Contextualising the Calatagan artefacts in the Lopez Collection

Changing perspectives on the meanings of objects and the history of archaeological research in the Philippines

Abstract:

This paper attempts to investigate meanings of artefacts through time. Artefacts gain different meanings during production, acquisition, deposition in archaeological contexts, recovery, and analysis. Artefacts could be possessed by individuals or institutions, displayed in museums or privately appreciated. They could also be left in storage rooms. How people relate and interpret artefacts is influenced by the nature of archaeological research. Applying the concept of the biography of objects, artefacts recovered from Calatagan, Philippines is collectively examined to understand the layers and dynamic meanings acquired by the objects as commodities, mortuary goods, archaeological data, museum objects, and private collection. It is demonstrated in this paper how the history of archaeology in the Philippines influences the interpretation of the Calatagan sites and artefacts. Through understanding how meanings are produced, the paper provides different contexts the artefacts are utilized and creates multiple experiences for people.

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

Introduction

This paper will look at how the history of archaeological research in the Philippines has changed in the last five decades by examining the different meanings acquired by an assemblage of artefacts through time since its recovery. It will focus on how the development of archaeological practice has affected or influenced the interpretation and perspectives of scholars and the public towards sites and artefacts. Artefacts excavated from Calatagan in the province of Batangas, Philippines in 1958 will be used as a case study (Figure 1). The Calatagan excavations were the single most important excavated sites in the middle of the twentieth century in the Philippines. The large number of burials recorded and the range of artefacts recovered present interesting aspects of ancient Philippine societies. The famous Calatagan Pot with inscriptions on its shoulder was recovered in this region. Most of the artefacts are stored at the National Museum of the Philippines. Others are part of private collections including the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. The biography of these objects will be mapped: from their acquisition in the past as commodities, as grave goods, their functions in the graves, as archaeological evidence, to their function as museum collection and source of data. It will be demonstrated in this paper that there exists multiple contexts of artefacts, as single objects and as part of the whole collection. Questions on understanding material culture, the choice in what should be recovered from the site, which are acquired by collectors and stored and displayed in the museums, will be considered in this paper in the context of archaeology as practised in the Philippines. Using the Calatagan artefacts as case study, are means to an end and in the process they amass multiple meanings for different people. How and why they acquire their meanings will be the central theme of this discussion. In the process of examining the biography of the Calatagan materials, The paper will outline the development of archaeological research in the Philippines and how research trends influence the way the Calatagan sites and artefacts were and are interpreted.

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

The archaeological excavations in Calatagan

Calatagan is located in Batangas Province south of Manila. The sites are found along the western coast of the peninsula. It was in 1934 that the presence of middens and archaeological materials were observed during the preparation of a polo-field in the Zobel Estate (Beyer 1947). Mr Enrique Zobel reported the site to the National Museum of the Philippines (NM) and Ricardo Galang visited the area and collected stone adzes and chisels (Beyer 1947). Olov RT Janse (1941, 1944-45, 1947) conducted the first Calatagan excavations in the 1940s. The materials recovered from these excavations were shipped to the Harvard-Yenching Institute and are now in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University (Kanji 2005). Some skeletal materials and local vessels from Janse’s (1944-45) excavation were deposited at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. The results of these excavations encouraged large-scale excavations from 1958 to the early 1960s by the NM. The 1958 excavations were published by Robert B. Fox in 1959. The 1960-1961 excavations remained unpublished until recently (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Main and Fox published in 1982 a descriptive analyses and classification of the earthenware vessels recovered from the excavations. More than 1000 burials from open-pits have been recorded since the 1940s, including infant jar burials. Majority of the adult skeletons are buried in supine positions while some in flexed positions. The sites date to the 15th century AD based on the decorations of the Southeast Asian ceramics used as mortuary goods.

The most common finds from the burials were earthenware vessels and foreign ceramics. The undecorated earthenware vessels were composed of cooking pots, spouted vessels called kendi, lobed pots locally known as kinalabasa (squash-like), bowls, and pots resembling cooking vessels but have flat-and-depressed bases instead of round bases. The decorated pots have incised lines and punctuations. Decorations include solar motifs. The bowls and kendis are local copies of foreign forms. The foreign ceramics were from China, Vietnam, and Thailand. Forms include jarlets, saucers, bowls, and plates. Most of the foreign ceramics are monochromes while some of the plates and bowls have floral patterns that have been interpreted as sun-burst patterns (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). The non-ceramic objects include human skulls, shells, animal bones, giant clams, glass bracelets and glass beads, stone statues, metal implements, Chinese coins, a gold sheet, a gold ring, and spindle whorls. The Calatagan Pot was recovered by a labourer during a weekend break in the 1960-61 excavations that its exact provenience is unknown.

Since earlier excavations mainly were on the western coast, the NM spearheaded a project that surveyed and eventually excavated in the eastern coast of the Calatagan peninsula (Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They recorded and recovered burial jars belonging to an earlier period, 1695+ 20 BP and 2820+40 BP (Dela Torre 2003). The sites and artefacts discussed here are from excavations prior to the 1990s.

History of archaeological research in the Philippines

This section discusses the history of archaeological research in the Philippines based on how Filipino scholars view its development. It will explore what they supposed were key advances in Philippine archaeology and take note of their suggestions to help propagate the discipline. It will also include current developments that were in response to early assessments of archaeological practice. These information shall provide the background for the discussion. It shall start with the 1950s as the major Calatagan excavations took place in 1958. (For archaeological research before 1950 please see Evangelista 1961; Mijares 1998; Paz 2009; Santiago 2001)

