. and Gutierrez OP, Lucio. Volume 1. University of Santo Tomas Press: Manila, Philippines.

14. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Calbayog. 2009. Reso-lution declaring Fr. Cantius J. Kobak “Adopted Son of Calbayog” and “Honorary Samarnon” by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Calbayog.

15. “Fr. Cantius J. Kobak”. (no year). Unpublished. Fran-ciscan Archives, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.

16. Kobak, Cantius J. (no year). The Christ the King College Museum. Unpublished Manuscript.

Samar Archaeological Museum, Christ the King College in Calbayog City, Samar. +63955 209 2816http://ckc.edu.ph


Photo 1. Fr. Cantius J. Kobak, OFM

Photo 2-7: Photos during the opening of the Samar Archaeological Museum(Top left is a picture of the author with CKC students)

ESSAYS


The Budiao Project: Reflections from the Field

BY JOSE ALAIN [email protected]

ASP Diploma Program

From 23 April to 11 May, 2018, the ASP field-school conducted a pre-liminary investigation of the Budiao Church ruins in Daraga, Al-bay. The place has all the elements of a bucolic archaeological site: half-buried stone walls, lush tropical greenery, and an unusually-active Mayon Volcano looming at the background. Our experience of field school however was not as slow-paced as the rural setting.

For nearly three weeks, the team (which includes thirteen graduate students under the supervision of Dr. Leee Neri) followed a full work-ing schedule: dug a total of six trenches, attended evening lectures, or-ganized an on-site exhibit, and surveyed five colonial churches in the province. All these aimed at answering (at least partially) questions regarding the church’s design, its actual dimensions, and the natural/cultural forces responsible for its eventual demise as an important sacred space.

Our exposure to the complexities of field work also helped us in gain-ing a deeper insight into the nature of archaeology as a science and a vocation. Allow me then to share some of my own personal reflections written a few weeks after the expedition wrapped up.

Archaeology thrives in a culture of cooperation and team-work-more than competition. Our experience in the Budiao Church site affirmed the importance of fostering a culture of cooperation. Nobody can claim credit for a discovery or a significant find. Intrinsic tasks like excavation, mapping, artistic reconstruction, cataloguing, and formal reports can’t be done by a single person alone. Coming from a work-culture that rewards solitary work and competitiveness – archaeology can be very liberating. Everything is done as a team. The success of one is the success of all.

Diversity of backgrounds is more than welcome in any archaeo-logical endeavor. The members of ASP field school 2018 came from very diverse backgrounds: biology, art-studies, anthropology, history, education, among other. Every individual brings his / her own unique talent, expertise and perspective to the team. Apart from affirming the culture of teamwork, this diversity highlighted the complementary re-lationships that exists between each member. In addition, the diversity of backgrounds of the participants in this project further enriched both archaeological processes and discourse.

Archaeology requires a will-ingness to get out of one’s comfortzone. The good thing about the Budiao project is that we were required to do “all” tasks intrinsic to archaeological work. As humans’ we have a tendency to stick to our comfortzones, in this case specific archaeological skills which jive with our talents. For example, my com-fort zone is “artistic reconstruction”. I am confident with the task since I am resting on my background as a History major and a visual artist. Yet the fieldschool program requires that I set aside “sketching” for days so that I can experience other tasks which may not necessarily be my forte. Mapping for example terrifies me a lot since it involves a lot of com-putations (and Math is my personal waterloo). In the end, I found map-ping so addictive, I just want to do it over and over again. When I look back, I feel grateful that our field-school director made it sure that all of us were pulled-out of our respec-tive comfortzones. Not only did we learn new skills, we also learned to confront our own self-doubts.

There’s no such thing as an “insignificant” or useless trench. For first timers, the idea of finding a significant artifact or relic seems so attractive. So everybody was excit-ed and determined to find that elu-sive feature: a missing bell-tower, a long-buried façade, a long-lost win-dow etc. But as days passed by, and there’s no man-made feature uncov-ered in our trench, frustration sets in. I actually entertained the thought that our efforts were useless – especially since other trenches already yielded important finds.

It’s good that our field-director made it clear to all field-school that there’s no such thing as an insignificant or sterile trench. Although finding an artifact or feature is a constant goal, failing to find one does not neces-sarily mean a “failure” on the part of the researchers. Second, even sans any find, a trench is still an excel-lent stratigraphic reference (which is very important in establishing the chronology and geological history of the site). Third, each trench must be

viewed as an essential and indispens-able part of a whole. Don’t immedi-ately dismiss a trench as of no value or insignificant – for it might be the key for understanding the findings in another trench.

The host community must be viewed as partners in any archaeological endeavor.Archaeologists cannot remain isolat-ed in ivory towers, separated apart by erudite knowledge and a pen-chant for scientific jargon. Our ex-perience in Daraga highlighted the importance of recognizing the local community’s indispensable role in the logistics of archaeological expe-ditions. The Budiao project would not even be possible without the sup-port of Daraga LGU’s (particularly Barangay Banadero and Budiao), the priests of the Diocese of Legazpi, and the local workforce.

Nor can the team make a compre-hensive analysis of the site with-out the valuable ethnographic and

historical information shared by the people through formal interviews and casual conversations. Even the little children of Banadero gave us important leads regarding some relevant oral traditions. Truly, we have much to learn from the lo-cal population, probably more than what we can impart to them.

These personal insights are pure-ly my own. I’m sure that the other twelve graduate students also have their own reflections written in their field notebooks. I can attest that ev-erybody left Daraga with a profound sense of fulfillment of being part of this pioneering expedition. Our views or realizations may differ to some degree but there seems to be one constant. The Budiao Project af-firmed our personal decision to em-brace archaeology as our chosen dis-cipline. And I might as well add that it’s archaeological work that trans-formed us from mere acquaintances to friends.

Photo 1: ASP Field Schoolers 2018 (Photo by Kate Lim)

Photo 2: Welcoming mass at Budiao Church Ruins (Photo by Dr. Angel Recto)


ESSAYS

ARTICLES


Warfare in Metal Age Philippines: A Discussion, Documentation and Review

BY NICO RAY F. [email protected]

INTRODUCTIONThe archaeology of warfare in recent years or even the past decades saw an increase of significance and focus from researchers alike with some variation of theories and perspectives. The focus on violence or warfare may it for conquest, defense, trading, status and power to name a few basically points out a past that was not pacified for the most part. However, warfare has been a challenging concept for researchers have different definitions of it from identifying warfare in archaeological record to man-ifestations of violence at multiple scales (Elliot, 2005).

In this paper, we shall discuss in general these differing views and see its application in context in Philippine Met-al Age (500 BC- AD 500) archaeology. Therefore, it is good to take note that warfare and violence can be applied in various societal scales and indications of it can be seen through different evidences. The author would then try attempting to document all plausible parameters, per-spectives and theories to further the understanding of the phenomenon of warfare in the Philippines during the Metal Age and see its implications. Accordingly, the syn-thesis and reevaluation of literature relating to Philippine warfare is also attempted (Eder 1987, Gibson 1990, Junker 2000, Schwalbenberg 1993, Warren 1975, 1982, 1985)

Archaeological research in terms of warfare in the Phil-ippines during the Metal Ages is limited and a lot is un-known. It is been established that wars did occur during the colonial period in the Philippines. In terms of prehis-panic period, it is also as acceptable that the period is not pacified and signs of warfare were recorded in documents with raiding or piracy of maritime communities, plausi-ble fortifications in few areas, presence of weaponry and a warrior culture supported by archaeological evidences. However, exhaustive studies on prehispanic warfare in the Philippines are limited.

The scarcity of archaeological sites in the country during the prehispanic period contributes to these limitations in researches in warfare. Looking through the history of the country before the coming of the Spaniards, not much signs of fortifications were discovered or studied so far. In terms of iconography evidences of warfare, studies are also of shortage. While for numerous, at least, settlement patterns such as mass graves relating to warfare is also lacking or have not been found yet. Lastly, in-depth stud-ies of prehistoric Philippine weaponry still lack enough literature.

These factors contribute to the problems of researchers to add more studies in warfare specifically during the Metal Age in country and a need of more focus in such a theme is in need to further our understanding of Philippine history and the dynamics within it. For as Thorpe (2001) pointed it out, the archaeology of warfare is of great significance as well for it points out other key issues, namely the biases & history of archaeology and evolutionary psychology & nature of archaeological evidence. The concept of warfare also does not stand alone in the field of archaeology but also gives way to have a fuller grasp of socio-political and cultural organization (Elliot 2005, Junker 2000).

Accordingly, one objective of the paper is to have a bet-ter understanding of Philippine warfare during the Metal Age. Second, as mentioned above, is to discuss the differ-ing views of archaeology of war and its evidences. Lastly is to offer insights in identifying warfare in archaeological record in Philippine Metal Age context. However, this pa-per is not as in-depth study and has its limitations. The focus of the paper is archaeology of war and it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What pushed people or polities to war?2. What is the war culture of Filipinos during the Metal age?3. How can warfare in an archaeological context be iden-tified?4. Why are there not much signs of fortifications in the Philippines?5. Why is there a scarcity of warfare archaeological sites or materials during the Metal age?

