Published on

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Republic of the Philippines Laguna State Polytechnic University Siniloan, LagunaSUBMITTED TO:MR. ROLANDO CRUZADA MIRRA JANE E. PRINCIPE BSPSYCHOLOGY II 2013 1
  2. 2. Laguna State Polytechnic UniversityVISION The Laguna State Polytechnic University is a center of development transforminglives and community.MISSION Laguna State Polytechnic University provides quality education throughresponsive instruction, distinctive research, sustainable extension and productionservices for improved life towards nation building.OBJECTIVES In view of the above, the university shall strive to implement programs andprojects that shall; transmit and disseminate knowledge and skills relevant to emergingin a power needs. Discover and disseminate new knowledge and technology needed bya developing community establish model livelihood projects that will radiate through itsservice area enhance, preserve and disseminate national culture and sport; Providedthe disadvantage members of society with equal opportunities for advancement produceprogressive leaders, professionals, skilled and semi-skilled manpower for nationaldevelopment and stress the development of a well rounded personality and strongmoral character and the cultivation of virtues.GOALS OF BS PSYCHOLOGY The program aims to develop the students to be globally functional,knowledgeable and resourceful in understanding the paradigm of human behavior. 2
  3. 3. DEDICATION One must cultivate self-belief in one’s abilities and credentials. It is a must tohave a great level of self –esteem and a high level of self image. All great achievers andthinkers are blessed with great confidence levels and this is what motivates them to givein their 100 % efforts in any particular direction so as to accomplish any goal. Thosewho don’t have any level of self-confidence and self-belief can never attain anyaccolades in life. You have to be your best friend, understand your strengths andweaknesses and work upon them. Every person should believe in himself or herself tomake the most of his life. In the words of Norman Vincent Peale, “Believe in yourself:Have faith in your abilities; without a humble but reasonable confidence in your ownpowers you cannot be successful or happy.” 3
  4. 4. TABLE OF CONTENT Page NoTitle Page 1Vision, Mission,Goals and Objectives 2Dedication 3Table of Contents 4CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5 A. Filipino Culture 5 B. Core Population 6 2 MODELS OF MIGRATION TO THE PHILIPPINES 8 A. Beyer’s Wave Migration Theory 8 B. Objections to the Land Bridge Theory 10 C. Jocano’s Local Origins Theory 11 3 IT IS NOT CORRECT TO CONSIDER FILIPINO CULTURE AS IN MALAYAN IN ORIENTATION 12  Cultural Origin 12 4 CONCLUSION 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY 16 4
  5. 5. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Filipino Culture The culture of the Philippines reflects the complexity of the history of the Philippinesthrough the blending of cultures of diverse indigenous civilizations with characteristicsintroduced via foreign influences. The Philippines is a mixed society. The nation is divided between Christians,Muslims, and other religio-ethno-linguistic groups; between urban and rural people;between upland and lowland people; and between the rich and the poor. Althoughdifferent in many ways, Filipinos in general are very hospitable and will give appropriaterespect to anyone regardless of race, culture, or belief. These traits are generally positive but these practices also have the tendency to beapplied in the wrong context. Close familial ties can foster nepotism. This is the one thing that separates us from the rest of the world – our colorful andlively culture that makes us distinctly Filipino. This includes language, arts, etc. whichare found in museums, churches and galleries, found within the heart of the key cities. 5
  6. 6. B. Core Population Theory A less rigid version of the earlier wave migration theory is the Core PopulationTheory first proposed by anthropologist Felipe Landa Jocano of the University of thePhilippines.This theory holds that there werent clear discrete waves of migration.Instead it suggests early inhabitants of Southeast Asia were of the same ethnic groupwith similar culture, but through a gradual process over time driven by environmentalfactors, differentiated themselves from one another. Jocano contends that what fossil evidence of ancient men show is that they not onlymigrated to the Philippines, but also to New Guinea, Borneo, and Australia. He saysthat there is no way of determining if they were Negritos at all. However, what is sure isthat there is evidence the Philippines was inhabited as early as 21,000 or 22,000 yearsago. In 1962, a skull cap and a portion of a jaw, presumed to be those of a humanbeing, were found in a Tabon Cave in Palawan. The discovery may show that mancame earlier to the Philippines than to the Malay Peninsula.[11][12] If this is true, the firstinhabitants of the Philippines did not come from the Malay Peninsula. Jocano furtherbelieves that the present Filipinos are products of the long process of cultural evolutionand movement of people. This not only holds true for Filipinos, but for the Indonesiansand the Malays of Malaysia, as well. No group among the three is culturally orgenetically dominant. Hence, Jocano says that it is not correct to attribute the Filipinoculture as being Malayan in orientation. According to Jocanos findings, the people ofthe prehistoric islands of Southeast Asia were of the same population as thecombination of human evolution that occurred in the islands of Southeast Asia about 1.9million years ago. The claimed evidence for this is fossil material found in different parts 6
  7. 7. of the region and the movements of other people from the Asian mainland duringhistoric times. He states that these ancient men cannot be categorized under any of thehistorically identified ethnic groups (Malays, Indonesians, and Filipinos) of today. 7