Similar to other Southeast Asian states’ experience, archaeological practice was initiated mostly by foreign scholars and enthusiasts. However by 1951 in the Philippines, Filipino scholars became more active in archaeological research (Ronquillo 1985). The NM continued its collaboration with foreign archaeologists. Radiocarbon dating was started to be utilized in the early 1950s. Earlier interpretations on how specific cultures reached the Philippines started to be challenged. New sites were discovered which also added new dimensions to learning ancient lifeways. Excavation techniques and recording methods were also becoming more systematic. Few Filipino graduate students were interested in archaeology and have conducted their own excavations as part of their program. One such excavation was in Lemery, Batangas conducted by three female graduate students from 1968-70. The result of this intensive research was published in 2008 (Locsin et al. 2008). Foreign graduate students invited by their professors to conduct research also made use of Philippine materials for their dissertations, which eventually were published. Ethnoarchaeological research were conducted on Agta Negritos and pottery-making in the 1970s. The aim of the research on the Agta Negritos was to understand hunter lifestyles living in tropical environments. Longacre’s research on Kalinga pottery had produced several publications and encouraged several American graduate students from the middle of the 1970s to the 1980s to conduct their own research on various facets of Kalinga pottery (Longacre 1981, 1999; Longacre et al. 1988, 2000; Longacre and Skibo1994). It was also during the 1970s until the 1980s that American archaeologists utilized Philippine data to test hypotheses regarding social development of societies, political economy, and trade in the context of an island environment (Hutterer 1974, 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1985, 1991). Also in the 1970s the NM began actively searching for evidence of early Homo sapiens specifically in the Peñablanca Caves, Cagayan Valley and Tabon Caves, Palawan. These sites have been recently re-excavated and artefacts re-analysed to obtain more data about the earliest humans in the Philippines and Southeast Asia (Dizon 2003a; Jago-on 2007, 2008; Lewis et al. 2007-2008; Mijares 2007-2008; Mijares et al. 2010; Schmidt 2009).

Though descriptive in its treatment, Ronquillo’s (1985) article illustrated how archaeology in the Philippines benefitted very much from collaborations with foreign scholars. Despite of its numerous excavations during the said period, most of the interpretations regarding archaeological sites remained to be framed from a foreign perspective and mostly offered by non-Filipino scholars. As Ronquillo (1985:84) stated, much of the excavations were salvage archaeology due to ‘construction work, natural calamities, and by looting’. Nevertheless, the number of sites and large quantity of artefacts recovered during this period provide present students and scholars many opportunities for research, including this paper. This period produced a Field Manual In Archaeology written by Peralta (1978) which provided standard techniques followed in every local excavation. However, in the early part of the 21st century, British excavation techniques were incorporated in local field excavations introduced by a British-trained Filipino archaeologist (Paz 2003).

Research before the 1980s focused on ‘culture history, cultural chronology, typology of prehistoric material cultures, using the unilineal development stages of cultural evolutionary theory’ (Dizon 1994: 199). Dizon (1994:200) underscored the ‘professionalisation in the field of archaeology’. Prior to the 1980s, most of the archaeology practitioners were trained by cultural anthropologists. In the 1980s, four Filipino scholars, including Ronquillo and Dizon, were fortunate enough to have attended American universities where they received their masters’ and doctoral degrees. In 1988, the Archaeology Division at the NM formally separated from the Anthropology Division. This created more opportunities for the NM to concentrate on archaeological work in the country. It was during the 1980s that underwater archaeology was initiated and the number of excavations increased. Similar to Ronquillo’s article, Dizon then proceeded to describe major research from 1982 to 1992. Another chief development was the involvement of archaeologists in environmental and impact assessments. To date, several non-government organisations conduct assessment studies. Dizon also described how the Archaeology Division managed their photographic collection and data. Data digitisation was started in the 1991 and continues until the present.

Dizon concluded that the major problem at that time was the lack of institutions that offer formal courses and degrees in archaeology. Dizon added that the research trend during the 1980s was a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. However, such research utilising the deductive method were very few, mainly spearheaded by foreign archaeologists or Filipino archaeologists who had formal training. Despite the presence of Hutterer and Longacre in the 1970s and 1980s, processual studies did not influence local scholarship at that time. Dizon’s (1994) attempt to provide the theoretical direction of research in the country was not as explicit as Santiago’s views discussed below.

The papers discussed above were more of status reports than a commentary on the state of archaeology in the Philippines. Mijares’(1998) paper on the development of Philippine archaeology differs from the articles discussed above which were inclined to be personality-based. Mijares focused on archaeological method and paradigm as his framework in addressing the growth of the discipline. He traced the earliest methods used in excavation and explanation. He started with Beyer’s surface collections, salvage archaeology, and the use of diffusion-migration theories. He discussed the lack of field reports prior to Fox’s excavations in the 1950s. For Mijares, it was only Guthe who conducted systematic collection in the 1920s until Fox’s introduction of standard excavation techniques in the 1950s. Despite of Fox and Peralta’s efforts to introduce field procedures, Mijares still considered their interpretations as speculative. He acknowledges the presence of foreign archaeologists in the Philippines such as Longacre and Hutterer for establishing processual studies in the country. He also highlighted the contribution of Filipino archaeologists who received formal training in American universities and the researchers who trained under Fox and Peralta. From 1993 to 1996, the shell midden sites of Cagayan Valley discovered in the 1970s were extensively investigated with collaborations with Japanese archaeologists. Ronquillo and Ogawa (1996) initiated the Batangas Archaeological Project to continue Fox’s work in Calatagan. New sites producing unique artefacts such as anthropomorphic jars (Dizon 1993) and stone boat-shaped burial markers and traces of ancient settlements were also discovered in the 1990s (Dizon and Mijares 1999; Mijares 2003). Under the Problems, Issues, and Concerns section of Mijares’ article (1998:12-14), he noted the domination of foreign archaeologists in the reconstruction of Philippine prehistory and the lack of formal training of Filipino scholars. Despite the continuous interaction of Filipino scholars with foreign archaeologists, Mijares argues that a historical-cultural persists among the former. Mijares (1998:13) also added that the Philippines ‘remained in the periphery of the debate’. He also underscored the lack of publication of site and final reports and technology required to practice archaeology. For the discipline to prosper, he proposed that archaeology should be problem-orientated research based in an academic institution rather than a reactive approach wherein sites are excavated after reported.