The following sections of this paper are organized as follows:1. THE PHILIPPINES DURING THE METAL AGE – a general look into the Philippine landscape during the said period 2. NATURES OF WAR – evaluation and synthesis of different literature regarding archaeology of war3. INDICATIONS OF WARFARE IN ARCHAEOLOGY – discussion of methods used by archaeologists to reconstruct and study warfare in prehistory4. WARFARE IN METAL AGE PHILIPPINES – discussion of warfare in Philippine setting, and5. CONCLUSION – the researcher’s conclusion and sug-gestions for future research.


THE PHILIPPINES DURING THE METAL AGEThe Philippine political, cultural and economic landscape before the colonization of the Spaniards comprises of sev-eral independent societies ruled by a chief or a datu. The connections between these societies are generally tied together by economic inclinations or trade. Prehispanic kingdoms were also present during this period but not much is known about their structure, development or for-mation (Scott 1994; Junker 1990).

On the other hand, the progression of long distant trade, developments in craft specializations and technologies, and sociocultural and political complexity saw the rise of chiefdoms. These complex political-economies such as chiefdoms are suggested, with archaeological indications, to have emerged during the Metal Age (Junker 1990). These indicators are seen through settlement patterns and burial goods and practices. Also, rise of chiefdoms saw the abundance multi-centered systems of distribution of goods, cultural pluralism and flexible social systems for prestige and status (Nishimura 1988; Junker 2000). These characteristics became evident also during the Metal Age. Metal Age sites in the Philippines identified are in fact several though exhaustive excavations and studies of such sites are few. Consequently, some aspects of Metal Age Philippines are still unknown and warfare is one of them.

NATURE OF WARTheoretical and global advancements and developments opened different views on warfare or violence in prehis-tory (Pauketat 2009). New discoveries and studies contrib-ute to this growth of understanding of the archaeology of war and in this section of the paper. The researcher will present those studies that embody the needed patterns to understand warfare in prehistory and at the same time, point out the different perspectives of the origins of war.In hindsight, the definition of Megitt (1977) is used in this paper. He defined warfare as “a state of armed hostility existing between politically autonomous communities” which the author used as a basis of warfare in this paper. This definition provides a wide ranging scope of violence or warfare in varied scales in society may it be from small-scale warfare, such as raiding, ambush & surprise attacks, to state-level warfare.

In the book, Warfare in Cultural Context: Practice, Agency and Archaeology of Violence, Nielsen and Walker (2009:1) dis-cuss of current perspectives on the archaeology of war-fare and comes as follows:

Contemporary archaeological studies of war tend to rely on a priori pragmatic assumptions about the conduct of armed conflict and their relationship to social processes. It is assumed that – within certain socioenvironmental parameters – war is essen-tially the same thing and follows a common logic, breaking out under similar conditions and having analogous effect on people involved.

This is what they stated as the positivist approach in the archaeology war that looks into the behavioral, economic or biological causes of prehistoric warfare. In connection to the approach, some authors presented biological and material factors that are causes of intergroup warfare; from environmental stress and population pressure to the search of political or economic advances in form of pow-er, prestige, tribute, land, labor, mates, trade goods or ani-mals (e.g., Chagnon 1988; Ferguson 1990; Haas 2001, LeB-lanc 2003). While for others, the social structure or system breeds violence or conflict (Otterbein 1970; Reyna 1994). Then, there are also scholars that proposed the origin of warfare in people is brought about by the man’s evolution-ary history (Knauft 1991; Wilson & Daly 1985). All these factors present considerable and viable points of basis to understand warfare even to the point of using such mod-els in a combined manner.

However, some authors see such theories on warfare to be problematic for it is difficult to apply, has lack of fo-cus on culture and agency, its testing has been ambiguous and to some extent pacified the past (Nielsen & Walker 2009, Pauketat 2009, Thorpe 2001). Therefore, some war-fare scholars utilized practice and agency theory in un-derstanding prehistoric warfare and Nielsen and Walker (2009:4) discussed the theory as follows:

Contemporary archaeological studies of war tend to rely on a priori pragmatic assumptions about the conduct of armed conflict and their relationship to social processes. It is assumed that – within certain socioenvironmental parameters – war is essen-tially the same thing and follows a common logic, breaking out under similar conditions and having analogous effect on people involved.

In terms of Thorpe (2001), he discusses another approach in determining origins of war and this is placed in evo-lutionary psychology (territorial, reproductive, and status competition), materialism. All of which is said to viable for archaeological analysis or study. The territorial mod-el states that enthnocentricity was a product of natural selection. Whereas, the reproductive theory is grounded with resemblance of primate behavior in which male-cen-tered rivalry over females takes a violent standpoint while status completion is centered upon violence with status and prestige as the end goal. Another key point in archae-ology of warfare is that of the materialists. Materialists see that warfare is born out of the desperate need for land or food (Ferguson 1990).

However, these theories show shortcomings in its models or application just like the positivist approach. Dawson (1997) voices out the same concern for the “greater the de-gree of variability observed, both within a single society and between different societies, the more difficult it is to fill all warfare into any overarching structure”. Therefore, an approach in archaeology of warfare should be planted on a model that fits the context of study.

ARTICLES


“Archaeological research on warfare mainly depends on four aspects of material evidence namely settlement data, injuries in human skeletal remains, war weaponry and iconography”

Imposing an overarching structure for example in the Philippine context will not work so a nuanced approach must be applied that will recognize prehistoric warfare with its ritual and real aspects, not set aside from socio-cultural phenomena or actions, but also an important part of it. In view of that, Junker (2000) provides an approach fitting for the Philippine context and presents one of the key studies of Philippine prehistoric warfare which is dis-cussed on the next sections.

INDICATIONS OF WARFARE IN ARCHAEOLOGYEvidences play a big part in the field of archaeology and in growing trend of studies and literature in warfare; such indications give way for a fuller understanding of people, society and factors surrounding it. Hence, in this section of the paper, the researcher presents the methods and signs in identifying warfare in an archaeological record.

Archaeological research on warfare mainly depends on four aspects of material evidence namely settlement data, injuries in human skeletal remains, war weaponry and ico-nography (LeBlanc 1999; Vencl 1984; Thorpe 2001; Wilcox and Haas 1994). Another line of evidence which usually is ignored is ideology for it is hard to be determined materi-ally; but such components also serve as great motivators for violence (Allen and Arkush 2008). While for Otterbein (2009), the point of basis in warfare archaeologically is as follows:

Underlying reasons fall under four domains: the physical environment, natural resources, social structure including sociopolitical organization and, finally, cultural values such as beliefs, rules, and laws. Proximate reasons include defense and revenge, material spoils, honor and glory, and subjugation and exploitation of another group. (Sommerville 2011: 86)

Haas (2001) also pointed his parameters related to those men-tioned above in identifying warfare in archaeological record which in terms of material evidence sums it up. It is as follows:

SettlementDefensive redoubtsfortificationspalisadeslookout featuresstrategic defensive locations over-looking access routesline-of-sight connections“no-man’s-land” - unoccupied terri-tory between group frontiers

Burial informationmass graveswarrior graves

Artistic depictions of warrock /artceramicsmurals

Skeletal indicatorsforearm breaksfrontal head fracturesscalping marksskewed distribution (more or fewer fighting age males, for example) of age and sex in burial population

Site markersburned communitiespillaging - deliberate destructionphysical signs of attack

Warfare/military paraphernaliawarfare-specific weaponsspecialized projectile weaponsswordsclubsshieldsbody armor

The indicators of warfare presents a good jump off point to understand warfare in the past with scarcity of written documents to supplement the limitations of what man knows about prehistory. However, it is noteworthy to point out that indeed these evidences present indications of war in prehistory. So what if there are no evidences of war? Does it already point out that the area or communi-ty is at peace? Is the absence of war peace already? What does peace look like? Haas (2001) pointed out the solution and stated that the absence of war does not necessarily suggest that there is no war but rather, it is good to point out that “for any cultural region, clear evidence of warfare appears at a recognizable historical moment in archaeo-logical record” (2001:342). He also added that it points out that a given time, there was war or there was peace.

WARFARE IN METAL AGE PHILIPPINESThe Philippines during the Metal Age saw the rise of chief-doms scattered across the archipelago from independent to trading polities (Nishimura 1988). The settlement pat-terns saw the increase of from highland to lowland settle-ments along main coastal and riverine points (Hutterer & MacDonald 1982). Though there was an increase in popu-lation during the Metal Age, in general, Philippine popu-lation and even Southeast Asia was still low in comparison to other states during this time. Therefore, The Filipino population during the period settled in an environment that was not congested and in turn not problematic of nec-essary resources. Accordingly, small-scale warfare was the most abundant type of violence during this period. Con-ducting wars for conquest might have happened before but it might categorically uncommon for it is reasonable as seen through the presence of numerous independent polities with no overarching polity in Philippines during the period and low scattered population that already had work double due to the inadequacy of labor.

