ENRICHING CULTURAL HERITAGE: TEACHING LOCAL

HISTORY THROUGH ARCHAEOLOGY

IN KIANGAN, IFUGAO, PHILIPPINES

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF
MASTER OF ARTS

IN
ANTHROPOLOGY
APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY TRACK

July 2017
By
Charmaine P. Ledesma

Graduate Committee:
Dr. Miriam Stark, Chairperson
Dr. James Bayman
Dr. Pia Arboleda
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 4
Project Summary ...................................................................................................... 5
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6
Paper organization ................................................................................................................. 12
II. PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND PLACE-BASED EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW
14
Public archaeology ................................................................................................................ 14
Archaeology and formal education ...................................................................................... 15
Curriculum design and development .............................................................................. 17
Place-based education ......................................................................................................... 20
III. BACKGROUND TO IFUGAO CASE STUDY ................................................... 22
Philippine archaeology chronology ..................................................................................... 22
Archaeology of Old Kiyyangan Village ............................................................................ 27
Central Findings ................................................................................................................. 28
IV. METHODS: DEVELOPMENT OF OLD KIYYANGAN VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGY
MODULES ................................................................................................................ 31
Phase I: Front-end evaluation .............................................................................................. 33
Phase II: Creating the modules ........................................................................................... 35
Module organization .......................................................................................................... 36
Archaeology activity ........................................................................................................... 38
Phase III: Practice run and formative evaluation ............................................................... 40
Phase IV: Revision ................................................................................................................ 41
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS FROM THE FIELD ....... 42
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A: Front-end evaluations ...................................................................... 55
Appendix B: Araling Panlipunan learning objectives ......................................... 57
Appendix C: Araling Panlipunan (AP) teacher’s manual .................................... 60
Appendix D: Formative evaluation (Survey results) ........................................... 63
Appendix E: Old Kiyyangan Village archaeology manual .................................. 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of Ifugao, Philippines. Source: Wikimedia ....................................................... 7

Figure 2 St. Joseph School senior students receiving mapping instructions from
Charmaine Ledesma in Acabado, Martin, and Lauer 2012: 16 .................................... 8
Figure 3 Political boundary of Kiangan, Ifugao, Philippines. ................................................. 9
Figure 4 Batad rice terraces, Ifugao, Philippines, UNESCO World Heritage Site ............ 10
Figure 6 Archaeological sites mentioned in this section ...................................................... 26
Figure 7 Activity kits for Module One archaeology activity: What our artifacts say about
us .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 8 Module Two archaeology activity: Understanding soil stratigraphy in

2

 archaeology ........................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 9 Module Three archaeology activity: Site on floor .................................................. 40

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Timeline of 2015 and 2016 field work in Kiangan, Ifugao ...................................... 32
Table 2 Combined averages of both grade levels (63 students). ....................................... 33
Table 3 Grade V (37 students) ................................................................................................ 34
Table 4 Grade VI (26 students) ............................................................................................... 34
Table 5. Summary of module organization ............................................................................ 37

3

Acknowledgements
This capstone project would not have been possible if not for the approval, support, encouragement, and
cooperation of many people. My gratitude goes out to all of them:

To the Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement (SITMo), especially to Marlon Martin, chief operating officer. -
a million thanks for the guidance and for the numerous teaching moments.

To the teachers of Kiangan Central Elementary School (KCS) for welcoming me into their classrooms:
current KCS principal Madam Joyce Dulnuan, Former KCS principal Madam Jovita Namingit, Madam
Jennifer Dulnuan (Grade V, KCS), Madam Cecilia Cabana (Grade VI, KCS), and Madam Isabel Galeon
(Grade III, KCS). To Madam Jennifer and Madam Cecilia, who were very generous with their thoughts,
patience, and time. They were most encouraging and inspiring in and outside the classroom.

To Vanessa “Bugan” Pineda, who accompanied me in the preliminaries of my fieldwork. As an elementary

teacher and SITMo volunteer, her input was valuable in design and assessment of the archaeology
modules. Also to Marian Reyes (National Museum of the Philippines), Marie Antoinette Sioco and Llenel
de Castro (University of the Philippines Diliman - Archaeological Studies Program), and Edson Holman
(SITMo) for assisting in the classroom activities during my fieldwork in 2016.

To Dr. Stephen Acabado and Dr. Adam Lauer for their comments and suggestions during the
development stages of the capstone project. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a part of the
Ifugao Archaeological Project (IAP). Both have inspired so many of my interests in archaeology since my
undergraduate days. I don’t think there’s enough beer to fill how much I owe you both.

To my graduate committee in the Applied Archaeology program of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, they
were the most supportive and most encouraging. To Dr. Pia Arboleda, who taught me that translation is
an art that requires mastery of the languages and their nuances. She inspired me to polish up my rusty
Tagalog speaking and writing ability. To Dr. James Bayman, who kept me to the core of archaeological
research, and equipped me with skills not just for the study of the discipline, but also working in the field
with non-archaeological communities and other colleagues. And finally, to my graduate advisor and
committee chair, Dr. Miriam Stark, who is the epitome of what a mentor should be. Her confidence never
wavered, even when I was sometimes overcome by self-doubt especially during the initial phases of my
fieldwork and writing.

Support comes in many forms: To Terry Bennett for being the best uncle and most patient proofreader; to
my East-West Center-Hale Mānoa ohana who always have my back; and to my family, my unapologetic
cheerleaders and very first teachers.

And finally, to the most energetic and most enthusiastic elementary students I have ever met. They made
me appreciate all the teachers I’ve had from kindergarten to graduate school. Thank you for keeping me
on my toes. I learned as much as they did during my class visits, probably a lot more.

In so many ways, Ifugao and the Old Kiyyangan Village have been foundational in my academic and
professional growth. I developed my love of archaeology when I joined the Ifugao Archaeological Project
in 2012. This 2015-2016 capstone project is a way of giving back what I learned in Ifugao. I hope this
could be of use in some small way or another.

This project was funded by the Corky Trinidad endowment scholarship from the Center for Philippine
Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the UH-Manoa Graduate Student Organization travel grant,
and the East-West Center Summer travel grant.

Project Summary

How can archaeology enhance public knowledge of local history in a community? This report

explores this question in an elementary social studies classroom in Kiangan, Ifugao, Philippines, where

recent archaeological excavations have taken place. The project’s main objective was to develop

archaeology modules on Ifugao culture history to supplement elementary social studies teachers’

classroom lectures. These modules incorporated excavation results, basic archaeological knowledge,

and Ifugao history into Grade V social studies curriculum (Araling Panlipunan). The project looks at

place-based education as the teaching approach to cultivate students’ connection to their hometown, and

encourage cultural awareness and heritage appreciation. The project also worked with elementary school

teachers and the indigenous NGO, Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement (SITMo), in the design and

development of these modules.

The Ifugao have created cultural heritage initiatives in the past to revitalize traditional knowledge.

These actions were mostly done in response to the standardized national curriculum in the Philippine

public education system that lacks in-depth regional histories, and the increasing tourism activities in

UNESCO-recognized sites in the province. Non-government organizations (i.e.,SITMo) and local

government institutions (i.e., Ifugao State University) in partnerships with village elders, local farmers, and

businesses mainly carried out these efforts. Some initiatives are also found in elementary and secondary

schools’ extracurricular activities. These outstanding local programs mainly focus on promoting traditional

customs and practices (i.e., rice harvesting and planting rituals, weaving, woodcarving, terrace walls and

traditional house building, and cultural performances) or the occasional fieldtrips to the local museum.

Recent archaeological excavation result in Ifugao contributes to this revitalization of Ifugao knowledge by

providing a more holistic background of Ifugao’s past. Archaeology, as an applied approach, uses

archaeological data, concepts, and methodology to engage elementary school students in learning about

history.

5

I. INTRODUCTION

Transformations in the practice and ethics of archaeology suggest ways in which we have

expanded our academic purview to reach broader communities, including those who host us during our

work. Archaeological knowledge has contributed immensely to a broad range of academic literature,

which has helped shape people’s understanding of the past and the basis of their social identities

(Matsuda and Okamura 2011: 1). Archaeological research has also directly and indirectly affected the

communities living within or near archaeological sites. These connections have strengthened

archaeology’s relationship with the public, and yet many still recognize a disconnect between

archaeologists and the communities within which they work (Matsuda and Okamura 2011; Skeates,

McDavid, and Carman 2012; Shackel and Chambers 2004; Merriman 2004). Kantner (2002: 2), in his

editorial comment in the Society for American Archaeology’s Archaeological Record’s special issue on

public outreach, acknowledged that “archaeology has always had a public relations problem”. Matsuda

and Okamura (2011), in their introductory chapter in New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology,

echo this sentiment as well, adding that the public aspect of archaeology has long been overlooked and

considered irrelevant. Archaeologists have taken great strides to change this predicament. Since the

problem has come to light, the sub-discipline has built its own corpus of literature addressing both theory

and practice, and its range of interdisciplinary studies (Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015; Ellick

2002).

Archaeology education is one way of bridging this gap. As a form of public archaeology, it

harnesses the disciplines of archaeology and education to draw connections between people, place, and

the archaeological record. This makes archaeology more relevant, especially to descendant and local

communities. This, in effect, also inspires people to take pride and responsibility in the heritage of a place,

and become stewards of their history.

This capstone project reports on an archaeology education project conducted in one of the public

elementary schools in Kiangan, Ifugao, Philippines (Figure 1). The goal of this project was to create

archaeology classroom materials that complement the early Philippine history content of the Department

of Education’s Grade V-level social studies curriculum, Araling Panlipunan (AP). Guided by previous

works of public archaeologists and archaeology educators, the project collaborated with schoolteachers

6

and Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement (a local NGO) to incorporate Kiangan archaeological data, basic

archaeological concepts, and Ifugao culture history into the classroom modules. As a result, the project

provided a local context of early Filipino society for Ifugao students – something that is not highlighted in

the regional social studies curricula throughout the country. It also contributed teaching materials that

enhanced prehistory lessons, and worked toward a goal of providing students a deeper appreciation and

understanding of early Philippine history. Utilizing a place-based concept of teaching, the project develops

the Ifugao archaeology modules within the local history, specifically meant for Ifugao students. This report

describes the rationale and process of developing the Ifugao archaeology modules. It also provides the

finished product of this project – an archaeology teacher’s manual of Old Kiyyangan Village.

Figure 1 Map of Ifugao, Philippines. Source: Wikimedia

My introduction to public archaeology goes back in 2012 and 2013 during the initial archaeological

excavation seasons of the Ifugao Archaeological Project (IAP) in Kiangan, Ifugao. The IAP was a

comprehensive study of the past Ifugao cultural landscape concerning highland responses to climate

change, shifts in subsistence patterns, and agricultural intensification (Acabado 2012, 2013). Throughout

7

those field schools, what captured my attention was IAP’s relationship with the Save the Ifugao Terraces

Movement (SITMo), and their commitment to community involvement and public outreach in Kiangan

(Acabado, Martin, and Lauer 2014). Those summers left an indelible impression on my perception of

conducting archaeological research and archaeology’s role in heritage preservation.

As an IAP student, I learned not only about archaeological field methods and techniques, but I

also witnessed community consultations, acted as a guide to Ifugao students visiting the site (Figure 2),

and participated in post-excavation presentations in the community. The last activity was one of the most

significant experiences of the field school. It was during this time that we presented our raw data to the

public, giving them short but informative presentations of different aspects of our excavation, such as

Ifugao origin mythology, past flora and fauna, and the excavated artifacts. These presentations created a

dialogue between the archaeologists and the community. We not only gained insight into the general

consensus of the community about our excavations, but also engaged their thoughts regarding their

culture and history. During these meetings, the community was also able to get a first-hand look at the

excavated cultural materials and interact with them. One of the most enthusiastic and interested groups in

the audience were the students, who were eager to ask us questions about archaeology and the Old

Kiyyangan Village. I returned in the summer of 2016 to Kiangan as a graduate student in applied

archaeology inspired by my previous experiences and field training. This capstone project takes the IAP

outreach activities further, explores ways archaeology enriches social studies classes, and teaches

students about their local history.

Figure 2 St. Joseph School senior students receiving mapping instructions from Charmaine Ledesma in
Acabado, Martin, and Lauer 2012: 16

8


Ifugao is a landlocked watershed province in the middle of the Cordillera Administrative Region of

northern Luzon. It is surrounded by rugged mountain ranges in the north and west, and by gentle hills in

the southern and eastern ends of the province (Cordillera Schools Group 2003: 71). Kiangan, one of the

eleven municipalities of Ifugao, is the focus of this capstone project. Hingyon surrounds this highland

municipality in the north, Asipulo in the south, Tinoc in the west, and by Lamut and Lagawe in the east

(Figure 3). Kiangan plays an important role in early Ifugao history. Ifugao oral history points to Kiangan as

the birthplace of the Ifugao people.