Santiago’s (2001) view on the development of Philippine archaeology centred on the lack of theoretical discussion among Filipino practitioners. Her proposed periodization was based on the theoretical paradigms developed in North America and Europe: a. Before 1900s: Antiquarianism, b. 1900-1950: Early Cultural-Historical Period, c. 1950-1980: Late Cultural-Historical Period, and d. 1980-Present: Emerging Processualism. The difference between the Early Cultural-Historical Period and the Late Cultural-Historical Period was the introduction of ‘scientific data collection methods primarily the use of stratigraphic principles’ (Santiago 2001:7). Despite of this, in Santiago’s view, data interpretation remained to be from a cultural-historical perspective. The period from 1950 to 1980 described by Santiago (2001: 9-12) was essentially an account of foreign scholars’ experience in the Philippines. This is similar to Mijares’ (1998) statement on the lack of Filipino scholars actively contributing to the reconstruction of Philippine prehistory. Regardless, excavation methods greatly improved from the 1950s onwards. Santiago and Dizon have the same view that the 1980s was the start of a significant period in archaeological research in the Philippines. The Filipino scholars who studied abroad brought with them new methods and theories including statistical, spatial, metallurgical analyses, and the use of GPS and GIS techniques. However, Santiago noted that despite of the introduction of scientific methods and analyses, interpretation is still largely from a cultural-historical approach.

Paz (2009) had a different take on the history of archaeological practice. Paz’s analysis is more of a reflective process and practice-based rather than emphasizing the theory-based archaeological research which aforementioned scholars engaged in. What is interesting about Paz’s article is that it described the social milieu of the people involved in the practice of archaeology in the Philippines rather than the details of their archaeological activities. It traced the development of the consciousness of collecting for whom and for what reasons. The article is mainly Paz’s reflection of the transformation of the practice of archaeology from personal and imperial entitlement to the notion that archaeology is state-owned. However, the essential piece of the paper was the acknowledgement of the presence of private collectors without being critical of them. Paz recognized the disparate ethics and practice of collectors and professional archaeologists and highlighted instances of collaborations between them. Such collaborations are eventually beneficial to both parties.

In 1995, the Archaeological Studies Program was established at the University of the Philippines (UP-ASP) where research-orientated projects are conducted. Each faculty is actively pursuing their own research interests. Hukay, the UP-ASP’s peer-reviewed journal launched in 1998, where Mijares’ and Santiago’s articles came out, is now an international publication with foreign contributors and referees. Collaborations with foreign institutions are healthy. In the academic aspect of collaborations, local and foreign students receive free training and present opportunities for them to interact with foreign academics. Graduate students participate in exchange programs that help broaden their prospects in archaeology. Currently, the UP-ASP has links with Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Australian National University, University of Washington, and University College Dublin. Collaborations also have a practical aspect. Foreign scholars bring with them financial assistance and technology in field and laboratory work. To date, due to budgetary constraints, local archaeologists, most of the time but not always, can obtain scientific dates for their research if they have foreign collaborators. Philippine sites are still mainly dated based on foreign ceramics which are also reliable and can be correlated with radiocarbon dates as Melendres (2008) has demonstrated. Students are also given the chance to pursue their own research usually offshoots of these collaborations.

Calatagan through the years

Materials are passive, however, some people would argue that they are active (Barretto-Tesoro 2008b; Bray 2008; Hodder 1982). The people who possess and use these objects give their meanings to them. Meanings of objects can be multiple and are dependent on their contexts and how people from various sectors view these objects (De La Paz 2008). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the many meanings of the Calatagan artefacts in the context of the history of archaeology in the Philippines. It will be drawing from the cultural biography concept (Kopytoff 1986) which states that meanings of objects can change throughout an artefact’s lifetime. The Calatagan objects have their own histories prior to their function as mortuary goods. They were artefacts during the systematic excavations in Calatagan in the 1940s (Janse 1941, 1944-45, 1947), late 1950s (Fox 1959), early 1960s (Fox 1961), and in the early 1990s (Ronquillo and Ogawa 1996). They were also given as tokens to sponsors of the excavations. At the same time, some of the Calatagan objects came from unsystematic excavations that are now part of several private collections. Few Calatagan artefacts are exhibited in the NM and its provincial branches, and in the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. Some are stored in the Ceramic Storage Room of the NM. To date, people have utilized Calatagan data in their dissertations (Barretto-Tesoro 2007; Bautista 2007; Chang 2004; Dela Torre 2008). Despite its collective term as ‘Calatagan artefacts’, It is propose that these objects have different meanings for different people. This research will elucidate how meanings and interpretations of objects are multiple, changing, and context dependent.

Interpretations of Calatagan artefacts according to various scholars

Calatagan sites and artefacts were interpreted based on the research agenda of the excavator. Janse (1941, 1944-1945, 1947) was interested in the influence of the Dong-son in Indo-China and the Philippines. He excavated 60 graves in three cemeteries in Calatagan, which contained Ming pieces. Fox’s (1959) interpretation did not go beyond the usual explanation that all objects in the burials were ritual objects and grave goods. There was no sufficient explanations for the distribution of the grave goods, the demand for specific pottery types and the apparent chosen locations for particular items. In 1982, Main and Fox wrote a comprehensive description of the earthenware vessels from twelve Calatagan sites. The description centred on forms, clay, temper, temper size, paste, slip, firing, and designs, which were the bases for the classification of the vessels into three pottery complexes. Main and Fox assessed the chronology of pottery forms and designs by comparing manufacturing techniques of the Calatagan vessels with pottery from other sites. The aim was to identify ‘ancestors’ of the Calatagan types to investigate the spread of pottery types from the origin. However, meanings of designs were not examined. The analyses of the porcelains, mostly coming from Annam, Siam, and China also focused on manufacturing and painting techniques (Fox 1959). Fox noted the low quality of the porcelains but maintained that they were good sources of the development of ceramic studies in Mainland Asia including kiln activity, production periods, and trade. Although the porcelains were for daily use, it has been suggested that the designs were potent symbols of the local cosmology.