  8. 8. Chapter 2 MODELS OF MIGRATION TO THE PHILIPPINES There have been several models of early human migration to the Philippines.Since H. Otley Beyer first proposed his wave migration theory, numerous scholars haveapproached the question of how, when and why humans first came to the Philippines.The question of whether the first humans arrived from the south (Malaysia, Indonesia,and Brunei as suggested by Beyer) or from the north (Yunnan via Taiwan as suggestedby the Austronesian theory) has been a subject of heated debate for decades. As newdiscoveries have come to light, past hypotheses have been reevaluated and newtheories constructed. A. Beyer’s Wave Migration Theory The most widely known theory of the prehistoric peopling of the Philippines is that H.Otley Beyer, founder of the Anthropology Department of the University of thePhilippines. Heading that department for 40 years, Professor Beyer became theunquestioned expert on Philippine prehistory, exerting early leadership in the field andinfluencing the first generation of Filipino historians and anthropologists, archaeologists,paleontologists, geologists, and students the world over. According to Dr. Beyer, theancestors of the Filipinos came in different "waves of migration", as follows: 1. "Dawn Man", a cave-man type who was similar to Java man, Peking Man, and other Asian Homo erectus of 250,000 years ago. 8
  9. 9. 2. The aboriginal pygmy group, the Negritos, who arrived between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago via land bridges. 3. The seafaring tool-using Indonesian group who arrived about 5,000 to 6,000 years ago and were the first immigrants to reach the Philippines by sea. 4. The seafaring, more civilized Malays who brought the Iron age culture and were the real colonizers and dominant cultural group in the pre-Hispanic Philippines. Unfortunately, there is no definite evidence, archaeological or historical, to supportthis "migration theory". On the contrary, there are sufficient reasons for doubting it,including the following: 1. Beyer used the 19th century scientific methods of progressive evolution and migratory diffusion as the basis for his hypothesis. These methods have now been proven to be too simple and unreliable to explain the prehistoric peopling of the Philippines. 2. The empirical archaeological data for the theory was based on surface finds and mere conjecture, with much imagination and unproven data included. 3. Later findings contradicted the migration theory and the existence of the "Dawn Man" postulated by Beyer. 4. Undue credit is given to Malays as the original settlers of the lowland regions and the dominant cultural transmitter. 9
  10. 10. B. Objections to the Land Bridge Theory In February 1976, Fritjof Voss, a German scientist who studied the geology of thePhilippines, questioned the validity of the theory of land bridges. He maintained that thePhilippines was never part of mainland Asia. He claimed that it arose from the bottom ofthe sea and, as the thin Pacific crust moved below it, continued to rise. It continues torise today. The country lies along great Earth faults that extend to deep submarinetrenches. The resulting violent earthquakes caused what is now the land massesforming the Philippines to rise to the surface of the sea. Dr. Voss also pointed out thatwhen scientific studies were done on the Earths crust from 1964 to 1967, it wasdiscovered that the 35-kilometer- thick crust underneath China does not reach thePhilippines. Thus, the latter could not have been a land bridge to the Asian mainland.The matter of who the first settlers were has not been really resolved. Philippine historian William Henry Scott has pointed out that Palawan andthe Calamian Islands are separated from Borneo by water nowhere deeper than 100meters, that south of a line drawn between Saigon and Brunei does the depth ofthe South China Seanowhere exceeds 100 meters, and that the Strait ofMalacca reaches 50 meters only at one point. Scott also asserts that the SuluArchipelago is not the peak of a submerged mountain range connecting Mindanao andBorneo, but the exposed edge of three small ridges produced by tectonic tilting of thesea bottom in recent geologic times. According to Scott, it is clear that Palawan and theCalamianes do not stand on a submerged land bridge, but were once a hornlikeprotuberance on the shoulder of a continent whose southern shoreline used to be thepresent islands of Java and Borneo. Mindoro and the Calamianes are separated by a 10
  11. 11. channel more than 500 meters deep. Writing later in 1994, Scott would conclude that "Itis probably safe to say that no anthropologist accepts the Beyer Wave Migration Theorytoday." C. Jocano’s Local Origins TheoryAnother alternative model is that asserted by anthropologist F. Landa Jocano ofthe University of the Philippines, who in 2001 contended that the existing fossil evidenceof ancient humans demonstrates that they not only migrated to the Philippines, but alsoto New Guinea, Borneo, and Australia. In reference to Beyers wave model, he pointsout that there is no definitive way to determine the "race" of the human fossils; the onlycertain thing is that the discovery of Tabon Man proves that the Philippines wasinhabited as early as 21,000 or 22,000 years ago. If this is true, the first inhabitants ofthe Philippines would not have come from the Malay Peninsula. Instead, Jocanopostulates that the present Filipinos are products of the long process of evolution andmovement of people. He also adds that this is also true of Indonesians and Malaysians,with none among the three peoples being the dominant carrier of culture. In fact, hesuggests that the ancient humans who populated Southeast Asia cannot be categorizedunder any of these three groups. He thus further suggests that it is not correct toconsider Filipino culture as being Malayan in orientation. 11
