Defining Ifugao Social Organization: “House,” Field, and Self-Organizing Principles in the Northern Philippines

Abstract

The idea that complex agricultural and irrigation systems lead to centralized control has been refuted in the last three decades. Indeed, ethnographic and archaeological literatures regarding this relationship have been forthcoming in recent years. This article contributes to this body of work by investigating the Ifugao agricultural system. Spatial patterning and ethnographic information from Ifugao suggest that a recursive relationship between the landscape and its users exist where environmental constraints necessitate cooperation among terraced rice field systems. Correlated to this discussion, this article examines the applicability of the “house” concept in defining Ifugao social organization. Results of my ethnographic investigations suggest that the house concept complements kinship analysis, and thus, contributes to a better understanding of Ifugao social relationships. Moreover, this article argues that the agricultural field becomes the node of Ifugao social relationships. In this sense, the agricultural field becomes an emergent property that defines Ifugao social organization. This study provides archaeologists with a model to investigate the precolonial social structure of the Ifugao.

A quiet harvest: linkage between ritual, seed selection and the historical use of the finger-bladed knife as a traditional plant breeding tool in Ifugao, Philippines

“…Inheritance of property, conflict resolution and decisions regarding agriculture, follows a primogeniture birth order ([5, 6]: 5). This inheritance rule allows both for the terraces and other agricultural land and private forests to remain undivided, and for rituals which emphasize Ifugao ancestor veneration to establish a clear connection between the living and the dead [6]. Ifugao live primarily in “hamlets” composed of families with terraces in the same vicinity, bound together by either kinship or common ecological concerns.…”

“…Ifugao live primarily in “hamlets” composed of families with terraces in the same vicinity, bound together by either kinship or common ecological concerns. Several dozen hamlets comprise an average “district”, each with or led by a tomona , the ritual leader who makes all district-wide agricultural decisions ([5, 6]: 6). The tomona owns a centrally located rice field, which is traditionally the first to be planted and harvested, and manages the property of this ritual field; in particular, the rice gods ( būl-uls ) and basket reliquary ( panu’būngan ) ([5]: 6).…”

“…Borrowing from the “house” concept of social organization [6–8] argues that the ritual agricultural field ( puntonaan ) acts as the central, connecting point of Ifugao social relationships and indeed becomes an emergent property that defines Ifugao social organization. The Ifugao have continuously grown rice in an intricate series of terraces for hundreds of years.…”

“…The Ifugao have continuously grown rice in an intricate series of terraces for hundreds of years. The increased expansion of terraces throughout the Cordillera Region of the Philippines resulted in ever-greater demands on soil, land, and water resources, leading to a “self-organization” model of social organization, where increased resource pressures led villagers within adjoining settlements to share labor and limited natural resources such as ponded terraces, land for shifting cultivation and forest resources, and water [6]. This cooperative, self-organization is evident in the synchronization of various labor-intensive agricultural activities of communities within a watershed for activities including planting, weeding, pest control, irrigation, and harvest ([5, 6]: 1–39).…”

The Sacred and the Secular: Practical Applications of Water Rituals in the Ifugao Agricultural System

“…The system also illustrates the complementary nature of swidden fields, forest cover, and irrigated terraces (Acabado 2013a). Swidden fields and communal 2 forests are considered commons property, while irrigated terraces and forest cover on top of a terrace system is considered private property.…”