The Ifugao, and the rest of the highland groups, had a different colonial beginning. While the
th
Philippine lowlands were widely brought under Spanish rule in the 16 century, highland Cordilleran

groups managed to evade and resist colonial subjugation (Dulawan 2001, Dulawan 2005). It was only in

1889, less than a decade before the Philippines declared its independence from Spain, that Spanish

forces finally broke through and established Kiangan as Comandancia Politico-Militar (Dulawan 2001;

Dumia 1979: 28).

Figure 3 Political boundary of Kiangan, Ifugao, Philippines.

Ifugao is well known for its rice terraces, many standing more than 500 meters above sea level

(Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement 208: 2). The rice terraces, and the accompanying pinugo/muyong

9

(forests), are ancestral domains communally managed by the Ifugao people (Figure 4). The rice terraces

embody both economic and social aspects of Ifugao life. It is an agricultural system comprised of

privately-owned forests through customary property rights, pond and swidden fields, and an extensive

irrigation network (Acabado 2012, 2013). It is also at the center of Ifugao rice culture. Rituals were

practiced throughout the five major stages of the rice cycle: weeding, land preparation, sowing and

planting, pest control, and finally, harvest (Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement 2008: 21-22). Today,

however, the maintenance of terraced fields and the associated traditional practices that go with it, are

threatened by the introduction of a cash economy, loss of cooperative labor, and outbound migration

(Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement 2008: vi).

Figure 4 Batad rice terraces, Ifugao, Philippines, UNESCO World Heritage Site

The interest in promoting and preserving Ifugao heritage and history has become more pertinent

as Ifugao has become increasingly modernized. Ifugao boasts five UNESCO World Heritage Sites

recognized as living cultural landscapes, two of which are in Kiangan. This recognition has brought the

rice terraces and Ifugao culture to the forefront of the province’s tourism industry. The expanding tourism

and debates on the commodification of the Ifugao culture have strengthened heritage conservation

initiatives and brought to attention the need for “revitalization of diminishing Ifugao culture and traditions

10

and the transmission of cultural knowledge to younger Ifugao generations” (Save the Ifugao Terraces

Movement 2008: 55-56). Through various cultural revitalization projects, government and non-

government organizations (NGO) have found ways to develop sustainable practices where indigenous

knowledge and traditions can complement economic development and address issues of heritage

management and conservation. Projects relating to indigenous knowledge systems and practices were

created not only to promote Ifugao culture for tourism purposes, but also to ensure that Ifugaos continue

to practice these traditions (Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement 2008). One result of this project is the

Ifugao Indigenous Knowledge (IK) Workbook. Led by the Ifugao State University (IFSU), the authors of

the workbook created lessons plans for IFSU students on Ifugao traditional knowledge regarding land and

water management, rice production practices, biodiversity, stone works, house construction, traditional

laws and the justice system, and Ifugao rituals, dances and festivals (Gonzales and Ngohayon 2015).

Some cultural activities are also found in elementary and secondary schools’ extracurricular activities

where students learn traditional dances and chants. The local projects mentioned here mainly focus on

traditional customs and practices. The archaeology of Ifugao or early Ifugao culture history, although

known to some Ifugao intellectuals, is still for the most part unclear to the general public. Unfortunately,

the Philippines’ education system lacks the capacity to help students learn their local histories as part of a

broader history lesson. The public education system is highly centralized and lacks emphasis on regional

studies that include indigenous culture histories (Enkiwe-Abayao 2002 and Rovillos 2002). At the

university level, no curriculum offers general courses for indigenous studies (Enkiwe-Abayao 2002: 60).

Teachers who make the effort to incorporate indigenous culture and history into their classroom lectures

lack the requisite knowledge, education materials, and teaching strategies (Ibid). The challenges of

modernization and deficiencies in the education system highlight the need for the Ifugao to ensure the

continuity of their traditions and customs.

Thus, the main question for this project is: How can archaeology enrich and contribute to the

revitalization and transmission of Ifugao indigenous knowledge? Archaeology education provides a

solution through the development of Ifugao archaeology modules.

11

Paper organization

The report is organized into five sections: 1) Introduction (this section); 2) Overview of public

archaeology and place-based education; 3) Background to the Ifugao case study; 4) Methods of

curriculum development; and 5) Discussion and conclusion: Lessons from the field.

The next section (Section II) provides an overview of public archaeology and place-based

education. The finer focus of this section is on archaeology education, which provides the case studies

that guided the design and development of Old Kiyyangan Village archaeology modules, and highlight the

range of issues brought forth during the process. This section begins with the broader applications of

public archaeology, and then explains different theories of the sub-discipline. The focus centers itself on

archaeology education, which goes into detail about curriculum development. Then, lastly, the concept of

place-based education is briefly discussed in relation to heritage and formal education teaching.

Section III provides the background to the Ifugao case study, beginning with a broad Philippine

archaeology chronology, to the Cordilleran archaeology, then finally concentrating on Ifugao archaeology

and the recent archaeological investigations at Old Kiyyangan Village (OKV). The content of the

archaeology modules was based solely on the OKV results. The Philippine archaeology chronology

section describes some of the major archaeological finds from the Paleolithic to the arrival of the Spanish
th
in the 16 century. It also highlights major themes in Philippine archaeology, and the disproportionate

amount of archaeological research in the highlands in comparison to lowland and coastal areas of the

Philippines.

Section IV begins with the backstory and timeline of the fieldwork, but the main point of this

section is to provide an extensive account of the development of the OKV archaeology classroom

modules. This section goes through each of the four phases: Front-end evaluation, module creation,

practice run and formative evaluation, and revisions. It presents the results of both evaluations, and

discusses teacher feedback. The section also outlines the organization of the archaeology classroom

modules, explaining how each module corresponds to the V Araling Panlipunan textbook and curriculum,

and describing how each archaeology activity links Old Kiyyangan Village to the larger “early Filipino

society” that is being taught in class.

12

 And finally, Sections V reflects on the field project and the lessons gained from it. The section

describes what worked and what did not work during the process of developing the modules. It

emphasizes the importance of teacher involvement and collaboration, and a word of caution on the scale

of coverage of each module. Solutions were provided and suggestions for future improvement were

recommended.

13

II. PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND PLACE-BASED EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW

Public archaeology

Charles McGimsey (1972) first introduced the term “public archaeology” in his book, Public

Archaeology (1972). His efforts were designed to seek federal government and state support for

archaeological work on public lands, and to develop local agencies’ cultural resources capability. Most

archaeologists since then equate public archaeology in the US with cultural resource management (CRM),

which addresses compliance with US laws and regulations regarding cultural and historic sites on public

land affected by infrastructure development (Richardson & Almansa-Sanchez, 2015; Jameson, 2004).

This practice of public archaeology, however, has been criticized for being narrowly focused on

compliance, and many archaeologists to be more proactive in public involvement.

In order to establish a solid sub-discipline in archaeology, archaeologists started to examine their

intentions and goals in “public archaeology”. One of the issues they first tackled was the definition of “the

public”. To whom do they refer, and whom do they incorporate? The definition encompasses two main

groups: the first is associated with “the state and its institutions,” and the second refers to “the active

citizen” (Merriman 2004: 1-4). Many now 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

(Reeves 2004; Lucas 2004; Brink 2002; Reetz and Quackenbush 2016; Acabado, Martin, and Datar

2017), heritage tourism (Shoocongdej 2011; Abu-Khafajah 2011; Hoffman, Kwas, and Silverman 2002),

public engagement and outreach (McClung de Tapia 2002; Chiarulli 2016; Kowalczyk 2016), and formal

education and curriculum (Smardz and Smith 2000; Ducady, Lefas-Tetenes, Sharpe, and Rothenberg

2016; Henderson and Levstik 2016; Moe 2016; Ellick 2016).

Public archaeology today is redefined to take a much closer look at archaeology’s relationship

with the public. Okamura and Matsuda (2011: 4) argue that it should “be intended to bring about change –

some improvement – in the relationship” between archaeologists and the public. These changes have to

be committed to sustainability, inclusivity, and ethics in order to make archaeology more relevant and

beneficial to contemporary society (Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015; Okamura and Matsuda

14

2011). Public archaeology programs may differ in scope, audience, and purpose, but they all contain

some type of educational component, whether it be through a guided tour of an archaeological site, a

museum exhibit, a television special, a website, or a classroom discussion. This component connects

archaeology to the public, and one of its goals is to create awareness of these archaeological sites.

Education also creates an appreciation for these sites that protects them from destruction, and supports

public funds for archaeological research.

More importantly, archaeology has the ability to shed light on all histories. It takes the focus away

from conventional narratives, and creates avenues for histories that are particular to a place and to a

people. Objects of history, therefore, represent multiple meanings, which continually shape perceptions of

“national” historical accounts usually found institutionalized in the school curricula (Shackel 2004). In the

US, some of these topics include the archaeology of plantation life, where archaeologists document the

resourcefulness of African slaves in utilizing their surroundings (Bartoy 2012; Henderson and Levstik

2016); the archaeology of the industrial revolution reveal immigrant experiences from sweatshops to

boardinghouses (Shackel 2004); and the archaeology of the early mining industry, which recounts

tragedies and hardships of miners and their families (The Ludlow Collective 2002). The outreach and

education programs created from these archaeological sites enable the public to reflect on the day-to-day

activities of people’s lives, and have a deeper understanding of these significant events in history.

Archaeology and formal education

This capstone project focuses on archaeology education and curriculum as a form of public

archaeology. The classroom is an ideal setting to introduce archaeology, because it fits with various

subjects taught in social studies, such as civics, history, geography, and anthropology. The

interdisciplinary nature of archaeology also makes it usable and accessible to teachers. Furthermore,

archaeology applies hands-on, evidence-based learning that can stimulate and develop students’ critical

thinking, and research and investigative skills. Archaeological societies and government agencies, such

as historic preservation offices and the National Park Service, have been the frontrunners of enriching

archaeology education programs in the US. They are also schoolteachers’ primary sources for teaching

materials in archaeology. For example, the Society for American Archaeology dedicates a webpage for

15

the public that directs them to multiple links to educational resources, state and federal resources,

archaeological laws and ethics, and even heritage tourism (“Archaeology for the Public” 2012). One of the

most extensive outreach and education resources is the National Park Service. As the keeper of the

country’s national heritage, both cultural and natural, they provide curriculum materials specific to a certain

park. For example, the Volcanoes National Park in Hawai’i has its own archaeology program that teaches

the public not only about Hawaiian prehistory, but also botany, geology, volcanology, and ecology

(“Curriculum materials” ND). Lastly, archaeology is a fun way to learn about history and past cultures. The

past is so much more interesting when students can see, experience, and relate to what they are learning.

The push for archaeology education grew in response to expanding urban development,

vandalism, illegal trade in antiquities, and the increasing mobilization of people (Smardz Frost 2004).

Archaeology education’s goals have focused on archaeological discoveries, archaeological concepts and

techniques, and the importance of stewardship (McManamon 2000: 17). There are multiple approaches in

archaeology education. Matsuda and Okamura (2011) present four models of public engagement refined

from Merriman’s (2004) and Holtorf’s (2007) proposals. How one applies the model, however, depends

on the goals and objectives of the project, so each outcome is different from one model to another. All of

these models are meant to serve different purposes in public archaeology. It is imperative, then, that a

project or program first establish its pedagogical goals and objectives, before it is introduced to the

general public.

The first model is the “educational approach,” which supports programs that engage the public in

archaeological work in order for them to understand and appreciate the past (Okamura and Matsuda

2011:5). One example of this program is Ducady et al.’s (2016) partnership with Providence public

schools in Rhode Island, US. Archaeology educators worked with sixth grade teachers to create museum-

based archaeology program, “Think like an archaeologist”, which uses archaeological methods and

concepts to connect social studies content and the state’s education standards. By conducting in-depth

assessments of their program, authors learned that artifacts, used as a medium of teaching, enhance the

classroom experience and student comprehension. Through archaeology, students learned the science or

process behind what is being taught in class and what is in their textbooks. These learning experiences

also correspond to education standards, which require critical thinking as one of the crucial skills that

16

students develop in school.

The second model is the “public relations approach,” which seeks to improve archaeology’s public

image to increase social, economic, and political support from the public (Okamura and Matsuda 2011: 5).

Both the educational and public relations approaches look at archaeology’s role in addressing the “deficit”

or lack of interaction with the public about archaeology. The Archaeological Institute of America hosts the

International Archaeology Day, which celebrates “archaeology and the thrill of discovery” (“International

Archaeology Day” 2017). The Institute partners with museums and national archaeological and

anthropological organizations to promote archaeology to the public of all ages. These events have grown

significantly over the years to include site and museum tours, archaeology fairs, community archaeology

workshops, senior citizen outreach, and exhibits and round-table discussions.

The third model is the “critical approach,” which “aims to reveal and challenge the socio-political

mechanism sustaining specific archaeological practices and interpretations, which help reproduce the

domination of the socially privileged over the socially subjugated” (Okamura and Matsuda 2011: 6). The

last model is the “multivocal approach”. Unlike the critical approach, which examines a specific

relationship between archaeology and marginalized and socio-economically under-privileged groups, the

multivocal approach acknowledges the diversity within the public and their “various interpretations of

archaeological materials” (Ibid). Both these models take a critical stance on archaeology education,

focusing their attention to empowering subordinated groups and incorporating narratives that were

forgotten or disregarded by dominant historical accounts (Shackel 2004: 3). The Excluded Past:

Archaeology in Education edited by Stone and MacKenzie (1990) contains essays that tackle issues, such

as indigenous representation in North American curricula, colonial education systems in Africa, and

political manipulations of history in South America. These issues continue to this day (See anthologies

edited by Shackel and Chambers 2004 and Skeates, McDavid, and Carman 2012).