My work focused on social identities that can be inferred from the ceramics and non-ceramic objects found as grave furniture. Barretto-Tesoro (2008a) has emphasized that we can infer the various identities manifested in the burials, depending on the qualitative attributes of the ceramics and their locations in the graves, in relation to the body. She posited that cultural affiliations were symbolized by the inclusion of undecorated local vessels placed near the head and feet areas of the deceased, the general place of burials, and the manner of burial (Barretto-Tesoro 2008b). Gender was marked more than sex through the inclusion of gender-specific objects such as metal implements and spindle whorls. Some infants, perhaps due to their age, were placed in jars. Status in Calatagan was determined through ceramics decorated with solar and bird motifs placed on top or near the pelves (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). In earlier studies in the Philippines, status was viewed from a political-economy framework (Bacus 1996; Junker 1999) and determined by the density of foreign items present in habitation and burial zones. The most recent work in Calatagan (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c) demonstrated that indigenous symbols marked status even though such graves contained only one porcelain plate. Imitation occurs when monochrome ceramics were found on the pelvis. Earlier markers could have been the earthenware vessels with solar designs.

How objects were acquired in the past?

Foreign objects were acquired through trades with Southeast Asian merchants. They were perhaps initially seen as commodities, which were later transformed into ritual/burial goods. However, the decorations on the porcelains found in the graves suggest that the Calatagan locals were active in the selection of foreign ceramics. It seems that the indigenous belief system influenced the active selection of foreign ceramics with sun and bird symbols which were considered potent (Salazar 2004, 2005). Women most probably manufactured the local vessels for domestic use and on a need-basis (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Some of the cooking pots recovered from the graves have evidence of carbon deposits in the interior and soot on the exterior. Heavy usewear suggests that the cooking pots were used in domestic contexts prior to their burial. Those with light usewear suggest that the pots were specifically manufactured for burials and used to cook food offerings. Other non-utilitarian pots, particularly decorated ones, appear to have been newly made, based on the brightness of their colours, for the sole purpose of burial.

As Records of the National Museum of the Philippines

The Archaeology Records Section of the Archaeology Division of the NM has recently started to digitize their records. During the data gathering for her master’s thesis (Barretto 2002) and doctoral dissertation (Barretto-Tesoro 2007), she encountered the original burial sketches, preliminary analyses forms, and the burial and specimen inventory records of the Calatagan sites from the 1958 and 1960-1961 excavations. Documents also included letters to sponsors and short reports on the status of the excavations. On one hand, she was delighted to hold the actual records and documents of the excavations. These pages held the handwritten notes of Robert B. Fox and team members’ some of whom became well-known Filipino archaeologists later on. Ecstatic with the burial sketches she found, she copied information on the forms and scanned them. On the other hand, she was worried that these yellowing and brittle sheets were in danger of deterioration. It would be better if future researchers would handle printouts of digital copies of the documents and forms rather than the original ones. The move to digitize all the records of the Archaeology Division is an important step in the proper management of written archaeological information. The 1958 excavations were published by Fox in 1959 but the results of the 1960-1961 excavations remained largely unanalysed and unpublished until very much later on (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Chang 2004). Only the earthenware vessels were given much attention (Main and Fox 1982). There are many more artefacts and records in the Archaeology Division that require analysis. If records are not stored properly, needless to say, valuable information about the Philippines’ past will be lost. In addition, due to the large quantities of artefacts shared with sponsors of the excavations, the only available Calatagan artefacts that can be accessed are those in the NM, Ayala Museum, and the Lopez Museum. Only the burial forms, inventory records, and other excavation records remain as sources of information on other items.

As museum objects: what were displayed and stored?

Due to space and funding limitations, the NM does not display many Calatagan artefacts. Most of the earthenware vessels are in the Ceramic Storage Room. The pots are stacked on rows of shelves. Labels written on the pots can be cross-referenced with the excavation records. Some do not have accession codes but their forms indicate that they were also from Batangas. Some of the foreign ceramics were relatively protected inside cabinets. One item was memorable. It was a small jar that still contains the remains of an infant (Figure 2). For some archaeologists, skeletons are data, but for some, there is recognition that the data were once individuals thus, must be treated with respect. This very concept has led to the repatriation of human remains in other countries. Museums are now more cautious in exhibiting and storing human remains. It is highly suggested to assess the current condition of the infant’s bones and to transfer them to suitable storage space.

Figure 2: A jar containing infant bones located in the Ceramic Storage Room of the National Museum of the Philippines (Photo by Grace Barretto-Tesoro)

If one is familiar with the Calatagan excavations, a quick look around the exhibit galleries of the NM shows that there are minimal to none displayed from these sites. In 2005, Barretto-Tesoro visited the NM Branch in Bolinao, Pangasinan and there was one glass bracelet from Calatagan displayed there. An inspection of the NM records show that some Calatagan artefacts are exhibited in provincial NM branches across the country. The current exhibit at the NM and its branches present the archaeological history of the Philippines in a conventional manner. It starts with the geological formation of the Philippine islands then moves to the Pleistocene and Palaeolithic periods, followed by the Neolithic Period and Metal Age, then by the Protohistoric Period. The Calatagan sites are 15th century sites belonging to the Protohistoric Period. Due to the volume of foreign ceramics and other imported items in Calatagan, the artefacts were perhaps distributed to NM local branches to be included in the exhibit highlighting the cultural treasures of the country. Foreign items are usually presented as part of the developing long-distance trade from the 10th century to the 15th century. The significance of the ceramics, shells, glass bracelets and other mortuary items in Calatagan in the context of burial practices were overlooked; instead, the role of trade was highlighted.

