RESPONDE, Leomark C. Feb.

28, 2013
2010-36560
ARKI 1 THY
The Filipino Pottery and Societal Complexity

Inside one of the exhibits of the “The Treasures of San Diego” in the Museum of the
Filipino People, before one can see the treasures being referred to, there is a sub-exhibit titled
“Philippine Pre-Historic Pottery” that showcases several pottery items of Philippine origin from
the local Metal Age (500 BC- 500 AD), probably salvaged from the wreck site. The description
says that, “[m]aterials found in many archeological sites indicate a period of time that go beyond
the recorded history of the Philippines, suggesting the antiquity of the art of pottery in his
country.” It then ends with the conclusion that, “[t]he presence of pottery implies the existence of
a highly complex technology corresponding to the complexity in structure and organization of
the society.”
However, can it really be justified that a mere presence of pottery in a society would do
so easily signify „complexity in structure and organization‟ of a society or could it just be that
pottery is as practical as carving wood that it could not easily be evidence to societal
arrangement? And could it be true that such mere presence of pottery may also say much about
technological development as to label our forefathers as having a „highly complex technology‟?
Looking at the „baked‟ relics of the past, will they refute or will they agree.
One of the first samples is a “presentation tray with high pedestal” from the Metal Age.
Found in Palawan, it is noted for having a particular purpose and vertical cuts design on the
neck. The next one is the “Ovaloid vessel with two ears” which has aesthetic appeal due to the
incised designs forming diamond cells. The third is a replica of the popular Manunggul jar from
Palawan. The Manunggul jar, in contrast to the first two is a burial vessel elaborately designed
with impressions on its lid and neck area. It is also topped by a cover with a representation of
early belief in afterlife. Coming from the Late Neolithic, it is in no doubt evidence that the early
Philippine inhabitants have already formed a belief system concerning their deaths.
However, mere belief systems in no way suggest relative advancement of technology or
organization of society. The figure of the boat may suggest water transportation as already an
integral part of society during that period, specifically in Palawan, and the boatman may hint that
perhaps there is some form of early livelihood classes differing in terms of skills and particular
trade. This perhaps could be a significant attribution to the claim of the organization of the Metal
Age societies.
In contrast to our ancestral artifacts, the next set of relics contains ceramics from China,
including the “[b]lue and white ewer ” from the late 15th century covered with floral designs, the
“[e]wer Chingpai white ware” of the late 12th century, and the ”[e]wer painted with iron brown
design” created between the late 11th and 12th century. These pieces are unparalleled by any
Filipino clay craft. Even though the ceramics themselves were crafted during the 11 th century, we
have claims that the Chinese were already trading with the country centuries before that period
and yet our forefathers did not adapt to the new technology of ceramics not even until the
Spaniards came. Maybe the trade was economically one-sided, with the Chinese acquiring much
more valuable goods than what they bartered. Imagine porcelain being traded for a single clay
pot, which is very unlikely.

Looking at the wrecks of several trading vessels, majority contains a lot of clay pots and
jars than porcelain. If the claim that the society during the metal age was complex in
organization, why is it that our technology didn‟t adapt quickly enough from hundreds of years
of trading with foreign nations? If the time that has elapsed since trading began extended to such
a long span it should already be presumed that the foreign traders have already formed some
form of acquaintance with the Philippine tribes, therefore shouldn‟t it be that if there was a form
of structured authorities in the Philippine Metal Age societies, then these people could have
mandated the borrowing of this technology from the foreign traders? Why wouldn‟t the former
decree their artisans to recreate the white glazed vessels of the Chinese? Why is it that in all of
those years our ancestors only managed to acquire influences in design and not the process of
making ceramics? Maybe there were really no structured societies in most of the Philippine
archipelago at the time the Chinese came. Maybe the Chinese were trading with scattered forest
tribes with no knowledge of their own brother tribes in their region and without much complex
structure of society.
Based on the advancement of the pottery technology in the years following the Metal
Age, the claim that the intricacy of designs reflects the society‟s complexity is in the farthest
probability; tribal chieftainship could be the highest form of structure in this case. It is even a
fact that there is little evidence to support that our Metal Age societies are really in the age of
harnessing metals as described in the sub-exhibit of the Philippine Metal Age, “[…] there is still
insufficient evidence pointing to the actual mining and manufacture of metal in the Philippines.
Many of the metals discovered in the Philippines are a result of trade.”
Claiming that the technology and society of our Metal Age is already complex is not
clearly reflected in our potteries due to the fact that most of our technology on this craft is far
more primitive, advancing only in the aesthetics, the remaining aspects almost static. Even our
metal crafts do not equal that of our neighboring nations, except maybe of the early sultanates in
Mindanao and Sulu which were clearly advanced in jewelry making, however they were only
much established during the 15th century, long past the end of our Metal Age.
The reality that our potteries went generally idle for so long could be attributed to the fact
that our forefathers were not really focused on the practical use of the said craft, but rather on the
ritualistic significance of it. As showcased on the “Kaban ng Lahi” exhibit, majority of the
intricate potteries were used for burials and other rituals. Others unfortunately are still
historically blank, like the Masoso jars, one can only guess that it could be a container for some
kind of beverage, maybe milk as attributed by the mammary designs, but that is still up to
archeologists to speculate. There is also the Manunggul jar, and a lot of other potteries with
anthropomorphic characteristics such as, arms as handles, lid covering as human heads, and even
whole upper torsos in clay etc… Clearly these are signs of advance aestheticism among the early
potters, and yet this is the farthest our ancestors could go, clearly not much of relative
advancement.
So what can we conclude from the pottery of our ancestors? More or less it can be
summed up to two things, that one: our ancestors gave significant amount of their lives devoted
to their beliefs and religion, i.e. agricultural rituals, death ceremonies etc…; second: our Metal
Age societies were not as complex and as advance relative to the general south-east Asian
context of that period. With these conclusions one can generalize that the advancement of our
pottery is impeded by the social relevance of the craft to our ancestors. Unlike the Chinese
whose mindset was to trade and to live comfortably, thus advancing in pottery, our ancient
societies crafted earthenware generally for the welfare of their dead on the spiritual realm and for
the use of it during the occasional invocation of deities for the betterment of living.

Sources:
1. Museum of the Filipino People artifacts and their descriptions.
2. http://www.nationalmuseum.gov.ph/nationalmuseumbeta/Museums%20and%20Branches/

Filipino.html. Retrieved February 26, 2013

3. http://www.ehow.com/info_10012529_pottery-connect-development-civilization.html.
Retrieved February 26, 2013
4. http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?igm=4&i=232.
Retrieved February 26, 2013.