Curriculum design and development

The design and development approach of archaeology classroom modules does not use a cookie-

cutter model that is easily duplicated from one school to another. All curriculum-based projects in the

literature stress the importance of knowing specific needs of teachers and students pertinent to the school

17

district, and making sure that the archaeology modules are relevant and effective. Unlike other

archaeology education programs in museums or archaeological sites, archaeology in formal education

requires a more rigid framework and carries it owns constraints. As the intersection of archaeology and

public education continues to improve in practice and theory, it provide concepts and ideas that can be

modified to fit particular education standards and school needs.

Once archaeology projects have established their goals and have a clear picture of their

objectives, they demonstrate that introducing archaeology in formal education is more effective when 1)

archaeology modules follow the national standards of education and target key objectives of specific

grade levels (Bardavio, Gatell, & Gonzalez-Marcen, 2004; Devine, 1990; Ducady 2016; Ellick, 2002), 2)

teacher training and well-written modules guide and complement teachers’ class discussions (Podgorny,

1990; Wheat 2000), 3) teachers participate in the development process to make sure that students’ needs

are properly assessed according to appropriate archaeology topics, class activities, and resources (Ellick,

2002; Richarson & Alamansa-Sanchez, 2015), and 4) archaeology modules are assessed before, during,

and after they are released to the public (Henderson 2016; McNutt 2000; Moe 2016).

A constant advice for archaeology curriculum developers is that they should be able to show the

relevance of archaeology and the archaeology materials to teachers and school principals. Why should

they teach archaeology? Education standards guide teachers on what they should teach students,

whether in subject topics or skill development. Teachers, therefore, give careful consideration in planning

their lessons and selecting classroom materials (Davis 2000: 59). Designing archaeology curricula within a

national education framework gives archaeology a chance to be used in classrooms if it follows the

standards that teachers are required to teach in that specific grade level (Ellick 2002: 9). The

interdisciplinary nature of archaeology provides additional material that teachers can apply in subjects

such as, history, geography, and even natural and physical science, to increase students learning capacity

(i.e., comprehension, critical thinking, analytical ability) (Ducady et al 2016: 519, Davis 2000: 60).

“Teachers are generally hard pressed to add yet another subject area to their teaching load,

especially one with which many are relatively unfamiliar” (Wheat 2000: 117). Archaeology educators also

notice the that some programs can be too technical (King 2016: 417). To ensure that modules are

repeatedly used in class, it is important that archaeology curricula meet both teacher’s and students’

18

needs. This includes clear and approriate content and activity materials that are translatable into the

teacher’s lesson plan and the classroom experience (Wheat 2000: 118). Explaining the rationale of the

each archaeology module is important, so teachers know how and when to use the materials in a time

efficient manner. According to Wheat, the questions that archaeology educators should take note of

include (Ibid):

• How will this topic or lesson fit with my purpose in teaching?

• Why will my students be asked to learn about this topic?

• What specifically will my class gain from the study?

• How much time (in class, in preparation) can I devote to this study?

• Which institutional strategies will be most effective with these students?

• Which resources already exist and which do I have to locate or create?

The core of archaeology curriculum development is the collaboration between the archaeologists and

teachers. Teachers must be included from the initial stage of development (Ellick 2002: 10). Teachers are

more familiar with their curriculum, the education standards, and their students’ needs. It is one thing for

archaeology educators to familiarize themselves, but teachers have to contribute and participate

throughout the development process (Cole 2015: 118-119; Ellick 2002: 8).

The Society for American Archaeology’s Advances in Archaeological Practice November journal

issue was solely dedicated to recent programs in archaeology education. One of the main points that the

authors wanted to emphasize was “systematizing” or standardization of archaeology education (King

2016, Moe 2016, and others). To continue the conversation above, Wheat (2000) suggests that it is not

enough to create the modules, because then, how do we know if the modules we created were of any

use? McNutt (2000: 193) further adds that “active engagement alone does not guarantee students’

connection or comprehension to the archaeology topics”.

In addition to education standard compliance, and teacher participation, another way of setting the

standards is assessment. Assessments or evaluations are important in order to create a “foundational

baseline” in professional education (McNutt 2000). Through critical assessments, archaeology curricula

should be able to demonstrate long-term success and sustainability, reveal inadequacies, and improve

modules to provide high-quality materials for student and teacher development (Moe 2016: 449-452). The

19

archaeological context of the curriculum, in particular, should be assessed in terms of clarity, relevance to

class discussions, and student comprehension of archaeology. McNutt’s chapter in The Archaeology

Education Handbook provides five guiding questions for archaeology curriculum assessment:

• What are the goals and objectives for this curriculum/lesson?

• How will I know what the students are learning?

• What do student already know about archaeology and what do they wonder about?

• Do the selected instructional materials clearly address the intended goals and objectives?

• How can the long-term effects of the program be evaluated?

Place-based education

Place-based education (PBE) is a teaching approach that uses the immediate surrounding or

locality to create experiential learning for students. It is also referred to as “community-oriented schooling”,

“ecological education”, or “bioregional education” (Woodhouse & Knapp 2000: 2). Initially developed for

environmental education, place-based teaching can be applied to other subjects, such as math, science,

language arts, and social studies (Knapp 2008). PBE’s approach to learning employs hands-on, real-world

experiences to connect students to the community (Woodhouse & Knapp 2000). It allows students to be

reflexive of their environment, makes topics more relevant and content-specific to a particular place, and

complements and enhances the existing classroom curriculum (Ibid).

One example of PBE is developing ecoliteracy in an English language arts classroom (Lundahl

2011). The teacher in a secondary-level class used literature to “situate the students geographically” and

to illustrate the function of a place as something more than just a setting in literary works. The students’

writing activities encouraged them to articulate themselves in the context of their community and their

environment. The teacher noted that these activities made students feel more connected to what they are

learning in class. The students’ attentiveness to their surrounding stimulated their creativity and

observations, which encourage students to write more effectively in class.

When PBE is combined with archaeology, students become active participants in heritage

preservation. The modules give them a chance to engage history in their locality. By understanding their

local history, students cultivate citizenship, invest an interest in local issues, advocate for their

20

community’s needs, and become active participants in the community (Howley, Howley, Camper, & Perko

2011: 218). In archaeology, PBE promotes a sense of stewardship towards material culture,

archaeological sites, and local heritage. The place-based approach also matters when history curricula,

for example, only focus on major political events from the center/capital of the country. Archaeology can

help situate these major events to a local context, so students are able to link where they are to the

greater history of the country and beyond.

In Sgouros and Stirn’s (2016) Community Heritage and Place-Based Learning at Linn Site, Idaho

paper, they outline PBE principles and explain how they demonstrate parallel objectives in archaeology

education. For one, PBE is a project-based, hands-on learning. Archaeology investigations are inherently

participatory. Each archaeology education program contextualizes its topics and activities to students’

“home region,” which allows them to be involved in the archaeological process of understanding their local

history. Second, PBE promotes real-world experiences and near-to-far teaching. In other words,

classroom topics need to be familiar and relevant to students in order for them see the relationships and

interactions between their community and the outside world. Archaeology, in this capacity, makes local

history a primer or a “stepping stone” to learning about world history and other ancient civilizations in

class. And lastly, PBE teaches environmental responsibility. As mentioned earlier, stewardship is one of

the main goals that PBE hopes to inspire students to do. Archaeology education similarly intends to foster

a shared cultural heritage, and develop an ethical and sustainable relationship with the archaeological

sites.

In time with these practical realizations and innovations in archaeology education, the practice of

conducting archaeological projects also strived to be more inclusive and attentive to the local

communities’ needs. This has been done in various ways, such as conducting community consultations,

sharing results with the public, training locals in preservation and archaeological techniques, developing

on-site education programs for all ages, and inviting community participation. Archaeologists in heritage

education, especially with descendant communities who are stakeholders of these cultural and historic

places, take these ideas very seriously. Not only do these education programs endeavor to raise public

awareness and appreciation for past cultures and histories and inspire stewardship to heritage, but also

create mutual trust between archaeologists and the community.

21

III. BACKGROUND TO IFUGAO CASE STUDY

Philippine archaeology chronology

The Philippines’ prehistoric and protohistoric chronological framework can be generalized into

four periods: initial human occupation, introduction of rice farming, beginning of maritime technology, and

the spread of trade-oriented polities (Bacus 2004). To date, the earliest evidence of human presence in

the Philippines was recorded from Callao Cave in the Cagayan Valley in the northern Philippines (Mijares,

A.S., Detroit, F., Piper, P. Grun, R., Bellwood, P., Aubert, M., Champion, G., Cuevas, N., De Leon, A.,

and Dizon, E. 2010). The recently discovered metatarsal was radiocarbon dated to approximately 67,000

years ago. By comparing sizes from early hominin skeletal remains, Mijares and his colleagues claim that

the Callao foot bone (metatarsal) belongs to a small-bodied hominin similar to Homo floresiensis from

Flores, Indonesia and to present-day Philippine Negritos. How this individual came to the Philippines

during the Late Pleistocene is notable, because it demonstrates that early hominin settlers in the

Philippines possessed maritime abilities that enabled them to cross the open ocean.

Another significant paleoanthropological site in the Philippines is the Tabon Cave in Palawan in

the central Philippines. The Tabon Cave is a continuous habitation site that has been inhabited since the

Pleistocene 47, 000 years ago (Patole-Edoumba, Pawlik, and Mijares 2012). The Tabon Cave revealed

stone tools, pieces of charcoal, and animal remains that indicate early hunting-gathering settlement in the

Philippines (Detroit, F., Dizon, E., Falgueres, C., Hameau, S., Ronquillo, W., and Semah, F. 2004, Bacus

2004). Other caves in Palawan and Cagayan Valley around 10,000 years ago show hunter-gatherers to

have utilized their surroundings by hunting wild animals and gathering shellfish in rivers (Bacus 2004).

Aside from human remains, the abundance of stone tools at these sites also say something about

this period. Lithic analyses of these stone tools show variations in production and availability of resources

for raw material. Research shows that there were two different technological systems during the

Pleistocene. The oldest is a system of unifacial sharpening, represented by chopper tools and hand axes.

The other system is the system of reduction, which makes cobbles and pebbles the intended tool (Patole-

Edoumba et al 2012: 223).Examples of these lithic artifacts are found in Arubo, Nueva Ecija in Central

Luzon, Tabon Cave in Palawan, and Musang Cave near Tuguegarao in the Cagayan Valley (Ibid). These

modified stone tools indicate multiple uses. The Arubo assemblage, for example, includes handaxes,

22

bifacial cleavers, and pebble tools.

Five thousand years ago, there was a change in the material culture and subsistence economy. It

is in this period, known as the Neolithic, that evidence of diverse cultural practices is first found. Pottery,

polished stone adzes and stone hoes, clay spindle whorls, marine shell adzes and fishhooks, and marine

shell ornaments began to appear in the archaeological record (Bacus 2004). One of the significant finds

of this period is from the Andarayan site in the Cagayan Valley, which yielded red-slipped earthenware

pottery that contained intact rice glume and associated husk inclusions (Snow 1986). The abundance of

rice inclusions in pottery-making and early ethnographic accounts of agriculture elsewhere in Luzon,

suggest a farming settlement that practiced dry rice cultivation (Ibid). Burial practices during the Neolithic

also started to become ceremonial. Burial remains were interred in distinctive positions and purposely

placed with grave goods, such as polished stone adzes, Tridacna (giant clam) shell adzes, and shell

ornaments (Bacus 2004).

Nagsabaran site in the Cagayan Valley provides a wealth of information on subsistence patterns

during the Neolithic. Nagsabaran illustrates an early sedentary settlement with a mixed economy that

includes fishing and hunting (Amano, Piper, Hung, and Bellwood 2013). The site also documents the

introduction of domesticated animals, such as dogs, pigs, and cattle. The faunal analysis revealed that

despite the presence of domesticated animals, the inhabitants preferred wild animals, such as deer and

pig as their primary source of protein. One possible explanation for this is that domesticated animals,

especially pigs, were utilized as part of their social custom, such as ceremonies and rituals, and as a

display of wealth and status (Ibid: 332). This can also be said for dogs. The earliest dog remains in

Nagsabaran were buried in the vicinity of adult human burials.

By two thousand five hundred years ago, people were engaging in elaborate mortuary practices

all over the archipelago, including secondary burials in pottery jars and stone urns. Archaeologists have

also observed the emergence of special objects made from iron, bronze, glass, and stone – objects

previously not used as raw materials (Bacus 2004). These materials signal the beginning of a more

complex social organization and the establishment of networks beyond the archipelago. The most famous

example is the Manunggul jars in Palawan. These elaborately designed earthenware jars were found

associated with black and white banded agate beads, jade and shell beads, agate bracelets, a jasper ear

23

pendant, and a possible red chalcedony or carnelian pendant (Ibid). Anthropomorphic burial jars were

also found in Ayub Cave in southern Mindanao. Some other sites have been explored in southeastern

Negros in the Visayas, and have yielded earthenware jars, clay figurines, glass ornaments, iron

implements, and chicken and pig remains (Ibid).