In this section of the paper, a discussion of warfare in the Philippines is presented in correlation general-ly to the structure of war discussed in the book Raiding, Trading & Feasting; The Political Economy Philippine Chief-doms by Junker (2000). In general, Junker (2000) points out that the primary motivating factor in prehispanic interpolity warfare or raiding is the seizure of resources primarily slaves to agricultural stores, metal weaponry and goods of the elite. Although, these traits may have been evident during the 14th to 16th century sites, it no-table that these factors are part of Philippine chiefdoms; Philippine chiefdoms that have its roots during the Metal Age.

Therefore, inferences to Metal Age war culture are via-ble and reasonable. Though, the paper has its limitations which is good in actuality to prompt more studies on the matter.

In retrospect, the role of warfare in Philippine chiefdoms has been a key role to instigate growth and sustenance of political economies during prehistory. In particular, the acquisitions of slaves (slave taking/raiding), foreign or lo-cal, improved labor force of the chiefs (Junker 2000); and correspondingly, war led to an increase of status, prestige & power and foreign trade competition were limited due to the use of violence, fear and piracy. Schawalbenberg (1993:382) also presented an interesting perspective in slave raiding and goes as follows:

Slave raiding played an analogous role to a competitive labor market. Instead of offering higher wages, a resource rich village would be able to support a larger warrior class with a lower resource base.

This implication of slave raiding would then result to a more efficient warfare culture assuring higher chances of victory for the chiefs. In other words, the expense on wages became lump sum funds for other objectives of the chiefdom. Moreover, the benefits of slave raiding also shed light for the deterrence of mass murder or slaughter for slaves become destroyable wealth, expendable such as in cases of sacrifices for religious rites (Reid 1983; Andaya & Ishii 1992).

Philippine prehistoric warfare also embodied warrior class ranked high in the social class adorned with either tattoos, jeweled daggers or various ornaments. Conse-quently, social status and prestige also contributed to the rise of the warrior class and even chiefdoms in general. Accordingly, warriors need weapons as well which in the Philippine context varies from daggers (baladaw), swords (kalis), shields (kalasag) and spears to name a few. In terms of wars conducted in the seas, there is the karakoa or cara-coa. The karakoa is a celebrated Visayan boat for warfare, piracy, or raiding which carries six paddlers on its outrig-ger supports and platforms for warriors (Scott 1995, 1981). Moreover, historical accounts and documents presents al-leged Filipino raiders namely the Bisayans during the 12th century and Pi-ye-sha (painted ones) during 13th century (Chen 1966; Scott 1999).

In an archaeological standpoint, Junker (2000) also dis-cussed evidences of warfare in archaeological record namely: 1) fortifications & defensive settlements, 2) mortuary evidences and 3) evidences in expanded metal weapon production.

Protection of the people, resources, land, goods or posses-sions of importance is reasonable factors for polities to construct fortifications or reside in defensive settlements. Fortifications are then a necessity if foods are stored and people reside on the area for at least one year (Keeley 2014) which can vary from walls, forts, towers, moats and other defensive structures.

In the Philippine context, evidences of fortifications in the prehistoric period are only seen in the 15th-16th cen-tury site in Tanjay (Junker 1993, 1994) and Batanes hill-top fortification site (Dizon & Santiago 1994). The Tanjay fortification, not excavated thoroughly, is either a defense for the perimeter of the settlement or impeded access from the seas while the Batanes hilltop fortification are presumed to be ancient siege locales. Limited sites of for-tifications likewise limit the database archaeologically of understanding warfare and its correlations in this aspect.

In terms of defensive settlements, it is seen through de-fensive behavior from moving an open valley to a steep rock shelter for refuge or protection from other parties (Haas & Creamer 1993). In the Philippines, these can be assumed through the movement of residents of one area to another. For example, the movement from riverine or coastal settlements to upriver or man-made tree houses then coming back after the raid is a viable defensive be-havior adapted by Filipino from the prehistoric period or the Metal Age. Building fortifications are costly, so even if there are losses, fleeing for refuge is less costly of re-sources and labor. It may be one of reasons that archae-ological evidences of fortifications are rare. Philippine prehistoric warfare is only small-scale namely ambush or raiding. Therefore as mentioned above, fortifications are costly in resources and labor so even if there are losses from moving temporarily in one’s community, weighing the options, the losses from raids are less so it’s a logical choice to go for refuge.

For the mortuary and osteological evidences in warfare, Lambert (2002:210) discussed it as follows:

Osteological evidence for warfare includes several classes of injuries that tend to occur in violent contexts: embedded projectiles or scars from spears, arrows, darts, or bullets; depressed skull fractures, nasal fractures, tooth fractures, broken ribs, and forearm parry fractures from clubbing implements; decapitation, scalping, dismemberment and other signs of trophy taking; more extensive bone breakage, cut marks, punctures, burning, and related perimortem damage suggestive of torture, corpse mutilation, and/or cannibalism; and more subtle evidence such as carnivore tooth marks or other signs of corpse exposure that suggest unnatural death.

In the context of the Philippines, Junker (2000) pointed out that Metal Age burial sites up until 14th century sites did present any osteological evidence of violent death. However, she added that in the 15th – 16th century sites of Tanjay, Calatagan, Bolinao and Calubcub, are indica-tions of violence such as skeletal traumas, decapitation, or impaling of metal implements. Such signs of warfare do directly posit prehistoric warfare. However, it is notable that some are skeptical of such deductions of osteological evidence (Aure 2004, Lambert 2002) and goes as follows:



The mere presence of violent injuries in archaeological assemblages is not sufficient to demonstrate intergroup aggression, but evidence such as multiple victims and trophy taking does strongly suggest lethal intentions and actions beyond domestic or civil arenas. On the other hand, the absence of such evidence does not necessarily imply an absence of war: skeletal material may be rare overall, or it may simply be that no one has looked for this evidence. Reexamination of extant osteological collections has significantly changed perceptions of prehistoric violence in several regions of North America (e.g., Bridges et al., 2000; Milner 1999; Smith, 1997). (Lambert 2002:210)

Hence, as direct as osteological evidences can be, a reex-amination or second look into the materials is needed to be more definitive for what may thought to decapitation due to head hunting was actually a religious activity. Also, can the Metal Age up until the 14th century be a period of peace and the 15th to 16th century as the period of war in Philippine prehistory? Possible, but the case is closed only until more studies are done.

In terms of evidence through weaponry, Philippines saw the rise of raw material extraction and craft specialization of metals such as iron to be weapons or export materials controlled by the chief (Junker 2000). Metalwork materi-als also in the country were either ornamental, ritual, or directed upon the making of agricultural tools if not ma-jorly for weaponry (Dizon 1983, Scott 1994). For that rea-son, metal technology in the prehistoric period was also geared upon warfare purposes. Cebu and Tanjay archaeo-logical sites from the period after 14th century presented evidences of weaponry from indication of iron production in Cebu and increased metal densities in Tanjay (Junker 2000). Also, archaeological sites with burial goods with weaponry are also plausible indicators, in hindsight, of warfare as well. Furthermore, it should be noted that ex-haustive study or analysis of weaponry should also be con-ducted if materials are present for what is thought to be weapons can be solely/both metal tools for daily activities or agriculture.

In synthesis, prehispanic Philippine warfare in general, its implications and its driving forces are associated with sociocultural and political developments of Philippine chiefdoms. The war culture also points out forces that drive it through ecological, demographic, and cultural factors embodying warrior ideologies, status competition and religious inclinations as well. However, it is challeng-ing that in actuality, a Metal Age database of archaeologi-cal warfare evidences, studies and sites is limited which is already a calling for future studies to fill the holes in this part of Philippine prehistory.

CONCLUSION The archaeology of war in the Philippines shows perspec-tives that relate warfare to different aspects of society and its dynamics. Such a subject of study has been somewhat overlooked but the information it can provide is exciting. This paper has just touched the surface of archaeology of war in Philippine prehistory and there is more that is needed to be understood, clarified and reexamined. Though in this section, another attempt to shed light of ar-chaeology of war is attempted by answering the questions given in the introduction. These are as follows:

a. What pushed people or polities to war?

The driving factors of war can be as numerous as possi-ble from revenge of one individual to another, conquest for land or resources, conflict between two parties with-in a polity or with another, battle for status or prestige to greed, tribute, inequality, and hate to name a few. In the Philippine context, a variety of driving forces can also be mentioned. What does it say? It just points out that a single overarching driving factor for polities and people to war is just not plausible at the moment. A nuanced ap-proach (e.g. practice theory) in archaeology of was is what is needed, a flexibility of warfare model that offers the right fit for the context of study.

b. What is the war culture of Filipinos during the Metal age?

The determinative inference of the culture of war during the Metal Age Philippines is that a lot is still unknown until solid or clear evidences are identified and found. However, there are still hypotheses that can pointed out in regards to the Metal Age warfare in Philippines. One is that there is a probability of rarity of warring polities during this period. In contrast, the war culture present in evidences during the protohistoric period is sourced through the Metal Age. Culture does not grow in a short span of time but through a passage of time. Nevertheless, the beginnings of utilization and specialization of metal goods is a reasonable inference of warfare in the polities to the point that metal implements become burial goods as well. What it says is that metal implements was not of rarity during the Metal Age and it luxury of leaving for the dead shows that there is somewhat an abundance; and abundance of a thing can be used in a number of ways such as weaponry. Lastly, for it is known that population back then were not many in connection to the land lived on, slave raiding does seem viable to have as well during the Metal Age to supplement lack of labor force or substi-tute own people to aliens in the polities.

c. How can warfare in an archaeological context be identified?