Two points should be highlighted. First is that, there is no mention in the current NM exhibits of the significance of the Calatagan finds. The linear storytelling of the Philippine’s past prohibits the audience to have a deeper understanding of the significance of the Calatagan sites. In 2007, the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, to encourage young people to visit the museum, the museum staff would often think of ways to present a concept or topic relevant to a specific demographic age using their collection. In anticipation of the new Harry Potter movie in 2007, the curators decided to have an exhibit on magic and potions by choosing specimens from the existing collection. Museums may need to veer away from conventional presentations, and the NM may be able to maximize the ways the results of excavations are shared. Exhibits can become more meaningful when the audience can truly relate with the artefacts. Perhaps the NM can develop novel ways to present their collection to wider audience, or even to specific demography apart from students and the local elites. Using the Calatagan finds, samples of exhibit may include Tagalog archaeology, burial practices, pottery designs, and relationships with other artefacts from other Batangas or southern Luzon sites.

The second point is in relation to the above. The separation of some Calatagan artefacts and their distribution in many provincial NM museums remove them from their contexts. The implications of the grave goods in relation to various aspects of the deceased and community’s life can be lost or even disregarded by audiences and researchers alike. One of the possible solutions is to revise exhibits depending on contemporary research trends. At present, there is a tendency to present a macroscopic and broad view of pre-colonial polities rather than stressing the diversities of these polities.

Many of the ceramics at the NM Ceramic Storage were restored and reconstructed, which perhaps excluded them from the display collection or maybe they do not fit in the existing exhibit framework. An inventory of the pots cross-referenced with the records indicates that many are ‘missing’. This is Fox donated some of the specimens to sponsors of the excavations.

Objects as private collections

As mentioned above, Fox sought the financial assistance of various wealthy families when he commenced the 1960s excavations in Calatagan. One of these is the Lopez Family. In return, sponsors received their share of the recovered artefacts, mostly the finer and whole pieces. The Lopez Calatagan collection consists of foreign ceramics, local earthenware vessels, glass bracelets, glass beads, spindle whorls, net weights, and metal spears. They are now housed in the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library in Manila in relatively good condition. The labels indicate that the artefacts came from Calatagan graves dating to the 15th century AD. The Zóbel y Ayala and McMicking families provided financial support for the field expenses during the 1958 excavations (Fox 1959). Sixty-five percent of the 1958 collection is now in the Zóbels’ possession (Cruz 1958). The sites were previously part of what was known as the Hacienda de Calatagan owned by the Zobels. Six small sacks of ceramic sherds from Calatagan were also reported to have been observed at the Ayala Museum, Philippines (Bautista 2007). Other private collections, unfortunately, came from unsystematic diggings around Batangas. The forms of these pots are similar to those coming from Calatagan that their origins cannot be denied (Valdes 2003).

The 1958 excavations in Calatagan spawned widespread treasure hunting in the Philippines. Fox employed many locals during the excavations. He taught them the rudiments of excavation and identification. These Batangueños were the first generation of treasure hunters who methodically made their way across Batangas, parts of southern Luzon, Palawan and islands south of Luzon. During our 2008 survey in southeastern Batangas, we encountered the name of Macario Putol who, according to the locals hailed from Calatagan. He excavated several burials in Lobo during the 1970s (Barretto-Tesoro et al. 2009). The effects of this mad activity can be felt until the present day.

Private collections became in vogue (Gotuaco et al. 1997; Peralta 1982; Valdes 2003) and validated the status of the owners (Poulter 2007). Perhaps due to greater access to funds, coffee table books on private collections containing high-quality images are widely published.

Meanings for the locals

Prior to the 1958 excavations, the locals were using Ming ceramics for their tableware, which they unintentionally recovered from ploughing (Fox 1959). One local used the sherds to ‘pave his salt beds’ because the stoneware sherds ‘are superior to red tile for evaporating the salt’ (Fox 1959:338). It had neither historical nor symbolical value to them but a functional and practical value. When archaeologists arrived, the excavations became more important than the objects. As labourers, they were paid a daily wage to assist Fox and his team. According to the locals interviewed in 2005, the excavations gave them social prestige. They accommodated the visitors from Manila including the American Fox. This attitude is common among Filipinos who prioritize visitors by giving them the best even if they themselves do not possess much.

The locals referred to above were migrants (Fox 1959). They could not have considered any associations with the human bones they were encountering in their fields. The most obvious use they thought of for the plates and bowls were for kitchen use. To date, the locals who owned the properties where the sites are located have sold their lands. For archaeologists, the Calatagan sites were sources of precolonial lifeways but for the locals they were properties for sale.

Recent developments in Calatagan

Golden Sunset Village Resort and Spa is a first-class resort built on top of what was previously known as Kay Tomas and Pulong Bakaw, the two sites excavated by Fox in 1958. The owner, Ricky Reyes, a television personality, did not know that the land he bought was an archaeological site. Even though an Archaeological Impact Assessment was not conducted in his property prior to resort construction as required by law, Reyes was still granted an Environmental Compliance Certificate in September 2005. When we visited Calatagan in April 2005, structures were already standing in his property. During construction, the labourers observed many broken ceramics in the ground. Bautista (2007), an UP-ASP student who was working for the NM informed Reyes about the significance of his property. In order to promote the business, Reyes thought of establishing an Outdoor Gallery Museum to ‘add prestige, value, and feature’ (Bautista 2007:117) to the resort. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the NM and Reyes, the former providing information about the archaeology of Calatagan, replicas and photographs of artefacts recovered from the sites. The gallery was inaugurated in March 2007. This outdoor museum is now a popular feature of the resort that makes visitors’ stay more significant because of the history attached to the place.

Other points

Initial excavations in Calatagan from 1934 to 1958, except Janse’s, were not research-driven. Workers constructing an airfield discovered fragments of Chinese porcelains which was a common occurrence among the locals (Cruz 1958; Fox 1959). The owner of the property, Don Enrique Zobel, recognizes the sherds’ importance and contacted the NM. The NM sent Ricardo Galang. Unfortunately, the artefacts recovered by Galang were destroyed during World War II (Fox 1959). In early 1958, amateur diggings initiated by members of the Zobel and McMicking families with the help of locals resulted in widespread looting. They soon realized the cultural and historical potential of the area which originally was part of the Hacienda de Calatagan and owned by the Zobels. It was only in 1957 that sections of the Hacienda were sold to tenants. The 1958 excavations were largely sponsored by the Zobels and McMickings. What started as salvage archaeology and private individuals’ interest in the precolonial past became full scale excavations in 1958 and 1960-61 with the objective to recover human remains and artefacts.