Archaeologists studying this period also learned that there is no distinct transition from the

Neolithic to the “Metal Age” (Szabo and Ramirez 2009, Bacus 2004). By analyzing shell artifacts from

Leta Leta Cave in Palawan to other nearby archaeological sites, Szabo and Ramirez (2009) found that

many of the burial goods associated with the Neolithic were still used along with the exotic ones. Shell

ornaments in Leta Leta Cave burials were found along side Tridacna adzes and exotic goods, such as

jade and metal axes. In addition, they also recovered preforms and shell blanks together with finished

Conus shell beads. This led them to suppose that types of burial goods vary, and their value did not only

pertain to finished ornaments, but to unfinished one as well (Ibid: 158). This mortuary deposition is also

seen at Niah Cave in Borneo, Paredes Shelter, and possibly at Ille Cave and Shelter with various species

of shells.

Lowland polities increased and maritime trade intensified by the mid to late first millennium AD.

Lowland coastal areas began to participate directly and indirectly in international trade. This is evident in

the abundance of tradeware items found during this period. The flourishing Chinese trade brought

porcelain and stoneware vessels to the Philippines. These items became symbols of status and prestige.

The remains of two protohistoric wooden boats called balangay in Agusan del Norte signified the

establishment of trade networks densely populated coastal communities, and the development of local

trade systems and central polities throughout the archipelago (Ronquillo 1987, Chia, Neri, and de la Torre

2015). These balangay are radiocarbon dated to approximately 700-1600 years. They represent an older

shipbuilding technology, characterized by lugs, which are a succession of flat and rectangular protrusions

in the interior boat wall carved from the same wood plank (Ronquillo 1987: 3). These lugs have holes

where lashing passes through. Archaeologists recovered a large assemblage of low-fired ceramics;

tradeware ceramics from the Song Dynasty (960-1270 AD), the Ming Dynasty (1366-1644 AD), and

Southeast Asia including Thailand and Vietnam; metal artifacts, such as gongs, ear pendants, bells,

projectile points, and tangs; glass beads; net weights and spindle whorls; and terrestrial and marine

24

faunal remains (ibid: 3-7).

The majority of archaeological research in the Philippines is focused on lowland or coastal sites

(Figure 6). Archaeological inquiries are more concerned with linking the Philippines to the larger pre- and

historical context of the Southeast Asian region. It is evident that the Philippines played its part during

these crucial periods in world history. Philippine archaeology has contributed to the literature regarding

initial occupation of the archipelago, the beginning of its Neolithic period, and finally the first millennium

AD when regional maritime trading was at its peak. Within Philippine archaeology, however, not much is

known about the interior highland regions of the archipelago (i.e., the Cordilleran region of northern

Luzon). Limited research has been conducted on upland migration, the emergence of intensive

agriculture, or the influence of coastal/lowland economic foreign trade. Not until recently, when more

comprehensive archaeological investigation was done in the Cordilleras, have archaeologists revealed

the extent of these social, political, and economic transformations.

25

 Cagayan Valley sites:
Callao Cave
Musang Cave
Andarayan
Arubo, Nueva Ecija Nagsabaran Shelter

Palawan cave sites:

Tabon Cave
Manunggul Cave
Butuan, Agusan del Norte
Leta Leta Cave

Figure 5 Archaeological sites mentioned in this section

26

Archaeology of Old Kiyyangan Village
th
Spanish conquest of northern Luzon was undertaken in the 17 century to exploit the Cordilleran

gold mines (Scott 1975: 77). Spain needed to find additional funding for their campaigns during Europe’s

Thirty Years’ War, and so King Philip III of Spain ordered his occupying force to capitalize on the colony’s

resources. Military expeditions were sent to establish outposts, pacify the indigenous groups, and control

economic trade between highland and lowland groups. It was the Spanish missionaries, however, who

primarily documented the Cordillera and its people. In 1789, Francisco Antolin, a Dominican missionary,

wrote Noticias de los infieles igorrotes en lo interior de la Isla de Manila, which provided a general

description of the Cordillera’s physical environment and the indigenous groups’ social, political and

economic organization (Antolin and Scott 1970). A more detailed ethnographic account appeared in the
th
mid-19 century from another Dominican missionary, Ruperto Alarcon. In 1857, he published a

manuscript about early Ifugao life in Kiangan, Bunhian, and Mayaoyao (Alarcon and Scott, 1965). Despite

Catholic proselytizing and military force, Spanish attempts to pacify the region were futile and were

continually met with indigenous resistance. The Spanish forces retaliated by burning residences and

agricultural fields. Kiangan endured these recriminations twice, first in the 1830s by Colonel Guilermo

Galvey, and later by Governor Mariano Oscariz (Scott 1975).

Early anthropological studies of the Cordillera were mostly ethnographic. (For early Ifugao

literature see Beyer 1955, Barton 1919, Lambrecht 1962, and Keesing 1932.) Early accounts recorded

customs and oral histories, such as kinship and gender roles, traditional ceremonies, origin mythologies,

songs and dances, feasts, and other socio-political and economic lifeways. Archaeological contributions

to the region’s history, on the other hand, have been sporadic. In the 1970s and 1980s, various

ethnoarchaeological studies were conducted in Kalinga to understand present-day ceramic

manufacturing, design and technology, and their implications in prehistoric cultural formation processes

and the reconstruction of past socio-economic systems (Stark and Skibo 2007, Longacre and Hermes

2015). Recently, ethnohistorical research has been done with the Ibaloi in Benguet to elucidate upland

migration and lowland-highland relationships in western Cordillera (Canilao 2009).

Similarly in Ifugao, ethnographic accounts also focused on socio-cultural aspects and further

noted the rice terraces as a hallmark of the Ifugao culture. Theories about the antiquity of the rice terraces

27

and the agricultural practice, however, have long been debated. Beyer (1955) and Barton (1919) first

proposed a date of 2000-3000 years old, according to personal estimates of duration of terrace

construction (Barton 1919: 11). Keesing (1962) and Lambrecht (1932) later disagreed and found the

former interpretation lacking in empirical evidence. Based on historical documents and ethnohistoric

research of Ifugao folklore, the latter argue that the construction of rice terraces began as a result of

Spanish pressure in the lowland areas that caused people to escape north (Maher 1973). It was not until

the 1960s, when Robert Maher conducted preliminary archaeological investigations in central and

southeastern Ifugao in Banaue, Burnay, and Kiangan (Maher 1973, 1981, 1983, 1984), that material

evidence began to reveal Ifugao prehistory. His work focused on early Ifugao settlement patterns, their

choice of residence and its association with availability of resources. Maher also initiated discussions on

Ifugao pottery collection, its technological and stylistic origins, and its connection to the rest of northern

Luzon and greater Southeast Asia (Maher 1973). Early archaeological excavations in Ifugao also

provided the very first radiocarbon dates for the Cordillera, which ranged from 1100 - 1800 AD. According

to Acabado (2012: 287), the large parameters of Maher’s time frame failed to synthesize and fully

comprehend the timing of colonization and agricultural intensification in Ifugao.

Central Findings

In 2012, the Ifugao Archaeological Project (IAP) began excavations in Baranggay Munggayang in

Kiangan, Ifugao. Kiangan plays an important role in both Ifugao oral and written histories. Many of their

origin stories began in Kiangan, which identify the municipality to be the place of origin of the Ifugao

people, Ipugo. Historically, it was the seat of military headquarters in Ifugao during the Spanish

colonization, and continued to be until the 1940s during the American occupation. Kiangan was also the

last holdout of the Japanese military, where they surrendered during WWII (Dumia 1979). The outcome of

the IAP project resulted in the reconstruction of early Ifugao culture history in terms of subsistence, their

relationship with the environment, and shifts in social, political, and economic activities upon the arrival of

colonial forces in lowland areas near Ifugao (Acabado 2013).

The majority of the artifacts are plain earthenware ceramics, including bowl-shaped pottery and 1-

3 mm thin earthenware that proved to be an undocumented pottery type in the Philippines (Acabado

28

2013). Most of the pottery pieces were utilitarian, for cooking and water storage. Excavations also

provided information on other uses of pottery. Earthenware jars were also adapted for burial purposes

(Barretto-Tesoro in Lauer 2015). Furthermore, every burial jar contained earthenware, stone, and glass

beads. These identified trade materials, along with porcelain and stoneware, suggest that the Ifugao had

interactions with lowland groups who had access to these goods. Other artifacts include pottery anvils,

clay pipes, and loom weights.

Faunal remains were also abundant at Old Kiyyangan Village (OKV). The dominance of deer and

juvenile wild pig remains indicates that early Ifugaos relied more on wild game than domesticated

animals, such as chickens, dogs, and domesticated pigs (Ledesma, Amano, and Acabado 2015). Early

Ifugaos not only used animals for food, but also for other purposes. Domesticated animals, including

dogs, were raised mostly for ritual ceremonies and other special occasions (Ibid). The bones have cut

and chop marks indicating that metal tools were used to butcher the animals. Domesticated animals were

used to signal status or rank in the community. These social displays of material wealth expressed a

person’s capability to host communal feasts, such as the uyauy or hagabi (Dualwan 2011). Animal bones

were also used as jewelry. Archaeologists found evidence of polished or smoothed bone rings that early

Ifugaos used as armlets or bracelets.

Pollen analysis from pottery sherds identified starches that were typical of Philippine crops, such

as taro, breadfruit, and arrowroot (Eusebio, Ceron, Acabado, and Krigbaum 2015). Based on OKV

stratigraphy, taro phytoliths were found in the early stratigraphic layer, while rice remains were found

later. The soil layer corresponding to taro was dated to about 700-900 years ago, while the layer that

contained rice was 150-310 years ago. No evidence of rice cultivation or other kinds of rice processing

was found before the arrival of the Spanish (Eusebio et al. 2015), which suggests that early Ifugaos

primarily subsisted on taro and other starchy staples prior to rice. Early Ifugaos used plants for building

Ifugao houses (bale), for carving wood objects, and for weaving. Plants also indicate social status in the

Ifugao society. Rice, for example, is the most revered crop in Ifugao. Ritual ceremonies are held

throughout the planting and harvesting cycle of rice.

th
Radiocarbon dating suggests that the OKV was settled 1000 years ago. It was not until the 15

century, however, that pronounced changes appear at OKV. Although the Ifugao and the rest of the

29

Cordilleras were not as easily subjugated as the lowland groups, the Spanish presence affected them

politically and economically. Acabado (2012, 2015) claims that the later transition from taro to wet-rice
th
farming was a result of the arrival of the Spanish forces in the Philippines in the 16 century AD. This

event also corresponds to the time period tradeware ceramics appeared in the archaeological record

(Acabado 2015). The intensification of agricultural practices and the shift of staple products were due to

an increase in population and demand for food.

30

IV. METHODS: DEVELOPMENT OF OLD KIYYANGAN VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGY
MODULES

The capstone project was conducted during the summers of 2015 and 2016 (Table 1). The 2015

fieldwork was a preliminary study into the feasibility of an archaeology education program about the Old

Kiyyangan Village (OKV). I first presented the project idea, and the proposed research design and work

plan to Save the Ifugao Terrace Movement (SITMo), a grassroots NGO that partners with the Ifugao

Archaeological Project, and has supported numerous Ifugao heritage programs in the province.. Once

SITMo accepted my proposal, I worked for them as an intern, learning the ropes of the organization, their

goals, and the various community projects they manage. With SITMo’s guidance and support, I met with

the elementary school teachers and the school principal to once again propose the capstone project.

Upon approval, I established a baseline to assess students’ knowledge about Old Kiyyangan Village and

Ifugao culture history in general. This assessment was conducted through a pretest (front-end

evaluations) with students (Phase I). During this time, I was also invited as a resource speaker for one

section of each grade V and grade VI class, where I presented a class activity called, “What is

archaeology?”. This class presentation was my first foray into “archaeology in formal education,” where I

learned how archaeology activities are done in a classroom setting, and saw how students reacted to

them. In the summer of 2016, the project continued phases II through IV, beginning with Phase II: creating

the modules. The themes of the modules were chosen based on the Phase I evaluation results. Phase II

was the actual writing process of the modules. Phase III was a practice run of the modules in the

classroom, which included teachers’ and SITMo’s formative evaluations regarding the effectiveness of the

modules in class. Phase IV incorporated the formative evaluation’s feedback and revised the modules

accordingly.

