II. Method and Theory in Cultural Anthropology.

Having covered the main subject matter and unifying concepts of cultural
anthropology, we must now turn to the more specific issues of how anthropologists
record and represent cultural data and use them to address theoretical issues.
Anthropology is a science and, as such, must deal with both the objective collection
and recording of empirical data and the treatment of their findings in terms of an
explanatory system.

Ethnography is the process of recording and describing a culture of a specific

people, such as the Dani, and its traits, patterns, and principles of coherent
integration. Anthropologists produce ethnography on the basis of firsthand field
observation of the people who are being studied.
Ethnology covers the theoretical aspect of anthropology. Ethnologists ascertain
how cultures differ or exhibit similarities through comparison and
generalization, suggest reasons for cross cultural regularities observed, and use
these explana tory inferences to formulate new research hypotheses.

Ethnography and ethnology are interrelated in a complex fashion. Deductive scientific

method dictates that research must be organized to address a theoretical hypothesis
that is derived from prior reasoning. This requirement creates an anthropological d
ilemma, however, since an ethnographer must understand his/her observations in
terms of their meanings within a particular cultural context, which may substantially
depart from theoretical system chosen for interpretation. There are accordingly two
ethno graphic styles:

1. the deductive, or problem oriented, approach, which narrows investigation in

terms of issues and principles identified as significant within anthropological
theory
2. the inductive approach, which identifies research problems and builds
explanation from the field experience per se, and Inductive approaches have
been more characteristic of the older schools of anthropology that developed
between the start of the century and World War II. They have resulted in fairly
general ethnographic descriptions. Problem oriented approaches are ty pical of
current anthropological research and tend to focus on specialized subject
matter, such as subsistence techniques, economic transactions, or religious
rituals. Anthropologists must still take general ethnography and local meaning
systems into acc ount, however, and must be open to modifying their research
directions and theoretical assumptions if they prove inapplicable or
problematic.
3.
Prehistory of the Philippines
The prehistory of the Philippines covers the events prior to the written history of what is now
the Philippines. The current demarcation between this period and the Early history of the
Philippines is 21 April 900, which is the equivalent on the Proleptic Gregorian calendar for the
date indicated on the Laguna Copperplate Inscriptionthe earliest known surviving written
record to come from the Philippines. This period saw the immense change that took hold of the
archipelago from Stone Age cultures in the fourth century, continuing on with the gradual
widening of trade until 900 and the first surviving written records.

Stone Age (c. 50,000 - c. 500 BC)[edit]

The first evidence of the systematic use of Stone Age technology in the Philippines is estimated to
50,000 BC,[1] and this phase in the development of proto-Philippine societies is considered to end
with the rise of metal tools in about 500 BC, albeit with stone tools still used past that
date.[2] Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano refers to the earliest noticeable stage in the
development of proto-Philippine societies as the Formative Phase.[3] He also identified stone tools
and ceramic manufacture as the two core industries that defined the period's economic activity, and
which shaped the means by which early Filipinos adapted to their environment during this period.[1]
By about 30,000 BC, the Negritos, who became the ancestors of today's aboriginal Filipinos (such as
the Aeta), probably lived in the archipelago. No evidence has survived which would indicate details
of ancient Filipino life such as their crops, culture, and architecture. Historian William Henry Scott
noted any theory which describes such details for the period must be pure hypothesis, and thus be
honestly presented as such.[4]

Callao Man (c. 67,000 BC)[edit]

Main article: Callao Man

The earliest known human remains in the Philippines are the fossilised remains discovered in 2007
in the Callao Caves in Cagayan. The 67,000-year-old find predates the 47,000-year-old Tabon Man,
which was until then the earliest known set of human remains in the archipelago. The find consisted
of a single 61 millimeter metatarsal which, when dated using uranium series ablation, was found to
be its current age. If definitively proven to be remains of Homo sapiens, it would also be one of the
oldest human remains in the Asia-Pacific.[5][6][7][8]

Tabon Man (c. 24,000 or 22,000 BC)[edit]

Main article: Tabon Man
Fossilized fragments of a skull and jawbone of three individuals had been discovered on May 28,
1962 by Dr. Robert B. Fox, an American anthropologist of the National Museum.[9] These fragments
are collectively called "Tabon Man" after the place where they were found on the west coast
of Palawan. Tabon Cave appears to be a kind of a Stone Age factory, with both finished stone flake
tools and waste core flakes having been found at four separate levels in the main chamber.
Charcoal left from three assemblages of cooking fires there has been Carbon-14 dated to roughly
7,000, 20,000, and 22,000 BC.[10] (In Mindanao, the existence and importance of these prehistoric
tools was noted by famed Jos Rizal himself, because of his acquaintance
with Spanish and German scientific archaeologists in the 1880s, while in Europe.)[citation needed]
Tabon Cave is named after the "Tabon bird" (Tabon scrubfowl, Megapodius cumingii), which
deposited thick hard layers of guano during the period when the cave was still uninhabited, resulting
to a cement-like floor made of bird dung where three succeeding groups of tool-makers settled. It is
indicated that about half of the 3,000 specimens recovered from the cave are discarded cores of a
material which had to be transported from some distance. The Tabon man fossils are considered to
have come from the third group of inhabitants who inhabited the cave between 22,000 and 20,000
BC. An earlier cave level lies so far below the level containing cooking fire assemblages that it must
represent Upper Pleistocene dates from 45 or 50 thousand years ago.[10]
Physical anthropologists who have examined the Tabon Man skullcap have agreed that it belonged
to a modern man (Homo sapiens), as distinguished from the mid-Pleistocene Homo erectus species.
This indicates that Tabon Man was Pre-Mongoloid (Mongoloid being the term anthropologists apply
to the racial stock which entered Southeast Asia during the Holocene and absorbed earlier peoples
to produce the modern Malay, Indonesian, Filipino, and "Pacific" peoples). Two experts have given
the opinion that the mandible is "Australian" in physical type, and that the skullcap measurements
are most nearly like the Ainus or Tasmanians. Nothing can be concluded about Tabon man's
physical appearance from the recovered skull fragments except that he was not a Negrito.[11]
The custom of Jar Burial, which ranges from Sri Lanka, to the Plain of Jars, in Laos, to Japan, also
was practiced in the Tabon caves. A spectacular example of a secondary burial jar is owned by the
National Museum, a National Treasure, with a jar lid topped with two figures, one the deceased,
arms crossed, hands touching the shoulders, the other a steersman, both seated in a proa, with only
the mast missing from the piece. Secondary burial was practiced across all the islands of the
Philippines during this period, with the bones reburied, some in the burial jars. Seventy-eight
earthenware vessels were recovered from the Manunggul cave, Palawan, specifically for burial.