Fox’s interpreted the artefacts as evidence of prehispanic burial traditions but he started without identifying his research questions. It can likewise be seen as salvage archaeology. Fuelled by what were recovered in the 1958 excavations, the 1960-61 excavations were conducted to rescue more archaeological materials. More private individuals donated funds to the excavation which entitled them to a portion of the finds. The Calatagan excavations were generally motivated to save artefacts. It also legalize the acquisition of antiquities by private collectors. Artefacts recovered from systematic excavations by the NM were obviously credible than those dug by pothunters since the former employed scientific recovery techniques. The private collectors perhaps delight in the fact that their collection did not just have aesthetic value but cultural, historical, and archaeological significance. This kind of working relationship which may seemed unacceptable for some has helped in protecting archaeological sites and can also be seen as a form of archaeological resource management (see Paz 2009).

The NM-private individual partnerships generated financial support from wealthy families. These collaborations assisted the growth of private collections. Of different persuasions, both the NM and private collectors were interested in the protection of archaeological resources. As Paz (2009) noted, collectors aspired to know more about the context of their finds that catalogues on collections were published. In 2005, the Lopez Memorial Museum highlighted the historical and cultural significance of the Calatagan artefacts in their collection through an exhibit (Legaspi-Ramirez 2005).

Fox’s team was mainly composed of Filipinos, one of them was the late Alfredo Evangelista who later lead excavations in other parts of the Philippines (Evangelista 2001). The burial sketches were drawn by Filipinos too (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a). Despite the Filipinos’ participation in the excavation, only Fox (1959; Main and Fox 1982) published on the Calatagan finds. It took almost 40 years for Filipino students to be interested in the Calatagan artefacts (Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Bautista 2007). The general lack of publications on Calatagan by Filipinos can be attributed to the fact that there were no formally trained Filipinos at the time of the excavations. The small number of archaeology practitioners from the 1950s-80s were engaged in salvage archaeology or state-sponsored projects on human antiquity. The 15th century burial sites of Calatagan had to wait. Filipino scholars who studied the Calatagan artefacts were among the first batch of graduate students of the UP-ASP (Barretto 2002; Barretto-Tesoro 2008a; Bautista 2007). The Calatagan sites produced high quantities of artefacts that were not completely analysed except for the earthenwares (Main and Fox 1982). Calatagan’s appeal was the fact that they are readily accessible for scholars to study. Revisiting and re-excavating sites and reanalysing artefacts became a trend due to new theoretical frameworks that influenced the re-investigation of Calatagan.

What makes Calatagan exceptional is the extent of the cemeteries along the western coast, the scale of excavations unheard of in the 1950s in the Philippines where Fox introduced standard methods of retrieving and recording, the enormity of the project in terms of sites, artefacts, and burials. The Calatagan excavations defined an era in the history of Philippine archaeology. It was a clear break from the antiquarian approach of the late 1800s until the early 1900s where Philippine archaeological and ethnological materials helped augment the collection of foreign museums i.e. Peabody Museum, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Musée de l’Homme, and National Ethnographic Museum in Leiden. Although Guthe conducted relatively standardized methods the most important was recording the provenience of the artefacts, describing sites, maintaining a field journal, and illustrating artefacts, all collected artefacts were shipped to the University of Michigan. Early foreign practitioners of archaeology saw Philippine materials as objects of curiosities or evidence of external cultures either interacting with local populations or migrating to the Philippines. This was evident in Janse’s interpretation of the Calatagan finds. Fox attempted to understand the Calatagan materials in the context of Philippine prehistory, except the porcelains. Fox’s main interest in the porcelains was their production and distribution in the sites. In terms of the application of technology, the fragmentary conditions of the human skeletal remains recorded by Fox preclude radiocarbon dating. The burials excavated in east coast of Calatagan in the 1990s were radiocarbon dated (Dela Torre 2003).

There are several foreigners who worked on and in Calatagan. Janse was the first foreigner who excavated in Calatagan. Even Solheim excavated for a week in Calatagan (Fox 1959). Although Fox was an American, his institutional affiliation at the time of the excavations from 1958 to 1961 was the NM and his team was primarily composed of Filipinos. Fox later collaborated with Dorothy Main (Main and Fox 1982) to investigate the earthenware vessels. The analysis and dating of the Calatagan Pot was through the assistance of foreign scholars (Dizon 2003b). The 1990s surveys and excavations on the east coast of the peninsula was a joint project between the NM and Japanese archaeologists. The research in Calatagan parallels the history of archaeological research in the Philippines. Previous research was mainly foreign-dominated investigations that transitioned to research supervised and directed by Filipinos.

Early scholars were interpreting the Calatagan finds using diffusion-migration models. They were also interested in the production of the porcelains and earthenware vessels. There was a preoccupation on the classification of porcelains and earthenware pots which was in vogue at that time. Classification is essential in analysing artefacts that may be used as a basis to investigate other aspects of the population who used the artefacts. Considerable attention was given to the manufacturing technology of the ceramics (Main and Fox 1982). Again, these studies are important but questions on identity, ethnicity, status, symbolisms, cosmology, heritage management investigated 40 years after Fox’s excavations were brought about by theoretical developments in archaeology in the west during the early part of the 21st century.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrated the many meanings of the Calatagan materials and excavations because of how agents at various times perceived these objects (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986). Some of the artefacts started as commodities, imported items brought by foreign merchants. Some were household supplies and implements that were locally manufactured. They could also have economic values wherein trade items were tokens shared with trading parties that later became symbolic of status and potency (Barretto-Tesoro 2008c). They were later transformed as mortuary items. The foreign objects were evidence for the long-distance trade with the Philippines. The burials were evidence for the elaborate ancient belief system the Filipinos practised before Spanish colonialisation. The earthenware pots were evidence for the level of craft production. The skeletons might be evidence for past pathology.