The general purpose of an archaeology education program is to add a layer of depth to history in

order for the audience to better understand the extent of human experience, and the material evidence of

human activities and behavior (Henderson and Levstik 2016: 504). Archaeology education also endeavors

to promote the scientific process involved in these inquiries, and to link the ancient past to its present

significance. In Ifugao, archaeology education makes the archaeological results of Old Kiyyangan Village

more accessible to students by bringing archaeology to the classroom, enhancing the social studies

31

curriculum, and supporting teachers in classroom discussions and activities. The Old Kiyyangan Village

modules address material evidence of changes and continuities in early Ifugao life, of people’s relationship

with the land and immediate resources, and of early interactions with other Filipino lowland groups and the

Spanish.

DATE ACTIVITY PHASE

July 14, 2015
July 17, 2015
July 20, 2015 – July 24, 2015
July 28, 2015 – July 31, 2015
June 16, 2016 – June 30, 2016 Created modules 1 to 3; got
July 1, 2016
July 1, 2016 – July 5, 2016
July 6, 2016 – July 8, 2016
July 11, 2016
July 19, 2016
August – December, 2016
January – May, 2017
Table 1 Timeline of 2015 and 2016 fieldwork in Kiangan, Ifugao
Internship with SITMo; PERMISSION
Introduced proposed MA
project to SITMo manager
Met with Grade V social
studies teacher at elementary
school to introduce myself and
talk story
Met with teachers (Grades V
and Grades VI, and school
principal) – presented
proposed MA project, showed
work plan and sample module
Front-end evaluation; PHASE I
presented an archaeology
presentation “what is
archaeology” in Grade V and
Grade VI. Classes (This
activity was revised to become
module 1)
PHASE II
approval from SITMo and
teachers, and school principal;
presented revised work plan
Met with teachers to set date
for practice run
Prepred archaeology activities
Practice run with 2 sections of PHASE III
Grade V, formative evaluation
Practice run with 1 section of
Grade VI, formative evaluation
Presentation with Ifugao
Archaeological Project
Revised modules PHASE IV
Translated modules

32

Phase I: Front-end evaluation

The purpose of having a front-end evaluation before creating the modules is to gauge students’

understanding of Ifugao prehistory. In museum education, this type of evaluation provides background on

the audience’s prior knowledge in order for educators to decide the purpose and scope of their program

(Diamond, Luke, and Uttal 2009). In the case of designing the OKV archaeology modules, the evaluation

questions resulted in useable data to determine the gaps in students’ knowledge and to suggest

appropriate topics for the archaeology modules (Ibid: 2). The questionnaire was based on five research

themes from the archaeology of Old Kiyyangan Village, two of which are ethnographical while the

remaining three are more archaeological: (1) oral history that deals with the origin mythology of Ifugao

and Kiyyangan; (2) Early Ifugao social organization, mostly relating to social status; (3) subsistence in

terms of past diet and environment; (4) material culture and trade; and lastly (5) antiquity, or the

radiocarbon dating of the rice terraces (See Appendix A).

th th
The evaluation was conducted in one section of each 5 and 6 grade level social studies class

(Table 2). Both classes show parallel results that demonstrate students’ prior knowledge about Ifugao

prehistory. More than 50% of the class correctly answered questions regarding Ifugao “oral history” and

“social organization”, while only about 30 - 40% had knowledge of early Ifugao subsistence and material

culture. Most of the students answered the “faunal” question on subsistence correctly (#4), but not the

“taro” question (#3). As to the questions on “material culture”, most of the correct answers came from the

“pottery” question (#5), rather than the “tool” question (#7). Less than 20% of the students correctly

answered the “antiquity of terraces” (#10).

(#questions)x(#students) total #correct (#correct answers)/(total)x100

answers

oral history 2x63 126 77 61%

social 3x63 189 106 56%

organization

subsistence 2x63 126 48 38%

material culture 2x263 126 46 37%

terraces 1x63 63 7 11%

(antiquity)
Table 2 Combined averages of both grade levels (63 students).

33

 It is worth noting that Grade VI students scored significantly higher than Grade V students in

Ifugao oral history and social organization. Grade VI students were able to get two or more correct

answers in these two categories (See table 3 and table 4 for comparison). The IAP exhibits plates from

the 2013 post-excavation presentation were donated to the library, where other Ifugao-related sources

are also housed. I think the Grade V students were able to score higher than Grade VI students in the

“archaeological” topics, because their social studies teacher also served as the school librarian. During

my interview, she remarked that she sometimes brought her students to the library to look at the exhibit

plates, especially the ones with pictures of IAP artifacts. This anecdote goes to show that with proper

resources, teachers are willing to incorporate Ifugao teaching materials to their classes, and that students

retain these information.

(#questions)x(#students) total #correct (#correct answers)/(total)x100

answers

oral history 2x37 74 42 57%

social 3x37 111 60 54%

organization

subsistence 2x37 74 31 42%

material culture 2x37 74 30 41%

terraces 1x37 37 3 8%
(antiquity)
Table 3 Grade V (37 students)

(#questions)x(#students) total #correct (#correct answers)/(total)x100
answers

oral history 2x26 52 35 67%

social 3x26 74 46 59%

organization

subsistence 2x26 52 17 33%

material culture 2x26 52 16 31%

terraces 1x26 26 4 15%

(antiquity)
Table 4 Grade VI (26 students)

34

 th th
Based on both evaluations, most students in 5 and 6 grade level social studies classes indeed

had some prior knowledge of Ifugao oral history and social organization. Students, however, did not score

well on topics concerning early Ifugao’s way of life (i.e., subsistence and material culture). Only a few

knew about the recent radiocarbon dating of the rice terraces. Thus, the evaluations indicate that these

three themes are insufficient in students’ knowledge about early Ifugao culture history. These themes are

archaeological, which highlight the significance of these archaeology modules in social studies classes in

Ifugao.

Phase II: Creating the modules

The front-end evaluation results led to the development of three archaeology modules primarily

for fifth graders. (It is important to note here that the intent to target this grade level was because fifth

grade-level social studies in the Philippines especially focus on early Philippine history and the history of

Philippine colonization.) The drafted modules follow a typical outline of a lesson plan: Title, objectives,

background (introduction), activity, closure/summary, and evaluation. Objectives of these modules also

had to conform to the national Grade V social studies curriculum (Araling Panlipunan (AP), Baitang V)

(See Appendix B). The background is an overview of the archaeology topic and related Ifugao culture

history. The archaeology activity provides a step-by-step instruction, complete with a list of materials. The

Florida Public Archaeology Network’s Beyond Artifacts (Harper 2011) and The Society for Georgia

Archaeology’s Archaeology in the Classroom (The Society for Georgia Archaeology 1992) are two of

many online resources that compile archaeology classroom materials for teachers. Two of the classroom

activities were taken from these sources, and the third was adapted from an archaeology laboratory

activity from the Anthropology department of the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. The online manuals from

Florida and Georgia provided the preliminary organization of each module. The archaeology activities

were also adapted from these sources, and customized to fit the grade-level, the Ifugao culture history

context, and the Araling Panlipunan (AP) curriculum standards.

Guided by the evaluation results, and in collaboration with social studies teachers, the school

principal, and SITMo, we came up with three topics, all of which were also covered in academic articles

published by the National Museum of the Philippines’ Journal of Cultural Heritage in 2015: (1) Introduction

35

to archaeology and the Old Kiyyangan Village, (2) Early Ifugao diet and environment, and (3) Early Ifugao

imported (trade) goods. These topics easily relate to Grade V’s overall curriculum framework and

learning objectives, which focus on early Filipino history in the first quarter of the academic year. In the

current Grade V textbook (Palu-ay 2010), these archaeological topics can be applied to the first unit

section, Early Filipino Life (Yunit 1: Pamumuhay ng Sinaunang Pilipino), which discusses social

adaptation in different environmental situations, early forms of livelihood, social status and hierarchy,

material wealth, religion, and local and foreign economic trade (See appendix B for AP learning

standards).

Module organization

The OKV modules were semi-structured according to the accompanying teacher’s manual of the

AP textbook, as recommended by the teachers themselves (See Table 5 and Appendix C for AP

teacher’s manual). The modules copy a similar organizational layout from the AP teacher’s manual. The

first section of the module enumerates the learning objectives (Layuning Tiyak). The three main

categories of objectives follow the AP teacher’s manual (Palu-ay 2010), namely comprehension

(pangkaalaman), values (pandamdamin), and proficiency (pangkasanayan). Under these categories, the

objectives are tailored to the educational purpose of each module, in order to address its relevance to

each topic.

The second section lays out the main themes of the module. This section also directs teachers to

the corresponding topics in the AP textbook (Palu-ay 2010). The modules take into account that

textbooks continually change, so the OKV themes are consistent with the themes of the Araling

Panlipunan curriculum rather than the textbook. Nonetheless, the themes in the OKV manual are still

found in Palu-ay (2010). For example, Module One’s theme, “early Ifugao life: change and continuity”,

applies to topics regarding “the social condition of early Filipinos” (kalagayang panlipunan ng mga

sinaunang Pilipino). These textbook topics include social organization, settlement, and livelihood. Module

Two, “early Ifugao diet and environment”, relates to topics under “early Filipino life” (pamumuhay ng mga

sinaunang Pilipino). And lastly, Module Three’s theme on “early Ifugao trade goods” relates to “early

Filipino livelihoods” (paghahanapbuhay ng mga sinaunang Pilipino).

36

 The third section is the overview, which provides the content for discussion. It is divided into two

areas, the Ifugao culture history background and the archaeology background. These two areas link

together to form the concept of the module. The culture history background provides the context for Old

Kiyyangan Village, while the archaeology background provides the epistemology. In other words, the

archaeology background presents an explanation as to “why we know what we know” about these claims

in culture history. The archaeology background reveals the scientific process, empirical evidence, and

reasoning behind the OKV research. The archaeology background is important in developing critical

reasoning for students.

The fourth section is called “Process,” and is divided into four sub-sections. This part of the module

came from the AP teacher’s manual. This section originally appears under V. Pamamaraan (V. Process),

which focuses on instructions for implementation of each module in class (See Appendix C). The OKV

modules under this section differ in the way they are written. For example, rather than merely listing

classroom instructions for teachers, this section provides a rationale for the module’s topic, explaining

why the particular topic was chosen, how it fits into the AP text book, and how it relates to Ifugao culture

history [See Section IV.A. Paghahanda (Getting ready – introducing the module in class)]. Sample scripts

explain the archaeology section to contextualize archaeological concepts and help teachers understand

certain archaeological terms [Section IV.B. Paglinang ng aralin (deconstructing/making sense of the

lesson)]. This allows teachers to have more creative freedom in the implementation of the modules in

class. These modules (including the archaeology activities) are also able to stand alone, so teachers can

pick and choose what to incorporate into their class discussions. The last two subsections summarize and

provide a closing statement to the module [Section IV.C. Pagpapahalaga (importance/significance of

lesson), along with a culminating evaluation activity [Section IV.D. Pangwakas na gawain (Evaluation)]

(See Appendix E for archaeology modules).

Section Description
1 Enumerates learning objectives
2 Lays out main themes of the modules
3 Provides Ifugao cultural history and archaeology content
4 Provides instructions for the implementation of each module

Table 5. Summary of module organization

37

Archaeology activity

The archaeology activity is found under Section IV. Process. As mentioned at the beginning of the

report, the aim of this project is to bring archaeology into the classroom through hands-on, evidence-

based learning. One way to achieve this is to have classroom materials and props that engage students

in a more constructive and experiential way. In the recent Advances in Archaeological Practice, Chiarulli

(2016: 552-553) suggests that providing teachers with classroom materials is one way of encouraging

teachers to incorporate archaeology into their classes. The archaeology activities, therefore, were

designed to be reproducible, easy, and affordable, so that teachers can recreate or modify them. It also

helps to show teachers that all materials used to create the activities were purchased locally, as was the

case in Kiangan. Each archaeology activity relates to the theme of the module, and is explained in detail.

The goal of the archaeology activities is to develop students’ critical thinking skills through hands-on

exercises with materials. Module One’s archaeology activity, “What our artifacts say about us,” teaches

students how archaeologists analyze and interpret artifacts by using modern materials (Figure 7). An

assortment of artifacts was collected, such as instant noodle wrappers, empty canned food, bottle caps,

broken pieces of plates and glass bottles, utensils, a tube of lipstick, hair pins and ties, toys, plastic

bottles, coffee packets, etc.

38


Figure 6 Activity kits for Module One archaeology activity: What our artifacts say about us

Module Two’s archaeology activity, “Understanding soil stratigraphy in archaeology,” focuses on the

excavated faunal and plant remains, and the way these archaeological artifacts explain changes in the

landscape through time. The illustrated soil stratigraphy is an actual stratigraphic profile of Old Kiyyangan

Village from published research papers (See Eusebio et al. 2015 and Lauer et al. 2015). To create the

activity, the module developed a soil stratigraphy chart and laminated cutouts of Old Kiyyangan faunal

and plant remains. Students use dry erase markers and tape to attach and draw on the laminated chart

(Figure 8).

Figure 7 Module Two archaeology activity: Understanding soil stratigraphy in archaeology

39

Module Three’s archaeology activity, “Site on floor,” brings an archaeological feature into the classroom

by creating archaeological scenarios for students. For this module, it was a house feature that included a

house platform, hearth (cooking area), and cultural materials. This activity emphasizes interpretation of

archaeological sites. It also goes a step further by discussing the importance of site preservation.