Stone Age (c. 50,000 - c. 500 BC)[edit]

The first evidence of the systematic use of Stone Age technology in the Philippines is estimated to
50,000 BC,[1] and this phase in the development of proto-Philippine societies is considered to end
with the rise of metal tools in about 500 BC, albeit with stone tools still used past that
date.[2] Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano refers to the earliest noticeable stage in the
development of proto-Philippine societies as the Formative Phase.[3] He also identified stone tools
and ceramic manufacture as the two core industries that defined the period's economic activity, and
which shaped the means by which early Filipinos adapted to their environment during this period.[1]
By about 30,000 BC, the Negritos, who became the ancestors of today's aboriginal Filipinos (such as
the Aeta), probably lived in the archipelago. No evidence has survived which would indicate details
of ancient Filipino life such as their crops, culture, and architecture. Historian William Henry Scott
noted any theory which describes such details for the period must be pure hypothesis, and thus be
honestly presented as such.[4]

Callao Man (c. 67,000 BC)[edit]

Main article: Callao Man

The earliest known human remains in the Philippines are the fossilised remains discovered in 2007
in the Callao Caves in Cagayan. The 67,000-year-old find predates the 47,000-year-old Tabon Man,
which was until then the earliest known set of human remains in the archipelago. The find consisted
of a single 61 millimeter metatarsal which, when dated using uranium series ablation, was found to
be its current age. If definitively proven to be remains of Homo sapiens, it would also be one of the
oldest human remains in the Asia-Pacific.[5][6][7][8]

Tabon Man (c. 24,000 or 22,000 BC)[edit]

Main article: Tabon Man
Fossilized fragments of a skull and jawbone of three individuals had been discovered on May 28,
1962 by Dr. Robert B. Fox, an American anthropologist of the National Museum.[9] These fragments
are collectively called "Tabon Man" after the place where they were found on the west coast
of Palawan. Tabon Cave appears to be a kind of a Stone Age factory, with both finished stone flake
tools and waste core flakes having been found at four separate levels in the main chamber.
Charcoal left from three assemblages of cooking fires there has been Carbon-14 dated to roughly
7,000, 20,000, and 22,000 BC.[10] (In Mindanao, the existence and importance of these prehistoric
tools was noted by famed Jos Rizal himself, because of his acquaintance
with Spanish and German scientific archaeologists in the 1880s, while in Europe.)[citation needed]
Tabon Cave is named after the "Tabon bird" (Tabon scrubfowl, Megapodius cumingii), which
deposited thick hard layers of guano during the period when the cave was still uninhabited, resulting
to a cement-like floor made of bird dung where three succeeding groups of tool-makers settled. It is
indicated that about half of the 3,000 specimens recovered from the cave are discarded cores of a
material which had to be transported from some distance. The Tabon man fossils are considered to
have come from the third group of inhabitants who inhabited the cave between 22,000 and 20,000
BC. An earlier cave level lies so far below the level containing cooking fire assemblages that it must
represent Upper Pleistocene dates from 45 or 50 thousand years ago.[10]
Physical anthropologists who have examined the Tabon Man skullcap have agreed that it belonged
to a modern man (Homo sapiens), as distinguished from the mid-Pleistocene Homo erectus species.
This indicates that Tabon Man was Pre-Mongoloid (Mongoloid being the term anthropologists apply
to the racial stock which entered Southeast Asia during the Holocene and absorbed earlier peoples
to produce the modern Malay, Indonesian, Filipino, and "Pacific" peoples). Two experts have given
the opinion that the mandible is "Australian" in physical type, and that the skullcap measurements
are most nearly like the Ainus or Tasmanians. Nothing can be concluded about Tabon man's
physical appearance from the recovered skull fragments except that he was not a Negrito.[11]
The custom of Jar Burial, which ranges from Sri Lanka, to the Plain of Jars, in Laos, to Japan, also
was practiced in the Tabon caves. A spectacular example of a secondary burial jar is owned by the
National Museum, a National Treasure, with a jar lid topped with two figures, one the deceased,
arms crossed, hands touching the shoulders, the other a steersman, both seated in a proa, with only
the mast missing from the piece. Secondary burial was practiced across all the islands of the
Philippines during this period, with the bones reburied, some in the burial jars. Seventy-eight
earthenware vessels were recovered from the Manunggul cave, Palawan, specifically for burial.