Warfare in an archaeological context can be identified in certain and effective parameters just like ascertaining the variations of different ceramics from one another. It’s a matter of finding the right clues in the right contexts. Haas (2001) provides the widely applicable and concise in-dicators of warfare in an archaeological record and goes as follows:

ARTICLES

SettlementDefensive redoubtsfortificationspalisadeslookout featuresstrategic defensive locations over-looking access routesline-of-sight connections“no-man’s-land” - unoccupied territory between group frontiers

Burial informationmass graveswarrior graves

Artistic depictions of warrock /artceramicsmurals

Skeletal indicatorsforearm breaksfrontal head fracturesscalping marksskewed distribution (more or fewer fighting age males, for example) of age and sex in burial population

Site markersburned communitiespillaging - deliberate destructionphysical signs of attack

Warfare/military paraphernaliawarfare-specific weaponsspecialized projectile weaponsswordsclubsshieldsbody armor

d. Why are there not much signs of fortifications in the Philippines?

The lack of fortifications in the Philippines during the Metal Age in a broad-spectrum has the same reason why there are no mega structures in the country; it is illogi-cal at that moment in time. There was no single polity big enough in the country for megastructures to be built. The labor force was not enough or if it was enough, the costs are too high and it is doubtful that Filipinos has specialists in such infrastructures. Also, as discussed in the previous section, refuge was more of the better choice for there were only small-scale warfare so losses were not as signif-icant as constructing to fortifications with expenses also taken out for maintenance, wages and improvements.

e. Why is there a scarcity of warfare archaeological sites or materials during the Metal age?

The scarcity of warfare archaeological sites or materials is that not much has been found yet. Also, studies on the subject are also small in frequency for it is not a matter of lack sites during the Metal Age, there are actually a lot. It is a matter of a considerable focus on the theme of warfare as well. Consequently, lack of researchers also contributes to such limitations. More is to be known still, and war, the business of violence can shed some light to a fuller under-standing of Philippine archaeology.

ReferencesAndaya, B. and Ishii, Y. (1992). Religious Developments in Southeast Asia, c. 1500-1800. In N. Tarling, ed., The Cambridge History of South-east Asia, Vol. 1: From Early Times to c. 1800, pp. 508-571. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Arkush, Elizabeth N. and Mark W. Allen, (eds.) (2006). The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida.

Aure, B. (2004). Archaeological Inference and Another Look At Junker Mass Burial. Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society 32:161-177

Bridges, P. S., Jacobi, K. P., and Powell, M. L. (2000).Warfare-related trauma in the late prehistory of Alabama. In Lambert, P. M. (ed.), Bioarchaeological Studies of Life in the Age of Agriculture: A View From the Southeast, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 35–62.

Chagnon, N. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239: 985-92.

Chen, L. (1966). Comments by a Chinese Scholar: an approach to the study of early Sino-Philippine relations, Felix Edition: The Chinese in the Philippines, pp. 252-285. Manila: Solidaridad press.

Dawson, D. (1999). Evolutionary theory and group selection: the question of warfare. History and Theory, 38:79-100.

Dizon, E. (1983). The Metal Age in the Philippines: An Archaeometallurgical Investigation. Anthropological Paper No. 12. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines

Eder, J. (1987). On the Road to Tribal Extinction: Depopulation, Deculturation and Adaptive Well-Being among the Batak of the Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ferguson, R. B. (1990). Explaining war. In The Anthropology of War, ed., J. Haas. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26-55.

Gibson, T. (1990). Raiding, trading and tribal economy in insular Southeast Asia, In J. Haas ed. The Anthropology of War. pp. 125-145. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Haas, J. (2001). Warfare and the evolution of culture. In Archaeology at the Millennium eds., G. M. Feinman & T. D. Price. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 329-350.

Haas, J. and Creamer W. (1993). Stress and Warfare among the Kayenta Anasazi of the 13th Century A.D. Fieldiana: Anthropology, n.s. 88.

Hutterer, K. and Macdonald, W. (1982) Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Prehistory and Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines. Cebu City: The University of San Carlos.

Junker, L. L. (1990). The organization of intra-regional and long-distance trade in prehistoric Philippine complex societies. In Asian Perspectives, v29 (2):167-209.

Junker, L. L. (1993a). Archaeological Excavations at the Late First Millenium and Early Second Millenium A.D. Settlement of Tanjay, Negros Oriental: Household Organization, Chiefly Production and Social Ranking. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 21(2): 146–225.

Junker, L. L. (1993b). Archaeological Excavations at the 12th–16th Century Settlement of Tanjay, Negros Oriental: The Burial Evidence for Social Status-symbolism, Head-taking and Interpolity Raiding. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 21(1993): 39–82.

Junker, L. L.2000). Raiding, Trading and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Keeley, L. (2014). War Before Civilization—15 Years On T. K. Shackelford, R. D. Hansen (eds.), The Evolution of Violence, Evolutionary Psychology. pp. 23-31 New York: Springer Science+Business Media

Knauft, B. M. (19910. Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropology 32: 391-428.

Lambert, P. (2002). The Archaeology of War: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 10 (3): 207-241

LeBlanc, S. A. (1999). Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. Salt Late City: University of Utah Press

Meggitt, M. (1977). Blood Is Their Argument: Warfare Among the Mae Enga Tribesmen of the New Guinea Highlands. Palo Alto : Mayfield Publishing Company.

Milner, G. R. (1999). Warfare in prehistoric and early historic eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 7: 105–151.

Nishimura, M. (1988). Long distance trade and the development of complex societies in the prehistory of the Central Philippines – the Cebu archaeological project: Basic concept and first results. In Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society, v16(2):107-157.

Otterbein, K. (2009). The Anthropology of War. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Reid, A. (1993). Introduction: a time and place. In Anthony Reid, ed., Southeast Asia in Early Modern Era, pp. 1-22. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Reyna, S. P. and Downs, R. E. (eds) (1994). Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Gordon & Breach.

Schwalbenberg, H. (1993). The economics of slavery in Prehispanic Philippines. Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society 21 (1): 370-390.

Scott, W. H. (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

Scott, W. H. (1981). Boat Building and Seamanship in Classic Philippine Society. National Museum: Manila.

Scott, W. H. (1989). Filipinos in China before 1500. China Studies Program DLSU. Manila.

Smith, M. O. (1997). Osteological indications of warfare in the Archaic period of the western Tennessee Valley. In Martin, D., and Frayer, D. (eds.), Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach pp. 241–265.

Sommerville, K. (2011). A Case Study in Frontier Warfare: Racial Violence, Revenge, and the Ambush at Fort Laurens, Ohio. Journal of Contemporary Anthropology 1 (2): 85-102.

Thorpe, J. (2003). Anthropology, Archaeology, and the Origin of Warfare. World Archaeology 35(1): 145-165

Vencl, S. (1984). War and warfare in archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 116–132.

Wilcox, D., and Haas, J. (1994). The scream of the butterfly: Competition and conflict in the prehistoric Southwest. In Gummerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 211–238.



Vampire Burials in ArchaeologyNew Perspectives, New Insights

BY MARIE LOUISE ANTOINETTE [email protected]

IntroductionVampirism has captured the imagination of many cul-tures. In popular culture, vampires have garnered the attention of the general public since the appearance of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula to be followed by some of the most famous vampires such as Anne Rice’s Les-tat, Joss Whedon’s Angel and Spike of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, and Stephen Norrington’s Blade of the Blade series. Vampires have a universal appeal because popu-lar culture has allowed the transformation of vampires from lustful killers to romantic heroes (Backstein, 2009). From the original scary and creepy Dracula to Lestat, and in recent years, Damon Salvatore and Eric Northan, the transformation of vampires have made them seductive, irresistible, and enticing, even with the extended canines and blood-sucking practices. Archaeological records, however, state otherwise. In Medieval Europe, vampires or those believed to be vampires were treated differently in death. Excavations and post-excavation analyses reveal the many ways that specific individuals were believed to be vampires, thus the need to prevent them for coming back and hurting the living (Barrowclough, 2014; Betsing-er & Scott, 2014; Gardeła & Kajkowski, 2013; Gordon, 2013; Gregoricka, Betsinger, Scott, & Polcyn, 2014; Nuzzolese & Borrini, 2010). Gardela & Kajkowski (2013:780) also define vampire burials as “atypical or deviant” burials because they were unusual and deviate from the norm. In this pa-per, it will be argued that there is the need the idea behind “deviant” burials, whether such a term accurately reflects the unorthodox methods or these practices or not. Fur-thermore, as the vampire burials occurred in European nations that are highly Christian in terms of religious be-liefs and practices, the influence of religion thus cannot be emphasized when it comes to these cultures’ mortuary practices. Vampire burials in medieval Europe were prev-alent during periods of Christianization, thus the influ-ence of religion could not be underscored. Through the analysis of material remains such as grave goods and oth-er objects in the burial as well as the physical remains of the deceased itself, vampire burials offers the potential to expand the interpretation from fear of the dead to social order, diseases, and migration.