Assorted broken pieces of ceramics, beads, poster board, felt and colored papers, markers, and crayons

were used to create the simple floor plan (Figure 9).

Figure 8 Module Three archaeology activity: Site on floor

Phase III: Practice run and formative evaluation

All three modules were tested in two class sections of Grade V and one section of Grade VI.

The purpose of the practice run was for teachers to evaluate each prototype in class. Formative

evaluations like this provide teacher feedback. It also allows evaluators to assess the quality of the

program, and the way it communicates its intended message (Diamond, Luke, & Uttal, 2009: 4). This

phase was the most crucial part of the development, because teachers were able to observe the

application and effectiveness of the module on students.

Formative evaluation for this project was a combination of personal meetings with four Grades V

and VI teachers and the chief operating office of SITMo, and a questionnaire survey after every practice

run. The survey was categorized by 1) process, which focused on the general organization and objectives

of the module, 2) material content in terms of its appropriateness to the grade level, and 3) impact of

40

module to students (See Appendix D). Teachers were asked to assess whether or not archaeology topics

and activities fit into their course, and to recommend changes or improvements to the existing modules.

Phase IV: Revision

The last phase reflected on the results of the formative evaluation during the practice run. Their

comments addressed three aspects of the module: content, composition, and implementation. Many of

the responses pointed out the lack of background information on OKV archaeology. They suggested that

there should be an introductory section about Ifugao archaeology and Old Kiyyangan Village in general

(for example, previous archaeological studies). Emphasis on the significance of OKV in Ifugao heritage

and culture also needs to be asserted. In terms of the module’s composition, the evaluators suggested

more visual aides. They also commented on some of the word choices in the modules, citing that some

were too technical and difficult to understand. And lastly for implementation, one noted that “[the practice

run] was very fast to cover all content” (Appendix D), which implied that the 40-minute class session was
th th
not enough to cover an entire module. This issue was reiterated during my final meeting with 5 and 6

grade teachers as well. During the practice run, evaluators noted that archaeology activities work better in

small groups. Finally, teachers requested that the modules be written in Filipino to follow Department of

Education’s language requirement in AP classes, and to provide easier access for students (See

Appendix E for the Filipino version of the manual). The final modules were revised according to the

teachers’ feedback, but they were not returned to the classroom for a second trial run.

41

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS FROM THE FIELD

Archaeological inquiries have always incorporated broader research implications for advancing the

study of the past. These broader implications have now included archaeology’s social implications. When

it comes to archaeology education, it not only deals with fundamental concepts of archaeology and

archaeological content, but it also focuses on the stewardship and preservation of archaeological sites,

the uses of archaeology, and access to archaeology (Franklin and Moe 2012). As I mentioned throughout

the report, archaeology education encourages public support for the protection of archaeological sites

and the knowledge they contain. It also provides greater appreciation and understanding of history and

heritage that reflect decision-making processes regarding the fate of these sites, in terms of demolition,

economic development, and exploitation of resources.

These goals can only be achieved, however, if the public sees the relevance of these sites, and the

field of archaeology in general. Archaeology education is best when its educational context is situated

within the public’s (or the student’s) immediate locality. This effective way of teaching allows the public to

use their previous experiences as a reference for learning about the past. Furthermore, this method of

teaching moves away from the “banking concept of education”. Borrowing from Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy

of the Oppressed (1993), Bartoy (2012: 554) uses this term to advocate for archaeology’s role in

promoting active participation, developing critical thinking skills, and creating dialogues about history

between archaeologists and the public, between teacher and students. Materials-based learning, such as

archaeology education, moves away from didactic teaching that tends to dissuade student participation.

The themes in archaeology education mentioned in this report all resonate with the process of

developing the Old Kiyyangan Village archaeology modules. Understanding the goals of archaeology

education and the concept of place-based teaching were important during the design and development

stages, in order to create archaeology programs and classroom materials that were appropriate for the

teachers and students.

One of the important lessons I gained is the experience of collaborative work with teachers.

Archaeology education literature has consistently emphasized the importance of stakeholder involvement.

For this pilot project, the teachers (who are also indigenous Ifugao) were the primary partners. Together

with the local NGO Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement, this generated an enabling environment that

42

allowed the project to succeed. Shackel asserts that “public participation means more than just presenting

archaeology to the public. It is now about reaching out to members of the community and making them

stakeholders in the archaeological discourse” (2004:14). The teacher’s manual would not have come to

fruition if it were not for the encouragement of Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement (SITMo), and the

support of the teachers and the Kiangan elementary school principal. The teachers and SITMo approved

the work plan prior to fieldwork, and they participated throughout the entire process. In fact, it was on their

recommendation, during our last meeting, that we turn the OKV modules into a teacher’s archaeology

manual, and to include a more detailed background of Ifugao archaeology and Old Kiyyangan Village,

and an overview of archaeology as an academic discipline.

The idea of the teacher’s manual grew out of the results from the formative evaluation of the

practice run, evaluated by the teachers, SITMo, and IAP archaeologists. This phase was the most

significant and revealing part of the project. The practice run allowed teachers to assess the modules

critically, not as moderators but as participant-observers. By observing someone else running the

modules in class, they were able to formulate their own plan of how they would apply the modules

themselves. They were able to assess weaknesses, and make appropriate changes. The teachers

suggested that the modules provide more archaeological background information, more explanation of

technical terms and other archaeological jargon, and a clearer explanation of the link between

archaeological concepts, Ifugao culture history, and the Araling Panlipunan textbook. All of these

recommendations were addressed and incorporated into the revised version.

Despite evaluations from teachers and SITMo, however, this project was not able to assess

students’ comprehension of each module quantitatively. The teachers were the focus of this project, and

the objective was to create archaeology modules that would enhance their classroom materials and assist

them in class discussions. The goal was to provide teachers with enough classroom content that they

would be able to incorporate archaeology topics and Ifugao culture history into their lessons. Reiterating

King’s (2016) call for a systematized archaeology education program, the next steps after the teachers’

assessments would have been to focus on student comprehension. The short version would be to

conduct assessments before and after each class session. A longer version, however, would be more

appropriate for this next stage. This would evaluate the effectiveness of the modules for the entire unit

43

section on early Filipino history during the first quarter of the school year. As an example, the Kentucky

Archaeology Survey developed a comprehensive study of their archaeology education program by

conducting follow-up interviews of students regarding their archaeological experiences (Henderson and

Levstik 2016). The authors concluded that archaeological activities have “considerable sticking power”

with the students (Ibid: 510). For instance, students remembered the artifacts they handled during their

participation, and gave important insights on how objects relate the past to the present (Ibid: 503).

Time was another recurring issue. The modules were originally designed to run for 45 minutes to

an hour, but a teacher quickly reminded me that a standard class period is only 40 minutes long. During

the process of creating the modules, I was aware that teachers would not be able to implement the entire

module in one class session, especially when they are trying to include additional lessons and activities

(such as archaeology) to their lesson plan. The solution was to create modules that are able to stand

alone. Teachers can choose whatever topic they wish to incorporate in their classes. Whether it be just

archaeology, the Ifugao culture history, or the archaeology activity itself, they would still be able to embed

it to their lessons in class.

During the initial phases of the fieldwork, one of the teachers who reviewed the draft modules also

remarked that the modules were too packed with information. She suggested that one OKV module could

actually be unpacked and sub-tasked into five class sessions. Indeed, there was just enough time to

cover the entire module during the practice run. It sometimes did not leave a lot of room for student

questions or a teacher synthesis at the end of class. For future revisions, modules should be broken

down into further sub-topics and class activities. For example, Module Two: diet and environment could

be divided into two separate modules. This would create a more thorough discussion of each topic, and

provide additional archaeology activities in class.

Lastly, there should be a teacher’s workshop on the OKV teaching modules, where all the

teachers in Kiangan and neighboring municipalities can learn about archaeology, and its uses in

teaching. According to Wheat (2000: 120), a teacher workshop is one of the best ways to

introduce archaeology and establish relationship with teachers. It is also where teachers can get

together and share their thoughts and experiences about teaching the new concept. There is a

greater chance that teachers will use the archaeology modules if they are readily provided with

44

materials and resources. Modules should also be presented in a teachable format. Teachers are

often pressed with time and the amount of things they have to teach. New concepts, like

archaeology for example, have to respond to these factors. One way to do this is to make the

concept of teaching archaeology relevant to the curriculum and to standard lesson plan. An

archaeology teacher workshop will be able to illustrate the integration, and “identify

opportunities in the existing curriculum for archaeology to be injected” (Wheat 2000: 120-121).

The teacher workshop, as a form of public archaeology, is also another avenue to reach out to other

sectors of the public. The Ifugao archaeology workshop could ideally partner with the local Department of

Education (DepEd) office, the local university, or the Kiangan Museum to get accreditation/certification

hours teachers need to meet ongoing educational requirements (Wheat 2000, Brunswig 2000). This

validation would not only incentivize teachers to attend the workshop, but also encourage teachers to

adopt the archaeology materials into their lesson plans.

Conclusion

This capstone report has documented the process, purpose, and rationale behind this pilot

project. Certainly, the modules will always need improvement as new archaeological information comes

out of the OKV research or the school curriculum standards change. There are no copyright restrictions to

discourage revisions, especially if new ideas could suggest ways to make the modules better for public

consumption. The modules are intended for classroom use, but their structure allows other educational

institutions and professional training programs (i.e., museums, heritage centers, teacher workshops) to

use the materials. The structure also gives educators more liberty and creativity to incorporate the

modules, according to their desired method and style of teaching. The modules function as a guide for

teachers, and contribute to the current Ifugao educational material.

From this project, I have realized that the point of archaeology education is not to teach about

archaeology, but through archaeology. As Bartoy (2012: 555) succinctly writes in The Oxford Handbook

of Public Archaeology, “the goal of public archaeology should not be to teach the practice of

archaeology… but instead, to use archaeology as a tool through which to teach a variety of lessons”. As a

45

scientific discipline, archaeology is best used as an analytical lens for studying history (Henderson and

Levstik 2016: 511). Students learn the importance of substantiating interpretations of history through

multiple lines of evidence and reasoning. They do this by learning to make human-object connections

from the material remains (empirical evidence) of the past people who left them behind (Ibid).

Furthermore, archaeology creates an understanding of universal themes in anthropology that allows

students to appreciate both past and present cultures, and to see the relationships that people create

through time. Critical thinking in archaeology education encourages students to question, evaluate, and

investigate history. Archaeological inquiries also guide students to acknowledge multiple interpretations

of history, and open up narratives that inspire students to appreciate and understand their heritage. This

critical way of thinking about history and the process of inquiry complements the Philippine Department of

Education’s Araling Panlipunan curriculum core learning area standard, which aims to develop an

educated and socially conscious citizenry that harnesses their ability to investigate, think critically, and

make informed decisions of current and historical importance (Department of Education):

“Naipamamalas ang pag-unawa sa mga konsepto at isyung pangkasaysayan,

pangheograpiya, pang-ekonomiya, pangkultura, pampamahalaan, pansibiko, at panlipunan

gamit ang mga kasanayang nalinang sa pag-aaral ng iba’t ibang disiplina at larangan ng

araling panlipunan kabilang ang pananaliksik, pagsisiyasat, mapanuring pag-iisip, matalinong

pagpapasya, pagkamalikhain, pakikipagkapwa, likas-kayang paggamit ng pinagkukunang-

yaman, pakikipagtalastasan at pagpapalawak ng pandaigdigang pananaw upang maging

isang mapanuri, mapagnilay, mapanagutan, produktibo, makakalikasan, makabansa at

makatao na papanday sa kinabukasan ng mamamayan ng bansa at daigdig.”

In Oral Literature of the Ifugao, Ifugao indigenous scholar Manuel B. Dulawan stressed the need

to study Ifugao culture by expressing that “most [Ifugaos have] assumed the conditioned belief that

anything of Ifugao culture origin is either no good or inferior. They lack both a knowledge of, and

appreciation for, Ifugao culture” (Dulawan 2005: 17-18). He wrote the book in an effort to change this

perspective, and to retrieve, preserve, and share important oral histories of the Ifugao culture that may

serve elementary and high school students in the province (Ibid: preface). Similarly, Save the Ifugao

Terraces Movement (SITMo) in their cultural and environmental impact assessment on tourism also

46

acknowledged this necessity in order to bring back traditional agricultural practices in the rice terraces

that have been “disrupted” by out-migration of youth (Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement 2008: vi). As a

response, SITMo organized an indigenous knowledge transfer project that connected cultural

practitioners to the youth. This archaeology education capstone project equally supports these cultural

revitalization efforts from an archaeological perspective. The focus on coastal and lowland areas in

Philippine archaeology, the insufficient narratives on local and regional perspectives of Philippine

prehistory and culture history in the national social studies curricula, and the recent archaeological

investigations in Kiangan, Ifugao, were the main factors that led to the development of the Old Kiyyangan

Village archaeology modules.

