Ifugao Archaeology

Abstract

The relationship between archaeologists and the communities that they work with has often been tenuous. Establishing a strong rapport with community members can be hampered by relatively short field time, limited interactions between the researchers and the community, and unequal power relations. The relationship further erodes when access and curation of artifacts are restricted, ABSTRACTRecent trends in the practice of archaeology have seen the emergence of the active involvement of stakeholders in the research process. This is an important development, given that the relationship between archaeologists and the communities that they work with has been tenuous, particularly when archaeological findings contest ethnic identities. As a case in point, the findings of the Ifugao Archaeological Project (Philippines) question the bases of Ifugao identity. Ifugao identity is centered on wet-rice production and resistance to colonialism. Previously, the dating of the inception of the Ifugao rice terraces was placed at 2,000 years ago. The findings of the Ifugao Archaeological Project (IAP), however, suggest that the construction of the terraces coincided with the arrival of the Spanish in the northern Philippines. Initially, this finding did not sit well the larger Ifugao descendant communities, but, as our article narrates, the pursuit to actively involve stakeholders in the research process resolved this issue. Our experience in Ifugao has shown that the inclusion of the voices of stakeholders in the interpretation of the past is inadequate because it suggests that indigenous stakeholders are simply contributors to, and not co-investigators of, research projects. As our work in Ifugao demonstrates, primary stakeholders are now co-investigators (exemplified by this coauthored article).Una tendencia reciente en la práctica arqueológica es la participación activa de las comunidades de descendientes en el proceso de investigación. Esto representa un desarrollo importante, ya que la relación entre los arqueólogos y las comunidades con las que trabajan ha sido endeble, particularmente cuando los hallazgos arqueológicos tienen el potencial de poner en tela de juicio las identidades étnicas de estas mismas comunidades. Un ejemplo de ello son los descubrimientos del Proyecto Arqueológico Ifugao (IAP por sus siglas en inglés) los cuales nos obligan a repensar la historia y la manera en que los habitantes de Ifugao, Filipinas, se conciben en relación a la manera en que han sido presentados en la narrativa histórica filipina. La identidad de los habitantes de Ifugao está basada en la producción de arroz anegado y en la narrativa histórica que destaca el hecho de que los españoles nunca los colonizaron. Anteriormente se consideraba que las primeras terrazas de arroz fueron construidas hace 2,000 o 3,000 años. Sin embargo, los hallazgos del IAP sugieren que las terrazas se establecieron en una época más tardía que coincide con la llegada de los españoles al norte de Filipinas. Inicialmente, estos descubrimientos no fueron bien rec...

Older Is Not Necessarily Better: Decolonizing Ifugao History through the Archaeology of the Rice Terraces

“…Furthermore, it provides a model for other archaeological endeavors worldwide, advocating for a collaborative approach that respects and utilizes the knowledge embedded within local communities. As a result, such a confluence of perspectives not only deepens historical understanding but also empowers the descendant communities by centering their voices in the narratives of their own past [6,14].…”

Archaeology in the classroom: A perspective from Kiangan, Ifugao, Philippines | Arkiyoloji sa silid-aralan: Isang pananaw mula sa Kiangan, Ifugao

“…The definition encompasses two main groups: the first is associated with "the state and its institutions", such as museums and archaeological parks, and the second refers to "the active citizen" -the visitor of those institutions and the everyday-citizen (Merriman 2004: 1-4). Many archaeologists have engaged themselves in the latter concept, and situated their practice of archaeology (and in so doing, the archaeological sites) within current social, political, and economic contexts, such as cultural heritage management (Warner and Baldwin 2004;Shackel 2004), museums and education (Moyer 2004;Lea 2000;Kwas 2000), indigenous rights and representations (Brink 2002;Reeves 2004;Lucas 2004; Martin and Acabado 2015; Reetz and Quackenbush 2016;Acabado et al 2017), heritage tourism (Shoocongdej 2011;Abu-Khafajah 2011;Hoffman et al 2002), public engagement and outreach (McClung de Tapia 2002;Chiarulli 2016;Kowalczyk 2016), and formal education and curriculum (Smardz and Smith 2000;Ducady et al 2016;Henderson and Levstik 2016;Moe 2016;Ellick 2016).…”

Root Seeking and Remote Sensing with the Bunun in the Mountains of Taiwan

“…Indigenous archaeology has been enriched in practice by archaeologists working in regions around the world (Watkins and Nicholas 2014), and when referred to as Indigenous archaeologies, celebrates its multiplicity across regions and subjects (Atalay 2008). Recently, collaborative and Indigenous archaeology has been advocated and practiced in East and Southeast Asia (e.g., Acabado 2020; Acabado and Martin 2020; Acabado et al 2017; Ang et al 2020; Heng et al 2020; Stark 2020; Watkins 2014).…”