Vampires and ChristianityThe vampire lore is one of the most fascinating tales in history. In general, vampires are referred to as “the un-dead.” While the concept of vampires are most

popular in Western countries, other countries have it too, such as India’s Baital and China’s Chi’ing Shih (del Toro & Hogan, 2009). Barber (1988:2) acknowledges that vam-pires may also be called other terms in other cultures, but despite the differences in nomenclature, they are gener-ally the “dead people who, having died before their time, not only refuse to remain dead but return to bring death to their friends and neighbors.” .” The existence of vampires thus instills fear among the living because not only does it refuse to die but it also comes back specifically to wreak havoc among those who are still alive. Despite the fear of vampires, they manage to remain popular. This could be interpreted in many ways. One interpretation to the pop-ularity and immortality of vampire lore is that it reminds people of immortality because it “serves to remind us that we have no true jurisdiction over our bodies, our climate or our very souls” (del Toro & Hogan, 2009:n.p.). The emer-gence of vampires and the fear attached to them is also associated with both paganism and Christianity, perhaps even a conflict between the two ideologies because of the belief that an uncremated body would result in a restless and dangerous dead (Gardeła & Kajkowski, 2013:785). For example, executed Christians, for example, were burned because of the fear that they would come back and seek revenge (Tsaliki, 2008). Instilling fear is also a means of establishing social order, particularly from a political perspective because fearing the gods becomes is an im-portant part of moral regulation (Nazaretyan, 2005:166). For instance, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is cor-poreal resurrection, thus the need for the physical body to remain intact, and amulets as apotropaic grave goods were placed to protect the body once it becomes resur-rected (Gilchrist, 2008). Without amulets, there was the possibility that the body would become endangered once it is resurrected. In other words, fear of the dead was one way to maintain social order.

“Deviant Burials” The word “deviant” implies a negative connotation, as it often pertains to behavior and thus criminals. From a so-ciological perspective, “deviance is considered a vagrant form of human activity, moving outside the more orderly currents of social life” (Erikson, 1962:307). In this defini-tion, deviance is attached to actions that do not typically reflect normal behavior. Deviant behavior is deemed dis-orderly that it diverts from the natural order of society. As Erikson (1962:307) further stresses, deviance is re-lated to terms such as “alien,” “aberrant,” and “anomie.”

ARTICLES

In other words, deviance is different and anomalous that it warrants correction and redress because it will result in the disorder of society. Using this definition, devi-ance insinuates abnormality and peculiarity, a term that people in general may not want to be associated with.

The term has been applied to archaeological studies through the analysis of “deviant” burials. “Deviant” buri-als are burials that exhibit “unusual mortuary practices,” thus the term’s association with decapitation and atypi-cal body positions (Aspock, 2008:17). Generally speaking, these are “burials different from the normative burial ritu-al of the respective period, region and/or cemetery. These differences may occur in body position or treatment, loca-tion or construction of the grave or types of grave goods” (Aspock, 2008:17). A similar definition is provided by Tsa-liki (2008:1), defining “deviant” burials as “cases where an individual has been buried in a different way than what is considered the norm for the period and/or the population under examination. Unusual burials can also be termed ‘atypical’, ‘anomalous’, ‘extraordinary’, ‘non-normative’, ‘abnormal’ or ‘deviant’.” “Deviant” burials are, thus, burials that are out of the ordinary, and the definition implies that these burials take on a local context. Identifying “deviant” burials should be based on a specific time and/or place.

However, as noted above, “deviance” as a term elicits a negative connotation. As these definitions state, “deviant” burials are unusual burials. Perhaps, the better term to be used would be a word that does not have a negative connota-tion, such as “atypical” or “unusual.” It is possible to define unusual burials without insinuating abnormality, such as the German term for “deviant burial,” Sonderbestattung, which translates to a special or exceptional burial and thus does not have neither positive or negative connotation (Aspock, 2008:19). For instance, rather than calling them “deviant” burials, Milella et al. (2015) calls these “irregular burials,” having a more neutral tone the former. “Devian-cy” connotes abnormality, and that negative connotation extends to mortuary archaeology. It becomes vague when it is unknown if the deviancy refers to the social perso-na of the individual when he/she was alive or the circum-stances surrounding the death and the burial practices.

“Deviant” burials has grown increasingly popular in re-cent archaeological analysis, such that it has warranted an entire book dedicated to the study of these kinds of mortuary practices (E. Murphy, 2008). Similarly, several scholars were able to conduct literature review on a num-ber of deviant burials with archaeological and anthropo-logical correlates, suggesting that there is sufficient data to necessitate re-assessment, classification, and sum-marization of what has already been done in the area of study (Barrowclough, 2014; Milella, Mariotti, Belcastro, & Knüsel, 2015; Shay, 1985). However, what constitutes a “deviant” burial is still up for debate, especially because this classification is only assigned to a small number of the population and the burials that actually survive are likewise only very few (Shay, 1985:228). More impor-tantly, from an archaeological perspective, Shay (1985)

emphasizes that the only data left are material remains, and without behavioral context and historical documents to supplement the materials, it would be difficult to come up with a valid model to analyze deviant burials.

Vampire Burials One type of unusual burial that has appeared in the ar-chaeological record are vampire burials. Vampire buri-als are considered “deviant” burials because they deviate from the norm in terms of body position, grave goods, and skeletal remains (or what is left of them) (Gardeła & Kaj-kowski, 2013). These burials are, at the moment, exclusive to medieval Europe. Vampire burials are easily identified in the archaeological record based on the appearance of apotropaics, or grave goods designed to combat evil, and inclusion of instruments within the body (Gregoricka et al., 2014).

Several “vampire burials” are worth mentioning. Tsa-liki (2008) identifies five different burials from Cyprus, Greece, and Italy. These burials span a wide chronologi-cal time period, ranging from 4500 BC - 19th century AD, demonstrating how prevalent the beliefs on the undead are. What tie these burials together are the presence of large rocks in four burials and spikes in one burial over the human remains, presumably to prevent the dead from rising and hurting the living (Tsaliki, 2008:9). Osteological analyses performed on the individuals reveal that some of those who were buried exhibited pathologies such as spondylitis, tooth ablation, possibly infected fracture, deformities, as well as dismemberment and mutilation. Gardela and Kajkowski (2013:782) discuss the so-called “anti-vampire” burials in medieval Poland, suggesting that these are considered deviant because, following Zydok’s criteria, these unusual burials exhibited decapitation, perforation of skulls, sharp objects in the body, objects in the deceased’s mouth, prone burials, stones on the body, flexed burials, amputated limbs of buried individuals, far-away burials, absence of grave goods, and atypical grave orientation. These are unusual in medieval Poland be-cause upon the introduction of Christianity, the deceased were supposed to be buried in a supine position, accom-panied by grave goods and oriented W-E (Gardeła & Ka-jkowski, 2013). In Bulgaria, several burials were tagged “vampire burials” because of sharp objects present in the chest of the deceased (Barrowclough, 2014). Three burials had plowshares or cutting blades in their bodies, strong enough to break the bones. In these three burials in Perperikon (1) and Sozopol (2), Bulgaria, the deceased were as male. Similar to the burials identified by Tsaliki (2008), staking the heart of these individuals functioned in a similar manner as stones, as they were designed to keep the body down (Barrowclough, 2014). Metal spikes and heavy stones were also found in 14 burials in Celakov-ice, Czech Republic, all of which were around the 11th or 12th century and may have died around the same time due to an epidemic (Affleck in Barrowclough, 2014). Two 17th-18th century burials in Drawko, Poland had iron sickles around their necks while a third had his body tied up and


stones inside his throat even though the rest of the mortu-ary practices seemingly followed a “normal” burial - “ex-tended inhumations, supine with heads oriented towards west facing east” (Barrowclough, 2014:4). The presence of stakes, stones, and sickles are considered apotropaic grave goods because they were placed “to prevent the body from ‘walking,’” (Barber, 1988:51). Apotropaic devices are “believed by the performers to provide supernatural pro-tection of something or somebody” (Bill, 2016:143). Thus, the objects could be identified as a response to the fear of the dead. Majority of these burials were categorized as “vampire burials” because of the presence of objects on top of the remains, believed to be placed there to prevent the dead from rising again. Furthermore, the identities of these individuals in life were believed to be diseased, sup-porting the folklore that individuals who were disabled or diseased had higher chances of becoming a vampire (Tsa-liki, 2008).