The entire Calatagan region is good reason for heritage protection and site management. The Calatagan artefacts became one of the cornerstones for establishing the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library. Don Eugenio Lopez wanted to provide a venue where Filipiniana scholars and researchers have access to his private collection. As the national institution responsible for the custody of the nation’s cultural treasures, the NM has a commitment to the public. Even if the public is not sympathetic to the ideals of the NM, artefacts should be stored in better conditions where archaeological materials will not suffer further deterioration.

This paper has contributed to new perspectives about the Calatagan artefacts. Utilising the biographical approach and tracking the different trajectories of the artefacts enabled us to comprehend how their meanings changed for the people who excavated, examined, possessed, stored, and displayed them. Finally, this paper also advocates for archaeologists in the Philippines to look at innovative ways to navigate the layers of meanings behind the artefacts and sites that otherwise will remain hidden.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the National Museum of the Philippines and the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library for granting access to the Calatagan records and materials during the research. This paper is a revised version of the talk delivered at the Lopez Memorial Museum and Library on 12 July 2008. Thank you to Janine Ochoa and Anna Pineda for their suggestions. Lastly many thanks to the locals of Calatagan who shared their views and opinions on the excavations.

References

Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value.” In The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Bacus, Elisabeth. “Late prehistoric chiefly polities in the Dumaguete-Bacong area and central Philippine Islands.” Philippine Quarterly and Culture and Society 24 (1996): 5-58.

Barretto, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Evaluating status in Philippine prehistory through grave goods.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, 2002.

Barretto-Tesoro, Mary Grace Lualhati. “Social Identities and Earthenware Functions in 15th century AD Philippines.” PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University, 2007.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. Identity and Reciprocity in 15th Century Philippines, BAR International Series 1813. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges Ltd. British Archaeological Reports, 2008a.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Undecorated Calatagan Pots as Active Symbols of Cultural Affiliation.” In Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery, edited by Ina Berg, 35-46. Oxford: Archaeopress (Publishers of British Archaeological Reports), 2008b.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace. “Where are the datu and catalonan in early Philippine societies?: Investigating status in Calatagan.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 36, no. 3 (2008c): 74-102.

Barretto-Tesoro, Grace, Fredeliza Campos, and Anna Pineda. “New Sites in Southeastern Batangas, Philippines. Report on the Survey conducted by the UP-Archaeological Studies Program in 2008.” Arquelogia Iberoamericana 4 (2009): 25-48.

Bautista, G. “The Archaeology of Calatagan, Batangas : An Evaluation for the Enhancement of a Cultural Resource Management Programme in the Locality.” Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, 2007.

Beyer, H. Otley. “Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islands and Provinces.” Philippine Journal of Science 77, no. 3-4 (1947): 205-374.

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

Thinking Through the Objects of Late Precolumbian Ofrendas and Huacas.” Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress, University College Dublin 2008,

(22 January 2009)

Ceramics and Objects Excavated from Calatagan, Batangas. (8 December 2011)

Chang, Kuang-Jen. “Social use and value of trade ceramics in mortuary context from seven late protohistoric Calatagan cemeteries, SW Luzon, the Philippines.” . Paper presented at the 10th EURASEAA Conference at the British Museum, London, 2004.

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

De La Paz, Cecille. “Possibilities and Challenges of Community Museums: The Case of Balay ni Tan Juan in Bago City, Negros Occidental.” In Talk delivered in the Binalot Talks on 5 March 2008. Archaeological Studies Program University of the Philippines, Diliman, 2008.

Dela Torre, Amalia. “Ulilang Bundok: Secondary Jar Burials at Calatagan.” In Pang-alay: Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines, edited by Cynthia Valdes, 29-33. Makati City: Ayala Foundation, Inc in cooperation with the Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines, Inc., 2003.

De La Torre, Amalia A. “The Secondary Burial in Pottery Vessels at Ulilang Bundok Site in Calatagan, Batangas: A Case Study.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 2008.

Dizon, Eusebio Z. “Maguindanao prehistory: focus on the archaeology of the anthropomorphic potteries at Pinol, Maitum of South Cotabato, Mindanao, Philippines.” National Museum Papers 4, no. 1 (1993): 1-21.

Dizon, Eusebio Z. “A decade of archaeological research in the Philippines, 1982-1992.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 22 (1994): 197-222.

Dizon, Eusebio Z. “New Direct Dating of the Human Fossils from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 1 (2003a): 63-67.

Dizon, EZ. “A Second Glance at the Calatagan Pot.” In Pang-alay Ritual Pottery in Ancient Philippines, edited by C. Valdes, 39-42. Makati: Ayala Foundation, Inc and Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines, Inc., 2003b.

Dizon, Eusebio Z., and Armand Salvador B. Mijares. “Archaeological Evidence of a Baranganic Culture in Batanes.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 27, no. 1/2 (1999): 1-10.

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

Evangelista, Alfredo E. Soul Boats: A Filipino Journey of Self-Discovery. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts, 2001.

Faylona, Pamela G. “Situating Calatagan: A place in Philippine (pre)history.” In Maria Taniguchi Grave Findings: A Reclamation Project, edited by Eileen Legaspi-Ramirez, 1-10. Pasig City: Lopez Memorial Museum and Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.

Fox, R.B. “The Calatagan Excavations: Two Fifteenth Century Burial Sites in Batangas, Philippines.” Philippine Studies 7, no. 3 (1959): 325-390.

Fox, Robert B. “Final Report on the Summer Field School in Philippine Archaeology (April 11-June 8, 1961).” Unpublished manuscript. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines, 1961.

Gotuaco, Larry, Rita. Tan, and Allison Diem. Chinese and Vietnamese Blue and White Wares Found in the Philippines. Makati City: Bookmark, Inc., 1997.

Guthe, Carl E. “The University of Michigan Philippine Expedition.” American Anthropologist 29 (1927): 69-76.

Hodder, Ian. Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Hutterer, Karl L. “The Evolution of Philippine Lowland Societies.” Mankind 9, no. 4 (1974): 287-299.