Returning to the main question of this project – how can archaeology enhance public knowledge

of local history in a community – archaeology’s role in cultural resource preservation and management is

becoming increasingly relevant, as people become more mobile and connected and archaeological sites

around the world become more accessible. Communities within or near these sites are affected by this

shift, and many archaeologists have long recognized this complex relationship. Archaeology, through

education, can foster stewardship and promote an appreciation for the cultural past. As ethical practices

improve and community interest for these sites increases, archaeologists must recognize their

responsibility to make their work more transparent, in order to create positive and long-lasting

relationships with the communities included in their work.

47

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu-Khafajah, S.
(2011). Meaning-making process of cultural heritage in Jordan: The local communities, the contexts, and
the archaeological sites in the citadel of Amman. In K. Okamura and A. Matsuda (Eds.), New
Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology. New York: Springer.

Acabado, S., Peterson, J., and Barretto, G.

(2012). Ifugao Archaeological Project: A report submitted to the National Museum of the Philippines.
Unpublished report.

Acabado, S.B.
(2012). Taro before rice terraces: Implications of radiocarbon determinations, ethnohistoric
reconstructions, and ethnography in dating the Ifugao Rice Terraces. In M. Spriggs, D. Addison, and P.J.
Matthews (Eds.), Irrigated Taro (Colocasia esculenta) in the Indo-Pacific, Senri Ethnological Studies 78.
National Museum of Ethnology: Osaka, Japan.

(2013). The 2013 Field Season of Ifugao Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report. Unpublished report.

(2016). The archaeology of pericolonialism: Responses of the “unconquered” to Spanish conquest and
colonialism in Ifugao, Philippines. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 21, 1-26.

Acabado, Martin, and Datar.

(2017). Ifugao archaeology: Collaborative and indigenous archaeology in the northern Philippines.
Advances in Archaeological Practice 5(1), 1-11.

Alarcon, R. and Scott, W.H.

(1965). “A description of the customs of the peoples of Kiangan, Bunhian, and Mayoyao, 1857” by Fray
Ruperto Alarcon. Journal of the Folklore Institute, 2(1), 78-100.

Amano, N., Piper, P.J., Hung, H., and Bellwood, P.

(2013). Introduced domestic animals in the Neolithic and Metal Age of the Philippines: Evidence from
Nagsabaran, Northern Luzon. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 8(3): 317-335.

Antolin, R. and Scott, W.H.

(1970). Notices of the pagan Igorots in 1789. Asian Folklore Studies, 29, 177-249.

Brunswig, R. H. Jr.
(2000). Including archaeology in K-12 teacher education. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith (Eds.), The
Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

International Archaeology Day. (2017). Retrieved from,

https://www.archaeological.org/archaeologyday/about

Archaeology for the Public. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.saa.org/publicftp/PUBLIC/resources/resources.html

Bacus, E.A. (2004).

The archaeology of the Philippine archipelago. In I. Glover and P. Bellwood, Southeast Asia: From
prehistory to history. London: Routledge.

Bardavio, A., Gatell, C., and Gonzales-Marcen, P.

(2004). Is archaeology what matters? Creating a sense of local identity among teenagers in Catalonia.
World Archaeology, 36(2), 261-274.

48

Barton, R. F.
(1922). Ifugao economics. American Archaeology and Ethnography, 15(5), 85-446.

(1930). The Halfway Sun: Life Among the Headhunters of the Philippines. New York: Brewer & Warren
Inc.
(1955). The Mythology of the Ifugao. Memoir of American Folklore Society, 46.

Bartoy, K.M.
(2012). Teaching through rather than about: Education in the context of public archaeology. In R.
Skeates, C. McDavid, and J. Carman, The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Beyer, H. O.
(1955). The origins and history of the Philippine rice terraces. In Proceedings of the eighth Pacific
Science Congress, 1953. Quezon City: National Research Council of the Philippines.

Brink, J.
(2002). Working together: Applied archaeology on the Canadian plains. The SAA Archaeological Record,
2(2), 17-20.

Canilao, M.A.
(2009). Fording upstream in search for balitok (gold): Ibaloi diaspora into Benguet (part 1). Hukay,
Volume 14, 91-110.

Chia, S., Neri, L.A.M., and de la Torre, A.

(2015). Obisdian sourcing at Ulilang Bundok Site and its implications for mobility, exchange, and social
contexts in the Philippine Metal Age. Asian Perspectives, 53(1), 97-115.

Chiarulli, B.A.
(2016). Let’s find a barn and put on a show: Ten lessons learned from designing public programs.
Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 550-555.

Cole, T.
(2015). Understanding and assessing the theories behind archaeological education. Public Archaeology,
14(2), 115-136.

Cordillera School Groups.

(2003). Ethnography of the Major Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Cordillera. Quezon City, Philippines: New
Day Publishers.

Curriculum materials.
(N.D.) Retrieved from, https://www.nps.gov/havo/learn/education/curriculummaterials.htm

Davis, E.L.
(2000). Governmental education standards and K-12 archaeology programs. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith
(Eds.), The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California:
AltaMira Press.

Detroit, F., Dizon, E., Falgueres, C., Hameau, S., Ronquillo, W., and Semah, F.
(2004). Upper Pleistocene Homo sapiens from the Tabon cave (Palawan, The Philippines): Description
and dating of new discoveries. C.R. Palevol, 3, 705-712.

Devine, H.
(1990). Archaeology in the Alberta curriculum: An overview. In P. Stone and R. MacKenzie (Eds.), The
Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education, London: Unwin Hyman.

49

Diamond, J., Luke, J.J., and Uttal, D.H.
(2009). Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and Other Informal Educational Settings.
Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Ducady, G., Lefas-Tetenes, M., Sharpe, S., and Rothenberg, M.A.W.

(2016). Archaeology and the common core: Using objects and methodology to teach twenty-first-century
skills in middle school. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 517-536.

Dulawan, L.S.
(2001). Ifugao: Culture and History. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts.

Dulawan, M.B.
(2005). Oral Literature of the Ifugao. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts.

Dumia, M.A.
(1979). The Ifugao World. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers.

Ellick, C.J.
(2002). Insights: Don’t forget the cookies and the fruit. The SAA Archaeological Record, 2(2), 8-10.

Enkiwe-Abayao, L.
(2002). Indigenous people’s learning systems: A discourse on indigenous emancipatory pedagogy.
Indigenous Perspectives, 5(2), 56-62.

Eusebio, M.S., Ceron, J.R., Acabado, S.B., and Krigbaum, J.

(2015). Rice pots or not? Exploring ancient foodways through organic residue analysis and
paleoethnobotany. National Museum Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1(1), 11-20.

Franklin, E.L. and Moe, J.M.

(2012). A vision for archaeological literacy. In R. Skeates, C. McDavid, and J. Carman, The Oxford
Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Freire, P.
(1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gonzales and Ngohayon, S.L.

(2015). Indigenizing the curriculum: Teaching at the Ifugao State University, Philippines. International
Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 20(1), 32-52.

Harper, C.R. (Ed.)

(2011). Beyond artifacts: Teaching archaeology in the classrooms. Retrieved from,
http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/resources/

Henderson, A.G and Levstik L.S.

(2016). Reading objects: Children interpreting material culture. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4),
503-516.

Hoffman, Kwas, and Silverman.

(2002). Public education: Heritage tourism and public archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record, 2(2),
30-32.

Holtorf, C.
(2007). Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of in Contemporary Popular Culture. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Howley, A., Howley, M., Camper, C., and Perko, H.

(2011). Place-based education at island community school. The Journal of Environmental Education,

50

42(2), 216-236.

Jameson, J.H. Jr.

(2004). Public Archaeology in the United States. In N. Merriman (Ed.), Public Archaeology. London:
Routledge.
Kantner, J.
(2002). Editor’s corner. The SAA Archaeological Record, 2(2), 2.

Keesing, F.M.
(1962). The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

King, E.M.
(2016). Systematizing public education in archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 415-
424.

Knapp, C.E.
(2008). Place-based curricular and pedagogical models: My adventures in teaching through community
contexts. In D.A. Gruenwald and G.A. Smith (Eds.), Place-Based Education in the Global Age. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kowalczyk, S.
(2016). Excavating the “who” and “why” of participation in a public archaeology project. Advances in
Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 454-464.

Kwas, M.L.
(2000). On site and open to the public: Education at archaeological parks. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith,
The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira
Press.

Lambrecht, F.
(1932). The Mayawyaw ritual: Rice culture ritual, Publications of the Catholic Anthropological
Conference, 4(1).

Lauer, A.J. and Acabado, S.B. (2015).

Infant death and burial practices in Late Prehistoric Kiyyangan Village, Kiangan, Ifugao. National Musuem
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1(1), 31-37.

Ledesma, C.P., Amano, N., and Acabado, S.B.

(2015). Faunal remains recovered from the Old Kiyyangan Village, Kiangan, Ifugao. National Museum
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1(1), 21-29.

Lea, J.
(2000). Teaching the past in museums. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith, The Archaeology Education
Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

Longacre, A.W. and Hermes T.R.

(2015). Rice farming and pottery production among the Kalinga: New ethnoarchaeological data from the
Philippines. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 38, 35-45.

Lucas, M. T.
(2004). Applied archaeology and the construction of place at Mount Calvert, Prince George’s County,
Maryland. In P. A. Shackel and E. J. Chambers, Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied
Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Lundahl, M.
(2011). Teaching where we are: Place-based language arts. The English Journal, 100(3), 44-48.

51

The Ludlow Collective.
(2002). The Colorado coal field war archaeology project. The SAA Archaeological Record, 2(2), 21-23.

Maher, R.F.
(1973). Archaeological investigations in Central Ifugao. Asian Perspectives, 16(1), 39-71.

(1981). Archaeological investigations in the Burnay district of southeastern Ifugao, Philippines. Asian
Perspectives, 24(2), 223-236.

(1983). Excavations in Bintacan Cave, Ifugao Province, Philippines. Asian Perspectives, 27(1), 59-70.

1984). Kiyyangan Village of Ifugao Province, Philippines. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 12,
116-127.

Matsuda, A. and Okamura, K.

(2011). Introduction: New perspectives in global public archaeology. In K. Okamura and A. Matsuda
(Eds.), New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology. New York: Springer.

McClung de Tapia, E.
(2002). Exchanges: A first look at public outreach in Mexican and Guatemalan archaeology. The SAA
Archaeological Record, 2(2), 27-29.

McGimsey, C.R. III.

(1972). Public Archaeology. New York and London: Seminar Press.

McNutt, N.
(2000). Assessing archaeology education: Five guiding questions. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith, The
Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

Merriman, N.
(2004). Introduction: Diversity and dissonance in public archaeology. In N. Merriman (Ed.), Public
Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Mijares, A.S., Detroit, F., Piper, P. Grun, R., Bellwood, P., Aubert, M., Champion, G., Cuevas, N., De
Leon, A., and Dizon, E.
(2010). New evidence for a 67,000-year-old human presence at Callao cave, Luzon, Philippines. Journal
of Human Evolution, 59, 123-132.

Moe, J.M.
(2016). Archaeology education for children: Assessing effective learning. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 4(4), 441-453.

Moyer, T.S.
(2004). “To have and enjoy the liberty of conscience”: Community-responsive museum outreach
education at the Bowne House. In P. A. Shackel and E. J. Chambers, Places in Mind: Public Archaeology
as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Palu-ay, A.P.
(2010). Hekasi Serye 5. Makabayan: Kasaysayang Pilipino. Manwal ng Guro para sa Ikalimang Baitang.
Quezon City: LG&M Corporation.

Patole-Edoumba, E., Pawlik, A.F., and Mijares, A.S.

(2012). Evolution of prehistoric lithic industries of the Philippines during the Pleistocene. C.R. Palevol, 11,
213-230.

52

Podgorny, I.
(1990). The excluded present: Archaeology and education in Argentina. In P. Stone and R. MacKenzie
(Eds.), The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. London: Unwin Hyman.

Reetz, E. and Quackenbush, W.

(2016). Creating collaborative learning opportunities for indigenous youth with archaeology-based
environmental education. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 492-502.

Reeves, M.B.
(2004). Asking the “right” questions: Archaeologists and descendant communities. In P. A. Shackel and
E. J. Chambers, Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Richardson, L-J. and Almansa-Sanchez, J.

(2015). Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics. World
Archaeology 47(2), 194-211.

Ronquillo, W.P.
(1987). The Butuan archaeological finds: Profound implications for Philippine and Southeast Asian
prehistory. Man and Culture in Oceania, 3 (special issue), 71-78.

Rovillos, R.D.
(2002). Mainstreaming indigenous education. Indigenous Perspectives, 5(2), 46-54.

Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement.

(2008). IMPACT: The effects of tourism on culture and the environment in Asia and the Pacific:
Sustainable tourism and the preservation of the World Heritage Site of the Ifugao Rice Terraces,
Philippines. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.

Scott, W.H.
(1975). History on the Cordillera. Collected Writing on Mountain Province History. Baguio City: Baguio
Printing & Publishing Co., Inc.

Sgouros, R.A. and Stirn, M.A.

(2016). Community heritage and place-based learning at the Linn Site, Idaho. Advances in
Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 479-491.