While these are basic criteria in identifying vampire buri-als, several archaeologists have extended the investigation to include forensic and chemical analysis on the remains. A cemetery site in Nuovo Lazzaretto, Venice, Italy was dat-ed to the 17th century, a time when epidemics hounded Italy, necessitating mass graves isolated from the rest of the community (Nuzzolese & Borrini, 2010). The research-ers conducted an odontological analysis of one specific individual, ID 6 who is an adult woman, because the re-mains were cut in half, with the upper half (chest to the skull) preserved better than the lower half. ID 6 is unique because there was a brick placed inside the mouth that re-sulted in a wide opening of the mandible. The researchers ruled out postmortem displacement due to taphonomic processes because the mandible was still articulated with the cranium when the brick was placed. In other words, the brick was placed inside the mouth intentionally, re-vealing a “symbolic and ritual value” because the workers believed there was a need to do this even though the indi-vidual died of an infectious plague (Nuzzolese & Borrini, 2010:1635). Odontological analysis indicates that the indi-vidual grew up healthy, with no indication of childhood stress. Nuzzolese and Borrini (2010), therefore, assume that it was the sextons who placed the brick inside the mouth because they believed her to be a vampire based on the shroud covering her mouth.

A similar assessment was conducted on the individuals buried in Drawsko 1 cemetery in Poland, dating to 17th-18th centuries AD. The “vampire” burials at Drawsko 1 cemetery were initially hypothesized as non-locals who moved to the community and were thus targeted as poten-tial vampires (Gregoricka et al., 2014). They were buried with sickles in their throats or abdomens for the purpose of decapitation or disembowelment should they rise as the undead (Gregoricka et al., 2014:4). To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted a biogeochemical assessment of the dentition of these individuals using strontium iso-tope analysis. Results indicate that these individuals were local members of the community, and thus, there were other reasons for labeling them as potential vampires.

Gregoricka et al. (2014) argue that perhaps it was their so-cial identities or manner of death that made them suscep-tible to vampire burials. Moreover, just like the epidemics swept Italy in the 17th-18th centuries, infectious diseases also resulted in thousands of deaths in Poland during this period. One example is the cholera epidemic that might have turned these individuals into victims of the disease. Thus, these individuals, following Tsaliki’s argument, may have been targeted as vampires because of how they died.

DiscussionThe plethora of vampire burials in medieval Europe reveals new perspectives from which to better understand these atypical burials that were very so often interpreted as fear of the dead. A new perspective that Gardela & Kajkowski (2013) offer is the possibility of interpreting atypical buri-als from a judicial point of view. This entails looking at the identities of the deceased individuals as possible criminals or slaves instead of simply branding them as vampires. For instance, decapitated individuals may be victims of suicide rather than vampires (Gardeła & Kajkowski, 2013). Similarly, prone burials that were uncommon in medieval Poland could be interpreted as criminals who were the re-cipients of contempt of the executioners and undertakers, thus the disrespectful treatment toward these individu-als who were buried face down. Osteological analysis of the so-called vampires also yields information pertain-ing to health and migration. As previously m e n t i o n e d , the studies s u m m a r i z e d and conduct-ed by Tsaliki (2008) reveals that the de-ceased individ-uals suffered from patho-logical lesions, trauma, and physical dis- ability, thus making them susceptible to vampiric transformations. These burials were ini-tially interpreted as vampire burials, but re-analysis of the physical remains of the dead provided biological data that extended the potential of the burials in terms of bioarchaeology. The odontological analysis conduct-ed by Nuzzolese and Borrini (2010) of the adult woman with a brick inside her mouth, while seemingly prelim-inary and insufficient in terms of mortuary analysis, offers a look into the social, cultural, and historical mi-lieu of the 16th-17th centuries. The study also yielded information pertaining to health and disease. A similar odontological analysis of vampire burials is Gregoric-ka et al.’s (2014) study, as it revealed crucial information on human migration. That the victims were local mem-bers of the community debunks the myth that outsiders were typically associated with vampiric transformations.


ARTICLES

“As the deceased individuals were actually part of the community, there must have been other reasons why they were considered potential vampires, which point the researchers back to the possibility of epidemics that caused the deaths of these individuals.”

As the deceased individuals were actually part of the com-munity, there must have been other reasons why they were considered potential vampires, which point the re-searchers back to the possibility of epidemics that caused the deaths of these individuals. These studies offer new insights on how to interpret vampire burials from an ar-chaeological perspective.

ConclusionAs there are new ways to understand vampire burials, scholars clearly emphasize collaborative approaches in terms of methodologies (Gardeła & Kajkowski, 2013; Gre-goricka et al., 2014; Milella et al., 2015; Tsaliki, 2008). Vam-pire burials are interesting because they provide the con-nection between folklore and reality. Seeing these burials in the flesh somehow proves the existence of vampires. However, through mortuary archaeology, vampire buri-als offer so much more than just the connection between folklore and reality. Funerary studies make it possible to appreciate vampire burials because of their association with religion and superstition. More importantly, funer-ary studies extend the potential of vampire burials to studies of migration, health, social identities, and judicial

References

Aspock, E. (2008). What actually is a “deviant burial”? Comparing German-language and Anglophone research on “deviant burials.” In E. Murphy (Ed.), Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Backstein, K. (2009). (Un)safe sex: Romancing the vampire. Cineaste, 35(1), 38–41.

Barber, P. (1988). Vampires, Burial, and Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Barrowclough, D. (2014). Time to Slay Vampire Burials? The Archaeological and Historical Evidence for Vampires in Europe. Cambridge: Red Dagger Press.

Betsinger, T. K., & Scott, A. B. (2014). Governing from the Grave: Vampire Burials and Social Order in Post-medieval Poland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 24(3), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314000754

Bill, J. (2016). Protecting Against the Dead? On the Possible Use of Apotropaic Magic in the Oseberg Burial. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 26(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774315000438

del Toro, G., & Hogan, C. (2009, July 30). Why Vampires Never Die. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31deltoro.html

Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the Sociology of Deviance. Social Problems, 9(4), 307–314.

Gardeła, L., & Kajkowski, K. (2013). Vampires, criminals or slaves? Reinterpreting “deviant burials” in early medieval Poland. World Archaeology, 45(5), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.849853

Gilchrist, R. (2008). Magic for the Dead? The Archaeology of Magic in Later Medieval Burials. Medieval aAchaeolo-gy, 52, 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1179/174581708

Gordon, S. R. (2013). The walking dead in medieval En-gland: Literary and archaeological perspectives. University of Manchester.

Gregoricka, L. A., Betsinger, T. K., Scott, A. B., & Polcyn, M. (2014). Apotropaic Practices and the Undead: A Biogeochemical Assessment of Deviant Burials in Post-Medieval Poland. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113564

Milella, M., Mariotti, V., Belcastro, M. G., & Knüsel, C. J. (2015). Patterns of Irregular Burials in Western Europe (1st-5th Century A.D.). Plos One, 10(6), e0130616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130616

Murphy, E. (Ed.). (2008). Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Nazaretyan, A. P. (2005). Fear of the dead as a factor in social self-organization. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2005.00269.x

Nuzzolese, E., & Borrini, M. (2010). Forensic approach to an archaeological casework of “Vampire” skeletal remains in Venice: Odontological and anthropological prospectus. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(6), 1634–1637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01525.x

Shay, T. (1985). Differentiated treatment of deviancy at death as revealed in anthropological and archeological material. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 4(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(85)90004-2

Tsaliki, A. (2008). Unusual Burials and Necrophobia: An Insight into the Burial Archaeology of Fear. In E. M. Murphy (Ed.), Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxbow Books.



ARTICLES

“Palayuk, Pasu, Kalan ampong Tunawan”:Ceramic Technological Choices in Gatbuca, Calupit and Bulacan

BY RHAYAN G. [email protected]

Assistant Professor 7, UP PampangaPh.D Candidate, Archaeological Studies Program

Abstract

Ceramic ecology aims to situate the raw materials (clay, temper, slip, fuel) and technologies that the local potter has consciously and unconsciously selected to create pottery within the context of his/her ecological setting. The ceramic ecological perspective has broadened to include a number of systemic relation-ships between ceramic production and the sociocultural system. This study de-scribes some of the ceramic ecological relationships between pottery production in Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan and its sociocultural and environmental contexts. Using ethnoarchaeology as a research strategy, participant observation, survey, and open ended interview was conducted in 2015 and 2016 to 57 active potters of Gatbuca. The study looks at the resources and technologies that the Gatbuca potters are utilizing in creating their ceramics. Specifically, it examines clay, tem-per and fuel selection, acquisition and preparation and how these are affected by physical-chemical properties, environmental factors and sociocultural milieus.

Keywords: Ceramic ecology; Pottery, Chaine operatorie; raw materials

INTRODUCTIONFrederick Matson first suggested the term “ceramic ecology” in the published pa-pers of the “Ceramics and Man” symposium in 1961. Matson (1965:203) coined the term to represent “one facet of cultural ecology that attempts to relate the raw ma-terials and technologies that the local potter has avail to function in his culture of products he fashions.” Ceramic ecology aims to situate the raw materials and technologies that the local potter has consciously and unconsciously selected to create pottery within the context of his/her ecological setting. The ceramic eco-logical perspective was broadened by Dean Arnold (1985) to include a number of systemic relationships between ceramic production and the sociocultural systems such as distance to resources, weather and climate, the female advantage in mak-ing pottery, and the effects of limited and poor agricultural land to subsistence. The technical choices made by the potters can be understood by studying and comparing the raw materials in the pottery to the locally available resources to discern if they are being used in the craft production and how they are being used.