Hutterer, Karl L. “An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast Asian Cultural Sequence.” Current Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1976): 221-242.

Hutterer, Karl L. “Prehistoric Trade and the Evolution of Philippine Societies: A Reconsideration.” In Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives from Prehistory, History and Ethnography, edited by KL Hutterer, 177-194. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The University of Michigan, 1977a.

Hutterer, Karl L., ed. Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, 1977b.

Hutterer, Karl L. “A Balance of Trade: The Social Nature of Late Prehispanic Philippines.” In The Donn V. Hart Southeast Asian Collection. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University, 1985.

Hutterer, Karl L. “Losing Track of the Tribes Evolutionary Sequences in Southeast Asia.” In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by Terry Rambo, and Kathleen Gillogly, 219-245. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1991.

Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Analysis of the Lithic Materials Recovered During the 2000-2001 Archaeological Excavations of Tabon Cave, Palawan Island, Philippines.” KAPI 5 (2007): 24-34.

Jago-on, Sheldon Clyde B. “Technological Analyses of the Lithic Materials from the 2007 Tabon Cave Excavations.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippines Archaeologists 6 (2008): 1-13.

Janse, Olov R.T. “An Archaeological Expedition to Indo-China and the Philippines: Preliminary Report.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6 (1941): 247-267.

Janse, Olov R.T. “Notes on Chinese Influences in the Philippines in Pre-Spanish Times.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8 (1944-1945): 34-62.

Janse, Olov R.T. “Archeology of the Philippine Islands.” Smithsonian Report for 1946 3883 (1947): 345-360.

Junker, Laura Lee. Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1999.

Kanji, Tawara. “The Olov Janse Collection.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 25 (2005): 139-140.

Kopytoff, Igor. “The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process.” In The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Lewis, Helen, Kathleen Johnson, and Wilfredo Ronquillo. “Preliminary Results of Speleothem Dating from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines: Moisture Increase at the Last Glacial Maximum.” Hukay 12 (2007-2008): 35-50.

Locsin, Cecilia Y., Maria Isabel G. Ongpin, and Socorro Paz P. Paterno. A Lemery Archaeological Sequence. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 2008.

Longacre, William A. “Kalinga Pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study.” In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and N Hammond, 49-66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Longacre, William A., Kenneth Kvamme, and Masashi Kobayashi. “Southwestern pottery standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines.” The Kiva 53, no. 2 (1988): 101-112.

Longacre, William A. “Standardization and Specialization: What's the Link?” In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo, and Gary M. Feinman, 44-58. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999.

Longacre, William A. and James M. Skibo, eds. Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1994.

Longacre, William A., Jingfeng Xia, and Tao Yang. “I Want to Buy a Black Pot.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, no. 4 (2000): 273-293.

Main, Dorothy and Robert B. Fox. The Calatagan Earthenwares: A Description of Pottery Complexes Excavated in Batangas Province, Philippines, Monograph No. 5. Manila: National Museum, 1982.

Melendres, Rhayan. “Determination of Oriental Tradeware Ceramics and its Application to the Archaeology of Porac, Pampanga.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of the Philippines, 2008.

Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “Philippine Archaeology in Retrospect.” HUKAY 1.1 (1998): 5-16.

Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Complexity of Pre-Hispanic Ivatan Society.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 3rd Conference, Manila 2003:(68-76).

Mijares, Armand Salvador B. “The Penablanca Flake Tools: An Unchanging Technology?” Hukay 12 (2007-2008): 13-34.

Mijares, Armand Salvador B., Florent Détroit, Philip Piper, Peter Bellwood, Rainer Grün, Maxime Aubert, Nida Cuevas, Alexandra De Leon, and Eusebio Dizon. “New evidence for a 67,000-year-old human presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010): 123-132.

Oropilla, Quintin Fortich. Deciphered secrets : the Calatagan pot : a Philippine national treasure : ancient inscriptions. Quezon City: The Author, 2008.

Paz, Victor. “Advancing Settlement Archaeology Study through Archaeobotany: Preliminary Report.” . Quezon City: University of the Philippines-Archaeological Studies Program, 2003.

Paz, Victor. “A Periodization for a History of Archaeology in the Philippines.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 7 (2009): 1-16.

Peralta, Jesus T. Field Manual in Archaeology. Vol. National Museum, Anthropological Papers No. 1. Manila, 1978.

Peralta, Jesus. Kayamanan: Pottery and Ceramics from the Arturo de Santos Collection. Manila: Central Bank of the Philippines, 1982.

Poulter, Emma Katherine. “Connecting Histories: Gelede masks at the Manchester Museum.” Museological Review, no. 12 (2007): 52-68.

Legaspi-Ramirez, Eileen, ed. Maria Taniguchi Grave Findings: A Reclamation Project. Pasig City: Lopez Memorial Museum and Metrobank Foundation, Inc, 2005.

Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. “Archaeological Research in the Philippines, 1951-1983.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 6 (1985): 74-88.

Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. and Hidefumi Ogawa. “The Calatagan Archaeological Project: A Summary Report.” Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 15 (1996): 133-147.

Salazar, Zeus. Liktao at Epiko: Ang Takip ng Tapayang Libingan ng Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Quezon City: Bagong Kasaysayan, 2004.

Salazar, Zeus. Ang Pilipinong 'Banua'/'Banwa' sa Mundong-Melano Polynesiano. Quezon City: Bagong Kasaysayan, 2005.

Santiago, Alexandra. “Theoretical Development in Philippine Archaeology.” HUKAY 3, no. 2 (2001): 1-26.

Schmidt, Patrick. “Characterisation and Geological Provenance of Jasper that was used for Debitages in the Archaeological Site of Tabon Cave, Philippines.” Hukay 14 (2009): 1-24.

Tiongson, Jaime F. “Translation of the Calatagan Pottery Inscription using Old Tagalog as defined by Pedro de San Buenaventura in 1613. Based on the experimental decipherment of Dr. Ramon Guillermo.” , n.d.

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

29