  12. 12. Chapter 3IT IS NOT CORRECT TO CONSIDER FILIPINO CULTURE AS IN MALAYAN IN ORIENTATION  Cultural Origin Anthropologist F. Landa Jocano calls the period before the coming of the Muslims and the Spanish as prehistory. He claims that this period should be reevaluated and affirmed since it is here that the roots of Filipino society and cutural identity can be discovered. Deprived of this cultural past, present society cannot be understood and present identities are dispossessesd of their nourishing origins. Patanñe too says that in the period before documents, history is correctly called prehistory. He attempts to come up with an ethnohistory of this period by using anthropology and history, aided by contemporary archeology and linguistic to reconstruct the past for a new appreciation of the richness of this periods. The colonial experience, while it dominates Philippine history, is not the whole of that history. The period of prehistory will reveal commonalities and differences, unity and diversity in the “Historico – cultural unity in the Philippine archipelago.” Heidi Gloris has said it would be fruitful to look at Philippine prehistory when the different ethno linguistic groups shared many things in common and to focus on the commonalities and not the differences. When common roots become obscured, this leads to a misunderstanding of history. 12
  13. 13. Previous theories about the peopling of the Philippine tend to regard the Philippinesas a clean slate into which waves or movements of immigrants brought in “ ready –made “ all the cultural traits found in the Philippines today. The descriptions of thesepeoples are as Malay or Indonesian. It is common for anthropologist and others tospeak Filipinos as part of the malay race. The wave theory was presented in 1948. “ thisformed the basis of a reconstruction of the Philippines past which many Filipinohistorians accepted and unquestionably incorporated into their works.” Thisincorporation into historical works perpetuated into these ideas, which are no longersupported by aecheological evidence. Jocano calls these errors in the past historicaljudgement and their repitition now becomes misinformation. The prehistory of thephilippines is the least known, it is usually just mentioned in passig in textbooks and itpresents a negative image of the ancestors of the Filipinos. “ Sadly, even our respectedwriters have not challenged this view. Many of them in fact have come to regard ourancient society as a passive recipient of outside ifluences and, our present culture, areflection of the glories of other civilization.” Cannell points out that it is common forpeople to see themselves and their culture as a result of sequential colonialimportations. This view “ as a layer – cake foreign influences is an important orthodoxy.”This layer of culture and identity introduces a negative conception of the lowlandPhilippine culture. “ the recognition that the history of the lowland Philippines has beenforcefully shaped by colonialism has been elided with something qiute different; ananxious and discouraging notion in both the academic anon- academic literature, thatthe lowlands was perhaps nothing but the sum of its colonial parts, a culture withoutauthenticity, or else it was only to be defined in a series of negatives, by what it failed to 13
  14. 14. be. This conception affects how the different ethnic groups look at and evaluatethemselves and one another, and how they see their relationship to one another. Most of significant archeological work has been done after 1948. The first ancientFilipino settlement was excavated in 1980. Patanñe says that there is much more thatneeds to be done to reconstruct the past of the Philippines. Tan says that Philippinescholarship is just in the process of trying to retrieve the artifacts that help reveal thepast.” This area of the peoples of th Philippines, which will have to replace the well-disseminated misconceptions. 14
  15. 15. Chapter 4 CONCLUSION His theory is about the peopling process of southeast Asia. he argued thatFilipinos (natives) today are results of long evolution. with this, he contradicted the wavetheory of Beyer. He also argued that Filipinos are not from Malays but rather Malays arefrom Filipinos (this is supported by the discovery of the tabon man in tabon cave,palawan, Philippines which dated older than any early man fossils discovered in theMalay peninsula). The Core Population Theory states that there is an original Filipino race withinthe Philippines. This theory opposes Otley Bayer’s migration theory, which states thatthe Filipino race originated from the successful waves of migration from the Aetas,Indonesians and the Malays. The Core Population Theory claims that even before themigration of such races, there were already inhabitants with in the Philippines. The proponent of the Core Population Theory is F. Landa Jocano, a ProfessorEmeritus or retired professor of the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines andan Executive Director of the PUNLAD Research House, Inc. He has authored numerousbooks on various aspects of the society and culture. In the year 2000, the Manila CriticsCircle awarded him a special citation for a lifetime of writing and publishing on variousaspects of Philippine culture. 15
  16. 16. BIBLIOGRAPHY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_Philippines Scott, William Henry (1984), Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History, New Day Publishers, ISBN 971-10-0226-4, retrieved 2008-08-05. Zaide, Sonia M. (1999), The Philippines: A Unique Nation (Second ed.), All-Nations Publishing, ISBN 971-642-071-4. http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph/culture/culture.html http://www.studymode.com/subjects/population-core-theory-by-f-landa-jocano- page1.html http://www.philippines- business.com/_mgxroot/page_resouces_business_environment_philippines_cult ure.html Jocano, Filipinos Prehistory : Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage, 18 – 19. Jocano, Filipinos Prehistory : Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage, 18. 16