This study describes some of the ceramic ecological relationships between pottery production in Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan and its sociocultural and environmental contexts. Using ethnoarchaeology as a research strategy, participant observation, survey, and open ended interview was conducted in 2015 and 2016 to 57 active potters of Gatbuca. The study looks at the resources and technologies that the Gatbuca potters are utilizing in creating their ceramics. Specifically, it examines clay, temper and fuel selection, acquisition and preparation and how these are affected by physical-chemical properties, environmental factors and sociocultural milieus.

RESEARCH SETTINGCalumpit is a first class municipality located in Bulacan Province (Figure 1). It is 50 kilometers north of Manila. It is bounded by the town of Apalit, Pampanga in the north, Masantol and Macabebe, Pampanga in the east, Malolos, Bulacan in the south and Pulilan, Bulacan in the west. Calumpit is sprawled over an area of 5,625 hectares of flat terrain classified accordingly for agricultural (66.81%), residential (10.42%), industrial (2.48%), commercial, (0.89%) and other (1.05%) purposes (Province of Bulacan 2017). Calumpit has two (2) types of soil: the silt loam, which is found in al-most 90% of the entire town and the clay loam in the far south east end of the town (Alicante 1939). The silt loam is used by the potters of the research area for their ceramic production. One of the 29 barangays of Calumpit is Barangay Gatbuca. It has a total land area of 437, 971 square meters and has a total population of 6,584 based on the 2014 census of the barangay officials. At least 10 % of the population of the village are involved in pottery making activities.

In Gatbuca, the present potters makes cooking pots (palayuk) (Plate 1), pots for melting gold of various sizes (tunawan) (Plate 2), pot covers for gold melting pots (taklub or takap), clay stoves (kalan) (Plate 3), and flower pots (pasu) (Plate 4). Cook-ing pots and clay stoves are the traditional pottery repertoire in Gatbuca. The flower pot making in Gatbuca was initiated by potters from Santo Tomas, Pampanga. On the other hand, the pots and covers for melting gold were only created in Gatbuca in the 1980s when the gold processing plants from Meycauayan, Bulacan ordered them.



ARTICLES

METHODOLOGYFifty-seven active potters of Gatbuca participated in the study. If they provided informed consent, they were ob-served, interviewed, photographed and video redorded. Data for the pottery production and distribution in Gatbu-ca were collected using participant-observation, surveys, interviews, photographs, videos and detailed field notes (See Melendres 2017).

CLAY (Gabun or Burak)The clays used by Gatbuca potters are mined from nearby rice fields of Capalangan, Apalit, Pampanga (Plate 5). The distance is 2 to 3 kilometers from the residence of the pot-ters. This is well within the distance of exploitable thresh-old model of Arnold (1985). This area is still a part of Cand-aba Swamp. Traditionally, it is the male relative/s (father, brother or cousin) of potters who gather and transport the clay from the clay mine to the pottery workshop. Present-ly, clay is being outsourced meaning they pay someone to mine the clay for them. They order the clay from local clay miners who gather the clay and load it in a boat. A clay miner is paid 375 to 400 pesos per boat load of clay. The local clay miner in turn would pay 50 pesos per boat to the owner of the rice field where he gets the clay. Thirty years ago, potters are allowed to take clay from rice fields for free but now they have to pay to have access to it. Access to the rice fields is not only predicated on the ability to pay the owner a small fee, it is also important that the potter has a good relationship with the land owner so that he/she will be permitted to get clay from his/her property.

The miner extracts the clay 2 to 3 feet below the surface of the rice field using a shovel. He (because all the miners are men and boys) would make 20 balls of clay or “buliga” and load it in the boat. It takes 30 minutes to travel from the clay mine to the river bank where clay is deposited for distribution. From the riverbank, it is the responsibility of the pottery workshop owner to transport the clay to their respective pottery workshops or kamalig.

Traditionally, the potters of Gatbuca use a red hematite (red clay or “malutung pila”) from Bataan (around 100 ki-lometers away) to slip their pots. A middle man sells the red clay to them. However, mining the red clay which they call “Balintawak” clay is now prohibited by the De-partment of Environment and Natural Resources. Due to this restriction, the potters of Gatbuca were forced to use a local clay to slip their pots (Plate 6). The potters call it “dilong kulul” or yellow color. They yellow clay is actually mined just below the level where the clay used in making pots are located, around 5 to 6 feet below the surface of the rice fields. This is being mined for free for the potters. The yellow clay is dried then pounded with a mortar and pestle to remove any impurities. Then, water is simply added to it to produce a suspension like mixture. After-wards, the suspension is screened using a cloth to remove further the smaller impurities.

Plate 1: Gatbuca female potter making a cooking pot

Plate 4: Gatbuca male potter making flower pots

Plate 3: Gatbuca male potter making a clay stove

Plate 2: Gatbuca male potter making a large gold melting pot


TEMPER (Balas)The Gatbuca potters are using river sand to temper the clay for pottery making (Plate 7). The sand is mined in the middle of the river of Gatbuca. The river is actually a tribu-tary of the Pampanga River. The source is less than 1 kilo-meter from the house of the potters. Upon closer inspec-tion the temper is not just sand rich in quartz and feldspar but it also includes bits of shells

If the water level of the river is low, the temper miner (who is also a clay miner) uses a shovel or a metal bucket to scoop the sand out of the water. However, if the water level is very high, the sand miner needs to dive and swim just to gather the sand. Since no one owns the river, every-body has free access to it. The pottery workshop owners just pay the miner 120 pesos per boat load of river sand. Again, the river sand is transported to the river bank near the pottery workshops. The river sand is then sifted to re-move the bigger inclusions like rocks, shells and other or-ganic and inorganic materials.

The Gatbuca potters do not like the sand in the river bank which is bigger because the pots tends to break easily if they are tempered with this material. They told me that they tried to use the river bank sand which have bigger grain size before. They discovered that the pots that were tempered with this kind of sand breaks easily that is why they avoid using it. As a result, they prefer the sand in the middle of the river because of its finer size. This shows, again, the knowledge of the potters of the technical as-pects of the resources that are available in their environs. They learn it through trial and error.

Fuel (Panangab or Pantiba)For open firing which is the firing method for cooking pot, pots and covers for gold melting, and clay stoves, the potters are using rice hay (Plate 8) and thinly chopped wood. For kiln firing used for firing flower pots, they only use wood.The rice hay are collected from the nearby rice fields in Gatbuca and Apalit. Normally, it is free of charge. But as a gift to the owner of the rice field where the hay is collect-ed, the potters give him/her some of their products like

Plate 5. Mining the clay in Apalit Pampanga Plate 6: Clay used for slipping the pots of Gatbuca

cooking pots and clay stoves. They transport the hay or stalk using vehicle or sometimes water buffalo carts from the rice fields to the pottery workshops. For rice hay col-lection, the potters are guided by the social relationships they have with the rice field owners. In contrast, wood is being purchased in sash or furniture factory. The wood is thinly chopped first before added to the firing platform.

Plate 7: River sand used as temper in Gatbuca

Plate 8: Rice hay used as fuel for firing the pots

accessible sand in the riverbanks with bigger and poorly sorted grains. Moreover, they know that more river sand temper should be added to the clay if the ceramic vessel will be subjected to high temperature just like in the case of clay stove and pot and cover for melting gold. This in turn could be explained with the presence of quartz and feldspar in the sand temper. Certain ecological relation-ships described by Arnold (1985) are also significant in Gatbuca. Weather and climate affects the ceramic pro-duction in the pottery village. The production increases during summer season and it decreases and sometimes ceases during rainy season because the area is flood-prone. The distance to resources plays a vital role in the craft production since all raw materials (clay, temper and fuel) are readily available within 5 km radius. But social relationship also plays an essential role in raw material acquisition in Gatbuca. The potters must have a good re-lationship with the owners of the rice field where they get their clays and rice hays. Majority of the potters of Gatbu-ca do not own agricultural lands or have limited access to rice field that is why they need pay to mine clay. How-ever, in Gatbuca, both males and females make pottery. The difference is on the vessel forms they manufacture (Melendres 2017). Only women makes cooking pots, cov-ers for gold melting pots and small pots for melting gold which are created using potter’s wheel and paddle and anvil technique. On the other hand, only men makes clay stoves, flower pots and big pots for melting gold which are created using slabbing, coiling and molding techniques. Thus, the gender difference is also reflected on the form-ing techniques used in creating these vessel forms.

ARTICLES

CLAY PREPARATION (Pamanlusak)The clay is soaked in water for 1 to 3 days in a box-like structure or “balon” (Plate 9). Afterwards, the clay and sand temper are mixed. This process is called “lusak.” They mix the sand and clay with the combination of foot and hand kneading (with the aid of a machine). The amount of sand added to the clay is dependent on the kind of vessel form the clay will be used for. For cooking pot making, the proportion is one part clay and one half part sand. For clay stove and pots and cover for gold melting, the proportion is one part clay and one part sand. Howev-er, for flower pots, no sand is added to the clay. The recipe for each vessel form is different depending on the desired behavioral characteristics of the pots. The potters of Gat-buca understand that if the ceramic vessel will be subject-ed to very high temperature, then they must increase the river sand temper. This in turn can be explained by the properties of the temper inclusions in the ceramic body. Quartz and feldspar, the common material in Gatbuca riv-er sand temper, can withstand temperature up to more than 1000°C (Rye 1981; Rice 1987). The implication of this archaeologically, is that potters consciously alter the tech-nical aspects of the pots they are making depending on the function of the pots themselves. This can be tested in archaeological ceramics using analytical techniques spe-cially using petrographic thin section analysis (Rye 1981; Rice 1987; Quinn 2013).