Shackel, P.A.
(2004). Working with communities: Heritage development and applied archaeology. In P. A. Shackel and
E. J. Chambers, Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.J. (Eds.).

(2004). Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Shoocongdej, R. (2011). Public archaeology in Thailand. In K. Okamura and A. Matsuda (Eds.), New
Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology. New York: Springer.

Skeates, R., McDavid, C., and Carman, J. (Eds.).

(2012). The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smardz frost, K.E.

(2004). Archaeology and public education in North America: View from the beginning of the millennium. In
N. Merriman (Ed.), Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Smardz and Smith (Eds).

(2000). The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California:

53

AltaMira Press.

Snow, B.E. and Shutler, R.S. Jr.

(1986). Evidence of early rice cultivation in the Philippines. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society,
14, 3-11.

The Society for Georgia Archaeology.

(1992). Archaeology in the classroom: By teachers for teachers. Retrieved from, http://thesga.org/wp-
content/uploads/1992/03/sga_1992_arch_in_classroom.pdf

Stark, M.T. and Skibo, J.M.

(2007). A history of the Kalinga ethnoarchaeological project. In J.M. Skibo, M.W. Graves, and M.T. Stark
(Eds.), Archaeological Anthropology: Perspectives on Method and Theory. Tuczon: The University of
Arizona Press.

Stone, P. and MacKenzie, R. (Eds.).

(1990). The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. London: Unwin Hyman.

Szabo, K. and Ramirez, H.

(2009). Worked shell from Leta Leta Cave, Palawan, Philippines. Archaeology in Oceania, 44, 150-159.

Warner, M. S. and Baldwin D.

(2004). Building ties: The collaboration between the Miami Nation and archaeology. In P. A. Shackel and
E. J. Chambers, Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

Woodhouse, J.L. and Knapp, C.E.

(2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor environmental education approaches. ERIC
Digest, 1-8.

Wheat, P.
(2000). Developing lessons about archaeology: From a teacher’s journal. In K. Smardz and S.J. Smith,
The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira
Press.

54

Appendix A: Front-end evaluations
This test is a survey of the student’s mastery of early Ifugao history. The result of this
test hopes to aid in future curriculum development of social science classes in Ifugao to
include early Ifugao history and culture in the primary education level.

Your test score will NOT affect your grade in class.

Answer to the best of your knowledge. Circle your letter of choice.

1. Who are the two main characters in the Tuwali origin myth that settled and populated
Ifugao? According to Ifugao oral history these two characters are brother and sister sent
from the skyworld, where the gods live.
a. Pumbakhayon and Aginaya
b. Juan and Maria
c. Bugan and Wigan
d. Malakas and Maganda

2. In Tuwali mythology, what is the skyworld called?

a. Ipugo
b. Kabunian
c. Habian
d. Kiyyangan

3. What were early Ifugaos planting and eating before rice?

a. Taro (Gabi)
b. Tomato (kamatis)
c. Sweet potato (kamote)
d. All of the above

4. What animals were hunted by early Ifugaos?

a. Wild birds
b. Wild pigs
c. Deer
d. Both b and c
e. Both a and b

5. Before metal pots and plastic containers, early Ifugaos used ___________ for cooking and
storing food.
a. Woven coconut leaves
b. Wooden pots
c. Earthenware or clay pots
d. None of the above

6. Raised or farm animals like chickens and pigs were symbols of _______ and were only
eaten during _______.
a. Status/prestige; Ritual ceremonies
b. Nutrition; Meals
c. Agriculture; Farming activities

55

 d. Property/ownership; Market day

7. Early Ifugaos not only used animals for food, but also used their animal bones as _______ .
a. Farming tools
b. Fishing tools
c. Jewelry
d. Digging sticks

8. Some of the settlements in early Ifugao villages had objects like porcelain bowls and plates,
beads, and metal. Porcelain and beads especially were symbols of prestige or high status.
What were these high-ranking people called in Ifugao society?
a. Nawotwot
b. Natumok or tagu
c. Himbut
d. Kadangyan

9. Rice was considered a prestige crop reserved for the early Ifugao elites. ____________ is
the Ifugao rice variety that grows only once a year. All the rituals in rice farming revolved
around this type of rice.
a. Burdagol
b. Tinawon
c. NFA
d. Kamuros

10. The Ifugao rice terraces is a UNESCO World Heritage Site built solely by the Ifugaos. There
are currently two major theories that date the age of the terraces. One theory dates the rice
terraces to be 2000 years old. A more recent, scientific study, however, provides the rice
terraces a much younger date. Based on this study, how old are the terraces supposed to
be?
a. 900-1000 years old
b. 500-600 years old
c. 200-300 years old
d. 1000-2000 years old

56

Appendix B: Araling Panlipunan learning objectives

K to 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM

BAITANG 5

PAMANTAYAN SA PAGKATUTO:
Naipamamalas ang pag-unawa at pagpapahalaga sa pagkakabuo ng kapuluan ng Pilipinas at mga sinaunang lipunan hanggang sa mga
malalaking pagbabagong pang-ekonomiya at ang implikasyon nito sa lipunan sa simula ng ika-labing siyam na siglo, gamit ang batayang
konsepto katulad ng kahalagahang pangkasaysayan (historical significance), pagpapatuloy at pagbabago, ugnayang sanhi at epekto
tungo sa paglinang ng isang batang mamamayang mapanuri, mapagmuni, responsable, produktibo, makakalikasan, makatao at
makabansa at may pagpapahalaga sa mga usapin sa lipunan sa nakaraan at kasalukuyan tungo sa pagpanday ng maunlad na
kinabukasan para sa bansa.

PAMANTAYANG PAMANTAYAN
NILALAMAN PAMANTAYAN SA PAGKATUTO LEARNING
PANGNILALAMAN SA PAGGANAP CODE
(Content ) ( Learning Competencies) MATERIALS
(Content Standard) (Performance Standard)
UNANG MARKAHAN - Ang Pinagmulan ng Lahing Pilipino
A. Ang Kinalalagyan ng Aking Ang mag-aaral ay… Ang mag-aaral ay… 1. Nailalarawan ang lokasyon ng MISOSA Lessons
Bansa Pilipinas sa mapa #2,3,6,8
naipamamalas ang naipamamalas ang 1.1 Natutukoy ang kinalalagyan (Grade IV)
Batayang heograpiya mapanuring pag-unawa pagmamalaki sa nabuong ng Pilipinas sa mundo gamit
1. Absolute na lokasyon gamit at kaalaman sa kabihasnan ng mga ang mapa batay sa ”absolute
ang mapa kasanayang sinaunang Pilipinogamit ang location” nito (longitude at
1.1 Prime meridian, pangheograpiya, ang kaalaman sa kasanayang latitude)
AP5PLP-Ia-1
International Date mga teorya sa pangheograpikal at 1.2 Natutukoy ang relatibong
Line, Equator, North pinagmulan ng lahing mahahalagang konteksto ng lokasyon (relative location)
and South Poles, Pilipino upang kasaysayan ng lipunan at ng Pilipinas batay sa karatig
Tropics of Cancer and mapahahalagahan ang bansa kabilang ang mga bansa na nakapaligid dito
Capricorn at Arctic and konteksto ng lipunan/ teorya ng pinagmulan at gamit ang pangunahin at
Antarctic Circles pamayanan ng mga pagkabuo ng kapuluan ng pangalawang direksyon
1.2 Likhang guhit sinaunang Pilipino at ang Pilipinas at ng lahing Pilipino
2. Relatibong lokasyon kanilang ambag sa 2. Nailalarawan ang klima ng
3. Klima at panahon pagbuo ng kasaysayan Pilipinas bilang isang bansang
ng Pilipinas tropikal ayon salokasyon nito sa
mundo
2.1 Natutukoy ang mga salik na
may kinalaman sa klima ng
bansa tulad ng temperatura, AP5PLP-Ib-c-
dami ng ulan, humidity 2
2.2 Naipaliliwanag ang
pagkakaiba ng panahon at
klima sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng
mundo
2.3 Naiugnay ang uri ng klima at
panahon ng bansa ayon sa
K to 12 Araling Panlipunan Gabay Pangkurikulum Disyembre 2013 Pahina 47 ng 120

57

 K to 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM
PAMANTAYANG PAMANTAYAN
NILALAMAN PAMANTAYAN SA PAGKATUTO LEARNING
PANGNILALAMAN SA PAGGANAP CODE
(Content ) ( Learning Competencies) MATERIALS
(Content Standard) (Performance Standard)
lokasyon nito sa mundo
3. Naipaliliwanag ang katangian ng
AP5PLP-Ic-3
Pilipinas bilang bansang
archipelago
B. Pinagmulan ng Pilipinas at 4. Naipaliliwanag ang teorya sa
mga Sinaunang Kabihasnan pagkakabuo ng kapuluan at
AP5PLP-Id-4
pinagmulan ng Pilipinas batay sa
Teorya ng pagkabuo ng Pilipinas teoryang Bulkanismo at
“Continental Shelf”
5. Nakabubuo ng pansariling
paninindigan sa
pinakapanipaniwalang teorya ng
pinagmulan ng lahing Pilipino
batay sa mga ebidensiya
5.1 Natatalakay ang teorya ng
pandarayuhan ng tao mula sa
rehiyong Austronesyano
AP5PLP-Ie-5
5.2 Natatalakay ang iba pang
mga teorya tungkol sa
pinagmulan ng mga unang
tao sa Pilipinas
5.3 Nakasusulat ng maikling
sanaysay (1-3 talata) ukol sa
mga teoryang natutunan

C. Mga Sinaunang Lipunang 6. Naipagmamalaki ang lipunan ng

Pilipino sinaunang Pilipino
1. Organisasyong 6.1 Natatalakay ang mga uri ng
panlipunan: barangay at lipunan sa iba’t ibang bahagi
sultanato, mga uring ng Pilipinas
panlipunan 6.2 Naipaliliwanag ang ugnayan
AP5PLP-If-6
2. Kabuhayan at kalakalan, ng mga tao sa iba’t ibang
mga kagamitan, antas na bumubuo ng
konsepto ng pagmamay- sinaunung lipunan
ari ng lupa, 6.3 Natatalakay ang papel ng
3. Kultura: paniniwala, batas sa kaayusang
tradisyon, iba’t ibang uri panlipunan

K to 12 Araling Panlipunan Gabay Pangkurikulum Disyembre 2013 Pahina 48 ng 120

58

 K to 12 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM
PAMANTAYANG PAMANTAYAN
NILALAMAN PAMANTAYAN SA PAGKATUTO LEARNING
PANGNILALAMAN SA PAGGANAP CODE
(Content ) ( Learning Competencies) MATERIALS
(Content Standard) (Performance Standard)
at anyo ng sining at 7. Nasusuri ang kabuhayan ng
arkitektura sinaunang Pilipino
4. Kagawiang panlipunan: 7.1 Natatalakay ang kabuhayan
pag-aaral, panliligaw, sa sinaunang panahon
kasal, ugnayan sa kaugnay sa kapaligiran, ang
pamilya mga kagamitan sa iba’t ibang AP5PLP-Ig-7
kabuhayan, at mga
produktong pangkalakalan
7.2 Natatalakay ang kontribusyon
ng kabuhayan sa pagbuo ng
sinaunang kabihasnan
8. Naipaliliwanag ang mga
sinaunang paniniwala at AP5PLP-Ig-8
tradisyon at ang impluwensiya
nito sa pang-araw-araw na buhay
9. Naihahambing ang mga
paniniwala noon at ngayon upang
AP5PLP-Ih-9
maipaliwanag ang mga nagbago
at nagpapatuloy hanggang sa
kasalukuyan
10. Natatalakay ang paglaganap ng
AP5PLP-Ii-10
relihiyong Islam sa ibang bahagi
ng bansa.
11. Nasusuri ang pagkakapareho at
pagkakaiba ng kagawiang AP5PLP-Ii-11
panlipunan ng sinaunang Pilipino
sa kasalukuyan
12. Nakakabuo ng konklusyon
tungkol sa kontribusyon ng
AP5PLP-Ij-12
sinaunang kabihasnan sa
pagkabuo ng lipunang at
pagkakakilanlang Piliipino
IKALAWANG MARKAHAN - Pamunuang Kolonyal ng Espanya (ika16 hangang ika 17 siglo)
A. Konteksto at Dahilan ng Naipamamalas ang Nakapagpapahayag ng 1. Natatalakay ang kahulugan ng
Pananakop sa Bansa mapanuring pag-unawa kritikal na pagsusuri at kolonyalismo at ang konteksto AP5PKE-IIa-1
sa konteksto,ang pagpapahalaga sa konteksto nito kaugnay sa pananakop ng
1. Kahulugan at layunin ng bahaging ginampanan at dahilan ng kolonyalismong Espanya sa Pilipinas

K to 12 Araling Panlipunan Gabay Pangkurikulum Disyembre 2013 Pahina 49 ng 120

59

Appendix C: Araling Panlipunan (AP) teacher’s manual

60

 61

 62

Appendix D: Formative evaluation (Survey results)

63

 64

 65

 66

 67

 68

 69

 70

Appendix E: Old Kiyyangan Village archaeology manual

71