Concluding Remarks This study describes the relationship between pottery making and aspects of the physical-chemical, sociocultur-al and environmental systems in the pottery community of Gatbuca in Calumpit, Bulacan. The potters understand the physical, chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the two types of clay and the river sand temper that they are using. They recognize that one of the clay (rich in ver-miculite) is good for making pots while the other clay (rich in smectite) is only suitable as slip for pots. The potters are also aware that smaller and very well sorted inclusions is better in making pots that is why they prefer river sand mined from the middle of the river rather than the more

Plate 9: Balon used for preparing the clay

AcknowledgementsThis article is dedicated to Dr. William Longacre whom I was consulting with when I was conducting the Gatbuca Ethnoar-chaeological Project. Our last conversation and consultation was two weeks before his untimely passing in November 2015. I would also like to acknowledge the Office of the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines Diliman through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development for funding support through the Outright Research Grant. I would also like to thank the potters of Gatbuca for their hospitality, warmth and openness in imparting their knowledge, experiences and skills to me.

ReferencesAlicante, M.M., D.Z. Rosell, R. Isidro and S. Hernandez. 1939. Soil Survey of Bulacan Province Philippine Islands. Manila: Bureau of Science.Arnold, Dean. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matson, F.R. 1965. “Ceramics Ecology: An Approach to the Study of Early Cultures of the Near East”. In Ceramics and Man. Edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 202 – 217. Chicago: Aldine. Melendres, R.G. 2017. I Want to Make a Pot: Cultural Tranmission and Learning Dynamics of Pottery Making in Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan, Philippines. Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 9: 18 – 33. Province of Bulacan Official Website. 2017. Municipality of Calumpit. In Experience Bulacan: Province of Bulacan, Philippines Website. Accessed 22 January 2017. From http://www.bulacan.gov.ph/calumpit/government.php.Quinn, P.S. 2013. Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in thin Section. Oxford: Archaeopress.Rice, Prudence. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rye, O.S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Washington: Taraxacum.



BOOK

REVIEW

BY JANA ANDREA SANTOS

Book Review:

Death and Beyond: Death & Burial Rituals & Other

Practives & Beliefs of the Igorots of Sagada, Mountain Provice, Philippines

In pursuing her Master of Arts in Education, Piluden-Omen-gan originally wrote the contents of this book for the comple-tion of her thesis. It was through her desire to write about a topic that was not only unique, but also relevant to her that this work saw its beginnings. As a Sagadan herself, she want-ed to shed light on the wealth and intricacies of Sagadan cul-ture, particularly surrounding death and burial – an aspect of culture often shrouded in silence. Piluden-Omenga’s format generally followed the scientific method in presenting her research. She began Chapter 1 by introducing the main characters of her thesis – the Igorots of Sagada. In this chapter, she presents the questions she seeks to answer in her research: what are the rituals and practic-es? How do these differ depending on who has died? Or the manner of death? Which beliefs and values are these rituals and practices rooted in? Are there advantages or disadvantag-es to this kind of culture surrounding death? The search for answers to these questions were guided by her hypotheses; that status and manner of death determine certain prayers and aspects to be enacted, and that these rituals and practic-es are rooted in deeper cultural values that they are expected to uphold. She also lists some terms and definitions to enable the readers to situate themselves within the context of the research; as well as how the contents of her book can contrib-ute to the contemporary community.

Chapter 2 was dedicated to an overview of other tribal com-munities and their death and burial rituals. Beliefs and prac-tices of the Ibaloys, the Kalingas, the Ifugaos, the Kankanaeys, among others, were highlighted as means of comparison to the Igorot death culture. In addition, the specific methods and procedures she followed, starting from the data gather-ing stage to data analysis, are enumerated in Chapter 3.

It is within Chapter 4 that the author’s research comes to life; this chapter contains the bulk of her research. Her raw data together with analyses, and the answers to the problems she presented at the beginning of the research are revealed in this section. In presenting her findings, she divided the 19 barrios of Sagada into four regions: Eastern, Northern, Cen-tral, and Southern. Under each region, she identified at least seven circumstances of death such as: death of a newborn baby, death of a child at minor age, death of a young adult, death of an old adult, as well as deaths by accident, murder, and suicide. She went onto enumerating the specific ritu-als and prayers done for each of these circumstances with

a brief explanation of what is done, and what the purpose of the ritual or prayer is. Further discussion of the death and burial rituals of each region is then made by distinguishing between the pre-burial, burial, and post-burial rituals and practices; including transcriptions and translations of the prayers and stories recited. From all of these, Igorot beliefs of an afterlife, the power of ancestral spirits, and animal com-panionship in the journey to the next world, are brought into light. Moreover, underlying values of responsibility to the family and the whole community are seen in the strict accor-dance of these rituals and practices. Chapter 4 ends with fur-ther analysis of these rituals and practices; this time, in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of the bereaved having to comply to tradition. Although it continually upholds deep Igorot traditions, issues such as extravagance, suspension of daily routines, and the like, often cause great burden to the families long after the death of their loved one.

Finally, she ends her work in Chapter 5 with a summary of her work and the conclusions she has made from her study. She also provides readers with some recommendations for possible further studies on this aspect of Igorot culture. The last pages of her book contain colored photographs she took throughout the duration of the research project – depicting her informants, some ritual paraphernalia, and the practices themselves.

Overall, this book does allow the readers to get a glimpse of Igorot rituals and practices surrounding death – an opportu-nity not many would be able to experience. The detailed de-scriptions enable the readers to gain a mental image of what really happens behind the scenes of a Sagadan death, and even explains the beliefs and values from which these prac-tices are rooted. However, the way Piluden-Omengan pre-sented her findings by clustering Sagada into four regions, as well as the identifying specific circumstances of death re-sulted in an extremely repetitive discussion; especially since the cultures from all four groups are closely related. Many of the rituals and practices are similar, and thus, findings would have been better off presented in a more encompassing man-ner for the sake of clarity and brevity. Despite these, how-ever, Piluden-Omengan’s work has the capability of fulfilling her objective in sharing her culture and educating not only Sagadans, but also those interested in the Sagadan way of life. Her book has enabled a rekindling of connections between the Sagadan traditions and the Sagada many people know to-day.

1st Trimester 2nd Trimester 3rd Trimester

Deadline for students to file appeals for readmission/extension of MRR/ waiver of MRR

June 15 October 5 February 4

Registration July 16 to 18 November 5 to 7 March 4 to 6

Start of Classess July 19 November 8 March 7

Deadline of students to file application for graduation for those graduating as of the end of each term

August 1 November 21 March 20

Christmas Break December 15 to January 4

Easter Break April 15 to 20

Mid-Term Exam Augus 30 January 10 April 22

Deadline for Dropping of Subjects September 6 January 17 May 2

Deadline for Filling Leave of Absences October 2 February 15 May 30

End of Classes October 11 February 21 June 6

Final Exam October 16 to 19 February 26 to March 1

June 10-11 and June 13-14

Deadline for Grade Submission October 29 March 11 June 21

University Commencement June 30

Archaeological Studies ProgramUniversity of the Philippines

Albert Hall, Lakandula St. Diliman Quezon City 1101

Tel. (632) 981-8500 loc. 2466Email: [email protected]

CALENDAR for ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019

201819-Aug Sunday Quezon City Day (QC Only) 21-Aug Tuesday Ninoy Aquino Day27-Aug Monday National Heroes Day1-Nov Thursday All Saints Day2-Nov Friday Additional Special (Non-Working) Day

30-Nov Friday Bonifacio Day24-Dec Monday Additional Special (Non-Working) Day25-Dec Tuesday Christmas Day30-Dec Sunday Rizal Day31-Dec Monday Last Day of the Year

20191-Jan Tuesday New Year’s Day5-Feb Tuesday Chinese New Year

25-Feb Monday EDSA People Power Revolution Anniversary

9-Apr Tuesday Araw ng Kagitingan18-Apr Thursday Maundy Thursday19-Apr Friday Good Friday20-Apr Saturday Black Saturday1-May Wednesday Labor Day12-Jun Wednesday Independence Day

Eidul FitrEidul Adha

HOLIDAYS for 2018-2019


Field school student exposing the wall at Trench 2of the Budiao Church RuinsPhoto by Dr. Angel RectoASP Field School 2018

Archaeological Studies ProgramAlbert Hall, Lakandula St. University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City Philippines, 1101

+632 981 85 00 loc. 4226http://[email protected]©2018

TEST PIT - Archaeological Studies Program

Documents

Transcript of TEST PIT - Archaeological Studies Program